A New Public Transport Approach

We believe that the spine study identifies the wrong route for rapid transit from the CBD to Kilbirnie. We also believe that alternative routes exist which avoid the choke point at the Basin Reserve, and that light rail would provide a far more cost-effective solution than the BRT currently proposed. The body of this report presents evidence to support this view.

Peak capacity for light rail running on-street is about 40 trams an hour: lower than for buses because there is rarely space to berth two trams at a stop. Light rail capacity depends on vehicle capacity rather than frequency, carrying around 300–400 people in Wellington. Even a few buses sharing a light rail route will disrupt route capacity, but excluding all buses from the central city may not be possible: Wellington needs a second route for the remaining buses.

Of course nobody wants transfers if they can avoid them. But no information was given on how the inconvenience can be minimized or mitigated when combined with modern light rail. Respondents will have in their minds the painfully slow and erratic transfers experienced in Wellington.

• Speed throughout the route, with an indicative travel time to the Airport of 20–25 minutes at any time of day.

• Very smooth ride. A common sight on light rail is passengers standing when there are plenty of seats.

Principal considerations in deciding between options will be vehicle speed, walking distance and passenger numbers walking. Further investigation is needed to determine whether a dedicated light rail route on Lambton Quay south of Panama Street is feasible, as this would require removing buses from this part of Lambton Quay. Such a route would then follow Willeston, Victoria and Wakefield streets to Cuba St (option 2a) or Willeston St to Jervois Quay and Taranaki St (option 2b). We have identified this as a desirable route, but do not have enough information to determine feasibility and cost.

In the southern CBD we propose either a Cuba St route or a faster route via Taranaki St (options 2a and 2b); Wallace St with access to Wellington High School and Massey University; then on to Newtown via John and Riddiford Streets via Wellington Hospital. This route, running east of the Basin Reserve, would be better aligned with the features identified by planners for light rail systems, with more opportunities at the Hospital and through Newtown.

South of Wellington Hospital we propose a route to Kilbirnie by either Wellington Zoo or Constable Street and Crawford Road (options 3a & 3b). In either case the proposed Kilbirnie interchange is on commercial land at Coutts Street, opposite Bay Road. In this case the options have important cost effects, because of tunnels: option 3a will cost an additional $212 million. This area is discussed further in Indicative costs.

The main advantage of a Constable Street route is cost because it bypasses the longest tunnel. The main disadvantages are loss of patronage in the denser Newtown area, and a more difficult route in Kilbirnie.

For option 3a we propose a single-track tunnel to Kilbirnie. Single track is justified because the heaviest light rail traffic will be in the city centre and a reduced service can be justified south of Wellington Hospital. Tunnel capacity should be at least 12 trams an hour each way, or say 3500 passengers an hour. This is an initial estimate and can probably be increased after timetable modelling. A second tunnel will be needed if capacity is ever reached.

• The lower end of Crawford Road, which is less than 11 metres wide.

• Full service on short routes incompatible with transfers, such as Brooklyn; Mt Victoria; Aro Street or Kelburn; or busy corridors requiring two transfers.

These needs will have to be “rationed”, to manage both a peak-hour maximum of 60 buses an hour on all routes—for congestion-free running—and the cost of running buses and light rail in competition. Most or all other bus services would terminate at one of the interchanges. (split into bullets?)

• a further 20% for design and a contingency allowance

We acknowledge there are challenges in the Constable St option, but are confident that the engineers could find workable solutions. Clearly, the cost saving would be considerable—enough to fund over 4km of light rail construction, such as a line to Island Bay. A detailed study will be needed to determine which option is best value for money.

We consider there are grave deficiencies in the proposals for BRT and the spine study on which it is based. In particular, the underlying assumptions adopted for light rail in the spine study inevitably gave a high-cost, low-benefit option. We believe these assumptions are no longer appropriate.

This report presents options for light rail through central Wellington to Kilbirnie and on to the Airport, together with a supporting bus network. We acknowledge that there are other route options for light rail than those presented here; in particular, we recognise the desirability of operating along the full length of the golden mile. A route via the Basin Reserve would also be feasible.

Of course nobody wants transfers if they can avoid them. But no information was given on how the inconvenience can be minimized or mitigated when combined with a superior and faster mode like light rail. Respondents will have in their minds the painfully slow and erratic transfers experienced in Wellington.

We consider there are grave deficiencies in the proposals for BRT and the spine study on which it is based. In particular, the underlying assumptions adopted for light rail in the spine study inevitably resulted in this being a high-cost, low-benefit option. We believe these assumptions are no longer appropriate.

This report presents two options for light rail through central Wellington to Kilbirnie and on to the Airport, together with a supporting bus network. We acknowledge that there are other route options for light rail than those presented here; in particular, we recognise the desirability of operating along the full length of the golden mile. A route via the Basin Reserve would also be feasible.

(:typeset-page headingcolor=ForestGreen fontset=kepler colorlinks=on title="A New Public Transport Approach for Wellington" subtitle="Options and Indicative Costs" autonumber=1 toc=on imagesize=small colophon=off parasep=number :)

1. Engage in constructive and collaborative discussion with officials of the options presented here, with a goal of light rail to the airport by 2030.
2. Promote informed public discussion of transport options for Wellington, including light rail.

This section presents options for light rail from Wellington Railway Station to the Airport, via Wellington Hospital.

• either a dedicated right of way on the west (Terrace) side of Lambton Quay, crossing to Jervois Quay at Willeston Street (if practical) or Panama Street;
• or a waterfront route along the east side of Customhouse Quay.

1. Include a light rail option in the full BRT business case for assessment by Councillors and the public, based on this new information.
2. Engage in constructive and collaborative discussion of the options presented here, with a goal of light rail to the airport by 2030.
3. Promote informed public opinion in Wellington.

We acknowledge there are challenges in the Constable St option, but are confident that the engineers could find workable solutions. Clearly, the cost saving would be considerable—enough to fund over 4km of light rail construction, e.g. a line to Island Bay. A detailed study will be needed to determine which option is best value for money.

(:description If we start today, Wellington could have a world-class light rail tram system between the Railway Station and the Airport, via the Hospital, by 2030, at an estimated cost of $450 million. :)

If we start today, Wellington could have a world-class light rail tram service between the Railway Station and the Airport, via the Hospital, by 2030, for an estimated cost as low as $450 million.

(:typeset-page headingcolor=ForestGreen fontset=kepler colorlinks=on title="A New Public Transport Approach for Wellington" subtitle="Options and Indicative Costs" autonumber=1 toc=2col imagesize=sidecaps colophon=off parasep=number :)

This report presents two options for light rail through central Wellington to Kilbirnie and on to the Airport, together with a supporting bus network. We acknowledge that there may well be other route options for light rail than those presented here; in particular, we recognise the desirability of operating along the full length of the golden mile.

This section presents options for light rail from Wellington Railway Station to the Airport.

1. Engage in constructive and collaborative discussion of the options presented here, with a goal of light rail to the airport by 2030
2. Promote informed public opinion in Wellington

High capacity also demands frequent buses, which are too easily slowed by delays at traffic signals or bus stops. BRT needs a high priority at traffic signals (or a flyover) and overtaking lanes at stops. BRT can be space-intensive; for example, BRT stops in Brisbane are twice the width of Manners Mall.

Peak capacity for light rail running on-street is about 40 trams an hour: lower than for buses because there is rarely space to berth two trams. Light rail capacity depends on high-capacity vehicles, perhaps carrying around 300–400 people in Wellington. A few buses sharing a light rail route will disrupt route capacity, but excluding all buses from the central city may not be possible: light rail needs a second route for the remaining buses.

At the city end, we propose two alternatives; see This figure, options 1a and 1b:

• either a dedicated right of way on the west (Terrace) side of Lambton Quay, crossing to Jervois Quay at Willeston Street (if practical) or Panama Street
• or a waterfront route along the east side of Customhouse Quay

Principal considerations in deciding between options will be vehicle speed, walking distance and passenger numbers walking. Further investigation is needed to determine whether a dedicated light rail route on Lambton Quay south of Panama Street is feasible, as this would require removing buses from this part of Lambton Quay. Such a route would then follow Willeston, Victoria and Wakefield streets to Cuba St (option 2a) or Willeston St to Jervois Quay and Taranaki St (option 2b). We have identified this as a desirable route, but do not have enough information to determine its technical feasibility and estimate the cost.

We believe that the spine study identifies the wrong route for rapid transit from the CBD to Kilbirnie. We also believe that alternative routes exist which avoid the choke point at the Basin Reserve, and that light rail would provide a far superior transit system for comparable cost to implementing BRT as currently proposed. The body of this report presents evidence to support this view.

BRT for Wellington will not be rapid and will not meet the minimum internationally adopted standard requirements for a bus system to qualify as BRT. We expect that light rail in Wellington will be cheaper than the street-widening and amenity costs of BRT.

The identified route does not run by the Basin Reserve, although it is within the area defined in the N2A study. Recent events suggest difficulties in finding a reserved route, and multi-segment trams can be difficult on large, multi-lane roundabouts. This corridor is more suited to buses, with no particular reason to run a high-capacity route that way.

[tangled sentence: how about] At the city end, we propose two alternatives: —either a dedicated right of way on the west (Terrace) side of Lambton Quay, crossing to Jervois Quay at Willeston Street (if practical) or Panama Street —or a waterfront route along the east side of Customhouse Quay. See This figure, options 1a and 1b. Principal considerations in deciding between options will be vehicle speed, walking distance and passenger numbers walking. Further investigation is needed to determine whether a dedicated light rail route on Lambton Quay south of Panama Street is feasible, as this would require removing buses from this part of Lambton Quay. Such a route would then follow Willeston, Victoria and Wakefield streets to Cuba St (option 2a) or Willeston St to Jervois Quay and Taranaki St (option 2b).

For option 3a we propose a single-track tunnel to Kilbirnie. Single track is justified because the heaviest light rail traffic will be in the city centre and a reduced service can be justified beyond Wellington Hospital. Tunnel capacity should be at least 12 trams an hour each way, or say 3500 passengers an hour. This is an initial estimate and can probably be increased after timetable modelling. A second tunnel will be needed if capacity is ever reached.

Either option will require a tunnel beneath the airport runway. A single-track tunnel will be satisfactory for option 3b, but option 3a may need a two-way layout. This can be checked using timetable modelling but is assumed at this stage.

• Managing westbound traffic reaching Constable Street, to control queue-lengths at traffic signals and minimize peak-hour delays to westbound trams.

At the city end, we propose either a dedicated right of way on the west (Terrace) side of Lambton Quay, crossing to Jervois Quay at either Willeston Street (if practical) or Panama Street, or a waterfront route along the east side of Customhouse Quay. See This figure, options 1a and 1b. Principal considerations in deciding between options will be vehicle speed, walking distance and passenger numbers walking. Further investigation is needed to determine whether a dedicated light rail route on Lambton Quay south of Panama Street is feasible, as this would require removing buses from this part of Lambton Quay. Such a route would then follow Willeston, Victoria and Wakefield streets to Cuba St (option 2a) or Willeston St to Jervois Quay and Taranaki St (option 2b).

1. Include a light rail option in the full BRT business case for assessment by Councillors and the public, based on this new information

We acknowledge there are challenges in the Constable St option, but are confident that the engineers could find workable solutions. Clearly, the cost saving would be considerable.

Design principles

(:include ArtOfLightRailInsertion :)

Or dump?????? Dump!

Central city

Bus feeder services

These needs will have to be “rationed”, to manage both a peak-hour maximum of 60 buses an hour on all routes—for congestion-free running—and the cost of running buses and light rail in competition. Most or all other bus services would terminate at one of the interchanges.

The first light rail line in a new city typically takes 10 years from the go-ahead: the existing bus route will need alterations to boost capacity until light rail can take over.

Light rail costs have fallen in recent years, and last year the International Railway Journal quoted €25–30m per kilometre for a typical line in France: NZ $42–51m/km. Now Besançon, France has opened a new line for €17.5m/km: $30m/km. Using these figures as a guide, we consider the costs set out in This table are reasonable. We have assumed:

• an all-up cost of $40 million per route kilometre (including depot and vehicles but excluding tunnels)
• a further 20% for design and contingency
• all interchanges can be built within this all-up cost, bearing in mind the increase in value of residential development around a main interchange
• all costs exclude GST

Next steps

We seek support to:

1. Revisit the decision to exclude light rail from consideration, based on this new information
2. Engage in constructive and collaborative discussion of the options presented here
3. Promote informed public opinion in Wellington

FIT stands for Fair, Intelligent Transport. We are a group of Wellingtonians with professional expertise, who want to see a change in the culture where the private motor vehicle dominates other transport modes. We want to see a city designed for people, not cars. Our vision for Wellington is a modern, vibrant city which includes:

In collaboration with Generation Zero, we have reviewed the latest business plan for the development of public transport in Wellington.

We consider there are grave deficiencies in the proposals for BRT and the spine study on which it is based. In particular, the underlying assumptions adopted for light rail in the spine study inevitably resulted in this being a high-cost option. We believe these assumptions are no longer appropriate.

We believe that the spine study identifies the wrong route for rapid transit from the CBD to Kilbirnie. We also believe that alternative routes exist which avoid the choke point at the Basin Reserve and that light rail would provide a far superior transit system for comparable cost to implementing BRT as currently proposed. The body of this report presents evidence to support this view.

This report presents two options for light rail through central Wellington to Kilbirnie and on to the airport, together with a supporting bus network. We acknowledge that there may well be other route options for light rail than those presented here; in particular, we recognise the desirability of operating along the full length of the golden mile.

Comparing BRT and light rail

BRT for Wellington will not be rapid and will not meet the minimum internationally adopted standard for a bus system to qualify as BRT. We expect that light rail in Wellington will be cheaper than the street-widening and amenity costs of BRT.

BRT is an effective solution in many cities. The problems in Wellington are:

• its narrow and winding streets; and
• the need for large cumbersome buses to gain capacity—these pose dangers for other road-users.

High capacity also demands frequent buses, which are too easily slowed by delays at traffic signals or bus stops. BRT needs a high priority at traffic signals (or a flyover) and overtaking lanes at stops.

BRT stops in Brisbane are twice the width of Manners Mall. The capacity of the Brisbane busway is given as nearly 300 bus/hr, compared with only about 40 trams an hour for light rail running on-street: lower than for buses because there is rarely space to berth two trams. Light rail capacity depends on high-capacity vehicles, perhaps carrying around 300–400 people in Wellington. A few buses sharing a light rail route will disrupt route capacity, but excluding all buses from the central city may not be possible: light rail needs a second route for the remaining buses.

Transfers are a successful and uncontroversial feature of most overseas public transport systems, including those using BRT. The claimed unpopularity of transfers in Wellington is based on unsatisfactory questions posed in the spine study without balancing information. This approach unnecessarily biased respondents against transfers, e.g.

Of course nobody wants transfers if they can avoid them. But no information was given on how the inconvenience can be minimized or mitigated when combined with a superior and faster mode like light rail. Respondents will have in their minds the painfully slow and erratic transfers that they experience with current bus transport in Wellington.

And, of course, everybody wants faster, cheaper and much more reliable trips anywhere-to-anywhere, but can be put off by biased questions. This bias compromises the validity of the spine study’s conclusions.

Light rail

Route options

FIT stands for Fair, Intelligent Transport. We are a group of concerned Wellingtonians with professional expertise, who want to see a change in the culture where the private motor vehicle dominates over other transport modes. We want to see a city designed around the needs of people, not cars. Our vision for Wellington is a modern, vibrant city which includes:

• A healthy and safe city where the unique character and beauty of our harbour capital is enhanced by the built environment, including its transport system;
• A city that has reliable, low-cost, fast and convenient public transport, that takes people to where they want; and
• A city where walking, cycling and electric public transport are actively promoted to reduce transport costs, improve health by physical exercise and reducing pollution and climate change effects.

(:typeset-page headingcolor=ForestGreen fontset=kepler colorlinks=on title="A New Public Transport Approach for Wellington" subtitle="Options and Indicative Costs" autonumber=1 toc=2col imagesize=sidecaps colophon=off parasep=number :)

We have reviewed the business plan for the development of public transport in Wellington and we consider there are grave deficiencies in the proposals for BRT and the spine study on which it is based. We strongly believe that the spine study identifies the wrong route for rapid transit from the CBD to Kilbirnie. We also believe that alternative routes exist that avoid the choke point at the Basin Reserve and that light rail would provide a far superior transit system for comparable cost of the implementation of BRT as currently proposed.

In this report we present two options for light rail through central Wellington to Kilbirnie and on to the airport together with a supporting bus network. We acknowledge that there maybe other route options for light rail than those presented here and in particular the desirability of operating along the full length of the golden mile.

With the introduction of light rail along one of the identified routes, buses in the central city can be reduced to manageable numbers.

The identified route does not run by the Basin Reserve, although it is within the area defined in the N2A study. Recent events suggest difficulties in finding a reserved route, and multi-segment trains can be difficult on large, multi-lane roundabouts. This corridor is more suited to buses, with no particular reason to run a high-capacity route that way.

The identified route does not run by the Basin Reserve, although it is within the area defined in the N2A study. Recent events suggest difficulties in finding a reserved route, and multi-segment trains can be difficult on large, multi-lane roundabouts. This corridor is more suited to buses, with no particular reason to run a high-capacity route that way.

South of Constable Street we propose a route to Kilbirnie by either Wellington Zoo or Constable Street and Crawford Road (options 3a & 3b). In either case the proposed interchange is on commercial land at Coutts Street, opposite Bay Road. In this case the options have important cost effects, because of tunnels: option 3a will cost an additional $212 million. This area is discussed further in Indicative costs.

We suggest the costs set out in This table are reasonable, based on an all-up cost of $40 million per route kilometre, including depot and vehicles but excluding tunnels. We have assumed that all interchanges can be built within this all-up cost, bearing in mind the value of residential development around a main interchange. Note that there are some rounding errors; all costs exclude GST.

At the city end, we propose either a dedicated right of way on the west (Terrace) side of Lambton Quay, crossing to Jervois Quay at either Willeston Street (if practical) or Panama Street, or a waterfront route along the east side of Customhouse Quay. See This figure, options 1a and 1b. Principal considerations in deciding which option will be vehicle speed, walking distance and passenger numbers walking. Further investigation is needed to determine whether a dedicated light rail route on Lambton Quay south of Panama Street is feasible, as this would require removing buses from this part of Lambton Quay.

• Ground conditions are such that the tunnelling cost estimated for Mt Victoria is applicable.

(:typeset-page headingcolor=ForestGreen fontset=freebe colorlinks=on title="A New Public Transport Approach for Wellington" subtitle="Options and Indicative Costs" autonumber=1 toc=2col imagesize=sidecaps colophon=off parasep=space :)

We identify a number of deficiencies in the business plan for BRT and the spine study on which it is based: the proposed route bypasses where people live, and involves expensive tunnelling through Mt Victoria, with destruction of town belt and housing eastwards. We provide alternative routes which bypass the choke point at the Basin Reserve.

We believe light rail is superior to large buses for most transport along the spine, given Wellington’s geography. Our calculations project comparable set-up costs and less expense to run.

As a result of our research, we present two workable routes, although we acknowledge that other routes are also possible. We suggest that the Golden Mile should be part of the planned route, bringing fast high-capacity and clean transport into the busiest CBD precinct in the country.

We seek a step-change in Wellington’s public transport, matching the vision of the N2A Terms of Reference. Our intention is to promote more discussion about the relative merits of light rail.

BRT for Wellington will not be rapid and will not meet the minimum internationally adopted standard for a bus system to qualify as BRT.

The capacity of the Brisbane busway is given as nearly 300 bus/hr, compared with only about 40 trams an hour for light rail running on-street: lower than for buses because there is rarely space to berth two trams. Light rail capacity depends on high-capacity vehicles, perhaps carrying around 300–400 people in Wellington. A few buses sharing a light rail route will disrupt route capacity, but excluding all buses from the central city may not be possible: light rail needs a second route for the remaining buses.

Planned, near-seamless transfers at quality interchanges are necessary for light rail in Wellington as they are everywhere else in the world. Transfers will dramatically reduce bus-kilometres, mainly on the golden mile, allowing more and better services on remaining routes. Good interchange and timetable design minimizes transfer times (generally 2–5 minutes),² making many trips faster overall.

Transfers are a successful and uncontroversial feature of most overseas public transport systems. The claimed unpopularity of transfers in Wellington is based on unsatisfactory questions posed in the spine study without balancing information. This approach unnecessarily biased respondents against transfers, e.g.

And, of course, everybody wants faster, cheaper and much more reliable trips anywhere-to-anywhere, but can be put off by biased questions.

The identified route does not run by the Basin Reserve, although it is within the area defined in the N2A study. Recent events suggest difficulties in finding a reserved route, and multi-car trains can be difficult on large, multi-lane roundabouts. This corridor is more suited to buses, with no particular reason to run a high-capacity route that way.

For option 3a we propose a single track tunnel to Kilbirnie, justified because the heaviest light rail traffic will be in the city centre and a reduced service can be justified beyond Wellington Hospital. Capacity should be at least 12 trams an hour each way, or say 3500 passengers an hour. This is an initial estimate and can probably be increased after timetable modelling. A second tunnel will be needed if capacity is ever reached.

Light rail costs have fallen in recent years, and last year the International Railway Journal quoted €25–30m per kilometre for a typical line in France: NZ $42–51m/km. Now Besançon, France has opened a new line for €17.5m/km: $30m/km.

We suggest the costs set out in This table are reasonable, based on an all-up cost of $40 million per route kilometre, including depot and vehicles but excluding tunnels. We have assumed that all interchanges can be built within this all-up cost, bearing in mind the value of residential development around a main interchange. Note that there are some rounding errors.

Light rail costs have fallen in recent years, and last year the International Railway Journal quoted €25–30m per kilometre for a typical line in France: NZ $42–51m/km. Now Besançon, France has opened a new line for €17.5m/km: $30m/km.

This proposal should be relatively inexpensive to build, given good project management and good control of nice-to-have costs:

• No costly structures needed, other than tunnels, costed separately. The heaviest other cost will be Wellington Railway Station.
• A waterfront route would push down costs because it avoids the worst areas for costly underground services diversions.
• Other cities have reduced costs up to 20% using joint procurement (Amiens and Caen for example) and Wellington may be well-placed to do the same by pairing with Auckland.

(:typeset-page headingcolor=ForestGreen fontset=freebe colorlinks=on title="A New Public Transport Approach for Wellington" subtitle="Options and Indicative Costs" autonumber=1 toc=on fontsize=2col colophon=off parasep=space :)

We suggest the costs set out in Comparative costs of options 3a and 3b are reasonable, based on an all-up cost of $40 million per route kilometre, including depot and vehicles but excluding tunnels. We have assumed that all interchanges can be built within this all-up cost, bearing in mind the value of residential development around a main interchange.

At this stage tunnelling costs are based on four assumptions:

Bus rapid transit

BRT for Wellington will not be rapid and will not satisfy internationally agreed features for a bus system to qualify as BRT.

The capacity of the Brisbane busway is given as nearly 300 bus/hr, compared with only about 40 trams an hour for light rail running on-street: lower than for buses because there is rarely space to berth two trams. Light rail capacity depends on high-capacity vehicles, perhaps carrying around 300–400 people in Wellington. A few buses sharing a light rail route will disrupt route capacity, but excluding all buses from the central city may not be possible: Light rail needs a second route for the remaining buses.

In the southern CBD we propose either a Cuba St route or the straight and therefore quick route via Taranaki St (options 2a and 2b), moving on to Wallace St to allow access to Wellington High School and Massey University; then on to Newtown via John and Riddiford Streets via Wellington hospital. A route running east of the Basin Reserve would be better aligned with the features identified by French planners, with more opportunities at the Hospital and through Newtown.

South of Constable Street we propose a route to Kilbirnie by either Wellington Zoo or Constable Street and Crawford Road (options 3a & 3b). In either case the proposed interchange is on commercial land at Coutts Street, opposite Bay Road. In this case the options have important cost effects, because of tunnels: option 3a will cost an additional $320 million. This area is discussed further in Indicative costs.

Buses

Buses would fill several essential roles:

• Full service on short routes incompatible with transfers, such as Brooklyn and Kingston; Mt Victoria; Aro Street or Kelburn; or busy corridors requiring two transfers.
• A “virtual” regular service from the Railway Station to Courtenay Place, for passengers wanting closely-spaced stops. This would be several routes timed to collectively provide a consistent service: say every five minutes.
• Possibly a full service on longer routes such as Karori. In this case the route should probably pass through the Railway Station interchange, if not terminate there.

These needs will have to be “rationed”, to manage both a peak-hour maximum of 60 buses an hour on all routes—for congestion-free running—and the cost of running buses and light rail in competition. Most or all other bus services would terminate at one of the interchanges.

Costs

• A waterfront route would push down costs because it avoids the worst areas for costly underground services diversions.

The cost of a single-track light rail tunnel is given in the Spine Study as $316 million for 2 x 784m tunnels, 6.5 m OD, or $200,000/metre.¹ This figure is used for the Mt Albert tunnel (option 3a) and runway tunnel (option 3b). However, option 3b is likely to need a double-track tunnel beneath the airport runway.

At this stage tunneling costs are based on four assumptions:

• Ground conditions are such that the tunneling cost estimated for Mt Victoria is applicable.
• Reaching capacity in the Mt Albert tunnel is sufficiently far into the future to justify a single-track tunnel.
• A single-track tunnel under the airport runway will be sufficient for option 3b. Option 3a is likely to need double-track, because of the timetable effects of two nearby single-track tunnels. This can be confirmed by modelling at the design stage.
• Instead of two runway tunnels, a single larger tunnel with a central fire-wall will be sufficient, at an assumed saving of 25% overall.

¹ Option Cost analysis, page 8 (↑)

Light rail costs have fallen in recent years, and last year the International Railway Journal quoted €25–30m per kilometre for a typical line in France: NZ $42–51m/km. Now Besançon, France has opened a new line for €17.5m/km: $30m/km.

This proposal should be relatively inexpensive to build, given good project management and good control of nice-to-have costs:

• No costly structures needed, other than tunnels, costed separately. The heaviest other cost will be Wellington Railway Station.
• A waterfront route should push down costs because it avoids the worst areas for costly underground services diversions.
• Other cities have reduced costs up to 20% using joint procurement (Amiens and Caen for example) and Wellington may be well-placed to do the same by pairing with Auckland.

We suggest the following costs are reasonable, based on an all-up cost of $40 million per route kilometre, including depot and vehicles but excluding tunnels. We have assumed that all interchanges can be built within this all-up cost, bearing in mind the value of residential development around a main interchange. Note that there are some rounding errors.

(:typeset-page headingcolor=ForestGreen fontset=freebe colorlinks=on title="A New Public Transport Approach for Wellington" subtitle="Options and Indicative Costs" autonumber=1 toc=2col imagesize=small :)

We have identified feasible and affordable options for light rail and a supporting bus network. We are confident that we have identified workable options, combining buses and light rail, but have not identified a best or preferred option. We propose buses and light rail on fully separated routes, both on or close to the golden mile.

Summarising the benefits of light rail as suggested here:

• Speed throughout the route, with an indicative travel time to the Airport of 20–25 minutes.
• The best service provided where demand is greatest: the Te Aro mixed use development area; high residential density and education destinations in Mt Cook; existing and planned residential density around Adelaide Road; Wellington Regional Hospital; high-density mixed-use in Newtown; high residential density and planned revitalization in Kilbirnie.
• Excellent timekeeping at all times of day, making consistent timetables and timed transfers practical.
• Very smooth ride. A common sight is standing passengers when there are plenty of seats.
• Quiet, with zero emissions from the vehicle and almost carbon-free running on electricity from renewable sources.

The identified route does not run by the Basin Reserve, although it is within the area defined in the N2A study. Recent events suggest difficulties in finding a reserved route, and long light rail trams tend to be difficult on large, multi-lane roundabouts. This corridor is more suited to buses, with no particular reason to run a high-capacity route that way.

Buses would fill several essential roles:

Kilbirnie and the Airport

The main advantage to a Constable Street route is cost, because it lowers the cost of tunnels. The main disadvantage is the loss of light rail traffic in the denser Newtown area.

For option 3a we propose a single track tunnel to Kilbirnie, justified because the heaviest light rail traffic will be in the city centre and a reduced service can be justified beyond Wellington Hospital. Capacity should be at least 12 trams an hour each way, or say 3500 passengers an hour. This can probably be increased after timetable modelling. A second tunnel will be needed if capacity is ever reached.

Either option will require a tunnel beneath the airport runway. A single-track tunnel will be satisfactory for option 3b, but option 3a may need a two-way layout. This can be checked using timetable modelling but must be assumed at this stage.

Constable Street is not particularly difficult for light rail (eastbound traffic can be diverted by Mein and Coromandel Streets, which is already a rat-run), but Crawford Road presents two challenges:

• Managing eastbound traffic reaching Constable Street, to control queue-lengths at traffic signals and minimize peak-hour tram delays.
• The lower end of Crawford Road, which is less than 11 metres wide. Childers Terrace would be tempting but a mistake: trams would run above the main interceptor sewer.

Costs

Light rail costs have fallen in recent years, and last year the International Railway Journal quoted €25–30M per kilometre for a typical line in France: NZ $42–51M/km. Now Besançon, France has opened a new line for €17.5M/km: $30M/km.

(:typeset-page headingcolor=ForestGreen fontset=freebe colorlinks=on title="A New Public Transport Approach for Wellington" subtitle="Options and Indicative Costs" autonumber=1 toc=2col :)

These needs will have to be “rationed”, to manage both a peak-hour maximum of 60 buses an hour on all routes—for congestion-free running—and the cost of running buses and light rail in competition.

At the city end, we propose either a dedicated right of way on the west (Terrace) side of Lambton Quay, crossing to Jervois Quay at either Willeston Street (if practical) or Panama Street, or a waterfront route along Customhouse Quay. See Inner City Map, options 1a and 1b. Principal considerations in deciding which option will be vehicle speed, walking distance and passenger numbers walking. Further investigation is needed to determine whether a dedicated light rail route on Lambton Quay south of Panama Street is feasible, as this would require removing buses from this part of Lambton Quay.

 Δ

In the southern CBD we propose either a Cube St route or the straight and therefore quick route via Taranaki St (options 2a and 2b), moving on to Wallace St to allow access to Wellington High School and Massey University; then on to Newtown via John and Riddiford Streets via Wellington hospital. A route running east of the Basin Reserve would be better aligned with the features identified by French planners, with more opportunities at the Hospital and through Newtown.

South of Constable Street we propose a route to Kilbirnie by either Wellington Zoo or Constable Street and Crawford Road (options 3a & 3b). In either case the proposed interchange is on commercial land at Coutts Street, opposite Bay Road. In this case the options have important cost effects, because of tunnels: option 3a will cost an additional $320 million. This area is discussed further in the next section.

Summarising the advantages of light rail as suggested here:

• Speed throughout the route, with a guesstimated travel time to the Airport of around 20–25 minutes.
• The best service provided where demand is greatest: the Te Aro mixed use development area; high residential density and education destinations in Mt Cook; existing and planned residential density around Adelaide Road; Wellington Regional Hospital; high-density mixed-use in Newtown; high residential density and planned revitalization in Kilbirnie.
• Excellent timekeeping at all times of day, making consistent timetables and timed transfers practical.
• Very smooth ride. A common sight is standing passengers when there are plenty of seats.
• Quiet, with zero emissions from the vehicle and almost carbon-free running on electricity from renewable sources.

Route options for light rail

We have identified two feasible and affordable options for light rail and a supporting bus network. We are confident that we have identified workable options, combining buses and light rail, but have not identified a best or preferred option. We propose buses and light rail on fully separated routes, both on or close to the golden mile.

We have identified a single light rail route from the Railway Station to Wellington Hospital, Kilbirnie and Wellington Airport, with options in three places: south of the Railway Station; the Michael Fowler Centre; and Wellington Hospital. Only the last option, 3a or 3b, will materially affect costs. See Light rail route and options.

The identified route does not run by the Basin Reserve, although it is within the area defined in the N2A study. Recent events suggest difficulties in finding a reserved route, and long light rail trams tend to be difficult on large, multi-lane roundabouts. This corridor is more suited to buses, with no particular reason to run a high-capacity route that way.

 Δ

Buses

Buses could fill several roles:

• Full service on short routes incompatible with transfers, such as Brooklyn and Kingston; Mt Victoria; Aro Street or Kelburn; or busy corridors requiring two transfers.
• A “virtual” regular service from the Railway Station to Courtenay Place, for passengers wanting closely-spaced stops. This would be several routes timed to collectively provide a consistent service: say every five minutes.
• Possibly a full service on longer routes such as Karori. In this case the route should probably pass through the Railway Station interchange, if not terminate there.

These needs will have to be ‘rationed’, to manage both a peak-hour maximum of 60 buses an hour on all routes—for congestion-free running—and the cost of running buses and light rail in competition. Most or all other bus services would terminate at one of the interchanges.

Light rail

(:include ArtOfLightRailInsertion :)

(:typeset-page headingcolor=ForestGreen fontset=freebe colorlinks=on title="A New Public Transport Approach for Wellington" subtitle="Options and Indicative Costs" autonumber=1 :)

We identify grave deficiencies in the business plan for BRT and the spine study on which it is based: the proposed route bypasses where people live, and involves expensive tunnelling through Mt Victoria, with destruction of town belt and housing eastwards. We provide alternative routes which bypass the choke point at the Basin Reserve.

As a result of our research, we present two workable routes, although we acknowledge that other routes are also possible. We suggest that the Golden Mile should be part of the planned route, taking fast high-capacity and clean transport through the busiest CBD precinct in the country.

Bus public transport system

BRT is an effective solution in many cities. The problems in Wellington are narrow and winding streets and the need for large cumbersome buses to gain capacity: these pose dangers for other road-users. High capacity also demands frequent buses, which are too easily slowed by delays at traffic signals or bus stops. BRT needs a high priority at traffic signals (or a flyover) and overtaking lanes at stops.

BRT for Wellington will not be rapid and will not satisfy internationally agreed features for a bus system to qualify as BRT.

We note that BRT stops in Brisbane are twice the width of Manners Mall, and we anticipate that light rail in Wellington will be cheaper than the street-widening and amenity costs of BRT.

The capacity of the Brisbane busway is given as nearly 300 bus/hr,¹ compared with only about 40 trams an hour for light rail running on-street: lower than for buses because there is rarely space to berth two trams. Light rail capacity depends on high-capacity vehicles, perhaps carrying around 300–400 people in Wellington. A few buses sharing a light rail route will disrupt route capacity, but excluding all buses from the central city may not be possible: Light rail needs a second route for the remaining buses.

Planned transfers at quality interchanges are necessary for light rail in Wellington as they are everywhere else in the world. Transfers will dramatically reduce bus-kilometres, mainly on the golden mile, allowing more and better services on remaining routes. Good interchange and timetable design minimizes transfer times,² making many trips faster overall.

Transfers are a successful and uncontroversial feature of most overseas public transport systems. The claimed unpopularity of transfers in Wellington is based on unsatisfactory questions posed in the spine study without balancing information. This approach unnecessarily biased respondents against transfers, i.e.

• Do you want to break your existing journey by making a transfer?
• Do you want faster, cheaper and much more reliable trips, anywhere-to-anywhere?

Of course nobody wants transfers if they can avoid them. But no information was given on how transfers can be made least inconvenient when combined with a superior and faster mode like light rail. Respondents will have in their minds the painfully slow and erratic transfers that they experience with current bus transport in Wellington.

And, of course, everybody wants faster, cheaper and much more reliable trips anywhere-to-anywhere. This was a fatuous question.

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busways_in_Brisbane (↑)

² 2009 Opus survey and 2011 Bus Review (↑)

We present options for buses and light rail in Wellington. Light rail runs from the Railway Station to Wellington Airport, taking over the busiest corridor, and the remaining buses in the central city are reduced to manageable numbers.

(:typeset-page headingcolor=ForestGreen fontset=freebe colorlinks=on title="A New Public Transport Approach for Wellington" subtitle="Options and Indicative Costs" :)

Introduction

This is an option for buses and light rail in Wellington. Light rail runs from the Railway Station to Wellington Airport, taking over the busiest corridor, and the remaining buses in the central city are reduced to manageable numbers.

We identify grave deficiencies in the business plan for BRT and the spine study on which it is based: the proposed route bypasses where people live, and involves expensive tunnelling through Mt Victoria, with destruction of town belt and housing eastwards. We provide alternative routes which bypass the choke point at the Basin Reserve.

We believe light rail is superior to large buses for most transport along the spine given Wellington’s geography. Our calculations project comparable set-up costs and less expense to run.

We seek a step-change in Wellington’s public transport, matching the vision of the N2A Terms of Reference. Our intention is to promote discussion about the superior merits of light rail.

As a result of our research, we present two workable routes, although we acknowledge that other routes are also possible. We suggest that the Golden Mile should be part of the planned route, taking fast high-capacity and clean transport through the busiest CBD precinct in the country.

Inner City Map illustrates…