Changed lines 61-62 from:
The way to determine the route is to choose a shortlist of feasible routes from a longlist of possible routes, then choose as the preferred route the one with the best benefit to cost ratio. Until this analysis has been done, we need to keep an open mind.
to:
The way to determine the route is to choose a short-list of feasible routes from a long-list of possible routes, then choose as the preferred route the one with the best benefit to cost ratio. Until this analysis has been done, we need to keep an open mind.
Changed lines 69-70 from:
If we look around the developed world at places of similar size to the Greater Wellington region, we are a statistical outlier. In other countries, parties of the right and left fund light rail, although for different reasons. Here, supporting light rail gets you labelled a radical. In France, which has light rail in 31 cities, 15 systems are in cities of under 250,000 people.
to:
If we look around the developed world at places of similar size to the Greater Wellington region, we are a statistical outlier. In France, which has light rail in 31 cities, 15 systems are in cities of under 250,000 people. In many countries, parties of the right and left fund light rail, although for different reasons. Here, supporting light rail gets you labelled a radical.
Changed line 73 from:
Adopting the approach I have outlined would put Wellington's public transport on track. What do we need to do to get light rail back on the planning agenda? Thank you.
to:
Adopting the approach I have outlined would put Wellington's public transport on track and help make Wellington a people-first city. What will it take to get light rail back on the planning agenda? Thank you.
Changed lines 39-40 from:
How much does it cost to build a light rail system? It depends. What we know is that the systems which cost the least to build all explicitly adopted a "no-frills" construction approach. These cities did a number of things:
to:
How much does it cost to build a light rail system? It depends. What we know is that the systems which cost the least to build all explicitly adopted a "no-frills" construction approach:
Changed lines 53-54 from:
* they treated road space as a scarce, high-value resource
to:
* and they treated road space as a scarce, high-value resource
Changed line 71 from:
I invite you to reflect on the political structures and processes around Greater Wellington's public transport decisions. Are they helping us to learn from the best, or leading us to repeat the mistakes of the worst?
to:
I invite you to reflect on the political structures and processes around Greater Wellington's public transport decisions. Do they help us to learn from the best, or lead us to repeat the mistakes of the worst?
Changed lines 5-6 from:
We have built a city with a fantastic quality of life -- if you happen to be a car. What sort of Wellington future do we want? One built for people, or one built for cars? More parks, or more car parks? One where people can choose the transport modes that meet their needs, or one where car drivers are the only first class citizens?
to:
We have built a city with a fantastic quality of life -- if you happen to be a car. What sort of Wellington future do we want? One built for people, or one built for cars? More parks, or more car parks? One where people can choose transport that meets their needs, or one where car drivers are the only first class citizens?
Changed lines 13-14 from:
It goes where lots of people are; it's there when people need it; and trips are fast, predictable, and reliable.
to:
Light rail goes where lots of people are; it's there when people need it; and trips are fast, predictable, and reliable.
Changed lines 39-40 from:
How much does it cost to build a light rail system? It depends. Unlike many cities, Wellington has no rail tracks south of the railway station, so we have to start from scratch. What we know is that the systems which cost the least to build all explicitly adopted a "no-frills" construction approach. These cities did a number of things:
to:
How much does it cost to build a light rail system? It depends. What we know is that the systems which cost the least to build all explicitly adopted a "no-frills" construction approach. These cities did a number of things:
Changed lines 55-56 from:
If Wellington decided to invest in light rail, what would the first investment look like? FIT proposes a line from the Railway Station to the Airport, via Wellington Hospital. This route should take less than 10 years to plan, design and build. Depending on the route chosen, the first line could be completed for less than $450 million, but might cost as much as $650 million.
to:
If Wellington decided to invest in light rail, what would the first investment look like? FIT proposes starting with a line from the Railway Station to the Airport, via Wellington Hospital. This route should take less than 10 years to plan, design and build. Depending on the route chosen, the first line could be completed for less than $450 million, but might cost as much as $650 million.
Changed lines 61-63 from:
This route analysis ought to be done before our elected representatives make a final decision about the Basin Reserve roading layout. The High Court's flyover decision gives us a once in a generation opportunity for a re-think. Let's take the time to get it right. A future light rail line may go via the Basin, but it doesn't have to.
Any decisions about a railway station to airport route also need to keep options open for future light rail extensions north of the railway station. And because it will take years to deliver light rail, we need to keep improving the bus system in the mean time.
to:
This route analysis ought to be done before our elected representatives make a final decision about the Basin Reserve layout. The High Court's flyover decision gives us a once in a generation opportunity for a re-think. Let's take the time to get it right. A future light rail line may go via the Basin, but it doesn't have to.
Any decisions about a railway station to airport route also need to keep options open for future light rail extensions, such as to Karori or Johnsonville. And because it will take years to deliver light rail, we need to keep improving the bus system in the mean time.
Changed lines 21-22 from:
# Have widely-spaced stops. Stops are far enough apart to improve travel times, but serve critical transfer points where feeder buses or trains connect.
to:
# Have widely-spaced stops. Stops are far enough apart to improve travel times, but also serve critical transfer points where feeder buses or trains connect.
Changed lines 25-26 from:
# Form the heart of an integrated network. Reconfigure bus lines to serve major light rail stops, and create fare structures that encourage easy transfers to and from buses and trains.
to:
# Form the heart of an integrated network. Reconfigured bus lines serve major light rail stops, and fare structures encourage easy transfers to and from buses and trains.
Changed line 71 from:
I suggest that adopting the approach I have outlined would put Wellington on track. Thank you.
to:
Adopting the approach I have outlined would put Wellington's public transport on track. Thank you.
Changed lines 31-32 from:
# Rethink streets as a whole to make safe, aesthetic spaces that facilitate public transport, walking and cycling.
to:
# Rethink streets from building front to building front to make safe, aesthetic spaces that facilitate public transport, walking and cycling flows.
Changed line 35 from:
The macro (along the route) and micro (across the street) features are designed to make the service as attractive as practical to as many people as possible. When a city builds a system like this, people use it. For example in Calgary, Canada, a leader of this approach, over half the people who commute to work in the CBD now use light rail to do so.
to:
The macro (along the route) and micro (across the street) features are designed to make the service as attractive as practical to as many people as possible. When a city builds a system like this, people use it. For example in Calgary, Canada, a leader of this approach, over half the people who commute to work in the CBD use light rail to do so.
Changed lines 35-36 from:
The macro (along the route) and micro (across the street) features are designed to make the service as attractive as possible to as many people as possible. When a city builds a system like this, people use it. For example in Calgary, Canada, a leader of this approach, over half the people who commute to work in the CBD now use light rail to do so.
to:
The macro (along the route) and micro (across the street) features are designed to make the service as attractive as practical to as many people as possible. When a city builds a system like this, people use it. For example in Calgary, Canada, a leader of this approach, over half the people who commute to work in the CBD now use light rail to do so.
Changed line 61 from:
FIT considers that this route analysis ought to be done before our elected representatives make a final decision about the Basin Reserve roading layout. The High Court's flyover decision gives us a once in a generation opportunity for a re-think. Let's take the time to get it right. A future light rail line may go via the Basin, but it doesn't have to.
to:
This route analysis ought to be done before our elected representatives make a final decision about the Basin Reserve roading layout. The High Court's flyover decision gives us a once in a generation opportunity for a re-think. Let's take the time to get it right. A future light rail line may go via the Basin, but it doesn't have to.
Changed lines 19-20 from:
# Use high-capability vehicles. That means large capacities, all-door entry, train-style fare payment before boarding, doors at platform level for easy access, and priority at traffic lights.
to:
# Use high-capability vehicles. That means large capacities, all-door entry, train-style fare payment before boarding, doors at platform level for easy access, and priority over other traffic.
Changed lines 55-56 from:
If Wellington decided to invest in light rail, what would the first investment look like? FIT proposes a line from the Railway Station to the Airport, via Wellington Hospital. It should take less than 10 years to plan, design and build. Depending on the route chosen, the first line could be completed for less than $450 million, but might cost as much as $650 million.
to:
If Wellington decided to invest in light rail, what would the first investment look like? FIT proposes a line from the Railway Station to the Airport, via Wellington Hospital. This route should take less than 10 years to plan, design and build. Depending on the route chosen, the first line could be completed for less than $450 million, but might cost as much as $650 million.
Changed line 71 from:
I suggest that adopting the approach I have outlined would put Wellington on the right track. Thank you.
to:
I suggest that adopting the approach I have outlined would put Wellington on track. Thank you.
Added lines 5-6:
We have built a city with a fantastic quality of life -- if you happen to be a car. What sort of Wellington future do we want? One built for people, or one built for cars? More parks, or more car parks? One where people can choose the transport modes that meet their needs, or one where car drivers are the only first class citizens?
Changed lines 19-20 from:
# Use high-performance vehicles. That means large capacities, all-door entry, train-style fare payment before boarding, doors at platform level for easy access, and priority at traffic lights.
to:
# Use high-capability vehicles. That means large capacities, all-door entry, train-style fare payment before boarding, doors at platform level for easy access, and priority at traffic lights.
Changed lines 25-26 from:
# Form the heart of an integrated network. Bus lines are reconfigured to serve major light rail stops, and fare structures encourage easy transfers to and from buses and trains.
to:
# Form the heart of an integrated network. Reconfigure bus lines to serve major light rail stops, and create fare structures that encourage easy transfers to and from buses and trains.
Changed lines 29-38 from:
# Use near-100% public rights-of-way, while keeping other vehicles off the light rail tracks and giving light rail priority when road and track intersect.
# Rebuild streets from building façade to building façade to facilitate public transport performance, pedestrian and bicycle flow, safety, and aesthetics.
# Foster an open, transparent process where all stakeholder groups work together to design high performance public transport that is compatible with the ways they live.
The macro (along the route) and micro (across the street) features are designed to make the service as attractive as possible to as many people as possible. When a city builds a system like this, lots of people use it. For example in Calgary, Canada, over half the people who commute to work in the CBD use light rail to do so.
High ridership also means the proportion of the operating cost recovered from the farebox is higher than for buses. In Europe, fares typically cover over 80% of light rail's operating cost.
to:
# Use spaces (like roads) that the public already has a right to use, create dedicated lanes for light rail tracks and give light rail priority at intersections.
# Rethink streets as a whole to make safe, aesthetic spaces that facilitate public transport, walking and cycling.
# Foster an open, transparent process where all stakeholder groups work together to design high performance public transport that is compatible with the ways they want to live.
The macro (along the route) and micro (across the street) features are designed to make the service as attractive as possible to as many people as possible. When a city builds a system like this, people use it. For example in Calgary, Canada, a leader of this approach, over half the people who commute to work in the CBD now use light rail to do so.
High ridership also means high fare income -- much higher than for buses. In Europe, fares typically cover over 80% of light rail's operating cost.
Changed lines 41-42 from:
* they laid tracks at-grade where possible, avoiding costly tunnels and flyovers
to:
* they laid tracks in existing roads, avoiding costly tunnels and flyovers
Changed lines 47-48 from:
* they used existing public rights-of-way, avoiding purchase of private land
to:
* they used existing public roads and rights-of-way, avoiding purchase of private land
Changed lines 53-56 from:
These and other cost-avoiding strategies can reduce the construction cost to about $25-30 million per double track kilometre, excluding vehicles. Allowing for the risk associated with Wellington's geography and its narrow, winding streets, FIT considers that $35-40 million per double track kilometre, including vehicles, would be a conservative estimate.
If Wellington decided to invest in light rail, what would the first investment look like? FIT proposes a line from the Railway Station to the Airport, via Wellington Hospital. It should take less time to build than it took the Americans to put a man on the moon -- less than 10 years. Depending on the route chosen, the first line could be built for less than $450 million, but might cost as much as $650 million.
to:
These and other cost-avoiding strategies can reduce the construction cost of {:twin tracks:one up, one down} to about $25-30 million per kilometre, excluding vehicles. Allowing for the risk associated with Wellington's geography and its narrow, winding streets, FIT considers that $35-40 million per kilometre, including vehicles, would be a conservative estimate.
If Wellington decided to invest in light rail, what would the first investment look like? FIT proposes a line from the Railway Station to the Airport, via Wellington Hospital. It should take less than 10 years to plan, design and build. Depending on the route chosen, the first line could be completed for less than $450 million, but might cost as much as $650 million.
Changed lines 67-70 from:
If we look around the developed world at places of similar size to the Greater Wellington region, we are a statistical outlier. In other countries, parties of the right and left fund light rail, although for different reasons. Here, supporting light rail gets you labelled left of centre. In France, which has light rail in 31 cities, 15 systems are in cities of under 250,000 people.
We have built a city with a fantastic quality of life -- if you happen to be a car. What sort of Wellington future do we want? One built for people, or one built for cars? More parks, or more car parks? One where people can choose the transport modes that meet their needs, or one where car drivers are the only first class citizens?
to:
If we look around the developed world at places of similar size to the Greater Wellington region, we are a statistical outlier. In other countries, parties of the right and left fund light rail, although for different reasons. Here, supporting light rail gets you labelled a radical. In France, which has light rail in 31 cities, 15 systems are in cities of under 250,000 people.
Changed line 71 from:
to:
I suggest that adopting the approach I have outlined would put Wellington on the right track. Thank you.
Changed lines 1-4 from:
The question before us is, "{$Title}"
(:title Are we on track?:)
to:
The question before us is, "{$Title}?"
Changed lines 5-7 from:
(:typeset-page space=onehalf parasep=space fontset=kepler fontsize=12pt:)
What is light rail? Light rail is a form of public transport designed to provide fast, efficient, clean service to people living in urban areas. It uses electric vehicles, running on tracks in existing roads, separated from other road traffic. It’s designed to carry lots of people, with connections to buses and suburban trains at major interchanges. One multi-segment light rail vehicle can do the work of 5 or more buses.
to:
(:typeset-page space=onehalf parasep=space fontset=kepler fontsize=12pt subtitle="Speech Notes" title="{$Title}?":)
What is light rail? Light rail is a form of public transport designed to provide fast, efficient, clean service to people living in urban areas. It uses electric vehicles, running on tracks in existing roads, separated from other road traffic. It's designed to carry lots of people, with connections to buses and suburban trains at major interchanges. One multi-segment light rail vehicle can do the work of 5 or more buses.
Added lines 1-71:
The question before us is, "{$Title}"
(:title Are we on track?:)
I'm going to talk about how we could apply the best evidence from overseas cities to build an effective, affordable light rail system in Wellington.
(:typeset-page space=onehalf parasep=space fontset=kepler fontsize=12pt:)
What is light rail? Light rail is a form of public transport designed to provide fast, efficient, clean service to people living in urban areas. It uses electric vehicles, running on tracks in existing roads, separated from other road traffic. It’s designed to carry lots of people, with connections to buses and suburban trains at major interchanges. One multi-segment light rail vehicle can do the work of 5 or more buses.
It goes where lots of people are; it's there when people need it; and trips are fast, predictable, and reliable.
Successful light rail systems follow 5 macro, route-level design principles.
# Tie the city together. Light rail lines span the city via the city centre.
# Use high-performance vehicles. That means large capacities, all-door entry, train-style fare payment before boarding, doors at platform level for easy access, and priority at traffic lights.
# Have widely-spaced stops. Stops are far enough apart to improve travel times, but serve critical transfer points where feeder buses or trains connect.
# Reach major destinations. Light rail lines emphasise access to education campuses, office complexes, hospitals, shopping areas, major suburbs, and the CBD.
# Form the heart of an integrated network. Bus lines are reconfigured to serve major light rail stops, and fare structures encourage easy transfers to and from buses and trains.
Most people travelling by light rail start and end their journeys as pedestrians. So successful light rail systems also pay close attention to micro, street-level design. Light rail becomes one part of a complete, living street.
# Use near-100% public rights-of-way, while keeping other vehicles off the light rail tracks and giving light rail priority when road and track intersect.
# Rebuild streets from building façade to building façade to facilitate public transport performance, pedestrian and bicycle flow, safety, and aesthetics.
# Foster an open, transparent process where all stakeholder groups work together to design high performance public transport that is compatible with the ways they live.
The macro (along the route) and micro (across the street) features are designed to make the service as attractive as possible to as many people as possible. When a city builds a system like this, lots of people use it. For example in Calgary, Canada, over half the people who commute to work in the CBD use light rail to do so.
High ridership also means the proportion of the operating cost recovered from the farebox is higher than for buses. In Europe, fares typically cover over 80% of light rail's operating cost.
How much does it cost to build a light rail system? It depends. Unlike many cities, Wellington has no rail tracks south of the railway station, so we have to start from scratch. What we know is that the systems which cost the least to build all explicitly adopted a "no-frills" construction approach. These cities did a number of things:
* they laid tracks at-grade where possible, avoiding costly tunnels and flyovers
* they combined track-laying with other road works
* they built simple station platforms, about 700 to 800 metres apart on average
* they used existing public rights-of-way, avoiding purchase of private land
* they bought uncustomised, off-the-shelf vehicles
* they treated road space as a scarce, high-value resource
These and other cost-avoiding strategies can reduce the construction cost to about $25-30 million per double track kilometre, excluding vehicles. Allowing for the risk associated with Wellington's geography and its narrow, winding streets, FIT considers that $35-40 million per double track kilometre, including vehicles, would be a conservative estimate.
If Wellington decided to invest in light rail, what would the first investment look like? FIT proposes a line from the Railway Station to the Airport, via Wellington Hospital. It should take less time to build than it took the Americans to put a man on the moon -- less than 10 years. Depending on the route chosen, the first line could be built for less than $450 million, but might cost as much as $650 million.
FIT has identified several route options to illustrate the concept, but doesn't have a preferred option. There are other feasible options; FIT's proposals are not a complete list.
The way to determine the route is to choose a shortlist of feasible routes from a longlist of possible routes, then choose as the preferred route the one with the best benefit to cost ratio. Until this analysis has been done, we need to keep an open mind.
FIT considers that this route analysis ought to be done before our elected representatives make a final decision about the Basin Reserve roading layout. The High Court's flyover decision gives us a once in a generation opportunity for a re-think. Let's take the time to get it right. A future light rail line may go via the Basin, but it doesn't have to.
Any decisions about a railway station to airport route also need to keep options open for future light rail extensions north of the railway station. And because it will take years to deliver light rail, we need to keep improving the bus system in the mean time.
We also need to make sure Wellington's integrated ticketing system will support fare payment on the platform, rather than on-board.
If we look around the developed world at places of similar size to the Greater Wellington region, we are a statistical outlier. In other countries, parties of the right and left fund light rail, although for different reasons. Here, supporting light rail gets you labelled left of centre. In France, which has light rail in 31 cities, 15 systems are in cities of under 250,000 people.
We have built a city with a fantastic quality of life -- if you happen to be a car. What sort of Wellington future do we want? One built for people, or one built for cars? More parks, or more car parks? One where people can choose the transport modes that meet their needs, or one where car drivers are the only first class citizens?
I invite you to reflect on the political structures and processes around Greater Wellington's public transport decisions. Are they helping us to learn from the best, or leading us to repeat the mistakes of the worst?
Thank you.