The BRT systems people are talking about are dedicated and segregated lines that other bus lines link up to. They are just like segregated LRT lines or train lines only with busses runing on concrete instead of trains on rails.

BRT is _NOT_ a busway that bus lines from multiple directions merge into. So if BRT was implement those people outside of the catchment area for the line would still need to change busses just as much as they would bus -> LRV.

So (if you are talking a proper BRT line) you end up with less patronage, because people just don’t like busses as much as LRVs. Its a well understood phenomenon. Then there are other problems with BRT compared to LRT in this situation:

- can I take my bike on a BRT bus? Not from what I’ve seen.
- BRT are keep less reliable time tables and tend to bunch.
- BRT has much higher operating costs.
- BRT is less comfortable and less appropriate for disabled or the elderly.
- BRT vehicles have *much* shorter lifespans

And I don’t think anyone would suggest an automated BRT system… cuz, here, let me sell you this monorail instead.

So if people are actually talking about dedicated bus lanes and bus priority measures at intersections, then it shouldn’t be called BRT. And in that case we’re talking about two different aims for our passenger transport system.

LRT will pick up more passengers than bus will on the same route, as we know passengers walk further for LRT or trains than a bus. If we’re assuming a proper LRT line through to Miramar here, this replaces or consolidates a few lines into one. The vast majority of existing PT users on that corridor will be within 500m of a reliable service that runs every 6-10 minutes, is quiet and comfortable, and gets you into the city fast and on time. A lot of people will find they can now ride their bike and take it with them, increasing the catchment area even further.

There are a few bus routes (e.g. 1, 11, etc.) that would still continue running as is all the way into the city and people shouldn’t think they’d stop. I think this needs to be clear in any pro LRT statement because the N2A study mislead some people on this. It might make sense to reroute them via Wallace St/Taranaki St instead, or through the bus tunnel, leaving adelaide dedicated to LRT, but that is all.

Then there is a small minority of passengers left that are outside the range of the LRT line and whose bus lines would be effected. Notable example is Southgate/Houghton Bay. These passengers would have to mode shift at the Zoo. But within that group I’d actually imagine most of them once they tried it would be happy with having a more frequent shuttle service up and down the hill, linking them to a frequent LRT service, as opposed to a very infrequent bus service which they have to make sure they are there on time to catch, wait around for, stops after 7pm, etc. Instead go out your door in the morning, jump on a shuttle bus when it shows up, grab a coffee at the zoo (well not now that spotless is running the joint) and jump on the next LRV to glide past. Overall, you’d get to work quicker than you would on the bus anyway.

The best advantage of course is that buses can roam the suburbs, picking up passengers and changing routes at will, and then, miraculously, without any mode switch, they can enter into the Busway and travel straight through town and out the other side again. A huge disadvantage that the Busway has of course is that the more successful it gets, the more clogged and diesel laden the central city route takes. Unless you stick it underground, which some cities have done, and which i find somehow scary, as you enter into what feels like an underground carpark, and then a bus zooms up behind a glass screen and whisks you away into a dark tunnel. Much like a Metro but scarier as it is in the control of notoriously unreliable bus-drivers.

A light rail system by contrast can’t pick up passengers without mode change, and therefore some inevitable passenger loss at each stage. However, a simple move from a two-car light rail train, to a four-car light rail train, or even onto 6 or 8, can move massively more passengers without any increase in “traffic”. Most European cities have 2 car tram systems – see a list of all the metro and light rail systems in the world, as far as was known in 2006: http://www.lrta.org/world/worldind.html

But the Smogr post at the top of this comment makes it quite obvious that light rail is the most efficient way to move people through a city – more people, less engines, quieter, faster. And according to Transit’s own figures as Tony’s figures above note, its cheaper than roading tunnels ! (a $15million contingency should buy a fair wack of new asphalt and cobbles to do some landscaping).

It is absolutely ludicrous to think that there will be no environmental compliance costs considering we live under the bureaucratic RMA.

Pavements and surfacing, traffic services and traffic management will all be needed to some degree or another, especially when running through CBD.

And $0 spent on landscaping and urban design under the WCC? Not bloody likely! I say this as there SHOULD be money spent on urban design. You cannot just plonk light rail corridor down in the middle of a pedestrian-laden CBD and expect it to integrate into the urban fabric just like that…

/rant (for the moment). :)

As for the commitment “thing”, true BRT also requires a signficant investment in routes and transport nodes if it is to work correctly (the principles are the same as for light rail as are the outcomes if it is done right). Overseas research (such as on Brisbane’s South-East Busway) confirms the same benefits are seen by developers from BRT. I find it incredible that the N2A study really did not look at a proper BRT based solution with route investment in hubs, GPS, traffic prioritisation, route colour coding … all the things taken for granted as key aspects of a decent Light Rail solution in the puzzling belief that the same principle somehow cannot apply to buses. There are some good examples of BRT such as LA’s Rapid Bus and the famous South American BRT systems such as in Curatiba. Of course it can be done wrong, but another advantage with BRTis, as it costs less, it also costs less to fix :)

Building a bus way is a heavy bet on diesel prices (or possibility of a new affordable fuel). Light rail at least provides a hedge given uncertain future diesel and carbon costs.

By putting tracks down, the council shows it’s commitment not to change the transport route. This may give developers more confidence to build on the route.

Element Totals Description

$1,857,000 Monitoring MSQA, Transit Managed Costs and Consent monitoring fees

Physical Works
$0 Environmental Compliance
$0 Earthworks
$0 Drainage
$0 Pavement and Surfacing
$0 Tunnels
$0 Bridges / Pedestrian Subway
$0 Retaining Walls
$0 Traffic Services
$0 Service Relocations
$33,750,000 Buildings
$0 Landscaping & Urban design
$0 Traffic Management and Temporary Works
$3,375,000 Preliminary and General Work

Extraordinary Construction Costs
$11,250,000 Supply and lay rail and concrete support, power supply, etc.
$24,000,000 Supply vehicles (8 x 100 person @$3M each)
$5,000,000 Maintenance Equipment
$1,000,000 Tram Tracking
$1,350,000 Rubber Boot for Noise

$15,945,000 Allowance for Missing Items (5%)
—————————–
$97,527,000 Base Estimate

$34,495,000 Contingency added to Base Estimate
—————————–
$140,110,000 Expected Estimate

Personally, I believe that Bus Rapid Transit can deliver everything that light rail does to Wellington at half the price but it has never been given a chance . . . until perhaps now.

More specifically, I am very concerned that the Light Rail estimate is likely to be too low given the number of items (such as service relocation) that were priced at $0 but could be very significant. But some people seem immune to a rational discussion on PT options based on costs & benefits and railigious arguments are often not productive.

Above ground light rail is already luxury compared to what we got… I just hope there is enough public pressure to get the WCC to agree to commission a report by an experienced international PT consultant about incorporating light rail into Wellington’s transport infrastructure. If that happens it would likely be relatively easy to raise public support for the option, especially if the price tag turns about to be cheaper than tunnels and roads.

a – Did the $140m price include a link onto the J’Ville line, or was did it just terminate at the station?

On the other hand if I read the draft plan correctly light rail from J’ville to the Hospital costs only $140million. Compare that to the $1b cost of transmission gully. What’s the hold up? They should start building immediately.

It has already been more or less declared by the Council, LRT proponents, and previous studies that the Golden Mile is the best route for LRT. I think when they talk about the waterfront they’re talking about the subway route to Taranaki St studied by Opus. Rough diagram of that route here: http://simwgtn.blogspot.com/2008/06/cbd-rail-routes.html

KLK, “Honestly, every other first world country has it to some degree. Its embarressing.”

Totally, and frustrating, and upsetting, and all kinds of things. :(

a, “Are there any examples of fantastic public transport in a city of a similar size to Wellington? Melbourne, Toyko, Berlin… nice examples but how relevant are they? (they’re huge)”

It’s mostly about density and usage. I.e. it doesn’t matter your population so long as the corridor creates that much PT usage. Wellington’s Golden Mile and Growth Spine rank pretty well in that regard and are only going to get better. Wait until petrol hits $4 dollars a litre, there’ll be absolutely no question then. But also by then because of the head in the sand attitude of the Government (central & local) the cost to improve PT will be huge, and disruptions to PT caused by construction will have an even greater impact.

This cost is going up already, Perth here has found that the time to deliver new trains has increased beyond their expectations, and to their detriment, and people are going to find the cost to get trains and busses is going to increase too as demand around the world for their manufacture increases.

rondo, “No no, mystery “a”, its called planning ahead.”

Hear-hear! Please does someone in the Council not understand this!? Back in the time of the De Leuw Cather report there were plans for a subway in the future, two plans, which we’d only dream of these days, but if they’d only fixed them into the town plan, then now it would be so much easier to build.

Instead of learning, we’re continueing to build buildings around wellington that get in the way of such routes, both for subways, and also critically for Light Rail too. This just drives up the cost further.

Strangely mind you, no one ever seems to have any problem pulling buildings down or doing massive earthworks, removing entire streets, for a motorway :-\

—

What is it our Councillors and planners know that the rest of the world doesn’t? Meh, just fired this off to councillors@wcc, see if they respond.

Hi,

With the N2A study appearing to be take the same old business as usual approach, and the legitimate concerns of the majority of submissions being completely ignored by the most recent study report: I have a few direct and simple questions I’d like to ask about your views on planning for the future.

1. What do you anticipate the price of oil to be in 2 years?

2. And in 5 years?

3. When were you first made aware of the peak oil theory and do you believe it is actually likely to occur within the next 10 years (if not already)?

4. Do you support completion of light rail transport through Wellington’s Growth Spine within the next 10 years?

5. Do you support duplication of the Mt Victoria tunnel within the next 10 years?

6. If you beleive that oil-based transport will be replaced by electric vehicles or other alternatives: what time frame do you expect this to occur in and what do you expect will be the total cost to the economy of replacing the entire vehicle fleet?

7. As above, do you expect that all socio economic levels of society will be able to afford this transition or do you anticipate a major impact on many people’s standard of living? If you do, what percentage of the population do you expect will be negatively affected and how do you anticipate this will be handled?

Thanks very much!

Kris