Pre-Rapid Transit

A clear game-changer for Auckland would be the earliest possible completion of the long-planned Rapid Transit Network. We have a growing and improving bunch of lines, on a long held and evolving plan, but as yet not enough of the whole to gain the great multiplying benefit of the network effect.

This is based on the assumption that the value of a region-wide, branded, highly visible full network would be considerably higher than the sum of its parts. It would be of more use to more people, across more of the city, at more times, leading to a significant uplift in efficient access across the city, well beyond the just the city centre. Therefore higher growth in ridership sooner.

ATAP RTN progress by 2026

Very few across the city, in council, and in government probably disagree. But adding new rapid transit routes to an existing and spatially constrained city is very expensive and takes years and years. So how can we speed this up?

Here is the case for adopting a strategy to quickly complete all the missing branches of the RTN to a cheap and quick standard, not true rapid transit, but in the most cost effective way, as close as possible to it. This of course means buses on existing roads, on all the clear and green lines on the map above. With targeted investment – much more on frequency, span, connectivity, operational priority, and branding, much less on concrete and steel.

This is also a timely strategy as inflation in the construction sector has got so wild, and money is scarce, especially as central government is distracted by trying to fund overscaled roads at the expensive of everything else. So we have to think. A form of shock treatment, a strategy to jump ahead, with value for money at its core.

To be clear this is a Pre-Rapid Transit strategy, with the aim of getting the full network up and running sooner, not just a proposal to dumb it down, or re-defining it away. Adding start-up lines to build the case for the real thing. Because by getting to the network effect sooner, the case for funding the real RTN will become clearer.

We already have a very good recent example with the NW start-up, where some really pretty tough in-motorway stations, plus a new frequent service pattern with good clear branding, has been met by massive uptake. Which has already worked as a proof-of-value in that route, and a full busway is now in design (but yet to be funded).

Here’s a great recent example from London, The Bakerloo Line has always stopped way too soon at its southern end. There’s a long held and obvious plan to extend it down the Old Kent Rd to Lewisham. But there are also many other great opportunities across London’s networks too, competing for limited funds, and even if begun today would take a decade to deliver.

So while the Bakerloo Line extension is still definitely the plan, in the meantime TfL have launched the Bakerloop bus line on the streets above the proposed Tube line, with improved frequency, priority, fewer stops, and clear branding:

So is this viable on the key missing RTN routes in Auckland? The North-west already has a version, as there is over the Bridge to the Northern Busway, Airport to Botany, and the Upper Harbour, can surely be run in a similar way, with minor investments. But how about the deleted light rail route City Centre to Mangere (CC2M)? Well consultants MR Cagney have already looked at this and here’s their proposal:

This looks pretty good to me, likely to operate as successfully and Wellington’s brilliant AX airport service. It would be subject to congestion on SH20 section unless bus lanes can be extended significantly. Is well complemented by more local services, though I disagree with deleting the City Link for it as that is a well used and highly legible (esp for visitors) local ‘walking accelerator’ and can not be replaced by a limited stops regional service- these are different markets.

What do you think? Clearly there are challenges and risks to this plan.

Perhaps they won’t be enough of an improvement on current services?

Alternatively perhaps they succeed so well they become an excuse to not invest further in true RT on these routes, so improving access and ridership to point, but locking it there?

And for the routes that enter the city centre, it will likely accelerate bus congestion, negatively impacting the city?

I look forward to your views below.

Share this