Tags

Feeds / Fair Intelligent Transport (FIT) Wellington feed

This feed is published by Fair Intelligent Transport (FIT) Wellington.

This feed is read by this Whakaoko subscription

Added on 7 May 2020. Last read 1 month ago.

To subscribe to this feed, enter the following location into your feed reader.

This feed currently contains the following newsitems (total count 24):

    • LGWM Options Feedback
      • LGWM has announced 4 transport options aimed at moving more people with fewer vehicles, enabling more housing development, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In FIT Wellington’s view: • Option , south coast light rail via Taranaki Street, is the strongest option and Option , bus rapid transit to the sea and skies, is the weakest option • Option 1, south coast light rail + new public transport tunnel, is a stronger option than Option , south coast light rail • leaving Vivian Street as the eastbound corridor for SH1 through traffic is a lost opportunity for unlocking the huge potential for developing the Te Aro precinct • LGWM needs to find ways for radically shortening the implementation timetable <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > We need to pick up the pace! (Source: LGWM)  The options are fair and reasonable 2. FIT understands that LGWM’s approach has been to match mass rapid transit mode to projected future demand. The options occupy the first  rungs of a demand ladder: • lower growth, lower demand → bus priority • medium growth, medium demand → -lane bus rapid transit • higher growth, higher demand → streetcar-style light rail • highest growth, highest demand → metro-style light rail (not used) 3. The approach focuses attention where it belongs—on decisions about the future development of the southern and eastern corridors. Frequent, fast services on high-capacity, low-floor vehicles, with on-platform ticketing, will operate on (mostly) dedicated and segregated lanes, with priority at intersections. The proposals will reduce the number of cars by reducing the number of lanes for cars. The outcome will transform the way we travel. FIT endorses this transit oriented development strategy. . FIT expects that when assessing the options, LGWM will use a risk-adjusted value approach. In all options, there is a risk that demand will be higher or lower than projected. The net benefit (benefits less costs) of each option needs to account for this risk by using the risk-adjusted net benefit.  Option 4 is the strongest option 5. FIT Wellington supports Option 4 because: • it keeps options open for future mass rapid transit to the east via Cambridge Terrace, if and when demand on that corridor grows • it includes Light Rail to Newtown and Island Bay along Taranaki Street, which is more central with more development opportunities than the more peripheral Cambridge Terrace • it brings mass rapid transit within 400 metres (a  minute walk) of all points on the Golden Mile • it bypasses the Basin Reserve, simplifying changes there to improve active transport options • it is the lowest cost option, with the earliest completion date <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > <a class=" sqs-block-image-link " href="https://hello.lgwm.nz/explore/?option=04&view=detail" > Option 4 (Source: LGWM) 6. Current best overseas practice is to build one light rail line at a time and to start design on the second line (mass rapid transit to the east) as soon as construction starts on the first line, and so on. Option 4 is consistent with this approach, which maximises development potential on each corridor.  Option 2 is the weakest option 7. We consider Option 2 is the weakest, highest risk option and should be discarded. If growth or mode-shift on the Island Bay corridor exceed LGWM’s projections, Wellington would face expensive, technically challenging and disruptive works to upgrade the corridor from BRT to light rail. Without such an upgrade, Wellington would have little choice other than progressively overloading the corridor with BRT vehicles, inevitably degrading system performance as buses get in each other’s way. 8. Longer buses are not practical. In contrast, it is relatively easy to increase the capacity of a light rail corridor by running longer vehicle-sets, with longer platforms. FIT notes and supports LGWM’s proposal to run a high frequency service, so there will be little opportunity to increase capacity by increasing frequency 9. The risk that Option 2 has underestimated demand on the north–south corridor may be low probability, but the impact is very high. If demand significantly exceeds projections, the only mitigation is to upgrade the corridor. It is therefore essential that this risk is properly priced into the cost– benefit analysis for this option. One approach would be to include the risk-adjusted cost and benefit of upgrading the corridor to light rail.  Option 1 is stronger than Option 3 10. Compared to Option 3, Option 1 offers significant public transport improvements to the eastern suburbs, with better bus priority. Option 1 also provides a better layout at the Basin Reserve, including cross-platform transfers between the south (light rail) and east (bus priority) corridors. However, Option 1 is the most expensive option with potentially the longest delivery timetable. If demand on the eastern corridor significantly exceeds projections, upgrading the bus priority lanes to bus rapid transit would be relatively straightforward. However, upgrading to light rail may well be impractical.  Light rail to Island Bay can be improved 11. In reviewing the options presented, we saw several opportunities for enhancement: • we were dismayed when we saw the long timelines for implementation and urge LGWM to identify options for radically shortening these timelines • the route to Island Bay could become a genuine rapid transit route if light rail did not have to share its lanes with buses and other vehicles • it would be easier to understand how future-proofed all the options are if LGWM gives some thought to how the mass rapid transit network will be extended in future (for example, to Karori) • we favour a “MRT trunk, bus feeder” network design, rather than the “avoid transfers” approach that LGWM seems to have taken; reliable and frequent service overcomes transfer penalties • it would be better to run light rail along Martin Square alongside the Pukeahu park rather than Haining Street, especially if SH1 traffic is rerouted from Vivian Street to Karo Drive, as discussed below 12. The light rail proposals are at the streetcar (slower) rather than the metro (faster) end of the light rail design spectrum. Experience in other cities teaches that people will walk farther to catch a faster service. FIT encourages LGWM to place stations further apart rather than closer together. Stations too close together compete with each other for the same riders and slow the service down. Stations too far apart create economic dead zones in between. We suggest stations at least 00 metres and at most 1 kilometre apart, with an aim of achieving an average speed greater than  kph.  Review the project scope 13. The previous government directed LGWM to omit from scope rerouting SH1 eastbound traffic off Vivian Street onto Karo Drive. FIT notes that the difference in cost between Option 1 (highest cost) and Option 4 (lowest cost) is $1.bn. Without further analysis, FIT cannot have a properly informed view on whether the additional cost is the best value for money. 14. Vivian Street is currently an example of a traffic sewer. We consider leaving Vivian Street as the eastbound corridor for through traffic is a lost opportunity for unlocking the huge potential for developing the Te Aro precinct. We support LGWM’s original proposal that eastbound traffic be routed along Karo Drive, making this a two-way thoroughfare from the Terrace Tunnel to the Basin Reserve. <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Eastbound traffic on Vivian St. Photo credit: Sam Donald, 2017 15. Eye of the Fish has published a layout that would be consistent with Option 4. Figure 1, how to liberate Vivian Street, shows light rail (pale blue) running on Taranaki Street to Pukeahu park, where it runs parallel to a new eastbound SH1 trench (dashed white lines) to the west side of the Basin Reserve. Cycleways are shown in green, local roads are blue. Before LGWM chooses a preferred option, FIT would like to see how a future stage will liberate Vivian Street from eastbound SH1 traffic. <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > <a class=" sqs-block-image-link " href="https://eyeofthefish.org/plan-for-wellington/" > Figure 1. How to liberate Vivian Street from SH1 (source: Eye of the Fish) 16. Depending on the projected development potential on the east–west corridor, either BRT or light rail may be an appropriate future upgrade to an initial implementation of bus priority. Running bus priority through the existing bus tunnel in the first instance would keep future options open and make the resulting upgrade works less challenging.

    • Mr Downs, Mr Thomson and the second Mt Victoria tunnel
      • Wellington has overwhelming support for a second Mt Victoria tunnel: 62 per cent support in a survey by Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM), and 9 per cent opposed. But it won’t work. This sounds paradoxical and it is: the Downs-Thomson Paradox. “The quality of peak-hour travel by car tends to equal that of public transport.” The paradox has been confirmed – mathematically and practically – but is still often ignored. This is a serious error because it hides the city’s real traffic needs: sufficient public transport capacity to absorb the unavoidable peak-hour inefficiencies of motor traffic. One cause of the paradox is that different transport modes respond differently to peak-hour traffic: A railway has a fixed timetable and a fixed capacity. When it is overloaded – such as after a big event at the stadium – peak-capacity is simply continued until everyone has left. Highway capacity is much worse: the busier the road, the lower its peak-hour capacity. Many Wellington streets are stop-start at peak hours, with very low capacities. Extra lanes make little difference because they too are low-capacity. Cycle lanes, bus lanes, footpaths and light rail all use road-space more or much more effectively than motor traffic, provided that they are not stuck in motor traffic. Their people-carrying capacities in a traffic-lane are some 6 to 10 times greater than motor traffic, and much less affected by overloading. The other cause of the paradox is drivers’ behaviour. Some have to drive, some choose to drive and some choose public transport if it is quicker. When new road capacity is opened, many public transport users switch back to driving, which can make things much worse.  In Houston, the Katy Highway was widened in 2008 by two lanes in one direction and three in the other, to 26 lanes all told. From 2011 to 2014, travel times increased by 50 per cent: the new capacity had triggered new problems elsewhere.  All cities have traffic-signalled junctions, which limit capacity. These are the junctions that tend to become dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, because of attempts to boost the capacity of an inherently inefficient mode. A second Mt Victoria tunnel is a good idea, so long as it is bus-only, and extra space for walking and cycling would cost little more. Inner Wellington’s worst transport problem is Golden Mile bus capacity, and LGWM is right to prioritise it. Present-day bus numbers are double the reasonable capacity of the existing route. The buses are slow and unreliable (although motor traffic would be far worse) and some crucial streets are too narrow for extra bus lanes. LGWM's proposed second route is the quays and Taranaki St. Two bus lanes would work, but would soon be overloaded. Much better would be light rail, running from the railway station down the waterfront and on to the Wellington Hospital hub, the eastern suburbs and the airport. As soon as the first section opens, Golden Mile overloading will be easily fixed. Light rail’s capital costs are too often overstated, and operating costs ignored. In reality it becomes competitive with buses at about 3000 peak-hour passengers an hour, each way. Drivers are an important cost, and one driver can take far more tram passengers than bus passengers. Traffic planning in Wellington needs much better bus services, which means more hubs. Nobody in Wellington likes hubs, but quality public transport needs them. Greater Wellington needs to learn how to make them work.  When that is done, the problem disappears. Hubs save time because they allow buses on each route to run more frequently and effectively. Waiting three or four minutes to catch a bus hardly matters when the route runs every 10 minutes, instead of every 20. This post was written by Kerry Wood, a member of FIT Wellington, as an opinion piece and published in the Dominion Post and on the Stuff website 18 Nov 2020. <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " >

    • WCC Draft Spatial Plan
      • FIT believes that the key to how the city allows for increases in its population are decisions about Mass Rapid Transit (MRT): this will be the major determinant for the design of the Golden Mile (GM) and the final Spatial Plan for Wellington City and its surrounding suburbs. LGWM should urgently confirm their proposed MRT route and the locations of the stations. This will give developers and the communities around them certainty. We believe that light rail is the best and most proven method of solving Wellington’s transport problems. MRT along the quays will potentially get rid of 2/3 of the current number of buses cluttering the GM - this will completely change the way that the GM can be designed i.e. for people, not for cars. FIT suggests that WCC adopt a strategy of Density Done Well and embed this in the Spatial Plan. Density Done Well requires 3 strands, all essential: - Transport density: adopt the LGWM strategy for the Ngauranga-to-Airport corridor to "move more people with fewer vehicles" city-wide, enabling more people to "live local". The transport equivalent of medium density housing is mass rapid transit. Key to the effectiveness of the route is allowing it to be ‘rapid’ avoiding highly pedestrianised areas such as Courtenay Place and instead going down Taranaki St through the heart of the Te Aro development area (also avoiding the Basin Reserve in the process). - Housing density: promote medium density, medium height residential and commercial development in areas where there is higher transport density and in suburban town centres. To ensure that density done well, WCC needs to look at things such as Design Review Panels or selected lists of highly skilled design teams to ensure quality developments. - Ecological density: promote development which reduces emissions and increases biodiversity eg. more green spaces, parks, native trees and shrubs, restored wetlands, on site handling of the three waters, urban food production and food waste composting, beehives etc. within the city. <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " >

    • An Innovating Streets trial for a transport transition
      • This post originally appeared on Talk Wellington - check it out for all things urban and topical. Five temporary projects are proposed in Wellington for safer movement while social distancing suppresses bus capacity. Brooklyn local Sam Donald writes to his fellow Brooklynites… Dear Brooklyn, Are you perhaps a regular or occasional cyclist? Or maybe a new lockdown-quiet-road-cyclist?  Perhaps you have members of your family and/or friends who are or may one day want to be cyclists, and you want to ensure their safety out there?  Or maybe you just recognise the planet’s need for some changes in our transport behaviour? Did you know that there is a pop-up rori iti / cycle lane proposed for Brooklyn Rd as part of the COVID-19 recovery planning?  The primary intention is to provide a safe, climate friendly and congestion-free alternative to buses running at 40% capacity due to social distancing requirements by making it safer and more inviting to cycle up Brooklyn Rd.  Even under normal conditions, our buses are often over capacity and Wellington’s roads are often congested: a lot of the traffic on this route is heavy vehicles heading to the three landfill sites – not an ideal mix sharing a lane with little people on little bikes! <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Image credit: Sam Donald, 2020 NZTA are funding 90% of this and other projects around the city as a COVID-19 response through their ‘Innovating Streets’ tactical urbanism programme – with ratepayers paying the other 10%.  This cycle lane isn’t designed yet and I’m hopeful that the community will have some influence in the design process and some involvement in the detailed design from mid June (assuming it gets Council approval to proceed on 11th June).  Many locals have put a lot of thought into how this could work best for all users. It would be great if it could be extended to address safety concerns to its North and South, to make it safer to cross the road as a pedestrian and perhaps to still allow very slow trucks to be overtaken at some point on the ascent. Trialing these things collaboratively with the community must surely be smarter than jumping straight to a predetermined solution, don’t you think? <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Let’s suck it and see! Image credit Tara Roberts, on Inland360.com If you support this project (or not!), it would be great if you could make a submission on the WCC website. Perhaps encourage your kids who would like to be able to bike to high school safely to submit too. You may wish to pass it on to anyone you know that would like to support safer cycling in and around our fine city.  The WCC Traffic Resolution can be found here and feedback can me made directly here GBRAI (Greater Brooklyn Residents Association Inc.) have hand delivered a survey to local letterboxes over the weekend. You can also complete that same survey online here At A2B (Active to Brooklyn), we have created an aide to submissions with a bunch of pre-prepared comments that you can copy and paste from either to create a letter / email to WCC, to copy into the WCC response form. You can download it as a .docx and as a .pdf here

    • Open letter to WCC Councillors re. COVID-19 Innovating Streets funding application
      • Dear Mayor and Councillors, Re: WCC Innovating Streets Projects We understand that you will be discussing requests for government funding via NZTA for these possible projects tomorrow, 7 May at 2 PM. Unfortunately we are unable to speak as all slots are fully allocated. We approve of your suggested projects as they are listed on your website: but they go nowhere nearly far enough. They intentionally avoid routes currently included within the LGWM early works package. Also, the weightings to rank proposals (under para 10) are bizarrely distorted towards giving priority to car parking (50%) over safety (2.5%).In addition, and of huge importance, the proposal as it currently stands, fails to recognise the urgency of implementing emergency measures to provide social distancing for walkers and cyclists during this current pandemic. These vulnerable people need alternatives to over-capacity public transport and (predominantly) fossil-fuelled, congestion-inducing private motor vehicles.We recommended that you consider:• Applying your own WCC 'sustainable transport hierarchy'. This gives highest priority to walkers, followed by cyclists, with private vehicles (and their need to park) lowest. • Giving teeth to your own WCC climate change emergency declaration. This must  prioritise low carbon transport like walking and cycling over private vehicles (and their need to park).  It should also give effect to your draft 'smarter ways to manage parking' policy.• Conforming with your own WCC commitment, as part of LGWM,  to 'move more people with fewer cars' by urgently implementing safe alternatives to low-occupancy private vehicles.We ask you to implement the following, which are in line with your responsibilities as listed above:• A change to the control mechanism of traffic lights throughout the CBD to give pedestrians priority. There are two simple ways to do this, both of which eliminate the need for pedestrians to physically ‘contact’ beg buttons (unless they are visually impaired and will therefore still need to request an audible signal):o Option 1: Pedestrian cross signals to be green at all times (with all traffic lights remaining red) until a vehicle approaches and triggers the sensors for the pedestrian lights to count down to red;o Option 2: Where lack of existing vehicle sensors, or other restrictions prohibit the implementation on ‘Option 1’, automatically give pedestrians a green walk signal once on every light cycle, without requiring them to push the button.• A temporary commuter cycleway route, separated from cars through the whole city along the Quays to the hospital, as recommended by Cycle Wellington.• Widespread reduction of street parking for private vehicles. The road-space should then be reallocated with temporary markings (eg. traffic cones, paint, plastic bollards etc.) to allow room for people to stay safely separated while walking and cycling.Wellington has a great opportunity to signal it’s true intentions to be a pedestrian and cycle-focussed city. Let’s not let this opportunity slip by through a misplaced, risk-averse approach. Currently, we are required by government to implement COVID-19 emergency measures for safe walking and cycling in our wonderful city. We must comply.Yours sincerely,Russell Tregonning and Sam Donald,Fair Intelligent Transport (FIT) Wellington

    • LRT: core of a connected rapid transit network
      • The team at LGWM has released a treasure trove of documents, setting out the technical advice they received from their specialist consultants. These documents give us insight into the analysis and evidence backing the LGWM conclusions. It is particularly enlightening to read the story behind the mass transit proposals, told in the MRCagney report, Public transport network integration concepts. <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Light rail physically separated from other traffic There is a lot to like about these proposals. The story starts by asking exactly the right question: What would be required to make LRT really work as the core of a connected rapid transit network for the City of Wellington? MRCagney then sets out the principles an effective rapid transit design must satisfy: An integrated ‘trunk and feeder’ network model Leverage capacity, speed and reliability potential of LRT Minimise bus volumes / congestion on Golden Mile “Force” a shift to LRT through network improvements Co-ordinate rather than compete for patronage Bus routes that directly compete with the LRT corridor should be removed or reconfigured Buses beyond the end of the LRT corridor should be reconfigured as high frequency feeders … but avoid forced transfers close to town, or double transfers to major destinations To satisfy these principles, MRCagney concludes that: Transferring to LRT should be at least as fast as a direct express bus This implies: [we] need significantly faster LRT trunk to overcome transfer penalty This is the key message from the report; to succeed in attracting as many riders as possible, we need to make the LRT line as fast as we practically can. We do this by designing and building what MRCagney calls a Metro Style system [emphasis in the original]: 25-30km/h average speedWidely spaced ‘station’ platformsLittle to no mixing with traffic and buses: permanent, physically separated dedicated lanesParking removal, traffic lane reductionRight turn bans: LiLo [Left-in Left-out] to driveways and minor streetsPre-emptive traffic signal priority The proposed route is 10.1km one way, with 12 stations (a station about every 900 metres on average): Airport Miramar Shops Kilbirnie Zoo Newtown Shops Hospital Basin Reserve Te Aro South (Vivian Street) Te Aro North (Courtenay Place) Civic Centre Queens Wharf Wellington Railway Station MRCagney proposes changes to the bus network to remove directly competing bus routes and reconfigure other routes to act as feeders to LRT, while avoiding a need for double transfers. In any other city, this ‘trunk and feeder’ network model would be squarely in the mainstream and uncontroversial. However, as a result of their recent bad experiences with the bus network redesign, people in Wellington rightly mistrust transfers. Consequently, LGWM may encounter some serious criticism; in this case, the critics will be wrong. The proposed light rail route is not the most direct route from A to B. To make up for this, the street layout needs to be designed for maximum speed. The design calls for running light rail in the middle of the street, which reduces interactions with general traffic and allows for the highest possible cruising speed. We need to aim for an average speed at the upper end of the quoted range, closer to 30km/h than to 25km/h. Here is a typical street cross-section, showing a station in the middle of the street. <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Indicative street cross-section on Adelaide Road So far, so good. Unfortunately, things go a bit pear-shaped for rapid transit at the Basin Reserve. Here is the LGWM Basin Reserve preferred approach (the dotted red line connecting Taranaki St and Adelaide Rd is the recommended rapid transit route): <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Preferred approach for evaluation included in the 2018 Recommended Programme of Investment The problem facing LGWM is that they need to avoid having rapid transit cross SH1 at grade, which would introduce major delays during busy periods. But this proposed solution has serious shortcomings as a concept for rapid transit: It makes four right-angle turns in 300 metres or so, which will slow things down more than a bit It runs through the National War Memorial, a pedestrian area, which will slow things down even more The alternative, that FIT and others have proposed, is a 2-lane rapid transit tunnel under Mt Cook, emerging on Douglas St just south of the Basin. The other end of the tunnel depends on what we decide to do with SH1: The first and preferred option is to run SH1 under Taranaki St, rapid transit crosses at grade and enters the tunnel south of SH1. Trenching SH1 through Te Aro would create massive opportunities for the area. The alternative is for SH1 to cross Taranaki St at grade, rapid transit enters the tunnel north of and goes under SH1. There is a brief discussion in the LGWM documents about why rapid transit follows the path it does. Was it a cost-cutting exercise to avoid a rapid transit tunnel? If so, are we spoiling the ship for a halfpennyworth of tar? This investment will shape the city for a century; should we not spend a bit more to do it right the first time? Here is what the LGWM team says (page 5): The Memorial Park/Tasman St option was identified as the current preferred route over the Mt Cook tunnel option due to a combination of factors: Covers more of Adelaide Road — urban redevelopment potential Uses existing grade separation to avoid conflict with SH1 Provides better access to schools to the east of the Basin Likely to cost the least and be easiest to deliver. Deliverability challenges in relation to the [Memorial Park/Tasman St] option were acknowledged in relation to tight bends, potential impact on Mt Cook School and a steep gradient for a short section — but there were equally significant deliverability issues with all other options. Apart from the Basin problem, the proposal ticks all the right boxes and we need to get behind it and get on with it; fine words butter no parsnips. As LGWM moves to the refine and design stage, there are some traps to watch out for: resist the temptation to add more stations; just say no physically separate the rapid transit lanes from general traffic; paint may be cheap but it is not fit for the purpose find ways to speed it up and don’t do anything to slow it down; just don’t Let’s do this, in full, by 2030.

    • Long Read: Mass Rapid Transit in Wellington
      • Posted by Kerry Wood <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > The latest version of ‘trackless tram’ (TT) has been developed by CRRC in China. A trial system has been running in Zhuzhou since 2017, and should be coming onto the market about now. It is of interest in Wellington because of potential cost-savings over light rail, but comes with corresponding problems and is barely commercial at this stage. TT is distinct from BRT but shares some important characteristics. On this page… Key messsages Route and capacity Light Rail BRT Trackless Trams Costs Key messsages The TT feature of interest in Wellington is capacity. It is the highest-capacity BRT-like vehicle on the market, presumably with a much better ride than a bus, and may be able to meet Wellington needs on a two-lane route. Any decision to adopt TT will require careful studies; Wellington has already run into costly problems created by a casual attitude to supposedly minor issues. In a more difficult situation, we must get it right this time: BRT using conventional articulated buses is well-established but an unlikely option for Wellington. High-capacity BRT is generally used in cities having wide streets, unlike Wellington. TT might be an alternative to BRT, if it can offer sufficient capacity, and when ‘the kinks have been ironed out.’ At a time of very rapid change, uncertainties are inevitable and require good management. In this case high-capacity would be a low-risk approach, favouring either light rail or four-lane BRT. Decision-makers need to bear two things in mind: First, light rail becomes cheaper than either BRT or buses at a relatively low ridership. Second, BRT also benefits from a properly segregated route, to minimise congestion, and from diverted underground services to minimise delays. Light rail may well be the lowest-risk option, or even the cheapest option. An independent conclusion comes from Matt L at the Greater Auckland transport blog: I do think that this [TT] technology is promising and definitely worth keeping an eye on, but I’m not convinced that Auckland should be so quick to jump on the bandwagon. Let’s at least wait till at least a handful of cities have successfully rolled this out and ironed out all the kinks… Let’s also wait till there are multiple suppliers with inter-operable systems. Unfortunately, even without the capacity/frequency issues that I think would be an issue for the city centre, I don’t think Auckland can afford to wait. We need to get on fixing transport in this city and so should get on with installing light rail as soon as possible. ↑ Contents Route and capacity The LGWM route has recently been challenged, with proposals for a Mt Victoria tunnel for buses, walkers and cyclists. A tunnel for walkers and cyclists seems sensible, but a new bus tunnel would be a backward step. The existing Bus Tunnel is adequate for serving Hataitai, and a much better MRT route is through Newtown, because of high residential density. Densities are too low for MRT in Hataitai and through to Miramar and the Airport. The Newtown route offers substantially greater residential density, on both sides of the route, as well as potential for future density. Adelaide Rd and Kilbirnie are designated WCC development areas. A Mt Victoria route was proposed in the 2013 Spine Study, apparently to save time, but the real time-savings come from good detail design on the chosen route. Bypassing Wellington Hospital is itself a planning error for MRT: BRT in Brisbane went as far as a stop within the Hospital building. It is not a criticism to recognise that LGWM’s modal demand estimates for 2036 contain serious errors. Ideas and assumptions in transport are changing very quickly, among professionals and through society as a whole. Engineering NZ’s latest Transport Group Conference had the theme ‘Change is in the air.’ Who could have imagined, twelve months ago, that school children would be going on strike to demand action on climate change? Will we really see a third of CBD commuters still travelling by car in 2036, as predicted by LGWM? We don’t know. With so many uncertainties to manage, LGWM might be wise to plan for generous spare capacity on primary public transport routes: rail into Wellington and MRT further south. This might even extend to purchasing delivery options, or more vehicles than needed. If world-wide demand shoots up, small orders for a city like Wellington might take too long. The combination of highly uncertain demand and high-capacity MRT suggests that mass-transit might usefully be over-provided, within reason. Under-providing seems likely to be the greater risk. ↑ Contents Light Rail At this stage, light rail seems to be the only option clearly suited to Wellington and the chosen route. It is also available from multiple suppliers; light rail is well-established and supply-competitive. BRT is also available from multiple suppliers, but TT is only available from CRRC. The example vehicle chosen by FIT is seven-section, similar to the Gold Coast (G-link) vehicle in the photo. It is 63 m long with a capacity of nominally 470 passengers. Shorter vehicles might be best for the early years, reducing costs, but longer vehicles might be cheaper in the long term. The costly parts of a modern tram are the control system and cabs, and operating cost-differences are almost independent of vehicle length. If lack of capacity is a risk, then longer vehicles could usefully be introduced at once. The obvious drawback of light rail is the cost of track and diverting underground services. The usual arrangement is that services running along the light rail route are relocated beside it, and services crossing it are relaid in ducts, so that they can be replaced without disturbing light rail. Large drains are generally an exception because they can be repaired from the inside. ↑ Contents BRT A new route study can be based on the ITDP BRT Standard. In 2017 LGWM’s consultant WSP recommended design to the ITDP ‘Bronze Standard,’ and gave these assumptions: Full separation from general traffic flows (dedicated lanes), except intersections. High priority at traffic signals. Requires integration with surrounding walking, cycling & traffic network. Fully electric vehicles. High frequency 2.0–2.5 min/direction/peak hour (“realistic/normal” operating frequency of BRT on Golden Mile). Less transfers/interchanges for passengers. Maximum Capacity 150+ passengers. Medium potential to attract car users to PT. Modern low floor articulated bus vehicles. Flexible/less physical infrastructure. Generally fixed route, some flexibility (if required). BRT is likely to cost roughly the same as conventional buses. In practice, BRT seems very unlikely to be satisfactory in Wellington, because lack of space in the CBD will require a two-lane route. This might be sufficient with good management, of bus lanes, but can never be enough at stations. BRT stations in Brisbane (scaled from an aerial photograph) are typically about 27 m wide, compared with a street-width of 15.1 m in Wellington’s Manners St, for all purposes. BRT stations need two lanes each way, for buses overtaking buses. Also needed are more bus-berths, dedicated berths for each route (so that passengers know where to wait), and substantial platform width to handle passenger numbers. Some principal CBD junctions may need flyovers, to allow adequate junction time for traffic crossing the busway. WSP (bullet point 5 above) anticipate a reliable maximum time between buses of two or two and a half minutes between buses on the golden mile, only 24–30 bus/hr. The only real alternatives to the golden mile are two lanes on the waterfront or two lanes on the ‘secondary spine’ proposed in the Spine Study, using Featherston and Wakefield Streets southbound, and returning on Jervois Quay. Neither is wide enough, with very poor passenger access and legibility. ↑ Contents Trackless Trams Chinese developer CRRC is now the world’s largest manufacturer of railway rolling-stock (Newman et al. (2019), p 33, The Trackless Tram: is it the transit and city shaping catalyst we have been waiting for?). CRRC’s Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (‘trackless tram’ or TT) system is now being trialled in Zhuzhou. TT might prove an attractive option, but there are surprising uncertainties here. Detailed information from CRRC is still scarce, and some sources seem very unreliable. Much of what is available is dated 2017, and an apparently official video is remarkably amateur. It is not even clear that CRRC have yet begun to market TT. TT uses digital steering of all six axles to track a pair of painted lines, with supplementary data from GPS and LIDAR. CRRC have paid close attention to ride quality, using high-speed rail technology. The vehicles are battery-powered (in fact condensers), with an anticipated range of 50 km after a ten-minute charge, backed up by an overnight ‘deep recharge’ and a brief top-up at each station (Newman et al. (2019), p 38). CRRC is offering, or planning to offer, vehicles 30 metres long, in three sections, with a five-section option planned. See the photos below. CRRC now has the largest vehicles on offer, with probably the best ride and the most effective batteries and charging systems. Other manufacturers are also in the market, including Alstom, Van Hool and Irizar (Newman et al. (2019), p 34), offering shorter, bus-based vehicles. The route capacity achievable using light rail is about 10,000 passengers an hour in Wellington, which seems a reasonable target for TT. A lower target would be more easily achieved but might risk running into capacity problems. Three-section TT vehicles are 31.6 m long and 2.65 m wide (the standard light rail width). The claimed capacity is 250–300, which seems very high. A standard figure in Europe is a preferred maximum of 4 standing passengers per square metre. Using this figure, and comparing on a floor-area basis (after subtracting two metres at each end, for the drivers’ cabs), gives a TT vehicle capacity of about 220 passengers. A further correction is needed, because TT vehicles have wide wheel-boxes for six axles (like the front wheels of a bus), and the boxing is continued beneath side-facing seats: the seats are set forward from the windows (photo above right). The full vehicle width is only available to passengers around the doors. An estimated width-correction of 300 mm reduces the capacity to 200 passengers, or 330 on a five-section TT, about 50 m long. This is about 70% of the assumed light rail capacity of 470 (FIT example vehicle). An animated video suggests that two TT vehicles can run in convoy only about a metre apart. If such an option becomes practical, TTs might be capable of running together without coupling, matching light rail capacity and eliminating the need for a four lane route. However, stop-length is another consideration. Finding space for platforms longer than about 50 m becomes progressively more difficult, and extremely difficult beyond about 70 m. Two potential TT risks are: A typical modern European tram (Siemens Avenio, 63 m long) weighs nearly three times as much as a full load of passengers, but TT vehicles weigh only about 15% more. The risk here is that long vehicles need adequate ‘buffing strength’ to protect passengers in the event of a crash. The whole vehicle needs to be strong enough to absorb the kinetic energy of the rear end with minimum risk to passengers. TT in New Zealand will need careful checking for compliance with regulations, regardless of whether the system is treated as bus or light rail. In either case, new regulations will be needed, and may need legislation. Wellington would gain a dual advantage from choosing ‘the same as Auckland’: no regulatory costs, and cheaper vehicles and equipment because of repeat orders. In Looking past the hype about trackless trams, Wong (2018) points out that TT is not really revolutionary, and alternatives to light rail have been available for years. However, Wong also challenges TT’s ride quality, which might be unfair, but his paper is still of interest. A guide and manual with application to Trackless Trams, a paper by Peter Newman et al. (2018), develops a new method of assessing public transport, specifically with TT in mind: Traditional transit planning does the transport engineering first and then adds the land use planning as a supplement after finding government funding; the approach being presented here starts with the land development planning and then does the transport engineering after achieving the funding/ financing from the land development potential. [p 6] Four approaches to capital are used: broadly, all-public; mostly public; mostly private; and all-private. While the paper seems very useful (and note the BCR below), explicitly applying it to TT seems doubtful: By integrating higher value into land development within cities, rather than having further land development on the urban fringe, there are significant public and private benefits that vastly outweigh the costs. Some BCR calculations have seen a simple light rail project with a BCR of 1.5 increase to around 7 because of the increased land development. This not only saves public money in infrastructure costs (usually 1.5 times as much as redevelopment) but also provides transport time savings for those living in the [Transit-Oriented Development areas (such as WCC’s plans for Adelaide Rd)] (based on all transport usage). Thus, it is important to ensure land value increases are integrated into the full transit and land system upgrade process. [p 6] Clearly, the model also works with light rail, but perhaps more worrying is this: Towards the end we show that a Trackless Tram is likely to be the new ‘rail’ system for cities as it does all the things light rail does but costs one tenth of it. This low cost makes it possible for entrepreneurial developers to build such systems as it will unlock their developments. [p 14] TT at a tenth of the cost of light rail is implausible. While the four-level model is interesting, other sources suggest that saving 90% of light rail costs is unrealistic. One of Newman’s errors has been picked up by Matt L: The press for the trackless train claims the vehicle can hold 300 people. This seems highly unlikely given the vehicle is only about 30m long. As a comparison, AT say that a 66m light rail vehicle will hold up to 420 people. The interior of the vehicle doesn’t suggest a huge amount of standing space either and a capacity of 180–200 people seems more realistic. But even if it could hold 300 people, it’s not enough, which is why AT are going for higher capacity vehicles. Newman himself notes (Newman et al. (2019), p 39) an Australian estimate of a third of the cost of light rail, which seems a reasonable starting-point; real-world costs must cover more than painting double white lines. Trackless trams, like BRT, look tempting because they seem far more cost-effective than light rail. This has gone on for a long time, and Wong (2018) refers to a 1994 paper, by Henscher and Walters, titled Light rail and bus priority systems: Choice or blind commitment? Perhaps the largest single risk when adopting alternatives to light rail is the simplest. Decision-makers have repeatedly demonstrated how easily they can convince themselves that anything without tracks must be better than light rail. An example is that UCL, in Innovative technologies for light rail and tram: a European reference resource Briefing paper 1 Tyre innovation–rubber tyred trams (a 2015 review of earlier versions of trackless trams), commented: All (BRT) systems installed to date have been more expensive than conventional tramways. At least two of those systems were replaced by light rail. A related blind-commitment temptation is assuming that only light rail needs to disturb underground services. The ignored risk is that underground services can disrupt TT, just as they have always disrupted present-day motor traffic: TT/BRT proponents, including CRRC, claim the benefits of being able to avoid a crash by manually steering around the obstruction. This is as much a disadvantage as an advantage, because the converse is motor vehicles running on TT/BRT ‘tracks.’ Light rail experience in Britain is stoppages when parked cars obstruct the track, and TT/BRT must also address these risks. The light rail photo on page 3 shows a kerb outside the tracks (at right), with prominent ‘TRAM ONLY’ signs painted on the road, to discourage motor vehicles. Light rail has to maintain an exclusive corridor, and effective TT will need to do the same. If TT/BRT is seen as not needing underground services diversion, decision-makers have unwittingly accepted the risk of delays or damage when underground services fail. Motor traffic is frequently delayed in this way, and drivers manage it by travelling at other times or taking an alternative route. Road signs warning of future disruptions are commonplace. Neither management option is available to either TT or BRT, and Wellington has recent experience of the effects. When the Hutt railway line was washed out in 2013, motor traffic also came to a standstill, for several days. Ignoring the need for services diversion for TT/BRT will tend to have the same effect, rarely over days, but even ten minutes can be very disruptive. Wellington decision-makers need to face facts here. Two major studies, the 2011 Bus Review and the 2013 Spine Study, were wiped out by ill-considered cost-savings. Ten years after the problem was first identified, Greater Wellington still has a heavily overloaded bus route and no plans for improvement. This process, of unconsciously working towards a substandard outcome, is well-known; blind commitment is one term, but Wikipedia calls it BRT Creep: BRT creep comprises several types of gradual erosions in service that sometimes affect a bus rapid transit (BRT) system, resulting in a service that is not up to the standards promised by BRT advocates. In its ideal form, BRT aims to combine the capacity and speed of a light rail system with the flexibility, cost and simplicity of a bus system. BRT creep occurs when a system that promises these features instead acts more like a standard, non-rapid bus system… The most extreme versions of BRT creep lead to systems that cannot even truly be recognised as “Bus Rapid Transit”. This is what happens when the bus lobby sidles in and whispers, “we can do exactly the same for half the price.” They do, and they can’t. ↑ Contents Costs Costs for TT vehicles are roughly comparable with light rail; say about $80 million to run a five-minute service. Other cost estimates vary wildly, but real-world costs must cover more than painting double white lines: Road re-grading as needed; TT videos show well-levelled surfaces everywhere. TT vehicles use the same low floor-level as light rail, and will tend to need similar large-radius vertical curves. Heavy-current, high-voltage power at all stops, termini, and especially the depot. Stations, including platforms, shelter, passenger access; ticketing machines and connections at hubs. A depot, with scope for expansion. Motor traffic realignment to make room for TT. Integration with traffic signals for TT priority. Any TT cost-estimates for Wellington will need great care, using data from existing users. Ensuring a dedicated and separated corridor would future-proof TT to support fully autonomous operation when the technology matures: light rail is future-proofed by design. The first light rail line in Montpellier opened in 2001, and in 2008 was carrying 30 million passengers a year. A cost analysis from Marc le Tourneur (2011), Making the case for trams and regional trams, showed that buses and BRT both cost about 45% more than light rail: light rail (actual figures) Investment cost per passenger€ 0.93 Operating cost per passenger€ 0.53 Total€ 1.46 buses (actual figures) Investment cost per passenger€ 0.49 Operating cost per passenger€ 1.61 Total€ 2.12 bus rapid transit (simulated using data from Nantes) Investment cost per passenger€ 0.84 Operating cost per passenger€ 1.27 Total€ 2.11 Montpellier (populaton 290,000) now has four light rail lines, with a total length of 60 km. Data from Transport for London gives equal costs for buses and light rail at about 3200 light rail passengers an hour; a little higher and light rail is cheaper than buses, and a lot cheaper when light rail is running at capacity. One reason is that savings on operations cost are sufficient to pay for greater capital costs. Roughly 70% of operating costs are driver’s wages, for either buses or light rail, but one light rail driver replaces some four to six bus drivers. ↑ Contents

    • An open letter on trackless trams
      • Councillor Roger Blakeley Greater Wellington Regional Council P O Box 11646 Wellington 6142 Light rail or trackless trams: issues to consider Dear Roger I write on behalf of FIT Wellington in response to your request for background information regarding the capabilities of autonomous trackless trams (a form of bus rapid transit). I understand these are being considered as an alternative to light rail. Here are some issues for you to consider. <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > More grass with light rail or more asphalt with trackless trams? © Romti / Adobe Stock Context. To make a like-for-like comparison, FIT assumes the service will be designed for high-capacity rapid transit, regardless of the technology chosen. This includes two dedicated transit lanes on-street, signal priority or grade separation at intersections, low-floor vehicles, zero maintenance road bed with a 25+ year life, and relocating underground utilities to avoid service disruptions. Reliable on-street operation means there is a practical maximum 2½ or 3 minute service frequency. Capacity. How much capacity is needed over the life of the investment and can trackless trams meet the capacity? If the line opens in 2029 as LGWM proposes, the peak of the peak demand is about 5000 passengers per hour. Over the life of the system, FIT expects demand will double to 10,000 passengers per hour. On-street light rail can accommodate this demand with vehicles up to 63 metres long, with a capacity of 470 people. The claim is that a trackless tram can carry 300 people (500 on a longer model). Light rail vehicles of the same size have a quoted capacity of 230–250 people. This suggests 300 and 500 people are crush loadings, incompatible with reliable service and rider comfort. Capability. Can trackless trams deliver the same quality of service as light rail? The claim that trackless trams can easily leave the track, and the reality that other traffic can drive on the track, means trackless trams cannot deliver the same reliability as light rail. Mixing with general traffic is incompatible with a rapid transit service. Wellington would need protected trackless tram lanes for the same reasons it needs protected cycle lanes. There is no data on trackless tram stop dwell times, but the claim that charging will take place at stops suggests longer dwell times than the 20 seconds typical of light rail. We’d also need end-of-line space for full recharging. Contestability. Is there a wide choice of qualified suppliers? Standards-based light rail vehicles are available off-the-shelf from a wide range of suppliers with a proven track record. Currently, autonomous trackless trams are available from one supplier only, are unproven commercially, and being based on proprietary technology would lock Wellington into a single supplier in perpetuity. The exit cost of replacing proprietary technology to escape this lock-in needs to be considered in the whole of life cost analysis. Confidence. How confident is GW that the technology is fit for purpose? Prudent system operators are generally neither the first buyer of new technology nor the last buyer of old technology. There is one demonstration line using 3-segment trackless trams. The 5-segment trackless trams Wellington would need currently exist only on paper. Fully autonomous on-street rapid transit is unproven technology, with no real-world implementations. The non-permanent nature of trackless trams means they are less likely to stimulate transit oriented development around stops. FIT’s view is that the least-risk approach is for Wellington to adopt the same rapid transit technology and standards as Auckland. Cost. What is the whole of life cost? The often-quoted figure is that light rail is cheaper than bus rapid transit when the system carries more than 3500 passengers per hour. If the trackless tram is autonomous, this removes the biggest single operating cost, the driver, and changes the economics. Autonomous operation, whether trackless tram or light rail, makes the cost structure of rapid transit more attractive. However, autonomous on-street operation is currently at the pilot project stage, in vehicles which still require a driver. If the road bed is unsuitable, the maintenance costs from wheel damage will offset the cost saving claimed on track construction. If trackless trams are chosen and prove unsuitable, what is the exit cost to upgrade the line to light rail and how would this be achieved in practice? Yours sincerely John Rankin, FIT Wellington

    • FIT Wellington says Let’s Get LGWM Moving Faster
      • FIT welcomes the release of the Let’s Get Wellington Moving recommended programme of investment, the RPI. “The RPI recognises that LGWM is an investment in city-shaping, not just a series of transport projects,” says John Rankin on behalf of FIT. “FIT supports the vision to give priority to local amenities, walking, cycling, and public transport, so people have congestion-free alternatives to private car travel.” The LGWM programme, in particular the proposed rapid transit route, will shape the city for the next 100 years. The programme is a useful contribution to the region’s strategies for dealing with anthropogenic climate disruptions such as sea level rise. It’s an investment in the city’s future, not a cost to be minimised The programme offers a variety of ways in which people can improve their quality of life while reducing their transport carbon footprint in response to the Climate Crisis. “It’s a good start, but there is still plenty of room to make it better,” says Rankin. First, the pace of implementation needs to accelerate. The Chamber of Commerce has pointed out that it can take longer to drive from the airport to the city centre than to fly from Auckland. “What better argument is there for completing high capacity rapid transit to the airport by 2029 or sooner?” asks Rankin. “Other cities have built longer lines in shorter times, so what's the hold-up?” he asks. Relocating State Highway 1 eastbound from Vivian Street to a 2-way trenched Karo Drive is a strategic city-shaping project that ought to be given the highest priority, in conjunction with rapid transit on Taranaki Street. “This whole area close to Cuba Street and the city centre is just waiting to be rejuvenated,” says Rankin. “Grade separation at this point, clear of the Basin Reserve, is the best strategy for Wellington.” As the last bus stop on the planet, Wellington needs to stay in the mainstream of technology, neither the first buyer of new and unproven technology like trackless trams, nor the last buyer of old technology. “The best option for New Zealand Inc is for Wellington to choose the same rapid transit technology and standards as Auckland,” Rankin says. “That way, we can share our experiences and learn from one another.” FIT emphasises that as a long term programme, LGWM requires long term commitment. The region and investors need to know that a future government will not pull the plug. The pace of investment may change, but the broad direction needs to endure. “The LGWM team has done a fine job under difficult circumstances,” says Rankin. “They have sent a message loud and clear that we can’t solve congestion by building more motorways.” The plan recognises that to make walking, cycling and public transport better, we also need to make better roads. “Commercial road users will benefit hugely by a shift from private cars to other transport modes,” Rankin says. FIT looks forward to working with the LGWM team to enhance and accelerate the RPI. <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Let’s get on board light rail / Greg Thompson (used with permission)

    • Are Trackless Trams perfect for Wellington?
      • Radio New Zealand reports that an international consultant is urging Wellington to consider introducing trackless trams, as a way of easing the capital’s congestion. How well do the consultant’s claims stack up? <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > CRRC Zhuzhou Institute developed this rubber-tyred train with 6 axles (2 for each carriage). Some of these trains has already been in experimental operation in Zhuzhou / Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 1. They can carry 300 people. Really? Canberra’s light rail vehicles are a metre longer and the same width, with a stated capacity of 250 people at 4 standing passengers / m2. Has the consultant actually seen a trackless tram with 300 people on it? At 250 passengers per vehicle, an on-street trackless tram system has a maximum carrying capacity of 5000 passengers / hour. An on-street light rail system has a maximum carrying capacity of about twice this: 10,000 passengers / hour. 2. They cost as little as a tenth of the price of light rail. Presumably in large part because “you just paint the lines on the road.” There are 3 main reasons light rail systems have a prepared road bed and rails: the road bed is zero maintenance for at least 25 years, so there is no disruption to service for road repairs underground utilities can be relocated, so there is no disruption to service because of utility line faults a high quality road bed with rails on sleepers delivers a high quality ride without damaging the road bed Trackless trams on Wellington’s low quality roads would deliver a low quality ride, while requiring regular road repairs. Supposedly that’s not a problem, because … 3. The vehicle can deviate around obstacles on the track. In real-world transit operations, this is a bug, not a feature. If we look at cities overseas with on-street light rail, obstacles on the track very rarely disrupt service. So the trackless tram solves a non-existent problem. But having a vehicle that can leave the tracks tells every other vehicle on the road that it’s OK to park in the tram lane, because the tram can drive around you. If in doubt, see any bus lane in Wellington. Perhaps the real reason is trackless trams have to be able to navigate around road works, to repair damage the vehicles have caused or to get at underground utilities. When the trackless tram leaves its dedicated lane and mixes with other traffic, the service becomes less reliable. 4. They can be configured to run without a driver. This is a game-changer and a great feature. It breaks the tyranny of frequency, because you can afford to run a very high frequency service at very low marginal cost. However, I suspect the current state of the art is that you can have autonomous operation or the ability to navigate around any obstacle on the track, but not both. 5. Trackless trams would be perfect for Wellington. Would they? The practical limit for on-street operation is about 20 trackless trams per hour, giving a capacity of about 5000 passengers per hour in each direction. Using GW’s ridership figures and growth projections, if a trackless tram line opens on the railway station to airport corridor in 2025, it will be at capacity by 2030. What is the upgrade plan? Would we have to replace it with higher-capacity light rail and if so, how would we carry out the upgrade? To increase the frequency to 30 or more trackless trams per hour would require grade separation along large parts of the line, which would cost at least as much as building light rail in the first place. Wellington would be wise to let somewhere else be the pioneer for trackless trams. I fear the reality is that you can have light rail quality of service or you can spend a tenth the cost of light rail, but not both. For reliable, frequent, high capacity rapid transit, light rail still looks like the best option for Wellington’s station to airport corridor.

    • How FIT’s proposed light rail route has evolved
      • <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > © Olena Ilienko / Adobe Stock “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?” ― attributed to John Maynard Keynes In developing its proposed route for light rail, FIT sought to meet several objectives: maximize ridership travel times compete with private car form part of a rapid transit network promote transit-oriented development mitigate construction phase risk (eg business disruption) Meeting these objectives requires a route with dedicated lanes for light rail and priority over other traffic, including grade separation at busy intersections. Those who wish to will find fault with whatever route is chosen. The challenge is to understand the trade-offs and choose the least compromised option. Here are the principal options FIT considered, with reasons for our preferred option. <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Residential density on the rapid transit route Q: Customhouse and Jervois Quays or the Golden Mile? A: The Quays, for the following reasons. There is room on the Golden Mile for light rail or buses, but not both. Where would the buses go? A Golden Mile route would be close to more people, but the maximum speed would be 20 kph between Panama St and Taranaki St and 30 kph elsewhere. The Quays would allow 50 kph. The construction phase along the Golden Mile would be expensive and disruptive. Many underground services would need to be relocated, especially in the Old Bank area. Shopping would be unpleasant. Many shops would be unable to sustain the lost business and close. Light rail on the Quays and buses on the Golden Mile, cutting back to a maximum of about 50 bus/hr, and better priority, will provide a faster more balanced service. Q: Taranaki Street or Kent and Cambridge Terraces? A: Taranaki St, for the following reasons. The intersection of Courtenay Place and Taranaki St offers a better layout for transfers between bus and light rail than the intersection of Courtenay Place and the Terraces. Stops at the station, Frank Kitts Park and Te Aro Park put the whole Golden Mile within a short walk. People arriving at an Embassy Theatre stop from the south would have a longer walk. Taranaki St offers more opportunities for medium density transit-oriented development than the Terraces. FIT has been unable to find a good way to separate north-south light rail from east-west traffic at the Basin Reserve. The best option if a Terraces light rail route is preferred may be to elevate light rail from north of Courtenay Place (with an elevated stop) to south of the Basin, via Sussex St. Would this be consentable? Whichever route light rail takes, FIT recommends relocating SH1 eastbound traffic from Vivian St to Karo Drive, with grade separation between light rail and SH1. Q: Adelaide Road or Wallace and John Streets? A: Adelaide Rd, for the following reasons. Wallace St is narrow and running light rail there would mean closing it to through traffic. The John St section would be slow and getting across the intersection to the hospital would create all sorts of traffic hold-ups. Adelaide Rd offers more opportunities for medium density transit-oriented development than Wallace St. A tunnel through Mt Cook from Taranaki St to Adelaide Rd is a better route alighment than via either the Basin or John St. Q: A Mt Albert tunnel or Constable St? A: A Mt Albert tunnel, for the following reasons. A Constable St route is only practical if you remove a row of houses; it's too narrow to accommodate light rail and other traffic. Running light rail on Crawford Rd to Kilbirnie would be a major engineering challenge. The section between Newtown and the Zoo offers more opportunities for medium density transit-oriented development than Constable St. Q: Cobham Drive or an airport tunnel? A: Cobham Drive, for the following reasons. Miramar town centre is a high growth, high demand destination, ideal for a light rail stop. The airport needs to be the last stop, because people with luggage take longer to get on and off. The schedule recovery time built into the timetable will readily accommodate this. A route under the airport runway would need to split to serve both Miramar town centre and the airport. If the service runs every 10 minutes, this means Miramar and the airport would each get a service every 20 minutes. A direct route to Miramar and the airport delivers a better service to both destinations. FIT understand that tunnelling under a working runway presents engineering challenges but is not a show-stopper.

    • Estimating travel time
      • How long would a trip from the airport to the railway station take? Cutting to the chase Assuming remodelled streets, optimized for light rail, the journey would take about 22 minutes at peak times and 25 minutes off-peak. The estimated travel time is 19 minutes, plus on average 3 minutes’ waiting at peak times or 6 minutes’ waiting off-peak. The trip is 9.6 km. The vehicle acceleration rate is 1.0 m/s2. The vehicle braking rate is −1.0 m/s2. The average dwell time at stops is 20s. First approximation The average cruising speed has a big influence on the travel time. The time to travel 800m between stops is about 65s at 60 kph, 72s at 50 kph, and 83s at 40 kph. For light rail running on-street, cities invest in remodelling the street to allow cruising speeds of 50 kph or more, where it is practical to do so. <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Time to travel 800m at different speeds / © Greater Auckland FIT assumes that Wellington will remodel all streets the light rail vehicles run on, to maximize the cruising speed. This means in many cases removing lanes of traffic or parking, restricting turn movements, closing or redesigning intersections, and where possible, widening and improving the pedestrian footpaths. Stops will be located about every 800m, but in reality will be at convenient nodes or logical locations that best fit the fabric of the city. As a first approximation, assume Wellington will remodel the streets so that light rail can achieve an average cruising speed of 50 kph for half the line length and 40 kph for the other half. That is, the overall average cruising speed is 44 kph. This yields an estimated travel time of under 19 minutes. Second approximation As a second approximation, we estimate the distance and expected average cruising speed for each leg of the route. FromToDistance kmCruise speed kph WRSFrank Kitts0.943.5 Frank KittsTe Aro Park0.650.0 Te Aro ParkPukeahu0.950.0 PukeahuKing Street0.640.0 King StreetHospital0.650.0 HospitalNewtown0.737.5 NewtownZoo0.740.0 ZooKilbirnie0.960.0 KilbirnieSports Centre0.640.0 Sports CentreMiramar1.640.0 MiramarAirport1.540.0 This also yields an estimated travel time of 19 minutes, at an average cruising speed of 43 kph. During detailed route design it may be feasible to remodel the streets in a way that achieves higher cruising speeds than estimated and hence a shorter travel time. On the other hand, if Wellington decides not to optimize the streets for light rail, the travel time may be longer. A more accurate travel time estimate depends on route design detail not available at this time. Equations of motion To compute the time spent accelerating to and braking from the cruising speed: v = v0 + a t To compute the time spent at cruising speed between stops: s = s0 + v0 t + ½ a t2 a = 0 To compute the distance travelled while accelerating and braking (and therefore the distance travelled at cruising speed): v2 = v02 + 2 a (s − s0) Applying the equations of motion to compute the estimated travel time for a journey from the airport to railway station is left as an exercise for the reader. In a graph of speed ds ∕ dt (y-axis) as a function of time (x-axis), the area under the curve is the distance travelled: ∫ ds = ∫ f(t) dt

    • On the environmental impact of light rail
      • This post results from another request sent to FIT’s mail in-box: I’ve been reading into the A+ light rail scenario. Obviously electric, efficient public transport is a wonderful idea. I was wondering if you would be able to provide any evidence of any environmental impact assessments? Areas such as Kilbirnie and Miramar are particularly susceptible to sea level rises in the future. Are there ways the initiative plans to future proof for a situation where our parameters are altered? How can we make sure the light rail system won’t interfere with current traffic flow, causing more congestion and carbon emissions? Do you think the light rail plan aligns with Wellington’s first to zero carbon actions? Thanks in advance for your response. <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Fully accessible for all ages and abilities / Greg Thompson (used with permission) Are there ways the initiative plans to future proof for a situation where our parameters are altered? FIT took account of the following likely future trends: Sea levels could rise by up to 1.5 m by 2100, with bigger and more frequent storm surges. The light rail route FIT proposes avoids the lowest lying areas of Kilbirnie which will be particularly susceptible. There will be a realistic price on carbon emissions, making electric transport from renewable sources ever more price competitive with fossil fuels. There will be a price on congestion, such as through a demand-responsive price for parking and a charge for private vehicles entering the central city during peak periods. If there is the political will, all or most future growth in travel demand in Wellington can be met through public transport, walking and cycling (and scooting), without increasing private car use. FIT expects that sooner or later, Wellington will choose to give more priority to public transport, walking and cycling, and give less priority to the private car. This will progressively transform the city from car-dependency to one where people have more choices about how we get around. How can we make sure the light rail system won’t interfere with current traffic flow, causing more congestion and carbon emissions? Traffic expands and contracts to meet the available road space. There is no reasonable doubt that building new highways generates traffic. Less well-known, closing highways does not increase congestion. An example is Seoul. A six-kilometre highway carrying 160 000 vehicles a day was permanently closed in about 2005, with some public transport improvements. The project leader stated: As soon as we destroyed the road, the cars just disappeared and drivers changed their habits. A lot of people just gave up their cars… In some cases, they kept using their cars but changed their routes. This is the Downs-Thomson paradox in action: The quality of peak-hour travel by car tends to equal that of public transport. Speeding up motor traffic is costly and self-defeating. Faster and more frequent public transport is cheaper and much more effective. The problem is not a new transport mode but an outdated assumption. Cars and trucks can be electric, but electric public transport is much more efficient, in both energy and passenger-capacity terms. It is also safer and cheaper, contributing to cities’ liveability objectives. A parallel measure is a network of connected cycleways, as has been adopted in London. A typical lane carrying private vehicles has a capacity of about 1200 people an hour (range 600-1600 people), while a protected bikeway the same width can carry 7000 people an hour (range 6500-7500), or 3500 each way: triple the capacity, with far lower requirement for parking. (Data from the Global Street Design Guide.) New Zealand transport policy has traditionally followed British and US practice, which has been questionable for years. An extreme example is that Houston, in Texas, with a population about 30% greater than Auckland, now has a heavily congested 23-lane highway. Transport policy changed last year, with a new Government Policy Statement on Land Transport, and four strategic policies are now Safety, Access, Environment and Value for money. The NZTA seems to be struggling to adapt, but Auckland Transport is coming up with some radical changes. For example, FIT has proposed a 700 m single-track tunnel from Kilbirnie to Wellington Zoo. A second Mt Victoria road tunnel for ‘4 lanes to the planes’ would cost about six times as much, because it would need a much larger diameter. The light rail tunnel would have two or three times the passenger capacity of the doubled Mt Victoria Tunnel. Light rail in Wellington will need to take about two traffic lanes on each street, and will clearly reduce traffic capacity. When open, it will restore several times the lost capacity (so why does Wellington need four lanes to the planes?). The construction phase is more difficult, but experience with road works of all kinds shows that delays will be manageable: some extra buses might help. Do you think the light rail plan aligns with Wellington’s first to zero carbon actions? The light rail plan is primarily about shaping the future city, by promoting transit-oriented development along the light rail corridor, not just moving commuters from the suburbs to the city; although that is part of it, it is not the main focus. To accommodate future population growth and reach the zero carbon goal, we have to stop building car-dependent suburbs. As other cities have done (Strasbourg is a good example), FIT envisions completely remodelling the streets the light rail vehicles run on: in many cases removing lanes of traffic and parking, restricting turn movements, closing or redesigning intersections, and where possible, widening and improving the footpaths. The aim is to have stops about every 800 m, but in reality stops will be at major destinations or logical locations that best fit the fabric of the city. Some example solutions from FIT's proposal are: Waterfront: Light rail tracks on the seaward side to minimise turning traffic problems, and a stop at Frank Kitts Park with offset platforms to minimise width: four lanes available for motor traffic. Adelaide Rd: Complete the existing road-widening work. At John St widen the road junction for light rail by moving back the existing heritage buildings on the east side: all existing traffic lanes retained. Riddiford St: Make the street a one-way pair for motor traffic, paired with Daniel St, to leave space for both light rail and a cycleway in the shopping centre. The proposed stop is between Newtown Av and Normanby St, where there is additional width: the existing two lanes are effectively retained, but with some loss of capacity. As a second stage, FIT envisages extending light rail north, by converting the Johnsonville line to light rail and potentially extending it to Churton Park. This would create a north-south urban growth corridor with rapid transit service all day every day. Follow-up: How you would deal with sea level rise along the strip on Cobham Drive that is right by the sea? Choices will depend heavily on what is chosen for the city as a whole. If some flooding is accepted, light rail will need special protection. As the Japanese discovered at Fukushima, a sea wall can become a trap if it is overtopped: the wall stops the water getting out again. WCC has a 2013 options analysis by Tonkin & Taylor. Light rail lines have a 50-100 year life so it’s really important to design and build the line with the future in mind. Independent provision for light rail could use these methods: City: FIT has sketched a sea-wall 1.5 m high along the east side of the Quays, with light rail on top and ramps for vehicle crossings to the waterfront area. Rongotai Rd to Miramar: Rongotai Rd itself is low-lying, with no sea-wall-solution practical. A possible option is ramps in Ross & Yule St, to an overhead Arena stop. The Cobham Drive roundabout at Troy St could also be crossed overhead, but the tracks would then have to ramp down to prevent the overhead wire (if any) being a risk to aircraft. The tracks could run on the south side of Cobham Drive, tucked into the bank below the runway, but would then have to cross to the seaward side of Cobham Drive to reach the Miramar gap (there are sensitive airport electronics on the land side). The usual solution is a crossing straight through the roundabout, with traffic signal protection so traffic stops for light rail vehicles. At Miramar gap the road will presumably be raised, to protect Miramar as a whole.

    • Is there a case for light rail on the golden mile?
      • Several regional councillors have spoken in favour of running light rail on the golden mile. Here are some questions for supporters of a golden mile light rail route, rather than via Waterloo and Jervois Quays. As with all public transport decisions, the devil is in the detail. Given a choice, most cities run light rail lines: on dedicated rights-of-way, separated from other traffic; or on dedicated lanes, in the middle of wide streets. <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Waiting for light rail / Tom Parkinson (used with permission) 1. Where will the buses go? Much of the golden mile is too narrow for both buses and light rail, making the choice either buses or light rail, but not both. If the choice is light rail, the buses must go elsewhere, preferably on the same route in both directions (for legibility). The Public Transport Spine Study did not find a solution to this question. 2. What will be the design approach? Will you design for people who cannot walk far, as at present, using about six intermediate stops? Or, will you provide for a faster system to make hubs more acceptable, with one or two intermediate stops? Note that some existing bus stops will be impractical for light rail, because block-lengths are too short. 3. What cruising speed do you expect to achieve? The Global Street Design Guide implies a maximum of 30 kph north of Panama St and 20 kph between Panama St and Taranaki St. The Government Policy Statement includes provision for funding rapid transit. Do you consider a speed of 20 kph qualifies as “rapid”? If you are hoping to see higher speeds than these (to offer a true ‘rapid transit’ service), what are the implications on pedestrian safety in a location such as Lambton Quay? <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > © Dmitry Vereshchagin / Adobe Stock 4. What will be the approach for bus users who cannot walk far? Will they change to light rail at one of the hubs at each end of the golden mile, which would require multiple light rail stops? Or, with one or two light rail stops, will they stay on the bus, or change from light rail to a bus at one of the hubs? 5. What will be the additional costs? How many additional light rail vehicles (and drivers) will be needed, because of lower speeds and more stops? How much will it cost to relocate services in these narrow streets? Willis Street will be exceptionally difficult because it has so many underground services. How will retailers be compensated for lost business during the construction phase? How many retailers do you expect will go out of business? How will service vehicles access the golden mile once the system is operational? 6. What are the benefits of light rail on the golden mile? Why is it better than retaining a much-improved golden mile bus route providing easy access? What additional benefits make it worth the additional costs and construction delays? How will the increased costs be recovered? Will there be higher fares, bigger subsidies, or additional fare-box revenue? Which do you expect to have higher ridership, a faster quays route or a slower golden mile route, and why? 7. Who has the final decision on the route? The most effective option is likely to be a similar approach to the LGWM study, perhaps with options for tenders. Is this a decision for the Regional Council alone? Or is it NZTA's responsibility as the project delivery agency? Or is it a decision for the commercial partner(s) chosen to design, build and operate the light rail service, in consultation with the Regional Council?

    • Integrating light rail with our regional rail system?
      • The following is from an email asking about the reasoning behind not integrating light rail with our regional rail system: After reading Brent Efford's RTSA Presentation about tram-trains I'm disappointed that your group is promoting a hypothetical light rail system that is disconnected and has a track gauge incompatible with our regional rail network. If this idea spreads it will screw our city over and we will never have a fully integrated regional rail system. The only reasoning provided by you is that it's cheaper (which certainly appeases typical NZ short-term thinkers) and the vague claim that the Johnsonville line has too many riders for a single track light railway - can you please elaborate on why you believe that is the case? I have a hard time believing this would be a problem without a solution. As seen with our recent bus network, having to transfer between services is a major deterrent to using public transport. If one could get a single comfortable ride from Waikanae or even Masterton to the Hospital or Airport then I think we could expect PT use to absolutely skyrocket, which is what we should be aiming for in the current climate (pun intended). A disconnected service will not provide the region much more utility than our current bus system, apart from a more comfortable ride. The tram-train solution shines with logical brilliance, and seems to be the most intelligent option for the Wellington region in the long-term. I urge you as a group to re-evaluate the plans your are putting forward to the public. FIT does not see Brent Efford’s ideas as feasible for Wellington. Some tram-train systems have been very successful, but many cities have abandoned the idea. Twenty seven years after the Karlsruhe system opened, only about 30 tram-train systems exist, and fewer still are comparable with Wellington. <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Karlsruhe model: street running of Stadtbahn in Heilbronn / Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA Nobody likes transfers, but hubs are essential to a quality public transport system, and quality systems are very popular. Other approaches require excessive route duplication, which explains many of Wellington’s bus problems. The best approach is properly designed hubs, as in Auckland and Christchurch, rapid transit to offset the transfer delays, and reliable connections. World-leading public transport systems, such as den Haag, Vancouver, Freiburg and Zurich, all use hubs. A principal feature of cities suitable for tram-trains is walking distance from the terminus to the city: 1900m to the city centre in Karlsruhe, Zwickau 1800m and Saarbruken 800m. In Wellington the centre-of-the-centre walking distance is only about 550m, to Brandon St, and many passengers walk much further. A secondary city feature is residential densities, low in Wellington (but likely to increase).  The only quantifiable advantage of tram-trains is through-running, allowing some passengers to avoid a change at the Railway Station. In Wellington, universal through-running is impractical, because it would overload the street-running tracks. This means that the through-running objective cannot be met in full. FIT has not been able to find any examples of running so many lines through the city centre onto a single track, so Wellington would be the pioneer. The alternative best-practice hub approach achieves delays of rarely over five minutes and often under two, routinely accepted in many cities. Tram-train costs in Wellington would be substantial but have never been quantified, and there has never been any study of how—or if—KiwiRail would accommodate them: The maximum practical length for a light rail vehicle running on city streets is around 70m, compared with 129m for a six-car Matangi and 172m for a maximum-length eight-car Matangi. Hence tram-trains on KiwiRail tracks would drastically reduce track capacity, when the objective is to attract many more passengers. Auckland has chosen standard gauge (1435 mm), and will develop the standards needed. If Wellington makes the same choice, there will be cost savings from both common standards and repeat orders. KiwiRail’s 1067 mm track gauge is very rare for light rail. Most modern light rail vehicles are designed for either standard or metre gauges. The wheels are either inside or outside a standard bogie-frame, leaving no space for the extra 67 mm. One estimate of a bogie re-design is $50 million. Vehicles for 1067 mm gauge would probably come from CAF, and single-suppliers are not cheap. The tram-train studies claimed by Wellington proponents are in fact studies of converting the Johnsonville Line to light rail; it would be far simpler. FIT would like to see a light rail extension to Johnsonville, but has not proposed anything more than a study, because of multiple uncertainties. One of them is vehicle-width in the Johnsonville tunnels. The Johnsonville line now has a 15 minute peak-hour timetable, using four-car Matangis. Converting to light rail would reduce present-day capacity slightly, with substantially fewer passengers seated. A more serious problem would be a permanent limit on vehicle length. Future capacity-increases would only be possible by increasing frequency. Capacity could be roughly doubled, but no more, and might not be enough. These comments notwithstanding, there is nothing to stop a supplier responding to a Wellington light rail request for proposals by submitting a proposal for a tram-train system. If tram-train is the best option, it will emerge as the winning proposal.

    • Thinking aloud about some of light rail’s challenges
      • An email from Wellington Regional Councillor Daran Ponter to FIT raises important issues about the challenges Wellington will face in bringing light rail to fruition. This post considers Daran’s comments on an earlier Q&A post and adds FIT’s observations. This is really useful and very timely as the government gets closer to making a decision on what priority to give LR as part of LGWM.  I have to say that I continue to have reservations about a Harbour Quays route, principally because this was so roundly rejected when GWRC proposed bus routes on the Harbour Quays.  This reaction may dissipate though with a fast service and good connections in the suburbs. It's worth reminding ourselves that whatever route is chosen for light rail, it will have both strengths and weaknesses. There is no perfect route, only a best fit to the requirements and constraints. The Harbour Quays option is one such trade-off. FIT takes its cue from the government's policy statement on transport, which provides funding for urban rapid transit projects. For FIT, rapid transit means high volume, high frequency and fast enough to compete with private car travel. The main alternative, and the one chosen in the Public Transport Spine Study, is a golden mile route. FIT envisages that the golden mile will be converted into a pedestrian-centric low speed transit mall, with an estimated 30 to 40 buses per hour once light rail is up and running. The generally-accepted international guideline for operating in such an environment is that light rail vehicles are limited to a maximum speed of 20 km/hr. The rest of the line is not long enough, and lacks high speed sections, to recover the delay a golden mile route would introduce. Light rail construction on the golden mile would be costly and disruptive. Wellington is fortunate to have a suitable surface route close to the city centre. Lacking this option, many cities have little choice but to build rapid transit lines underground through the central city. If an intermediate stop between the station and Frank Kitts Park (900 m) is considered necessary, it would be feasible to run light rail on Stout St to a Midland Park stop. Research shows that people willingly walk further for the benefit of a faster journey. The route FIT proposes means every point on the golden mile is within a 6 minute walk of a light rail stop. FIT estimates that a well-designed light rail line following its route can achieve a travel time from the airport to railway station of under 20 minutes. In FIT's view, this meets the government's criteria for it to qualify for rapid transit funding. In relation to hubbing, you will be aware of the push-back we have had from local communities at even 5% of commuters hubbing.  Some of this reaction is due to poor execution on the part of GWRC, but a significant part is a reaction to the idea of hubbing full stop.  Not suggesting this is a show stopper, more that collectively we are going to have a job ahead of to ensure quality connections for commuters (time, ease of transfer etc) and getting commuters into a transfer “groove”. Those wishing to catch the light rail who don’t live within the 1 km “walk corridor” will need ways to get to their nearest stop. Local feeder-bus services are one option; others include using a bike or e-scooter, getting someone to drop you off, and through-bus services so people have a choice of a faster trip with a transfer or a slower one-seat trip. The strategy is to build more transport choices; people can choose options that best meet their travel needs. <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Reconfigured bus stops make light rail transfers easy and quick / Greg Thompson (used with permission) Many cities with well-designed transit hubs treat "there and back again" trips within a time limit as a transfer. For example, people can catch a bus or light rail to go shopping, then use a transfer to ride home again. As long as the time between boardings is less than 90 minutes, it counts as a single trip. This kind of policy treats transfers as an opportunity, rather than seeing them only as a problem. Fare policies that treat mobility as a service (unlimited travel for a fixed monthly subscription) also make people less reluctant to transfer. Hubs are a necessary part of a full anywhere to anywhere transit system. While nobody likes having to transfer, there is extensive literature on how to minimise the impact of transfers. Ensuring light rail delivers a rapid transit service is essential: the time saved on light rail has to be enough to offset the transfer penalty. Finally I note that to provide a dedicated route across the City significant numbers of car parks will be affected – more than ever before we are going to need a joined-up GWRC-WCC approach on this. One strategy some overseas cities have adopted is to move the on-street parking off-street. This requires including private sector parking providers in conversations about fostering transit oriented development along the light rail line. Medium density residential development around the light rail stops also reduces the need for parking and needs to be encouraged. Developing a joint GWRC-WCC transit oriented development policy would be a useful starting point. Pricing policies and charges will need adjusting. The pricing objective is that on-street parking will rarely be more than about 80% full, so that those who really need a park can find one.

    • Options for extending light rail to Johnsonville
      • This quote is an extract from an email, to FIT and others, about light rail service to Johnsonville: …this points to the fact that the Johnsonville line at the very least should be extended through town. ... [A] single 20 km line is vastly superior to two isolated end-to-end lines heading off in opposite directions and sharing a common terminus, each with its own depot, with different vehicles types, and ... running on different gauges. Once you come to accept this and allow vehicles of four-car Matangi unit length (actually 86 m) through the streets during peak hours, then surely using the existing 1067 mm gauge is a no-brainer. Teasing this out needs definitions: Light railRapid transit, usually either low-floor vehicles running on-street, or high-floor on separate rights-of-way. Street running light rail has on-street priority and a low-voltage overhead power supply (generally 750 V). Track gauge is usually ‘standard’ (1435 mm) or ‘metre’ (1000 mm). MatangiThe main-line passenger trains used in the Wellington area, running in trains of two, four, or six cars, or potentially eight cars after lengthening platforms. Track gauge is 1067 mm. <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > NZR FP Class 4103 at Khandallah Station / Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA The FIT view on extending light rail to Johnsonville is this: A single 20 km line is generally better than two 10 km lines, and FIT has no objection to railway vehicles running between Johnsonville and the Airport. The Johnsonville Line is single-track, and trains can only pass at Wadestown Loop, Ngaio and Khandallah. This is enough for four trains an hour each way, the present-day timetable (service every 15 minutes). Anything more would require double-tracking, because additional passing loops are impractical and offer only limited improvements to service frequency.  The Johnsonville Line is now operated using four-car Matangis at peak hours, and two cars at other times. These vehicles could readily be transferred to other lines. Introducing light rail on the existing single-track line would severely limit capacity. Conventional vehicles are typically 30 to 60 metres long, and regulations often set a practical on-street maximum of about 72–75 m. For example, the Siemens Avenio comes in standard lengths at multiples of 9 m, from 18 to 72 m. FIT has planned for up to 66 m vehicles—following Auckland—with a crush-loading capacity of 470 passengers (4 pass/sq m). Conversion to light rail would cap line-capacity at 1900 passengers an hour, about a third of its ultimate capacity using Matangis. The Johnsonville tunnels are too small for the vehicle-width chosen by Auckland Transport (2.65 m). On-street light rail is low-floor, with a platform height of about 350 mm, and the Johnsonville tunnels are very narrow at rail level. The Johnsonville Line should not be seen as just for commuters. Urban transport is changing fast, world-wide, and light rail can be expected to provide an all day, every day, frequent service. FIT is proposing a 5 minute service on some sections. Another likely improvement is bus hubs at Khandallah and Crofton Downs, improving local connectivity. The best available alternative to leaving the Johnsonville Line as-is will be rebuilding in double track, but with long tunnels it will be costly. If and when it is considered, three options seem plausible. All start at a light rail stop in the Railway Station forecourt:  Up Molesworth or Murphy Sts (or a split route using both) to a stop at Park Rd (just beyond Tinakori Rd) then in tunnel to join the Johnsonville Line above Tunnel 5 (Hannover St, new tunnel length 1300 m). Along Thorndon Quay to a stop at the end of Tinakori Rd, then in tunnel to the same point above Tunnel 5, also 1300 m. Along the Hutt Rd to Kaiwharawhara, with a stop, then up the Ngaio Gorge on a combination of cuttings, viaducts and short tunnels. This route takes advantage of light rail’s hill-climbing capability and should be cheaper than tunnels, but it might not be consentable. In all these cases, the existing track through the railway yards could be converted to a fourth main-line, and the existing Ngaio Gorge tunnels converted to a cycling and walking route. Light rail extensions beyond Johnsonville would be possible. The route might be on stilts down the centre of SH1, to Glenside and perhaps on to a main line hub at Tawa. Use the same light rail standards as Auckland, including standard gauge track. This would open options for cost-savings through repeat orders. FIT proposes that the Railway Station to Airport route be built first, followed by an extension to Johnsonville and beyond. if and when funding is available. There are no technical barriers to converting the Johnsonville line to double-tracked light rail, if there is the political will. Similarly—if funding is available—Wellington could build the whole line starting now.

    • More questions about proposed route, Answered
      • The following comments and questions came through the site’s contact form. FIT has omitted the names of the submitters, but the questions raise important issues which deserve discussion. Q1. I WAS in favour of light rail in Wellington when it was proposed through the central city and I am fully aware of its advantages, but now that I know that the route you favour will wreck our beautiful waterfront, I will do all I can to oppose it. The diagram-map on your website has been cleverly designed to avoid showing that the actual route is along the waterfront. Just as well (from your point of view) as the vast majority of Wellingtonians are certain to oppose that section. Wellington’s special feature is the waterfront bordering the central city — a wonderful place to saunter. But, wow, it’s a battle to keep the spoilers out. I’ll do my best to communicate, in conversation and in writing, that your favoured route will wreck most of our precious city waterfront. A1. FIT agrees that "Wellington’s special feature is the waterfront bordering the central city — a wonderful place to saunter." FIT's proposal does not change this; the proposal is that light rail will replace 2 traffic lanes on the Quays, one northbound and one southbound, with a light rail stop at Frank Kitts Park. This will replace 2 continuous streams of noisy polluting cars with a much quieter clean light rail vehicle passing at most every 5 minutes. In FIT's view, this will enhance not "wreck" our precious city waterfront. Furthermore we would hope that the introduction of a mass rapid transit option on a waterfront quays route would provide a competitive alternative to private motor vehicles and thereby reduce the numbers of private motor vehicles on the remaining four lanes. It would be desirable to incorporate protected cycle lanes into the design, giving people on bikes and scooters an alternative to mixing with pedestrians on the waterfront. FIT also considers that the Frank Kitts Park stop creates an opportunity to improve the pedestrian connection from the city to the waterfront, for example in the form of a second city to sea bridge. The light rail tracks would be at street level so easily and safely crossed by pedestrians at any controlled intersection. Q2. HI. Have you considered that the light rail system will need a service depot. If the track gauge and the is compatible with the railway system then servicing could be done at the railway workshops in the Hutt Valley. If not then a service depot would be needed. I don't think there's any spare land along the proposed route suitable for storage yards and a maintenance depot. A2. FIT has two sites in mind, one of them in the eastern suburbs, but they need to be confirmed by professional studies before they are made public. A likely layout is light rail at or below ground level, with development above: residential or commercial. Q3. I read in the article on stuff (What is light rail, and how would it work in Wellington? by Damian George·16:48, Jan 11 2019) This group’s proposal is for a one lane tunnel for Mt Albert. Is this due to costs rather than having a two way tunnel which increase network capacity and will reduce the need to come back later on to add an extra tunnel. Surely it would be better to provide two way and not have any single line sections. It would end up being like the current bus tunnel where buses have to wait to pass through. A3. One advantage of light rail over buses is that by giving light rail dedicated lanes and priority at intersections, the service is much more predictable. This means we can schedule light rail operations so that one vehicle never has to wait for another to clear the tunnel. A vehicle will take about a minute to pass through a Mt Albert tunnel. With a planned maximum service frequency of 5 minutes, it is relatively straightforward to stagger the arrivals of up and down vehicles at the tunnel. With stops at both ends (Zoo and Kilbirnie), a vehicle can if necessary be held at the stop for a few seconds while one from the other direction clears. However, FIT's route also requires a tunnel under Mt Cook from Taranaki St to Adelaide Rd. It is not practical to make both tunnels single track. FIT chose to make the shorter tunnel double track. In the long term, the maximum practical frequency for on-street at-grade light rail is 3 minutes, maybe 2.5 minutes at a stretch. Higher frequencies generally require grade separation at busy intersections to reduce traffic congestion. In FIT's estimation, a 3 minute service can operate with a single track Mt Albert tunnel and a double track Mt Cook tunnel. If the preferred route for light rail includes a Mt Albert tunnel, FIT expects that council officers will carry out detailed modelling before a final decision on a single or double track is made.

    • Questions about the proposed route, Answered!
      • The Kilbirnie Rongotai Lyall Bay Resident Association approached FIT with a number of questions about the proposed light rail route. As their residents will be impacted / benefited they sought answers to the following questions about the proposal’s impact in the Eastern Suburbs (Kilbirnie, Rongotai, Lyall Bay, Miramar, Strathmore, Seatoun, Mapuia). <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Proposed light rail route from the airport to the railway station Q1 What numbers of current bus users do you expect to use Light Rail to travel into the CBD and will this impact our current bus service? A1 About half on golden mile routes, and yes: see A7. Many passengers will connect to light rail at a hub, often saving more time on a faster trip than is lost at the hub. In Kilbirnie, light rail will connect with buses at a hub at the south end of Bay Rd, or in Miramar at Miramar Av near Hobart St. Q2 What numbers of private vehicles do you expect Light Rail to remove from the roads? If possible please identify numbers of vehicles going to Airport versus other destinations and the source of your data. A2 Much will depend on design details. The faster light rail is the more effective it will be, because most transport users choose whatever is quickest and most reliable. We have an ambitious target, an average speed of 30 km/hr including all stops. The more closely this can be achieved, or exceeded, the more effective light rail will be. Light rail would be more effective if ‘four lanes to the planes’ (including two new road tunnels) was cancelled. Building more roads simply locks in more traffic and greater congestion. A much more effective approach is improved alternatives, especially fast public transport and cycle lanes. A principal benefit of light rail will be making the inner-city buses much more effective, by relieving a badly overloaded golden mile. Q3 How will your light rail proposal reduce congestion on weekends when people in the Eastern Suburbs are not going to the CBD (noting congestion is worse on the weekends)? A3 Good public transport should be equally effective at weekends, and greater revenue (as patronage rises) will allow more frequent weekend services and longer operating hours. FIT envisages a minimum 10 minute service, from at least 7 am to 7 pm, every day, with less frequent evening and early-morning service. Light rail should run early enough to connect with the first buses and late enough for the last; say 18 hours a day. Some cities encourage weekend usage by providing additional benefits for subscribers to monthly or annual travel passes, such as free travel for family members on weekends. We have proposed a stop at the Rongotai Sports Centre. Q4 How many members of FIT that were involved in this design live along the proposed line and commute daily to work in the CBD? A4 One (of 7) of us lives on the proposed line, but all have experience of congested commuting. Most of us have lived in or at least visited cities having the kind of system proposed. Q5 How will people that live more than 200 meters from the Light Rail Stops, e.g. in Lyall Bay, Kilbirnie Heights, on Miramar Hills and north Miramar access the Light Rail? A5 A typical ‘walking catchment’ for light rail is a one kilometre corridor straddling the line, or say 600–800 metres for a bus line. Data from other cities consistently shows that people willingly trade a longer walk for a faster trip. Ideally bus lines should cross the light rail line at a hub, but in Wellington a more complex layout is needed. For example, lines 12 and 24 might be joined in a Miramar hub, both timed to meet light rail as well as possible. Similarly, the existing line 23 could connect to light rail at Kilbirnie. Cycling, or electric scooters, are likely supplements to walking. Better facilities for people transferring, and for storing cycles and scooters, are also needed at hubs and railway stations. Q6 Have FIT undertaken a formal traffic impact assessment? A6 FIT expects that officials will carry this out and report the results, before any final decisions are made. Q7 What advantages are there over a properly functioning bus service? A7 The question is the wrong way round: in Wellington, a properly functioning bus service needs light rail. Central Wellington has only three north-south streets for all purposes, and badly needs a new, high-capacity public transport route. Bus Rapid Transit on a 2 lane corridor provides about half the people-moving capacity of a double-track light rail line. A subsequent upgrade to light rail for increased capacity would be very disruptive. Light rail is probably about ten years away, but there is no need for bus route improvements to wait as long as that. Bus reliability improvements will hopefully begin very soon. Bus lanes can be extended and much-improved, but are not always practical. Other measures include traffic signal priority, junction layout improvements, measures to keep buses out of traffic queues, stop improvements and fewer stops. One quick and easy improvement would be to require cars to yield to buses signalling to leave a bus stop. Light rail, with well designed transfer hubs, will roughly halve bus numbers on the golden mile, to the point where buses can keep to time and make more consistently reliable connections at hubs. All public transport in the WCC area will function more effectively. Another light rail advantage kicks in as ridership grows. If light rail takes half of golden mile ridership on opening day, and then takes nearly all inner-city ridership growth on a much-improved system, it will quickly reach 3500 passengers an hour. It will then be cheaper than buses, because the operating-cost savings are enough to cover the capital charges. Q8 What road works and elevations are required in Kilbirnie / Cobham Drive? A8 At the busiest intersections, grade separation may be required (such as a rail overbridge). At less busy intersections, light rail priority is provided (other traffic is automatically stopped for light rail vehicles), in the form of traffic lights and in some instances barrier arms. FIT expects that officers will carry out detailed modelling of every intersection along the route to establish the most appropriate options with respect to elevated or at-grade crossings. Other cities have found to their cost that if you get it wrong, it's really difficult, and sometimes impossible, to fix. Build it right the first time. Q9 Will the light rail require a subsidy to operate? A9 It depends. The single largest operating cost component is the driver's pay. In cities with human drivers, light rail services typically require about 1/3 the operating subsidy as a bus service. This goes back to the answer to Q7, that above about 3500 passengers / hour, light rail is cheaper overall than buses. Cities with self-driving (autonomous) light rail vehicles typically require no operating subsidy; the farebox is sufficient. This gives local authorities greater flexibility to introduce pricing policies that encourage public transport use, such as lower fares, at less cost. Once the line opens, Wellington may wish to consider introducing a congestion charge for cars entering the city centre during certain hours, and using the revenue raised to subsidise public transport. In a polluter pays model, the people causing congestion meet the cost of relieving it. Q10 How do you propose to manage intersections e.g. at Rongotai and Coutts St so the light rail does not have to stop given there are cycleways, cars and pedestrians crossing the lines? A10 See A8 above. It becomes much easier when the light rail computer talks to the traffic signals computer, for example, ‘priority in 60 seconds,’ followed by ‘priority in five seconds’ about a minute later. The traffic-signal computer can then plan to give priority for light rail with minimum delays to all. A typical light rail phase is only about 10-15 seconds. Q11 What is the noise level of the light rail in Decibels and does this peak during braking? A11 One suitable vehicle (Siemens Avenio) has a maximum outside noise level of 46 dB(A) when stationary, and 70 dB(A) inside at 60 km/hr. No external figure is given, but ‘quieter than a bus’ would be reasonable. Most braking is regenerative, which makes very little difference. For one example, see the Acoustic Characteristics section of this PDF. Q12 Where will the light rail cars be stored? A12 FIT has two sites in mind, one of them in the eastern suburbs, but they need to be confirmed by professional studies before they are made public. A likely layout is light rail at or below ground level, with development above: residential or commercial. Q13 What is the likelihood that a vehicle accident on the line could block the light rail service? A13 Crash and breakdown rates are low but not fully avoidable. Cyclists are at some risk, motor vehicle drivers at perhaps greater risk, especially when turning right across rail tracks, light rail passengers at very low risk. Countermeasures include design for good visibility, traffic signals at all intersections, and detailed planning to restart services as soon as possible after a crash or breakdown.

    • Transportation 2040: Vancouver’s Blueprint for Sustainable Transport, with lessons for Wellington
      • Public Presentation: Wednesday 4 July, 6:30-7:30pm Sustainability Trust, 2 Forresters Lane, Te Aro (off Tory St) Hosted by Congestion-Free Wellington Wellington is facing major transport and land-use choices as we decide on the Let's Get Wellington Moving process. Will we choose a compact, low-carbon city supported by world-class public transport, walking and cycling? Or will we choose tunnels, flyovers and sprawl? How have other cities made progress? Learn more in this public presentation from Dale Bracewell, Vancouver's transport manager. Transportation 2040 is Vancouver’s high-level vision for all modes of transport, with specific mobility and safety goals. Vancouver achieved its interim target of 50 percent of all daily trips by sustainable modes, and is on track to achieve two-thirds of all daily trips by walking, cycling and public transport in 2040. The presentation will include lessons from Dale’s experiences applied to Wellington.

    • Submission to LGWM: Light Rail for Wellington
      • Summary of full submission to LGWM Mass transit in Wellington City as proposed by LGWM is necessary but not sufficient. To compete successfully with private car travel requires rapid transit that delivers a congestion-free journey — the basis of Scenario A+. Transit Oriented Development around stops is an essential complement to urban rapid transit. Wellington needs an ambitious goal, that by 2050 over 50% of all trips to and from the CBD will be by public transport. Light rail is a proven, low risk rapid transit option which has been deployed in other earthquake-prone cities. There would be benefits in Wellington adopting the same technology standards as Auckland. The investor that assumes the ridership risk should have the final say on rapid transit route and technology choice. LGWM needs to set the performance targets for travel time, service frequency, and transfer time at hubs. List of recommendations Plan to open a rapid transit line between the railway station and Miramar by 2027, as a reliable and superior alternative to driving.Agree that rapid transit is a core component of a future transport system designed around the wants and needs of people.Reconfigure bus services along the rapid transit corridor to aggregate demand and connect at transit hubs.Develop a policy and guidelines for transit oriented development around rapid transit stops and at transit hubs.Design the first rapid transit line in a way that facilitates future extensions and connections.Note that to provide reliable rapid transit for the projected demand, Wellington needs light rail operating no later than 2027.Note the earthquake risk to light rail lines can be mitigated and other earthquake-prone cities have extensive passenger rail networks.Note the estimated cost of a first light rail line is $910m and a public–private partnership is one of several possible funding mechanisms.Choose technologies that are based on widely-used standards, to provide maximally contestable supply and avoid supplier lock-in.Consider adopting a technology-neutral approach to procurement, specifying the services that the rapid transit system must deliver.  Download the full LGWM submission

    • Challenging the road planners
      • The Regional Council, the City Council and the Transport Agency are currently engaged in their “Let’s Get Wellington Moving” initiative on how to resolve traffic and transport issues in the city.  Following lengthy public engagement and surveys during 2016, key findings indicated that people valued the compactness of the city and ease of getting around; they want public transport improvements, fewer roads and cars, a more pedestrian-friendly city, and protection for the natural environment. These findings represent an admirable expression of what kind of city environment people would like to see. But achieving them will take a paradigm shift away from expanding the road corridor between the Terrace tunnel and Cobham Drive, which forms a major part of the current Land Transport Plan. There is much evidence in New Zealand and abroad to indicate that constructing more motorways and bridges through an urban area does not lead to significant travel time savings or easing congestion (which is the common assumption of road and traffic engineers.) Conversely, there is much evidence that total or partial road closures can lead to a significant reduction in the amount of traffic in the vicinity, thereby achieving the easing of congestion that everybody wants.  American writer and political activist Jane Jacobs spent a lifetime studying and writing about economic development and the decay of city environments. Jacobs did not have a high opinion of traffic engineers and traffic management as it has been practiced over the past 60 years. She castigated them for their failure to ask and address the right questions, and their failure to investigate after desired outcomes are not achieved.  She claimed that “in the pursuit of maximising traffic movement, traffic engineers have abandoned and betrayed science as it is understood” and she described two examples where communities challenged the professionals and their proposals for traffic improvements.  During the 1950s she led community action to save New York’s Washington Square, a community park in Greenwich Village, from bisection by a limited access expressway, and to close a 2-lane carriageway through the park to all but emergency vehicles.  During the debate leading up to abandonment of the expressway and closure of the road, “the traffic commissioner told us traffic is like water: if it is dammed up or diverted from its course in one place, it will find other outlets where it meets less resistance. To close off the carriage road without providing a new road would, he predicted, inundate all the narrow streets in the park’s vicinity with thwarted traffic and belching fumes, threatening the safety of children to the point that they couldn’t even reach the park.” Following a test closure of the road, these predictions did not come to fruition. Nowhere did the traffic increase. Traffic counts were slightly down in the park’s vicinity. “Where did the traffic go? This question was never asked.”  Jacobs also describes a dispute 30 years later with authorities in her Toronto neighbourhood, where a similar situation arose and was fought by the community. The same water analogy was presented by the traffic engineers and was subsequently debunked. Jacobs writes:  “Here they are, another generation of nice, mis-educated young men, about to waste their careers on a fake science that cares nothing about evidence, that doesn’t ask a fruitful question in the first place and when the unexpected evidence turns up anyhow, doesn’t pursue it.”  Once again the traffic flow projections had been discredited by real world experience and once again the reasons why it was wrong were not investigated. Jacobs also described her observations when travelling by taxi to a downtown destination in Toronto. On a trip from the airport to a downtown micro destination, one part of the trip was along an elevated limited access highway, with on and off ramps feeding to and from the city’s grid of one-way streets.  “On the expressway stretch the meter is ticking over, the trip seems economical and I am getting good distance for my money. Then I hit a choke point at the exit ramp and from then on everything changes. Considering what it is costing me, I am getting very little distance. I am not complaining about this. As research it is economical. What worries me rather, is the expensive burden on the city and the planet of air pollution and urban road congestion that the expensive part of my trip is registering. “The driver must weave circuitously around the block, then around another block and so on to reach the correct side of the street on which to deposit me. All the way to my micro-destination, from the moment we enter the street grid, we are surrounded by delivery vans, other taxis, and private cars whose drivers also are attempting to reach their micro-destinations. ….. Our joint circuitous congestion hampers all others attempting to make use of the streets: public transit vehicles, pedestrians and bicycle couriers.” She identifies what she considers to be two serious flaws.  Firstly, instead of addressing the question ‘how can we help this great diversity of users reach their great diversity of micro-destinations most directly?’, the designers seem to be asking themselves – ‘How can people reach a macro-destination downtown most speedily?’  The second flaw is that the one-way street system leads the driver on a Barnes dance to reach a micro-destination. The no left turns, no standing signs and other rules are designed to keep vehicles out of one another’s way and carry out the theme of a speedy trip. She suggests that perhaps one-way street systems are not such a good idea. A study by a research team at the University of London and reported in The New Scientist in 1998 tends to suggest that Jacobs is right. This study identified sixty cases worldwide in which roads had been closed or their carrying capacity reduced and its principal findings were: · Planning models assume closing a road will cause traffic using it to move elsewhere · Computer models used by urban transportation planners yield incorrect answers · When a road is closed, an average of 20% of its traffic seemed to vanish and in some cases as much as 60%. There are many examples where enlightened planning authorities have moved to close highways and channel investment into public transport, walking and cycling to and improve the urban environment.  Wellingtonians are asking for public transport improvements, fewer roads and cars, a more pedestrian friendly city, and a desire to protect the natural environment. This is achievable, but expanding the road corridor to Cobham Drive is not the answer.  Maybe closing the Vivian Street off ramp and directing through traffic two way along the existing corridor to the Basin Reserve and beyond would be worth trialling.  Whatever the outcome, one lives in hope that the Let’s Get Wellington Moving team will take note of the fallacies identified by Jacobs and the positive experience in cities that have seen the wisdom of putting people first and designing transport systems around the desired urban form.

    • LGWM Submission
      • Add a Rapid Transit option based on Light Rail The LGWM Scenarios A to D make no provision for a “rapid transit” option — where “rapid” means public transport fast enough to compete with private car travel. Designating the Golden Mile (Lambton Quay, Willis St, Manners St, Courtenay Place) as the “mass transit” corridor, an area crowded with pedestrians and with many narrow sections, excludes the possibility of rapid transit through the central city. Perhaps LGWM expects a future light rail line will run underground through the CBD — a very expensive option. The scenarios do not include any measures designed to grow public transport’s mode share, by offering people an attractive and inviting alternative to the private car. Fair Intelligent Transport (FIT) Wellington proposes that LGWM properly assess the case for investing in rapid transit based on light rail now, rather than bus “mass transit” now, upgrading to light rail at some unspecified future date. LGWM presents no credible proposal for how a future upgrade from bus “mass transit” to light rail rapid transit would be carried out. Evidence from overseas cities strongly suggests that such an upgrade will be difficult and expensive at best, impossible at worst. FIT proposes that in the long run it will be cheaper and less disruptive to build light rail now. FIT estimates that current patronage on Lambton Quay is already close to justifying light rail, assuming buses would carry 25% of all passengers. This means taking a more strategic approach to public transport than LGWM’s narrow focus on capacity, to include targets for mode share and travel time savings. The primary aim for light rail is to maximize demand by mode shift from private cars. To achieve this: choose a string-of-pearls route, serving locations with high demand all day; foster transit-oriented development along the route; and make the service predictable, frequent and well-connected, with competitive travel times. See Light Rail on a String of Pearls. Light rail on a waterfront route to Taranaki St offers fast service for through trips, while reducing the number of buses on the Golden Mile to about ¼ of current numbers. Bus trips through the CBD will be faster because the route is no longer overloaded. Suburban bus trips will be faster because CBD delays no longer disrupt the timetables. Connections at hubs will be faster and more reliable because local buses face fewer delays and pulsed timetables become practical. LGWM also needs to consider measures for managing travel demand. This could include a congestion charge for car trips entering the central city during peak times, to reduce traffic on city streets and make it easier to get around. In addition, review parking strategies around pricing and options for progressively reducing the number of on-street car parks in the CBD. FIT proposes Scenario A+ as an alternative to the LGWM Scenarios A to D. Scenario A+ is Scenario A plus light rail rapid transit and congestion charging. Completing Scenario A+, FIT endorses calls for multiple safe places for people walking and cycling to cross SH1 between Willis St and the airport. FIT supports the proposal in Scenario C to move eastbound SH1 from Vivian St to a tunnel on the Inner City Bypass route, provided that this is in addition to Scenario A+. This would facilitate grade-separation between SH1 and FIT’s suggestion for light rail on Taranaki St. The string-of-pearls route proposes a rail tunnel under Mt Albert between the Zoo and Kilbirnie; with Scenario A+ a second Mt Victoria road tunnel for “mass transit” in Scenario B is not needed. Implementing Scenario A+ will offer many more people the option of congestion-free travel and grow public transport’s mode share. It will make public transport more effective for more trips, including those by bus. Scenarios A to D will not do this. Light rail is a mature, proven, low-risk solution available from a range of suppliers, thus giving maximally competitive procurement. LGWM may wish to consider joint procurement with Auckland, depending on project timing. FIT proposes that LGWM investigate options for changing current transport funding models so that urban rapid transit projects are funded on the same basis as state highways. Move to a polluter-pays model for solutions that relieve congestion: invest revenue from road congestion charges in public transport. Value uplift capture from transit-oriented development is another potential funding stream. <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Light Rail on a String of Pearls Download the LGWM Submission

    • Scenario A+ Light Rail Route Map
      • <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > The suggested route aims to maximise ridership by offering predictable, frequent, well-connected service, and travel times competitive with travel by private car. People choosing light rail enjoy a congestion-free journey. The route can be extended in future, such as to Karori and Johnsonville. The route FIT proposes differs from the LGWM “mass transit” route in the following ways.    String of pearls, rather than branching A string of pearls route offers the maximum number of one-seat light rail trips and many origin – destination choices. A branching route, on the other hand, means service operates at half the frequency on each branch, and people wishing to travel between branches have to change at Courtenay Place. A string of pearls route costs less to build and operate, while delivering a higher level of service.  The suggested route replaces a Mt Victoria road tunnel with a shorter Mt Albert rail tunnel. It passes through areas with high population density and creates opportunities for transit-oriented development around stops. <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Waterfront, rather than Golden Mile A waterfront route offers a faster service for longer trips, with buses on the Golden Mile offering a complementary slower service for shorter trips. A Golden Mile route offers much better service to the CBD, but would operate at a slower speed through this pedestrian area (maximum 25 km/hr). Buses would need to be relocated to other central city streets, to avoid holding up the light rail service in narrow sections.  A waterfront route involves far less disruption to central city retailers than a Golden Mile route.   Taranaki Street, rather than the Terraces A hub at the north end of Taranaki Street in Te Aro supports easy connections to bus services on Manners Street and is close to Te Papa and the site of the future convention centre. A short rail tunnel under Mt Cook from Taranaki Street to Adelaide Road avoids light rail potentially conflicting with traffic at the Basin Reserve. A Golden Mile route continues on Courtenay Place to Kent and Cambridge Terraces, to the Basin Reserve. One possible option for separating light rail from east – west traffic is a short rail plus road flyover on Sussex Street.   Runway tunnel, rather than Cobham Drive The route shows a rail tunnel under the airport runway from Kilbirnie, with a stop at the airport, continuing to Miramar town centre. An alternative option would be via the ASB Sports Centre to Miramar town centre, with a terminus at the airport. This would be slightly longer, but cheaper and less disruptive.  Tunnelling under the airport runway may be impractical, so it may be necessary to use an alternative route. DOWNLOAD the ROUTE MAP PDF

Updated Feeds

Recently updated feeds from local organisations.