More thoughts on Light Rail details

On the closed session agenda for tomorrow’s Auckland Transport board meeting is an item asking for a decision about Light Rail. Hopefully this will see the project move forward and the public provided with more information. With that in mind I thought I’d chuck together a few thoughts I’d had that hadn’t been discussed too much.

Dedicated Right of Way

Modern on street based rail transit generally falls into two categories, Streetcars/Trams and Light Rail. The difference is generally associated with the quality of the right of way. With Streetcars/Trams the tracks are often located in the road surface and share lanes with cars – much like buses on streets without bus lanes and are therefore subject to congestion. Light Rail is more commonly seen as a separate system and separated from vehicle lanes by barriers, kerbs or even on completely grade separated infrastructure. As with most things these definitions aren’t always 100% accurate and often systems will mix various elements together i.e. some parts on dedicated infrastructure and some parts shared with cars.

If Auckland Transport is going to bother implementing a street based rail system it absolutely needs to be more light rail variety and less streetcar one. That would mean dedicated right of ways down the streets the tracks are on which as it needs to be permanent – i.e. can’t be used for carparking off peak – would be a significant improvement for PT in the area. While this can absolutely also be done for buses it seems to me that it would be politically more difficult to do – and that’s before the issue of capacity is taken into account.

I suspect that any implementation of Light Rail most likely mean the tracks would be run down the centre of the road as is done in many cities and how the original trams were. There are a couple of impacts of centre running as opposed to being next to the kerb. These include:

• It’s simpler for drivers – with centre  running looking out for trams only needs to happen if a driver needs to turn right and cross the tracks whereas with side running drivers turning both left and right need to check for trams in either direction.
• It may make right turns more difficult or only allowed at certain intersections. This is something that will potentially upset some residents – although in return they get a much better PT system
• It gives more prominence to PT which in turn can help attract more patronage as well as development.
• A narrower corridor can potentially be used as the Light Rail vehicles can pass closer together thanks to being on rails.

The Gold Coast is a good recent and local example of a recent Light Rail installation that we could probably learn a lot from.

Signal Priority

A single light rail vehicle can hold 300 people which is the equivalent capacity as around 3-4 double decker buses as is shown in the graphic from AT below. AT haven’t said what kind of frequencies we can expect however approximately one service every 5 minutes (12 per hour) on routes like Dominion Rd seem about right. AT that frequency it should be quite possible to employ signal priority to further speed up the Light Rail vehicles. Of course prioritisation is also possible with buses however when getting to the volumes needed on the routes suggested is unlikely to work very well. This is because the headway between the buses is shorter than the normal phasing of the traffic lights and so buses will tend to bunch up at lights and at the next stop two or three buses will turn up at the same time – a common pet hate of users.

In essence utilising signal prioritisation along with Light Rail could help improve reliability as the LRT vehicles would be given a relatively non-stop route.

Terminal capacity

As I understand it, one of the major issues with a bus based solution for these corridors is terminal capacity. Put simply you need to be able to turn all of the vehicles around somewhere so they can make a return journey.  As mentioned above a single light rail vehicle can hold 300 people which is the equivalent capacity as around 3-4 double decker buses. When bus numbers get high that can take up a lot of space and is highlighted quite well in the CRL design showcase image below of post CRL bus routes where each route needs at least a loop of some form to turn around. That takes up valuable space in the city which could otherwise be used for something else. As an example if we didn’t need to turn buses around using Albert St, Quay St and Hobson St we could instead have a greater public realm on Quay St.

With Light rail is considerably easier to deal with terminal capacity as all that’s needed are some cross overs next to the last station. With that Light Rail vehicle pulls into the final station, the driver changes ends, heads off and changes tracks to go in the other direction. It’s all very simple and is done within the existing corridor. It is also made easier by not having so many vehicles to turn around.

Faster and easier stations

Improving the customer experience by making it faster and easier to get on and off a PT service can have important benefits.

As mentioned above, rails mean the right of way can be narrower as the vehicles are kept on the tracks rather than moving about in a lane like rubber tyre vehicles tend to do. Those tracks can also be useful at stations for ensuring a minimal gap (horizontally and vertically) between the vehicle and platform thereby making it much easier for all customers to get on and off.

In addition to this, while Light Rail vehicles can hold a lot of people, because they also have a lot more doors passengers can use to get on/off simultaneously thereby reducing dwell time.  By comparison double deckers are prone to longer dwell times as people take time to move about inside the bus. With having to run higher frequency services the longer dwell times could become an issue at some stops.

Funding

So far Auckland Transport haven’t said too much about funding Light Rail other than it would probably cost at least $1 billion for all lines and that they are looking at alternative private funding options. This is most likely to be a BOOT (build–own–operate–transfer) whereby AT either pay an annual fee and/or grant certain concessions for a private company to build and operate the system for set period of time.

While the capital costs would effectively be kept off the council’s books, any payments to the private company would still need to come from AT/AC and potentially the government and that will inevitably raise questions about where the funding for it comes from. Perth’s Professor Peter Newman has wrote this post recently suggesting that one option could be for cities to require LRT builders to also develop the land – which the city could then tax.

To go for a full private-sector approach you must integrate redevelopment into every stage of the project. This is how you do it. Call for expressions of interest for private companies to design, build, finance, own and operate the light rail link and, crucially, make sure this includes land-development options (rather than letting in outside developers). This would help to create funds that can be used to finance and to operate the system.

Government needs to contribute a base grant and an operational fund that could be more specifically focused along the areas where the biggest benefits are felt in the corridor itself, where land values will go up most. Private expertise will ensure that the best sites are chosen for the light rail route. These land-value increases will flow through taxes into treasury and can be set aside in a dedicated light rail fund for ongoing operations and/or for raising finance (rather than instituting a city-wide levy as the Gold Coast did).

He is talking about Tax Increment Financing which would likely be difficult here due to the need for the government to allow for it but a more localised targeted rate might also be appropriate.

Hopefully we’ll hear soon if AT intend to carry on looking into Light Rail.

Share this