Somehow over the last 60 years it became an orthodoxy that the only way to deal with the problem of too many cars on our roads is to spend ever greater sums of money on more roads for more cars [and more parking, more fuel use, more accidents, more obesity, more pollution]. I have always found this to be a curious idea; there’s too much of something so let’s make more of it possible. Ah but of course, I’m just looking at it all wrong, congestion isn’t ever about there being too many vehicles, no, it’s only ever about there being insufficient road space for whatever number of vehicles can be imagined. Really, is there never a point that we might say; the problem here is that we are trying to squeeze too many vehicles into this place for it to function well, we need to supply this place with alternatives to driving as well?
This odd orthodoxy is behind the latest muddled-headed transport plan for Auckland, quoted here in the Herald by Brian Rudman:
“Even with the fully funded programme,” admit the authors, “road congestion levels will deteriorate with volume/capacity ratios exceeding 100 per cent on most of our arterial road network by 2041 and emission levels exceeding current levels”.
Clearly business as usual; building more roads everywhere, isn’t going to work even on the terms of those who promote these plans, so it was very interesting to see a new study out of LA on the impact of Transit systems on road congestion. Researchers there were able to use the 2003 shut down of the Transit system by a strike for 35 days to compare the impacts on the city both with a functioning Transit system and without one. From the National Bureau of Economic Research here [USD$5].
Also there’s a summary here on Atlantic Cities which I’ll quote as there’s no paywall:
The intuition is straightforward: Transit is most attractive to commuters who face the worst congestion, so a disproportionate number of transit riders are commuters who would otherwise have to drive on the most congested roads at the most congested times. Since drivers on heavily congested roads have a much higher marginal impact on congestion than drivers on the average road, transit has a large impact on reducing traffic congestion.
And tellingly:
Contrary to the conclusions in the existing transportation and urban economics literature, the congestion relief benefits alone may justify transit infrastructure investments.
Of course LA is a big car town, it has massive driving infrastructure, the Transit Systems there are improving, and have improved a great deal since 2003, but there is no way that you could claim that it is like London or Paris and completely dependant on well developed Transit systems built over a century or more. So the figures did vary. For arterials and Interstates that were close to shut down Transit routes the numbers were huge; the morning delay on the 101 was up 123 percent during the strike [90% average for the day], and 56% on freeways that didn’t parallel closed Transit routes.
Proof that even in this most auto-dependant city of the value of investing in quality Transit systems: yes a fully supported Transit network, especially one with its own right of way is the car users’ best friend. Investment in better Transit is almost certainly the best way a city can improve the quality and utility of the driving experience. Can somebody tell the AA?
Remember, when driving and experiencing congestion, you’re not stuck in a traffic jam; you are the traffic jam. Despite all the help those Transit users are trying to give you.
I 405 California
Processing...
Looks like even LA is changing.
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/residential_construction_trends.pdf
http://www.compassblueprint.org/files/lacity-smartgrowthhousinginitiatives.pdf
Lest we forget, the AA actively campaigns against new rail spending in Auckland, usually via their Directions magazine, and they also discourage people from using rail due to the subsidy.
If enough people switched to VTNZ’s breakdown assistance and alternative insurance companies, they might desist. Or perhaps not, but anyone who supports rail in Auckland (and NZ generally) should seriously consider AA’s competitors.
You are aware that VTNZ is owned by the Motor Trade Association ( ie the NZ motor vehicle Industry) their view on things is pretty much in step with the AA, (The recent spat over WOFs was a rare execption)
That is the nub of it. Except it isn’t curious, it is mindlessly stupid to even attempt to build sufficient roading capacity to support everyone being able to drive themselves to work in splendid isolation, park there all day, and then drive themselves home again, at exactly the same time as everyone else.
Of course it’s only you guys who actually think this happens. Transport designers have been looking at multi modal transport solutions since the 80s and it’s never crossed their mind to provide for everyone to be able to drive to work in splendid isolation and to park there all day.
You should really add that to the myth busting section of this site.
Could have fooled me. Providing capacity for single occupant cars is exactly what NZTA are doing. If not why aren’t there any penalties or restrictions in choosing to drive yourself to work at peak times, apart from congestion? Why are NZTA making the northwestern nine lanes of general traffic, with no restriction on their use? SH20 Manukau crossing? St Marys Bay? It isn’t necessarily transport designers we are talking about here either – it is the transport funders who seem stuck on the provincial mindset that your preferred option is to drive yourself to work.
Hence why you need to look at the full transport picture on a regional basis.
I’m quite certain they aren’t taking out a whole heap of houses along Ti Rakau Drive, leaving it as 4 lanes but adding a busway just to promote private vehicle use.
In regards to the causeway, are you suggesting they should have the 3 lanes of SH16 merge with the 2 lanes from SH 20 and form a two lane section like what was done at 20 to 1? Because that worked real well didn’t it.
And for all those trucks and people taking the WRR. How do you expect them to make that trip by PT? I suggested just two weeks ago that they make a rail line from Henderson to Albany via SH18 and people said it was a stupid idea.
Richard you’re being your usual silly self again, no one is suggesting no roads and no driving, just an actual multi modal city, not a near totally auto-dependant one plus a tiny percentage of investment in Transit and Active modes. Strawman 101.
Patrick, what are you on about? You appear to have just jumped in and made some claims about something neither myself or Cameron were talking about.
For instance, when did I express concern about no roads or no driving?
Your proposal for a rail line from Henderson to Albany is a stupid idea, because there is already a BRT line for that corridor in the ITP for about a tenth the cost. No one argued that rapid transit on the corridor was a bad idea, just your particular scheme.
If we want to spend the best part of a billion bucks on a new rail line there are several more deserving candidates.
Richard you appear to have issues that we nor any other forum can help you with. Here’s what you said: “How do you expect them to make that trip by PT” And I answered that we don’t expect all or even a majority of trips to be by PT, only the ones for whom it would work for, in a city that actually had real Transit options. AND, as my post explains, and even proves, that by providing these alternatives it brings benefits for those who choose to use the roads.
It isn’t hard to understand. So you look like you are just inventing imaginary arguments for the attention or some other personal reason.
And yet you think replacing the existing BRT along SH 16 with an offline busway for $1 billion just to serve two suburbs is a great use of money.
Now that is interesting.
Patrick. If you refer to Cameron’s supporting examples of how he claimed NZTA was supporting everyone to drive themselves in splendid isolation you will see that he listed a bunch of regional highway projects.
Inherently he is suggesting that the objective of these projects would have been better addressed by PT.
So I asked how these trips would have been made, and even suggested a project which would have helped, which Nick R just said was stupid.
You then came in and accused me of claiming something that nobody other than Cameron mentioned.
I suggest you actually read people’s posts before attacking them over them.
Existing BRT along SH16? Can someone point it out to me? I ride pretty slowly so I cannot understand how I didn’t spot it.
And just 2 suburbs? Which ones? Who is going to miss out?
There is NOT aBRT along SH16 at the moment, there are some severely intermittent bus lanes and that is it. Also 2 suburbs is false, it is realistically 5, but even that would be an exagerration to the negative as the suburbs are MASSIVE.
You are comparing a corridor with around 2-300,000 people to one with less than 100,000.
The current motorway works are building bus shoulders down the motorway which with the new network and off line stations will see buses running at about 5 min intervals. This will be a greater level of service than than of the SH18 BRT Nick mentioned.
The two suburbs that will be served by the proposed busway are te Atatu and royal heights.
My suggested rail line would pass right through the middle of some massive new developments which are of mixed use and of various densities.
Now now Richard, I’ve never said I wanted a billion dollar busway to serve just two suburbs. Need I remind you that making false and spurious attributions is trolling?
For the record, I was advocating what is in the ITP, which is a ‘BRT’ busway from Constellation Station to the start of the bus lanes at Waterview with a price of $450m.
Not that this is two busways, both the Westgate to City and Henderson to Albany BRT corridors would operate on the infrastructure. My understanding is that only the Westgate to Te Atatu section would be to full ‘Rolls Royce’ offline busway standard.
By my count that is $450m for two busways that serve some eighteen suburbs.
Bus shoulder lanes are not a BRT, the busway we propose that you are arguing against serves Te Atatu North, Te Atatu South,Massey Westgate and Royal heights into the CBD.
Your serves Henderson, Albany, Royal Heights, Massey, Hobsonville, and Royal Heights to Henderson.
Your route is used for very few trips and does nothing to speed up trips further into the isthmus, it would be used solely for Henderson or Massey users from the Far Northwest of the Shore, to the far North of West Auckland. It would not have the demand to justify anything more than about a 10 minute frequency, and the majority of the route is already on bus shoulders on an empty motorway.
The NW busway serves huge swathes of population wanting to go from Massey, along the Motorway route. These include massive growth nodes and still allow the ladder trips to Henderson to happen faster by allowing easier connections at Busway stations.
The upper Harbour cooridir needs to become a BRT or rail corridor at some stage but the current benefits do not justify the cost. The NW busway would be justified even if no growth was forecast for the corridor. These projects are so different that comparison is comical.
Nick, you said you wanted a busway from Te Atatu to Kumeu. Feel free to read your old posts to refresh your memory.
Where you pull the $450 million figure from I don’t know, however it is Cleary not even remotely adequate.
That sort of money was needed just for the upgrade of Lincoln road and Te Atatu interchanges, and they didn’t require vast amount of land purchase.
Sailor boy, you couldn’t be more wrong. My proposed rail line would directly service every suburb on the western and southern rail lines as well as the ones you mentioned plus west harbour and the massive amount of development going on.
For your Te Atatu south people, half of them would likely prefer the rail option.
Snow flake, my recollection of what Nick has to say about the NW busway is reflected in this link. Happy reading.
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2013/03/16/te-atatu-bus-interchange/
I said I wanted staged BRT from Kumeu to the CBD actually. You’re insistence that that has to be a full offline two way busway the whole way is your own confection, if you care to read my comments properly I was advocating a offline busway from Lincoln Rd to Te Atatu only, at least in the first instance. Perhaps you got confused when I made a comment about “in a perfect world…”.
I pulled the $450 million figure from the ITP, like I cited above already. I’ve read the report it comes from and it is perfectly adequate. I do have to ask where the vast land purchases would be needed? Sure there would be a little from Westgate to Te Atatu, but the rest has an enormous motorway designation to use.
Snow flake, now I know where the former WCC and ARTA got their inspiration for the old NW PT plan which pretty much mirrors yours and is the reason there is no busway planned as part of the WRR upgrade.
Actually Nick, you said we didn’t need a busway into the city as you thought the onroad facilities does great north road were all we need.
As for the motorway designation, strange as it may be but there actually happens to be a motorway in it and you only have about 1m either side to play with.
If the designation is so narrow then how can they fit another 3 lanes across the causeway? That’s like, 12m.
They widened it out, they did the same around Te Atatu hence why they had to buy a bunch of houses. They only buy what they need however and sell or gift back whats left.
Yes Richard, BRT from Kumeu to the CBD would involve using the shoulder lanes from Te Atatu to Waterview and the street lanes from there to downtown.
The motorway designation I was referring to was SH18, which is about three times wider than the actual motorway occupies. As I mentioned above, there would be land purchases required between Westgate and Te Atatu, which is the section you seem to be talking about with 1m either side.
Ok so let me get this straight, your happy to have the buses driving on the shoulder for pretty much the entire route, and in other sections driving with general traffic and through at grade intersections. However for some reason you see a real need for an offline busway between Te Atatu and Lincoln Road? In the first instance.
You then suggest that it would go to Westgate and in a perfect world to Kumeu.
I must say this plan is rather hard to follow. It’s pretty much like saying we should build the CRL down in Drury, extend it through to Pukekohe, and one part of it which I won’t name will cost $450 million.
Yes that’s pretty much it. For the Northwestern corridor I think there would be three general sections:
1) Just under 6km of full offline two way busway from Westgate to Te Atatu, with probably five offline interchange stations that avoids having any buses move through motorway interchanges and ramps, and likewise doesn’t subject buses to traffic congestion near ramps. This section would be very similar to the six and a half km of Northern Busway between Constellation and Akoranga.
2) Just over 6km of shoulder lanes from Te Atatu to Waterview on the section that has no need to stop so no need for stations (although maybe an offline interchange station at Pt Chev shops at the end of this section would be a good idea). Buses would be just as fast and just as free of delays, assuming the merges around the Rosebank ramps don’t prove to be an issue. This section would be very similar to the Northern Busway between Albany and Constellation (3.5km), and the section between Akoranga and Fanshawe St (9.6km).
3) About 7km of running on bus lanes on Great North Rd from Waterview into town. Yes these are at grade on arterial roads. Much the same as the section of the Northern Busway between SH1 and Britomart, although considerably longer than their length of around 1.5km.
For buses out of Kumeu and Helensville they would initially just run on the highway to Westgate, exactly like buses out of Orewa and Silverdale run on the highway down to Constellation.
I said in a perfect world it would be a full offline busway from Kumeu to downtown, by perfect world I mean one where capital funds and operation costs aren’t an object. We don’t live in that world.
Not sure what you’re CRL comment is about. What I’m suggesting is very similar to the Northern Busway, with a little less full busway and a little more shoulder and street running. Considering the Northern Busway costs $210m + the cost of stations, I think that $450m for this route plus a lesser standard of BRT and some interchange stations along SH18 would be perfectly reasonable (especially if the new stations are more like Sunnynook rather than the deluxe jobs at Akoranga and Smales).
when you (Moderators) do your estimates for your NW busway do you assume that all of the technical and engineering works are the same and that they can just plop a load of new infrastructure onto the ground? should you not also factor in the cost of causeway widening? plus any future proofing works included in the current interchange upgrades? property purchase etc. Also the 3 three park and ride stations on the northern busway cost about 90 mil, if you are going to do 5 then this value will be much higher also.
the merges at the Rosedale ramps will be an an absolute pain the @ss!! did you see what they had to do at the Onewa Interchange? its stall a mess now.
i think a rail line around the NW area would be great and would form the first stage of a future ARL across the shore. I understand your argument that it might not be needed as much of a huge priority now but this was your argument in support of the London Underground. Having some key/major PT infrastructure installed early in to an area of know large scale development over the next 50 years is a good thing.
understand its not a perfect world but it isn’t all rose tinted glasses either.
Thanks for the detailed post Nick.
My CRL comment was that you are building some high capacity system out in the middle of no where and then leaving the existing core that hardly functions as is.
If you are to compare it to the northern busway, the first bus stop where large numbers of people want to get off is about 100m from the end of the bus shoulder. As you mentioned above its 7km to the city and about 5km and 9 signalised intersections to where people want to get off the bus, so when you say much the same it’s actually 50 times longer.
You will note that for the northern busway that they didn’t have to buy any land and they had heaps of space to work with. You will also note that the ccomplex work at the interchanges came out of someone else’s budget which is why the total cost was over $400 million.
On the Northshore someone else paid for the high voltage transmission line as well, one cannot exclude the cost of undergrounding the lines here.
Thanks for your comments fiddlestixbob. Good to see I’m not the only one on the page of reason.
in defence of Snowflake, there appears to be some very immature activity going on on this site. Whilst the moderators and the Campaign for Better Transport might not agree with everything he/she says i don’t think anything that has been said is trolling.
Just because you guys don’t agree with it and you get incensed with rage, most other people don’t and you are starting to come across as quite petty and unwilling to listen to other people. You seem to revel in aggressively attacking other peoples thoughts.
Have you considered that the way you are acting and commenting in other peoples eyes could well be defined as trolling in the same way that you have accused others? Probably not because its your website, you can do what you want and if people don’t like it they can clear off?
The thing is that Snow Flake/Dan/Riggles/whateverothernameheisusing has been banned from this blog under about 15 different IP addresses for past activity and just keeps coming back for more. We’ve thrashed through this issue many times before.
Other commenters like obi or swan often take viewpoints very different to those of the bloggers but do so in a constructive and non-trolling way and we’ve never had any problems with them.
The issue is not what people say, but how they say it. Snow Flake’s comment in reply to Nick’s post is actually a good example of how he can do posts in a non-trolling way so perhaps we’ll give him one last chance.
Just a snippet from the first few comments that the Moderators/CFBT have posted in this post alone.
Patrick Reynolds: ……………….Richard you’re being your usual silly self again
Nick R:……………………………….Your proposal for a rail line from Henderson to Albany is a stupid idea
Patrick Reynolds:…………………Richard you appear to have issues that we nor any other forum can help you with.
not sure how you consider those to be constructive and non-trolling. There are heaps of examples of poor, dare i say unprofessional comments, from the transport blog team.
people in glass houses etc….
Mr Anderson. My last reply to Nicks post is no different to any other posts of mine and you know it.
The difference between myself and swan/obi is that I question people when they join two unrelated dots to form an unrelated answer. I also point out obvious lies and question claimed benefits.
It is this questioning of the facts that you don’t like and why other people get so angry in defence of their claims. Given you are on their side it is easier for you to ban me or delete my posts.
Of course if anyone with an unbiased opinions were to read the history of my posts they would see that it is you guys that are doing the trolling and abusive posts. This has actually been pointed out to you guys various times in the past by people like fiddlestix but you are just too blind or proud to see it.
Cheers fiddlestix.
Have you been able to find any unprofessional posts from me that didn’t come out after repeated abuse?
One entrepreneur and a multi-modal experiment: http://gigaom.com/2013/04/03/zappos-ceo-rethinks-urban-transportation-in-vegas-with-100-tesla-model-s-cars/ –
“It could make downtown Las Vegas free of personal cars, using a combination of on-demand Tesla Model S cars (100 of them), shared bikes (100 or those), shared neighborhood electric vehicles (yes, 100 of those, too) and buses (you can guess it, 100 shuttle stops).”
I love Los Angeles. It’s an undeniably world class city full of world class industries. It has a huge gross city product. It attracts immigrants from all over the world. There is a bustling energy about the city and I’ve always had fun there.
I can think of a lot worse places to model ourselves after than Los Angeles. I’d jump at the chance to work and live there. Whereas I’ve lived in several large European cities and I’m not keen to do so again.
Its funny how different people have different perceptions; I cannot stand LA as a destination due to it’s sprawl and much prefer San Francisco with its far greater character, range of attractions and modes of transport.
I would pick this city any day as the city that Auckland should model itself on; and in many ways there are similarities that could be used.
In saying that though Garry. When people talk about LA they generally mean the whole sprawling area. When they talk about San Fran they only refer to one part and don’t include the sprawling areas of Oakland and San Jose.
Yes you are correct snow flake, but due to geography San Francisco does not appear to be one great mass like LA; I have traveled around both cities and I did not get the same impression. Oakland and San Jose seem to be there own entities in many ways.
I think San Francisco has developed a much better centre though that gives it a big edge over LA and this must be largely due to intensification brought about due to its geography. It does have some similarities with AKL and therefore I think it should be used as a reference when it comes to all sorts of planning including transport.
I like the Bay Area as well, but it wasn’t the metro area shown in the photo and so it didn’t invite my comment. San Francisco is a great city, but it is also hard to beat the areas south of the city that comprise probably the best area of technology innovation in the world. I crashed at a friend’s place in San Jose in 1989, saw the cool technology he was working on (tiny heads for magnetic disks that were assembled in a clean room by workers looking through microscopes) and wanted to stay. Unfortunately I was visa-free and the advice was they wouldn’t interview me without PhD-level skills.
They’re a bit light on rail public transport. There is BART and San Jose has a small light rail system. That’s not a lot for four or five million people. There are some pretty substantial freeways in the area.
Both Los Angeles and San Jose/Bay Area illustrate agglomeration benefits. Los Angeles with the film industry, and San Jose with IT. In both cases the agglomeration is global in scope. In both cases, the agglomeration doesn’t require a CBD, and the agglomeration is spread throughout the metro area in low rise buildings rather than requiring businesses to be immediate neighbours. In both cases, the industries are export focused. As opposed to Auckland, which tends to be the back office for the rest of the NZ economy and where the rest of the economy are the exporters. In my opinion, the plan the Council should really be working on is a plan to develop or attract some world class export industries to Auckland because that is what will make it a world class city.
Obi, have you checked out Seattle as well? I thinking you would also be very impressed and for its size seems to have even more enterprises than I think LA and SF (think Microsoft, Boeing. Amazon etc).
But for its size it does seem to have even less PT and has only recently has developed more of a push towards (light) rail. Saying this it is also a better comparison with AKL due to its geography and a lot of lessons could be learned from their examples of public planning. One impression that I did get from Seattle though (and someone can correct me if they believe I am wrong) was that these large industries are not concentrated in any one place around the city so therefore may help with possible congestion issues that would occur if they were based together. This must greatly help with their transport planning?
I’ve been to Seattle and I didn’t like it. I was youngish at the time, had spent a few months in western Canada (visiting cool cities like Vancouver and the Rockie Mountain national parks), and Seattle seemed dull by comparison. It was my first port of call in the States, the weather wasn’t great, the CBD was drab, and the place was full of beggars. I was on the verge of heading north again, but was eventually glad I didn’t since I fell in love with California and Arizona. Seattle might have changed since 1989, but I’m not in a position to give it a second chance.
I did the tour at Boeing and it is an impressive place. It was a month or so before I popped in to IBM San Jose and was shown around the magnetic head manufacturing line, so I went from giant manufactured goods to tiny ones. Both examples of leading edge first class technology and of human enterprise. You have a point though… None of the industries we’ve been discussing need a CBD or tall office buildings. Is that because they involve R&D and manufacturing? Do service industries do best located in a CBD, such as the finance industries located in the City of London? I think the answer is “maybe”.
Talking about traffic issues, IBM’s San Jose plant apparently employed 17,000 people. The site had traffic lights and its security force would pull you over if you violated the site traffic rules. They had cars with flashing lights. They couldn’t ticket you, but my friend told me that his manager would be told if his guest were caught, so I needed to obey the rules. I don’t think we have anything in NZ on anywhere near this scale. More is the pity.
Hmmm interesting. I went from Vancouver to Seattle and much preferred the latter – because it seemed to have much more energy :).
Surely the traffic in the LA picture would flow better if they had ramp lights!!
The onramp pictured is from another freeway, the I-10 or Santa Monica Freeway. Ramp signals there would only shift congestion on to the I-10, which like the I-405 pictured is also a busy, heavily congested freeway. The local road onramp just to the left of the picture from National Blvd does indeed have ramp signals installed (http://goo.gl/maps/7dJ9T), but at this level of congestion would achieve very little.