A couple of weeks ago I asked why North Shore politicians seemed to hate buses so much, after a Transport Committee meeting where bus lanes came under attack from Councillor George Wood, as well as the chairs of the two local boards. There was quite an interesting comments thread on that post, with members of both local boards – as well as Councillor Wood – commenting. Unfortunately, it seems that there remains quite a lot of pressure to allow cars on the Northern Busway – as outlined in a Herald article today:
Debate about allowing cars carrying more than one or two people to use Auckland’s Northern Busway is stirring again, now the Victoria Park motorway tunnel is nearly complete.
The Transport Agency opposed opening the busway to “high occupancy vehicles” until more motorway space was available through the Victoria Park bottleneck, because of problems foreseen with southbound traffic merging back into general lanes.
But it says it will be prepared to consider letting them into what is now a buses-only highway north of the harbour bridge from Constellation Drive once all three lanes of the new tunnel are available to northbound traffic early next year.
That will enable southbound vehicles to fan out across all four lanes of the Victoria Park flyover, hopefully easing congestion back across the bridge to Takapuna.
NZTA seem reasonably keen on the idea:
The agency’s highways regional manager, Tommy Parker, denies it wants to continue keeping cars out of the busway, as suggested by an Auckland Council staff report.
But he said any such decision on that would be up to Auckland Transport, a council-controlled organisation, as the busway operator.
The second paragraph above gives me a bit of heart, as I can’t imagine Auckland Transport would want to screw up their busway by allowing cars onto it. As I said in my earlier post, the busway has been an enormous success – with patronage being ahead of projection. In fact, over 40% of people travelling over the Harbour bridge during the morning peak now do so on the bus – a huge leap from what it was before the busway opened.
Why would we want to mess with that? Councillor Wood suggests that the busway was designed to take a few HOVs:
But committee member George Wood, who was mayor of the former North Shore City when the $300 million busway was built, said planning commissioners who approved a designation for it did so on the condition that high occupancy vehicles could use it.
He said a special tunnel had been built at the Constellation Drive bus station to let cars join the busway.
My understanding is that back when the economic evaluation for the busway was being done, the method of evaluation was stacked so much against PT that the only way the project could get a good BCR was by proposing to allow the HOVs. Fortunately more recent changes to the way we assess transport projects mean that the project now stacks up in terms of its bus benefits alone.
Processing...
I think the NZTA is just passing the responsibility onto AT so that if the public get upset they can just say it is nothing to do with them. I actually think the timing and slant of the article is rather odd considering that the transport committee meeting was over a week ago, perhaps one of the editors at the Herald is getting upset that buses are driving past him while he is sitting in his car and focusing the article on the possibility of it being opened as a way to encourage readers push for it happen (note I don’t think that it is the author but rather the editor, probably Roughan pushing this)
I know I’ve advocated making the busway into a tollway, but I am adamantly opposed to making it a HOV lane because it wont enable the demand to be regulated. Minnesota is one of the best examples of making a HOT lane work (yes still has HOV component, but that isn’t essential) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MnPASS
T-2 HOV lanes do little to change behaviour, and are largely used by those who fortuitously are couples or live together. It achieves next to nothing. T-3 + may have some value, but the real value is in charging for it, because only then do you get people really appreciating the value of the express capacity.
It wont “screw it up” to allow tolled vehicles on it, because the variable pricing can manage demand. The revenue can support the busway. There is every good reason to investigate how it might practically and safely be done, and if so, then there can’t be a rational reason to oppose it – particularly by people who otherwise think congestion charging is great (as it will expose Auckland motorists to paying to avoid congestion).
That system in Minnesota is complicated.
What I’d do is keep all cars off the busway. Toll the existing motorway not solely to manage congestion, but also to generate revenue to spend on PT elsewhere in Auckland. Run more buses on the busway, and make more bus priority lanes in the isthmus. HOV an existing motorway lane.
We don’t owe the car commuters anything.
Wouldn’t it be a hell of a lot simpler, and more efficient use of the bridge, to just convert one of the existing motorway lanes to T2 or T3? It seems a lot better to open this space up to the car poolers rather than blocking the under-specced (for private cars) and more complex busway with its stations, intersections, etc.
I guess the absolute best solution, economically, would be to make it T3 or tolled for single occupant or T2 cars.
Isn’t this what George Wood and co should be advocating for if they really cared about speeding up access to the city?
It was built for buses and HOV’s, so allowing HOV’s to finally use it, will complete the project as originally envisioned.
I don’t see how allowing HOV’s to use a purpose-built HOV road can be a threat to it. It’s designed for them. Don’t forget, that it was only built in the first place on the proviso that HOV’s would be allowed to use it. Without that, there would be no busway, so HOV drivers are owed.
@ Geoff “HOV drivers are owed” LOL so because NZ has some messed up ways of evaluating transport benefits, a system that gives no credit to people riding a bus, people who carpool are now owed?
Geoff, but if that original decision was a mistake [hint: it was a mistake] it would clearly be foolish to enforce it.
@Geoff- yeah it will work really well private vehicles weaving in and out of buses as they stop at stations real safe. Will be great in 10 years when the amount of buses and HOV increase and the busway is slowed to a crawl.
NZ drivers can’t merge. Perhaps 20% get it right. They plough into traffic and then cause everything to stop. Putting them on the busway (and thus fouling it up) would be a disaster.
I also think it’s strange how environmental concerns have dropped out from public discourse entirely. Buses consume a fraction of the fuel that cars do, but if these representatives are to be believed then that simply isn’t a priority.
Buses consume a fraction of the fuel cars do only when they are replacing around ten car trips.
The Busway undoubtedly achieves this at peaks, in one direction. However let’s not pretend that everyone on a bus would have driven. The environmental arguments for public transport only stack up when they shift people from driving a car. If the person would have been a passenger in a car, or not taken the trip at all, then it has no net environmental gain. Buses can do a lot, but when they run around largely empty, there is nothing environmentally friendly about them – the same goes for trains.
I’m playing devil’s advocate, but it is important to note that lightly used public transport is not environmentally friendly. It might be argued that it is economically efficient if it has high fixed costs that are recovered at other times, and the users pay the marginal costs during quiet periods, but by and large the case for most urban public transport is based on large numbers of people moving in one direction for two two hour stretches five days a week (and indeed it is the case for most new road capacity too).
Next they will want the rail lines ripped up and let cars use those routes as well.
I have a suggestion. Instead of T2 it should be T4. Then we will see just how motivated the car users are.
The Northern Busway is supposed to be a RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR. I.e this means fully grade separated from all other forms of transit. The busway is supposed to be as close to a rail line while still being a busway. It would be like opening a rail line up to cars.
I agree though, a full time T3 lane on motorways would be a great idea. But NOT ON THE BUSWAY.
Safety and orderly traffic management are majors. It’s got two directions, generally nothing in between, and on-line stations. The idea was that anyone who was to drive on it was to be specially licensed. Yeah, right.
PS What I mean is that right now there is great care exercised as to who gets to drive on it, and I’m pretty sure that having a passenger licence or emergency vehicle permit is part of this and that if it ever went to T3s a special sticker was going to be given out both for safety and to limit numbers. This needs to be checked to confirm. But anyway I don’t think anyone in the transport agencies who’s familiar with the situation is particularly keen on open slather T3, as per Onewa Rd for instance, for the Busway.
FYI I drove over Sydney Harbour bridge today. There’s eight lanes for cars – six lanes general, two are eTolled or bus only. We should also be having this discussion around the new lanes being added to the NW motorway.
“Next they will want the rail lines ripped up and let cars use those routes as well”
Why? Railways are designed for trains. The busway is designed for buses and HOV vehicles. HOV’s belong it as much as trains belong on railways.
“The Northern Busway is supposed to be a RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR.”
Nope. It was built specifically for buses and HOV’s. That was always the plan, it’s just some PT radicals want to redefine it. Ironic, because they always accuse anti-PT people of such tactics.
HOV’s don’t make up a huge portion of traffic, and won’t cause congestion on the busway. They will also be limiting the number that can enter it per hour, to ensure congestion isn’t possible.
Geoff, if that original decision was a mistake [hint: it was a mistake] it would clearly be foolish to enforce it.
HOV would be ok but I do not consider 2 persons sharing a car to be HOV. 4 people in a 5 seater car would be HOV.
It’s not a mistake to encourage HOV use. Don’t forget, the busway would not have been built without the proviso for HOV’s. Both the council and the community supported it on the basis that people being responsible by filling all the seats in their car would be able to escape the motorway congestion.
I think the point is that the busway has been more popular than anticipated, therefore at peak times there’s less capacity for HOVs than had been anticipated. The only reason why HOVs were considered was because the cost-benefit analysis process back whenever the busway was assessed took far less account of public transport benefits than is the case now.
If you did the BCR on the busway now for buses alone, I imagine it would easily be high enough to warrant construction.
agreed, the busway is a success and i think if it were to be reassessed the busway would stand for itself.
Putting cars on the busway would be a disaster, and a backwards step. However a nice cycleway that ties into the new proposed link across the bridge would be very cool.
The number of buses using it isn’t relevant, as the idea is to regulate the number of HOV’s entering the busway. The total number of vehicles is capped so as to prevent congestion.
It isn’t about BCR’s, it’s about enabling HOV’s to avoid motorway congestion, so as to encourage greater car pooling.
Then convert a lane on the motorway to HOVs only.
Exactly there is the old bus shoulder lane on the Northern Motorway. Why can this not be made into a T2/T3 lane?
Good point why isn’t that being used as a T3 lane?
This debate raises an interesting issue, I sat through a submission to the transport committee at the council as a man presented his vision for fixing poor Auckland from being over run with cars- with cars! All looks great on paper, you know, if every car that currently has 1 occupant got 3 or 4, bingo, game over, never need a bus or train again. Think of the savings! Feel the quality. No need for anyone to ever suffer the vile indignities public transport again. Right? It was clear that he had some plan to ‘monetise’ this process but he wasn’t talking about that as he wanted money form the council for a study that would show he was right [like SJ, he’s knows the answers to research before it happens].
This got me thinking, why has this never succeeded anywhere on any scale in the world? Well except in informal systems in the third world where every vehicle is always a sort of taxi, but then that is transactional not car pooling. Is it because there is an inherent contradiction in this idea? By trying to run the private car as public transport you destroy all of the great advantages of the private vehicle; with a stranger in the car it is not longer your private realm, suddenly the great advantage of point to point travel is disrupted, the whole possibility of taking random decisions is reduced- in short all the things that are pleasurable and useful about that self-governed and creature comforted space are diminished. In fact this is really the all the worst features of collective transport combined with the road clogging inefficiencies of individual transport.
So by all means reward those folks for whom a fuller car is convenient- couples going to similar destinations etc, give them some road privilege but don’t expect the roads to suddenly free up through some kind of carpooling that relies on getting people who don’t know each other to ride together. Granted the net and smart phones are likely to make it like an appealing idea. But more likely in my view is that this guy will spend a fortune on a fancy web model that won’t change the volumes of cars on the road meaningfully.
And certainly no where near as well as the actual provision of quality public transport on its own ROW- Like the Northern Busway.
So can anyone give a reason why the old bus shoulder lane could not be used? Surely not cost.
Having a look at it from google earth shows that sections have been removed as part of the motorway rebuild in the area – but otherwise I see no reason why it could not be used. Main issue would be enforcement – Aucklanders have shown themselves to be awful inconsiderate drivers on many occasions such as driving in bus lanes and parking all over the shared spaces in town and Wynward Quarter, so they’d abuse this IMO.
I would guess it is a combination of safety and capacity issues. Letting a large volume of cars use the shoulder as a lane will really slow down the outside lane when they have to merge back in.
That’s why I think it would be a lot simpler to just use the existing ‘fast’ lanes, as they don’t have the on-ramp/off-ramp merge issues and as an added bonus they’ll finally be named correctly too. Ideally designate them T3 with variable toll option for the less space efficient single and dual occupant cars.
Interestingly one of the resolutions at the most recent transport committee read as follows:
“That the Chairperson of the Transport Committee write to NZTA requesting them to investigate the possibility of T2/T3 on the motorways.”
So we might see some progress on this issue.