I’ll be looking more into Auckland Transport’s announcement that it’s considering installing Light Rail down some of the central isthmus streets during the week. In the meantime the suggestion that trams could be back on Queen St reminded me of these images. They come from Cornelius Blank who created them in 2011 in the lead up to the City Centre Masterplan.
For me one of the most exciting possibilities from the idea is that Light Rail could finally be the catalyst to transform Queen St into a transit mall. One of the aspects of Queen St that people often forget is that between Mayoral Dr and the water there isn’t a single need for a car to be in Queen St. There’s not one entrance to a carpark or service lane or road that can’t be accessed by some other method. The only need for vehicle access is for emergency services and perhaps deliveries.
So instead of four lanes of traffic we could have two lanes for tracks – which could also used by emergency services and delivery vehicles in the early hours of the morning and the rest of the space taken up to expand the existing footpaths. One of the best things about this is that generally the centre of Queen St is filled with sun so I for one would love to be able to stroll up Queen St without being in constant shade.
If you took out the Customs St sign most people probably wouldn’t realise they were looking at Auckland and would think this looks like quite a nice place to visit. Another idea could see some of the space used for decent cycle lanes
Further up Queen St this is how it could look outside the Civic where again the extra pedestrian space would be most welcome.
And going further up Queen St north of Mayoral Dr how about this with a grassed corridor like seen in many other cities with trams.
Some of these ideas seemed to flow through to the City Centre Masterplan (CCMP) where some similar images cropped up.
Queen St
Fanshawe St
Quay St
In fact the CCMP even includes this suggestion for a tram network.
The fact that council documents suggest light rail in the city centre makes Len Brown’s seeming unhappiness over AT looking at it all the more odd. On Friday while launching the LTP he was clearly not very warm to the idea – perhaps thinking it stole from some of his LTP limelight. He was quick to point out that people shouldn’t get their hopes up as it’s the politicians who will make the decisions and that this isn’t something on the council’s agenda. Perhaps he should be reminded of his own council’s plans.
Processing...
Where are the wires? Trams come with wires unless you want people fried
Try googling trams in Bordeaux; I’ve used them and not an overhead wire to be seen. Modern technology eh?
The wires are the same place as the shadows. These pictures are in the socialist realism style. ie black and white bad, coloured in happy people good. All you need is to buy my expensive transport system and everyone will fall in love. Stalin called the people who produced this type of crap “Engineers of the Human Soul” – scary.
not a comment on the merits of the idea as I think a transit mall in Queen St would be wonderful, but those images are not representative of the reality, the south of Mayoral Dr pic has a tram with the pantograph up, but none of the pictures show any overhead wires
therefore none of the images show “how it would look”
and the Fanshawe St image removes any provision for the North Shore bus services, or it there to be a shared bus/LRT right of way?
(note that I had not seen the previous comment when posting)
There are a number of systems coming on stream now that have wireless sections in the city centre and even some cities with battery powered trams as pointed out in a comment on the post the other day. There are also some systems with a smart third rail type system that only powers the section directly beneath the tram so can be crossed by pedestrians completely safely at other times.
As for Fanshawe St, yes shared bus/LRT right of way is quite feasible and done in many other places. It may even make the proposed Fanshawe St Busway stack up even more.
See this comment I made about the Izmir LRT in turkey, planned to operate in 2017 that uses no continuous overhead wires.
Uses onboard batteries, can go 50Km a full charge and recharges where it can, the design is also low floor height too (350mm above road way) to allow easy boarding/alighting.
see: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2015/01/23/light-rail-to-fill-the-void/#comment-153822
Not the only system around, but seems mostly wire free (whether inground or overground/head charging) to be the way that LRT is going, overhead wires, like Diesel buses are so last century.
A system like this could charge up from a in ground power mechanism at key stops and at the terminii, that would keep it topped up during the AM/PM peaks, and it can recharge interpeak if needed.
Given the longest run would be about 12km a 50 Km range could easily do 3 trips and those designs with ultracapacitors coupled with onboard batteries have near instant charge up time on the capacitors which can then charge the batteries. Which is also used for regenerative braking.
So the LRT can “snatch” a huge top up charge into the caps during the short dwell time at a stop, then either use that power over the next stretch and/or top up the batteries, then repeat at the next stop.
With a Dwell time of 30 seconds that should allow all day operation, and you don’t need to string overhead wires around the place, with all their drawbacks.
Continuous wires might not be necessary even for heavy rail in a few years e.g. to Pukekohe:
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/Batteries-included-Prototype-battery-powered-train-carries-passengers-for-first-time-2230.aspx
What goes around comes around. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_River_Branch for details of the Battery “EMU” that used to ply the Christchurch to Little River branch line 80+ years ago.
“In 1927, an experiment was conducted on the Little River Branch when the Edison battery-electric railcar was trialled. It provided a twice daily dedicated passenger service each way between Christchurch and Little River, completing the trip in 69 minutes. Affordable and efficient, the railcar proved popular with travellers, but its life was abruptly cut short in 1934 when it was destroyed in a depot fire and not replaced due to the poor economic conditions of the Great Depression, forcing passengers back to the slower mixed trains.”
Note that while 69 minutes trip time sounds slow, the steam trains of the day were a lot slower. would have a welcome glimpse of the future to Cantabrians of the day.
That distance was about the same as Papakura to Pukekohe too (Little River was 24km from Christchurch by rail & somewhat shorter than that by road).
Light Rail doesn’t have to contain an overhead power supply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply
Definitely needed just don’t want to setup people like the super yacht at Princes Wharf at the moment. Should be public paid for and all revenue goes back into Public Transport. Should be fully self supporting excl Network extensions. Same could be said for our bus fleet. Is the model an improved public transport service or fleeced for the few and no public control like now. An independent transparent entity that is not tied up in knots but ultimately serving ratepayers interests and working towards 5 star in a smart way. 20% of income into fleet improvement, ongoing management investigating network expansion and improvement to each mode. True costs, true revenue. Yes these routes will make money, no question.Put it in independent control.
Someone didn’t think through the Upper Queen Street part – I’m pretty sure if the LRT lane is also used by buses, they wouldn’t use a grass surface.
Combined with an extension from Britomart to Wynyard, the LRT along Queen street could replace the City Link bus.
The few bus routes down that section of Queen are likely to be replaced by LRT or rerouted along the Wellesley corridor to Symonds; but in any case there’s a paved lane each side of the grassed strip.
Yes the LRT route from Wynyard to Roskill replaces the City Link and all the Dominion Rd services. Wonderful transformation. City Link is a dog – with no bus priority it is slower than walking, overcrowded and overheated much of the time (for some reason the aircon seems to be off most times when I use it!)
If you saw the historical 8m wide x 3m high photos at the birthday celebrations mounted in the middle of Quay St there were a lot of people on the city streets with the trams so even the 2011 shots look like an understatement to me. I did take some photos but sure these photographs would be available. I don’t recommend the tracks like around Piha to Karekare though , that was a classic.
I didn’t realise the city centre was currently black and white…
Neither did I.
It’s amazing how those who drive this sort of development have to resort to propaganda in order to justify their position. Making photo’s black & white and taking them at times where there is low pedestrian traffic is one thing. But to place them against colour photos with people implanted is quite something.
Trams up Queen St make no sense. They aren’t going to take you anywhere walking can’t so they will take away active modes. The other aspect is that once the CRL is complete a tram up Queen St would simply replicate the CRL between Aotea Square and Britomart.
I don’t believe this would be the best usage of ratepayer funds and I don’t believe trams up Queen St would add much to Auckland.
“Trams up Queen St make no sense. They aren’t going to take you anywhere walking can’t”
How about Kingsland, Mt Roskill, Mt Eden, Sandringham etc? You don’t really think they would just go up Queen Street in isolation do you? Given your literal interpretation it might be opportune to point out that they would also go down Queen Street from those locations.
Trams up Queen Street “make no sense”. So … All those full City Link buses trundling up the street every few minutes make no sense? Or are they serving an actual market of people who might want to go more than a block or too, like Wynyard to Victoria, perhaps?
This is entirely different to the CRL market and meets a need for local trips; but in any case it’s the initial leg of what is currently the busiest bus route on the isthmus.
@The Real Matthew; Its a lot like Nick Smith thinking we will all believe the RMA is the reason Auckland property is so unaffordable. Yeah right! And let me guess , build more roads and motorways is a better idea?
No just black surfacing and cars unfortunately. To be honest back then looked 50 times better than now even in black and white but I think that was just a film technology issue so make that 1000 times better.
Highly recommend you looking at real historical photos. Sometimes best to look backwards to see if we are on the right track before kicking on. By letting car take over prime space, all I can say is what a gigantic cock up. Even real life yesterday, what a difference.
Even better hunt up old film footage of trams moving down Queen St to see how the system worked with people and trams working together. Gives a better idea how it worked.
Also note, colour footage of the ’50s shows the system at its worst with no proper maintenance for a decade due to the War and the decision to replace them.
So don’t assume that just because the trams look run down the service was too.
While the city centre is not you know Black and White, peoples dogma about what can and can’t be done there is.
Do you think Len Brown was unenthusiastic because he didn’t want the confusion of people saying “Let’s can the CRL and have the trams instead”? People say this often enough anyway… “let’s just have a train to the airport”. Lester Levy has been clear that the CRL is a certainty first, but that message is a hard one to convey to some people who don’t appear to get it/accept how critical it is at the centre.
Just looking at some images of Melbourne’s trams. Even with the overheads it would still be an improvement to go back to what we USED TO HAVE. And if technology allows us to scrap the overheads, so much the better.
Trams heading along Quay St to – dare I say it – Tamaki Drive? Could it be? 😀
Why would you go to Tamaki Dr? There is nothing there, seriously it’s surrounded by water and parks. You’d have to build it all the way to Mission Bay to get one station that people would actually use.
Because heaven forbid people go to the beach in summer or the cafes in Mission Bay/St Heliers without using a car. Tamaki Drive is a complete mess during the day on weekends simply because the transport options for getting there are completely hopeless for a the huge number of people who want to get there.
If only there was another city close to New Zealand where light rail ran by the beach that we could use as a reference and provided a proof of concept….
Heaven forbid someone rides a bus to the beach. (Here’s a tip, catch the bus to Takapuna beach, it’s nicer, got better cafes and doesn’t get clogged up with mongrel boy racers).
A half billion dollar piece of infrastructure that would only get busy at a single station for a dozen sunny weekends summer? What do you do the other 340 days of the year? Well I suppose it could be a tourist trap thing but I wouldn’t want to see any of the transport budget wasted on it when there are so many things to fix first.
Are you talking about St Kilda beach in Melbourne, or Glenelg in Adelaide? You might want to have a look at how many stops those lines have on the way to the beach (13 and 18 respectively), and the sort of places they serve along the way (intensive inner ring suburbs).
Yes Takapuna Beach great we have a lot of great beaches. From a tourist point of view Takapuna to Devenport would be great also. From a transport financial basis if another party like Waterfront Auckland paid the difference for the upgrade or from a tourism.perspective what is the problem. I think the catchment though feeding into Tamaki Drive – A stop at each bay is bigger than just mission bay. I guess buses can loop to Orakei Station. It would be a shame not to at least look at it. But you are right over the next 5 years bigger fish to fry from a transport problem point of view. My priorities would be buying a bus fleet first and feeding them into the arterials with a bus lane and a protected cycle remark. CRL obviously and Skypath. It sounds like Dominion Rd is transport viable right now for light rail, so start there with the tracks .
Unlike the Shore or Dominion Road, there are no busways heading out to Tamaki Drive. It is gridlocked on weekends. Catching a bus to any of the Eastern Suburbs through to St Heliers means you get stuck in the same traffic as everyone else. And there are numerous potential stops along Tamaki Drive, not just Mission Bay. Of course this requires people to consider the Waterfront that exists beyond Wynyard Quarter to Queen Street so I’m not holding my breath.
I’d say its gridlocked largely with cars using it as a thoroughfare, travelling from outside of what might be the tram catchment. That catchment is very small compared with the distance and cost.
Routes like Dom Rd make more sense, where they’re surrounded by houses, businesses, etc. These should be prioritised
Shit yes. Was going to be one of my first stops for measuring current kerb to kerb width. Melbourne stay tuned if we did that plus Queen St. And had protected two way cycling along here in fact everywhere where we could fit it in looking at ultimate mode share road design for a change in direction, and shoving past one mode projections with traffic modelling down the toilet.
Light rail as described is more realistic than the CRL but only because the CRL needs central government input and thats not happening, well apart from the especially vague utterances of non commitment that is.
This light rail talk has really confused the average Aucklander. Out and about today in town I overheard a couple of conversations where people were bagging the bloody council about they always change their minds, always come up with plans, never actually build anything… Etc.
Ya can’t win, this one is for all those “Average” Aucklanders: http://t.co/Ncn1IN7F6x – Different Transport Agency, different decade, but same complaints.
I can think of three councillors that could sub in for the ranter in a couple of years time to complain about how the CRL will take when train capacity is reached because of Britomart…
Just this afternoon I submitted my opinions for the Auckland Council 10 year budget plan that came in the mail last week.
For my two cents, the two things that I thought would make the most logical sense long term going forward for Manukau & Eastern suburbs.
– A passenger/cycle bridge over the river between Panama Road, Otahuhu & Highbrook business Park, perhaps even with a 2-way tram or shuttle running along a straight piece of track back and forth between the 2x points. Access for the tram would be coin access or card acess only in order to self-fund, while walking and cycling free.
And on either side of the bridge perhaps a bit of land could be allocated for some bus stops, taxi stands or a few retail shops like dairies, coffee shops etc.
I feel that with say increased buses during peak mornings and afternoons from Sylvia Park to Panama road, and along with the Springpark development right next to the bridge this could work long term as the whole area around Panama Road/Otahuhu becomes more desirable.
– Extension of Eastern line from Glen Innes or Glendowie, which runs to Pakuranga/Half Moon Bay, then to Botany Downs/Howick, then to new Ormiston/Flat bush town centre, then to Manukau, then to Puhinui, then to Airport, then linking back up to Onehunga.
Of course I’m well aware that the second idea is well and truly a pipe dream and would very easily run into the tens of billions of dollars that just isn’t available. Eastern suburbs especially are so poorly and miserably left with no alternatives to cars and buses.
My train of thought (excuse the pun) is that Half-Moon Bay as a train stop could give more people more reason to go out and visit Waiheke Island for the weekend, Ormiston with expected 30,000 new people to come in over the years are going to wreak havoc on the surrounding roads.
Already the intersections at Ormiston bridge outside the hospital are getting busier, there is no pedestian/cycle access from Chapel Road at the top of Fo Guang Shan Temple down to the bridge.
And Chapel road itself is already reaching over capacity, right outside the little church where Chapel Rd bends, there is only narrow road going one way with very deep trenches on either side of the bend.
Rant over now, these are the two things I suggested as part of Auckland’s 10 year plan.
Food for thought. 🙂
Both are interesting ideas. The second one there was a post about 4 years ago that I stumbled on that promoted a rail tunnel from Glen Innes or moving it south then a tunnel east under tamaki estuary – note the navigational channel only 150m at this location and sort of the route you mention for heavy rail. The comments also were interesting. AT now mention a possible tram Pakuranga to Botany along Ti Rakau Dr. Howick to Panmure is a fair way but not sure justifies a tunnel to GI be it short across the river and bridge the rest after thinking more about it. To be honest right now Panmure Station is there, Puhinui Station is there, Manukau Station is there. We need buses on tap ready to dive in there and take a lane but it needs to be marketted and military, cause these roads are congested as. The sooner we do it the better for PT users and drivers but they are all multi-modal capable we just need buses and balls. The approach of waiting for a class a network before resourcing with a bus lane is ridiculous and not smart construction wise anyway.
I like the pictures, but come on – only one tram on Queen Street at any one time? Hardly likely. Lest we forget images like these…
http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tram21-600×281.jpg
(PS: I’m in favour of the idea, just a more realistic image of it)
yeah will be multiple probably if coming from multiple locations such as dominion, sandringham, mount eden and manakau roads.
+1
“always a tram in sight” was an olde Aucklande saying.
If you just missed one, it didn’t matter, the next was already in view. A far cry from the bus signs with *’s denoting ghost buses!
Graham Stewart (from MOTAT?) also wrote a book on it…
http://trademe.tmcdn.co.nz/photoserver/tq/243437059.jpg
Broke ranks, off message, almost talking monorail, retreat back to the familiar fortress of heavy rail/bus/ferry/cycling/shared spaces
Look at Amsterdam about same amount off people harbour trough the middle.Trams galore and tracks used by 111 traffic as well as taxies.few cars in the c b d lots off bikes.Study it and learn from it.
Has anyone considered an alternate use of the existing rail corridors- Britomart to Otahuhu and Britomart to Swanson. Tear out the rails and make them a bus only highway
Why would you do that? I’d love to hear the reasoning.
Because there is enough room for a lane each way. Express buses would serve the burbs and have a fast non stop trip once they are on the highway with no competing traffic. It would also free up the inner roads by taking buses off. Buses are more flexible than other modes. It would operate like the bus only lanes on the harbour bridge
Why not use the trains that are already there? Why waste the investment that has already made the system pretty good? Also, the network you suggest doesn’t work well. I suggest you read Jarrett Walker’s book ‘Human Transit’.
People dont like changing transport mode. You could get on a bus in Titirangi which would become express from Avondale. Also you can turn a bus around easily so wouldnt need a loop
The reality is people are happy to transfer if services are frequent. That’s the reality, not an opinion.
In regard to the rail loop the research on the history of these projects says the costs are being grossly underestimated and projected patronage grossly overestimated.
Napoleon said “never reinforce failure”. The loop proponents are suffering from functional fixedness, meaning having made an investment decision in rail they are fixated on supporting it all the way.
Courage requires them to change direction. My solution is simple, yes, no?
What and the same never happens for roads now?
Your solution is no solution, that will cost way more than it can ever hope to deliver.
Yep patronage greatly overestimated, just like Britomart was …… opps, sorry to burst your bubble but in NZ the opposite has been true.
Out of interest what do you plan to do with all the buses when they get to the city. One of the key reasons AT are even considering Light Rail is that there isn’t the space on city streets for them all and that’s after all the buses from areas near the rail network have been removed thanks to the CRL
“Napoleon said “never reinforce failure”
Sure, and I’d (and lot of people in Auckland) would say that a mono-modal transport system on cars, motorways and buses has been a failure, and you wouldn’t reinforce failure now would you?
Train patronage growing at nearly 20% Year on Year, buses? well not so much, 5% Year on Year.
Why would you “bet the farm” on yet more buses when it didn’t work for the last 70 years and is the cause of why AT need to look outside that box to fix the problems they’ve caused.
The reason why LRT has caught the peoples interest is because they know that too, and they know that modern LRT system in the Isthmus, plus CRL will run rings around a bus only system in Auckland – and those rings won’t be from trains circling in the CRL either.
It will be from the vultures circling, waiting for you and your tired and lame ideas to turn up their toes.
It’s not a loop.
Dumbf*ckest Idea I ever heard.
What about the rail freight that uses those rails now? Put it on trucks on the congested roads? Yeah right?
You sound like the loons in London in the 1980s who wanted to the the same for the rail lines there – rip em out for “more roads.”
Simple fact is 1 rail line can move as many people as 10 lanes or more of motorway traffic, and thats about 3 times the number your bus idea could manage – on a good day, downhill, with a tail wind, and if they were all double deckers.
And you say people don’t like changing modes, well they manage in the rest of the world switching between trains and buses – just need a ticketing system that dsoesn’t charge you when you do and also has the buses and trains working together not against each other.
And you know what – all thats already under way now…
No freight trains on western line now and freight trains can use Panmure route.
When buses get to Britomart they go straight back along the same route.
I think there are obviously a lot of toy train players out there. Do you guys actually ever use public transport yourselves? Or are you concerned about the debt your children will be left with?
Oh and then there will be also the second harbour crossing
But I guess your 19th century solution (rail) will fix that too.
plenty of freight on the NIMT through western and Newmarket lines – not as much as there should be, but its there.
Of course I use PT, I know how the system works.
Your bus idea would achieve 2 lanes – 1 each way, with no room for buses to pass each in case of break down, so you’d be enshrining all the “problems” you have with trains on to the buses.
The running costs of a bus are way higher than a train per passenger carried because each bus needs a driver, even on minimum wage thats a large chunk of the running costs of the bus.
A bus at best cana manage 70 people (even a double decker).
A single 6 car EMU can carry over 700 people – thats easily 10 buses worth, and thats 9 drivers you don’t need, and it also replace 10 lanes of motorway traffic.
As for legacy to future generations – the gold plated road network NZTA keeps building and that AT wants to emulate as well is the main cause of future “debt” burden for tax payers and ratepayers you talk about.
Basically your solution is no solution, if you think rail has no place in todays world because its “19th century technology” then neither do buses or cars – both inventions from the same century.
Or is it a case in your world that rubber wheels = good and steel wheels = bad?
looks like its the case from here.
There are normally 4 freight trains a day on the western line I believe. Probably would be more if Kiwirail put some effort in to building it’s business in Northland and especially more if the link to Marsden Wharf is ever built.
Yes I use PT daily, most of my trips are commuting to or from work (but use it on some weekends too). My trip to work consists of both a train and a bus. Transferring is easy when the services have decent frequency and is made easy to do with proper interchanges.
We are very concerned about ongoing debt and that’s one of the reasons why we created the Congestion Free Network. If you look at the numbers you’ll see that most of the money planned to be spent on transport in the next 30 years is actually for road projects. A high quality PT network can be delivered easily if we prioritise the spending. I suggest you spend some time reading through our old posts.
As for the AWHC, yes a rail solution would be better. A road only crossing is expected to cost over $5 billion alone with a benefit cost ration of ~0.3 (i.e. 30c benefit for every $1 invested) while a rail crossing and replacement of the busway with rail has been suggested at half that. Already 40% of people crossing the harbour bridge at peak times do so on a bus so this would encourage even more to use PT leaving the bridge free for those that still want to or need to drive. The money saved can also go to other transport projects to deliver greater outcomes.
You do realise the car was first designed in the 19th century, right?
john 19th Century technology? You mean cars? Or perhaps phones? Ah right, they’ve been a little updated sine then, so have these:
I surrender…..
Google “bus rapid transport” (brt) and you will see that many large cities have implemented bus only express highways in preference to light rail.
Capital cost of $13.5mill for brt versus $35.8million per mile for rail.
Higher passenger volumes over rail!
Come on you rail buffs. Stop bullshitting youselves.