Well I went along to a fairly significant chunk of NZTA’s Waterview Connection expo today. While I criticised the wisdom of running something for seven hours in a previous post, I must say that having all that time available meant that issues could be delved into in far greater detail than I’ve ever seen at any previous consultation. This was certainly a good thing.
While it’s obvious that NZTA are going to fairly significant lengths to mitigate the adverse effects of the project, there are still a number of unresolved matters in my opinion, a number of areas where I think there could be relatively minor design tweak that could lead to significant benefits, as well as some fundamental problems I have with aspects of the proposal that unfortunately probably won’t be changed, but at least I can reserve “I told you so” rights in future years. This post will focus on the more fundamental matters – in particular the works to state highway 16 – while future posts will talk about other matters.
The biggest problem I have with the upgrade is not actually the Waterview Connection, but rather the upgrades to State Highway 16 that are occurring in conjunction with the SH20 actual Waterview Connection. I’m not exactly sure why these two projects have been bundled together, although the thinking is that because the Waterview Connection will feed extra traffic onto SH16, it needs to be widened (the causeway between Pt Chev and Rosebank also needs to be raised up a bit). And not widened by just a little bit either, widened by three lanes as shown in the diagram below:
The end result will be a nine lane wide motorway between Pt Chevalier and Te Atatu: five lanes westbound and four lanes eastbound. Inevitably, within a few years this super-wide motorway will become congested just as every other motorway widening project around Auckland has never eliminated congestion – just pushed it back a little bit until induced demand kicked in.
I pointed this out to many of the NZTA staff at the expo, and how silly it seemed to effectively flush $800 million down the toilet on widening a motorway that will become congested again within a few years. They pointed out that some of the work is necessary anyway, such as raising the causeway, and probably one additional westbound lane will be necessary to soak up vehicles from SH20. They also pointed out that bus “shoulder lanes” would be provided. However, the problem with bus shoulder lanes is that whenever they come up to a road overbridge or an on-ramp or an off-ramp they end abruptly, the bus needs to pull out into traffic again and much of the benefit is lost. Furthermore, bus drivers (understandably) wanting to avoid having to pull out into motorway traffic often simply avoid the shoulder lanes. In short, shoulder lanes are of limited benefit to buses and generally are just sop to shut public transport advocates up (kinda the same process as “future proofed for light rail”).
As I have detailed previously, it seems quite unbelievable that we’re spending around $800 million on upgrading state highway 16 yet not build a busway. The Northwestern Motorway is perfect for a busway, as there are station opportunities at St Lukes, Pt Chevalier, Te Atatu, Lincoln Road, Massey and Westgate just sitting there as I explained last year. Furthermore, it seems as though the problem isn’t that NZTA don’t want to build a busway, but that ARTA/ARC have only ever designated state highway 16 as a “Quality Transit Network (QTN)” rather than a “Rapid Transit Network (RTN)”. In terms of busways/lanes, apparently QTN means shoulder lanes and RTN means full busway (like the Northern Busway). Therefore, if state highway 16 were to be designated as an RTN then NZTA would be somewhat forced into at least strongly considering putting a busway along there.
Most of the arguments put up against SH16 being an RTN are along the lines of “but the train line is the RTN out west” or that “the busway would cannibalise patronage on the train system.” What this misses is the completely different alignments of the two. How many people living in Pt Chevalier take the train to work? How many in Te Atatu? How many in Massey? How many in Westgate? The answer all up is probably a big fat zero. They either drive or they use the incredibly messy, slow and complex system of buses that serves those parts of West Auckland at the moment.
This is clearly shown in the map below, with the Western Line shown in green and the route of a possible northwest busway shown in red. West of Pt Chevalier, the two are never less than three kilometres apart (the yellow stars indicate possible busway station sites):
Now I wouldn’t argue that the northwest busway is one of the most pressing public transport projects in Auckland, and perhaps that is why it has been ignored by just about everyone as a possibility, but the fact remains that NZTA is going to be spending $800 million here. Shouldn’t we at least ensure that money is spent on something that will have long-term benefits of giving people more transport choices (like the rampantly successful Northern Busway) rather than on simply widening SH16 and watching all that extra capacity being eaten up by induced demand?
The response I got today from most NZTA staff about this situation was that a busway should be considered as “another project”. The problem with that approach is that the money for the future busway is being spent on pointlessly widening SH16. I don’t think it’s that likely we’ll spend $800 million here on widening the motorway and then in 10 years spend another $600 million on putting a busway next to our superwide (but of course now super-congested) motorway. If we want the busway we need to do it now.
Why aren’t we doing that? Why are we flushing $800 million down the toilet widening SH16 instead?
Looks like the ARC need to make this a RTN quicksmart if anything is to happen. If I recall correctly SH16 once was the equivalent of an RTN route back in the 90s when a light rail line was planned along its length.
“Why are we flushing $800 million down the toilet widening SH16 instead?” While a busway is preferable the extra lanes could be converted to a busway at some point in the future, so its not quite money flushed down a toilet. Also the extra lanes can provide some congestion relief
i actaully support the project over doing nothing, although a busway with one extra westbound lane would be my firstchoice. I think this motorway widening could possibly build our way out the congestion here (at least temporarily). the road is currently 3 lanes westbound, and each lane can cater for 20 000 vechiles per mornong peak period, so curently can carry 60 000 vechiles but once completed can carry 100 000. now the SH20 waterview connection might add another 20 000 to the number it currently carries (lets suppose the road currently carries 60 000) bringinmg the number up to 80 000. and the new road encourages extra car use bringing the number up to 90 000, but still below the 100 000 capacity. so the road goes from 100% of capacity to 90%, thus a net improvement in congestion
I actually agree the road will be as congested once built but this is mostly because of the SH20 extension, not induced traffic demand. So the extra cars will come regardless of wether we widen the motorway or not. Future population growth will of course add to the traffic flows. this will happen regardless of if the motorway widening is built or not, so the choice is between the exising motorway with lots more congestion or a wider motorway with the same level of congestion (or a busway and the existing motorway with the same level of congestion).
The bus shoulder lanes may do some good in really congested situations as the zipper rule applies when the bus merges into the car lane, and can use the bus lane to zoom past to the top of the car que before zipping in. And what will work a lot beter is the two middle lanes of the motorway being bus only, providing a express bu route to the CBD (albeit accessed only by crossing plenty of car lanes). And lastly remember the extra car lanes could be converted to a busway at some future point).
This is one of my pet projects I think we should build. It would be quite easy to build while we were widening the motorway and would serve some quite different area’s of the city than what the western line currently does. Further to this the areas of Pt Chev, Te Atatu, Massey and Westgate are largely residential areas so there is a large population catchment for it. There is lots of space at Te Atatu, Lincoln Rd and Westgate for park and ride facilities and the route to town is fairly direct meaning trips into town would be pretty quick. I already know a number of people who would use it if it were built but because there isn’t much else for them to use they drive to town every day. In the future it could be extended to Whenuapai if it was ever to become an airport and to the development at Hobsonville.
It seems like such an easy win for the city if we did it at the same time as widening I just don’t understand why the councils don’t like it. Perhaps one option for it would be to build it in the centre of the widened motorway (of course more space would be needed around the stations as well as a pedestrian bridge to the road/carpark). It could be put in on a trial basis, the trial would have to be for a decent period like 10 years to allow people to get used to it and for patronage to grow. If it isn’t successful then it could be easily be converted back to motorway lanes.
I know there are a few politicians who read this blog so to them I say, please have some vision and push for this to be built.
Nicholas – If I ever travel through here during peak I see most of the buses just sitting in the lane with general traffic rather than using the shoulder lanes so there is no speed advantage for them. This is for two reasons, 1. The shoulder lanes are narrow so the driver has to concentrate more. 2. While cars are required to let them in many drivers are aggressive and don’t.
Also It really needs to be done at the same time as the motorway widening, as soon as those extra lanes go in there is no way groups like the AA or the trucking companies will let lanes be taken away, they would put far to much political pressure on to keep them meaning the motorway would have to be widened again to add them. This would cost to much and take to many houses so would never happen. This is our only real chance to do it right.
Why aren’t John and Len B made to consider this as something to campaign on, probably has as much chance as the rail tunnel to get through especially as this road widening is actually funded unlike the tunnel.
But let’s face it, I honestly don’t even know how the powers that be were convinced to build the Northern Busway and I see fat chance of this NW busway being built either.
@Nicholas – NZTA themselves project with this project that traffic will increase from the forecast 115,000 odd cars to 133,000 odd cars. So that’s once again over 100% capacity and hence once more horribly congested. A busway actually has the ability to provide long standing congestion relief.
I know the Northern Busway had been planned for about 20 years before it got built. Not sure of the details but I know they were complex and it took a long time to sort out.
The NW busway needs a high profile champion to fight for it. Not sure who that will be.
It’s funny that this project really has no traction, because in my eyes it would really ‘solve’ so to speak the lack of access to reliable PT in this part of Auckland-and considering close to a billion is being spent it seems silly not to try and do something for PT. A parellel is the VPT project which is providing for 5 lanes Northbound now, and yet not even 1 measly bus lane is included. NZ transport planning really is a basket case.
@Admin, Dave Shearer, Phil Twyford, Bob Harvey, were all very positive when I e-mailed them…
Mike Lee is dead against it as he doesn’t want to jepoardise the railway and is looking at the big picture so the ARC won’t be amending it to an RTN…
I think Mike Lee can be turned around on the issue
“The NW busway needs a high profile champion to fight for it. Not sure who that will be.”
I agree here. Without the super city it could be a Waitakere City mayor, and if the local borads become powerful in the super city could still be (or an Auckland mayor). A high profile local MP (Chris carter, or maybe given the talk on kiwiblog Micheal jones).
On this issue does anyone know how many buses or bus passengers use SH16 at present?
Firstly its good that some people are supporting it but why aren’t they doing anything about it, especially Bob Harvey as it really affects people in West Auckland. As for Mike Lee he clearly isn’t looking at the big picture. It would be easy for NZTA to put this in while they were doing SH16, it would probably be the easiest RTN to put in of any planned in Auckland. Further to this by building this it could actually make it easier to justify building other RTN’s in around the city as its success would help to prove that building them works and is a better investment than building more roads.
I also can’t see how it would jeopardise the western line as they have very different catchments. As an example catching a bus along the busway from Lincoln Rd to town would be quicker than catching the train from Henderson due to it being a more direct route, however the traffic along Lincoln Rd in the mornings is usually so bad the time difference wouldn’t be that much and it means I would have to use my car where as at the moment I can just walk to the train. Also with your suggested station locations (which I think are pretty good) even close to town where the two lines get close there is still about 1km distance between the two closest stations (Morningside and Western Springs)
The Western line will also be able to compete much better when the CBD tunnel is built meaning the difference is again much less.
Nicholas – Not enough was the ARC’s response to the suggestion when responding to submissions for the RLTS but that isn’t really the point.
Josh – What is the CBT’s official stand on the busway, is it something they will start a campaign for? Also perhaps to raise public opinion about it a full opinion piece could be given to the Herald to publish. Between this post and your one last year there should be enough content. I think it is one project that people aren’t calling for because they haven’t heard of it before however as soon as they hear it they think it makes sense, it was certainly this way for me.
Matt, Jeremy tested the water with various politicians on behalf of the CBT last year and got a mixed response. The project’s profile could definitely be raised ASAP, though we will get to raise it in submissions on the proposal. It might be too late by then though.
For people living in Pt Chev, for instance? Whilst the rail line looks close on a map it most certainly isn’t – there are no feeder buses and it’s a long walk – so even in this part of town a busway would be a real asset. But the real winners would be people further West.
Even though I think a Northwest Busway is a good thing, I think that the actual implementation is very much up for debate as it is not the same as the Northern one and a lot of energy can be wasted focusing on only 1 part of the Auckland transport problem.
I think that the problem is lack of coordination of the transport options and lack of political will to upset a few to benefit the many. There are NO feeder services to the train lines, the timetables for the buses outside the CBD are insane and in general, even in peak times it is faster to drive than to take the bus or train.
Thinking the very tight timescale of the Western Ring Route I’d propose to have 24/7 bus lanes that go along the length of the motorway, not necessarily the park’n ride bits but certainly a mechanism for buses to move MUCH FASTER than cars in the congested times.
I think that it would be easier to get NZTA to give up 1 lane now for buses than to come up with the infrastructure required for a “full on” busway that is beyond their “apparent” mandate to build roads.
If they are planning to extend the MUL to the other side of Hobby Rd, which they are (WCC has been asking for this for years), the value of the land out west will be increased expotentially by some Transit Oriented Developments and a direct PT link to the CBD and Albany.
The biggest supporters of this are likely to be the private sector, since development will be much more profitable if it doesn’t become another Flat Bush. With Peak Oil approaching fast (or moving further into the past) the argument becomes stronger. Keep pushing, it may not be that far away.
Yes certainly I would think that a northwest busway would make tha area more attractive to live in.
GOP, as my post explains this surely isn’t the highest priority in Auckland for PT improvement. However, as NZTA are spending zillions anyway we might as well try to get some real benefit from it.
Jarbury – what is your opinion, will it be possible to retrofit better bus provision on a widened causeway, even if it isn’t designed as a busway in the first place?
Had that idea recently in a slightly differerent vein – if fuel prices “suddenly” (and quite “unexpectedly”) double or triple, and vehicle flows drop strongly (while people clamor for better solutions), we could maybe just move the motorway barriers in by a good stretch, taking up that surplus lane capacity with some insta-cycleways.
Also, I am surprised that you are so down on the bus shoulders. I understand that they aren’t that good (and that they are primarily a sop to us PT types). But your comment that bus drivers won’t use them etc… – when the motorway is at a standstill, and using a bus shoulder will move you past that gridlock rather than be stuck too, won’t they still have great effect, even interrupted at the interchanges? Not saying either way, would like your opinion.
Max – that wouldn’t work as well on the NW as the cycleway already exists, also how would cycles get to the lane to begin with? I think we should take your idea further and make it wide enough for buses down the centre so the layout would be along the line of: traffic lanes – Busway – traffic lanes, some extra space would just be needed around bridges etc.
Also I used to carpool a lot and come via the NW and I would watch bus behaviour, even in heavy traffic they would normally just sit in the general lanes and go with the traffic flow rather than use the shoulders. Having a busway would mean they could be heading to/from town at 80-100km/ph instead of a constant crawl of about 20 the rest of the traffic is doing. The visual impact of seeing a bus or train race past you while you are in traffic is more likely to get you thinking it is a better option.
I can see three problems with building or retrofitting bus lanes onto a motorway:
1) If the bus lanes are on the outside then general traffic will need to cross the bus lane to enter or exit from ramps. If the bus lanes are on the inside they avoid this but you then need to build bus only access ramps in the centre to avoid buses having to cross three or four congested lanes of traffic.
2) The possibility of pinch points at overbridges.
3) It is difficult to build any sort of bus station, interchange or park-and-ride straddling an eight lane motorway. If you have bus lanes that means and stops or platforms end up on opposite sides of the motorway, or perhaps buses would have to leave the motorway corridor to access a common interchange area.
In summary I’d say bus lanes/shoulders are certainly better than nothing, however they are really only suitable for express buses running non-stop from one suburb each to the CBD, not for a bus based rapid transit system with station-interchanges. Without a busway with functional stations and access points it appears to be very difficult to have either line-haul service like the NEX or any sort of feeder/interchange system, you can only run the suburb to CBD express routes. Opportunities for Park-n-Ride are more limited also.
In addition to the issues raised by Nick, I often think that bus shoulder lanes are just a sop to shut PT advocates up. What extra work do they really entail? Bugger all I would think. Similar to “future proofed for light rail”, which is an essentially meaningless phrase.
The big issue is the interchanges and overbridges, if they are “future proofed” for a busway I think that is the best we can hope for in the current political climes but as it would add a couple of tens of millions to the project NZTA don’t want to do it unless the ARC amends the RTN and Lee doesn’t want to jeopardise the railway… I think a campaign for at least “future proofing” is a good idea…
In 10 or 15 years when oil is $3 a litre in today’s terms we’ll really regret this…
Responding to Matt
Most of the time our motorways are at the same level as the land immediately around them. Why should there be any problem with a cyclist getting on there? Recently someone managed to get cycling over the Newmarket Viaduct, and that is one of the less accessible parts! Concreting an approach cycle path is work any semi-skilled builder can do. All you would need to do in that hypothetical peak-fuel-future-we-need-to-move-somehow-so-lets-think-different is:
- take out one traffic lane (oviously only where we have three or more lanes at the moment), so the old shoulder becomes the cyclepath, and the outermost traffic lane becomes the new shoulder.
- put some approach paths on from the side roads, and some cyclist crossings over or under the onramps / overbridges (since we don’t need ramp signals anymore then, we’d even have the space!). Best solution would be grade-separated of course, but we could also just cross the ramps like at the St Lukes off-ramp with the Northwestern Cycleway (lots of signal time available for cycles with less cars in the mix)
- move the (or provide a new) heavy concrete barrier (maybe with a little extra fencing stuck on top) over to protect the cyclepath behind the shoulder
- Voila.
And of course we don’t need to do it on the Northern Motorway where we already have a cycleway. But we could create a Southern Cycleway all the way to, say, Takanini, in mere months if we wanted to in that brave new peak fuel future of ours in which our motorways will have half the traffic of today. And we could build it cheap as chips.
Responding to Nick R and Jarbury:
I understand all your comments, and even agree with them. But isn’t the most difficult part in any motorway planning those areas where you need widening? If our traffic levels suddenly and consistently dropped with peak fuel, at least we would have the width available. We could then start to fix up those grade-separated interchanges. Or maybe we wouldn’t even need to, because then car traffic would be a lot less too.
I know I am just reaching, but at least motorway widening will not destroy the ability to later put in a busway.
Jarbury, from my understanding, the only way in which the SH16 bus shoulders will be different from normal shoulders is that they will be built to design specs that can take bus loads (not too unimportant) and will be wider than normal shoulders. I know that isn’t enough with our disparity between PT and roads spending, but at least it has SOME benefit.
Max, aren’t there shoulder lanes along SH16 for buses already though?
I ain’t making excuses for a 1:30 misfit between PT and roads funding, but I guess the point they were making is that these will be wider and of better quality.
Jarbs – There are shoulder lanes already but they were added later and squeezed into what space was available, I think what Max is saying is they would be better because they will be designing and building the motorway with them in mind.
Jeremy – I wouldn’t mind so much if they at least designed the interchanges so if we decide to do it in the future it is easy but they aren’t doing that. If we ask for the full thing then we may get future proofed, if we only ask for future proofed we won’t get anything at all.
Yeah I’m sure they will be a bit better. But in the end they will still have to merge at all ramps and at overbridges, making them fairly hopeless. I’m sure I remember NZTA making a bit of a song and dance a few years ago about the introduction of shoulder lanes on the NW motorway…. now they’re announcing the same thing again?
Or should we get excited about 0.5m extra width and a slightly less bumpy lane?
@Matt, I’m not really sure what is the better idea, campaign for a $400 million dollar project hoping to get $20 – $30 million and risk getting dismissed or campaign for $20 – $30 million hoping for $20 – $30 million…
Matt & Jeremy, that’s always a dilemma. I say go for the full project with the “future proofing” as a fall back position. The best of both worlds.