Changed lines 7-8 from:
LGWM presents no credible proposal for how a future upgrade from bus "mass transit" to light rail rapid transit would be carried out. Evidence from overseas cities strongly suggests that such an upgrade will be difficult and expensive at best, impossible at worst. FIT proposes that it may be cheaper and will be less disruptive to build once and build right, ahead of demand.
to:
LGWM presents no credible proposal for how a future upgrade from bus "mass transit" to light rail rapid transit would be carried out. Evidence from overseas cities strongly suggests that such an upgrade will be difficult and expensive at best, impossible at worst. FIT proposes that in the long run it will be cheaper and less disruptive to build light rail now. FIT estimates that current patronage on Lambton Quay is close to justifying light rail, even if buses carry a quarter of all passengers.
Added lines 10-11:
Light rail on a waterfront route to Taranaki St offers fast service for through trips, while reducing the number of buses on the Golden Mile to about `14 of current numbers. Bus trips through the CBD will be faster because the route is no longer overloaded. Suburban bus trips will be faster because CBD delays no longer disrupt the timetables. Trips by feeder-bus will be faster because much of the route is on light rail and local buses face fewer delays. Connections will be quick and reliable because pulsed timetables become practical.
Changed lines 1-2 from:
The LGWM Scenarios A to D make no provision for a "rapid transit" option -- public transport fast enough to compete with private car travel. Designating the Golden Mile (Lambton Quay, Willis St, Manners St, Courtenay Place) as the "mass transit" corridor, an area crowded with pedestrians and with many narrow sections, excludes the possibility of rapid transit through the central city.[^Perhaps LGWM expects a future light rail line will run underground through the CBD -- a very expensive option.^]
to:
The LGWM Scenarios A to D make no provision for a "rapid transit" option -- where "rapid" means public transport fast enough to compete with private car travel. Designating the Golden Mile (Lambton Quay, Willis St, Manners St, Courtenay Place) as the "mass transit" corridor, an area crowded with pedestrians and with many narrow sections, excludes the possibility of rapid transit through the central city.[^Perhaps LGWM expects a future light rail line will run underground through the CBD -- a very expensive option.^]
Changed lines 7-8 from:
LGWM presents no credible proposal for how a future upgrade from bus "mass transit" to light rail rapid transit would be carried out. Evidence from overseas cities strongly suggests that such an upgrade will be difficult and expensive at best, impossible at worst. It may be cheaper and will be less disruptive to build once and build right, ahead of demand.
to:
LGWM presents no credible proposal for how a future upgrade from bus "mass transit" to light rail rapid transit would be carried out. Evidence from overseas cities strongly suggests that such an upgrade will be difficult and expensive at best, impossible at worst. FIT proposes that it may be cheaper and will be less disruptive to build once and build right, ahead of demand.
Deleted lines 12-13:
Consider changing current transport funding models so that urban rapid transit projects are funded on the same basis as state highways. Move to a polluter-pays model for solutions that relieve congestion: invest revenue from road congestion charges in public transport. Value uplift capture from transit-oriented development is another potential funding stream.
Changed lines 17-19 from:
Implementing Scenario A+ will offer many more people the option of congestion-free travel and grow public transport's mode share. Scenarios A to D will not do this. Light rail is a mature, proven, low-risk solution available from a range of suppliers, thus giving maximally competitive procurement.
to:
Implementing Scenario A+ will offer many more people the option of congestion-free travel and grow public transport's mode share. Scenarios A to D will not do this. Light rail is a mature, proven, low-risk solution available from a range of suppliers, thus giving maximally competitive procurement. LGWM may wish to consider joint procurement with Auckland, depending on project timing.
FIT proposes that LGWM investigate options for changing current transport funding models so that urban rapid transit projects are funded on the same basis as state highways. Move to a polluter-pays model for solutions that relieve congestion: invest revenue from road congestion charges in public transport. Value uplift capture from transit-oriented development is another potential funding stream.
Changed line 17 from:
FIT also supports the proposal in Scenario C to move eastbound SH1 from Vivian St to a tunnel on the Inner City Bypass route. The string-of-pearls route proposes a rail tunnel under Mt Albert between the Zoo and Kilbirnie; with Scenario A+ a second Mt Victoria road tunnel for "mass transit" is not needed.
to:
FIT supports the proposal in Scenario C to move eastbound SH1 from Vivian St to a tunnel on the Inner City Bypass route. This would facilitate grade-separation between SH1 and FIT's suggestion for light rail on Taranaki St. The string-of-pearls route proposes a rail tunnel under Mt Albert between the Zoo and Kilbirnie; with Scenario A+ a second Mt Victoria road tunnel for "mass transit" in Scenario B is not needed.
Changed lines 1-2 from:
The LGWM Scenarios A to D make no provision for a "rapid transit" option -- public transport fast enough to compete with private car travel. Designating the Golden Mile (Lambton Quay, Willis St, Manners St, Courtenay Place) as the "mass transit" corridor, an area crowded with pedestrians and with many narrow sections, excludes the possibility of rapid transit through the central city.
to:
The LGWM Scenarios A to D make no provision for a "rapid transit" option -- public transport fast enough to compete with private car travel. Designating the Golden Mile (Lambton Quay, Willis St, Manners St, Courtenay Place) as the "mass transit" corridor, an area crowded with pedestrians and with many narrow sections, excludes the possibility of rapid transit through the central city.[^Perhaps LGWM expects a future light rail line will run underground through the CBD -- a very expensive option.^]
Deleted lines 6-11:
This means taking a more strategic approach to public transport than LGWM's narrow focus on capacity, to include setting targets for mode share and travel time savings. The primary purpose for light rail is to maximize demand. To achieve this: choose a string-of-pearls route, serving locations with high demand all day; foster transit-oriented development along the route; and make the service predictable, frequent and well-connected, with competitive travel times.
LGWM also needs to consider measures for managing travel demand. This could include a congestion charge for car trips entering the central city during peak times, to reduce traffic on city streets and make it easier to get around. In addition, review parking strategies around pricing and options for progressively reducing the number of on-street car parks.
Consider changing current transport funding models so that urban rapid transit projects are funded on the same basis as state highways. Move to a polluter-pays model for solutions that relieve congestion: invest revenue from road congestion charges in public transport. Value uplift capture from tansit-oriented development is another potential funding stream.
Added lines 9-14:
This means taking a more strategic approach to public transport than LGWM's narrow focus on capacity, to include setting targets for mode share and travel time savings. The primary aim for light rail is to maximize demand by mode shift from private cars. To achieve this: choose a string-of-pearls route, serving locations with high demand all day; foster transit-oriented development along the route; and make the service predictable, frequent and well-connected, with competitive travel times.
LGWM also needs to consider measures for managing travel demand. This could include a congestion charge for car trips entering the central city during peak times, to reduce traffic on city streets and make it easier to get around. In addition, review parking strategies around pricing and options for progressively reducing the number of on-street car parks.
Consider changing current transport funding models so that urban rapid transit projects are funded on the same basis as state highways. Move to a polluter-pays model for solutions that relieve congestion: invest revenue from road congestion charges in public transport. Value uplift capture from tansit-oriented development is another potential funding stream.
Added lines 20-21:
Added lines 1-19:
The LGWM Scenarios A to D make no provision for a "rapid transit" option -- public transport fast enough to compete with private car travel. Designating the Golden Mile (Lambton Quay, Willis St, Manners St, Courtenay Place) as the "mass transit" corridor, an area crowded with pedestrians and with many narrow sections, excludes the possibility of rapid transit through the central city.
(:typeset-page fontset=kepler colophon=off parasep=number headingcolor=RoyalBlue subtitle="Add a Rapid Transit option" :)
The scenarios do not include any measures designed to grow public transport's mode share, by offering people an attractive and inviting alternative to the private car. Fair Intelligent Transport (FIT) Wellington proposes that LGWM properly assess the case for investing in rapid transit based on light rail now, rather than bus "mass transit" now, upgrading to light rail at some unspecified future date.
This means taking a more strategic approach to public transport than LGWM's narrow focus on capacity, to include setting targets for mode share and travel time savings. The primary purpose for light rail is to maximize demand. To achieve this: choose a string-of-pearls route, serving locations with high demand all day; foster transit-oriented development along the route; and make the service predictable, frequent and well-connected, with competitive travel times.
LGWM also needs to consider measures for managing travel demand. This could include a congestion charge for car trips entering the central city during peak times, to reduce traffic on city streets and make it easier to get around. In addition, review parking strategies around pricing and options for progressively reducing the number of on-street car parks.
Consider changing current transport funding models so that urban rapid transit projects are funded on the same basis as state highways. Move to a polluter-pays model for solutions that relieve congestion: invest revenue from road congestion charges in public transport. Value uplift capture from tansit-oriented development is another potential funding stream.
LGWM presents no credible proposal for how a future upgrade from bus "mass transit" to light rail rapid transit would be carried out. Evidence from overseas cities strongly suggests that such an upgrade will be difficult and expensive at best, impossible at worst. It may be cheaper and will be less disruptive to build once and build right.
FIT proposes Scenario A+ as an alternative to the LGWM Scenarios A to D. Scenario A+ is Scenario A plus light rail rapid transit and congestion charging. Completing Scenario A+, FIT endorses calls for multiple safe places for people walking and cycling to cross SH1 between Willis St and the airport.
FIT also supports the proposal in Scenario C to move eastbound SH1 from Vivian St to a tunnel on the Inner City Bypass route. The string-of-pearls route proposes a rail tunnel under Mt Albert between the Zoo and Kilbirnie; with Scenario A+ a second Mt Victoria road tunnel for "mass transit" is not needed.
Implementing Scenario A+ will offer many more people the option of congestion-free travel. Scenarios A to D will not do this. Light rail is a mature, proven, low-risk solution available from a range of suppliers, giving maximally competitive procurement.