Getting the information out about out Congestion Free Network has continued once again this morning with Patrick appearing on TVNZ’s Good Morning show to talk about it.
What’s different about this one is that TVNZ got Len Brown to respond to our proposal and it seems he seems to be largely supportive of it.
As Len noted, some of the current transport projects that we aren’t supportive of – like a Second Harbour Crossing – are ones that the government will be paying for so there also needs to be some advocacy towards them and not just the council. I agree with that but we have some things planned for that too so watch this space.
In addition to this Radio New Zealand has just had a discussion with Tommy Honey about our proposal and making public transport more appealing.
Or you can listen here.
As mentioned at the start of the Good Morning piece, Len was also launching the driving simulator today. We attended this launch and will have a post and some pictures of this later.
Processing...
You might like to ask them to update the caption for that video, it’s not so accurate at present:
“A faster, cheaper transport system is being proposed as an alternative to Auckland’s City Rail Link.”
Yeah, if that is the title they really need to fix it!
Now I’ve watched the videos – really excellent stuff, and great to see this being picked up by the mainstream media.
Not overly enthused by Mayor Len’s public statement of support. He’s no doubt a fan of bus priority measures too but how many metres of it has his council instigated in his first term? Zero?
I agree. He answered like a typical politician. He was just saying what he thinks people want to hear. This is shown by his train to Bayswater commment – that isn’t in anyone’s plans so why the hell did he bring it up.
The real question is whether he is willing to support prioritising public transport on key routes over roading projects. Unfotunately I dont think the answer is yes. Still more work to do.
Len seemed to have things sorted here, he pretty points out that the plan is pretty much the same as what they already have planned only without the road portion.
I also found it rather funny that the comparison to the London tub was that they are both drawn on a map.
Oh Yes, Patricks explanation that the CFN is only similar to the London Underground because of the map they had drawn had me falling off my chair laughing….. I assume it was a slow news day in NZ to get this story on the TV.
Talk about desperation. But keep up the rage against the dying of the (head)light.
The world (and finally, Auckland) is moving on. Guys like you will be left behind – in traffic. Even National wants to invest in trains….says it all really.
Congratulations again KLK. You have manage to create a mysterious bit of abuse for which nobody knows what you’re on about.
@SF, they are all projects that the council want to do, but the timings are almost all different.
I thought TVNZ totally misrepresent the Len Brown interview by captioning the video ”Mayor dismisses alternative Auckland transport plan’. ‘Largely supportive’ as you describe it above seems much more accurate to me.
Actually I thought this was really positive interview and even the mayor saying not far apart on this. He was concerned about the lack of synergy investment in roading and mentioned freight etc. Again what about 1 shared dedicated lane for freight and buses on the motorways and arterials and give buses the instant priority on the network with some paint marks and painting the dream. Perhaps road widening the odd link that won’t work with the current width. Isn’t this then ticking all the boxes without seemingly grandious plans and even a faster congested free network.
Steve. NZTA has actually looked into your idea a number of times over the past decade however the issue is that such lanes would be near impossible to enforce.
Current AT sends out a small army each day to try and enforce the ones they currently have however they can only cover a small portion of what is on the road today.
And given the kiwi culture doesn’t care in the slightest about these sort of things we get wide spread abuse.
If the law were changed to allow ATTOMS camera footage in support of posted tickets for infringing the lanes, enforcement wouldn’t be terribly difficult at all. There are already cameras covering most of the motorway network, and unlike breaches of Tx lanes it’s perfectly clear from video that a car is not a truck or a bus.
That’s a little too big brother for most people’s liking, next thing you will be handing out fines to people spotted crossing the road without due care or intentionally throwing their cigarette butt on the ground.
We already accept the use of cameras for enforcement of bus lanes and Tx lanes. The only difference is that ATTOMS isn’t someone standing at the side of the road with a camera.
Yes and that’s the difference. In a free society you aren’t meant to live s life if fear that the government is watching you every move and as soon as you don’t delete your recorded copy of breaking bad your door gets kicked in by the police and you get taken to jail.
A speed camera, police unit or council staff with a camera is just one small arm of the law keeping an eye on trouble spots leaving most things up to the loyal citizens of the country.
Of course Nicks suggestion of cameras on buses is a more palatable version however as we heard recently private cameras in cars present some questions on privacy and freedom.
SF Are you aware that the NZ police have cameras and automatic number plate readers installed these days so they can hand out fines for no waarant, rego or being stolen or ordered off the road – and all without anyone lifting a finger to record it – it just happens.
So hows this much different from the ATTOMS cameras?
Oh you say Police cars are marked with stripey lines so you can see them – well its dead easy to add some of those to the ATTOMS cameras too.
Greg, are you aware that only a select few of the highway patrol cars are fitted with such systems and that a few cars dotted around the country is significantly different from continuously monitoring the road network from a remote location using hidden cameras and sending out fines for minor infringements
How is it different? The principle is the same whether the cameras on a few cars of all of them.
The fact is its recording your number plate, its location and time you were there, to be used for all sorts of purposes as this provides powerful meta data even if you’re not a criminal.
And why do you think that the officer will hand out the ticket personally – a automated system will ticket you and you have to prove you weren’t there.
Like a red light camera really – do you oppose those hidden red light cameras too, handing out tickets to law abiding people who only do minor crimes like running a red light?
The difference is Greg that in one case you have big brother constantly watching your every move with covert technology and the other is a few cars driving round the country looking for trouble makers.
Regarding the automatic system in the police car, it doesn’t record where you are it just tells the policeman if the car in front of them has a warrant and a rego.
Red a red light camera they are not hidden. They are large boxes about 100 times bigger than they need to be with signage vided in
The difference is Greg that in one case you have big brother constantly watching your every move with covert technology and the other is a few cars driving round the country looking for trouble makers.
Regarding the automatic system in the police car, it doesn’t record where you are it just tells the policeman if the car in front of them has a warrant and a rego.
Red a red light camera they are not hidden. They are large boxes about 100 times bigger than they need to be with signage provided on each approach. You will also note they are not located at every intersection but are planned for a few black spots.
From what I’m hearing your all in favour of a police state.
Cameras in buses to snap cars travelling in bus lanes, meaning:
“big brother constantly watching your every move with covert technology”
“….a police state”.
Seriously?
Congratulations KLK, you have manage to join to different discussions together to create your own one to argue against.
You deserve an award for such a demonstration of reading ability.
Of course the bus lane cameras are the only official cameras in town. Otherwise we are free to go about our lives peacefully and undocumented.
I understand may get some infringing. But don’t understand not opening up the primary tap. I’d rather have free flow than a few drops or drips in this case going down the wrong orifice.
Well the issue will be that if you can’t enforce it you can use it for critical things like PT.
For example, if it’s a T2 lane and you get a bunch of single occupants in there then all that has happened is some T2+ vehicles have been slowed down.
However if it is a bus lane, or one you have worked out can have T2s and buses then you get a bunch of single occupants in there you have stuffed up your PT route which is meant to be part of a RTN, QTN, CFN or WEN.
How can you “stuff up” a PT route that isn’t there in the first place?
If I understand correctly (and correct me if I’m not) you are saying that we won’t provide for bus priority on a particular route because a few people (relatively speaking) might infringe and use it also. Isn’t that cutting off your nose to spite your face?
The point is KLK is that if you want a painted non-separated bus lane to work you will need legions of workers out there with cameras enforcing compliance.
A good example are the ones on Newmarket which work fine when there is no traffic they work like a dream however once the road gets busy all the self serving champs make their way into the bus lane and make it just as useful as any other lane.
So, if you want to roll out bus lanes all over the city you will either need half the city out there enforcing them or accept than when you most need them little champs will jump in the and block them.
Bus lane enforcement is self funding courtesy of the self service champs, so it doesn’t matter how many infarctions there are. The council makes more than it costs to enforce, and if there are massive compliance issues then they will make heaps.
If you don’t like the idea of lots of staff out there pinging law breakers then bus mounted enforcement cameras are a very simple solution. Drivers hit a button whenever they see an compliance issue and an officer later reviews the video log to issue a fine if appropriate.
Sounds like the cameras in buses is an easy way around this. But regardless, it seems a bit disingenous that we shouldn’t provide bus priority because another user might cause delays. Surely you provide the faciity first and deal with the infringements later (or plan to deal with them at the same time).
Anything else suggestes we really are just making excuses for not wanting to make an effort.
I’m not saying don’t install any, all I’m saying is that you can’t just throw some paint on the road and expect to have it operate at optimal conditions all on its own.
In theory a bus lane should almost operate as well as a dedicated busway excluding the obvious exceptions such as bus stops every 400m or interchanges. However when you get into dense parts of the city where you have multiple intersections and plenty of demand for drivers to use them things break down.
^Yes, and that is where you go all AMETI style to resolve some conflicts.
To be honest the main problem is that the network wasn’t put in one concerted go and maximised to suit. No wonder the network clogs up and people go into the bus lanes. Best solution is one concerted punch via citywide roadmarking /signal phasing with cheap fares 100% then 100% of the short cuters don’t need to shortcut.
If we can get the buses and trucks freeflow with an exclusive lane and the existing 1000 buses at the top of the food chain in terms of maximising their speed as much as possible. I think it would be a different scenario than what you are enforcing at the moment and less of a chore especially if we can get congestion free within 2 months, which I actually think is possible if we have a clean slate and authority to tweak with all the signals and add B Phasing or straight through direct priority-phased with advance loops.
Again this where personally I think phasing in slowely doesn’t do the bus or/truck, cycle network any justice. I think lets wind it up to the max now as a team with what we have in one go then add expenditure where we need to. Don’t worry about delaying 6 years for 97% maybe a comfortable Level of Service B or C rather a 94% freeflow now personally then we can all see where to tweak the other 5%. Level of Service C or leave it a F for bus, truck and cycle? and no hope for a car level of service C for that time or try our best punch and see maybe Level of Service D in 2 months?
Los Angeles has just initiated some new T2/toll lanes on its freeways, and has converted some busway lanes to this purpose. When the lane speed declines below a threshold, single occupant vehicles need to leave the lane event if they are willing to pay the toll. The lane is free for buses and T2’s, but single occupant drivers pay a toll. This has several advantages over straight bus lanes
1. The tolling equipment is enforcing compliance 24/7
2. There are fines for vehicles without transponders (and therefore without a mechanism for paying the toll)
3. Some funds are received to pay for the compliance and active management components of the system
4. Drivers will avoid paying tolls if traffic in the free lanes is moving smoothly, so the toll lane is quite empty except for buses and T2’s
Perhaps this is an option for bridge lanes and the Western Motorway. It could also be a way of enforcing compliance on other T2 or T3 lanes on arterial roads, that drivers are allowed to use them if willing to pay a toll. Most will prefer to avoid the toll.
The express lanes you refer to are 2 lanes in each direction though. Their extensive carpool (T2) single lanes are often not much faster than the main lanes. Hence in NZ I would go for T3 minimum. I also wouldn’t install priority lanes until there were at least 3 general lanes on a motorway to allow for efficient operation – this is consistent with LA.
A T3 lane would discriminate against 2 seater convertible owners! The inhumanity of it all!
I think what Len Brown said was spot on. The points he made are:
– He shares the same enthusiasm for PT as Gen Zero and TBlog
– He is in favour of future proofing rail to the North Shore when the tunnels are built
– Auckland needs to invest in roads as they are also used for PT
– Auckland needs to accept that 80% of transport users want to travel by car
Accept for the last point I cant see why anyone pro Public Transport could find anything but joy for what Len Brown has said. As for the last point, wake up and smell the naphthalenes, the majority of Aucklanders want to use their cars and we live in a democracy where it means majority rule.
Because I don’t believe he actually shares our enthusiasm.
And Auckland needs to accept that 80% of transport users can’t travel by car – you can’t build that many new roads.
Len is being visionary with his compact, dense city yet he isn’t match that with a public transport vision. Weird because the two go hand in hand.
Actually Phil, on the only journeys for which we have decent grade seperated PT more than 50% of commuters use it.
Are you sure about that sailor boy? For the CBD which pretty much has 4 grade separated PT routes going into it most of the PT users come in on buses that don’t use those routes.
You will also notice their usage goes down to next to nothing during off peak..
3 if you mean rail (there is no grade separated bus route in the CBD) and the reasons for low off peak patronage are high pricing and poor frequencies. PT usage killers. Compare Auckland’s off peak usage to Vancouver.
4 as I was including the busway which gets to the CBD rather happily for 90% of the trip.
Speaking from personal experience however, the reasons I don’t use PT off peak is that it takes 3 to 4 times longer as a minimum and doesn’t let me do what I want to do most of the off peak time.
Price wise I find it very cheap but I would agree the frequency is a disincentive on some routes more than others.
When you factor in the off peak usage PT is the cheapest form of private limo you can get some of the time.
As far as I am concerned the Northern Busway is the only decent PT service on any route in Auckland. More than 50% of peak time travellers along its corridor use it. The fact that off peak it is underutilised is irrelevant as Phil is talking about expanding roads for peak capacity, not regular operation.
He is? Did he tell you this with a private message or something?
It would have been nice if he told the rest of us.
Well I assumed that Phil is capable of observation, meaning that he can see that our roads are rarely full outside of peak time (an assertion you regularly make, as do most commentors on this blog), Phil believes we need to expand roads to service transport needs, thus by deduction Phil is arguing that we need to expand roads to better handle peak transport demands.
Sailor boy, did you miss the part of the discussion where Aucklands population was found to be growing?
This means that not only will peak hour trips increase but off peak ones as well.
There are also various sections of road around the city that suffer high levels of congestion during off-peak situations or just take forever to travel to and from. These places are unlikely to improve if you do nothing.
“This means that not only will peak hour trips increase but off peak ones as well.”
Citation needed. I beg to differ AHB proves otherwise.
Given you obviously haven’t noticed this sailor boy I will spell it out for you. The harbour bridge is not the only road in Auckland.
Something else you will find if you look at the NZTA traffic volumes for SH1 and SH18 is that cross harbour traffic has been steadily increasing apart from the reduction during the recession.
Harvey,
In the politest possible way (I mean that)…..who are you to tell 80% of Aucklanders they can not use their cars?
I think AT plan takes account of both public transports (present and future) and the needs of private and commercial road users. The second harbour crossing and the Western Corridor will keep cars moving and the upgrading of SH1 to the North and South will cater for a larger Auckland when the population grows.
It may not be a perfect plan but we must spend within our means. If we don’t we will end up like Spain or Greece.
Stop trying to push motorways as fiscal conservatism, it is patently dishonest.
do you know how many empty roads they built in Greece and Spain?
Spain built a very expensive road to nowhere but that pails into insignificance with the expenditure they made on PT. Check out how many airports they built and closed.
Regardless, the reality is that the majority of Aucklanders want to use cars to commute and they need to be catered for. Regardless of what any small minority pressure groups think.
Actually Phil, where aucklanders have the choice of regulare reliable grade seprated PT or driving they choose PT for their commuting needs.
Actually sailor boy, if you look at the northern busway less than 10k people chose to use it a day whereas the motorway next to it gets about 120k people using it.
That’s not to say there is anything wrong with the busway but more that it serves a specific need for a select group of users during s select period of the day.
You’re a being a bit dishonest with your numbers Richard, quoting the something like the full total daily traffic in both directions for the motorway, but using the two hour peak unidirectional figure for the Northern Express alone for the busway.
For the record the average daily number of trips across the harbour bridge by bus (both direction) is around 20k.
If you want to be pendatic, it’s about 60k people driving and 10k people on the bus across the whole day (assume each person makes one return trip a day by either mode).
Actually Nick I used the figures from this very site.
I got the highest monthly average of 230,000 trips and divided it by 30 to get 7666 and rounded it up to 10k.
I then looked at the 2012 traffic volumes between Esmonde and Northcote and multiplied that by 1.2 to get the 120k users.
Thats your problem. You are only using the Northern Express numbers which are less than half of all bus crossing on the bridge.
Yes the figures from this site (which are the ones AT reports monthly) are only for the Northern Express.
Oh I see, so when I was meant to be comparing the busway to the motorway I was meant to use the bus volumes on the harbour bridge rather than the busway which isn’t grade separated from general traffic?
If that’s the case should I use Gillies ave traffic volumes given they are over 200k or should I stay using the traffic volumes next to the busway?
A lot of patronage on the busway occurs on bus services that use it but that aren’t the NEX. For example the 881 service runs at 10 minute peak frequencies and is full yet that isn’t counted in NEX patronage despite most people boarding the buses at busway stations. Once HOP is rolled out and they can see exactly where people are getting on and off, AT intends to start reporting the busway patronage as all trips that use the busway. Current estimates are that only something like 40% of busway trips are actually on the NEX services
Yes I recall there being such an issue which is why I happily slapped on an extra 30% to the peak value.
In any event you can pretty much double it to find the busway takes about 12% of the trips along that section.ecall
I think we all need to focus on the solution rather than the problem. If the PT network is reaching far and wide (into main residential pockets) with the existing 1000 buses and they have right of way, cheaper fares. Then phase in better quality buses. More of a sustainable focus .Won’t the numbers go up to 30% across the grid then maybe 50% in time. The problem is the imbalance in past investment but it isn’t wasted, if people are open to reprioritise on the ground and investment going forward. Can’t we do it before mother nature does it for us?
I don’t believe we can put in grade separated junctions in everywhere. But one lane where possible/practicable and maximising priority with advance loops and bus priority signals is very doable short term. Try it and see. Whats the worst that can happen Level of Service F isn’t this what we have now for all modes? Other cities are leading the way. If Auckland wasn’t a narrow country I wouldn’t be able to see 20m in front of me. and would be on full oxygen
I did mean city but started of with NZ then changed it. Even my friend said to me last week. Gee we are lucky all the fumes just get blown away out to sea aren’t we…can you imagine it otherwise?
an extra 30% isn’t generous, it is extremely conservative.
Also, if you are talking about the Busway you need to take out all vehicle crossings that use Onewa as they aren’t served by a busway station. You know, comparing apples with something vaguely close to apples.
Sailor boy, generous is the same as conservative. However if you feel I have under or overstated the number of people that use the busway by using 30% and 100% upgrade factors why not share with us what you think it is and your reasons why.
In addition you will see above my traffic volumes were from between Esmode and Northcote, Onewa does not have a ramp between those two interchanges.
generous is the same as conservative
“generous is the same as conservative” Actually they are polar opposites in this case.
And in that case you have then also included cars going from the rest of the Shore to the south of the shore or vice versa, and you have included the traffic doing the return journey for which PT is a poor option due to our use of express services.
As I said before, peak CBD commuting on the busway is the only half decent PT route in Auckland, and it is at more than 50% you can try and distort that argument all you like, but you know I am right/.
Sailor boy, I have counted the number of vehicles using a roughly 700m long section of road and compared it to a bus service that that is some 15km in length. I then increased is by 30% and then doubled it after some input from Matt. Pretty much I have given the busway the benefit of every doubt and even then it only compares to 12% of the total number of people using one little patch of road.
I also invite you to read what you actually d before as yiyyour peak time CBD criteria only got mentioned for the first time in your last post.
To that extent it is a rather narrow criteria to use when we are talking about the transport network of a city, and believe it or not we all don’t travel to theC each day during the oeapeak, only a small fraction of us.
Look if other cities are getting a good PT proportion and working within existing corridors what are we doing wrong? Hello a crap network with not even the current seal width proportioned accordingly… stifled every way possible (bottom of the food chain wait in line) , crap buses and bugger all spending allowance so far. And people thinking there is not a problem here. Yip that would probably do it.
The majority of commuters into the Auckland CBD from the North Shore use… public transport. In fact, the majority of commuters into the Auckland CBD use public transport. Period. Your “statistics” (made up, like 96.7% of all statistics) simply don’t withstand scrutiny.
If the people supporting PT are a small minority then they will be ignored and nothing will change. That is democracy. If they are not then it will change, which indicates that they are not a minority or at least not an insignificant one.
Or are you just saying PT advocates shouldnt be allowed to campaign for what they want? On what grounds?
If you have arguments against shifting funding to PT/cycling then by all means do a guest post and explain those arguments. But it really isnt an argument to just say “the majority dont agree”. Where would we be if that had been the guiding principle to change in society?
As another point – what do you think is the end game for PT/cycling advocates? Do you really think they want to create a system where it is impossible or forbidden to drive a car in Auckland? Even Copenhagen and Amsterdam have a motor vehicle mode share of around 30%.
My personal opinion is that if Auckland was able to achieve a 60% motor vehicle/30% PT/10% cycling that would be a great result. That means the majority of you and other keen motorists can continue to drive the vast majority of the time (though even that group may choose to travel by PT a few times a week/month for convenience).
Does that sound so terrible?
Sounds good to me. I have never said I was against PT. I use it often. I am against spending we cant afford (and don’t need at the moment).
OK fair enough. So the CFN is proposing to spend $10bn rather than $24bn. Again, that is good isnt it?
I must admit I sometimes find it hard to figure out whether you are in favour of the CFN or not. Are you?
It’s not my decision, it is a simple fact. We need to build more PT so that those that have to drive, can do so.
I absolutely love my car and love driving it. However I use PT to get to and from work as that would be no fun to drive. The CFN is all about getting those into PT where it is practical and efficient so that the roading network remains viable.
If you are sitting in traffic complaining about congestion, YOU are the problem.
Phil – can you please explain why a priority on PT spending (over roads for private cars) is telling 80% of Aucklanders – or any Aucklander for that matter – they they *can’t* use their car?
I can’t see how the CFN stops anyone from driving as much as they want to, let alone stops them from driving at all. Clarify please?
My statement was in response to Harvey saying Auckland (I assume he means Aucklanders) needs to accept that 80% of transport users can’t travel by car.
Again, in the nicest possible way…who is anyone to tell the 80% of Aucklanders currently traveling by car that they are not allowed to continue to do that?
Over the past 40 years or so Aucklanders have been forced off public transport and forced to drive – where’s the democracy there?
My sister can’t drive – she has epilepsy. Why are you discriminating against her and all the other people who cannot or do not want to drive everywhere?
Cry me a river, my sister has MS..she can’t drive OR use PT but she has to pay taxes for all these hare brained ideas you would have her money spent on – where’s the democracy?
Aucklanders have NOT been forced off public transport, what an absurd suggestion to make. Aucklanders like everyone else in the OECD enjoyed new found wealth (or credit) and exchanged a shitty ride on the trams and trolley buses for a nice Holden (or Jap import).
I think you should go talk to some old people about what public transport was really like in the golden age of hardship. From what I hear it wasn’t much fun trying to get home to Mt Roskil when the tram get breaking down or stuck in a jam because once again the forks had come off the wires on the trolley bus.
Given the Power Failure if 1998 when the CBS was without electricity for 3 long weeks you might want to roll history back further to an age when trams were pulled along by horses. Its not quite zero emission but its def low carbon.
The fact remains, the only solution includes a majority spend on roads.
I would really encourage you to read some history on PT in Auckland. The two best I found were:
Slow Train Coming: The New Zealand State Changes its Mind about Auckland Transit, 1949-1956
http://www.bettertransport.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/slow-train-coming-public-9-2007.pdf
The American Heresy: Half a century of transport planning in Auckland
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~cthombor/Pubs/AKtransportMees.rtf
I think you will see that very little choice was made available to the people of Auckland on transport after 1950.
Why can someone with MS not use PT, not to belittle her suffering, but I have a friend’s mother with MS, she can use PT.
Clearly he meant its logistically impossible, particularly as the population grows to 2m. Space is finite, afterall.
I would have thought the petrolheads want as many people as possible (who choose to) riding PT because it means they aren’t taking up their valuable driving space on the streets and motorways…..
Exactly
KLK, isn’t this the very reason why Len Brown (and plenty of other Kiwis) favour investment in road projects (like the second harbour crossing).
Yes space is finite (although Ports of Auckland is trying to disprove that theory) but Auckland could grow to 5 million people and be fine, just so long as we make the investments now. You Sydney is quite similar geographically to Auckland and they have managed to have both public transport and motorways (including harbour tunnels).
I like your last point though. Next to the dedicated bus lanes that the CFN calls for I think there should also be a dedicated car lane that doesn’t have to stop at lights and is free of any speed limits. This should be an exclusive lane for people for people in the highest income tax and rates brackets and an example to the Chinese Govt that despite Frontera, capitalism can work in NZ 😀
You hit the nailon the head. Sydney “works” with 5m people its because it has a comprehensive PT, particularly rail, system to compliment the motorway network – Auckland doesn’t have that level of PT infrastructure. So in wanting to operate like Sydney you must support building the missing PT infrastructure – to ensure like-for-like – and in order to get the maximum use out of the current and future roading system. You can’t have it both ways.
You talk about the horror of forcing people out of the cars, but isn’t it just as irresponsible to force people into them?
Sydney has a rail, bus, and motorway system to cater for the 5m people. Is this not the same as Len Brown is promising? A look at AT proposals shows massive investment in Rail (CRL and a commitment to future proof the 2nd harbour crossing for trains), investment in buses (new networks, new hubs) and an investment in roads (Harbour crossing, Nth motorway extn, Western Corridor). Isnt this a comprehensive transport system with a plan for future growth?
No one is talking about forcing people into cars, they are already in them.
We already have motorways comparable to Sydney, we don’t need any more after WRR.
That is your opinion but not one shared by everyone Sailor Boy. What is your action plan for when the AHB gives up? It is a finite structure.
What’s your plan for the AHB when Aucklands population grows to the 2m predicted by KLK? Do you think the North Shore will not grow?
You cant have it both ways, either Auckland’s population is going to grow and therefore you need to spend money on roads or its shrinking and you don’t need rail. Make your choice.
Slight hole in your logic there.
When AHB fails we can replace it, pretty simple, that is likely to be 60-100 years, so we can start building in 2060 and be finished by 2070.
When Auckland is at 2m I think that the 13 traffic lanes across the harbour are enough. Most traffic will divert to the WRR if it can, and so that will ease load on the AHB. My plan is to build rail only. This will roughly quadruple the capacity of our Harbour crossings.
“You cant have it both ways, either Auckland’s population is going to grow and therefore you need to spend money on roads or its shrinking and you don’t need rail. Make your choice.”
This is my biggest issue with your comment. The population of Auckland, and the NorthShore have increased over the last 5 years, yet we have seen declining VEHICLE crossings of the Harbour despite more people crossing, why should this trend not continue if we continue to improve PT.
The population is expanding therefore we need TRANSPORT, vehicle crossings are stagnant or declining so we do not need VEHICLE capacity, we need capacity to get PEOPLE across, that is best achieved by rail, either DLM or regular.
Also, 41% of AHB crossing at peak hour are on PT, AHB is the poster child for Aucklanders choosing PT, funny you are trying to use it as a private vehicle image.
The AHB isn’t a finite structure, it can last indefinitely with routing maintenance and periodic refitting.
How about Auckland’s population is going to grow and we need rail. Why does everything have to be by road? Surely with two motorways off the North Shore already we should be looking at something a little cheaper and more effective for the third link, instead of a third motorway.
I do wonder where the extra six motorway lanes of the harbour tunnel are supposed to go? Where do the six lane motorway widenings on the Shore side go, how do we get six more lanes through Spaghetti Junction, where do they go after that?
If we almost double the road capacity across the harbour, doesn’t that mean we have to almost double it on either side as well? How much will it cost to double the width of Onewa Rd? Double the width of Esmonde Rd (again), double the width of those roads leading to it? I can’t see how it is supposed to work.
Funny you mention it Nick, there are a bunch of people out west who think the NW rebuild, and the additional lanes, is going to fix NW congestion. They cannot see that Te Atatu, Lincoln, Royal Rd etc can only cope with x amount of traffic. These will still be the hold up points. I’m expecting more projects to be announced of more arterials, and road widenings, to supplement the WRR project.
Nick, who said anything about doing everything by road? Other than when you said it just then.
From what I have read Phil’s concern, along with that of Len brown, is that with a growing system we can’t effectively stop building or upgrading roads for the next 20 year’s.
We did that in the past when we could have built the western ring route and even an eastern transport route for pocket change and now we are stuck with one being near impossible and the other costing a fortune.
A transport plan should be based on what is best for the city now and into the future, not people’s personal passions be it roads, trains ferries or long range bicycles.
I was simply responding to Phils comment “What’s your plan for the AHB when Aucklands population grows to the 2m predicted by KLK? Do you think the North Shore will not grow?… You cant have it both ways, either Auckland’s population is going to grow and therefore you need to spend money on roads or its shrinking and you don’t need rail. Make your choice.”.
The way I read that is that he is suggesting that North Shore growth necessitates new road capacity across the harbour. I don’t think it does, we have plenty of traffic capacity across the harbour with the two existing motorways. Across the harbour isn’t the place we need to build new roads to meet growth, new roads are needed in the new areas of city being built (and naturally all roads need regular maintenance and periodic upgrades).
Interestingly if you follow the logic of his false dichotomy he is saying we need both roads and rail to manage growth. I would agree, but of course we already have a lot of road capacity in the existing areas and across the harbour so we can meet growth on the North Shore by only building the non-traffic elements.
Reading his posts I certainly don’t get the message that he is er the impression that a nrwnew road crossingor the hqrharbour is the only project we will ever need for the next 10, 20 or 30 years.
Creative reading aside however I do think a new road crossing would be good provided we repurposed the existing bridge. What I’m not a fan of however is sticking road and rail in a single tunnel just because we can. terterms of net present value it’s just a huge waste of money.
I agree with you there, the motorway tunnel alone has a BCR of 0.3 and an NPV trending towards nothing, a combined tunnel would be about the same. I’d love to see the NPV on the rail only option at about a third the cost.
I’ve mentioned this before but the budget for the road only tunnel is about 3 times higher than comparable tunnels in similar ground conditions, ie waterview.
In reality the cost ference for the two sh modes should not be all that great with $2 billion for a 3km road tunnel or $2 billion for a 5km rail tunnel which is future proofed to not prevent a future road crossing.
I agree rail could be cheaper if we want to make another independent transport system.
Agreed the tunnel could be shorter if we want to make another independent
Interesting to note Sydney has 8 lanes on harbour bridge (including bus lanes), and 4 lanes in the tunnel.
Auckland is planning for 14 lanes, while it will still only have half the population of Sydney in 2030.
Of course NZTA’s latest revelation at the Transport Committee last week was that the new harbour crossing in required for trucks!
NZTA’s presentation was immediately after transportblogs where they showed the graph of stagnant traffic never reaching the threshold required for a new crossing. Never mind that less than 5% of vehicles crossing bridge are trucks, and the Waterview Connection will give many an alerternate route from Manukau/Airport/Onehunga to Albany/Wairau Park/Northland, and I bet most of the trucks will be travelling on those routes. Only exception will be port traffic and a handful of supermarkets in Takapuna/Devonport area.
Interesting that you think the AHB will last another 60-100 years because this is not what the engineers working for the AHBA believe. Given the project office was pretty much next to my house I had plenty of talks with the managers about the box girder repairs (and also Skypath). They told me Auckland was incredibly lucky they found the cracks when they did and very lucky they were able to be repaired. They also told me (and this is consitant with everything I read) that the AHB in present capacity and use will last only until 2025-2030. That is a worryingly short time window in which to produce a plan B.
Now my understanding is that the second crossing will be for traffic from Wairua Road south, ie Taka, Milford, Devonport, Glenfield and northern traffic heading for the CBD. The existing bridge will take traffic from Northcote, Birkenhead, Beachaven, and everything else will use the Western Route. Yes, that is a lot of lanes to cross the harbour but its a project that should be seen in the bigger picture of serving Auckland for the next 50 years. Those of you that say we don’t need it can be likened to the people in 1959 that said 4 lanes would be enough only to have to double capacity within 10 years.
I have always said I am in favour of future proofing by building a rail tunnel at the same time. The boring drill will be here so why not use it.
I have also always said Auckland needs to invest in a broad range of transport options (Just like Len Brown says) but with 80% of commuter traffic traveling by private car its obvious the public wants roading as priority. As Buses also use roads and as buses are more affordable than building a mass transit railway system overnight that further strengthens the need for the bigger percentage of transport funds being directed at roads.
On the subject of rail and a route to the North Shore, I believe now is a time when thought needs to be given to the best route for a northern line to take from the city. If Britomart is to be the rail hub then while they are digging under the old Downtown Westfield they need to be digging a line heading towards the proposed rail tunnel.
Well I would be fine with building a tunnel if bridge was going to fall over. However NZTA were clear at meeting that bridge was fine, although may have to start restricting trucks on clip-ons again. This happened for a while in mid 2000s and North Shore and Northlands economy carried on fine.
Your understand is quite wrong regarding traffic. New crossing will link straight to spaghetti junction. Harbour bridge will just exist to carry traffic to CBD and Ponsonby. Yes 8 lanes fired straight at the CBD and inner west. So tunnel will involve lots of reclamtion, and a huge crazy interchange at Sulphur Beach.
Hope the NRA gets just as upset about that!
Thought has been given to connecting the North Shore line and is best to connect at Aotea station which will be major interchange.
If rail to shore had been built in 1959 then the four lanes would not have coped just fine, certainly much longer than 10 years.
If WRR had been built instead could have still had 4 lane harbour bridge coping just fine.
Phil, even as a roading engineer ,designing ,building (mainly local road to arterial roads- but did manage the traffic control on the motorways for 12 months with a contractor in the 90s and managed the Central Business District/Western Bay Network for a contractor late 90s for 2 years, strengthening pavements using structural asphalt on key arterials for 2 years night shift ) overall working in the industry the last 26 years in Auckland. I would have to say that spending the major proportion of spending on road widenings mainly for cars should not be the primary focus moving forward it isn’t sustainable or achieves the balance. The car mode has had it’s lion share the last 50 years and now it is time to divvie up the plate. I think we have well and truly done the car mode motorway system give that a massive tick but the other modes a cross. Most other modes don’t even have a network yet. Now it is time to add modes that subtract off the grid and give people more of a choice. And as we do that cues disappear real good for cars. Still quite a few road widenings/resurfacings /maintenance etc for us to do or help the PT guys /walking and cycling teams out. I love designing/building things -diving deep into it and sorting problems out but like to go back to something useful and with pride and want to be proud of the city and take the family out not forever hiding from it.
Ah, the old ‘A mate of mine was in the pub and overhead a conversation about the bridge and it’s going to fall down tomorrow’ line. NZTA has not been shy about building new roads whenever required and often when not. If the bridge was actually in danger of failing within the timeline you ‘quote’ they would be using it as the perfect excuse to build the otherwise unrequired tunnel.
Steve, A continued investment in roads is a continued investment in public transport. Latest figures are quite clear that rail patronage is down, in fact the only growth PT is the North Shore Bus lane. Which..uses a road.
Luke, 4 lanes on the AHB would be fine still today if we had built a rail line north and the WRR … you’re having a laugh.
I expect to see the new tunnel long before any Skypath on the AHB. Joy to the NRA.
The fact is Phil , I am more than confident that most of the network-motorways and arterials is wide enough already. We need to open the tap for trucks and public transport and cyclists to. The paint lines are mostly in the wrong place, and the hierarchy is wrong completely but that error of judgement will soon change. Im not going to argue about it. Im going to show it on a plan that we can get them all going in most places and highlight areas where it doesn’t and we may have to do some workarounds in the short term before the ultimate. But widen all round, make the problem worse with less choices, more pollution and pay tolls , when there are more smart and sustainable solutions out there .Is this really the dream or the worst nightmare?
With just a one lane conversion for truck and bus and maximising the existing network with signal priorities so buses/trucks can go first actually is the best thing for cars right now. The more attractive that option is the more that people choose to use it and this will take the peak off the traffic loading. Cars win it is actually the only cure in peak on the main motorways/arterials it will only get worse…way worse if we don’t.
Also I believe if we are bold enough to put it in right now citywide by just roadmarking and signal tweaks the roading footprint /network improvements can be reduced as with a solid patronage gain the lane requirements go down and the future required road widening areas will be obvious. Think this would save Auckland billions if we just fire up the best solution we can fully ready or not. One lane. And it frees up the other lanes like you wouldn’t believe (with buses 9 times the passenger capacity vs a car with 2 people in it and Auckland having 1000 buses already ) in fact I think if we really hit this with a good campaign/ a fast one lane network (get the most out of the buses ..ie not held up) we could be all congestion free in 2 months. Think still quite a bit of key road widenings required but probably less than what is on the table at the moment and it will way be more targeted because we can see it. But dictating the population to use buses this is actually quite the opposite just giving a viable option for 30% or more that can or want to it probably just give more options all round including using higher gears in cars free flow like the holidays in Auckland. In fact think we can do all the necessary road widenings and the PT network without the current $12B deficit which is unaccounted for at the moment. Everybody happy, ratepayers,taxpayers and in particular motorists. Superior to the current plan don’t you think?All moving and no tolls.
For the record I don’t use the bus anymore and I have never used the train in Auckland in my entire life. And I don’t plan on changing that any time soon. However as a student of traffic engineering I don’t think we should be building any more major roads. The lion’s share of our money should be put into PT for the next few decades to ensure we don’t choke on our rampant growth. We have tried the whole “roads only” approach for the past several decades and congestion is worse than ever. We would be collectively insane to continue that strategy.
Great work Patrick(and everyone else) in getting the info out there!
++
Absolutely good work Auckland Transport Bloggers both posters and people willing to share their views towards a better Auckland. Also Generation zero about thinking about the environment and mother nature, it is the only planet we have. Actually I remember a Patrick rebuttal quite on the mark at the IPENZ Presentation “You can’t have an economy without the environment”. This presentation has focussed me on the problem and I think we could actually fix this whole mess and turn this around if we painted what we want on the road the whole arterial/motorway network and give priority to cyclists,PT and trucks in one go by global planning and one almighty punch straight at congestion in one night if possible. All modes including cars (actually the only foreseeable lifeline) will benefit and the environment. I will stop on this point now and just see if anyone else thinks there is some logic in that.
I spent the weekend in Tauranga, a place with a reputation as the centre of everything that is wrong headed and a bit of a poster child of vaguely unregulated development. We stayed on Papamoa beach, and both there and elsewhere in the beautiful natural landscape that once was Tauranga I couldn’t get over just how ugly free-market, car centric development actually is. Inward looking, sprawling, Drab, uniform new housing sub divisions of soon to be shabby housing on postage stamp sections, semi-privatised rights of way and all linked by a poorly designed road net. Now, I watched a TV show the other week on the megalithic civilisation that appeared in the Orkney islands, and how that civilisation saw the landscape on a grand, monumental scale.
It got me thinking about the CFN, and the impact of obvious public orientated design on the urban experience from something as simple as a cleaned up PT network map to the integrated visual experience of a well designed, integrated grand landscape vision. Strikingly absent in any discussion in this country about PT and housing/designing the urban landscape is any sort of valuation of the aesthetic. So my ponderings is, how do other countries assign a value to the aesthetic, and how can we do it here in our legislation? I guess the RMA might contain such considerations, but the way National have gutted that who knows. Anyway, just some thoughts from the carmageddon that is Tauranga…
maybe it is an idea for a future post from one of the urban planning types here?
All those ex-Aucklanders (mostly) seem to have created a bit of a mess. The sprawl looks set to go in both directions if the TNA is finished and certain developers get their way. Combined with the TEL RoNS and you have got the mistakes of Auckland repeated it seems. Property speculation/construction is one of the biggest “industries” there now apparently, so probably difficult to change? Surprising Whangarei has not experienced a similar level of population growth given its proximity to Auckland and the climate.
I think the question I was trying to ask is how can you capture “ugly” as a cost?
Some people like “ugly” it seems was the point and the cost is reflected accordingly.
Whangarei is in the wrong place. It is Bream Bay / Marsden that could take off.
e.g. http://marsdencity.co.nz/ ?
Great, another auto dependent new town that separates residential and commercial.
I love their token reference to “cycle paths”. I see none installed in the commercial or retail areas so I imagine they have been careful to make sure that those pesky cyclists are kept out of the way of cars. Of course cycles are just for weekend rides not actual transport. And kids are much better off in the car going to school as we all know.
Anyone see any public transport in there? No? What a surprise.
Will we never learn? I would love to be proved wrong but I suspect I am not.
Yes, another piece of rubbish design. Not surprised but devastated that my old hometown could be looking like this when the potential for a gridded, compact, seaside town with continuous cycle paths and effective PT, could be an alternative.
And it’s in the wrong place. It should be near the current town centre and school. Concentrate the population and business.
I think the biggest problem we have is a mind shift. Because the congestion problem itself is fixable probably for peanuts ie a cosmetic makeover and some reprioritisation then some gap areas to fix up. I think motorists need to focus on imagining no cues and trying 5th gear on some rural roads, I think public transport users need to imagine-cheap easy fares, a fast reliable network, with investment going into anew and comfortable fleet and making the network even better, cyclists imagining having some width on all main arterails leading to their off-road or off-main road links, trucks able to go in the bus lane until the road frees up even more. Pedestrians with less vehicles on the road and maybe some attraction/focus roads that don’t need cars at all. If we can all visualise that one little bit-paint it on the road. Fix up the gaps. Problem sorted.
It maybe some roads are more specific mode focussed than others to get it working within a majority of current road widths. With a goal being a decent network for all.
Ok you guys have sorted the big picture. Im going to start doing wider network arterial road plans myself and focus on that, highlighting what will fit in and what won’t and give approx. seal width dimensions. I’m not the fastest on Autocad but can drive it and can do pdf concept plans no problem. I’ll try and put in an hour a day. Then you guys can comment on it. i’ll give a link to my own website for download if you want and can spare the time. I’ll put approx. existing seal widths on the plans- do one set with aerials and one without.
Sounds interesting Steve, I’ll be keen to see what you come up with 🙂
Just a point or two about the actual network. I know you mentioned in the original post that these lines are not the finished product but i wanted to talk about a couple anyway.
Firstly, on your map there you seem to have both the northern busway and also the shore line. My understanding was that any shore line would be built on the current busway route, so you could have either but not both. If you plan to have both a busway and a rail line right bext to each other for their entire distance seems like a bit of overkill when the western north shore is untouched.
Next. Bus lanes from manukau to the airport seems to be a bit pointless in that normal buses are not equipped to take pasengers with lots of luggage and airport coach buses are generally private busineses and so they will go from the airport to the city centre as thats where the demand is. I doubt the manukau or botany areas have enough hotels or demand to make airport coaches head that way.
Good points MB.
Although the Northern Busway was constructed in such a way as to future proof it for rail (the gradients are all rail suitable) there is no point taking the expensive option of replacing buses with rail. Reasons being are:
1. Rail can not be added to the AHB as it has a 1:20 gradient recognised as not suitable for trains so we would have to pay for a rail tunnel.
2. Rail tunnel will cost 2b (approx.) to connect to Northern busway route.
3. The Northern busway only has 5 stops. Is it worth the money to replace busses with rail for just 5 stops?
4. The disruption to Northshore public transport while the busway was converted to rail would be huge. It would be months of work where all the people currently using the busway would now be inconvenienced. It would kill support for PT.
5 Buses are more versatile than trains. Outside of peak times the buses can be diverted to servicing other PT routes, trains can not.
Didnt mean to sound too critical in the previous one, just curious as to the reasoning for those two
Right. It does seem like a bit of a waste to replace a perfectly good busway. But rail to the shore would be needed i think further into the future so i suppose that they would have to find somewhere else to put it. More hills probably but more transport value for auckland.
Anyway, one thing i noticed that wasnt there that would make a big difference to the effectiveness of the whole network would be squeezing bus lanes between ellerslie and newmarket. You have 2 bus lanes that stop in ellerslie and 2 that can get to newmarket ,so save money on the shore and with the airport bus lane and put it into that . Then through route the howick bus to kumeu and the botany bus to albany and it would be a lot better personally.
I agree with you on your points to divert the NS rail money where it is more needed.
When they dig the road tunnel under the harbour they should at the same time dig a rail crossing. The equipment will be on site so it will be cost effective. The bore can then remain dug until some time in the future when a rail option becomes more urgent. Probably about the time that the existing AHB nears its end (50 years) Of course the problem of a NS rail line would remain. How to run electric trains on any meaningful North Shore route. I mean just having a train from the CBD to Albany doesn’t help anyone living in Taka, Devonport, the Bays. Northcote, Birkenhead, Birkdale, or G’Field and pushing an electrified rail track through those suburbs would be near impossible overland.
Just a few points there.
A road tunnel on its own should cost in the range of $2 billion.
A hheavy rail tunnel that would need to be about twice as long would also cost about $2 billion
Forming the two into one super tunnel would cost about $5 billion and would be the worst way to go about thing.
In terms of grades on the busway they are not suitable for heavy rail and the stations are far too small. The grade on the way up to constellation is about 8% and the Tristram ave viaduct is not suited for rail geometry.
The reason you would think of upgrading it would be for capacity reasons however I don’t know when thisiqxpected to be needed.
As i also found out the ithother day most people who use the busway use local buses that also drive on the busway and therefore that means most users would be forced to make an additional transfer or two encouraging some of the to drive again.
The consultants report, from 2008, here
http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/strategies/WaitemataHarbourCrossingStudy/Documents/AT_ACC_Report_WaitemataHarbourCrossingConsultantsReport.pdf
put a rail only crossing at $1 – 1.2B. Note the combined rail / vehicle crossing (in 2008 terms) $3.7B – 4.1B (Option 2C which is similar to what NZTA have optioned up recently). I therefore believe that a rail only option (using light metro – which is what the busway has apparently been designed for) would cost in the region of $2 – $2.5B (using recent overseas examples). A significant saving for Auckland and NZ.
And while there’s a bit of guesswork there (after all I’m not an engineer), the figures have come from professional sources.
Ah. I see. The rail only crossing option does seem to be more cost effective. But i wonder how much benefit you would lose by having light rail that cant be through routed onto any other existing lines. And also the map for 2030 shows both the rail line and the busway so perhaps they intend to put it in a different place or side by side
It doesn’t matter at all. Any potential loss of commonality is made up by the benefit that, by not having freight sharing the line, the units can be driverless. Hence a lower OPEX. Vancouver even has 2 different types of ‘skytrain’ technology.
” But i wonder how much benefit you would lose by having light rail that cant be through routed onto any other existing lines”
Piffle. Have you never heard of tram-trains?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram-train
There’s certainly scope to have light-rail vehicles which would then continue on onto some parts of the rail network. The main overseas issues were not technical outside of ensuring power source was compatible (and of course same gauge, but even there are flexible workarounds) – the main issues were administrative / signalling (ensuring that light rail – which has different vehicle standards) was allowed / able to safely operate on the same corridor as heavy rail trains.
So one can certainly on-routre light rail. For example they could take over the route to Onehunga, south of Britomart.
Sorry mb – that shouldn’t be written as sounding so dismissive of your fair-enough comment. All I am saying – there’s ways to work around that issue effectively.
I’ll just note that I’m using 2013 figures for both waterview and the CRL that are much more accurate than the crystal ball figures of 2009.
I’m meaning my reference figures are more accurate, not my personal approximations.
Also the busway was never design for rail in anyway shape or form. It’s just the simple fact that designing a busway for 80km/h gives an alignment a form of light rail could use.
How it would get built I don’t know. It would be like completely closing SH16 for 2 years while you stick on an extra lane.
Do you mean like when they closed a lane while laying power there last summer? As for whether it was designed for light rail or not, I’ll let you have a read of this. http://www.contrafedpublishing.co.nz/Contractor/2009/May+2009/Auckland+Harbour+Bridge+Special+Supplement/The+Northern+Busway.html
Would it be difficult? Of course but not insurmountable in any way, shape, or form.
Of note is that the CRL and Waterview do not go under the sea bed. Also, the CRL price you are using, is not doubt the full price, which includes, double tracking Onehunga and rolling stock.
Based on what I’ve read, using light metro, a single 10m tunnel can be drilled to accommodate 2 x tracks.
Thanks SFL…. very interesting
Here in Seoul they actually have their first heavy rail driverless subway. Pretty cool riding in the front cab looking forward. It reaches 90 odd km/hr in pretty quick time too.
I disagree though about commonality. I think its a big problem. Through routing is very important imo. You save on expenses with driverless skytrains but probably lose a bit of revenue from extra passengers through routing would have attracted.
Even if they use heavy rail, there will still be a transfer somewhere for people travelling past the CBD. May as well make it in town and transfer to one of 3 or 4 other lines or bus routes in one place.
Here is a recent review of the Skytrain in Seoul.
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2013/07/11/guest-post-trying-out-south-koreas-new-light-metro-line/
Actually Bryce, closing the shoulder and one lane of the busway for a 50m length so someone can pull some cabled through a conduit that was built with the busway is nothing like shutting down the only rapid transport system on the northshore for two years.
That’s like trying to say closing the cook st ramp for a year is like closing the entire CMJ nor a year.
Also waterview does go under the water table and so does the CRL in places most likely. In any event it makes little difference as its the same rock the are going through and in both cases they need to use an EPB TBM.
Also I’m not saying the busway can’t handle light rail I’m just saying it’s not designed for light rail. Just like most of the roads in Auckland aren’t designed for light rail but you could run something down them if you really wanted to.
In terms of using a single tunnel they are not desirable for fire and life safety reasons, not impossible however.
There’s a way around everything. As an engineer, surely you’d cut your teeth figuring such things out? I’m not an engineer (more a mere auto mechanic by trade) but I’m always looking at challenges and how to get around them.
As for the busway being designed for light rail? An excerpt from the link I posted above: “And finally, to fully future-proof the busway, the radia and gradients have been designed so, in the future if so desired, it can be reasonably easily converted to light rail.”
Gosh this is boring.
Bryce, I designed all of the radii and gradients on the busway and I can tell you I went to no special effort to future proof it for light rail.
The simple fact that it is next to a straight motorway means it would have been darn hard to preclude and form of rail but saying it was designed with light rail in mind is like saying the southern or western motorways have been future proofed for light rail.
So NZTA were releasing incorrect information? I think I’ll send them an email.
Bryce, light rail is effectively custom rail and so there are no fixed design criteria.
As I said before a busway designed for 80km/h is probably fine for some forms of light rail however there will be other systems out there that would be no good.
The main concern would be the 8% grade I mentioned along with the Tristram Ave viaduct with its unique alignment.
As far as I can see there are quite a few disbenefits to converting the busway along with a huge cost but only a few benefits with the main one being capacity not even know if it’s even needed this century.
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/01/27/light-metro-for-the-north-shore-a-superior-alternative-to-a-harbour-motorway-tunnel/
I think Wiki, (that great oracle of truth and knowledge to all of mankind), said the busway was designed to allow a gradient future proofed for rail. I assume that is why people are assuming it was now. Of course Wiki can say what ever it likes, it doesn’t mean its true, and very interesting to know that you didn’t design it for that purpose.
I’ll post the link again seeing as you appear to have missed it: http://www.contrafedpublishing.co.nz/Contractor/2009/May+2009/Auckland+Harbour+Bridge+Special+Supplement/The+Northern+Busway.html
Can’t see Wikipedia mentioned there 🙂
Back to the point in hand though….what would a rail option do that the buses are not already providing? Sure, if we had the money (which we certainly do not) then Auckland would be a much more improved city if there was a rapid rail network all over the place. However, as my post way above points out, putting a meaningful rail network on the shore without tunnelling everywhere is totally prohibitive financially. Can you imagine the cost of tunnelling two loops, one that services Northcote, Borkenhead, Beachaven, Gfield) and another loop that services Devonport, Taka, and the bays, pie in the sky!
I can see an argument for increasing the frequency of bus services but outside of rush hour most buses on the shore are empty so where is the financial benefit of replacing a perfectly good bus system with a hugely expensive railway?
Go back and have a look at the timeframe suggested for such a scheme and think how the Nth Shore might look by then. I think the busway will have outgrown itself. We also do not need a cross harbour vehicle tunnel at this time.
Why are you guys still arguing about it. The current bus way is fine for now. At some point in the future, light rapid rail maybe needed/desirable and that’s why there is a train line drawn on the map.
At that point, it will be determine if possible and what stops will be needed. In 10-15 years, technology would have move a bit so arguing about whether today’s tech will work is pointless (we may be shotting every where in Elon Musk vacuum tubes).
Or if we are going to argue, can I throw something else out that no Northshore resident would agree to – why not elevate it above the Busway. The NEX service can be replaced by train during peak and all the other services that use the bus way continue to still use it 24/7. 😉
Here is an interesting quote:
“Car demand growth is assumed to be constrained by conditions in the CBD with respect to road capacity and
parking rather than on cross-regional capacity. For this reason, it is argued that the provision of an AWHC will
not have a major impact on the attractiveness of using car for travel from the North Shore to the CBD – there
would be still be major constraints within the CBD. Thus, the strategic level demand growth estimates provided
here are equally valid for scenarios with and without the AWHC.”
From here:
http://awhc.nzta.govt.nz/eBooks/Passenger%20Transport%20Report/Passenger%20Transport%20Report.pdf
Bryce, I realise that your time frame is 2030 but my point is 2015, 2030, or 2100 the fact remains that the Northshore rail line as drawn here doesn’t do anything that buses can not do better.
On the rail line shown all you have done is a spur line to Taka and added a couple of extra stops. Isnt that pointless? Given that paintshop is a free tool (as opposed to actually building the rail line) why didn’t the person who made the TFL rip off map make a loop around brikenhead/beachaven/Gfield or a line from Devonport up to Albany via the bays?
Now if we accept that rail cant run up Onewa Rd because of the gradient and you cant push it through Devonport, Taka etc because of the cost of knocking down those expensive houses it becomes very clear that PT on the Shore is best served using buses. I mean why would you bother having a train that only goes along the existing busway to Albany?
Also, if I imagine how the Northshore will look in 2030 I can see urban sprawl all the way to Warkworth. It may not be continuous housing but the City will grow that way. I realise many on this blog disagree and believe that Auckland will become more densely urban but while that may also happen, the bulk of growth will be forced economically into commuting further. Its human nature to trade off 10 mins more travel time for a cheaper or bigger house. Because of urban sprawl we will certainly need a road tunnel under the harbour and an upgraded highway north. The Govt who are more clever than this blog assumes know this and that’s why they have green lighted these projects.
All of which returns us to the most cost effective PT for the Northshore is and always will be road based.
While its aspirational to get rail to the shore, i have to agree with phil and say it just doesnt seem practical. Lets say hypothetically that we could afford it. The rail line would not pass through any built up centres apart from albany and would not encourage as much development as it could because of its proximity to the motorway. We would have replaced the busway and be left with one major pt option on the shore and places like onewa rd would still be a mess.
Personally the only option is to leave the busway and look for other pt alternatives on the shore. A lot moreferries, walking and cycling over the bridge., etc. If a rail line is desperately needed in the future i would vote for it to be anywhere feasible apart from the busway. Better to spend billions and end up with 2 main pt options, a rail line snd a buswsy, on the shore , rather than spending billions and ending up with just one
There are several factors that would make a rail line superior to a busway on the North Shore over the longer term. None are a problem immediately but they eventually will be.
Capacity of the core busway: The busway itself will hit maximum capacity at about 12,000 people per hour, that equates to about 180 high capacity buses (i.e. double deckers) an hour running with offline ticketing and all door boarding. That capacity isn’t constrained just by the lanes themselves, but by a combination of constraints around headways, dwell/boarding times, station footprint etc. A heavy rail or metro line could accommodate at least double that figure per hour in the simplest configuration, with up to 40,000 pax/h perfectly possible.
Operational costs: Buses are relatively expensive to operate on very busy corridors. Even things like double deckers can only accommodate an average of around 70 people per vehicle so you don’t have big economies of scale. On the flip side trains that carry 1000 people per vehicle are perfectly common. At capacity that busway would need about 360 buses and drivers to operate (both directions, assuming it can be tweaked to run faster than it does today to give a 60min return trip). That is 360 drivers to pay, 360 vehicles to fuel. The same number of passengers could be accommodated in 24 trains. Just 24 drivers to pay and 24 trains to power. If you use an automated metro train then you have zero drivers to pay instead of 360 (in reality you’d need over 700 bus drivers to cover all the shifts to assume 360 could be on the road at peak times). Buses are very good at serving street corridors and mid level rapid transit routes, but they aren’t very good on the busiest main trunk corridors.
Bus speeds and capacity over the Harbour Bridge: As bus traffic increase, and if general traffic reverses the trend and goes back to increasing there will be increasing delays to buses over the shared harbour bridge section. Delays not only affect travel speed, they also cut capacity. Buses going half as fast can move half as many people. The simple answer is for bus lanes on the bridge, although how acceptable that is to most people I don’t know. This is one issue that would be alleviated by a new road crossing, or just a bus tunnel, as well as a rail tunnel.
Capacity on Fanshawe St: The bus lanes already carry almost 80% of the people along Fanshawe at peak times. Problem is those lanes will hit capacity well before the busway proper does due to the grade intersections and on-line stops. If we want to run the busway at anything like capacity we will need at least two bus lanes in each direction on Fanshawe St and to rebuild the stops as proper stations. Further widening is more or less impossible (without demolishing building after building) so again the simple answer would be to take the lane away from general traffic and make the road four lanes for buses and two for cars. This is something not solved by a new crossing for general traffic, in fact it would be much worse as capacity for cars to get to Fanshawe would be increased at the same time we need to remove general traffic lanes for buses. The only good long term solution to this is a bus or rail tunnel to take 90% of that North Shore bus traffic.
City centre bus circulation: There is a limit to the number of buses we can reasonably circulate through downtown and the CBD and in to Britomart (or an alternative terminus or group of termini). We aren’t too far off that number already. The city end is the major constraint on the busway system, both it’s busiest and weakest point. If we run the numbers, the busway at capacity means the Northern Express buses alone would need to run 180 high capacity buses an hour into Britomart, stop at stops, circulate out and back to Fanshawe again. That’s six to eight buses on every phase of the lights that need to turn into the street and clear the intersection, six to eight stopping simultaneously, and six to eight that need to empty out, refill and move away again within the two minute cycle phase. With the current arrangement we can get about a third that, but we have to ask do we want all these buses clogging up downtown any more than we want heaps of cars clogging up downtown (pop down to Britomart at 5pm and see what it is like already, buses, cars and pedestrians all jostling in a big mess)? People are calling out for a better waterfront and cityscapes, so upping the volume of buses would be technically possible with big impacts. It wouldn’t be popular. Again to do this properly we would either need to take over more or less all the roadspace around Customs and Quay St for buses, or build an underground or off street facility. Again the solution is probably to go underground, but given the cost of land down there that is a major expense, whether it be for a bus station or a rail station. This is also something that a new harbour crossing for general traffic would make worse (you’d just boost the traffic capacity on the approaches to the CBD and clog up city streets further without fixing the public transport angle), however a crossing for buses or trains would fix it.
The conclusion is that doing nothing is not an option in the long term, nor is building a motorway crossing but not a public transport one. One real option is to take away general traffic lanes and allocate them to buses but I can’t see that being popular.
So why rail. Why not a bus tunnel? Two reasons, generally they are more expensive as you need much high capacity ventilation and fire control systems with smoke stacks surfacing somewhere. Second one is the capacity issue, you’re corridor is still limited to about half of what a rail tunnel could handle. Well you could take the approach of building a four lane bus tunnel and widening the busway to four lanes, but that is even more expensive again, or build part bus tunnel, part allocation of motorway bus lanes to a second access point at Cook St, major stuff like that. As several studies have shown, it’s cheaper to build a harbour crossing, city side tunnel and new stations for rail than it is for buses. If it’s cheaper to build rail and rail can move two to three times as many people (and probably be a bit faster to boot) then why wouldn’t you?
In summary, the busway works very well now and has plenty of growth in it yet, but it does have it’s limitations and won’t be very efficient for ever.
Nice post Nick. Pretty much sums it up.
Nick, as mb said already, it would be great to have a rail network to the shore but its just very expensive and not needed.
Lets not lose sight of the fact that your rail line is a line only to Albany with a spur to Taka. Do we really think we need a capacity of 40’000 px/ph? If Auckland is to grow that much capacity then it wont be for 5 stops to Albany, the real population growth will be further north where the land is cheaper.
You can not have heavy rail running on the harbour bridge. The gradient is far too steep. You could run a light rail over the bridge but then you would only do that on the centre lanes as why would you invest further money on clip ons that have a life expectancy of max 30 years. If you put rail on the centre lanes you push freight to the clip ons reducing the life even further..a no go so what you are really asking for is investment in a rail tunnel.
Yes I agree with you that a dedicated rail tunnel from the CBD to Albany would be nice and it would avoid traffic congestion in the CBD as it would be underground (further expense) but when they build the second crossing road tunnel the existing bridge will be able to allocate dedicated lanes to the busway. OK, that doesn’t solve congestion in Fanshaw street but that can be managed cheaper (or certainly no more) than a cut and cover rail tunnel from the CBD to the Wynyard stn.
2b for a railway that goes to a shopping centre and the beach….and you take the piss out of the holiday highway!
So lets just compare. 5b gets a road tunnel (and a rail tunnel for sometime in the future when we might need the capacity you are talking of..maybe in 100 years) and this will allow cars and buses a faster transit time along SH1 and also into the CBD. It also addresses the problem of what to do when the clip ons are knackered again. People will be able to travel by car or bus through the tunnel or over the now less busy AHB from as far afield as the new city of Warkworth and all points in between.
or 2b for a trainset that runs from Britomart to Westfield in Albany with stops at Westhaven Marina, Vodafone, the Poenamo pub, the tip, and a spa pool shop before arriving in Albany where anyone that actually wants to go near a residential area has to transfer to a bus. Not forgetting the spur to Taka beach. That sounds like a lot of money to go places already better served by bus.
Please remember this is Auckland, population 1.2 million people not London.
The real question is whether we need capacity for more than 12,000 an hour, which is the absolute limit of the busway even if it is allocated dedicated lanes over the harbour bridge.. Considering we run over 7,000 an hour at the moment (up from 2,000 six years ago) that is quite likely in the foreseeable future.
I know you cannot have heavy rail on the bridge. I didn’t once mention any rail on the bridge so no need to bring up that strawman. If you read carefully you will note I only referred to new rail tunnels. And personally I don’t think we should every build another heavy rail in Auckland again, seeing as we already have all the corridors we need to carry freight and intercity traffic. We should be building light metro passenger-only rail in new corridors. Metro rail on the bridge is a possibility but I think it would actually work out cheaper with a tunnel (and a faster, more direct alignment).
Solving the cross harbour issue without solving the issue of getting from the harbour through the city and the issue of city centre station/terminus/circulation is a gross waste of time and money. You need to address the two weakest links in the chain otherwise you waste money and achieve nothing.
So lets just compare. 5 billion gets a road tunnel that does nothing for strategic motorway capacity but only increases the volume of traffic that can reach the CBD, does nothing to improve the pinch points on the busway but instead adds even more traffic to the same constrained corridors, corridors that it is more or less impossible to widen. A great plan if you have piles money to get rid of and want to increase city congestion. Not a good plan if you are concerned with mobility and moving goods and products around the city.
2b gets a rail line that is the core of the North Shore rail system and has the capacity to move the equivalent number of people in twelve motorway lanes of traffic. It has eight strategically located interchange stations accessible by a bus feeder network plus walking, cycling, park n ride and kiss n ride, with almost nowhere on the shore more than fifteen minutes bus trip from the station. The extra speed of the rail line direct into the central part of the network and the improved frequency of collector services versus direct services makes the combined bus-rail trips faster than the equivalent single bus trip.
We are building an integrate passenger transit system in Auckland, saying the busway or a replacement rail line only serves those in walking distance of the stations is like saying the holiday highway only serves people who live in Puhoi and drive to Warkworth. Both would be parts of a wider network. As it is the majority of passengers on the Northern Express bus don’t live within walking distance of the stations (except at Sunnynook which has strong walk up catchment and no feeder services), most use feeder and collector buses with a small proportion (about 10%) using the park n ride and a handful cycling or being dropped off.
I do remember Auckland, population 1.2m. That was ten years ago actually. But I’m planning for the future when Auckland has a population of 2m. Like I said, no immediate issues but in the long term we will have to build a passenger transit crossing of the harbour and do something at the city end.
As always,excellent analysis Nick. Focuses on the real and relevant issues, not the strawman ones being raised which betray basically a disdain for any change in transport spending policy rather than any concern for what’s best for transit across the harbour.
That ‘shopping centre’ is expected to have 60,000 people living there in 2031. The rest of the ‘shore will be growing as well (Takapuna / Devonport also expected to reach nearly 70,000 residents, so probably nearly 20,000 to 30,000 within walking distance of that ‘beach’). We can ignore this or take steps to ensure these people can get around. So the AHB, with 8 lanes and the AWHC tunnel with another 6 or 8. That’s 16 lanes of traffic feeding into / fed by the Northern motorway which presently has 7 lanes (give or take depending on where you count). Can people see what is going to happen next? Yes, the motorway needs to be widened. But, it’s already using up pretty much all available land. What next? Elevated motorways? A new motorway perhaps. Where would that go? Anyone who thinks that the price of a vehicle tunnel is going to stop at $4B or so, is deluded. Yes, the tunnel itself may be $4B but the expenditure to follow will be equally massive. We need to change our thinking on moving people – now.
Of course if we take your 180 buses an hour and ran bi-articulated units the busway could handle 48,000 passengers an hour given us more than enough capacity through to 2100.
As for putting people out of work, I really don’t get your fascination with increasing the unemployment rate and paying out more in welfare. We already pay out a huge amount with little to show for it.Of course if we
Nope, if you ran bi-articulated units your capacity would be less than 90 buses an hour because one of the main constraints is platform length and manoeuvring in and out of stops. The busway platforms and city side stops are designed for three buses at a time. If you run jumbo bi-artics they could handle one at a time. Same with Britomart, you could load one biartic at a time instead of three double deckers. That’s going backwards.
You are also dreaming of you think you can put a biarticulated super bus down the busway and through town every twenty seconds. Do you really think you can clear six to eight of those at each phase of the lights? Not without two or three stacking lanes for buses at each intersection.
If you want to do a Bogota style solution with 48,000 pax an hour you’d better be ready to build four lane busway stations with multiple platforms, six lanes through downtown intersections and one hell of a terminal in the city to stop, dwell and turnover in.
Putting people out of work, not wasting ratepayer money, however you want to put it. I’ll mourn the loss of low wage menial bus and train driver jobs when I’m done mourning the loss of lift operators and typing pools.
Nick. If your under the impression that spending some $3.5 billion building a series of road tunnels and completely replacing the busway is an option why do you seem to assume it’s impossible to revise the bus stations to run larger buses or do a few changes on the city hour I quoted your numbers hence why I said “your 180 buses” even if you run half that your talking 20,000 people each way or the equivalent of 20 traffic lanes.
The point being however that just by using a standard bus and a standard bus system we could get all the capacity we need for the next 100 year’s spending a fraction of the money needed to convert the working system to rail.
Also I assume with you clear dislike for employment I assume you will be handing in your resignation given a computer could do your job?side?
Also you should note that a single bi-articulated bus can be loaded much faster than a double decker and has a much shorter dwell time which is very important when people get on and off and each stop. Try commuting on the Sydney trains to see just how bad double deckers are on metro lines.
In regards to the number of buses an o
“Also I assume with you clear dislike for employment I assume you will be handing in your resignation given a computer could do your job?side”
Wow – I normally myself side on the side of “Why this rush to automatise everything, think of the people you are kicking out of jobs”. But how does your opposition to reducing bus driver job numbers make it valid to use that as an ad-hominem attack against Nick, SF Lauren? Poor show.
I never said it was impossible to revise the busway, where did you read that? The very first thing I said was that you could revise the busway to handle approximately 180 buses and hour at maximum (or perhaps 90 with artics). It can’t do anything like 180 at the moment, after revision and expansion it could take 12,000 people an hour, not now.
And like I said just there, if you want a Bogota style solution you can build four lane busway stations with multiple platforms.
The main point is that a smaller number of longer buses has the same capacity as a larger number of shorter buses in a given lane or platform. Yes, as you say if you convert to biarticulateds you end up with less buses carrying more people each, and about the same capacity over all. My 180 buses were double deckers, if you took half that number and run articulated buses that were twice as long but only one deck then you would have about half the capacity as what I cited. More or less the same as just running two single deck buses in the place of one double length artic.
Articulated buses do not increase corridor capacity, it’s plain and simple. The increase the capacity per bus and the best advantage of that is a reduction in operating cost.
If you want to run 20,000 pax an hour on 90 buses then you need buses that have a capacity of over 220 people per unit. To get that capacity you need units that are 28m long, which means only one at a time could stop at the existing platforms. So to run even 90 you need a serious level of investment in rebuilding and extending your stations.
As for the dwell time, what is the dwell time to move the equivalent number of people off two double deckers vs. two artics, if two double deckers can dwell at the platform at the same time, but only one artic can? In the Sydney scenario its like saying why don’t they just run sixteen carriage single deck trains? Well they could if they rebuilt all of their stations. Expensive, but no means impossible.
I’m not sure how you think a computer can do my job? But if it could then yes I would find another line of work to keep myself busy.
Ok so iit’s agreed that we can get the busway to handle 20k people each way which is more than twice what our entire rail network does during peak hour. Plenty of capacity for quite a few decades into the future.
And by the time we do need more capacity a regional rail line may be more use with greater reach and fewer stops.
In terms of transport planning their are already plenty of software packages that can do that. If you want to further your course you should look into computer programing so you can put more people our of work. Maybe make vending machines in bars so we don’t need to waste money paying for bar staff, waitresses and cooks. In the future utopia we will all be on welfare stuck at home watching the shopping channel.
I look forward to the day.s
Well Richard all these buses on the busway have to go somewhere in the city too remember, and put simply, there is nowhere for them. Buses are a form of traffic, in fact one of the more unpleasant for people to be around on city streets in quantity, so this mathematical game of yours to try to squeeze infinite numbers on the busway is all very cute but meaningless. Auckland Council is in a process of improving the city centre which essentially means reducing the numbers of vehicles in order to return quality of place to the city. That includes buses. Our historic failure to invest in grownup alternatives to expensive and clogging on-road traffic of all forms is indeed a problem for the city but at last we are
Ok you will say [because you are so desperate to imagine ways to prevent this rail project for your own reasons] we’ll build miles and miles of bus tunnels in the city to take these hundreds of expensive to run buses… except isn’t your argument supposed to be about spending less? Oh dear, as we know from the CCFAS that tunnels to take high volumes of buses are more expensive to build and to run than rail…. So then you’ll be back to saying that you have special secret knowledge that means it will really not be more expensive. Oh dear again.
What this is really about is that you are working on the road harbour crossing and know that the rail only plan is a viable rival to that project ever happening so are determined to whiteant it.