Russel Norman

Comparing rail, road and bus

by Russel Norman

From the Auckland Regional Transport Authority Rail Development Plan 2006.

Preface by Brian Roche, ARTA Chair:

South of the Waitemata Harbour, rail alone has the capability to rapidly move large numbers of people, and only by providing Auckland with a high-quality, high-frequency rail service will ARTA achieve the objective of freeing up motorways and intensifying urban development. The rail system has been long neglected, but it is of enormous strategic significance. The opening of the Britomart Transport Centre in 2003 together with relatively modest investment in upgraded trains, track and stations has resulted in dramatic growth in rail patronage – up from 2.5 million journeys in 2003 to 5 million at June 2006.

And from the table on p.6:

4 to 5 metre corridor width through city- capacity per hour

Suburban heavy rail 20,000 – 25,000 people per hour
Dedicated busway 12,000 people per hour
An extra lane of motorway 2,400 people per hour

Once you get a big city with limited room for transport corridors, building more roads doesn’t work because roads just don’t have the capacity. There is a ten fold difference in capacity.

The Auckland rail plan would result in 30,000 people moving by rail at peak hour in 2030. To move the same number of people by road would cost $3.5billion in road construction and would add to congestion, pollution and the destruction of city life.

We need to think of Auckland as a metropolitan city not just a much larger version of Napier. A city Auckland’s size needs qualitatively different transport solutions than a city the size of Napier. As much as I like Napier, and have nothing against Finance Ministers that come from Napier, you can’t just take what might work for Napier and multiply it by 25 and assume it will work for Auckland.

Published in Environment & Resource Management by Russel Norman on Wed, March 28th, 2007   

Tags:

More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman