|
|
By Peter M, on May 16th, 2012 There’s an article in yesterday’s NZ Herald which notes ridership on the Wynyard Quarter tramway has, unsurprisingly in my opinion, dropped away quite a lot in the past few months.
Figures given to Auckland Council member Cameron Brewer show the two heritage electric trams carried fewer than 20 per cent of forecast passengers over their 1.5km circuit in March, when patronage slumped to 1933 people.
That was well below October’s figure of 15,322 – after which patronage previously boosted by the Rugby World Cup plummeted to 2391 before rising to 4357 in December and then falling again.
But council organisation Waterfront Auckland said yesterday that the figure for April – which was not given to Mr Brewer – rose to 4664 passengers after a successful Easter holiday programme for children.
As the tram is currently rather overpriced and goes from nowhere to nowhere, it’s unsurprisingly that hardly anyone catches it. I certainly haven’t been on it and don’t really see the point of it while the only route is takes is a loop around Wynyard Quarter. However, the whole point of the Wynyard Quarter tramway was to be a “beach-head” as many people described at the time, to just get some tracks in there before Wynyard got built up, get things going so it was then possible to look at options for taking the tramway to Britomart and then potentially elsewhere.
Which means that it’s pleasing to see later on in the article that thought is being given to extending the line to Britomart – so that it can actually be linked in with the rest of the network and serve a useful transport purpose:
The council had also included $8.2 million in the first year of its draft long-term budget for an extension of tramlines across Viaduct Harbour.
There will always be endless arguments about trams versus buses, but I think if you ask most Aucklanders they generally consider the ripping up of our tram system to have been one of the biggest mistakes in the city’s history, and the effect of ripping up the tracks on PT patronage was disastrous. The vertical line in the graph below shows approximately when the tracks were ripped out:
Of course the network was quite extensive back then and just as a reminder, here is a map of our former tram network:
If we can get the tram tracks across Viaduct Harbour to Britomart then we really open up the possibility of further extending trams in the future – most likely up Queen Street and potentially in the longer term along Tamaki Drive. We also provide a really good transport link from the main PT hub of Auckland to a fast-growing employment area.
We’ve had a bit of time for the trams at Wynyard to be a tourist plaything. Now it’s time to make the infrastructure actually useful.
By Peter M, on May 2nd, 2012 Another great video from Streetfilms:
Tom Radulovich, the executive director of the local non-profit Livable City, describes the recent livable streets achievements in San Francisco as “tactical urbanism” — using low-cost materials like paint and bollards to reclaim street space.
That willingness to experiment was a big reason that the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) gave its 2012 Sustainable Transport Award to San Francisco (an honor shared with Medellín, Colombia). In this Streetfilm we profile the innovations that earned SF recognition from ITDP.
Perhaps the city’s most exciting new development has been the parklet program, which converts parking spaces into public space complete with tables, chairs, art, and greenery. These mini-parks are adopted and paid for by local businesses, but they remain public space. The concept has its roots in the PARK(ing) Day phenomenon started by the SF-based Rebar Group in 2005.
San Francisco has also seen an impressive 71 percent increase in bicycling in the past five years, despite being under a court injunction that prohibited bicycle improvements for most of that time. The city aims to have 20 percent of trips by bike by 2020. Sunday Streets, San Francisco’s version of Ciclovia, has also drawn huge numbers of participants and continues to expand.
The city has also taken the lead on innovative parking management with the SFPark program, which uses new technology to help manage public parking in several pilot neighborhoods. It aims to make it easier to find a parking spot by adjusting prices according to demand, helping to reduce pollution, traffic, and frustrations for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists.
So many lessons for Auckland there.
By admin, on August 30th, 2011 It’s heartening to read in today’s NZ Herald that plans are advancing quite quickly to extend the Wynyard Tramway loop over the Viaduct Harbour and to connect with Britomart transport centre in the relatively near future.
Waterfront Auckland planning and design manager Rod Marler said the carnation-red heritage trams were a great short-term attraction for capturing the imagination and emotions of Aucklanders but the tram tracks, future-proofed to take light rail, offered a bigger opportunity along the waterfront.
The tram extension is expected to cost $8.1 million plus the cost of a new crossing, which is expected to be a lot less than the $47.3 million cost of an earlier plan for a permanent bridge across the Viaduct Harbour.
Auckland Council transport chairman Mike Lee said extending the trams less than 1km to Britomart would increase their value as a tourism attraction, picking up cruise ships visitors along the way.
Mr Lee, who as chairman of the Auckland Regional Council championed the $8 million set-up costs of the Wynyard Loop, said he favoured another crossing for trams as close as possible to the new $3.7 million pedestrian and cycling bridge across the Viaduct Harbour.
Work on laying tracks to Britomart could start at Christmas, and the project could be completed in about a year, he said.
I’ve always had some reservations about the tramway loop being so isolated from the rest of Auckland’s transport system – although I certainly understand that building the loop as quickly as it has been constructed was only possible because the connection to Britomart was pushed back into becoming a future project. Once the trams are connected to Britomart the opportunities are endless: continue along Quay Street and Tamaki Drive to St Heliers (much like the F & Market in San Francisco) or head up Queen Street and then along Dominion Road with modern light-rail vehicles as a way to cope with increasing public transport demand along that critical corridor?
In terms of the first step, to link with Britomart, I also like the idea of building a second bridge to carry the trams, rather than trying to rebuild the existing pedestrian bridge to do that job – as the new bridge could probably be a fair bit shorter and could be quite narrow if it doesn’t have to be shared with pedestrians. A very short second bridge on the eastern side of Te Wero island is probably going to be necessary as well, because of clearance issues with the old lifting bridge.
The tram plan forms part of a “Waterfront Plan” that the Waterfront Auckland CCO has been formulating. It has a number of great ideas:
It contained a lot of relatively inexpensive “quick hits”, such as a $9.2 million walking and cycling boulevard from the Auckland Harbour Bridge to Teal Park, and expensive “aspirational” projects, such as a new island off Westhaven Marina, built from dredgings, where people could live on boats.
The plan includes many projects already proposed, such as the boulevarding of Quay St from lower Hobson St to Britomart Place, creating a 4.25ha headland park at Wynyard Quarter, building a cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf and a $4.4 million upgrade of St Marys Bay beach.
New ideas include a salt-water pool at the end of Queens Wharf similar to Sydney’s Andrew (Boy) Charlton Pool, a wharf extension at the end of Wynyard Quarter for historic ships and waka, and spending $700,000 to tear up the bland paving at Waitemata Plaza to create a green space in the Viaduct Harbour.
Another idea is to extend the Halsey St wharf outside the Viaduct Harbour for a new sheltered water space that could be used for dragon boat racing and other recreational activities.
So many great plans. So many great ideas. This is an exciting time for Auckland.
By admin, on August 1st, 2011 When I first heard about Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye’s proposal to create something of a tram loop around the neighbourhoods of the western part of her Auckland Central electorate, I wasn’t really quite sure what to make of it. Of course I’m not averse to the idea that trams probably do form part of Auckland’s transport future along particular corridors, but at the same time I was also skeptical. Was the idea just there to distract people from the government’s stubborn opposition to the City Rail Link project? Was it Nikki Kaye’s attempt to recapture some lost support amongst a PT friendly electorate – but critically with a project that the government wouldn’t need to stump up some funding for?
I’m kind of struggling to see whether the tram proposal is a serious transport plan or whether it’s more to do with tourism, heritage and so forth. I’m also not quite sure what exact route we’re talking about here in any case: extending the Wynyard Quarter loop up College Hill and then along Ponsonby Road is fairly obvious – but does it then go down Richmond Road to Grey Lynn shops? Or Williamson Ave? Or Great North Road? Indeed, descriptions a possible route are fairly vague:
National’s Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye wrote to Mayor Len Brown, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and and the New Zealand Transport Agency yesterday asking them to consider investigating the merits of a tram link.
Kaye proposed the link could travel through Grey Lynn, Ponsonby, Karangahape Road, Queen Street and downtown Auckland.
The MP wants the council to “properly” investigate “the feasibility of trams in central Auckland”.
“This needs to include an analysis of the costs, funding options, routes and types of trams – because different trams can accommodate different numbers of people,” Kaye said.
While Kaye is determined to investigate the loop connecting Auckland central with the western bays, the MP said she “will make it clear that we are also open to other routes”.
I generally think that an approach of “trams are great, where can we run them” falls into the technology-fixation trap that leads to dumb decisions. Surely a better approach is “buses don’t seem to be the best solution along this route anymore, maybe we should examine whether an upgrade to trams might work better”.
Herald columnist Brian Rudman was also pretty skeptical in his initial assessment of Ms Kaye’s idea:
Seizing on the sexiness of “heritage” to her villa-dwelling constituents, Ms Kaye is dangling the hope of a network of trams across her electorate. In the latest Ponsonby News she writes of how the “villages” of Ponsonby, Grey Lynn, K Rd and Wynyard Quarter all “have a uniquely special character that are cherished by their communities” and that while the Link Bus does a good job, she wants something “faster and easier”.
She is reported elsewhere as saying “today trams are at the cutting edge of a number of cities’ urban transport”.
Odd then, that just a month ago in her Herald blog item called “Is Auckland’s public transport busted?” there’s not one mention of trams – except a passing reference to Auckland having abandoned them in the 1950s. Instead she claims to have supported the CBD rail tunnel since 2009.
She also said “most people I talk to say they would catch public transport more frequently in Auckland if it were more reliable, frequent and safe”, adding: “The redesign of the bus network needs to be a priority for the Auckland Council.”
If that’s her belief, then why is she confusing the issue with a nostalgia trip down some dead-end tram track. A conspiracy theorist might think she’s been put up to it by her colleague Mr Joyce to try to split the united front Aucklanders have formed against the Government’s delaying tactics over the CBD tunnel.
However, the tram scheme seems to be gaining support, from some quite interesting places, with right-wing commentator Deborah Coddington announcing that she’s strong supporter of the idea:
Kaye’s nuts about trams, and trams, as anyone knows who’s spent time in Melbourne, San Francisco or other great international cities, are terrific forms of transport. They’re quiet and clean. They appeal to tourists and commuters alike. They can be faster than buses, and construction requires considerably less capital than rail links…
…Take, for instance, last week’s spat over Kaye’s idea for a tram loop from Ponsonby to Grey Lynn, to Karangahape Rd to Wynyard Quarter, the Viaduct and Britomart. In July last year she wrote to Mark Ford, now chair of Auckland Transport, then head of the former Auckland Transition Agency, pushing for a feasibility study. Kaye sees the project as complementary to the Link buses, and the city central underground rail link.
From my purely selfish perch on Shortland St, this would be great. The rail link won’t be ready for at least seven years. I’ll be in a Zimmer frame by then. Two cohorts of students will have been through Auckland University. If we get trams on the tracks in the next three years, us inner-city apartment dwellers could trot down to Britomart and hop on a tram to the western suburbs. Uni students could come across to their campus. The more of us who are out of cars – greenies and lefties take note – the less clogged the motorways, and therefore a reduced need to keep building more roads.
Coddington also takes a swipe at opponents to the tram idea – including Mike Lee and Labour MP Jacinda Ardern, both of whom seem to share Brian Rudman’s skepticism over the sincerity of the whole concept.
All up, this is really quite a strange situation for everyone to be in. In times of incredibly constrained funding for public transport, we have a centre-right MP and a ‘more to the right’ commentator suggesting that a big focus for our transport spending should be on a mode of public transport that’s internationally often criticised for being excessively expensive compared to its benefits. Something you might think such politicians and columnists would be concerned about.
It’s also a bit difficult to see how such a tram proposal would be the ‘congestion-busting’ panacea that is hoped for too. Like buses, unless trams run in their own right-of-way, it is physically impossible for them to be faster than driving. This is because they must stop to pick up and drop off passengers. Along high-volumes corridors such as Dominion Road, which has a reasonable amount of width, it is obvious that any future light-rail transport solution would run in its own lanes – therefore bypassing congestion and offering its users a faster trip time than by car. It’s tough to know whether Nikki Kaye really wants to narrow Ponsonby Road down to a single lane of traffic each way, or to advocate for the removal of on-street parking, either of which would be essential for giving a tram line its own right of way. When I mentioned this matter to her on Twitter, the response was that the line could go down the middle of the road. That might be fine for one track, but we’d clearly need two tracks if the tram is to be a serious transport solution.
Of course there’s little detail on how much such a scheme might cost. Remember that the current Wynyard tram loop is around $7 million for a single-track 1.5km loop and you start to see that we’re talking some pretty serious money in order to create anything like a useful system.
Mind you, if Nikki can convince Steven Joyce to come up with the money out of the $26 billion he’s planning to spend on roads in the next decade, I won’t have a problem. I just don’t think such a scheme is a priority to spend our very limited public transport budget on here in Auckland. If we want to improve public transport in this part of the city, the best thing we could do quickly and cheaply is try to extend bus lanes around as much of the Link Bus route as possible. And, of course, to push on with the City Rail Link project.
By Stu Donovan, on July 10th, 2011 My last post explored the merits of BAM. For those who missed it, a BAM (bus tram) attempts to combine the flexibility and cost-effectiveness of buses with a ride-quality that is normally associated with light rail. The BAMs key attributes include: electrical motor, advanced guidance systems, and high vehicle capacity.
The BAM avoids the need for expensive overhead wires and steel tracks, which saves big on capital costs. I also think that BAMs are more well-suited to Auckland conditions than traditional LRT technologies – mainly because BAM’s rubber tyres help it to get up hills better than steel wheels can. This additional traction also reduces the amount of work required to fix up road geometry when retrofitting BAMs into existing corridors.
From what I can tell there are two BAMs currently being developed; one is the Phileas (developed by a Dutch company called APTS) and the other is eBRT (developed by the German company Siemens). Only the Phileas is actually up and running (illustrated below) so most of this post focuses on exploring this technology in more detail.
The Phileas was first trialled in Eindhoven back in 2004. Since then it has been rolled out in Douai (France) and Istanbul (Turkey). A detailed appraisal published in the TEC magazine in 2007 asked whether the Phileas was equivalent to light rail and concluded (para-phrased):
To all intents and purposes, yes. From the perspective of the passenger, the Phileas vehicle and to some degree the infrastructure does have the look and feel of a tram system. The guidance technology, when working, will provide a high quality ride-experience and interfaces to the stops, very much in the guise of light rail as if working on fixed running rails. It does have the apparent capability to provide many of the benefits potentially without the same degree of capital investment.
The combination of advanced guidance and all-wheel steering makes the Phileas extremely nimble: It can “float” side ways in quite an unnatural but cool fashion, as illustrated in this video “Docking to platform.” So not only does the guidance keep the Phileas running along magnetic “tracks” (providing a better ride quality and more certainty for pedestrians), but it can allows the Phileas to quickly and precisely dock at platforms.
But what about cost-effectiveness? Capital costs of developing the Phileas in Eindhoven clocked in at about EUR 4 million per kilometre, which is about one-third to one-half of the costs of similar light rail projects developed around the same time (e.g. Nottingham). Operating costs are apparently 30% less than a standard bus, on a per passenger basis, although the cost savings would have to be even higher if the Phileas’ guidance systems allowed for driverless operations.
But the development of the Phileas has not been trouble-free. In Istanbul, for example, a combination of high passenger loadings (300 people on vehicles designed for 185) and steep terrain showed the vehicles were under-powered. But none of the problems encountered thus far seem terminal, rather they are the types of problems that tend to crop up when trying new things in new places. Phileas vehicles still operate along Istanbul’s more well-graded sections (photo credit).
So I have to ask: Why don’t we try to bring a BAM to Auckland? More specifically, why doesn’t Auckland request expressions of interest from companies to develop a demonstration BAM on one of our more sensitive, high-demand corridors? One potential corridor that immediately springs to my mind is Tamaki Drive (possibly helping get over the snob stigma attached to buses). Then in ten years time we might be able to start a large scale roll out.
The aim of the proposal would be to allow companies to demonstrate the advantages of their technology over an extended period of time. Phileas is not the only company in this space. Obviously Siemens will be casting about for cities to run demonstration eBRT projects. And there may well be others that I don’t know about. I have no idea what sort of industry interest could be drummed up though some form of competitive public process, but it would be interesting to see.
One would expect that the capital and operating costs would initially fall on the provider so as to encourage them to manage risks, but these could then be transferred to the Council over time – provided that the technology demonstrated its worth. At the conclusion of the trial (say 5 years) companies would reasonably compensated for costs incurred.
I personally think it’s time for Auckland, and other large cities, to mature beyond simply being a passive receiver of public transport technologies. Through careful and considered (competitive) demonstration projects, Auckland could help stimulate the timely development of transport technologies that better meet our needs than either buses or light rail.
I’d be interested in hearing your ideas …
By Stu Donovan, on July 7th, 2011 Welcome back and thanks to everyone who commented on yesterday’s post, which tried to highlight some ‘inconvenient truths’ about light rail (LRT). In today’s post I will try to synthesize and respond to those comments, before moving on to what I think are greener pastures. Taken together I hope that these two posts inject some excitement into conversations about the future of public transport in Auckland.
First let’s consider some of the important general comments from yesterday post:
- Context of the debate – BrisUrban highlighted the importance of context. Let’s be clear: We are discussing transport technologies that will be used in Auckland in the future. And let’s be even more specific, we are talking about post-2020 transport scenarios. Why? Well for the next 10 years all available public transport funding in Auckland is already committed. Unless I’m pleasantly surprised and the Nats get rolled in November.
- Redundant arguments – In another comment, George D suggested that those who support light rail in Auckland are already aware of its weaknesses. This does not match my experiences. From where I’m sitting it seems like LRT is often thrown out there as the default transport technology Auckland aspires to (e.g. by Len Brown), without much awareness of a) its limitations and b) other potential transport technologies.
And now let’s respond to some of the technical comments:
- Capacity – Patrick R (and others) argued that the Bogota BRT does not show that bus rapid transit (BRT) can match LRT’s capacity because it has two lanes in each direction, rather than one. But do the math – if you divide Bogota’s total throughput (40,000 pax/hour) by two lanes then you are left with 20,000 pax/hour/lane, i.e. about the same as LRT. So it is a fair ‘apples and apples’ comparison: LRT and BRT have similar capacities. It’s true!
- Resilience – Matt L suggests that observations of the fragility of LRT focus on “worst case scenarios.” But any discussion of technological resilience is an exercise in risk management, i.e. we must consider unlikely yet high-impact events. I don’t think it’s silly to consider how light rail would function in an earthquake, or in situations where cars get in the way – they are real risks involved in operating public transport in New Zealand, and they are risks that do not seem to affect buses as much as LRT.
Other commentators put forward advantages of LRT that were not discussed in yesterday’s post:
- Corridor width – Josh suggested that the narrower width of LRT was advantageous in constrained road corridors, such as Dominion and Mt Eden. But if this was really important we could simply build narrower buses. Also, I suspect that the emerging transport technologies (discussed below) will neutralize this problem because of the advanced guidance systems that they use.
- Market image – Nick R suggested that buses have an image problem. I’m skeptical of how important this is for three reasons: 1) the Northern Express has successfully got the suits out of the closet in Auckland; 2) bus systems overseas are well-used by people on high-incomes (e.g. Brisbane, Edinburgh); and 3) 15 year olds who start catching buses in 2020 will have a completely different image of buses from us oldies. We remember the bad old days of Auckland in the late 1990s, while the youngsters hopefully benefit from all our hard work over the next 10 years
 . Finally, “image” is highly malleable, especially for new users coming from younger demographics.
- Mix of technologies – A number of commentators suggested Auckland’s future public transport system should involve a mix of transport technologies. This was never in question. What was in question is whether that mix includes light rail. I think not, or at least not in its current form. Even on “sensitive” corridors such as Dominion and Mt Eden, I suspect that existing transport technologies will work fine until better transport technologies (which are discussed below) become available.
Let’s now step back a second to consider what an ideal public transport technology (let’s call it a “BAM!” i.e. a Bus trAM) might look like. Ideally, a BAM would combine the advantages of buses, such as low capital costs, with the advantages of LRT, such as ride quality, while avoiding the disadvantages of both. That means we want to have higher vehicle capacities than can be accommodated on buses, while avoiding the need to run tracks and overhead wires. Even so BAM must be mainly electrically powered. We are really talking about some form of “technological convergence.”
But is the BAM a figment of my sore right knee or is it a realistic transport technology? Well, it actually already exists – sort of. A BAM (called the “Phileas”) was up and running in Eindhoven (those crafty Dutch) in 2004, as illustrated below (photo source).
That’s not to say that the Phileas ran smoothly straight up: There were problems with drive-trains and engines, which required a fairly substantial re-design from the manufacturer. But the Phileas seems to be developing nicely, and has since been tested by Douai (France) and Korea.
The Phileas website mentions some impressive headline technical specifications: The 26m hybrid diesel-electric version carries a maximum of 141 passengers and has a turning radius of only 12.5m (thanks to all wheel steering). This largely neutralizes concerns expressed by several commentators about buses leading to frequency overkill, or large buses failing to navigate through K’ Road. One of the most exciting developments included in the Phileas is its electrical guidance systems, which basically means it can steer itself – removing the need for drivers and potentially saving heaps in operational costs. BAM BAM!
But my faith in future, rather than past or present, transport technologies rests not on one product. Yesterday’s post also linked to Siemen’s BAM offering, which they are promoting as eBRT.
In contrast to the electric-diesel set-up used by Phileas, Siemen’s eBRT offering uses a fully electric power system based on super-capacitors (electricity buckets) that empty between stops. The super-capacitors are then re-charged (in 20 seconds) via overhead wires at the next stop (NB: Super-capacitors have been in development for several years as a cheaper and greener alternative to electric batteries). As with the Phileas, optical guidance systems are used to keep eBRT ontrack – so again it’s potentially driverless.
One final example of an unrelated but cool emerging technology is Avego, a real-time car-pooling (“ride-sharing” in U.S. parlance) software that runs through your SmartPhone. I know car-pooling has been talked about as a transport solution ‘fa-eva’ (in NZ parlance), but I get the feeling that the growth in GPS enabled smart phones will greatly reduce the transaction costs involved in finding someone to car-pool with. It may be at a stage where it takes off; although these initiatives are all about critical mass. If it does, then this may re-shape the transport landscape. Watch this space.
Some commentators (like KarlHansen) point out that these technologies are as yet unproven and it’s a very valid point. But I’d just like to point out that most of the technology underlying BAM is not new, even if the application is relatively novel. Moreover, time is on Auckland’s side, we have ten years before we need to chose the transport technology that will ply our major urban public transport corridors. Time is on our side, especially while the “Colossus of Roads” Steven Joyce is steering NZ’s transport agenda.
In conclusion, I suspect the future of Auckland’s (surface) public transport system will not include light rail as we know it, but it may well make use of new transport technologies that combine the advantages of light rail with buses.
To finish, I want to ask whether Auckland should be passive receivers of transport technology, or an active driver of technological change? We basically know what we want from the BAM, and we more or less know when we will need it.
Should we be making eyes at potential industry partners? Or if we’re too small to gain their attention should we be working together with Wellington, Christchurch, or other cities with similar technological demands.
Does anyone know why don’t cities collaborate with each other and then engage with relevant industry players to set a research agenda that delivers the type of transport system that we want? The EU tends to play this role in Europe and I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on whether we should be doing the same.
By Stu Donovan, on July 6th, 2011 So, after circling in my head for about seven years it’s finally time to let this pigeon fly.
Before we begin, I just want highlight that this is a two-part post: Today I highlight some inconvenient truths about light rail before tomorrow responding to comments.
Tomorrow’s post will also discuss some new transport technologies that I would like to see carry Auckland into the future. By the end of it all I hope to leave you pleasantly surprised, even enthusiastic. I know I am.
But first let’s turn to the dirty task of setting the record straight with respect to light rail. In the following paragraphs I discuss some of the common arguments put forward in support of light rail, before outlining the reasons why I think they (generally) do not hold much weight.
1. Capacity: It is sometimes argued that light rail has a capacity advantage over over bus-based solutions. But several developing cities (e.g. Bogota) have developed bus rapid transit (BRT) solutions that carry 40,000 pax/hour, when light rail struggles to break 20,000 pax/hour. At this point some people change tack and argue achieving this capacity requires horrible BRT “super-highways” (i.e. grade-separated lanes with skip stops). Even if it’s true it’s not relevant to debates about capacity: The evidence quite clearly shows that light rail does not have a capacity advantage over buses. End of discussion.
2. Resilience: Light rail is supposedly more resilient than buses because the former is powered by electricity, rather than diesel. But buses do not have to run on diesel – Wellington’s trolley buses being just one example. Auckland could switch-over to electric trolley buses if warranted by energy prices. The resilience argument becomes even shakier when you consider that energy security is but one of the many potential risks to transport systems. Other unforeseen and calamitous events can, and do, befall cities; events to which light rail systems seem particularly vulnerable. Christchurch’s recent earthquakes are testament to the types of situations that can render light rail systems completely useless, as are more common situations where things simply get in the way. In my mind “resilience” is a smoke-screen that fails to recognise situations where not being restricted by tracks and catenaries is an advantage.
3. Ride quality and negative externalities: Some argue that light rail provides a higher quality ride and generates less negative externalities (such as noise, vibrations, and air pollution) than do bus-based solutions. And if we compare multi-million dollar, spanking new electric light rail vehicles running on highly-engineered tracks to Auckland’s clapped-out old diesel buses that bounce along pot-holed streets – then the answer is definitely “yes”. But this is like observing that a new VW Golf handles better than a 30 year old ride on lawnmower – fresh apples versus rotten oranges. Indeed, there is no (obvious) technical reason why buses could not be as clean, quiet, and smooth to ride as light rail. In fact, my engineering intuition suggests that because buses are lighter and have pneumatic tyres they should be cleaner, quieter, and smoother than light rail. The one aspect of ride quality where light rail may have a real advantage is in terms of their reduced lateral movement – which obviously derives from the fact they run along fixed tracks. But in general, most negative perceptions of buses is more to do with correlation than causation: Since their very inception buses been viewed as a form of transport that is mainly used by low income people. The absence of quality buses in New Zealand says more about our disdain for people who ride buses, than it does about bus technology per se. Many European bus systems, e.g. in France and the Netherlands, do not skimp on quality features like we do.
4. Place-making: I do admit that light rail has an advantage over buses in what is loosely referred to as “place-making.” But let’s unpack this term so we can get closer to the attributes that confer the advantage. And let’s also be clear that it’s not because of light rail’s ”look” – it has to be something deeper. In my experience I have found that pedestrians are more relaxed around light rail than they are around buses, as my colleague’s recent experience in Amsterdam attests. But what is the source of pedestrians’ comfort? I suspect that the main reason pedestrians are more relaxed around light rail is because the right-of-way is clearly defined by the tracks in the ground. Basically, because light rail runs along tracks people know where the vehicle will travel and when they need to move out of the way. In contrast, standing in front of buses as they career down the street towards you is not particularly relaxing. So I’d suggest that fixed track transport technologies, such as light rail, have a ‘place-making’ advantage in street environments that support high pedestrian volumes – mainly because people feel safer and more comfortable being close to moving vehicles that have clearly defined trajectories.
Before we wrap up let’s summarise some of light rail’s other disadvantages: Light rail is quite expensive to build (because of the tracks and catenaries) and operate. Try buying a money tree, growing it for 30 years, and then killing it. OK that’s a slight exaggeration: Dublin’s (slick) LUAS line runs at an operating surplus while Göteborg’s (delightful) tram system has a fare recovery of around the 60-70%. But they are the exceptions, not the rule. In most places light rail struggles to hit 50% fare recovery, let alone start to cover its very high capital costs. And light rail also struggles with geometric obstacles: It does not really do well on corners or hills, such as the Auckland Harbor Bridge (which is one of the reasons the Northern Busway was not light rail).
When you gather all this evidence together (as well some other factors that I have not had time to discuss – such as choke point geometry and density) I have to conclude that light rail is not the solution to Auckland’s transport problems. Nonetheless, light rail does have some undoubted advantages in terms of ride quality and place-making, both of which stem from the fact that it runs on fixed tracks.
The question I will leave you with (and which I will explore in tomorrow’s post after responding to comments on today’s post) is whether the small advantages associated with fixed tracks could possibly be transferred to buses?
If you’re itching to know more about tomorrow’s post, then have a look at this and this. Alternatively, if you are more interested in the potential benefits of ICT technologies and car-pooling, then have a look at this.
By admin, on May 30th, 2011 It’s impossible to be in transport circles for too long before the good old arguments of ‘buses versus trains’ or ‘BRT versus LRT’ and so forth come along. I suppose that it’s inevitable to end up in such technological debates – as while each technology tends to be best suited for a particular type of job, there’s an enormous level of crossover. For improving Dominion Road’s public transport priority measures, for example, we could focus on better bus lanes or we could look at light-rail. Both options have their pros and cons, there’s not an obvious solution – at least not at first glance.
The debate is also complicated by romanticism to some extent. Trains and trams have a history, or perhaps better put – they have a culture associated with them that buses seem not to have. This may mean that a rail-based solution can sometimes be promoted when buses would do just fine; but the on the other hand evidence seems to show that trains and trams do attract ridership that buses simply don’t attract. So there is a level of attractiveness to rail-based solutions that perhaps cannot be explained through the analysis of numbers.
That said, public transport advocates who are blind to the benefits of buses do themselves no favours by being fixated on technology: buses are cheap, flexible, fast-to-implement and so forth. As I have said on numerous occasions before, if we wanted to do one thing cheaply and quickly to dramatically improve Auckland’s public transport system – the best thing we could do is drastically expand the city’s bus lane network.
But what’s important here is a ‘horses for courses’ approach. In some situations our existing infrastructure, the type of demand along the corridor, the land-use patterns and whatever other relevant factors there are will combine to tell us that buses are the best solution. In other situations they will combine to tell us that rail will work best. There are likely to be further subdivisions too: light-rail or heavy-rail? What level of bus priority do we need? Is demand so low that what we really need is some sort of demand-responsive van system?
A common criticism made by bus advocates is that those promoting rail solutions are only doing so because of the romanticism associated with rail. Bus advocates like Australian David Hensher (who commented on this blog once, though unfortunately he never replied to a few questions I put to him) can sometimes fall into this trap. Mr Hensher puts together excellent critiques of how we cannot continue to have such roads-centric transport policies, and he calls for a balanced approach to PT that focuses on cost-effective improvements and a blind-eye to technology. But then he goes and throw away all that good work by forever focusing on how fantastic bus rapid transit (BRT) is, and slamming any other technology.
For example, in this document even the abstract shows quite clearly his contrary approach: 
Right up until the last sentence I could not agree more with what he says. An integrated multi-modal system based around frequency and connectivity – I absolutely agree. And BRT, with feeder buses may well provide what we’re after in some circumstances. It seems to be working pretty well on the North Shore, and I’m supportive of Auckland Transport’s plans to create a busway between Panmure and Botany as part of the AMETI project. In the right situations, BRT will be the solution.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean buses will always be the right technological solution to a transport issue. And this is where Mr Hensher falls into his own trap, decrying others for focusing on a particular technology but then doing so himself. It is a pity actually, because Mr Hensher’s analysis of the need to find cost-effective public transport solutions is very sound. This is outlined in another paper of his:
There is growing support for an attractive alternative means of transportation to the car in cities. If increased public transport capacity is the way to proceed, it is very important that the investment in such systems is made in a rational way. There is a need for sensible selection and funding of technology and consideration of appropriate ways of addressing the problems attributed to the automobile.
I couldn’t agree more. Especially in New Zealand where our central government is focused on building crazy motorways everywhere we will need to make sure that the scraps available for public transport are spent carefully. He also says (from this article again) good things about the need for a multi-modal approach:
Public transport investment is being touted as a key springboard for a sustainable future, especially in large metropolitan areas with growing populations. Public transport, however, is very much multi-modal and should not be seen as a single mode solution as is so often the case with many ideologues. Hence, any commitment to improve public transport has a growing number of options to pursue.
The problem is he then goes on to argue that buses are what you need in pretty much every situation, that rail is too expensive and so on. This from his other article:
There is growing evidence around the world, in origin–destination density contexts similar to the locations proposed for light rail, that a dedicated BRT system (i.e. road infrastructure dedicated exclusively to buses as in Brisbane, Curitiba, Bogota, Pittsburgh, Ottawa etc.) can carry the same number of people as light rail for a typical cost 4–20 times less than a LRT system and 10–100 times less than a heavy rail system (USA General Accounting Office, 2001). It is flexible, it is as permanent as light rail and it can have the image of light rail (rather than the image of boring buses) if planned properly. The USA General Accounting Office (2001) audit of BRT and light rail in six US cities found that the capital cost per mile for LRT compared to BRT in its own lane was 260% more costly. Comparisons with BRT on street or on an HOV lane are not useful and have been excluded. When one also notes BRT’s lower operating costs for both institutional and maintenance reasons, the case is clear.
If one was building a city from scratch and deciding what transport technology would offer the best bang for your buck, then all of what is said above would probably be incredibly important to consider – and chances are you would think very strongly about the credentials of BRT as a ‘system-wide’ solution. However, in the real world that isn’t the case, we have to deal with issues like the following:
- What existing infrastructure do we have and how well utilised is it?
- How much physical space do we have to upgrade this corridor?
- What are the existing land-use patterns and how might they be affected (positive and negatively) by the different technology chosen?
- How do operating costs compare at different demand levels, and in different countries?
If we take the CBD Rail Tunnel project for example, the ability to generate its benefits from bus improvements seems ludicrous. One of the main benefits of the rail tunnel is to unlock the capacity of the existing rail system – enabling it to carry far more people and therefore take pressure off the roading system. Any bus solution that would increase capacity to the CBD would probably increase congestion (not only of buses, but also of cars as many streets would probably need to become bus only) and would only add pressure onto parts of the transport network with no spare capacity.
It’s also underground, reflecting the lack of physical space (but cheaper than a bus tunnel) and supports existing land-use patterns by encouraging the concentration of economic activity in the city centre, and the intensification of suburbs along the rail corridors. Finally, one would imagine that the operating costs of running electric trains that carry up to 1000 passengers with only one driver (here’s hoping) is likely to be lower than carrying those 1000 people on about 15 diesel buses – especially if fuel prices increase further in the future.
Another example where the bus versus train debate often flares up is how to provide rapid transit to Auckland Airport. The current PT situation for the airport largely involves the Air-Bus: which is a reasonably decent bus service that runs along the motorway for much of its trip, before travelling along Mt Eden Road (soon to be Dominion Road as well) on its way to the city. With the opening of the Mangere Bridge duplication project last year, the motorway part of the trip is probably fairly congestion free (at least for now, induced demand will probably eat away at this within the next 2-3 years), with the route along the arterial roads likely to be slowest. This is relevant because there are effectively two “parts” to the airport to city route:
- between the city and Onehunga
- between Onehunga and the Airport
Assuming that we consider it highly important to offer people a one-seat ride between the city and the Airport at a rapid transit quality, that effectively means we either need to find a way of providing a busway, light-rail or heavy-rail line along that whole distance. And here’s where the importance of our existing infrastructure shines through. Anyone got a good idea about how to thread a busway or light-rail line between Onehunga and the city centre? Aside from taking two general traffic lanes away from the southern motorway (not that I would necessarily oppose such an idea) the proposition of an additional RTN between Onehunga and town, duplicating our existing railway line, is not only impractical, it’s also pretty stupid. This tilts the arguments towards rail as the preferred solution for rapid transit to the airport very significantly.
The excellent blog “The Transport Politic” looks at this argument in quite a bit of detail in a recent post – usefully pointing out the following:
What is clear is that for the majority of American cities — excluding only a few in the Northeast — buses will remain the predominant mode of public transit for most riders, even after major expansions in train networks planned for cities from Charlotte to Phoenix. So even cities that choose to invest in rail projects must also spend on the improvement of their bus lines.
Nor is the difference in costs between rail lines and BRT nearly as great as some would argue. The Journal article quotes Dennis Hinebaugh, head of a transportation center at the University of South Florida, saying “You can build up to 10 BRT lines for the cost of one light-rail line.” That might be true if you’re comparing a train operating entirely in its own right-of-way with a bus running in a lane painted on the street. But a streetcar is probably cheaper than a busway. Just ask Hartford, whose busway project will cost $60 million a mile to build.
One thing that can make bus solutions cheaper is that they’re easier to have short-cuts. If we think about the Northern Busway, it’s really only a true rapid transit corridor for part of its length. It shares a lane with general traffic across the Harbour Bridge, it doesn’t have full priority at intersections in the CBD and between the harbour bridge and once again it shares motorway lanes with general traffic between Constellation and Albany stations. While a railway line would have required a higher standard of alignment geometry and therefore more earthworks, the primary reason the busway is way cheaper than a rail option is due to the short-cuts it has taken.
The Transport Politic’s post also points out the primary situations where rail offers something that a bus solution simply cannot (while also pointing out that these scenarios are relatively rare):
The best argument for rail is that it has the ability to provide massive rush-hour passenger-carrying capacity without destroying the city through which it runs. Whether buried in a subway or operating quietly along in grassy medians, trains can be integrated into the public realm without diminishing the pedestrians-friendly qualities all urbanists should hope to encourage. BRT boosters often argue that their mode of choice can carry a similar number of riders, but neglect to mention that this is only possible when buses arrive every 10 seconds along highway-like four-lane corridors. These are conditions that destroy the walking environment.
Fortunately for American cities looking to invest in new public transportation infrastructure, there are few places that demand the passenger-carrying capacity provided by those freeway-based BRT lines in places like Bogotá. In most metropolitan areas, a two-lane busway inserted on an arterial is perfectly appropriate and sometimes even beneficial for a city. Indeed, as we all know, the story that is too complicated for any mainstream paper to explain is that BRT can mean any number of things. The most rudimentary elements of BRT — the nice buses, the well-articulated stops, the traffic signal priority — are basics we should expect from all of our bus lines. Pushing for their implementation along certain corridors shouldn’t arouse much controversy.
Neither buses, trains nor trams are inherently better than the other. Each technology has an important place in developing a proper public transport system – especially in a city like Auckland. When deciding on our preferred technology cost-effectiveness is obviously going to be a key factor, but cost-effectiveness does not simply mean “which option is cheapest to build?” It also means which option best utilises our existing infrastructure, which option will integrate best with the surrounding environment and which option will make economic sense in the long-run. In some situations that will be a bus, some a train and some a tram.
Anyone who thinks that one particular technology is suitable for all situations – while criticising others for being obsessed with their favoured technology, is really falling for their own trap.
By Guest Post, on May 5th, 2011 Regular commenter Andrew W is in Bordeaux, France at the moment – and has kindly sent in this Guest Post:
I’m staying in Bordeaux, France at the moment and thought I’d share a couple of observations and comparisons.
In both Bordeaux itself and in nearby towns, there aren’t small token shared spaces here and there, instead in town the pedestrian rules – shared and pedestrian-only spaces are simply how streets work, and they are packed with people. These are cities that were built long before the car and have resisted its onslaught, and as a result they’re now thriving. Roads are very narrow yet there is no bad congestion that I’ve seen so far. Arterial roads, so far as I’ve observed, simply don’t exist, and it works. This seems to imply that all our arterial roads’ very existence is counterproductive, both in terms of how they directly attract traffic, and how they spread out development which also attracts traffic. Reading Wikipedia, I see it was not always this way and Bordeaux was once strangled by traffic late last century under leadership of Mayor Jacques Chaban-Delmas and his “car-only” transport approach. It didn’t work and as soon as he retired, the city started planning to return to light rail.
Bordeaux’s light rail system began operating in 2003 – the same year as Auckland’s Britomart. It operates at street level but is usually lane-separated from traffic or has its own right-of-way. It is surprisingly fast. All stops have names and the distance between them is similar to Auckland’s inner West line. This was much bigger than Britomart (despite no central railway station as a terminus) and has completely revitalised the city.
The articulated LRVs draw power from either overhead or on-the-ground power. They are separated from road lanes and always get signal priority – an approaching tram changes traffic lights ahead no matter what – none of this ineffective “only if it’s late” rubbish as per Auckland buses – and much easier to implement. They’re surprisingly fast too. Generally, trams only give way to other trams where the three lines cross. They do share some of their route with bicycles but the two do get on – bikes usually pull over for, or stay behind the trams.
For a service that didn’t exist just eight years ago, patronage is excellent – they run every six minutes during the day, more often at peak, and are quite packed. We’ve stood almost every time we used them, yet it’s not uncomfortable at all.Last Sunday was Labour Day here and buses replaced the trams – but at least on Line B, they followed the exact same route by driving over the tracks, so you still knew where to get on.
The trams are arranged as three lines that go from one end of the city to the other via the CBD. None of them terminate in the CBD itself.
The city centre streets have been returned to pedestrians after the obvious failure of giving them to cars. Most streets are either shared spaces or restricted vehicle entry – where entry is protected by rising bollards and only authorized service vehicles and bikes can enter. The city thrives – Rue Ste Catherine is a bustling strip mall with amazing shopping, and there are cafes and wine bars everywhere.
You simply couldn’t efficiently get this many people into the city centre by using just cars – there wouldn’t be room to put them anywhere. The tram system successfully supports a lively city.
Cycle lanes and cycleways are usually two-way, and are separated from the road by at least a rounded kerb, sometimes to the side of the road, sometimes in the middle. Bus lanes are also separated by a rounded kerb which makes their separation obvious and difficult to “accidentally” cross.
Articulated buses are also very common here and run all day. I noticed the same in LA when there last week. If they can afford them here in such large numbers and on such narrow streets, I don’t get what makes them so hard in Auckland.
I think trams like this that would additionally be able to be coupled together, able to run in multiple, would suit Auckland’s Northern Busway corridor well, and could cross the current bridge. On that note, given this recent post about Mike Lee calling the second harbour crossing debate a distraction, it should be noted that the Northern Busway has increased the carrying capacity of the Bridge without adding another one. A well-functioning light-rail system could further increase the carrying capacity over the Bridge while further reducing the number of vehicles traveling over it. Light rail along the busway would also allow it to continue to be used by buses during construction and once it is completed. It will also cope with the steep grades of both the bridge and the busway.
Street-centre tram stops work, despite the street width being narrow, and could be easily applied to Dominion Road. Seeing all this working so well is both amazing and frustrating at the same time. I see how well it works and how Auckland could be so much better than it is, if only we’d build things properly. We’re making a start by introducing a few token shared spaces in the CBD here and there, but while the car is allowed to continue to rule the city, and while we’re too afraid to upset “the motorist”, we’ll be doomed to be average.
By admin, on April 18th, 2011 Last week we saw the opening of the Darby Street shared space in Auckland’s city centre, the first of a number of excellent shared streets that are under construction at the moment. I really like the shared spaces concept – to take away the boundaries between what spaces are for cars and what spaces are for pedestrians, so that there’s a bit of uncertainty and interaction that goes on within the road-space. I also suspect that road engineers dislike them, because they go against just about every principle of road engineering ever thought up – and that makes me like shared spaces even more.
However, there have been a few worried thoughts that Aucklanders just might not ‘get it’, in the same way that drivers in Denmark and the Netherlands (the home of the idea) do. It is seen as a very ‘new’ idea, whereas actually if you think about it most of our streets used to be like shared spaces, a mixture of different activities and people before we started giving primacy to automotive traffic after the Second World War. An absolutely fascinating video – shot in San Francisco in 1905 – illustrates this point superbly, about how our streets used to function before we gave primacy to cars and before the road engineers started to dominate how we manage the main public space of our cities: the streets.
What I find truly fascinating in the video is how often there are “close shaves” of near collisions, how everyone seems so laid-back about pulling in front of other vehicles – whether they be cars, trams, horse-drawn carriages or whatever. But there are no collisions, everyone is careful and aware of their surroundings, people share the street with care – exactly what shared streets are aimed at achieving.
So really, our shared streets are not a new idea. They’re just a return to how streets traditionally operated for centuries before the car came to dominate our cities so much.
(Hat tip to Price Tags for the video).
|
Recent Comments