Changed lines 29-31 from:
FIT expects that when assessing the options, LGWM will use a ''risk-adjusted value'' approach. In all options, there is a risk that demand will be higher or lower than projected. The net benefit (benefits less costs) of every option needs to take account of this risk as a risk-adjusted net benefit.
to:
FIT expects that when assessing the options, LGWM will use a ''risk-adjusted value'' approach. In all options, there is a risk that demand will be higher or lower than projected. The net benefit (benefits less costs) of every option needs to account for this demand risk by using the risk-adjusted net benefit.
Changed line 55 from:
LGWM may consider that the likelihood Option 2 has underestimated demand on the north`-south corridor is low. However, if demand exceeds projections, the impact on the corridor is very high. It is therefore essential that the risk is properly priced into the cost`-benefit analysis for this option. One approach would be to include the risk-adjusted cost of upgrading the corridor to light rail.
to:
The risk that Option 2 has underestimated demand on the north`-south corridor may be low probability, but the impact is very high. If demand significantly exceeds projections, the only option is to upgrade the corridor. It is therefore essential that this risk is properly priced into the cost`-benefit analysis for this option. One approach would be to include the risk-adjusted cost and benefit of upgrading the corridor to light rail.
Changed lines 53-54 from:
In contrast, it is relatively easy to increase the capacity of a light rail corridor by running longer vehicle-sets, with longer platforms. FIT notes and supports LGWM's proposal to run a high frequency service, so there will be little opportunity to increase capacity by increasing frequency.
to:
Longer buses are not practical. In contrast, it is relatively easy to increase the capacity of a light rail corridor by running longer vehicle-sets, with longer platforms. FIT notes and supports LGWM's proposal to run a high frequency service, so there will be little opportunity to increase capacity by increasing frequency.
Changed line 77 from:
The light rail proposals are at the streetcar (slower) rather than the metro (faster) end of the light rail design spectrum. Experience in other cities teaches that people will walk farther to catch a faster service. FIT encourages LGWM to place stations further apart rather than closer together. Stations too close together compete with each other for the same riders and slow the service down. Stations too far apart create economic dead zones in between. We suggest stations at least 600 metres and at most 1 kilometre apart, to achieve an average speed of at least 25 kph.
to:
The light rail proposals are at the streetcar (slower) rather than the metro (faster) end of the light rail design spectrum. Experience in other cities teaches that people will walk farther to catch a faster service. FIT encourages LGWM to place stations further apart rather than closer together. Stations too close together compete with each other for the same riders and slow the service down. Stations too far apart create economic dead zones in between. We suggest stations at least 600 metres and at most 1 kilometre apart, with an aim of achieving an average speed of at least 25 kph.
Changed lines 26-28 from:
* highest growth, highest demand -> metro-style light rail (not needed)
to:
* highest growth, highest demand -> metro-style light rail (not used)
Changed lines 36-37 from:
* it keeps options open for future mass rapid transit service to the east, if and when demand on that corridor grows
to:
* it keeps options open for future mass rapid transit to the east via Cambridge Terrace, if and when demand on that corridor grows
Changed line 60 from:
Compared to Option 3, Option 1 offers significant public transport improvements to the eastern suburbs, with better bus priority. Option 1 also provides a better layout at the Basin Reserve, including cross-platform connection between the south and east corridors. However, Option 1 is the most expensive option with potentially the longest delivery timetable. If demand on the eastern corridor significantly exceeds projections, upgrading the bus priority lanes to bus rapid transit would be relatively straightforward. However, upgrading to light rail may well be impractical.
to:
Compared to Option 3, Option 1 offers significant public transport improvements to the eastern suburbs, with better bus priority. Option 1 also provides a better layout at the Basin Reserve, including cross-platform transfers between the south (light rail) and east (bus priority) corridors. However, Option 1 is the most expensive option with potentially the longest delivery timetable. If demand on the eastern corridor significantly exceeds projections, upgrading the bus priority lanes to bus rapid transit would be relatively straightforward. However, upgrading to light rail may well be impractical.
Changed line 60 from:
Compared to Option 3, Option 1 offers significant public transport improvements to the eastern suburbs, with better bus priority. Option 1 also provides a better layout at the Basin Reserve, including cross-platform connection between north`-south and east`-west corridors. However, Option 1 is the most expensive option with potentially the longest delivery timetable. If demand on the eastern corridor significantly exceeds projections, upgrading the bus priority lanes to bus rapid transit would be relatively straightforward. However, upgrading to light rail may well be impractical.
to:
Compared to Option 3, Option 1 offers significant public transport improvements to the eastern suburbs, with better bus priority. Option 1 also provides a better layout at the Basin Reserve, including cross-platform connection between the south and east corridors. However, Option 1 is the most expensive option with potentially the longest delivery timetable. If demand on the eastern corridor significantly exceeds projections, upgrading the bus priority lanes to bus rapid transit would be relatively straightforward. However, upgrading to light rail may well be impractical.
Changed line 60 from:
Compared to Option 3, Option 1 offers significant public transport improvements to the eastern suburbs, with better bus priority. Option 1 also provides a better layout at the Basin Reserve. However, Option 1 is the most expensive option with potentially the longest delivery timetable. If demand on the eastern corridor significantly exceeds projections, upgrading the bus priority lanes to bus rapid transit would be relatively straightforward. However, upgrading to light rail may well be impractical.
to:
Compared to Option 3, Option 1 offers significant public transport improvements to the eastern suburbs, with better bus priority. Option 1 also provides a better layout at the Basin Reserve, including cross-platform connection between north`-south and east`-west corridors. However, Option 1 is the most expensive option with potentially the longest delivery timetable. If demand on the eastern corridor significantly exceeds projections, upgrading the bus priority lanes to bus rapid transit would be relatively straightforward. However, upgrading to light rail may well be impractical.
Changed lines 26-31 from:
* highest growth, highest demand, -> light rail, metro-style (not required)
The approach focuses attention where it belongs -- on decisions about the future development of the southern and eastern corridors. Frequent, fast services on high-capacity, low-floor vehicles, with on-platform ticketing, will operate on (mostly) dedicated and segregated lanes, with priority at intersections. The proposals reduce the number of cars by reducing the number of lanes for cars. The outcome will transform the way we travel. FIT endorses this ''transit oriented development'' strategy.
to:
* highest growth, highest demand -> light rail, metro-style (not required)
The approach focuses attention where it belongs -- on decisions about the future development of the southern and eastern corridors. Frequent, fast services on high-capacity, low-floor vehicles, with on-platform ticketing, will operate on (mostly) dedicated and segregated lanes, with priority at intersections. The proposals will reduce the number of cars by reducing the number of lanes for cars. The outcome will transform the way we travel. FIT endorses this ''transit oriented development'' strategy.
Changed line 60 from:
Compared to Option 3, Option 1 offers significant public transport improvements to the eastern suburbs, with better bus priority. Option 1 also provides a better layout at the Basin Reserve. However, Option 1 is the most expensive option with potentially the longest delivery timetable. If demand on the eastern corridor significantly exceeds the projections, upgrading the bus priority lanes to bus rapid transit would be relatively straightforward. However, upgrading to light rail may well be impractical.
to:
Compared to Option 3, Option 1 offers significant public transport improvements to the eastern suburbs, with better bus priority. Option 1 also provides a better layout at the Basin Reserve. However, Option 1 is the most expensive option with potentially the longest delivery timetable. If demand on the eastern corridor significantly exceeds projections, upgrading the bus priority lanes to bus rapid transit would be relatively straightforward. However, upgrading to light rail may well be impractical.
Changed lines 13-15 from:
(:typeset-page subtitle="Time to Pick up the Pace" headingcolor=RoyalBlue fontset=kepler parasep=number colophon=off watermark=draft :)
to:
(:typeset-page subtitle="Pick up the Pace" headingcolor=RoyalBlue fontset=kepler parasep=number colophon=off watermark=draft :)
Changed lines 29-31 from:
The approach focuses attention where it belongs -- on decisions about the future development of the southern and eastern corridors. FIT endorses this ''transit oriented development'' strategy. Frequent, fast services on high-capacity, low-floor vehicles, with on-platform ticketing, will operate on (mostly) dedicated and segregated lanes, with priority at intersections. The proposals reduce the number of cars by reducing the number of lanes for cars. The outcome will transform the way we travel.
to:
The approach focuses attention where it belongs -- on decisions about the future development of the southern and eastern corridors. Frequent, fast services on high-capacity, low-floor vehicles, with on-platform ticketing, will operate on (mostly) dedicated and segregated lanes, with priority at intersections. The proposals reduce the number of cars by reducing the number of lanes for cars. The outcome will transform the way we travel. FIT endorses this ''transit oriented development'' strategy.
Changed lines 55-57 from:
LGWM may consider that the likelihood Option 2 has underestimated demand on the N`-S corridor is low. However, if demand exceeds projections, the impact on the corridor is very high. It is therefore essential that the risk is properly priced into the cost`-benefit analysis for this option. One approach would be to include the risk-adjusted cost of upgrading the corridor to light rail.
to:
LGWM may consider that the likelihood Option 2 has underestimated demand on the north`-south corridor is low. However, if demand exceeds projections, the impact on the corridor is very high. It is therefore essential that the risk is properly priced into the cost`-benefit analysis for this option. One approach would be to include the risk-adjusted cost of upgrading the corridor to light rail.
Changed lines 71-74 from:
* it would be easier to understand how future-proofed all the options are if some thought is given to how the mass rapid transit network will be extended in future (for example, to Karori)
* we favour a "MRT trunk, bus feeder" network design, rather than the "avoid transfers" approach that LGWM has taken; reliable and frequent service overcomes transfer penalties
to:
* it would be easier to understand how future-proofed all the options are if LGWM gives some thought to how the mass rapid transit network will be extended in future (for example, to Karori)
* we favour a "MRT trunk, bus feeder" network design, rather than the "avoid transfers" approach that LGWM seems to have taken; reliable and frequent service overcomes transfer penalties
Changed lines 77-79 from:
We note that the light rail proposals are at the streetcar (slower) rather than the metro (faster) end of the light rail design spectrum. Experience in other cities teaches that people will walk farther to catch a faster service. FIT encourages LGWM to place stations further apart rather than closer together. Stations too close together compete with each other for the same riders and slow the service down. Stations too far apart create economic dead zones in between. We recommend stations not less than 600 metres and not more than 1 kilometre apart, to achieve an average speed of at least 25 kph.
to:
The light rail proposals are at the streetcar (slower) rather than the metro (faster) end of the light rail design spectrum. Experience in other cities teaches that people will walk farther to catch a faster service. FIT encourages LGWM to place stations further apart rather than closer together. Stations too close together compete with each other for the same riders and slow the service down. Stations too far apart create economic dead zones in between. We suggest stations at least 600 metres and at most 1 kilometre apart, to achieve an average speed of at least 25 kph.
Changed lines 86-87 from:
Eye of the Fish has [[published a layout -> https://eyeofthefish.org/plan-for-wellington/]] that would be consistent with Option 4. Fig(vivianSt) shows light rail (pale blue) running on Taranaki Street to Pukeahu park, where is runs parallel to a new eastbound SH1 trench (dashed white lines) to the west side of the Basin Reserve. Cycleways are shown in green, local roads are blue. Before LGWM chooses a preferred option, FIT would like to see how a future stage will liberate Vivian Street from eastbound SH1 traffic.
to:
Eye of the Fish has [[published a layout -> https://eyeofthefish.org/plan-for-wellington/]] that would be consistent with Option 4. Fig(vivianSt) shows light rail (pale blue) running on Taranaki Street to Pukeahu park, where it runs parallel to a new eastbound SH1 trench (dashed white lines) to the west side of the Basin Reserve. Cycleways are shown in green, local roads are blue. Before LGWM chooses a preferred option, FIT would like to see how a future stage will liberate Vivian Street from eastbound SH1 traffic.
Changed line 90 from:
Depending on the projected development potential on the east`-west corridor, either BRT or light rail may be an appropriate future upgrade to an initial implementation of bus priority. Running bus priority through the existing bus tunnel in the first instance would keep options open and make the resulting upgrade works less challenging.
to:
Depending on the projected development potential on the east`-west corridor, either BRT or light rail may be an appropriate future upgrade to an initial implementation of bus priority. Running bus priority through the existing bus tunnel in the first instance would keep future options open and make the resulting upgrade works less challenging.
Changed lines 13-15 from:
(:typeset-page subtitle="Time to Pick up the Pace" headingcolor=RoyalBlue fontset=kepler parasep=number colophon=off :)
to:
(:typeset-page subtitle="Time to Pick up the Pace" headingcolor=RoyalBlue fontset=kepler parasep=number colophon=off watermark=draft :)
Changed lines 29-31 from:
This approach focuses attention where it belongs -- on decisions about the future development of the southern and eastern corridors. FIT endorses this ''transit oriented development'' strategy.
to:
The approach focuses attention where it belongs -- on decisions about the future development of the southern and eastern corridors. FIT endorses this ''transit oriented development'' strategy. Frequent, fast services on high-capacity, low-floor vehicles, with on-platform ticketing, will operate on (mostly) dedicated and segregated lanes, with priority at intersections. The proposals reduce the number of cars by reducing the number of lanes for cars. The outcome will transform the way we travel.
Changed lines 55-57 from:
LGWM may consider that the likelihood Option 2 has underestimated demand on the N`-S corridor is low. However, if demand exceeds projections, the impact on the corridor is very high. It is therefore essential that the risk is properly priced into the cost`-benefit analysis for this option.
to:
LGWM may consider that the likelihood Option 2 has underestimated demand on the N`-S corridor is low. However, if demand exceeds projections, the impact on the corridor is very high. It is therefore essential that the risk is properly priced into the cost`-benefit analysis for this option. One approach would be to include the risk-adjusted cost of upgrading the corridor to light rail.
Changed lines 60-62 from:
to:
Compared to Option 3, Option 1 offers significant public transport improvements to the eastern suburbs, with better bus priority. Option 1 also provides a better layout at the Basin Reserve. However, Option 1 is the most expensive option with potentially the longest delivery timetable. If demand on the eastern corridor significantly exceeds the projections, upgrading the bus priority lanes to bus rapid transit would be relatively straightforward. However, upgrading to light rail may well be impractical.
Changed line 84 from:
Vivian Street is currently a traffic sewer. We consider leaving Vivian Street as the eastbound corridor for through traffic is a lost opportunity for unlocking the huge potential for developing the Te Aro precinct. We support LGWM's original proposal that eastbound traffic be routed along Karo Drive, making this a two-way thoroughfare from the Terrace Tunnel to the Basin Reserve.
to:
Vivian Street is currently an example of a traffic sewer. We consider leaving Vivian Street as the eastbound corridor for through traffic is a lost opportunity for unlocking the huge potential for developing the Te Aro precinct. We support LGWM's original proposal that eastbound traffic be routed along Karo Drive, making this a two-way thoroughfare from the Terrace Tunnel to the Basin Reserve.
Changed lines 86-87 from:
[[Eye of the Fish -> https://eyeofthefish.org/plan-for-wellington/]] has published a layout that would be consistent with Option 4. Fig(vivianSt) shows light rail running on Taranaki Street to Pukeahu park, where is runs parallel to a new eastbound SH1 trench to the west side of the Basin Reserve. Before LGWM chooses a preferred option, FIT would like to see how a future stage will liberate Vivian Street from eastbound SH1 traffic.
to:
Eye of the Fish has [[published a layout -> https://eyeofthefish.org/plan-for-wellington/]] that would be consistent with Option 4. Fig(vivianSt) shows light rail (pale blue) running on Taranaki Street to Pukeahu park, where is runs parallel to a new eastbound SH1 trench (dashed white lines) to the west side of the Basin Reserve. Cycleways are shown in green, local roads are blue. Before LGWM chooses a preferred option, FIT would like to see how a future stage will liberate Vivian Street from eastbound SH1 traffic.
Added lines 91-93:
X:Michael Barnett\\
Convenor FIT Wellington
Changed lines 3-4 from:
LGWM has announced 4 transport options aimed at moving more people with fewer vehicles, enabling more housing development, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In FIT Wellington's view, Option 4, south coast light rail via Taranaki Street, is the strongest option and Option 2, bus rapid transit to the sea and skies, is the weakest option. We consider leaving Vivian Street as the eastbound corridor for SH1 through traffic is a lost opportunity for unlocking the huge potential for developing the Te Aro precinct. We urge LGWM to find ways for radically shortening the implementation timetable.
to:
LGWM has announced 4 transport options aimed at moving more people with fewer vehicles, enabling more housing development, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In FIT Wellington's view:
* Option 4, south coast light rail via Taranaki Street, is the strongest option and Option 2, bus rapid transit to the sea and skies, is the weakest option
* Option 1, south coast light rail + new public transport tunnel, is a stronger option than Option 3, south coast light rail
* leaving Vivian Street as the eastbound corridor for SH1 through traffic is a lost opportunity for unlocking the huge potential for developing the Te Aro precinct
* LGWM needs to find ways for radically shortening the implementation timetable
Changed lines 16-17 from:
!! Why Option 4 is the strongest option
to:
!! Option 4 is the strongest option
Changed lines 30-34 from:
Current best overseas practice is to ''build one light rail line at a time'' and to start design on the second line (mass rapid transit to the east) as soon as construction starts on the first line. Option 4 is consistent with this approach.
!! Why Option 2 is the weakest option
to:
Current best overseas practice is to ''build one light rail line at a time'' and to start design on the second line (mass rapid transit to the east) as soon as construction starts on the first line, and so on. Option 4 is consistent with this approach, which maximises development potential on each corridor.
!! Option 2 is the weakest option
Changed lines 37-41 from:
In contrast, it is relatively easy to increase the capacity of a light rail corridor by running longer vehicle-sets, with longer platforms. FIT notes and endorses LGWM's proposal to run a high frequency service, so there will be little opportunity to increase capacity by increasing frequency.
!! How light
to:
In contrast, it is relatively easy to increase the capacity of a light rail corridor by running longer vehicle-sets, with longer platforms. FIT notes and supports LGWM's proposal to run a high frequency service, so there will be little opportunity to increase capacity by increasing frequency.
LGWM may consider that the likelihood Option 2 has underestimated demand on the N`-S corridor is low. However, if demand exceeds projections, the impact on the corridor is very high. It is therefore essential that the risk is properly priced into the cost`-benefit analysis for this option.
!! Option 1 is stronger than Option 3
to be completed
!! Light rail to Island Bay can be improved
Changed lines 55-56 from:
* it would be easier to understand how future-proofed all the options are if some thought is given to how the mass rapid transit network will be extended in the future
to:
* it would be easier to understand how future-proofed all the options are if some thought is given to how the mass rapid transit network will be extended in future (for example, to Karori)
Changed lines 61-63 from:
We note that the light rail proposals are at the streetcar (slower) rather than the metro (faster) end of the light rail design spectrum. Experience in other cities teaches that people will walk farther to catch a faster service. FIT encourages LGWM to place stations further apart rather than closer together. Stations too close together compete with each other for the same riders and slow the service down. Stations too far apart create economic dead zones in between. We recommend stations not less than 600 metres and not more than 1 kilometre apart.
to:
We note that the light rail proposals are at the streetcar (slower) rather than the metro (faster) end of the light rail design spectrum. Experience in other cities teaches that people will walk farther to catch a faster service. FIT encourages LGWM to place stations further apart rather than closer together. Stations too close together compete with each other for the same riders and slow the service down. Stations too far apart create economic dead zones in between. We recommend stations not less than 600 metres and not more than 1 kilometre apart, to achieve an average speed of at least 25 kph.
Changed lines 68-72 from:
We consider leaving Vivian Street as the eastbound corridor for through traffic is a lost opportunity for unlocking the huge potential for developing the Te Aro precinct. We support LGWM's original proposal that eastbound traffic be routed along Karo Drive, making this a two-way thoroughfare from the Terrace Tunnel to the Basin Reserve. [[Eye of the Fish -> https://eyeofthefish.org/plan-for-wellington/]] has published a layout that would be consistent with Option 4.
%width=100pct%Attach:SWellall-eyeofthefish.jpg"how to liberate Vivian Street" |How to liberate Vivian Street from SH1 (source: Eye of the Fish)
Before LGWM chooses a preferred option, FIT would like to see how a future stage will liberate Vivian Street from eastbound SH1 traffic. Depending on the projected development potential on the east`-west corridor, either BRT or light rail may be an appropriate future upgrade to an initial implementation of bus priority. Running bus priority through the existing bus tunnel in the first instance would make the resulting upgrade works less challenging.
to:
Vivian Street is currently a traffic sewer. We consider leaving Vivian Street as the eastbound corridor for through traffic is a lost opportunity for unlocking the huge potential for developing the Te Aro precinct. We support LGWM's original proposal that eastbound traffic be routed along Karo Drive, making this a two-way thoroughfare from the Terrace Tunnel to the Basin Reserve.
[[Eye of the Fish -> https://eyeofthefish.org/plan-for-wellington/]] has published a layout that would be consistent with Option 4. Fig(vivianSt) shows light rail running on Taranaki Street to Pukeahu park, where is runs parallel to a new eastbound SH1 trench to the west side of the Basin Reserve. Before LGWM chooses a preferred option, FIT would like to see how a future stage will liberate Vivian Street from eastbound SH1 traffic.
%width=100pct id=vivianSt%Attach:SWell-all-eyeofthefish.jpg"how to liberate Vivian Street" |How to liberate Vivian Street from SH1 (source: Eye of the Fish)
Depending on the projected development potential on the east`-west corridor, either BRT or light rail may be an appropriate future upgrade to an initial implementation of bus priority. Running bus priority through the existing bus tunnel in the first instance would keep options open and make the resulting upgrade works less challenging.
Changed lines 53-55 from:
We consider leaving Vivian Street as the eastbound corridor for through traffic is a lost opportunity for unlocking the huge potential for developing the Te Aro precinct. We support LGWM's original proposal that eastbound traffic be routed along Karo Drive, making this a two-way thoroughfare from the Terrace Tunnel to the Basin Reserve.
Before LGWM chooses a preferred option, we would like to see how a future stage will liberate Vivian Street from eastbound SH1
to:
We consider leaving Vivian Street as the eastbound corridor for through traffic is a lost opportunity for unlocking the huge potential for developing the Te Aro precinct. We support LGWM's original proposal that eastbound traffic be routed along Karo Drive, making this a two-way thoroughfare from the Terrace Tunnel to the Basin Reserve. [[Eye of the Fish -> https://eyeofthefish.org/plan-for-wellington/]] has published a layout that would be consistent with Option 4.
Attach:SWell-all-eyeofthefish.jpg"how to liberate Vivian Street" |How to liberate Vivian Street from SH1 (source: Eye of the Fish)
Before LGWM chooses a preferred option, FIT would like to see how a future stage will liberate Vivian Street from eastbound SH1 traffic. Depending on the projected development potential on the east`-west corridor, either BRT or light rail may be an appropriate future upgrade to an initial implementation of bus priority. Running bus priority through the existing bus tunnel in the first instance would make the resulting upgrade works less challenging.
Changed lines 22-24 from:
to:
Current best overseas practice is to ''build one light rail line at a time'' and to start design on the second line (mass rapid transit to the east) as soon as construction starts on the first line. Option 4 is consistent with this approach.
Changed lines 27-28 from:
We consider Option 2 is the weakest, highest risk option and should be discarded. If growth on the Island Bay corridor exceeds LGWM's projections, Wellington would face expensive, technically challenging and disruptive works to upgrade the corridor from BRT to light rail. Without such an upgrade, Wellington would have little choice other than progressively overloading the corridor with BRT vehicles, inevitably degrading system performance as buses get in each other's way at stations.
to:
We consider Option 2 is the weakest, highest risk option and should be discarded. If growth or mode-shift on the Island Bay corridor exceed LGWM's projections, Wellington would face expensive, technically challenging and disruptive works to upgrade the corridor from BRT to light rail. Without such an upgrade, Wellington would have little choice other than progressively overloading the corridor with BRT vehicles, inevitably degrading system performance as buses get in each other's way.
In contrast, it is relatively easy to increase the capacity of a light rail corridor by running longer vehicle-sets, with longer platforms. FIT notes and endorses LGWM's proposal to run a high frequency service, so there will be little opportunity to increase capacity by increasing frequency.
!! How light rail to Island Bay can be improved
In reviewing the options presented, we saw several opportunities for enhancement:
* we were dismayed when we saw the long timelines for implementation and urge LGWM to identify options for radically shortening these timelines
* the route to Island Bay could become a genuine rapid transit route if light rail did not have to share its lanes with buses and other vehicles
* it would be easier to understand how future-proofed all the options are if some thought is given to how the mass rapid transit network will be extended in the future
* we favour a "MRT trunk, bus feeder" network design, rather than the "avoid transfers" approach that LGWM has taken; reliable and frequent service overcomes transfer penalties
* it would be better to run light rail along Martin Square alongside the Pukeahu park rather than Haining Street, especially if SH1 traffic is rerouted from Vivian Street to Karo Drive, as discussed below
We note that the light rail proposals are at the streetcar (slower) rather than the metro (faster) end of the light rail design spectrum. Experience in other cities teaches that people will walk farther to catch a faster service. FIT encourages LGWM to place stations further apart rather than closer together. Stations too close together compete with each other for the same riders and slow the service down. Stations too far apart create economic dead zones in between. We recommend stations not less than 600 metres and not more than 1 kilometre apart.
!! Review the project scope
The previous government directed LGWM to omit from scope rerouting SH1 eastbound traffic off Vivian Street onto Karo Drive. FIT notes that the difference in cost between Option 1 (highest cost) and Option 4 (lowest cost) is $1.6bn. Without further analysis, FIT cannot have a properly-informed view on whether the additional cost is the best value for money.
We consider leaving Vivian Street as the eastbound corridor for through traffic is a lost opportunity for unlocking the huge potential for developing the Te Aro precinct. We support LGWM's original proposal that eastbound traffic be routed along Karo Drive, making this a two-way thoroughfare from the Terrace Tunnel to the Basin Reserve.
Before LGWM chooses a preferred option, we would like to see how a future stage will liberate Vivian Street from eastbound SH1 traffic.
Added lines 1-26:
!!Summary
LGWM has announced 4 transport options aimed at moving more people with fewer vehicles, enabling more housing development, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In FIT Wellington's view, Option 4, south coast light rail via Taranaki Street, is the strongest option and Option 2, bus rapid transit to the sea and skies, is the weakest option. We consider leaving Vivian Street as the eastbound corridor for SH1 through traffic is a lost opportunity for unlocking the huge potential for developing the Te Aro precinct. We urge LGWM to find ways for radically shortening the implementation timetable.
(:typeset-page subtitle="Time to Pick up the Pace" headingcolor=RoyalBlue fontset=kepler parasep=number colophon=off :)
!! Why Option 4 is the strongest option
FIT Wellington supports Option 4 because:
* it keeps options open for future mass rapid transit service to the east, if and when demand on that corridor grows
* it includes Light Rail to Newtown and Island Bay along Taranaki Street, which is more central with more development opportunities than the more peripheral Cambridge Terrace
* it brings mass rapid transit within 400 metres (a 5 minute walk) of all points on the Golden Mile
* it bypasses the Basin Reserve, simplifying changes there to improve active transport options
* it is the lowest cost option, with the earliest completion date
!! Why Option 2 is the weakest option
We consider Option 2 is the weakest, highest risk option and should be discarded. If growth on the Island Bay corridor exceeds LGWM's projections, Wellington would face expensive, technically challenging and disruptive works to upgrade the corridor from BRT to light rail. Without such an upgrade, Wellington would have little choice other than progressively overloading the corridor with BRT vehicles, inevitably degrading system performance as buses get in each other's way at stations.