Another piece of news, (well actually two pieces of news) that came out yesterday was around Wynyard Quarter. The first piece is in relation to what is known as the The Wynyard Quarter Transport Management Association (TMA) which is promoting alternatives to individual car travel. It has a steering group made up from Auckland Transport, Auckland Council, the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) and the major landowners in the Wynyard Quarter, Waterfront Auckland and Viaduct Harbour Holdings Ltd.
The TMA has an ultimate goal of achieving 70 per cent of peak hour travel to and from the Wynyard Quarter being made by public transport walking, cycling, and as a car passenger in preference to single occupant car travel.
Preliminary traffic movement observations indicate the current split ratio of car travel into the area is close to 60 per cent. More comprehensive monitoring will begin in October.
Dropping car use from 60% to 30% seems like a big ask but there is a huge amount of development that is going to happen down in the area which will bring a lot of extra people into the area. The TMA is chaired by Matt Rendall from Auckland Transport who is also involved in the cycleway project mentioned yesterday. Here are some of the things that are going to be done to help change peoples behaviour.
- Changes to on-street parking as streets are redeveloped, allowing for wider footpaths, cycle paths and public transport facilities such as bus stops
- Graduating changes to parking charges in line with the CBD tariffs are proposed to deter long-stay parking
- Upgrading pedestrian friendly streets to make it easier to get around by foot and by bike, and
- New pedestrian access-ways such as the Wynyard Crossing to significantly cut down pedestrian travel times
Having 70% of all journeys by ‘alternative methods’ is going to be quite a challenge and I hope that the council gives it proper support through improved land use policies as the last thing we want is businesses being forced to provide mountains of parking which could lead to the place becoming over run by cars.
The second piece of news is of the upgrade to two more streets in the area, Halsey and Daldy Steets. These streets will be upgraded in two stages with the first stage being to extend them from Jellicoe St down to Pakenham St and this will mean that the two sections of Daldy St get connected up. The second stage will see the streets extended south all the way to Fanshawe St. Here’s what the press release says:
In line with the award-winning Urban Design Framework for the area, the concept is for Daldy Street to be transformed into a ‘linear park’ that combines a landscaped, green connection between Victoria Park and the future Wynyard Quarter Headland open space with a route for passenger transport, pedestrians and cyclists.
The design for Daldy Street includes two zones:
1. A ‘street zone’ of 3.5m-wide road that will be shared by trams, buses, private vehicles and cyclists.
2. A ‘park zone’ made up of a sequence of landscaped, outdoor ‘rooms’ on the street- side incorporate green spaces, seating areas and play elements with good quality foot paths, meandering paths and crossings that are easy to navigate.
A key aspect of the Daldy Street project is the completion of the street grid by extending a new piece of road through the former Mobil site between Madden Street and Pakenham Streets.
The concept is for Halsey Street to be transformed into a true waterfront street which, through building a 2.5m viewing deck will enable people to get closer to the water’s edge near the old Log Farm basin,.
Wider, flatter footpaths will better integrate the existing Viaduct Promenade into the quarter.
You can view the design for the first stage: Daldy St, Halsey St
There is also a proposal to reduce the speed limit in the area from 50km/h to 30km/h
The plans aren’t finalised yet and the public will have the chance to have a say on them with consultation now open. Construction on stage 1 is expected to start in February next year.
Processing...
Upgrading pedestrian friendly streets to make it easier to get around by foot
One of the biggest things they could do to encourage commuters to use walking as a means to get to office buildings (and others) in wynyard is to insist that building owners build verandahs which extend over the footpath,
I mean if you want people to inhabit a space on a regular basis, then providing rain protection has to be up there, ( I am told it does rain from time to time in this country)
Extending footpaths on the city end of Halsey street is great, but with no cover what’s to attract people on non blue sky days…….
If we could up-vote ideas here then I would create dozens of fake registrations in order to up-vote this idea.
It’s also possible to create cool covered walkways for walking routes that are away from buildings.
They do, refer figure 6.13 amendment on page 7 here: http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/documents/central/updates/t004/PM4_PartsB-X_operative.pdf
It’s something the Central Area DP has actually been quite strong on for a while, at least in areas considered ped oriented.
Any word yet on the route for the tram extension to Britomart? I’d be interested to know which streets the tram will go along. I assume the tram would go along Viaduct Harbour Ave, then Customs Street West and from there, over to Quay Street?
I think the decision is still to be made, but there were two options: one basically as you have mentioned, the other to go straight across from Jellicoe St to Quay St via a new bridge alongside the Te Wero foot bridge. The latter is much more direct and useful IMHO, especially as it avoid the need for the tram to make eight or ten right angle turns to wiggle it’s way through the residential part of the Viaduct.
Actually you can just make out two fine lines indicating the path of the new bridge on the plan above.
Ah yeah- north of the steps and south of the existing bridge? Nicely spotted.
make-it-go- Nick’s route is right, someone in the know told me the V H ave was impossibly twisty…
So, it goes as far as Britomart now? Any mention of the Queen St- K rd line?
Or the Eastern?
I think you have spotted where the permanent Te Wero bridge will go. You know the one that was announced with much fanfare then quietly disappeared.
BTW: The bridge is shown here.
http://www.bustler.net/index.php/article/denton_corker_marshall_win_bridge_design_competition_in_auckland/
Sorry, I’m lost. Is the current Te Wero bridge not a permanent structure? If not, then I cant see the trams ever getting to Britomart if the track is to go across a bigger, fancier and obviously expensive Te Wero bridge. Surely Viaduct Harbour Ave cant be that difficult to run a tram track along? The one and only tight curve I can see on the map is no tighter than the curve the trams go round now from Gaunt into Daldy St for example. Otherwise along Fanshawe Street and then left into Customs Street West (an even tighter turn there!)?
The current Te Wero bridge is a ‘temporary bridge’ which in Auckland terms means its almost certainly permanent. However my understanding is the foundations were built to support the permanent bridge.
I’ve mentioned before that I hate the bridge idea as boat access is what makes the Viaduct what it is and once trams get to 5 minute services, it would be a right pita.
How about reducing some of the radius at the western end by filling in part of the Viaduct to suit or build the tracks over the water as part of the boardwalk? As a bonus you get a much bigger catchment for the trams.
The current Te Wero bridge is effectively a temporary structure erected for the RWC because the last Citizens & Ratepayers dominated Auckland City Council (mayor: Hon J Banks QSO of cabbage boat fame) couldn’t decide what to do. So notwithstanding the fact that certain loadings were indicated as required by the ARC (per the design competition brief) they decided to come up with this lightweight alternative with the sole rationale being that citizens, once they’d parked their cars, could walk around and look at the rich peoples’ toys. However, if you look closely at the intersection of Halsey and Jellicoe Streets you’ll see tram tracks laid in anticipation of the bridge.
Good memory!
We presented a Tram Plan to the last meet of the Banksy ACC Transport Committee and Cr Bhatnagar explained the ground at both ends of the bridge was strong enough for trams- but the deck of the raising bridge wasn’t!
Auckland planning eh…
Geoff more Auckland politics I think….
Yeah.
Auckland politics eh…
I think going through the Viaduct Harbour Ave makes more sense to maximize the usage, going through a carpark and around some boats doesn’t seem like the smartest way to increase patronage.
Still can’t see the sense in having a commuter tram going over a bridge that goes up and down all the time. Yes they could stop the bridge going up and down at certain times of the day but still think its silly. Also feel the boats need to remain in the viaduct as they add to the character of the place.
Just think if the line heads up towards victoria park it just opens it up to more growth in the future, possible victoria park market and the victoria precinct and on to Ponsonby. Will capture more workers, Telecom building etc.
Richard- The Wynyard loop is only single-track.
Although it will connect fine with a double track across an unused part of Vic Park and along the old route up College Hill-> 3 Lamps-> Pons Rd-> K Rd and down Queen to join up again at Quay St if we treat the Wynyard bit as a “baby loop”. It would provide two points where the clockwise + anti-clockwise larger loop split (just west of new bridge and opposite NW corner of Vic Park prob?) meaning a tram wouldn’t need to run the whole “rectangle to nowhere”.
And yes, way bigger catchment.
As well as restoring the Pons Rd to Queen St connection.
What’s the plan for Ponsonby Rd Geoff? Sharing lanes with traffic or exclusive lanes?
Hey Peter- Still some disagreement there.
Personally I’m in favour of a Melbourne-style shared situation, others are insistent on a separated lane (or two).
Our Community group is working on a Ponsonby Rd Plan for the Local Board and I’m sure that’ll come up often as we get into the nitty gritty!
What’s your preference?
I can’t see why you would ever advocate a shared tram track. That’s a huge amount of capital expenditure and operating cost to run something that would necessarily be slower and less efficient than a bus. Can I ask what possible reason you could have for subjecting trams to the full brunt of traffic congestion?
With shared tracks every tram gets blocked by cars in front, and cars have to stop every time the tram does. Buses can pull to the side for stops, and they can drive around obstacles or queues of turning traffic.
It’s a complete balls up and Melbourne is scrambling to remove every example of shared use it has, but finding it difficult (all of the successful tram lines are segregated, but a few of the older slow ones are shared).
If you are even considering trams, then they must have their own permanent lanes. Otherwise it would be a colossal waste of time to create something that is slower, less capacious and far less reliable than the existing bus is (not to mention the fact it would piss off thousands of motorists who end up stopping every block for people to get on and off the tram, basically killing any chance of another line being built).
I’ll note that as a vote for separate
Yes that is a vote for separation, I’m of the view that you shouldn’t even consider trams/light rail until a separate lane, high priority, high capacity public transport corridor is required.
Otherwise what really is the goal, what is the question that trams trundling along in mixed traffic is the answer to? What set of problems is a shared-lane tram on Ponsonby Rd the answer too? All I can think of is something around the novelty aspect, the fact they are kinda pretty and fun. But Auckland already has two historic novelty tramways, I’m not sure we need any extensions to these.
Let’s not beat around the bush, trams are expensive to build and expensive to run. They have a lot of advantages when it comes to busy routes and in some cases present a far superior way to move lots of people on busy urban corridors. In those situations they can move more people more cheaply than buses, but only when the patronage is quite high. Under than and the cost a lot more per passenger.
We need to consider the opportunity cost they present, both capital and operating. For the price of 1km of tram track and overhead we can mark perhaps 10km of bus lane. One decent tram platform is the price of five good bus stops. Melbourne’s new trams cost six million dollars each, and while they can carry 250 people at a time that’s still enough money to buy eight or ten hybrid diesel buses. Likewise the operation of one tram costs the same as operating two or three buses.
One question is do we want one tram every half hour, or a bus every five minutes. Because both those things will cost about the same in the long run.
The conclusion there is that trams are really good value on constrained high demand corridors, or in other locations that have very particular reasons for them to exist. Say somewhere where you’ve got a bus running every two or three minutes and fitting any more through each phase of traffic lights isn’t realistic. Then spending the dough to get 250 seater vehicles makes sense. Otherwise you might have somewhere like Queen St, where there is a heap of foot traffic and people expect a very high quality urban environment, there trams would be a natural fit.
Personally I can think of perhaps four or five corridors in Auckland that would warrant high capacity street level rapid transit. I don’t think Ponsonby Rd is at the top of that list, but if it is desirable to have trams in that suburb then spending all that money only to squander all the benefits in mixed traffic would be very foolish indeed. In my opinion, if you can’t get a lane each way dedicated 24/7 to trams only then don’t bother with trams, an improved bus service would be much more effective in mixed traffic.
Those shared trams in Melbourne were a joke when I saw them last time I was there – like Nick says, either build a fully segregated tram system like cities that are serious about PT do or stick with buses. A tram on a shared track is a complete waste of everyone’s time.
Nick has a powerful argument but I just want to add a slight twist to it, not that I am saying that this is my view for Ponsonby road.
Nick is a transport planner and his analysis from that perspective is hard to fault. But it does assume that the goal for everything on every street is always speed and efficiency of movement. I would argue that the one time you would put trams into traffic is when part of your aim, along with providing connection and access, is to actively restrict other forms of traffic, especially private vehicles.
I would say this is one of the things that the trams achieve on say Brunswick St in Melbourne and in the historic centre of Bordeaux. In both cases they do a great deal to improve quality of place and reduce auto-dominance and support a vibrant human scaled streetlife.
The difference between Melbourne and Bordeaux is that in Melbourne the trams got there before the car boom, or rather weren’t removed. Much harder to do as they did in Bordeaux and install them to displace car dominance later, and this is what Geoff is suggesting for P Rd.
We conceivably could choose to do that on say Ponsonby Rd, but we would have to be clear that is the aim of it rather than mere nostalgia, and be aware that that would be picking a huge fight. Especially because P Rd is used, regrettably, as an arterial, linking to and from the motorways…. inconvenience a Herne Bay SUV driver at your peril….
Anyway a first step, in my view, is simply to give the buses there much more priority, allowing them to behave in a more tram-like way, and have views on how to do this… must write a post, but I wonder is this included in any of this ongoing work you refer to Geoff?
I’m not sure if I totally agree with you there Patrick, using trams as a means to restrict and slow down mixed traffic is a false economy because you also restrict and slow down your PT at the same time. As someone who was a regular user of Brunswick St trams I can say they were infuriating most of the time. The one benefit I found was that if you just missed the tram leaving a stop you could leisurely walk down to the next stop before the same tram got there. I’m not sure if having the street filled with a constant clog of cars and trams improves the place of the place.
That’s kinda moot for Ponsonby Rd however. It is a wide street with room for a tram lane and a car lane each way, and still have roadside parking and cycle lanes if we want both. IMHO the thing that would most improve the sense of place on Ponsonby Rd would be to take it from a four lane highway to a two lane street (by allocating two of the existing lanes to public transport). With two traffic lanes each way people get the perceptual cues to drive fast. If someone is parking or pulling out of a side road one can just zip into the other lane and continue along at 70km/h, or overtake anyone they think is too slow. Put a driver between parking and cyclists on one side and bus/tram lanes in the middle and they will behave themselves.
Yes that’s what P needs…not what I here people are trying to do though….
What exactly are they trying to do?
Chopping Pons Rd to one lane of traffic each way would be great.
There are issues though- parts of Pons Rd are included in both the “overweight” and “overwidth” routes so that has to be taken into account (or at least shifted).
I’d like to thank everyone for their opinions and ideas on this so far, it’s very handy having a bunch of traffic brains to call on for advice.
Patrick- what do you hear they’re trying to do? (email me if it’s too dodgy to post)
I was at Wynyard Quarter last night. I couldn’t help but think, wasted potential. No one was there, is this common? But the most disappointing thing was the number of cars literally parked on the sidewalk and over crossings. What I also don’t understand is why there needs to be a huge carpark down here. If we want to be a proper international city we have to stop thinking that people have a right to park wherever they want. It doesn’t work and it makes the place crappy for actual people. Until they sort this problem, Wynyard Quarter is a failure in waiting…..
The carpark is just filling up space until that site is developed, that’s common in any development area. You’ll be happy to know that the precinct has a 70% non-car transport goal, so lots of bus, tram, walking and cycling is going in to the precinct.
On weekend days and when there is something on the place is pretty busy, but you have to realise that the development has barely begun. Apart from the fishmarket and a few restaurants there isn’t a hell of a lot there yet.
The only possible solution to this target is underground rail. See these previous posts:
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/04/12/how-aotea-station-will-become-a-new-heart-of-auckland/
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/04/20/the-cross-future-pattern-for-auckland-rail/
Or a new bus network that terminates a large amount of services at Wynyard 😉
where?
How about right where the underground rail station would go, wherever that is? A bus terminus could be built at basement level, or at street level ringed with shops and frontage, or simply operate on street in a sort of transit mall. It would only take bus priority on one street and a good set of platform style stops to bring thousands of people an hour into the precinct, that target could easily be met with a little tweaking to the bus system.
Wynyard is going to need a lot of good public transport in the next year or two, not in the timeframes of a possible North Shore line or even on the timeframe of the CRL. It would be fantastic, but we just won’t see rail to Wynyard until after the whole precinct is built up. We’ll need something well before then.
The busway corridor is good from the north, the tram extension will work from the CBD, but Wynyard is going to need plenty of service from elsewhere too. It seems logical that we bring some of the services that currently terminate near the Civic or Britomart over to Fanshawe St or Wynyard once it really starts to develop.
Yes, sadly you’re right, it will be a while [by 2030 by my reckoning, as I am optimistic that we are heading towards rationality in transport investment in AK]. And a bloody tragedy as we will end up digging all that lovely paving and planting and new buildings. So yes buses will be needed and soon.
How about where the gas station is now mid block on Fanshaw so the buses don’t spend much time off the corridor and the new slow streets don’t get filled with buses?
I guess it would need to be handy to Fanshawe St to make connections, come up into the Wynyard Quarter somewhat to get people close to their destination, but not involve long timeconsuming detours up through the narrow slow streets. That should be doable.