Recent Changes
Recent Changes · Search:

FITWellington.​CityOfWellConnectedCommunities History

Hide minor edits - Show changes to output

10 March 2017 at 01:46 PM by John Rankin - copyfit
Changed line 8 from:
The root cause of Wellington city's congestion problem is the inefficient use of a constrained resource (i.e. road space): one lane of cars can move about 1200 people per hour. A dedicated bus lane can move up to 8000 people per hour, dropping to 3000 people per hour in mixed traffic. The inevitable result of our current reliance on cars is peak hour congestion, leading to increased and unpredictable travel times. Yet many people have little choice but to travel by car, as they live too far away to walk and are poorly-served by public transport. We have become a city of captive drivers.
to:
The root cause of Wellington city's congestion problem is the inefficient use of a constrained resource--road space. One lane of cars can move about 1200 people per hour. A dedicated bus lane can move up to 8000 people per hour, dropping to 3000 people per hour in mixed traffic. Our current reliance on cars inevitably results in peak hour congestion, leading to increased and unpredictable travel times. Yet many people have little choice but to travel by car, as they live too far away to walk and are poorly-served by public transport. We have become a city of captive drivers.
10 March 2017 at 01:43 PM by John Rankin - copyfit
Changed line 8 from:
The underlying cause of Wellington city's congestion problem is the inefficient use of a constrained resource (i.e. road space): one lane of cars can move about 1200 people per hour. A dedicated bus lane can move up to 8000 people per hour, dropping to 3000 people per hour in mixed traffic. The inevitable result of our current reliance on cars is peak hour congestion, leading to increased and unpredictable travel times. Yet many people have little choice but to travel by car, as they live too far away to walk and are poorly-served by public transport. We have become a city of captive drivers.
to:
The root cause of Wellington city's congestion problem is the inefficient use of a constrained resource (i.e. road space): one lane of cars can move about 1200 people per hour. A dedicated bus lane can move up to 8000 people per hour, dropping to 3000 people per hour in mixed traffic. The inevitable result of our current reliance on cars is peak hour congestion, leading to increased and unpredictable travel times. Yet many people have little choice but to travel by car, as they live too far away to walk and are poorly-served by public transport. We have become a city of captive drivers.
10 March 2017 at 01:40 PM by John Rankin - revise subtitle
Changed line 12 from:
(:typeset-page fontset=kepler parasep=number colophon=off subtitle="Shaping the future urban form" watermark=draft :)
to:
(:typeset-page fontset=kepler parasep=number colophon=off subtitle="Four Transport Futures: shaping the urban form" watermark=draft :)
10 March 2017 at 01:39 PM by John Rankin - align words with op-ed
Changed lines 1-2 from:
Two forces will shape Wellington's transport future: whether we use our scarce resources efficiently or inefficiently; and whether people have high choice or low choice in how they meet their mobility needs. The status quo, inefficient resource use and low choice, is not sustainable. {FIT|Fair, Intelligent Transport} Wellington envisages a future of efficient resource use and high choice, in which Wellington becomes a city of well connected communities. Tab(possibleFutures) illustrates four possible futures.
to:
Two forces will shape Wellington's transport future: whether we use our scarce resources efficiently or inefficiently; and whether people have high choice or low choice in how they meet their mobility needs. The status quo, inefficient resource use and low choice, is not sustainable. Under the current paradigm, more people means more cars. {FIT|Fair, Intelligent Transport} Wellington envisages a future of efficient resource use and high choice, in which Wellington becomes a city of well connected communities. Tab(possibleFutures) illustrates four possible futures.
Changed lines 14-17 from:
The heart of FIT's proposal is a high frequency, high speed, congestion-free public transport network anchored by light-rail, initially between Wellington Railway Station, Newtown, and the Airport. Future light rail stages could include a Miramar extension, a Karori to CBD line and a Queensgate, Petone, ferry terminal and railway station line. Connecting urban electric buses and suburban trains, along with shared electric bikes and self-driving cars, will give people a wide range of mobility choices. Two lanes of road space currently allocated to cars will be reallocated for light rail: one dedicated light rail lane can move about 12,000 people per hour, ten times as many as cars and about twice as many as buses.

The growing number of people living in Wellington's CBD are choosing to be close to where they work, study and play. In FIT's proposed future, transit-oriented development around light rail stops will open up this choice to more people. Moving to more space-efficient forms of transport means that the existing road network can absorb the 25% city population growth over the next 25 years, and reduce the number of cars in the central city. Making space for public transport is much easier than for cars.
to:
An efficient resource use, high choice future will have a high frequency, high speed, congestion-free public transport network anchored by light-rail, initially between Wellington Railway Station, Newtown, and the Airport. Future light rail stages could include a Miramar extension, a Karori to CBD line and a Queensgate, Petone, ferry terminal and railway station line.

Connecting urban electric buses and suburban trains, along with shared electric bikes and self-driving cars, will give people a wide range of mobility choices. Two lanes of road space currently allocated to cars will be reallocated for light rail: one dedicated light rail lane can move about 12,000 people per hour, ten times as many as cars and about twice as many as buses.

The growing number of people living in Wellington's CBD are choosing to be close to where they work, study and play. Transit-oriented housing development around light rail stops will open up this choice to more people. Moving to more space-efficient forms of transport means that the existing road network can absorb the 25% city population growth over the next 25 years, and reduce the number of cars in the central city. Making space for public transport and safe cycle lanes is much easier than for cars.
Changed lines 31-34 from:
There are two further variations for Wellington's transport future: an inefficient resource use, high choice future; and an efficient resource use, low choice future. The Public Transport Spine Study proposed essentially the inefficient resource use, high choice future. It assumed Wellington will continue to build more roads to accommodate more cars and recommended incremental improvements to make public transport more attractive, giving buses priority during peak hours.

This leaves the efficient resource use, low choice future
. Some people have predicted that a future of self-driving, shared electric cars will eliminate the need for public transport. A lane of self-driving cars could move about 3500 people per hour (more with ride-sharing). In this future, nobody owns a car; we rent mobility as a service. When a person needs transport, she will use an app on her phone to call a car. Inter-vehicle communication will let cars travel in convoy, doubling or tripling the capacity of existing roads.
to:
There are two further variations for Wellington's transport future: an inefficient resource use, high choice future; and an efficient resource use, low choice future. The {PTSS|Public Transport Spine Study} proposed essentially the inefficient resource use, high choice future. It assumed Wellington will continue to build more roads to accommodate more cars and recommended incremental improvements to make public transport more attractive, including higher capacity buses with priority over other traffic, among other measures.

This leaves the efficient resource use, low choice
future. Some people predict that a future of self-driving, shared electric cars will eliminate the need for public transport. A lane of self-driving cars could move about 3500 people per hour (more with ride-sharing). In this future, nobody owns a car; we rent mobility as a service. When a person needs transport, she will use an app on her phone to call a car. Inter-vehicle communication will let cars travel in convoy, doubling or tripling the capacity of existing roads. This will not reduce congestion.
Changed lines 39-41 from:
Scenarios are not predictions; they are a way to explore possibilities and understand which interventions will be robust under a range of plausible futures. They help us identify and avoid futures we don't want. {LGWM|Let’s Get Wellington Moving} is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Wellingtonians to korero about the kind of city we want. According to LGWM surveys, people in Wellington want better public transport, fewer roads and cars, a more pedestrian-friendly city, and protection of the natural environment.

Wellingtonians have asked for a city designed around the needs of people. Which scenario best meets these
requirements? To secure a future in which light rail remains an option, we need to identify and protect the optimum light rail route.
to:
Scenarios are not predictions; they are a way to explore possibilities and understand which interventions will be robust under a range of plausible futures. They help us identify and avoid futures we don't want. {LGWM|Let’s Get Wellington Moving} is about to offer scenarios to Wellingtonians to solve our transport woes. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Wellingtonians to korero about the kind of city we want. According to LGWM surveys, people in Wellington want better public transport, fewer roads and cars, a more pedestrian-friendly city, and protection of the natural environment.

Wellingtonians have asked for a city designed around the needs of people, not cars. Get it wrong and we are stuck--motorways last for about a century (four generations). Which scenario best meets our
requirements? To secure a future in which light rail remains an option, we need to identify and protect the optimum light rail route.
08 March 2017 at 03:17 PM by John Rankin - tweak words
Changed lines 31-32 from:
This leaves the efficient resource use, low choice future. Some people have predicted that a future of self-driving, shared electric cars will eliminate the need for public transport. A lane of self-driving cars could move about 3500 people per hour (more with ride-sharing). In this future, nobody owns a car; we buy mobility as a service. When a person needs transport, she will use an app on her phone to call a car. Inter-vehicle communication will let cars travel in convoy, doubling or tripling the capacity of existing roads.
to:
This leaves the efficient resource use, low choice future. Some people have predicted that a future of self-driving, shared electric cars will eliminate the need for public transport. A lane of self-driving cars could move about 3500 people per hour (more with ride-sharing). In this future, nobody owns a car; we rent mobility as a service. When a person needs transport, she will use an app on her phone to call a car. Inter-vehicle communication will let cars travel in convoy, doubling or tripling the capacity of existing roads.
Changed line 39 from:
Wellingtonians are asking for a city designed around the needs of people. Which scenario best meets these requirements? To secure a future in which light rail remains an option, we need to identify and protect the optimum light rail route.
to:
Wellingtonians have asked for a city designed around the needs of people. Which scenario best meets these requirements? To secure a future in which light rail remains an option, we need to identify and protect the optimum light rail route.
08 March 2017 at 10:41 AM by John Rankin - city of captive drivers
Changed line 8 from:
The underlying cause of Wellington city's congestion problem is the inefficient use of a constrained resource (i.e. road space): one lane of cars can move about 1200 people per hour. A dedicated bus lane can move up to 8000 people per hour, dropping to 3000 people per hour in mixed traffic. The inevitable result of our current reliance on cars is peak hour congestion, leading to increased and unpredictable travel times. Yet many people have little choice but to travel by car, as they live too far away to walk and are poorly-served by public transport.
to:
The underlying cause of Wellington city's congestion problem is the inefficient use of a constrained resource (i.e. road space): one lane of cars can move about 1200 people per hour. A dedicated bus lane can move up to 8000 people per hour, dropping to 3000 people per hour in mixed traffic. The inevitable result of our current reliance on cars is peak hour congestion, leading to increased and unpredictable travel times. Yet many people have little choice but to travel by car, as they live too far away to walk and are poorly-served by public transport. We have become a city of captive drivers.
07 March 2017 at 11:53 AM by John Rankin - tidy the wording
Changed lines 10-11 from:
In the morning peak, about 82,000 people travel to or through Wellington's CBD, of which some 42,000 come from outside the city. In the next 25 years, over 75% of the region's projected population growth will be within Wellington city. The only ways to add more road space are to take space away from other uses (demolishing building or paving over green spaces like the town belt) or by tunnelling.
to:
In the morning peak, about 82,000 people travel to or through Wellington's CBD, of which some 42,000 come from outside the city. In the next 25 years, over 75% of the region's projected population growth will be within Wellington city. The only ways to add more road space are to take space away from other uses (demolishing buildings or paving over green spaces like the town belt) or by tunnelling.
Changed lines 31-32 from:
This leaves the efficient resource use, low choice future. Some people have predicted that a future of self-driving, shared electric cars will eliminate the need for public transport. A lane of self-driving cars could move about 3500 people per hour. In this future, nobody owns a car; we buy mobility as a service. When a person needs transport, she will use an app on her phone to call a car. Inter-vehicle communication will let cars travel in convoy, doubling or tripling the capacity of existing roads.
to:
This leaves the efficient resource use, low choice future. Some people have predicted that a future of self-driving, shared electric cars will eliminate the need for public transport. A lane of self-driving cars could move about 3500 people per hour (more with ride-sharing). In this future, nobody owns a car; we buy mobility as a service. When a person needs transport, she will use an app on her phone to call a car. Inter-vehicle communication will let cars travel in convoy, doubling or tripling the capacity of existing roads.
Changed line 35 from:
Counter-intuitively, well-designed interchanges, with coordinated timetables offering connections between multiple services, reduce travel times by letting us operate more frequent services for the same cost. More frequent services make public transport more attractive, attracting more ridership and thereby increasing revenue. "Requiring a transfer" is a problem. "Offering connections" is an opportunity. Worse, our current fare structures penalise connections, by making passengers pay twice. In an efficient resource use, high choice future, people buy travel time on an integrated service, not distance on a fragmented service.
to:
Counter-intuitively, well-designed interchanges, with coordinated timetables offering connections between multiple services, reduce travel times by letting us operate more frequent services for the same cost. More frequent services make public transport more attractive, attracting more ridership and thereby increasing revenue. "Requiring a transfer" is a problem. "Offering connections" is an opportunity. Worse, our current fare structures penalise connections, by making passengers pay twice. In an efficient resource use, high choice future, people buy travel time on a joined-up service, not distance on a fragmented service.
28 February 2017 at 03:34 PM by John Rankin - secure a future for light rail
Changed line 39 from:
Wellingtonians are asking for a city designed around the needs of people. Which scenario best meets these requirements?
to:
Wellingtonians are asking for a city designed around the needs of people. Which scenario best meets these requirements? To secure a future in which light rail remains an option, we need to identify and protect the optimum light rail route.
21 February 2017 at 11:03 AM by John Rankin - add draft stamp
Changed line 12 from:
(:typeset-page fontset=kepler parasep=number colophon=off subtitle="Shaping the future urban form" :)
to:
(:typeset-page fontset=kepler parasep=number colophon=off subtitle="Shaping the future urban form" watermark=draft :)
21 February 2017 at 10:59 AM by John Rankin - add Newtown
Changed line 14 from:
The heart of FIT's proposal is a high frequency, high speed, congestion-free public transport network anchored by light-rail, initially between Wellington Railway Station and the Airport. Future light rail stages could include a Miramar extension, a Karori to CBD line and a Queensgate, Petone, ferry terminal and railway station line. Connecting urban electric buses and suburban trains, along with shared electric bikes and self-driving cars, will give people a wide range of mobility choices. Two lanes of road space currently allocated to cars will be reallocated for light rail: one dedicated light rail lane can move about 12,000 people per hour, ten times as many as cars and about twice as many as buses.
to:
The heart of FIT's proposal is a high frequency, high speed, congestion-free public transport network anchored by light-rail, initially between Wellington Railway Station, Newtown, and the Airport. Future light rail stages could include a Miramar extension, a Karori to CBD line and a Queensgate, Petone, ferry terminal and railway station line. Connecting urban electric buses and suburban trains, along with shared electric bikes and self-driving cars, will give people a wide range of mobility choices. Two lanes of road space currently allocated to cars will be reallocated for light rail: one dedicated light rail lane can move about 12,000 people per hour, ten times as many as cars and about twice as many as buses.
21 February 2017 at 10:46 AM by John Rankin - move Miramar to future
Changed line 14 from:
The heart of FIT's proposal is a high frequency, high speed, congestion-free public transport network anchored by light-rail, initially between Wellington Railway Station and the Airport and Miramar. Future light rail stages could include a Karori to CBD line and a Queensgate, Petone, ferry terminal and railway station line. Connecting urban electric buses and suburban trains, along with shared electric bikes and self-driving cars, will give people a wide range of mobility choices. Two lanes of road space currently allocated to cars will be reallocated for light rail: one dedicated light rail lane can move about 12,000 people per hour, ten times as many as cars and about twice as many as buses.
to:
The heart of FIT's proposal is a high frequency, high speed, congestion-free public transport network anchored by light-rail, initially between Wellington Railway Station and the Airport. Future light rail stages could include a Miramar extension, a Karori to CBD line and a Queensgate, Petone, ferry terminal and railway station line. Connecting urban electric buses and suburban trains, along with shared electric bikes and self-driving cars, will give people a wide range of mobility choices. Two lanes of road space currently allocated to cars will be reallocated for light rail: one dedicated light rail lane can move about 12,000 people per hour, ten times as many as cars and about twice as many as buses.
20 February 2017 at 01:52 PM by John Rankin - more on connection efficiency
Changed line 33 from:
A feature of the latter two scenarios is that both offer a one-seat journey. The Spine Study severely penalised light rail for requiring some passengers to connect with other services to complete their journeys. The conventional wisdom is that people in Wellington don't like making connections (transfers). Our public transport planners go to great lengths to avoid them. The trouble is, eliminating connections is expensive: you need more routes, so for a given budget, fewer connections mean lower frequency services. Instead of service every 15 minutes, we get service once an hour.
to:
A feature of the latter two scenarios is that both offer a one-seat journey. The Spine Study severely penalised light rail for requiring some passengers to connect with other services to complete their journeys. The conventional wisdom is that people in Wellington don't like making connections (transfers). Our public transport planners go to great lengths to avoid them. The trouble is, eliminating connections is expensive: you need more routes and more overlapping services, so for a given budget, fewer connections mean lower frequency service. Instead of service every 15 minutes, we get service once an hour.
20 February 2017 at 01:33 PM by John Rankin - more Kerry comments
Changed lines 14-15 from:
The heart of FIT's proposal is a high frequency, high speed, congestion-free public transport network anchored by light-rail, initially between Wellington Railway Station and the Airport and Miramar. Future light rail stages include a Karori to CBD line and a Queensgate, Petone, ferry terminal and railway station line. Connecting urban electric buses and suburban trains, along with shared electric bikes and self-driving cars, will give people a wide range of mobility choices. Two lanes of road space currently allocated to cars will be reallocated for light rail: one dedicated light rail lane can move about 12,000 people per hour, ten times as many as cars and about twice as many as buses.
to:
The heart of FIT's proposal is a high frequency, high speed, congestion-free public transport network anchored by light-rail, initially between Wellington Railway Station and the Airport and Miramar. Future light rail stages could include a Karori to CBD line and a Queensgate, Petone, ferry terminal and railway station line. Connecting urban electric buses and suburban trains, along with shared electric bikes and self-driving cars, will give people a wide range of mobility choices. Two lanes of road space currently allocated to cars will be reallocated for light rail: one dedicated light rail lane can move about 12,000 people per hour, ten times as many as cars and about twice as many as buses.
Changed lines 24-25 from:
:Tram:This is a generic term for a light rail vehicle or a streetcar vehicle.
to:
:Tram:A generic term for a light rail vehicle or a streetcar vehicle.
Changed line 35 from:
Counter-intuitively, well-designed interchanges, offering connections between multiple services, reduce travel times by letting us operate more frequent services for the same cost. More frequent services make public transport more attractive, attracting more ridership and thereby increasing revenue. "Requiring a transfer" is a problem. "Offering connections" is an opportunity. Worse, our current fare structures penalise connections, by making passengers pay twice. In an efficient resource use, high choice future, people buy travel time on an integrated service, not distance on a fragmented service.
to:
Counter-intuitively, well-designed interchanges, with coordinated timetables offering connections between multiple services, reduce travel times by letting us operate more frequent services for the same cost. More frequent services make public transport more attractive, attracting more ridership and thereby increasing revenue. "Requiring a transfer" is a problem. "Offering connections" is an opportunity. Worse, our current fare structures penalise connections, by making passengers pay twice. In an efficient resource use, high choice future, people buy travel time on an integrated service, not distance on a fragmented service.
20 February 2017 at 10:52 AM by John Rankin - add Kerry's comments
Changed lines 6-7 from:
||!Efficient ||Shared, self-driving cars rule the road: roads are busier and more free-flowing, but difficult to cross, reduced public transport ||A city designed around the needs of people: walking, cycling and public transport take priority, becoming the best options for most trips ||
to:
||!Efficient ||Shared, self-driving cars rule the road: roads are busier and more free-flowing, but difficult to cross, reduced public transport ||A city of well connected communities: walking, cycling and public transport take priority, becoming the best options for most trips ||
Changed line 39 from:
Which scenario best meets these requirements?
to:
Wellingtonians are asking for a city designed around the needs of people. Which scenario best meets these requirements?
20 February 2017 at 10:38 AM by John Rankin - add Kerry's comments
Changed lines 5-6 from:
||!Inefficient ||Present policy: a city designed around the needs of cars, increasing congestion and unreliable journey times ||Present planning: more roads and better public transport, but cars are still the preferred option for many trips ||
||!Efficient ||Shared, self-driving cars rule the road: roads are busier and more free-flowing, but difficult to cross, reduced public transport ||A city designed around the needs of people: walking, cycling and public transport take priority and the best options for most trips ||
to:
||!Inefficient ||Present policy: a city designed around the needs of cars, increasing congestion and unreliable journey times ||Present planning: more roads and better public transport, but cars remain the preferred option for many trips ||
||!Efficient ||Shared, self-driving cars rule the road: roads are busier and more free-flowing, but difficult to cross, reduced public transport ||A city designed around the needs of people: walking, cycling and public transport take priority, becoming the best options for most trips ||
20 February 2017 at 10:33 AM by John Rankin - add Kerry's comments
Changed lines 5-7 from:
||!Inefficient ||A city designed around the needs of cars ||More roads, better public transport ||
||!Efficient ||Shared, self-driving cars rule the road ||A city designed around
the needs of people ||
to:
||!Inefficient ||Present policy: a city designed around the needs of cars, increasing congestion and unreliable journey times ||Present planning: more roads and better public transport, but cars are still the preferred option for many trips ||
||!Efficient ||Shared, self-driving cars rule the road: roads are busier and more free-flowing, but difficult to cross, reduced public transport ||A city designed around the needs of people: walking, cycling and public transport take priority and the best options for most trips
||
Changed lines 10-11 from:
In the morning peak, about 82,000 people travel to or through Wellington's CBD, of which some 42,000 come from outside the city. In the next 25 years, over 75% of the region's projected population growth will be within Wellington city. The only way to add more road space is to take it away from other uses (demolishing buildings or paving over green spaces like the town belt).
to:
In the morning peak, about 82,000 people travel to or through Wellington's CBD, of which some 42,000 come from outside the city. In the next 25 years, over 75% of the region's projected population growth will be within Wellington city. The only ways to add more road space are to take space away from other uses (demolishing building or paving over green spaces like the town belt) or by tunnelling.
Changed line 16 from:
The growing number of people living in Wellington's CBD are choosing to be close to where they work, study and play. In FIT's proposed future, transit-oriented development around light rail stops will open up this choice to more people. Moving to more space-efficient forms of transport means that the existing road network can absorb the 25% city population growth over the next 25 years, and reduce the number of cars in the central city.
to:
The growing number of people living in Wellington's CBD are choosing to be close to where they work, study and play. In FIT's proposed future, transit-oriented development around light rail stops will open up this choice to more people. Moving to more space-efficient forms of transport means that the existing road network can absorb the 25% city population growth over the next 25 years, and reduce the number of cars in the central city. Making space for public transport is much easier than for cars.
19 February 2017 at 04:22 PM by John Rankin - fix typo
Changed lines 14-15 from:
The heart of FIT's proposal is a high frequency, high speed, congestion-free public transport network anchored by light-rail, initially between Wellington Railway Station and the Airport and Miramar. Future light rail stages include a Karori to CBD line and a Queensgate, Petone, ferry terminal and railway station line. Connecting urban electric buses and suburban trains, along with shared electric bikes and self-driving cars, will give people a range of mobility choices. Two lanes of road space currently allocated to cars will be reallocated for light rail: one dedicated light rail lane can move about 12,000 people per hour, ten times as many as cars and about twice as many as buses.
to:
The heart of FIT's proposal is a high frequency, high speed, congestion-free public transport network anchored by light-rail, initially between Wellington Railway Station and the Airport and Miramar. Future light rail stages include a Karori to CBD line and a Queensgate, Petone, ferry terminal and railway station line. Connecting urban electric buses and suburban trains, along with shared electric bikes and self-driving cars, will give people a wide range of mobility choices. Two lanes of road space currently allocated to cars will be reallocated for light rail: one dedicated light rail lane can move about 12,000 people per hour, ten times as many as cars and about twice as many as buses.
Changed line 33 from:
A feature of the latter two scenarios is that both offer a one-seat journey. The Spine Study severely penalised light rail for requiring some passengers to connect with other services to complete their journeys. The conventional wisdom is that people in Wellington don't like making connections (transfers). Our public transport planners go to great lengths to avoid them. The trouble is, eliminating connections is expensive: you need more routes, so for a given budget fewer connections means lower frequency services. Instead of service every 15 minutes, we get service once an hour.
to:
A feature of the latter two scenarios is that both offer a one-seat journey. The Spine Study severely penalised light rail for requiring some passengers to connect with other services to complete their journeys. The conventional wisdom is that people in Wellington don't like making connections (transfers). Our public transport planners go to great lengths to avoid them. The trouble is, eliminating connections is expensive: you need more routes, so for a given budget, fewer connections mean lower frequency services. Instead of service every 15 minutes, we get service once an hour.
19 February 2017 at 04:08 PM by John Rankin - word tweaks
Added line 19:
19 February 2017 at 04:06 PM by John Rankin - word tweaks
Changed line 3 from:
||border=1 cellpadding=3px id=possibleFutures"Shaping the urban form"
to:
||border=1 cellpadding=3px id=possibleFutures"Shaping urban form"
19 February 2017 at 04:04 PM by John Rankin - add definitions
Changed line 18 from:
(:div class=frame id=scenarioDefinitions"Definitions:)
to:
(:div class=frame id=scenarioDefinitions"Definitions":)
19 February 2017 at 04:02 PM by John Rankin - add definitions
Added lines 17-26:

(:div class=frame id=scenarioDefinitions"Definitions:)
:Light Rail:A rapid transit system, segregated from general traffic as much as possible, frequent and fast, with wide spacing between stops.

:Streetcar:A local system, mainly running with general traffic, slower, with closely-spaced stops. Wellington's original tram system was a streetcar system.

:Tram:This is a generic term for a light rail vehicle or a streetcar vehicle.

FIT is proposing a light rail system for Wellington, ''not'' a streetcar system.
(:divend:)
19 February 2017 at 03:49 PM by John Rankin - first draft of scenario op-ed
Changed lines 8-10 from:
The underlying cause of Wellington city's congestion problem is the inefficient use of a constrained resource (i.e. road space): one lane of cars can move about 1200 people per hour. A dedicated bus lane can move up to 8000 people per hour, dropping to 3000 people per hour in mixed traffic. The result of our current reliance on cars is peak hour congestion, leading to increased and unpredictable travel times. Yet many people have little choice but to travel by car, as they live too far away to walk and are poorly-served by public transport.

In the morning peak, about 82,000 people travel travel to or through Wellington's CBD, of which some 42,000 come from outside the city. In the next 25 years, over 75% of the region's projected population growth will be within Wellington city. The only way to add more road space is to take it away from other uses (demolishing buildings or paving over green spaces like the town belt).
to:
The underlying cause of Wellington city's congestion problem is the inefficient use of a constrained resource (i.e. road space): one lane of cars can move about 1200 people per hour. A dedicated bus lane can move up to 8000 people per hour, dropping to 3000 people per hour in mixed traffic. The inevitable result of our current reliance on cars is peak hour congestion, leading to increased and unpredictable travel times. Yet many people have little choice but to travel by car, as they live too far away to walk and are poorly-served by public transport.

In the morning peak, about 82,000 people travel to or through Wellington's CBD, of which some 42,000 come from outside the city. In the next 25 years, over 75% of the region's projected population growth will be within Wellington city. The only way to add more road space is to take it away from other uses (demolishing buildings or paving over green spaces like the town belt).
19 February 2017 at 03:41 PM by John Rankin - first draft of scenario op-ed
Changed lines 1-2 from:
Two forces will shape Wellington's transport future: whether we use our scarce resources efficiently or inefficiently; and whether people have high choice or low choice in how they meet their mobility needs. The status quo, inefficient resource use and low choice, is no longer sustainable. {FIT|Fair, Intelligent Transport} Wellington envisages a future of efficient resource use and high choice, in which Wellington becomes a city of well connected communities. Tab(possibleFutures) illustrates four possible futures.
to:
Two forces will shape Wellington's transport future: whether we use our scarce resources efficiently or inefficiently; and whether people have high choice or low choice in how they meet their mobility needs. The status quo, inefficient resource use and low choice, is not sustainable. {FIT|Fair, Intelligent Transport} Wellington envisages a future of efficient resource use and high choice, in which Wellington becomes a city of well connected communities. Tab(possibleFutures) illustrates four possible futures.
Changed line 16 from:
The growing number of people living in Wellington's CBD are choosing to be close to where they work, study and play. In FIT's proposed future, transit-oriented development around light rail stops will open up this choice to more people. Moving to more efficient forms of transport means that the existing road network can absorb the 25% city population growth over the next 25 years, and reduce the number of cars in the central city.
to:
The growing number of people living in Wellington's CBD are choosing to be close to where they work, study and play. In FIT's proposed future, transit-oriented development around light rail stops will open up this choice to more people. Moving to more space-efficient forms of transport means that the existing road network can absorb the 25% city population growth over the next 25 years, and reduce the number of cars in the central city.
19 February 2017 at 03:37 PM by John Rankin - first draft of scenario op-ed
Changed line 24 from:
Counter-intuitively, well-designed interchanges, offering connections between multiples services, reduce travel times by letting us operate more frequent services for the same cost. More frequent services make public transport more attractive, attracting more ridership and thereby increasing revenue. "Requiring a transfer" is a problem. "Offering connections" is an opportunity. Worse, our current fare structures penalise connections, by making passengers pay twice. In an efficient resource use, high choice future, people buy travel time on an integrated service, not distance on a fragmented service.
to:
Counter-intuitively, well-designed interchanges, offering connections between multiple services, reduce travel times by letting us operate more frequent services for the same cost. More frequent services make public transport more attractive, attracting more ridership and thereby increasing revenue. "Requiring a transfer" is a problem. "Offering connections" is an opportunity. Worse, our current fare structures penalise connections, by making passengers pay twice. In an efficient resource use, high choice future, people buy travel time on an integrated service, not distance on a fragmented service.
19 February 2017 at 03:19 PM by John Rankin - first draft of scenario op-ed
Added lines 1-28:
Two forces will shape Wellington's transport future: whether we use our scarce resources efficiently or inefficiently; and whether people have high choice or low choice in how they meet their mobility needs. The status quo, inefficient resource use and low choice, is no longer sustainable. {FIT|Fair, Intelligent Transport} Wellington envisages a future of efficient resource use and high choice, in which Wellington becomes a city of well connected communities. Tab(possibleFutures) illustrates four possible futures.

||border=1 cellpadding=3px id=possibleFutures"Shaping the urban form"
|| ||!Low choice ||!High choice ||
||!Inefficient ||A city designed around the needs of cars ||More roads, better public transport ||
||!Efficient ||Shared, self-driving cars rule the road ||A city designed around the needs of people ||

The underlying cause of Wellington city's congestion problem is the inefficient use of a constrained resource (i.e. road space): one lane of cars can move about 1200 people per hour. A dedicated bus lane can move up to 8000 people per hour, dropping to 3000 people per hour in mixed traffic. The result of our current reliance on cars is peak hour congestion, leading to increased and unpredictable travel times. Yet many people have little choice but to travel by car, as they live too far away to walk and are poorly-served by public transport.

In the morning peak, about 82,000 people travel travel to or through Wellington's CBD, of which some 42,000 come from outside the city. In the next 25 years, over 75% of the region's projected population growth will be within Wellington city. The only way to add more road space is to take it away from other uses (demolishing buildings or paving over green spaces like the town belt).

(:typeset-page fontset=kepler parasep=number colophon=off subtitle="Shaping the future urban form" :)

The heart of FIT's proposal is a high frequency, high speed, congestion-free public transport network anchored by light-rail, initially between Wellington Railway Station and the Airport and Miramar. Future light rail stages include a Karori to CBD line and a Queensgate, Petone, ferry terminal and railway station line. Connecting urban electric buses and suburban trains, along with shared electric bikes and self-driving cars, will give people a range of mobility choices. Two lanes of road space currently allocated to cars will be reallocated for light rail: one dedicated light rail lane can move about 12,000 people per hour, ten times as many as cars and about twice as many as buses.

The growing number of people living in Wellington's CBD are choosing to be close to where they work, study and play. In FIT's proposed future, transit-oriented development around light rail stops will open up this choice to more people. Moving to more efficient forms of transport means that the existing road network can absorb the 25% city population growth over the next 25 years, and reduce the number of cars in the central city.

There are two further variations for Wellington's transport future: an inefficient resource use, high choice future; and an efficient resource use, low choice future. The Public Transport Spine Study proposed essentially the inefficient resource use, high choice future. It assumed Wellington will continue to build more roads to accommodate more cars and recommended incremental improvements to make public transport more attractive, giving buses priority during peak hours.

This leaves the efficient resource use, low choice future. Some people have predicted that a future of self-driving, shared electric cars will eliminate the need for public transport. A lane of self-driving cars could move about 3500 people per hour. In this future, nobody owns a car; we buy mobility as a service. When a person needs transport, she will use an app on her phone to call a car. Inter-vehicle communication will let cars travel in convoy, doubling or tripling the capacity of existing roads.

A feature of the latter two scenarios is that both offer a one-seat journey. The Spine Study severely penalised light rail for requiring some passengers to connect with other services to complete their journeys. The conventional wisdom is that people in Wellington don't like making connections (transfers). Our public transport planners go to great lengths to avoid them. The trouble is, eliminating connections is expensive: you need more routes, so for a given budget fewer connections means lower frequency services. Instead of service every 15 minutes, we get service once an hour.

Counter-intuitively, well-designed interchanges, offering connections between multiples services, reduce travel times by letting us operate more frequent services for the same cost. More frequent services make public transport more attractive, attracting more ridership and thereby increasing revenue. "Requiring a transfer" is a problem. "Offering connections" is an opportunity. Worse, our current fare structures penalise connections, by making passengers pay twice. In an efficient resource use, high choice future, people buy travel time on an integrated service, not distance on a fragmented service.

Scenarios are not predictions; they are a way to explore possibilities and understand which interventions will be robust under a range of plausible futures. They help us identify and avoid futures we don't want. {LGWM|Let’s Get Wellington Moving} is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Wellingtonians to korero about the kind of city we want. According to LGWM surveys, people in Wellington want better public transport, fewer roads and cars, a more pedestrian-friendly city, and protection of the natural environment.

Which scenario best meets these requirements?
Page last modified 10 March 2017 at 01:46 PM