It seems that Auckland Transport’s plans to reinstall trams in Auckland down some of the major isthmus roads has already captured a lot of imagination with the public, hell even the Herald have been fairly positive about the suggestion.
One aspect of the idea that seems to have been missed in some of the discussion so far is that Auckland Transport have been working on this for at least six months. It’s clear now that the project started appearing on the agenda for closed session for Auckland Transport’s board meetings back in September last year under the name CCFAS2. That means that almost certainly a lot of work has already gone into studying the idea before it’s reached this point however we are yet to see any real details other than the key routes that Auckland Transport are investigating.
Getting the details – including how Auckland Transport plan to pay for it all – to ensure it makes sense is essential but as I’ve mentioned before, at this stage I’m cautiously supportive of the project. However the proposal has raised a heap of questions from both myself and others. Those questions fall broadly into two categories, wider social questions about whether we should do this and more specific technical questions about the proposal itself. Today I’m going to look at the social aspect and in a separate post I’ll look at the technical questions.
When there’s so much else that needs building, can we afford to do this?
Undoubtedly this is going to be an expensive project. Going by other projects overseas it could easily cost $1 billion dollars, possibly more to lay the tracks and buy vehicles to run on them. Yet Auckland doesn’t exactly have $1 billion just sitting around burning a hole in its pockets, quite the opposite. The same day this project was announced the Mayor launched the Long Term Plan which among other things will ask Aucklanders about tolling motorways or increasing rates to cover $12 billion shortfall – and that’s before this project is considered.
To build light rail under the traditional funding approach means one of two things would need to happen
- Some other projects have their funding cut or delayed.
- Even more money would need to be raised to cover the short fall
Neither situation is ideal, add in the only lukewarm support from the Mayor and it would normally be enough to kill this light rail project dead. Where this is different is that AT have said that they’re also investigating funding options that include private sector investment. Further AT Chairman Lester Levy has been quick to say that this private sector investment isn’t a traditional PPP. Just what else is being considered is unknown but I’m guessing part of it will include the running of the system for some time.
One of the potential advantages to light rail is that it can be cheaper to run for the same (or more) capacity. Those savings can go at least part of the way towards paying for the PPP. In addition, there are also likely to be some savings that will emerge once AT finally roll out the PTOM contracts, savings that can’t be calculated yet.
The recent installation of Light Rail on the Gold Coast also provides a good example. The 13km first stage cost A$950m (not $1.6b I said in an earlier post) however that cost also included 16 stations, the vehicles plus operations and maintenance costs for 15 years.
There are a lot of areas in Auckland that have very poor PT, wouldn’t it be better to use the money to improve other areas first
Auckland isn’t exactly sitting on world class PT system – yet – and has a lot of key projects that need completion just to get us to an acceptable level. Some such as Integrated Fares and the New Network are under way but a lot of infrastructure is needed, both to support the new network and deliver better PT in general. Some of the major projects needed include:
- New PT interchanges to support the new Network including at Otahuhu, Manukau, Te Atatu, Lincoln Rd, in the City and many other locations
- The AMETI Busway
- Airport Rail
- The Northern Busway extension (which should be paid for by the NZTA)
- A Northwest Busway
- Electrification to Pukekohe
Some will say that Light Rail should go to the back of the queue until many or all of these other key projects have been completed. To me its priority should surely be determined by how much benefit it provides compared to other projects. We’d be stupid to put it straight to the back of the queue just because it’s only just been announced if it delivered greater benefits than other projects on the list.
There is perhaps one silver lining that may come about if AT do manage to sort out a private funding option. Currently the Long Term Plan contains just over $50 million to upgrade the bus lanes Dominion Rd and improve the town centres. If AT proceed with the Light Rail project the costs of doing so would likely fall under that private finance option freeing up that $50 million for use on other projects.
This part of Auckland already has some good PT options
Compared to much of Auckland the Isthmus that corridors that are proposed to be served by Light Rail already have some of the best PT services and infrastructure in the city. There are (not continuous) bus lanes that already exist and frequent services that use them. Consequently the area has some of the highest patronage in Auckland. Dominion Rd services alone carry almost 2 million trips per year (the Northern Busway carries around 2.5 million). Already in the morning peaks the roads move more people in buses than are moved in cars and patronage is only expected to grow.
The issue I have with the idea that I have with the suggestion that what exists is good enough (for now) is that just because it’s good it doesn’t mean it can’t be better. Of all areas in Auckland the central isthmus was the one specifically designed to support PT use with its long linear and developed corridors supported decent surrounding street grid. It’s these factors combined that car use for trips to work (not always the best measure) is amongst the lowest in Auckland.
Percentage of trips to work by Car
It’s also because of the other factors that delivering an even higher quality PT service is likely to deliver substantially more patronage than many, if not all, of other high CAPEX schemes listed above.
At the end of the day it comes down to a key issue in PT planning that Jarrett Walker – who’s currently back in NZ – discusses in his book Human Transit. How much do you focus do you put into your PT system on maximising patronage and how much on providing coverage. Focusing more on trying to provide equitable coverage to everyone will impact how many resources you can use in areas that have the potential for high patronage.
There’s no intensification planned
Of all the issues I’ve thought about or heard raised this is perhaps the one that most concerns me. As part of the Unitary Plan the central Isthmus – one of the area perhaps the most ripe for intensification due to its location has the lest intensification allowed. Why should an area receive a significant capital investment which is bound to increase property prices even more when no change to the area is allowed to really capitalise on that investment.
The map below shows the zoning in the Unitary Plan.
- Light cream – only allows for a single house on each site. That means not even terraced houses are allowed as they are considered too dense.
- Cream – Mixed Housing – Suburban (MHS) which allows smaller sections and say two storey terraced houses but is still effectively not allowing change.
- Light Brown – Mixed Housing – Urban (MHU) allows for three storeys and is basically ideal for typical terraced house developments.
- Orange – Terraced House and Apartment (THAB) THAB allows low rise apartment buildings and is located around the town centres.
In my view the zoning of the central Isthmus should look far more like West Auckland. Apart from a number of vocal NIMBY types in the area, there are a few key infrastructure constraints holding intensification in the area back. One was the water supply which I believe is being addressed as part of Watercare’s Central Interceptor project and the other was transport capacity. Light Rail on these corridors would definitely sort out the transport capacity constraints and I would hope could lead the council towards re-discussing the amount of intensification allowed. Effectively a trade for the residents, allow more intensification and you’ll get this this fantastic new PT system.
There are probably a few other issues to cover but this post is already long enough.
Processing...
If anything, assuming AT does have legitimate alternate funding sources for their LRT programme, maybe some of those other projects could do with a quick check to see if LRT might offer similar or better results if it were incorporated – the AMETI Busway being one candidate I can think of.
Is it even possible to revise the zoning rules at this stage, with the new unitary plan coming in effect pretty soon? If not, your point about lack of planned intensification means that we shouldn’t support this. I won’t support having a large chunk of Auckland’s PT money being poured into some of the most expensive neighbourhoods, benefiting only a small (and decreasing) part of the population of Auckland. Would much rather have better buses to far away places, bus lanes on all arterial routes and price decreases on the longest bus journeys. investment should be proportionate to the number of people served. This is the equivalent of giving luxury public transport service to the already privileged. Let them allow 6 storey apartment buildings along these routes and it’s a different matter altogether.
+10000000
The zoning can definitely still change; the Unitary Plan still has to go through its hearings, and any submissions calling for rezoning will be looked at by the Commissioners, and evidence for and against heard. They will then offer recommendations, which the Council may accept. So it’s entirely possible that significant upzoning could occur on the Isthmus.
Especially, if (or even specifically on condition of the UP) , the LRT being built in those suburbs.
“This is the equivalent of giving luxury public transport service to the already privileged. Let them allow 6 storey apartment buildings along these routes and it’s a different matter altogether.”
West Auckland already has access to rail. Why do you need a busway? What dead-end logic.
I would take the current non-CRL train service over the dominion road bus service any day – so by this logic the west and south already have a gold plated public transport system and don’t need the CRL?
That’s my point – if people are going to point to Dominion Road and say it’s already got adequate service in favour of a project out West then they at least need to be consistent 😛
West Auckland is a big place. West Auckland has one rail line. along which are most of the new special housing schemes that the council put in place, appropriately.
I support what you are saying entirely. Why buses are not the prefect situation for Dominion Road, they may be the 80% solution. I think because we have limited funds we should focus on making our current solutions work better. For me (and my situation) that means CRL to increase the train frequency, better bus interchanges (Manukau, Otahuhu, Onehunga, etc), transfer tickets (i.e. unlimited transport with a sector no matter if you transfer from bus to train) and better support infrastructure at trains stations/interchanges (cycle parking or for walking to & from them). I also believe AMETI is also a must have, plus some other busways (NW, etc). I know this will not solve all the problems but it will provide a backbone to grow on (and perhaps to develop the CFN in the future). I also believe money spent on CCFAS2 could have been used on something else (cycleway somewhere, bicycle storage at Manurewa station or elsewhere).
While these studies are useful etc,, I have worked on (or my friends have work on) so many proposals/studies etc which never go anywhere. It seems such as waste on money and it is also heartbreaking. Perhaps it is time for a few less studies and maybe a few more projects to be built. Are we chasing Rainbows?
Copypasta from the other thread (because someone is finally on the same train of thought :D):
—
For me it’s a good thing, if it brings around changes in density and opportunities for people to live differently than they do now. It doesn’t immediately help people in the far-flungs, but I think they are so auto-dependent by design that there is not much we can do now to fix it. Added density close in with excellent transit will give people much needed choice. We can’t intensify the isthmus much as it stands without things turning to custard.
We need to start designing the city for how we want it rather than reacting to the current results of bad planning. There will be winners and losers from that, but we can’t afford to fix the sprawling mess that exists – leave it to those who like it that way to live there and complain about traffic while providing sensible transit oriented development where it makes sense.
The density has to come with it though, otherwise it is a waste – nimbys must be ignored.
It’s not only about creating a denser city centre but building density around our metropolitan centres e.g Manukau, Albany, Botany, New Lynn etc. By doing this we not only stop the beast (sprawl) from continuing it’s course outwards but we create a better connected more dense city as a whole. We want a city of the composite model not a monocentric city. Auckland has already sprawled out that it’s very difficult to reverse and create a monocentric city. Our goal should be a creating a denser city centre as well as creating denser areas around our metropolitan centres in the four corners of our city.
No way should we be putting all our money towards the Isthmus in hope of attracting people. Populations move naturally over time so as long as the choice is provided through good housing, good transport and public amenities then we should see our city naturally forming around the city centre and our metropolitan centres.
Not helping people in far flung places? When i used to live further out, i would drive up dom road, and park on a side street once it got busy and get the bus in. Now i live on one of those side streets and it’s empty all day. trams adding capacity will help people in far flung places because they can get ‘park n ride’ on the tram too.
Spot on.+2
‘far flung suburbs’ need rapid transit, and those on the existing rail line and previously on the Shore with the Northern Busway have and are getting that love. Agree completely with continuing to improve and extend these, NB extension, city end stations and lane, NW Busway, and CRL. Central Gov needs to return to funding the capex of these as they used to.
Additionally extending the reach of that network plus serving local communities better with the New Network is underway by AT.
But this is not Rapid Transit, this is dealing with bus congestion on already busy routes and the city. It is a different solution for different problems. This is New Network plus. And absolutely AT should be looking to solve it too. Note I live neither on a RT route nor on any proposed LTR one.
NW Busway sorely needed, people hate winding through all the back-roads on the 080/090 from Westgate for an hour for no good reason to them, possibly after being on a Huapai/Hellensville or Whenuapai bus for some time before that. At the very least they could implement bus priority on the NW like NOW and make motorway buses from Westgate to Britomart via the Motorway run all day rather than just during peak.
The “WEX”.
I see you have said something about money in this well do Auckland have the money to build this dam rail link that seems to be a main subject in which the government have said they will foot half the bill …the light rail seems to be a far better option than this tunnel..why not approach the government with light rail instead of this dam tunnel .Then the city will over half the bill that they are asking the already stretched rate payers to fork out for
Troll? Rail Tunnel (Central Rail Link) and these Light Rail links solve different transport problems, light rail on these routes don’t affect CRL and the CRL don’t affect these light rail links. It’s like saying its alright, we are building transmission gully motorway so don’t need the northern holiday highway. Maybe some Auckland geography will help you?
Mike – it’s the dam motorway schemes that should be canned to free up money for both light rail AND the CRL tunnel!
At what point will there be too many buses in the CBD? Is this part of a strategy to avoid ‘bus overkill’ (eg symonds street) which actually risks reducing the liveability of the central city? If every desirable bus services was actually implemented, wouldnt we run out of space downtown?
In relation to the route selection – it must be important to consider the potential PT users in each location, not just the permitted residential densities. Places like Hobsonville may have higher net densities than Sandringham (etc), but arguably Sandringham could have more potential regular PT users who would take advantage of a quick and easy route into the city (and maybe considering larger homes/family sizes, etc.) Some of these areas lack other options (eg rapid bus lanes). But I agree more upzoning should occur.
I find it an interesting question; should rapid transit options be prioritised to people living far away from the CBD, or to those living closer to it? Far away rapid transit may reduce overall energy use. Rapid transit provided to central areas may simply be an easier way to get more cars off the roads.
Should rapid transit options be prioritised to people living far away from the CBD, or to those living closer to it?
I believe in long term it is better to build a smart city which is compact and dense.
The area close to city should be zoned for higher density and build the mass transport there. Then the developers will follow and build more apartments near those mass transport. In long term it will make the city compact.
However at this stage, the PT to distant suburbs are very poor. So some investment is still urgently needed.
Thank you, you put this in a much nicer way than I have ever been able to. The intensification should take place in the areas close to the CBD regardless of what the unitary plan says, and providing good public transport is the best way to encourage that.
The problem light rail has always faced is that it is a good replacement for buses but not a great replacement for cars. If you live and work where it is difficult to travel by bus then it will probably be impossible by light rail. Even for those currently using the bus system light rail might result in a longer trip as it is limited to a track. On the plus side light rail would give us a cbd distributor that would be far more useful than a couple of CRL stations.
No matter, people on theses routes are already replacing car use with bus use so if insist that that is the necessary progression; well they’re onto it!
Sure it is worth it to them as they will get a better quality of ride but it doesnt advance the first goal of getting more out of cars so maybe it belongs down the list of priorities. If there is a shortage of buses in the central isthmus then the first step is increase bus numbers. I am with Matt on the intensification issue- no intensification means no expensive lrt. We are better off spending public money where it will make a difference overall. [With the exception of Newton in Wellington where I hope they spend heaps of money on light rail as my rental will be worth more 😉 ]
Which comes first? The LRT or the Intensification? Chicken or the egg? Could argue this for ages, meantime the world moves on.
The argument is always “Can’t intensify without proper alternatives to cars”, so building LRT in the isthmus allows this to happen.
And means that the next time the UP comes up for change, the NIMBYs can’t argue that transport can’t cope. When quite clearly it will be able to.
So, doing LRT ASAP is the way to end this argument for good.
Oh I agree about the intensification issue; LRT or no LRT, but the ‘just chuck down more buses’ argument doesn’t wash as we’re pretty much at peak bus for both the city centre and these arterials. Many more and neither they nor the general traffic will be moving. LTR is about higher capacity on a narrower lane and no turning especially in the city, plus a lower per rider opex, ‘nicer ride’ is just by-catch. But the there may be a way that LRT is a gateway drug for improved allowable intensification on the Isthmus. Certainly it is THE way to get cars out of Queen St
I am not sure about peak bus. I think there is still plenty to be done- chuck the cyclists out of bus lanes, use premption more to keep cars out of the way, shove the buses done the centre of the road so they are not blocked by all the turns (LRT would likely be given all of that). The only advantage of LRT on these roads is you can couple them and hold more people in each but that doesnt help with travel time over the bus. The best part would be getting the diesels out of the CBD but maybe that would be the best place to start and interchange people at the edge of the cbd. It would certainly be a way of getting started.
“The only advantage of LRT on these roads is you can couple them and hold more people in each but that doesnt help with travel time over the bus.”
Yes it will reduce OPEX per passenger – one driver for more people = much lower opex per passenger. And it doesn’t need Fossil fuels to run and doesn’t pollute everywhere it goes.
“The best part would be getting the diesels out of the CBD but maybe that would be the best place to start and interchange people at the edge of the cbd. It would certainly be a way of getting started.”
My point previously – LRT gets the buses out of the CBD.
As for doing just the CBD in LRT – there is no real OPEX saving in getting on LRT then stopping at the edge and putting everyone onto 2 or more buses there per LRT – that increases opex not reduces it by quite an amount.
Might as well run LRT along the entire route(s).
And also where do you propose the LRT/bus transfer stations be – need a lot of space for buses to turn around and wait for the LRT’s. Sounds like a smaller version of the Britomart bus situation now.
“The only advantage of LRT on these roads is you can couple them and hold more people in each but that doesnt help with travel time over the bus.”
Actually not quite true. As I’ll explain in a separate post I understand that because it would be a case of running fewer overall services it means you can do some proper signal priority and give LRT a proper green wave. With the bus only solution you end up having buses constantly turning up at every phase of an intersection meaning bus priority pretty much goes out the widow.
Forced transfers of whole, or multi bus, volumes close to their destination is unlikely to work or be popular, which is the same thing. Transferring for the city on the city edge is terrible; New Lynn, Panmure, Otahuhu, Mt Albert, GI, Ellerslie, or further out all good. But not Mt Eden, Grafton, maybe Newmarket just.
Transfers need to be incentivised rather than forced, all those people changing from bus to train already at Panmure are doing so because its quicker [and probably nicer] by train. Once all fares are integrated and if a majority are leaving the bus at Panmure then AT could consider turning the bus around at this point or taking it across town, and not into Britomart.
But make Dom/Queen LRT and that’s a whole hill of buses out of the City. Remember the bus ‘problem’ [high demand is a good problem] is sourced on the Shore and the Isthmus, converting the heavy Isthmus routes into LRT and there goes a great deal of the pressure. Eventually the Shore rail line solves the other half of the problem.
The hardest phase for the city is near term as demand grows and we have neither CRL nor LRT, and probably are digging up streets for both! gets worse before it gets better. Better hope the rail demand keeps growing disproportionately, that people find them so appealing they make ever longer trips to train stations for their speed and comfort AND we can keep them running full and reliably… build those interchange stations, better paths and cycleways to them too etc…
So many myths. Opex is more than just the cost of the driver. And if you’re not even going to consider the upfront and ongoing capital costs, then you may as well leave the room. They are far FAR higher than buses. TRams also have less seating – far less seating, so good luck with that 40 minute ride into town because you will be sharing with traffic. And then of course they stick to the main drag, increasing your walking distance. And if there’s a blockage, you’re stuck, likely waiting for… BUS replacements.
Yeah, really “great” bus replacements.
I think a lot of this debate really comes down to where the debater lives! Of course everyone who lives in the Isthmus thinks light rail is a great idea, anyone who lives in south or west Auckland thinks the CRL is a great idea, anyone who lives on the shore thinks the busway extension is a great idea. I guess we have to leave it to Auckland Transport to work out the numbers and decide which projects stack up the most.
“Dominion Rd services alone carry almost 2 million trips per year (the Northern Busway carries around 2.5 million)” – I think this is often overlooked. If we could do light rail to the shore for $400 million it would be considered a no-brainer by most. But when its the Isthmus its considered extravagant when there is already a ‘perfectly good’ overcrowded bus service in place.
Providing it has a dedicated right of way what I like about light rail or modern trams for the isthmus is that it represents a long term transit commitment that allows developers to make similar investments. Coupled with a major reduction in mandatory off-street parking requirements this will allow for lower cost apartments without compromising actual living space in the apartment itself. What I don’t like about buses is that routes can be changed too easily thereby confusing users.
Lets all be clear folks that one of (if not **THE**) major reason(s) why LRT is being considered, is because the Centre City Future Access Study (CCFAS) produced to confirm that CRL was needed (and said it was needed sooner than later) said something has to be done in addition to building CRL.
What it said that even with CRL built and running and “all the other things”, that the CBD will still choke to death on buses and other traffic within the next decades **even if** all the plans for the councils “gold plated” PT network are put in place and money spent as it is supposed to be.
CCFAS also said that despite spending $Bs on fixing the traffic problems over the next 20-30 years, the actual traffic speeds in and around the CBD will very seriously decline – thats with the spending the money option. If we don’t spend any money, then might as well go home now folks as the result will be worse than the old horse drawn tram days.
And as the CBD directly accounts for a lot of high value jobs, the Auckland and NZ Economic growth prospects need the CBD to work, and work well as the economic power house it is.
Thats is also why the code name for the LRT proposal is “CCFAS2” not “Super Trams for Ignorant NIMBYs in 3-Kings” (STINK)
This project is a lot about sorting out the CBD’s congestion problem, with a different kind of thinking.
The kind – which you know is always a pre-requisite to getting out of the holes/problems that the existing thinking got you into.
The fact that it has a whole lot of spin off benefits is exactly what we need as well.
Government should now acquire the lands near future stations. Then build the light rail and sell off those lands to developer for a higher price to cover the construction cost.
I think the council did exactly that with Wynyard Quarter, it is a pretty smart idea. I guess the question is is there any significant land for sale?
Why sell off the land so some developer can make the most profits?
Why own buy, own, develop and hold – like council does for its many other assets?
Land Developing is a risky business, yes there are good profits to be made, there are also big loses to be taken. A good developer knows how to challenge designers and contractors to reduce costs where necessary and add value where needed. With my experience working with council staff, it would be highly unlikely they would deliver a successful development that actually makes a profit for the council. A council delivered project would have far to many overheads.
But even if they managed to find the expertise, taking that risk would not be good use of ratepayers funds.
Plenty of ways to manage that risk, like a 50/50 JV with a developer with a good record, but if a council CCO has skin in the game the outcome will usually be better than if it has no skins in the game.
Yes you’ll win some and lose some but everything is a risk, if you seek to have a risk free outcome then you won’t get a particularly desirable one either.
Unfortunately council run projects have a general tendency to go over budget and delivery date. Both of which are not options when it comes to land-development. Throwing in the politics of local government into a land-development project will be quite restrictive even under a JV. It would be very hard to find a developer willing to work with the council, although a JV could in fact work quite well in terms of the end product, money will be loss in the mean time which will scare developers away.
Better the council makes the rules, and the developer delivers the project.
Can’t we afford it if we drop some gold-plated roading projects?
Yes please- one of my particular concerns here out West is that whilst the PT improvements are not happening ( and trains are not within easy reach of Massey, Te Atatu, etc) the motorways are being widened, arterials widened and with little or no PT provisions. How much harder is it going to be to convince Westies to choose something other than the car when that is what you are building.
Ill make you a deal, no flyover at the basin and auckland can have that money as a free gift from the capital. Would rather forgo the money than a place destroying flyover!
We just dropped our flyover too – citing your one as the example of why they’re not considered very good to build in a modern city.
The fact that AT is far through the process and AC had no idea about it is the giant mind boggle to me.
Do these two organisations even know about each other?
I have an issue with Auckland Transport light rail page. According to Auckland Transport light rail has a much higher capacity than a busway, with the ability to move 18,000 v 6,000 people per hour per direction.
The Southwestern busway in Brisbane, which is very similar to the Northern Busway, is listed as have a capacity of 15,000. AT brochure for the Northern Express states that it takes 7 minutes to travel the 6 kilometre section of actual busway between Constellation and Akoranga. This gives an average speed of over 50 km/hr, which is far greater than 15-22 kilometres per hour quoted on AT light rail page.
The passenger screen-line counts show that in 2009 Symonds St, with no bus lanes, over 9,000 people where on buses over a 2 hours. This equates to 4,500 people per hour, which is greater than 2,500 people quoted on AT light rail page.
The Gold Coast Light Rail, which could be similar to what is being proposed on the isthmus, is listed as having a capacity to move 10,000 people per hour at average speed of 23km/hr.
Northern Busway is used as a Rapid Transport Corridor, so needs to be compared to Heavy Rail, e.g. the western line. The light rail concept is not a rapid transport line, it needs to be more compared to the bus-lanes down Tamaki Drive. If you start talking Busway we should really look at a Heavy Rail Line.
You mention the funding needed for other things such as Airport rail, but my understanding is that AT now prefer having light rail to the airport, so it’s not just the inner routes they are looking at for their tram network. They appear to have scaled back their pursual of airport rail, with the designation process stalled, and they have pretty much stopped talking about North Shore rail. The government also, is no longer talking about a mass transit tunnel to the shore, but light rail could be retrofitted to the existing harbour bridge, if a new road tunnel is built.
So my impression is that AT are preparing to pull the plug on expansion of the heavy rail network, in favour of trams instead. I can see both positives and negatives to that, one positive being greater coverage through areas where heavy rail just can’t be built. Even Panmure-Botany-Manukau and a branch to Howick would do well with light rail.
What is the advantage of light rail vs heavy rail to the airport. Is it speed? According to Wikipedia, modern light rail can get up to 105 km/h.
Would light rail mean AT own the network instead of that freight company (kiwirail)? Then you wouldn’t have Wellington based signalling issues and competing for track space with freight.
No, no, no, and no. Light rail’s only advantage is a cheaper alignment, in that LRT can handle tighter geometries, while remembering that tight geometries slow down the vehicle, and it can share the road with traffic, which also greatly reduces its speed, often dramatically in practice [more like 15kph rather than 105kph].
LRT can be speed comparable so long as it has all the features that make building standard rail expensive; total grade separation, ie own Right of Way, plus reducing the number of stops, which obviously speeds total journey time, but arguably reduce its utility.
So it is impossible to see how LRT could be anywhere near as fast to the airport given that at least part of its route would be mixed running, ie on the roads. Even assuming LRT would run along the motorway from Airport-Onehunga, so could get up decent speed if stops are well spaced, the section from Onehunga to the city, say up Manukau Rd, would take way longer than extending the Onehunga line to the airport, especially if the Onehunga-Penrose section is upgraded. Perhaps they imagine keeping it on the m’way all the way to Dom Rd, well there is isn’t much utility in serving a motorway corridor with street cars is there? And the Dom Rd-City section won’t be as fast as the southern line, especially post CRL with it swooping into Aotea via Grafton.
Furthermore a whole new LRT from the city to the airport is surely not going to be cheaper than extending the route that is already half way there through the most clogged section of the city.
My opinion on the project would change if only 1 route was to go ahead for the time being instead of the whole lot. To me the best possible way to minimise the cost and the subsequent delay of other projects e.g Manukau, Otahuhu interchanges, Busway extensions etc. is to push ahead with only doing light rail on the Wynyard quarter > Britomart > Queen Street > Dominion Rd route, rather than all the proposed routes.
That way you remove some buses from down town, feed other buses to this line at appropriate stops and minimise the cost of the project. That way LRT could be introduced around or before CRL and other projects will still go ahead without delay. With time you slowly introduce a line where appropriate as savings will be made from Dom line, patronage will rise on all modes and the cities wallets will be bigger.
This seems like the only Win Win situation for ALL of us, West, South, North and Isthmus.
Except that it may not be attractive to the funders of the project to do only 1 line, as the economies of scale that AT and the other parties need to make it stack might not be there if you do it “small scale”.
And we have a track record of doing “PT” related stuff “small scale” in case it doesn’t work, and end up with solutions that suck and don’t interoperate. Wynyard Quarter Tram anyone?
Disjointed Bus lanes is another.
For comparison when was the last time NZTA did a 1 lane each way motorway “small scale” pilot and only added lanes when the traffic built up? Or AT with an arterial?
No they both go in with a 3 lanes each way proposal from the get go. Same should apply here.
Remember the likely OPEX savings of LRT over buses on the Isthmus will pay for this anyway, so doing it is not likely to add any load to the AT spending budget in the short or longer terms.
So cannot/should not be used as an excuse why other PT projects can proceed as well as per the LTP.
Because this project will effectively be off balance sheet – just like the Governments road PPPs are.
If they do Dominion then at very minimum they might as well do Sandringham as the two are a bit of a pair and would mean use of the city centre part could be maximised. It’s only an extra 5km of track to do Sandringham Rd.
This might be worth a look.
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/18/8056011/streetcar-systems-washington