One issue that often gets raised is that bus lanes along Albert St are inconsistent. They exist on some parts then disappear again shortly afterwards, normally to allow for turning traffic at intersections. Currently most buses from both the North Shore and West Auckland use Albert St as the main corridor through the CBD and the impact on them is only going to get worse as more and more buses are needed in the future (even with the CBD tunnel) . This issue was also raised in the Passenger Transport Report for the additional harbour crossing released a few months ago.
After looking again at the CBD rail tunnel study I wonder if we could use the CBD rail tunnel to also be a bus tunnel. Firstly the tracks at Britomart are about 10m below sea level and the cross section diagram below shows that they would seem to stay at least the same distance below the surface all of the way to the Aotea station which the report says would be 18m below the surface.
Because of the relatively shallow depth the report says that this section along with the Aotea station would be dug using a cut and cover tunnel with the rest of it being done by a tunnel boring machine. Cut and cover tunnels are dug down from the surface so in a case like this there could be a huge gap above the trains as the overhead catenary only needs a clearance above the rails of 5m-6m which made me wonder what we would do with the rest of the space.
Obviously there would need to be space for things like ventilation, fire protection systems etc however if there was sufficient extra space I think we should consider adding a bus tunnel as well. If this was possible then we could have a bus only tunnel entrance on Albert St just south of Customs St. From there buses would travel under the road surface all the way up to the Aotea Station where we would also have a bus station to allow for seamless transfers between trains and buses. A short extension of the tunnel of the tunnel under Wellesley St would then allow buses to exit back to the surface to continue their journey and of course buses could come from the other direction as well.
A couple of major advantages of this that I can see is:
- It would remove four sets of traffic lights from all bus routes along this corridor speeding up buses and making them more efficient.
- It allows more buses to use the route.
- It is only using space that otherwise might be empty so while there would be some additional costs it might not be as much as it would cost otherwise.
- By removing the bus lanes from the surface, Albert St could be reconfigured to allow extra general traffic lanes which might be needed in the future when further pedestrian improvements are made to Queen St.
- Another option could be to create a planted median to help soften the street and provide pedestrian refuge.
Looking a bit further into the future the AWHC report indicates that due to the number of buses from the shore, they might need to be split up between Fanshawe St and Cook St. It also suggests a short bus only tunnel on Cook St under both Nelson St and Hobson St to make the grades easier for buses and to avoid being held up at the lights. Grade separating the bus lanes under the intersections on Fanshawe St was also suggested. Combining these ideas together along with the Sturdee St busway admin proposed we could end up with the following for North Shore buses which would leave only two intersections in the CBD for them to have to negotiate, Mayoral Dr and Customs St West which is a vast improvement on what exists now.
If my idea is technically possible I believe it would really add to the benefits of the CBD rail tunnel as well as making it truly ‘multimodal’ which seems to be the buzz word for transport projects these days.
Processing...
Good ideas Matt L. One to add though would be to construct the bus tunnels for a later upgrade to Light Rail when the busses reach their patronage limit.
Surely the best solution is to simply extend the bus lanes and give buses greater priority at street level? In Zurich they had a vote in the 70’s, I think it was, as to whether the tram system should be converted to an underground system or the existing system expanded, one reason they opted for the latter was the desire to keep the streets dedicated to passenger transport, shifting everything underground would simply hand the roads over to cars and the resulting increase in traffic an expansion of road space would bring. In Auckland I tend to think we’d be ending up with the same situation, gridlocked unpleasent streets at groundlevel and PT hidden away in tunnels. I definitely find that streets around Auckland with bus lanes are calmer simply because traffic has been reduced to two lanes (in between buses).
The problem with just extending the bus lanes is you still have all of the traffic lights and then would have cars crossing into the lane to turn left, all of which reduces the bus capacity. Also shifting it underground doesn’t have to hand it to cars. As I said you could retain one lane of traffic with a few turning bays but for the most part have a planted median with trees and shrubs etc. You could also add bike lanes add bike lanes which would be a continuation of those along Vincent St. I don’t find streets with bus lanes calmer than those without them but I do find the noise and often the fumes created by buses much more unpleasant than cars.
Certainly if the road lanes were reduced it could have a positive impact, I do think however that AT need to look at not allowing cars to turn right on street such as Albert Street that are critical for buses, especially now that all of the buses from Queen Street are going to be moved there. Removing turns would also reduce the number of traffic light phases by half.
What do you do with all the bus stops, or is this intended to be a one or two stops only system? You’re not going to build half a dozen bus stops underground.
You’d need to look at ventilation. The tunnel would be quite unpleasant if it had even a small amount of diesel fumes in it. If you’ve ever been on the Wellington to Porirua railway line through the tunnels just north of the city then you’ll know that the fumes from the freight train seem to hang around and you can smell them even though the passengers close all of the train windows.
Seattle’s bus tunnel has/d 5 underground stops. Since the upgrade to light rail, they now use hybrid buses in the tunnel, without adding to the existing ventilation. They were still running as trolleys when I was there, so I can’t commen on the fume level.
My bad. I did vaguely remember some smell of diesel, and it turns out when I visited, they had switched to diesel/electric hybrids.
I think the only other place needed for a bus stop would be between around Swanson St, a station there would sort out the lower part of Albert st.
Yes ventilation would definitely be needed however hopefully by the time we get around to constructing this we will have much more efficient and less smelly buses. AT could stipulate that only buses that meet a certain criteria be allowed to use it and could work with the bus companies in advance to ensure all models were compliment as there would potentially be a 5-10 year window before it came online.
A big problem is that you have both North Shore and West Auckland buses trying to use Albert Street, conflicting with each other. Quite simply, there are too many buses trying to use this street.
My solution would be to send all North Shore buses other than the NEX via Wellesley Street – as I explained in this previous post: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2011/04/12/improving-north-shore-buses/
Once you got all the North Shore buses off Albert Street then I think the need for a bus tunnel would probably be lowered.
However, it would be interesting to explore what level of additional cost a double-level tunnel would be. If it was only 10% more expensive, then it might be worth doing something like what San Francisco has under Market Street, light-rail on the first level down and the BART on the bottom level. However, if it was 50% more then it’d probably not be worth it.
A tunnel like I have described could handle a much larger number of buses than on street lanes could. The problem with having north shore buses go via Wellesley is how would they get there, they would have to go via Halsey St which then further reduces the bus carrying capacity of Fanshawe St as you need to have a turning lane etc.
The real point of this is if we have a half empty hole just sitting there we would be stupid not to use it and while it would cost more it wouldn’t be that much more. The business case lists the cut and cover part at $82m and the Aotea Station at $140m so pretty small compared the rest of the tunnel.
Horrible idea, buses are ghastly enough at street level but in tunnels are truly vile. Join the bus lanes up, rationalise the bus movements and recognise that the CBDRL will take some pressure off this route [though not NS buses of course] and work towards the harbour rail tunnel. Please don’t buy into the bad old ways of doing everything on the cheap. Remember there’s 17 billion in the NLTF for new infrastructure over the next 12 years.
The CBDRL won’t really make any difference to the number of buses, remember that people arriving the the CBD by bus are expected to almost double even with the rail tunnel and most of those buses will be arriving via 3 main corridors, Fanshawe St, Albert St and Symonds St. Yes there is a lot of money in the NLTF but there are also a lot of other projects even in the region that are needed like rail to the airport, upgrading Dominion Rd, PT improvements out East. The whole point of this idea is that if we have a half empty hole in the ground why not use it. Even when we finally get rail over to the shore (which will probably be at least 30 years away) there will still be plenty of buses from the inner western suburbs and the Northwest that could use this. I don’t see how doing something like this would be doing something ‘on the cheap’
I just hate underground buses [and underground bus stations even more], nasty smelly low value places, and remember road tunnels, which is what these are, are horrible at every point they surface, I just don’t see this as any kind of valuable addition to Auckland’s urban fabric, no matter how many buses it, intermittently, takes off the street. I know they went that way in Brisbane but I still think its to be avoided if the option is there to expand an existing rail network; the rewards will be exponential. Sorry.
Also I see this having appeal to those forces that wish to suppress the rail renaissance and will be in favour of this INSTEAD of the CBDRL. Auckland’s street level problem is too many cars, they will reduce if we increase the quality of bus priority and will largely solve this problem while we build the real solution: underground trains. My NLTF reference is just to underline that there is money about, just not currently the political will. Remember Sydney built its urban metro during the Depression, and what a fantastic ongoing investment that has been. I think it’s important not to buy into the ‘there is no money’ rant from the greed petrol drinkers. Stockholm Syndrome.
Patrick this idea can’t happen without the CBD rail tunnel as it is about using spare space created by it for another purpose. I also think if anything it would help the rail tunnel as it would probably increase the benefits quite a bit for a relatively small price and just because buses are noisy and smelly now doesn’t mean they will be in the future. How would you feel if there was light rail or trolly buses only using it?
Personally I don’t think it would harm the urban fabric of the city and in lots of ways could enhance it. You currently have 4-5 lanes of traffic with in some places small footpaths and very little vegetation. A street with a single lane each way,except for few turning bays, separated by a planted median with wider footpaths as well as cycle lanes would be much nicer than what we have now with. I know how bad this street currently is my work is based on Albert St so I walk along it every day.
In the immediate future what do AT plan to do to cope with all the Queen Street buses? Anything? As I mentioed above if they removed all on street parking, removed right turn lanes – or alternatively moved the buses to the centre of the road and made bus stops in the middle of the street as is common with tram systems, then we could end up with a functioning busway. I really like how the conversion of on street parking on Symods Street, for instance, through the uni into planting really acts to create a buffer between pedesrians and the traffic.
I guess the major problem is that Albert Street needs a solution in the new year or so, rather than in 10 which is how long it will be before we get the tunnel.
Er, AT want to abolish the Queen Street buses except for a shuttle from K’ Road to the Wynyard Quarter.
AT are MOVING the buses to a different street namely Albert Street, that’s not the same as abolishing them.
Worth looking at. Inner cities tend to get congested as they grow and suffer delays. Tunnels in CBDs are good ideas IMHO.
An interesting post Matt. Is this an alternative to North Shore rail?
No not an alternative but could be useful as an interim solution, also its about getting the most out of our potential infrastructure.
maybe an Albert St tunnel could be useful, but maybe more useful for buses from the North Western busway.
the North Shore buses should be split like Jarbury said so they dont need to go down Albert St. However the NW buses need somewhere to go. Would only probably have 1 stop (aotea) though.
It’s a nice idea but unfortunately I don’t believe you have enough room fit a bus tunnel as well as the rail tunnel plus the utilities that need to go under Albert Street.
I think the grade separation you’ve shown on the map and the tunnel portals would be seriously bad for Auckland CBD’s already ugly streetscape. There’s lots of roadspace in the CBD, overtime convert more of that space to bus priority, and overtime convert more bus routes to trains or trams. But if you want to build a bus tunnel don’t just put one in because it seems opportunistic, first look at where you want to have future rail lines or tram lines and if you can’t build the whole rail line now maybe build the CBD tunnel part as a bus tunnel that can be upgraded to rail in the future.
A good idea in theory – but even with a much more pro-PT government, loading complexity and costs onto the CBD tunnel is VERY risky.
i can appreciate some of the pluses but a bus tunnel is just not thinking long-term enough, IMHO. better to concentrate on rail, trams and feeder buses. the CBDRL really needs to be operational within 10 years. once planning is properly going for that, then start preparing for North Shore, Southeast train lines and Dominion Road trams.
I really like this thinking. Starting to sound like Queen St Brisbane.
Bus tunnel and Rail tunnel from Britomart to Aotea Station would allow the lower end of Queen St to be pedestrianised.
Word of warning, there are people who would like to see the CBD Rail link sidelined by building a bus tunnel instead of the rail link, I know its ridiculous and dosnt have anywhere near the network expansion benefits of the rail tunnel.
Yes exactly, and these people, Infratil, AK chamber of commerce, have the ear of the Minister, and stand to profit from Auckland further suffocating in diesel fumes… please let’s focus on the vital, much much better for Auckland extension of the rail network. There are more than enough forces opposing it without us muddying the picture. Auckland faces a slow but inexorable stagnation without this desperately needed piece of infrastructure.