When I first heard about Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye’s proposal to create something of a tram loop around the neighbourhoods of the western part of her Auckland Central electorate, I wasn’t really quite sure what to make of it. Of course I’m not averse to the idea that trams probably do form part of Auckland’s transport future along particular corridors, but at the same time I was also skeptical. Was the idea just there to distract people from the government’s stubborn opposition to the City Rail Link project? Was it Nikki Kaye’s attempt to recapture some lost support amongst a PT friendly electorate – but critically with a project that the government wouldn’t need to stump up some funding for?
I’m kind of struggling to see whether the tram proposal is a serious transport plan or whether it’s more to do with tourism, heritage and so forth. I’m also not quite sure what exact route we’re talking about here in any case: extending the Wynyard Quarter loop up College Hill and then along Ponsonby Road is fairly obvious – but does it then go down Richmond Road to Grey Lynn shops? Or Williamson Ave? Or Great North Road? Indeed, descriptions a possible route are fairly vague:
National’s Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye wrote to Mayor Len Brown, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and and the New Zealand Transport Agency yesterday asking them to consider investigating the merits of a tram link.
Kaye proposed the link could travel through Grey Lynn, Ponsonby, Karangahape Road, Queen Street and downtown Auckland.
The MP wants the council to “properly” investigate “the feasibility of trams in central Auckland”.
“This needs to include an analysis of the costs, funding options, routes and types of trams – because different trams can accommodate different numbers of people,” Kaye said.
While Kaye is determined to investigate the loop connecting Auckland central with the western bays, the MP said she “will make it clear that we are also open to other routes”.
I generally think that an approach of “trams are great, where can we run them” falls into the technology-fixation trap that leads to dumb decisions. Surely a better approach is “buses don’t seem to be the best solution along this route anymore, maybe we should examine whether an upgrade to trams might work better”.
Herald columnist Brian Rudman was also pretty skeptical in his initial assessment of Ms Kaye’s idea:
Seizing on the sexiness of “heritage” to her villa-dwelling constituents, Ms Kaye is dangling the hope of a network of trams across her electorate. In the latest Ponsonby News she writes of how the “villages” of Ponsonby, Grey Lynn, K Rd and Wynyard Quarter all “have a uniquely special character that are cherished by their communities” and that while the Link Bus does a good job, she wants something “faster and easier”.
She is reported elsewhere as saying “today trams are at the cutting edge of a number of cities’ urban transport”.
Odd then, that just a month ago in her Herald blog item called “Is Auckland’s public transport busted?” there’s not one mention of trams – except a passing reference to Auckland having abandoned them in the 1950s. Instead she claims to have supported the CBD rail tunnel since 2009.
She also said “most people I talk to say they would catch public transport more frequently in Auckland if it were more reliable, frequent and safe”, adding: “The redesign of the bus network needs to be a priority for the Auckland Council.”
If that’s her belief, then why is she confusing the issue with a nostalgia trip down some dead-end tram track. A conspiracy theorist might think she’s been put up to it by her colleague Mr Joyce to try to split the united front Aucklanders have formed against the Government’s delaying tactics over the CBD tunnel.
However, the tram scheme seems to be gaining support, from some quite interesting places, with right-wing commentator Deborah Coddington announcing that she’s strong supporter of the idea:
Kaye’s nuts about trams, and trams, as anyone knows who’s spent time in Melbourne, San Francisco or other great international cities, are terrific forms of transport. They’re quiet and clean. They appeal to tourists and commuters alike. They can be faster than buses, and construction requires considerably less capital than rail links…
…Take, for instance, last week’s spat over Kaye’s idea for a tram loop from Ponsonby to Grey Lynn, to Karangahape Rd to Wynyard Quarter, the Viaduct and Britomart. In July last year she wrote to Mark Ford, now chair of Auckland Transport, then head of the former Auckland Transition Agency, pushing for a feasibility study. Kaye sees the project as complementary to the Link buses, and the city central underground rail link.
From my purely selfish perch on Shortland St, this would be great. The rail link won’t be ready for at least seven years. I’ll be in a Zimmer frame by then. Two cohorts of students will have been through Auckland University. If we get trams on the tracks in the next three years, us inner-city apartment dwellers could trot down to Britomart and hop on a tram to the western suburbs. Uni students could come across to their campus. The more of us who are out of cars – greenies and lefties take note – the less clogged the motorways, and therefore a reduced need to keep building more roads.
Coddington also takes a swipe at opponents to the tram idea – including Mike Lee and Labour MP Jacinda Ardern, both of whom seem to share Brian Rudman’s skepticism over the sincerity of the whole concept.
All up, this is really quite a strange situation for everyone to be in. In times of incredibly constrained funding for public transport, we have a centre-right MP and a ‘more to the right’ commentator suggesting that a big focus for our transport spending should be on a mode of public transport that’s internationally often criticised for being excessively expensive compared to its benefits. Something you might think such politicians and columnists would be concerned about.
It’s also a bit difficult to see how such a tram proposal would be the ‘congestion-busting’ panacea that is hoped for too. Like buses, unless trams run in their own right-of-way, it is physically impossible for them to be faster than driving. This is because they must stop to pick up and drop off passengers. Along high-volumes corridors such as Dominion Road, which has a reasonable amount of width, it is obvious that any future light-rail transport solution would run in its own lanes – therefore bypassing congestion and offering its users a faster trip time than by car. It’s tough to know whether Nikki Kaye really wants to narrow Ponsonby Road down to a single lane of traffic each way, or to advocate for the removal of on-street parking, either of which would be essential for giving a tram line its own right of way. When I mentioned this matter to her on Twitter, the response was that the line could go down the middle of the road. That might be fine for one track, but we’d clearly need two tracks if the tram is to be a serious transport solution.
Of course there’s little detail on how much such a scheme might cost. Remember that the current Wynyard tram loop is around $7 million for a single-track 1.5km loop and you start to see that we’re talking some pretty serious money in order to create anything like a useful system.
Mind you, if Nikki can convince Steven Joyce to come up with the money out of the $26 billion he’s planning to spend on roads in the next decade, I won’t have a problem. I just don’t think such a scheme is a priority to spend our very limited public transport budget on here in Auckland. If we want to improve public transport in this part of the city, the best thing we could do quickly and cheaply is try to extend bus lanes around as much of the Link Bus route as possible. And, of course, to push on with the City Rail Link project.
Processing...
This isn’t Nikki’s idea, it was an idea pitched by Geoff Houtman under the “Our Hood” banner in the dying days of the old Auckland City Council. But, hey, I think it is a good thing for Nikki to come out in support of it, she just needs to explain where the funding will come from.
Nikki Kaye is simply trying to catch PT votes and at the same time draw attention away from National’s insane transport policies, a lot of people probably listen to her and assume she’s representing National’s views. IMO it’s just smoke and mirrors. Deborah Coddington’s article also seemed like a means to knock Mike Lee and Labour’s Jacinda Ardern as being anti-PT by not supporting this proposal, she later shows her true colours by saying the funding priorities for Joyce are in any case ‘clear’ being “And it’s not too difficult working out the priorities – state highways, local roads, public transport, road safety promotion.”. So PT still remains low down there in Deborah’s view, the whole article smacked on PT-wash, try to associate yourself with supporting and in the process confuse people enough that they’ll vote you in thinking they’ll get PT improvments. I still remember back when Britomart opened talking to lots of people who said how great John Banks was for finally getting things done and building the train station – most were completely surprised when they heard Banks had actually tried to cancel the whole thing.
I like that a few National MP’s are pushing for PT (albeit pet projects), but wish they would actually have the spine to admit that National itself doesn’t support it at all, and at the very minimum call Joyce out for his incompetence as transport minister.
I agree with Josh – in the main, unless they have their own corridor, trams don’t have the congestion-busting characteristics that heavy rail and busways do. They are caught up in the same congestion as cars, buses. There are exceptions, principally Dominion Rd, where a central light rail corridor in an area not destined to be served by heavy rail, would serve commuters better than space-hogging dedicated bus lanes. Tamaki Drive also.
Personally I can’t see much benefit in running trams up Queen St when there are so many busroutes plying this route and which will be well-served by the CBDRL in due course.
My thoughts are Nikki is trying to convey to her electorate that she is in favour of PT when constrained from openly promoting the CBDRL.
Pity is – it risks distracting voters and competing for funds which should all be invested where most needed.
Actually in a few weeks there will only be the city link going up Queen Street, and the city tunnel (when built will also not be near Queens Street as such. I think a tram running up Queen Street and then onward to Dominion Rd or Ponsonby via K’Rd is an ideal route, and to be honest congestion busting is the point of PT IMO, rather providing people with a congestion-free option, congestion will always exist. It still exists in places like Zurich which arguably has the best PT in the world, but it’s irrelevant as you can easily chose not to waste your time in it.
*congestion-busting is NOT the point I meant to say
“Instead she claims to have supported the CBD rail tunnel since 2009.”
If by “support”, you mean “covered in the corner hoping nobody would ask her to support something Steven Joyce hates”, then yes, she supported it.
Yeah, right. She was AWOL for the whole discussion.
I asked her in October last year whether she supported the tunnel and her rather wordy response was maybe
“The Auckland CBD rail tunnel project is currently being investigated in a joint Auckland Regional Transport Authority/KiwiRail project. Although this study has identified a preferred route, there has to date been no detailed business case, and there is no agreed funding plan. Before considering the merits of the CBD tunnel proposal, the government is keen to see the forecast benefits of the current investment realised, including sustained passenger growth. The same would apply to other proposed major rail investments such as the airport link. I intend to be involved in discussions on funding priorities for these projects with the Minister of Transport and the new Auckland Council.”
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of support is it?
I think its a vote grabber thing, being a National Electorate this diffinately isn’t her ideal at all. Even if she got selected for the seat it is highely unlikely that this will ever happen, not in a million years, given Nationals poor approach to funding public transport infastructure, people must not be fooled by this. Nikki works for a government that has a one sided approach to transport spending who believe that roads are the only form of transport and that spending billions of dollars on white elephant motorways is a good investment as opposed to spending money on transport. Stephen Joyce doesn’t believe in transport for NZ but building roads for NZ. Even if he says that lets fix the roads in NZ first, this basically means no further spending on public transport for the next 50 years, basically a repeat of the past.
At admin “current Wynyard tram loop is around $7 million for a single-track 1.5km” – one would have to think that, yes while this seems pretty expensive – once we start to do more of these lines, the cost per metre of track laid will come down. A lot of the wynyard loop will be a premium paid for “start up”cost – know how, new technology, getting appropriate skills in the construction etc. Once a portion of the construction industry is “tooled and primed up’ for this and they have successfully laid a number of lines it gets easier. I don’t have any facts for this, but logically this would have to be factored in.
Actually I think the Wynyard tram is likely to be cheaper than other routes. It is built in an area that is not currently highly trafficked, and has not required any crossing of intersections, or grade separation. Also it is my understanding that service relocations have not been undertaken – this is major expense of tramway construction, And would presumably be necessary for any serious route that you dont want ripped up every year or two.
I cant see why she doesnt advocate for more bus lanes – that would be far more likely to happen and far cheaper. Bus lanes along Ponsonby Road seem like a no brainer – centre bus lanes would be even better.
Centre bus lanes along Ponsonby Road??? Have you not heard what happened when one tried to take the parking away on Dominion Road? Why do you she she’d have the stomach to tell the Ponsonby-ites that they will lose their parking? Especially as SHE wouldn’t be getting the aggro, Council would.
It’s airy-fairy stuff. Election fluff. Forget her – I voted for her BECAUSE she was a National pol who said she was for PT. That will learn me.
Yes exactly, it is the corridor that matters and is really the main issue. Obvioulsy corridor/carparking would equally be an issue for a tramway. Presumably those sorts of details wont be spelt out pre-election though, if ever.
In reply to the commentary_-I favour trams in Auckland for short distance commutting in the CBD and inner suburbs and for a Tamaki drive-Remuera route that would be a mix of tourism,commutting and access to bars and clubs inMission Bay and Newmarket.
Essentially the system would be three single track loops ,ddouble tracked only in Queen st. The first loop would be Britomart,Qstreet,College Hill, Ponsonby Rd,K Road-Q street.The track would be an anti clockwise loop a mix of close to the kerb running and offset from the centre.The second loop would beQstreet,Upper Q street,Kyber Pass ( access to Galbraiths,Cartel etc) and down Symonds to Britomart.The cost of these loops would be modest and initially probably use 1930s Melbourne and 1960s Brisbane trams.Probably 15 or 16 would initially be obtained.
Much of the CBD commutter demand is to lift people up the hill from Queen st to K Road- butwith a rearrangement ofthe Queen St-K Road intersection,I believe a stop could be put on corner before the trams go downhill into UpperQ andKyber Pass.
The pre1964 trams in NZ did have the right of way and a degree of priority atlights could be given.I believe double track street running would be too disruptive toinstall beyond Queen st,which may be malled anyway.On a latermore expensive $100 million basis a loop might be put thru Newmarket- Remuera- MissionBay- Tamaki Drive. Total cost of the three loops ,historical and 20 new trams,I would put at about $250 million.But it could be done in three years and I believe an inner city rail loop will take12 years and will benefit those who want to move around the inner city and suburbs little.I believe a modern light rail tram system is lower cost and more useful.
it is a PT equivalent of “Look! An eagle!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKH2oLjQIAA
I wonder if National would promise this project if the seat starts to look marginal. Would it be worth $26m to win an electorate? Maybe…
I can see why you could be skeptical about this idea, but I am suprised that Mike Lee and Jacinda Arden have written it off. I think all options need to be considered. But the Rail Link must remain the top priority!
juts a more practical question. Would it actually be possible to run a tram through Grey Lynn up say Richmond Road? My impression was that trams were mainly good for quite flat wide straight roads? It certainly seems like a lot of the old roads in Auckland that had trams fit that criteria. But perhaps I am wrong?
Richmond Rd used to have trams. That’s why it’s so wide.
“My impression was that trams were mainly good for quite flat wide straight roads?”
You should riding the trams in lisbon! They certainly left quite the opposite impression on me.
Yes she’s muddying the waters with a bit of PT wash…. this is because of the pressure from the people, who are, largely, way ahead of the govt. on this and the Nat’s pollers know it. Duplicitous really.
But I for one would like to see Ponsonby road down to one general traffic lane and one dedicated PT, each way…. would have to be part of a big reorganisation and campaign though….
“a mode of public transport that’s internationally often criticised for being excessively expensive compared to its benefits”
That is certainly true of the Wynyard scheme where the benefits are zero.
I’ve not been keeping up with all the news… Have Labour announced that they will actually pay for the tunnel? What percentage?
I think they have said they’d do a more minor version of the holiday highway (like operation lifesaver) then use much of what’s saved on the CRL. So maybe 50/50.
Do you have a link for that? I’ve searched on “tunnel” on Red Alert and labour.org.nz and while I can find plenty of criticism of Joyce and some vague promotion of the tunnel as a concept, I can’t find a funding commitment.
The closest I could find was Shane Jones:
““Apart from the top priority of rebuilding Christchurch, our urgent priorities around infrastructure projects in the future must be moving freight and people around Auckland. “In terms of creating a strong economy that generates jobs, the holiday highway would have negligible long-term impact. Workable rail freight and public transport solutions in Auckland are vital, however, to getting our major city moving.” ”
http://www.labour.org.nz/node/3298
You could argue that the tunnel is the “public transport solution” referenced, even if they don’t announce funding. But I’m confused what Auckland rail freight improvements they’re promoting. And it’ll all come second to rebuilding Christchurch, which means the amount available for Auckland will probably be zero.
If there’s anywhere in Auckland that needs light rail NOW, it’s East Auckland, which has the worst public transport of anywhere I’ve yet seen in a large Western city. In particular, Te Irirangi Drive has a wide median strip down the middle with temporary plantings, that seems as if it were already designed for light rail to run along it.
Considering the population of East Auckland and Manakau, and considering how marooned from the rest of the city these suburbs are, it seems that randomly stringing light rail around Kaye’s electorate (through areas that are within *walking distance* of the CBD no less) is a massive distraction from the reality of Auckland’s transport issues. If I lived in East Auckland, or South Auckland, I would be incredibly annoyed at the amount of attention Kaye’s stunt is getting, and the abject lack of attention to PT in their areas from media and Government, despite ongoing plans to build more and more suburbs in this vicinity.
@ Admin. Ah right. That explains it’s mysteriously huge width (which I have often reflected on when trying to cross it on foot).
Here’s a map of the old network: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/4033440723a11289201132o.jpg
That’s cool. We should bring back Horse Tramways, with the Choral Hall on Alfred St as a destination. Of course we’d need to turn the Choral Hall back in to a choral hall first.
To be honest, I never knew we had horse drawn trams.
Funnily enough, if they had their own right of way, they might still be quicker than some of Auckland’s rush hour traffic 😉
You reckon? I actually think Auckland’s congestion is over-rated – except for certain intersections that you want to avoid.
Admin,
Agree that there’s an element of technological fetishism in the proposal. There’s also a fair slab of middle-class welfare in it as well. This is also a proposal to fit an expensive piece of PT infrastructure into an already transport-rich part of the city. However, the question is whether there is better ‘bang for buck’ in adding an expensive piece of high-capacity PT infrastructure from a transport poor area to the CBD or an orbital route between middle suburbs to complement the radial train network?
Finally re: the Wynyard Tram Loop – NZ$4.7M isn’t too bad for a km of tram track. The median Australian cost is about A$12M per km, with variations depending on whether you’re building on road (Adelaide), in the median (Box Hill, Vermont South), in a new ‘suburb’ (Docklands Drive) or in its own right of way (Sydney Light Rail Extension). But I do agree that the first part of the network is where the proving of processes and costings are.
Simply she will lose in the election if she didn’t make a public transport statement to try to catch up on National’s failure to back the central rail loop that everybody wants. It was never her idea for the trams and I don’t think she claims it is. The tram idea to Ponsonby would be difficult to pull off to beat congestion and is solely a vote getter. Her party’s idiotic decision is why by association she will lose at the election.
“NZ$4.7M isn’t too bad for a km of tram track”
Especially not if it also includes the Jellicoe Street upgrade.
“Her party’s idiotic decision is why by association she will lose at the election.”
Uhm, no. It is because she HERSELF disappointed her voters is why she will lose the election (I hope). You may notice that National itself is not polling too badly. But someone in a left-leaning electorate who does a bait-and-switch should not be surprised to be a one-term MP.
But Obi has a point, I know, personally, that a Lab/green gov will help fund the CRL, but the Lab part of that pair aren’t exactly shouting about it. Apart from Jacinda.
Agree with all the comments above and a little sceptical about Nikki’s motives – so I’m trying hard to consider the positives – here goes:
If the western inner city tram lines were re-instated it would be $150m ($4.7m*2*15km) for 34,000 residents, nearly twice the CBDRL cost per resident (excl. tram cost). However these are wealthy suburbs and I suspect a lot of them are currently driving short distances to park in their CBD job provided car parks. Trams could potentially displace these journeys – buses haven’t and won’t. Western inner city resident tend to be trend followers/leaders while Eastern inner city trend adverse/contrarians.
Biggest advantage would be that these are often opinion leaders – media types/Queen St Lawyers/Judges/Consultants. They are also people governments listen too (i.e. party donations). Unfortunately these opinion leaders are not opinion formers (with public transport) as they don’t currently use it (I’m not including airports and the Paris Metro).
Converting opinion leaders to public transport might be the best chance in shifting the split between public transport and private transport. So it might be worth a punt.
“However these are wealthy suburbs and I suspect a lot of them are currently driving short distances to park in their CBD job provided car parks. Trams could potentially displace these journeys – buses haven’t and won’t. ” I’m not sure what you mean by this. There is currently no significant bus priority in these areas. If a tramline is implemented without priority, I doubt it will do much better than the busses, which are already fairly well used. It is the corridor that matters not the vehicle.
I don’t think someone with porsche in the garage is going to catch a bus – but they might a modern tram/street car. Its not about time savings – its about what is fashionable and trendsetting.
fwiw I live in Grey Lynn and work in Federal Street. I have heavily discounted carparking provided, in Federal Street.
But overall the quickest way for me to get to work is to walk or cycle from Ponsonby Rd. Buses take just as long as walking if you include the waiting time, so I seldom travel by bus (actually I value the 15-20 mins exercise anyway), and by car at 5pm it can at times take forever to drive from Federal St to Ponsonby. I sometimes drive to Mt Eden and catch the train in as it’s less congested en route, and a much pleasanter way to ride. I would take a tram if it had its own corridor un- or less impeded by traffic congestion than the current options.
Utterly bizarre. I think National might be slowly waking up to the potential of a lot of lost votes due to their appalling attitude to PT.
Why does 1.5km of track cost $7m?
You’ve got the one off costs off a tram barn and an electric power supply for starters.
I understand a major part of building tram lines is the cost of relocation of services.
If the tram line comes across a manhole, this needs to be shifted, and you cant just shift a manhole, often need to dig up large sections of the road to shift whole lengths of pipe.
Also often need to reshape large sections of the road to make the camber match and so on.
The Wynard Quarter tram has managed to avoid this, but any trams built in very built up urban/commercial areas will be much more expensive.
Also your average ultra-modern light rail vehicle can easily cost $4 million a piece. Most (possibly all) of Nikkis budget would be taken up just buying the trams.
I would very much like to see light rail up some of these corridors, but we need to be realistic about the cost. We need to ask is it worth spending $100 million or so on a particular corridor, when that money could provide many needed improvements to buses all across the city.
further to the above comments, 16 new trams for Blackpool England cost about $60 million NZD.
http://www.metro-magazine.com/News/Story/2009/07/Bombardier-wins-G-B-Flexity-2-tram-order.aspx
Nikkis $28 million will not even cover the cost of the vehicles themselves.
Gotta say- there’s a lot of haters about. I thought the Tram fans would be thrilled.
The reason Nikki’s been helping out on the tram thing for the last year is that I asked her to, and she’s the only poli (from either side) to show any interest. She’s very committed to it (and the Rail Loop) so I think we should be encouraging her.
(Nikki may in the blue party, but she’s the lightest blue of any of them, with a large chunk of green thrown in.)
People in Auck Central (electorate) like her because she’s hard working in the electorate and listens to her constituents. She’s not the first person to push for Trams, but if she’s the one that makes it happen we should give her full respect. I for one, would like to see “A Streetcar Named Nikki”, “Mike”, “Cam”, “Josh” and anyone else who’s be pushing for them for years.
Hans Versluys has even suggested some amusing Route Names at the “Auckland Deserves A Tram System” facebook page- https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Auckland-deserves-a-Tram-System/217282094980382
If we had a huge amount of money to spend on PT projects then I would agree we can look at “fun” projects like this, and worry about cute little things like naming streetcars or routes. The problem is that the party Nikki is a member of has slashed PT infrastructure funding so they can spend $8 billion in the next six years on new motorways.
So there’s no money to even think about anything but absolutely core projects that are essential for their transport benefits.
Plus you inevitably invite people like RobertM above to think that on-street trams could be a viable alternative to the City Rail Link.
“So there’s no money to even think about anything but absolutely core projects that are essential for their transport benefits.”
The Wynyard tram-to-nowhere with zero benefits is a core project?
That was entirely funded out of money ARC had for a waterfront attraction, and is currently only aimed at toursits, there’s certainly not another 200 odd million floating around to build this tram. There would be if National wasn’t betting the bank and country on the RONS.
The Wynyard trams are not really transport, you can see that from Mike Lee’s proposal, it’s a funfair attraction and not very relevant to the transport debate.
MOTAT Director Jeremy Hubbard earlier described the Wynyard tramway as a “beachhead” with the potential to instigate light rail transport initiatives. Not having a route of any real consequence, not commencing the service until 9am, and charging a day pass that bears little relation to a commuting fare clearly stamps the service as not real transport. I am not alone in being uncertain as to how viable an arrangement this is. The sooner a link can be extended to Britomart and aligned to a real transport option, the better.
Of course, if you want some bargain basement, non-accessible heritage trams to kick things off in Auckland, Melbourne’s got a couple of hundred of these W-class sitting around not doing a lot at the moment…
No we don’t. We are sick of old crap worn out by our friends across the Tasman. We want real brand new transport infrastructure for real needs on real routes. I’m all for trams with proper priority etc, etc, but not until we’ve the urgent problem of the CRL sorted. And that means Nikki and her party of small town bullies getting their heads into the twenty-first century and stopping wasting our money on crazy and uneconomic highway white elephants.
Patrick R, totally agree with you. The W class are the plaything of heritage fetishists over here, to the point that the recently elected Liberal/National government of Victoria threw $8 million at restoring a number of them to be put back into service. For some reason, people seem to love them. I don’t know why myself, I’d rather be in something modern with heating and air-conditioning that’s accessible for people in wheelchairs, parents with prams and people with luggage.
Sweden used to have a large pool for steam locomotives sitting around waiting for a nuclear war – so presumably the Melbourne W fleet has the same role?
With the heritage trams currently at MOTAT, I wonder why we imported the Waterfront ones from Melbourne? Does anyone know the answer? I’m sure there’s a good reason.
Patrick R- I know you’re not a fan of the old ones, the smart thing to do would be using the flash new ones (bigger capacity, nicer etc- but we have to buy them…) most of the time and heritage models for overflow, off peak, special trips (we already own these ones).
My main question, still, is when will the “beachhead” be extended? I mean, there’s a new bridge between Wynyard and Britomart opening this week? And it can’t take trams- so how long do we wait? Te Wero 2?
I had heard that the MOTAT ones might not be in the best condition and that their wouldn’t be enough quality ones for both MOTAT and for the waterfrong. Also that the engineers there were worried that using them would put to much pressure on them, damaging them.
I’m not convinced anymore that extending trams over the bridge is the best idea, nothing to do with costs but that if we want reliable and on time public transport we can’t have it being affected by a ship wanting to pass underneath. I think it needs to either wind its way around Viaduct Harbour Dr (but that would likely be quite slow), or go along Fanshawe St in improved bus lanes.
“I think it needs to either wind its way around Viaduct Harbour Dr (but that would likely be quite slow), or go along Fanshawe St in improved bus lanes.”
Isn’t that an example of the technology-fixation trap that Admin talks about in the original post? “We’ve got a tram, now what are we going to do with it” rather than “where do people need to travel and how do we get them there”? It is an even stranger situation since we have some people arguing that the tram-to-nowhere is actually a recreational facility, and nothing at all to do with transport. While others are arguing that it should be routed somewhere (anywhere) in order to meet some unspecified transport need. Which is true of Kaye’s somewhat offbeat idea, as well as all the other proposals to extend the Wynyard Loop out to Mission bay, or up Queen St, or to Britomart, or wherever.
I think you would just make it so that the bridge opens at a set time each hour – say from five minute before the hour until five minutes after the hour. You time the trams so they don’t conflict with this.
As to Obi’s general point, in the longer run this could become a useful transport project – once the line is extended to Britomart and beyond. There will be a huge amount of jobs and residents living in Wynyard Quarter eventually and it will be good to provide a transport option that fits well with the high quality urban environment that we’re trying to create.
But in the meanwhile I’m hoping that it might be a bit of a drawcard to get people down to that part of Auckland.