|
|
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 Guest Post, on March 25th, 2012 This is a Guest Post by Peter and continues his series on overseas cities.
Los Angeles is a poster child for automobile dependent sprawl – a moniker that is somewhat justified, even if it also happens to be one of the denser American cities (if you use the rather dodgy measurement of average density). But Los Angeles’s story is actually a bit more complicated than the normal story – especially if you look at where LA is now heading with its transport policy and its funding priorities.
To start with, Los Angeles’s highly dispersed urban form was not originally the result of the automobile, but rather the result of it once having the world’s most extensive electric railways network – the Pacific Electric System:  At its greatest extent in 1925, the Pacific Electric Railway system had over 1600 km of track – linking towns with each other and with downtown Los Angeles. Coupled with the “Los Angeles Railway“, a system of streetcars in the very inner suburbs of LA, you would have struggled to find many cities in the world in the 1920s with a more extensive rail network: particularly as population wise Los Angeles wasn’t the huge conurbation that it is today.
Obviously in later years Los Angeles decided to go down the “build motorways exclusively” path, arguably to a greater extent than just about any other city in the world – particularly in terms of constructing such an extensive system relatively early (the Arroyo Seco Parkway opened in 1940). By the 1970s Los Angeles didn’t have a passenger rail network – quite staggering for the second largest city in the USA, and leading to pretty massive congestion and pollution problems. So for much of the last 20 years, a major focus for Los Angeles has been the construction (or in many cases reconstruction) of the city’s rail network. A lot has been achieved:
- The Blue Line (opened in 1990) is a light rail line running between Downtown Los Angeles and Downtown Long Beach.
- The Red Line (opened in 1993) is a subway line running between Downtown Los Angeles and North Hollywood.
- The Purple Line (opened in 1993 as part of the Red Line) is a subway line running between Downtown Los Angeles and the Mid-Wilshire district of Los Angeles.
- The Green Line (opened in 1995) is a light rail line running between Redondo Beach and Norwalk in the median of the Century Freeway (I-105), providing indirect access to Los Angeles International Airport via a shuttle bus.
- The Gold Line (opened in 2003) is a light rail line that runs between East Los Angeles and Pasadena via Downtown Los Angeles.
- The Metro Expo Line is Metro’s newest light rail line that will open to the public on April 28, 2012. The line has been delayed for nearly 2 years.The line will initially operate between Downtown Los Angeles to La Cienega/Jefferson and in the summer 2012 to Culver City. It will share 2 Metro Blue Line stations (7th Street/Metro Center and Pico).
Along with a couple of bus rapid transit lines, Los Angeles has managed to build a fairly decent network over the past 20 years – pretty much from scratch: But what makes Los Angeles particularly interesting is looking at where it’s headed now. Despite the investment over the past 20 years in the network shown above, as well as a pretty clever bus system, Los Angeles remains a car dependent city that continues to suffer from congestion and pollution. However, unlike Auckland – where we remain under the illusion that perhaps if we just widen one more motorway we might finally fix congestion for good – Los Angeles has come to the realisation that the only solution is to offer people alternatives to sitting in their cars getting stuck in traffic. In short, there’s a general realisation that the vast bulk of investment in transport needs to go into these alternatives.
Reflecting this general understanding in the population, in November 2008 Measure R was passed by a two-thirds majority in Los Angeles County. Measure R added 0.5% onto the existing county sales tax over 30 years, with the money raised from that sales tax increase being specifically allocated to transport projects. Over the 30 years, the tax is expected to raise around $40 billion – with all money raised needing to be split across different transport activities in the following way:
- 35% for transit capital projects (i.e. new rail and bus rapid transit lines).
- 3% for transit capital on the Metrolink commuter rail system.
- 2% for transit capital on things like rail cars and rail yards.
- 20% for highway capital projects.
- 5% for operations on new rail lines.
- 20% for bus operation improvements.
- 15% for local return (i.e. transportation money that individual cities decide how to spend).
The graph below also illustrates the funding split quite well: While there probably remains some uncertainty about where the local improvements money will end up, generally the funding split for Measure R funds is tilted extremely strongly towards public transport projects, as well as ensuring there’s sufficient money available to also improve services.
The map below shows that a pretty extensive range of projects are able to be advanced due to Measure R: The biggest project of the lot here is the Westside SubwayExtension, with the full project expected to cost around $9 billion (but is hugely needed as it runs under Wilshire Boulevard, an enormously dense activity corridor).
What becomes increasingly clear, when you look at the long-term transport plans of supposedly auto-dependent cities like Los Angeles, is how they’ve realised the pointlessness of continuing to add more and more motorway capacity, just to watch it fill up again. But for some reason Auckland doesn’t quite get this yet, for some reason even a 50/50 split between roads and public transport funding is seen as “too extreme” – the Auckland Plan shifting away from that general funding split that had been in the Regional Land Transport Strategy. It seems that anywhere else in the world a 50/50 split would be seen as extremely roads-focused, yet in New Zealand it’s the complete opposite.
Why are we so out of step with the rest of the world when it comes to transport matters?
By admin, on September 24th, 2011 As Brian Rudman noted so eloquently in his NZ Herald column yesterday, there are so many plans out there relating to Auckland’s future at the moment that it almost makes your brain freeze. Auckland Plan, City Centre Master Plan, Waterfront Plan and an economic development strategy for the city. It’s a challenge to know where to start.
This post focuses on the City Centre Master Plan, which as I’ve noted in previous posts, is an incredibly exciting plan – focusing on making Auckland’s downtown a more people-friendly place, taking back much of its public space from the private vehicle and giving it over to pedestrians. While the plan is over 200 pages long, fortunately those pages comprise of a lot of picture so it’s a relatively easy read. Furthermore, it focuses on eight strategic ‘interventions’, which will hopefully mean that many of its great goals don’t become lost in time – with the plan confined to becoming yet another door stop – as was the case with a large number of previous plans and strategies in Auckland.
While the plan certainly does have all the high level aspirations and visions that you’d expect, but be slightly skeptical of in terms of that key word implementation, one thing that makes me more confident many of the ideas from this plan will actually happen is the listing of these eight key interventions:
1. Uniting the waterfront and the city centre – the North-south stitch
2. Connecting the western edge of the city to the centre- the East-west stitch
3. Queen Street Valley CBD and retail district – the Engine Room
4. Nurturing an innovation and learning cradle
5. Growth around the City Rail Link – new public transport stations and development opportunities at K Road, Newton and Aotea Quarter
6. Connecting Victoria Park, Albert Park and the Domain as part of a blue-green park network – the Green Link
7. Connecting the city and the fringe – City gateways to the villages
8. Revitalising the waterfront – Water City
Perhaps the best way to illustrate what these key interventions are trying to achieve is through showing a number of before and after pictures. I will go into more detail on some key issues in this plan in future posts – this is just designed to give an overview of the Plan as a whole.
The ‘north-south stitch’ is designed to link the city back with its waterfront, right from Wynyard Quarter in the west to the Port in the east. Key barriers to overcome in achieving this vision are Fanshawe Street and Quay Street – with the image below showing a possible future treatment of Quay Street as much more of a ‘boulevard’. The light-rail line could potentially link Wynyard Quarter with St Heliers along Tamaki Drive, an idea quite similar to something I came up with some time ago: Another key part of the north-south stitch is the removal of the Lower Hobson Viaduct and the redevelopment of the Downtown carpark. This particular point in the CBD is a cross-point between the north-south stitch and another priority, the east-west stitch, so is quite critical in driving the outcomes desired by Council. Compared to what we have now, the proposal looks pretty spectacular: Strong north-south links through this area – from Federal and Hobson streets down to the viaduct, will be crucial for its success. Shifting further westwards, we see the proposed “downtuning” of Fanshawe Street to make it a more pedestrian friendly area. Obviously Fanshawe is the crucial public transport link between the city centre and the North Shore – so I imagine any redevelopment would probably need to provide a dedicated busway corridor, something that seems to be missing in the image below (although there’s another tram): The second key intervention is the “east-west stitch”, to link back the part of the city west of Hobson and Nelson streets with the Queen Street valley – where most of the ‘action’ is now. A key part of this is once again a project that I’ve been a fan of for quite some time, ‘downtuning’ those two defacto motorways to more normal streets. Whether we could get away with narrowing the streets down to quite the extent in the image below is debatable, but certainly something that I think would be great: Another key part of the east-west stitch is a focus on turning Federal Street into the High Street of the west, progressively turning it into a shared space along its whole length: from Aotea Square in the south down past Sky City and St Patricks, to Fanshawe Street in the north.
The next key intervention focuses on Queen Street and its immediate surrounds as the real “engine room” of downtown Auckland. There are some great ideas about making Queen Street more pedestrian friendly, at first through temporary closures (goodness knows why we have been so reluctant to do these during the World Cup), and then eventually through introducing shared spaces along parts of the street (hey look, another tram, surprise surprise): A great upgrade to High Street is also proposed – though I wonder whether it would work best as fully pedestrianised rather than as a shared space: The fourth key intervention, which is to focus on developing the area around the Universities into a key innovation ‘cradle’ is logical and sensible, even if it does lack some of the prettier pictures elsewhere. I often think that in the ‘dark days’ for the CBD of the late 1980s and early 1990s (after the sharemarket crash but before the apartment boom) it may have been the presence of the universities in the city centre that kept the place from completely dying. We are pretty lucky to have such big tertiary institutions right in the middle of the city.
The fifth intervention is one of the more longer-term ones, but perhaps over time one of the most important – and that is truly taking advantage of the City Rail Link project to create high density development nodes around the three proposed stations. The images below show the likely development potential around Aotea and K Road stations: Interestingly, the proposed Newton station ends up having the largest amount of development capacity – even though it sits just outside the current edge of the city centre: The next big strategic intervention is to create “green links” that connect up many of Auckland’s great parks: the Domain with Albert Park via improvements to Grafton Gully, Albert Park to Victoria Park via a narrowed and ‘greened’ Victoria Street, Victoria Park to a new park at the headland of Wynyard Quarter – via a linear park along Daldy Street. This is shown below: I would look at adding Myers Park into the network, via a connection along Elliott Street, the walkway between the Bledisloe Building and the movie theatre complex and Aotea Square. But otherwise the idea is fantastic – and includes some potentially awesome changes to the structure of central Auckland: One of the best things about the changes to Victoria Street is that they could probably be done fairly quickly, and relatively inexpensively – just the cost of ripping up half the street’s worth of asphalt, putting down some nice pavers and planting a few trees.
A more expensive, and long-term, project would involve the ‘capping’ of the motorways through parts of Grafton Gully, and then building open space sports fields on top of that cap. That’s Wellesley Street winding its way through the new area, looking towards the domain. The capping of parts of the Grafton Gully motorway system also plays a key role in the next strategic intervention – connecting downtown better to its surrounding suburban villages. Auckland’s city centre is encircled by motorways, leaving it somewhat cut off from the rest of the city. This is a shame as often the most interesting and exciting parts of cities are the places where downtown meets the suburbs – places with a great mix of uses, a great variety of building types and places experiencing a lot of interesting change. Certainly it’s these ‘city fringe’ parts of Sydney that give that city a huge amount of its character.
A series of projects are proposed to help overcome this issue of having the city centre ‘cut off’ so much. An exciting idea is the reuse of the abandoned Nelson Street offramp into a linear park and walkway – much like what has been done with New York City’s High Line. Once again, I really like this idea because I think it could be done relatively cheaply and quickly: The final strategic intervention relates to the waterfront, and encapsulates much of what’s outlined in much greater detail in the Waterfront Plan. Key projects include a cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf, the continuing development of Wynyard Quarter, better connections to the city from the waterfront, and something I really like – ‘bookending’ the waterfront with parks to the far east and west. Here’s a summary of what’s proposed: I can definitely say, without a doubt, that the City Centre Masterplan is the most exciting vision of the future for Auckland’s City Centre that I have ever seen. Of course there’s always that lingering nagging worry that none of this will happen, but fortunately along with a list of extremely expensive and long-term projects there are also a number of shorter-term, and cheaper, things that can happen which will make a big difference. The narrowing of Victoria Street is a good example of that, the redevelopment of the downtown carpark is another thing that definitely should happen, if for no other reason than the fact that it’s likely to actually make a profit for the council.
A great series of little projects is also highlighted in the plan, including important steps like ensuring pedestrian crossing opportunities on all parts of intersections, slowing traffic down along key corridors, decluttering streets, providing more drinking fountains and so forth:
 If even half of what’s proposed in this overall plan actually happens, Auckland’s city centre will be an utterly fantastic place in the future. Auckland Council should be seriously congratulated for coming up with such a fantastic City Centre Master Plan.
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 6th, 2011 I checked out the opening of the Wynyard Quarter area today – taking Adele on her first ever bus ride in the process. It was actually pretty awesome, and it seemed like half of Auckland was there. The lifting bridge providing the connection between the area and the rest of the CBD worked well and was pretty impressive size-wise:
Once we got over the bridge there was tonnes going on – with the tram loop being a particularly popular attraction. I was tempted to go on the tram but the queue was a bit long – maybe we’ll come back another day to ride it.
 Further along we came to Silo Park, which was pretty damn impressive actually. It was good to see the “Wind Tree” sculpture back on display: The viewing structure you can see on the other side of the Wind Tree sculpture offered some great views over the whole Wynyard Quarter area. You can see how much redevelopment potential there is – it will be amazing to come back in 10 years time and see how much things have changed:
 There were further good views to be had from the walkway that wraps around the new Events Centre building:
All up it’s a pretty cool area and there were an enormous number of people checking the place out. I hope that the momentum and popularity of the area can be maintained – I guess as anchor tenants like the ASB Headquarters and further residential buildings are developed the place will develop a critical mass that ensures its success.
But for today it was just nice seeing so many Aucklanders enjoying their city.
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 11th, 2011 Much like broken hearted souls pining over lost loves, too many transport conversations in Auckland lament “missed opportunities” rather than celebrate “what could be.” Self-centred navel gazing is never attractive and rarely worthwhile; we risk taking transport too seriously. I hope this post can slap us out of our overly serious mood.
The key question I want to consider is “how can we make travelling in Auckland more fun?” First I’d like to coin some new jargon: transport solutions whose main aim is fun shall be known as “funsport”. So we’re talking about transport that puts a smile on your dial; that you use because of the joy it brings you, not so much the mobility it provides.
We’re most certainly not talking about LRT or BRT – only freaks like me get excited about them. One Auckland initiative that comes close to “funsport” is the Wynyard Quarter Tram. My initial scepticism about this project has fallen away, because I realised that I was considering its merits from the wrong perspective. It’s not about mobility, it’s about fun.
Just imagine the Wynyard trams (shown below) bumbling along the waterfront filled to the brim with toothless kids and their equally toothless grandparents? Only Montgomery “Release the hounds” Burns would not smile at that.
But in my opinion the Wynard Quarter Tram sits at the unexciting end of a reasonably long funsport stick. Here are some of my ideas for other, potentially more exciting, funsport initiatives that Auckland could develop:
- Flying foxes – I’m not joking. I think there are places in Auckland where a flying fox would be flaming awesome. Imagine a flying fox running from K’Road down Queen street? Or Albert Park to Britomart? Or Three Lamps/St Mary’s Bay to Victoria Park? I realise there are safety issues that need to be considered, but if companies can run a vertical bungy jump in the middle of town and people can jump off the Sky Tower than I see little reason why we could not get some flying foxes up and running. I also think we need to stop seeing Auckland’s hills as a barrier and more as an opportunity, which leads nicely onto the next idea …
- Volcano Ventures - run a gondola up Mt Eden to the summit along the existing road. Ban cars/buses from driving up and use the parking space to provide some nice green space for people to have coffee/tea/waffles. Then develop a downhill luge (like you have in Rotorua) for people to zoom back down if they want (those that don’t can always use the gondola to get back down). Luge carts could be automatically returned to the top by being attached to the bottom of the gondolas. One Tree Hill could have a similar treatment, although I think a cable car might be more appropriate here because there’s less room at the top for a gondola. Here’s an image of the cable car that runs to the top of Fløyen in Bergen (Norway). I travelled on this in January this year and it provides exceptional views.
Of course there’s many other potential funsport solutions. Many scenic trips can combine public transport with cycling. My particular favourite, for example, is taking the train out to Waitakere, from where it’s only a 30 minute cycle out to Bethells Beach (first picture below). Or, you can take your bike on the ferry to Waiheke and cycle around golden beaches and green hills for the day before forgetting your aching muscles over a glass of your favourite pinot (second image).
Funsport initiatives target recreational and tourist users, which are of under-rated importance. Auckland does not seem to realise that it must compete to attract mobile labour and capital. Basically, if we want to grow then we have to get people and businesses to be based here. So quality of life is not just important; it is essential (of course a large part of quality of life comes from having a good job, so quality of the business environment is also important).
At the moment I think that Auckland fails to give visitors memorable experiences that make them want to stay in the city for a week, let alone live here. As much as I value effectiveness and efficiency, I think there’s a need for Auckland to look seriously at funsport initiatives (ignoring the inherent irony in trying to take funsport seriously!).
I see an obvious role for Auckland Council and Auckland Transport to coordinate funsport outcomes. Not only do many of these initiatives involve public land, but they could be integrated with the HOP e-purse. Visitors could then use a HOP card to pay for all of their funsport initiatives, as well as general public transport.
I’m actually wondering whether we should be giving international visitors to Auckland a HOP card, pre-loaded with some small money (say $10) to encourage them to get out and about, thereby overcoming some of the barriers to their Auckland experience. Together HOP and funsport could help create an image of Auckland that is welcoming, efficient, and exciting. That’s the image I want to present to the world.
Or maybe I’m in lala-land. If so slap me and bring me back to (grey old) transport reality  . If not, then please share your own ideas – I’d love to hear them.
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.
|
Recent Comments