Comparing rail, road and bus
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.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Well done Russel - unfortunately the high capacity of PT projects are devalued by the high discount rate that LTNZ use. Cullen’s arguments that the discount rate is somewhat “arbitrary” are ludicrous.
Equally incongruent was the assertion that a car driver’s time is more valuable because they can’t do other things.
E.g.
1. 100 people on train journey for 60 minutes.
2. Project to take off 5 min is completed, so the 100*5 = 500min saved for existing passengers, which is valued at the lower PT time value.
3. However, 20 previous car users stop driving and save 5min off their car journey = 20*5 = 100 min at high time value.
4. The switch to trains, however, also frees the car drivers up for an additional 55 minutes that they would have otherwise spent driving. This should be valued at 20*55 = 1100 min.
Cullen has to be challenged on these stupid answers he is giving! Maybe parliament (with a limited number of question time) is not the right forum to take this further. Would it be possible to organise a live public debate between himself and a Green Representative?
March 29th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Not sure questiontime in parliament is the best forum either but it has the advantage of being very public. A debate in Auckland would be good.
Somehow we have to alert Aucklanders that the future of their city is being decided right now. Act now or forever live in traffic jams with no mass transit alternative!
March 29th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Stu
Wouldn’t he have to be alive for that to happen?
respectfully
BJ
March 29th, 2007 at 10:49 am
you’re about as funny as a fart in a phonebox..bj..
and set new benchmarks in ‘laboured’..
pleeeaassee..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 29th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Phil I feel SO unappreciated…
March 29th, 2007 at 10:58 am
russel said..
“..Not sure questiontime in parliament is the best forum either but it has the advantage of being very public. A debate in Auckland would be good.
Somehow we have to alert Aucklanders that the future of their city is being decided right now. Act now or forever live in traffic jams with no mass transit alternative!..”
um..ok russell..a call to arms for aucklanders…
so..we hear you..(consider us ‘alerted’..)
and what exactly is it that you suggest we do..?
that would have any real impact/import..?
on any decision that is made..?
somehow..
i don’t think just a ‘public debate’ will do much..eh..?
your suggestions for effective political action/outcomes on this is welcomed/waited for..
phil(whoar.co.nz)..
March 29th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Phil, I see you’re back. Where have you been?
We’re trying the public meeting on Monday, with ads in the weekend Herald, questions in the house, we’ve got people handing out leaflets at britomart, we’ll be doing an e-postcard that people can send, working alongside allies in NGOs and local govt, putting out media releases, raising it with Labour at every opportunity, considering a petition, blogging, and probably some other stuff that I’ve forgotten. So, all the usual things to bring pressure to bear on the decision makers in a representative democracy. Open to other ideas if you’ve got ‘em.
Hopefully a bunch of people will turn up to the public meeting and want to do more and have some innovative ideas and that will be the catalyst for another round of activity.
March 30th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Electrification of the Auckland railways has been talked about since the ’50’s hasn’t it?
May 10th, 2007 at 2:49 am
Russell, can we please have an update on the electrification of Aucland’s rail system.
I’m not sure that these figures from your original post add up right
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
The motorway figure must be for 2000 or 2400 vehicles per hour. Buses aren’t much longer than cars and the safe following distance isn’t much longer either. Seems to me the ultimate carrying capacity of a busway must be a lot more than 12,000 people per hour provided you have 2400 buses. By the time you reach that point driverless systems may have been perfected which would eliminate one of the biggest constraints on bus expansion. Another advantage of dedicated busways is they could ultimately be upgraded with some sort of system to supply electricity instead of using deisel engines.
If Auckland’s motorways had been built ahead of population growth they could have dictated where land was zoned for new industrial and housing areas. Sensibly locating these zones together at each motorway interchange could have minimised traffic growth. As it happened, the land use occurred before the motorways were built, or at seperate interchanges, which has maximised traffic growth. To make matters worse, in 1947 planners located the Otara/Wiri developements at Massey but marginal electorate politics moved it to the worst possible place as far as its impact on regional transport flows. The opportunity for motorways to help Auckland was missed and, generally further investment in motorways is just pouring good money after bad.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Kevyn,
“The opportunity for motorways to help Auckland was missed and, generally further investment in motorways is just pouring good money after bad.”
Totally diagree as the major development just completed (Spagetti Junction) and the new Highbrook exit to East Tamaki) have made huge improvements to the motorway system. Clear spagetti junction in 10 minutes at peak times and access to the industrial area of ET is now much improved and taken traffic away from Otara, Panmure, Pakuranga, etc. The feed to Howick is now much shorter onto the Southern Motorway, relieving congestion in the Eastern suburbs. When the SH20 extention from the Southern Motorway is completed in 2010 it will free up traffic in the Manukau CBD plus from the back roads around Manurewa where traffic going to the Wiri industrial area currently uses the Takanini turnoff and Mahia Road. Getting those “B” train trucks off suburban streets is a must. Mahia Road has been resurfaced twice in five years because the extra traffic using it to get to Wiri, SH20 and through to Hillborough, Blockhouse Bay, Henderson, Waitakarie, etc.
There was talk when doing the SH20 extension from the Southern Motorway that a rail loop would be included from the Main Trunk Line to the Manukau CBD. Dont know if this is still happening. Be interesting if the planners have allowed for it as Ti Irrirangi Drive to Botony has provisions for light rail down the centre.
Completing the SH20 through to Albany over the Upper Harbour Bridge will alleviate traffic on the old Harbour Bridge (whose clipons are now to be truck free to let them last a bit longer). Creating a City Bypass Route for North-South Traffic.
With the clipons about to be closed to trucks I wonder if busses will be similarly effected and that the bus lanes being constructed from Albany to the Harbour Bridge will see buses having to cross two lanes of traffic to get onto the bridge and then the same two lanes again to get to the city exit at Fanshawe Street?
May 11th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Gerrit, You are right that these are sensible improvements that have improved the flow of traffic. I was referring more generally to the idea of perpetually adding more lanes to handle more traffic or building new links such as the upper harbour mway.
At some point the land use issue has to be sorted out otherwise developers will keep building massive developments in the wrong places and create traffic flows that the road/mway network was never designed for.
Re the clipons, it depends on whether the problem is related to gross weight or axle weight or to the length/articulation creating lateral movements. If smaller rigid trucks are excempt then buses will be too. Otherwise you have identified a major flaw in the busway.
May 11th, 2007 at 5:54 am
Kevyn,
I my view SH20 needs to extend via a second harbour crossing al the way to Albany. This to create a city bypass route.
With SH1 being the main corridor from the North to the South you cannot ever put a toll or congestion charge on it to restrict car access to the city unless you have a secondary route for North - South traffic.
it will make it far quicker and fuel efficient for the Westies to go North. Currently they have to come all the way back to the city to head North or out on SH16 through Helensville.