Having that additional line around the waterfront for the trains is an interesting proposal, jervois quay certainly wouldnt miss the lane. The plans with light rail running down the golden mile seem that they would have to compromise speed for saftey – does anyone have any case studies of similar situations?

Still looking forward to your post on href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit”>Bus Rapid Transit . . . it is a pity it will not be before submissions close on the Ngauranga to Airport Strategic Study.

Are the cost estimates current ones? The 40% increase in the construction price index since 2000 doesn’t only affect roads.

Quite true. The report (as far as you can use it for anything) concludes more or less this. By 2016, with all the improvments, the same congestion will be experienced. So given one of the key issues is free and easy movement of freight and commercial traffic, it would seem to be a waste of time building more roads. Better to start with congestion charging first to discourage private use, and free the roads up for that commercial traffic.

I’m not sure if you’re proposing congestion charges or other ways of making drivers realize the actual costs of driving (by removing the current subsidies), but I agree that such measures are a much more holistic solution to traffic (and other) issues.

I do have to question these claimed failures of rail in the US. I’m not sure about the 1970s, but there have been a number of very successful (light) rail projects in the US in the ’90s-’00s, that are drawing greater-than-expected ridership, especially impressive given the sprawling nature of many of the cities in question. One of the most successful systems has been in Los Angeles, of all places, along with Portland and even places like Dallas and Sacramento, which are extremely car-oriented.

I do still have some qualms about whether Wellington has the numbers to really justify light rail (as you say, poorly-spent transit funds will come back to bite you in many ways), but I feel it’s better-justified when viewed as a long-term strategic move. There are options that were not sufficiently addressed (or addressed at all) by the N2A study, and they deserve to be.

Also, I think you trivialize the difficulty (and the cost) of doing BRT well, which is the topic of my next post.

LRT is an expensive busway with the disadvantage of two levels of bespoke infrastructure (overhead and track), whereas a busway is essentially the current road with some lining, signing and enforcement. Low emission buses are substantially cheaper than LRT and don’t forget Wellington is getting “new” trolley buses at a substantial price (with upgraded infrastructure). Why duplicate that again? This is about allocating precious resources (and I like trams), and paying for Rolls Royce public transport when there are other needs is just wasteful. Most people who would use LRT would ride buses. Similarly without road pricing, most people who drive will continue to do so.

Rail technology is good for high volume movements of people at high frequency, which simply doesn’t exist in Wellington. The truth is that any major investment in public transport will lie mostly idle most of the time underused, but still costing money that can’t be recovered from the users. The problem is that peak demand isn’t priced, which if it was would spread demand over a wider period and across modes better.

Thanks for the link, Rapid bus is very interesting.

It is pretty hard to judge whether that would be the case without serious thought. Times have changed, fuel prices are up, congestion is up, LRT is known to attract passengers from a much wider area, etc. But on the face of it for the northern suburbs it probably makes sense to keep the existing services runing through to Courtenay Plc. It certainly would be a mistake I think to from day one decide to reshape the entire network just because LRT is in. You’d want to do it over a couple of years as it settled in, and you could see how it was actually affecting patterns.

Also people seem to be stuck on the idea that this is about now. It isn’t, it is about planning for the 30 year horizon and where the populations are going to be at that point. This is something the reports get seriously wrong. They all are based on 2001 out to 2016. First 2001 is already too out of date to be used in an report that decides $650 million dollars of spending. Second, 2016 is not strategic in any sense.

One of the amazing flaws in the report was its assessment on population growth, which is a measly 0.65% per annum for Wellington City. Actual population growth has been double that at 1.27% per annum since 1991, and nearly three times that at 1.84% over the past 5 years.

Then there is the fact that the growth in the areas along the spine has been even greater, and is planned to accommodate the majority of Wellington Cities future growth over the next 30 years.

Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that there is a serious problem there that affects the viability of everything in the report.

“A seat on a standard bus costs about $5,000, a trolley or hybrid $10,000 and a fuel cell bus $20,000 and a Light Rail vehicle about $35,000 per seat…”

You cannot use that kind of mathematics. It it like saying 1000 metres of 2-lane road can accomodate 250 parked cars. It just doesn’t mean anything. What matters is the cost for the throughput of the system you put in place.

And yes, LRT may be more expensive on the face of it, but one would have to do a full cost analysis of the bus solutions (including environmental cost, cost of roadway space (why is it assumed to be free for a bus but not LRT), cost of catenary for trolley busses, etc. After that you also need to look at the difference in benefits, the vision for your urban environment, your growth plans, etc.

“This is modelled and the impact of car usage is outlined in the technical report.”

The Technical Report is absolute bananas on so many levels. I can’t imagine writing something like that in my line of work and using it as a basis for a $6.5 million investment, let alone contemplate it for a massive $650 million investment and the related economic consequences which are even greater! We (Wellington) really should be asking for another study done by another outfit.

It worries me that the politicians aren’t saying the same thing, it leads me to believe they haven’t properly read the reports, or don’t understand them and so are falling back to their ideolical viewpoints on the subject.