Recent Changes
Recent Changes · Search:

FITWellington.​CanLightRailAttractEnoughDemand History

Show minor edits - Show changes to output

16 November 2017 at 10:27 AM by John Rankin - note conversion challenges on Golden Mile
Added lines 143-144:

* Much of the Golden Mile is 2 lanes wide. How do you convert it from bus to light rail? Has any city successfully carried out such a conversion?
Restore
07 November 2017 at 10:43 AM by John Rankin - spell out the south of the Basin Reserve problem
Changed lines 15-16 from:
An optimal light rail design will adopt patronage-seeking characteristics and avoid patronage-limiting characteristics.
to:
An optimal light rail design will adopt patronage-seeking characteristics and avoid patronage-limiting characteristics. Route design south of the Basin Reserve is critical to overall viability. A "string-of-pearls" design will perform far better than the "split route" recommended in the Spine Study.

Changed lines 40-42 from:
To maximize ridership and make light rail viable, Wellington must focus on all-day travel, 7 days a week, with peak service to supplement the base product.

to:
To maximize ridership and make light rail viable, Wellington must focus on all-day travel, 7 days a week, with peak service to supplement the base product. Light rail needs to link dense residential areas and busy destinations, with good connections to buses and suburban trains. It needs to go to places that are busy all day, like shopping areas, the regional hospital, and airport. It should avoid places where few people live, like the town belt.

Changed lines 47-48 from:
We have assumed that the existing Golden Mile route is the best place for a bus route, carrying up to about 50 bus/hr and providing a variety of services:
to:
We concluded that the existing Golden Mile route is the best place for a bus route, carrying up to about 50 bus/hr and providing a variety of services:
Changed lines 57-61 from:
At 40 bus/hr carrying 2200 pass/hr (assuming that free-flowing routes boost ridership to 55 passengers per bus), the estimated potential light rail ridership is 4200 pass/hr -- rounded to a conservative 4000 pass/hr, well over the 3000 pass/hr needed to make light rail viable.


!! Best practice: features of an optimal light rail route
to:
At 40 bus/hr carrying 2200 pass/hr (assuming that free-flowing routes boost ridership to 55 passengers per bus), the estimated potential light rail ridership is 4200 pass/hr -- rounded to a conservative 4000 pass/hr, well over the 3000 pass/hr needed to make light rail viable. End-to-end route design is critical to realising this potential.


!! Best practice: light rail route forms a string of pearls
Changed lines 77-78 from:
A route that satisfies these principles follows. At 9km, the route is long enough to offer significant travel time savings for a wide variety of trips, including those connecting with buses and heavy rail. It also includes multiple sources of all day demand.
to:
A route that satisfies these principles follows. At 9km, the route is long enough to offer significant travel time savings for a wide variety of trips, including those connecting with buses and heavy rail. It forms a continuous "string of pearls" and links multiple sources of all day demand.
Added lines 119-120:
South of the Basin Reserve, it joins up high density residential areas and sources of all-day demand in a single route. This requires two tunnels: a double track tunnel under the airport runway and a single track tunnel under Mt Albert between the Zoo and Kilbirnie.
Changed lines 134-135 from:
* The split at the Basin means either each arm runs at half the frequency of the main line, or half the passengers must transfer to a shuttle service on one arm. ''All'' trips from one arm to the other require a transfer.
to:
* The split at the Basin Reserve means either each arm runs at half the frequency of the main line, or half the passengers must transfer to a shuttle service on one arm. ''All'' trips from one arm to the other require a transfer.
Changed lines 145-146 from:
In light of these problems, it is not surprising that the Spine Study found light rail on this route was not viable. The Spine Study light rail route is unlikely to attract the patronage needed to make light rail viable. Nor does it offer opportunities for future patronage growth.
to:
A split route is ill-suited for capturing demand south of the Basin Reserve. Such a route is expensive to build and operate, while delivering an inferior service -- or no service -- for many potential passengers.

In light of these problems, it is not surprising that the Spine Study found light rail on this route was not viable. The Spine Study light rail route is unlikely to attract the patronage needed to make light rail viable. It offers few opportunities for future patronage growth, so may not be viable for many years, if ever.
Changed line 176 from:
At worst, and likely with a suboptimal route, light rail patronage would grow at or below the rate of population growth. Potentially, and likely with an optimal route, light rail patronage would grow rapidly.
to:
At worst, and likely with a suboptimal split route, light rail patronage would grow at or below the rate of population growth. Potentially, and likely with an optimal string-of-pearls route, light rail patronage would grow rapidly.
Restore
05 November 2017 at 07:34 PM by John Rankin - clarify the Y-shaped route problem
Changed line 131 from:
* The split at the Basin means either each arm runs at half the frequency of the main line, or passengers must transfer to a shuttle service on one arm for one stop.
to:
* The split at the Basin means either each arm runs at half the frequency of the main line, or half the passengers must transfer to a shuttle service on one arm (eg to get to the hospital).
Restore
05 November 2017 at 07:22 PM by John Rankin - copyfitting
Changed lines 20-21 from:
!! Light rail needs 3000+ passengers per hour to be viable
to:
!! Viable light rail needs 3000 passengers per hour
Changed lines 39-42 from:
To maximize ridership, Wellington must focus on all-day travel, 7 days a week, with peak service to supplement the base product.


!! Potential first year patronage is 4000+ passengers per hour
to:
To maximize ridership and make light rail viable, Wellington must focus on all-day travel, 7 days a week, with peak service to supplement the base product.


!! Potential first year patronage: 4000 passengers per hour
Restore
05 November 2017 at 07:14 PM by John Rankin - incorporate Kerry's comments
Changed lines 37-38 from:
A 63 metre light rail vehicle can carry 420 people as comfortably as a three-axle bus can carry 70, and at double the speed. This makes driver productivity about a 12-fold improvement.
to:
A standard-width 63 metre light rail vehicle can carry 470 people as comfortably as a three-axle bus can carry 75, at twice the speed. This makes driver productivity about a 12-fold improvement.
Changed lines 44-45 from:
Light rail is going ahead in Auckland, where the busiest bus corridor carries 86 buses per hour. In contrast, the Golden Mile in Wellington peaks at over 130 buses per hour carrying an estimated 6500 passengers per hour (assuming 50 passengers per bus). Wellington has a bigger problem than Auckland, on a smaller scale.
to:
Light rail is going ahead in Auckland, where the busiest bus corridor carries 86 buses per hour. In contrast, the Golden Mile in Wellington peaks at over 120 buses per hour carrying an estimated 6400 passengers per hour (almost 55 passengers per bus). Wellington has a bigger problem than Auckland, on a smaller scale.
Changed lines 56-58 from:
At 40 bus/hr carrying 2200 pass/hr (assuming that free-flowing routes boost ridership to 55 passengers per bus), the potential light rail ridership is 4300 pass/hr -- well over the 3000 pass/hr needed to make light rail viable.

to:
At 40 bus/hr carrying 2200 pass/hr (assuming that free-flowing routes boost ridership to 55 passengers per bus), the estimated potential light rail ridership is 4200 pass/hr -- well over the 3000 pass/hr needed to make light rail viable.

Changed lines 78-79 from:
A route that satisfies these principles follows. At 9km, the route is long enough to offer significant travel time savings for a wide variety of trips, including those connecting with buses and heavy rail. It also incudes multiple sources of all day demand.
to:
A route that satisfies these principles follows. At 9km, the route is long enough to offer significant travel time savings for a wide variety of trips, including those connecting with buses and heavy rail. It also includes multiple sources of all day demand.
Changed lines 120-123 from:
In the CBD, the route would run via Stout Street, Lambton Quay with a station at Midland Park, crossing to Jervois Quay with a station at Frank Kitts Park, and Taranaki Street with a station at Te Aro Park.

Service frequency would be 5-6 minutes during peak periods (capacity about 4500 pass/hr) and 10-12 minutes off-peak. Maximum capacity (at 2`12 minute frequency) would be about 10,000 pass/hr.
to:
In the CBD, the route would run via Stout Street, Lambton Quay with a station at Midland Park, crossing to Jervois Quay with a station at Frank Kitts Park, and Taranaki Street with a station at Te Aro Park. A waterfront route would be faster, but attract less patronage.

Service frequency would be 5-6 minutes during peak periods (capacity about 4500 pass/hr) and 10-12 minutes off-peak. Maximum capacity (at 2`12 minute frequency) would be about 10,000 pass/hr. At 40 vehicles per hour (20 in each direction), grade separation would be required at any intersections with peak-hour volume exceeding 900 vehicles per lane.
Changed lines 133-134 from:
* The split at the Basin means either each arm runs at half the frequency of the main branch, or passengers on one arm must transfer to a shuttle service for one stop.
to:
* The split at the Basin means either each arm runs at half the frequency of the main line, or passengers must transfer to a shuttle service on one arm for one stop.
Changed line 157 from:
Overseas cities with high public transport ridership teach us that people value the following characteristics above all others:
to:
Overseas cities with well-integrated bus and light rail services routinely report twice the ridership per capita that Wellington currently experiences. Evidence from such cities shows that people value the following characteristics above all others:
Changed lines 173-174 from:
At worst, and likely with a suboptimal route, light rail patronage would grow at or below the rate of population growth. Potentially, and likely with an optimal route, light rail patronage would grow rapidly. Cities with well-integrated bus and light rail services routinely report twice the ridership per capita that Wellington currently experiences.
to:
At worst, and likely with a suboptimal route, light rail patronage would grow at or below the rate of population growth. Potentially, and likely with an optimal route, light rail patronage would grow rapidly.
Restore
05 November 2017 at 04:11 PM by John Rankin - first draft
Added lines 1-174:
!! Summary

The business case for light rail in Wellington stands or falls on the answer to the following question:

->Would light rail have sufficient demand to be viable?

The available evidence shows that:

* light rail ''will'' be viable if the selected route follows best practice; but

* light rail ''may not'' be viable if the selected route is suboptimal; and

* light rail ''may'' be a victim of success, with ridership doubling within 5 years.

An optimal light rail design must adopt patronage-seeking characteristics and avoid patronage-limiting characteristics.

(:typeset-page parasep=space headingcolor=RoyalBlue fontset=kepler colophon=off subtitle="Prepared for Councillor Roger Blakeley" :)


!! Light rail needs 3000+ passengers per hour to be viable

Mass transit has high capital costs and cannot be justified on lightly used routes, but operating costs are low on busy routes. The most important single operating cost--bus or light rail--is employing the driver, so big savings are available when demand is high.

Fig(costPlaces) shows that light rail costs break even with buses (places/hour: standing and seated passenger-spaces available) at about 2200 pass/hr, and at 4000 pass/hr are around three quarters of bus costs ('/Emerging Technologies for Rapid Transit/', [[Part I -> https://at.govt.nz/media/1971157/jmac_report2016-01_emergingtechrapidtransit-part1_apr16.pdf]] page 12).

%width=100pct id=costPlaces%Attach:cost-places.png"Comparison between bus and light rail cost of ownership"


Figures from Montpellier (population 384,000) in 2008 give costs per passenger boarding ([[How to Deliver Public Transport on Reduced Budget -> http://www.lightrail-scotland.com/media/files/masterclass1-marcletourneur(1).pdf]]). At that date, light rail was carrying some 282,000 passengers per day.

||border=1 align=center width=60%
||      ||!  Capital||! Operating||!    Total||
||LRT  || €0.93|| €0.53|| €1.46||
||Bus  || €0.49|| €1.61|| €2.12||


A 63 metre light rail vehicle can carry 420 people as comfortably as a three-axle bus can carry 70, and at double the speed. This makes driver productivity about a 12-fold improvement.

To maximize ridership, Wellington must focus on all-day travel, 7 days a week, with peak service to supplement the base product.


!! Potential first year patronage is 4000+ passengers per hour

Light rail is going ahead in Auckland, where the busiest bus corridor carries 86 buses per hour. In contrast, the Golden Mile in Wellington peaks at over 130 buses per hour carrying an estimated 6500 passengers per hour (50 passengers per bus). Wellington has a bigger problem than Auckland, on a smaller scale.

We have assumed that the existing Golden Mile route is the best place for a bus route, carrying up to about 50 bus/hr and providing a variety of services:

* Limited through services on busy routes, giving less-able passengers an alternative to transferring; for example, an eastern suburbs route generally terminating at the Hospital might run a bus through the city every 30 or 60 minutes

* Local buses on routes such as Brooklyn and Hataitai, where passengers cannot reasonably be expected to transfer

* Both route types combined to ensure a frequent service to the nearest light rail hub, whether northbound or southbound.

Bus numbers on the inner city route would be permanently cut back to about 30–50 bus/hr. Passengers using light rail would have the option of changing to a bus, or walking to their final destination from the nearest light rail stop. The existing route would flow freely, making it well-suited to passengers not wishing to walk far.

At 40 bus/hr carrying 2200 pass/hr (assuming that free-flowing routes boost ridership to 55 passengers per bus), the potential light rail ridership is 4300 pass/hr -- well over the 3000 pass/hr needed to make light rail viable.


!! Best practice: characteristics of an optimal light rail route

Can Wellington design a light rail route that delivers all-day patronage and achieves the 4000+ pass/hr potential?

From studies of overseas light rail systems, we know that successful urban light rail systems maximize demand by following 6 principles.

# ''Tie the city together.'' Light rail lines span the city from urban fringe to urban fringe, via the city centre.

# ''Use high-capability vehicles.'' This means large capacities, all-door entry, train-style fare payment before boarding, doors at platform level for easy access, and priority over other traffic.

# ''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.

# ''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.'' Reconfigured bus lines serve major light rail stops, and fare structures encourage easy transfers to and from buses and trains.

# ''Design complete streets.'' Safe, aesthetic spaces facilitate public transport, walking and cycling links, and attract development along the light rail corridor.


A route that satisfies these principles follows. At 9km, the route is long enough to offer significant travel time savings for a wide variety of trips, including those connecting with buses and heavy rail. It also incudes multiple sources of all day demand.

>>center<<
Miramar

&varr;

Airport

&varr;

Kilbirnie

&varr;

Zoo

&varr;

Newtown

&varr;

Hospital

&varr;

Massey University

&varr;

Te Aro Park

&varr;

CBD

&varr;

Railway Station
>><<

In the CBD, the route would run via Stout Street, Lambton Quay with a station at Midland Park, crossing to Jervois Quay with a station at Frank Kitts Park, and Taranaki Street with a station at Te Aro Park.

Service frequency would be 5-6 minutes during peak periods (capacity about 4500 pass/hr) and 10-12 minutes off-peak. Maximum capacity (at 2`12 minute frequency) would be about 10,000 pass/hr.

The first light rail route in a new city is rarely the last. Several extensions are possible in Wellington, including Karori; Island Bay; Kaiwharawhara (possible new ferry terminal); Johnsonville (costly because the existing line would need double-tracking) and perhaps an extension to Lincolnshire Farms. Light rail to Lower Hutt may be a cheaper option than capacity increases to heavy rail services.


!! Downside risk: suboptimal route does not attract patronage

The main principle is that a required change to light rail is undesirable for a short trip, because over a short distance the speed of light rail is not enough to offset transfer delays. This is called the "one-stop-short" problem.

The Spine Study chose a split route for light rail. The main route took the standard present-day bus route to the Basin Reserve, then a new twin tunnel to Hataitai and Kilbirnie. A branch left the main route at the Basin Reserve and ran to Wellington Hospital and a terminus in Riddiford St. This route suppresses demand in various ways:

* The split at the Basin means either each arm runs at half the frequency of the main branch, or passengers on one arm must transfer to a shuttle service for one stop.

* A light rail route on the Golden Mile means either bus passengers must transfer to light rail for one or two stops, or slower buses will delay faster light rail vehicles.

* The Mt Victoria route is a patronage desert; it has a narrow corridor of low density in Hataitai, no density in the Town Belt and is too far from Newtown.

* The route avoids existing high-density areas and areas planned for intensive development.

* The Spine Study treats transfers as a problem and does not promote pedestrian connectivity through safe and efficient transfers and connections between transport modes.


In light of these problems, it is not surprising that the Spine Study found light rail on this route was not viable. The Spine Study light rail route is unlikely ever to attract the patronage needed to make light rail viable.

An unavoidable negative effect on patronage will be completion of Transmission Gully. Highway completion will reduce heavy rail patronage, although the effect on light rail may be only minor. Most rail passengers walk from the Railway Station to their final destinations. The remaining 14% or so (data from Douglas Economics) take the bus, but about half of these (personal observation) are students going to Victoria's Kelburn campus.


!! Upside risk: optimal route exceeds planned capacity

Much-improved public transport in Auckland--electrified rail and the North Shore Busway--has generated rapid patronage growth. Both services are seeing 20% annual growth, and running into capacity limits. Auckland rail in particular is struggling with above-forecast overcrowding.

This indicates suppressed demand, and often happens when public transport improves. A common and widely-reported problem on new light rail systems is too few vehicles, sometimes needing costly vehicle-leasing. For example, Monpellier in France, Bergen in Norway, and Dublin in Ireland all under-estimated their initial ridership ([[Auckland findings -> https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/light-rail/#background]]).

A 20% annual growth is a doubling in under four years, so if light rail in Wellington opened in 2027, it might initially carry 4000 pass/hr, but could reach 8000 pass/hr in 2031. If this were to happen, an initial five minute service would be insufficient, having a capacity of only 5000 pass/hr.

Overseas cities with high public transport ridership teach us that people value the following characteristics above all others:
* on-time, reliable service
* good connections between services
* high frequency
* travel time savings (a consequence of the first 3 factors)

An optimal light rail route in Wellington can deliver a step change in system reliability:

* Light rail will be faster and more reliable because of a reserved route and traffic signal priority

* Feeder buses will be faster and more reliable because central-city traffic is avoided

* Central-city buses will be faster and more reliable because the central city route operates within its reliable capacity

Light rail reliability can be designed in. Bus reliability can be progressively improved, using real-time data to identify the most important delay-points.

At worst, and likely with a suboptimal route, light rail patronage would grow at or below the rate of population growth. Potentially, and likely with an optimal route, light rail patronage would grow rapidly. Cities with well-integrated bus and light rail services routinely report twice the ridership per capita that Wellington currently experiences.
Restore
Edit · History · Print · Recent Changes · Search
Page last modified 17 December 2017 at 06:58 PM