Changed lines 11-13 from:
(:typeset-page fontset=kepler parasep=number autonumber=1 colophon=off headingcolor=ForestGreen colorlinks=on :)
to:
(:typeset-page fontset=kepler parasep=number autonumber=1 colophon=off watermark=draft headingcolor=ForestGreen colorlinks=on subtitle="subject to change in light of new information" :)
Changed lines 38-39 from:
If the peak demand accounts for half the total daily demand, this gives a ridership of about 60,000 passengers per day.
to:
If the peak demand accounts for half the total daily demand, this gives a potential ridership of about 60,000 passengers per day.
Changed lines 42-43 from:
Bus Rapid Transit in Wellington would need four lanes. Light rail would need only two, but light rail without buses would demand too many transfers, so no-one is suggesting this. Light rail and buses need separate routes, with different stop capacity and frequency, to avoid the slower buses holding up the faster trams. This means that a good quality rapid transit solution needs four lanes through the central city--"Four lanes to the trains."
to:
Bus Rapid Transit in Wellington would need four lanes. Light rail would need only two, but light rail without buses would demand too many transfers, so no-one is suggesting this. Light rail and buses need separate routes, with different stop capacity and frequency, to avoid the slower buses holding up the faster trams. This means a good quality rapid transit solution needs four lanes through the central city--"Four lanes to the trains."
Changed lines 48-49 from:
Ultimate route capacity is 40 tram/hr with grade separation (1`12 min headway--fewer than for buses because trams can rarely double-berth at stops). One result is that shared bus/tram lanes are rarely acceptable, and never acceptable if the buses stop on the tram tracks: trams have much shorter dwell times.
to:
Ultimate route capacity is 40 tram/hr with grade separation (1`12 min headway--fewer than for buses because trams can rarely double-berth at stops). One result is that shared bus/tram lanes are rarely acceptable, and never acceptable if the buses stop on the tram tracks: trams have much shorter dwell times at stops.
Changed lines 65-66 from:
For an estimated initial peak demand of 4000 pass/hr, plan for a 5-6 minute headway during the morning and afternoon peaks, 10-12 minute headway off-peak and on weekends, or shorter vehicles and keep the peak period frequency.
to:
For an estimated initial peak demand of 4000 pass/hr, plan for a 5-6 minute headway during the morning and afternoon peaks, 10-12 minute headway off-peak and on weekends; or preferably use shorter vehicles off-peak and keep the peak period frequency all day every day.
Changed lines 69-70 from:
Optimise for fairly steep gradients (6-8%).
to:
Optimise vehicle performance settings for fairly steep gradients (6-8%).
Changed lines 73-75 from:
to:
Autonomous (self-driving) trams may well be commonplace by the time light rail comes to fruition in Wellington. Such vehicles will dramatically lower the marginal cost of providing high frequency off-peak service, thereby attracting new passengers.
Changed lines 109-110 from:
In contrast, light rail performs best on fast routes with relatively infrequent stops (although stops may be slightly closer together in the city centre and further apart in the suburbs). People wanting fast trips will tend to be willing to walk further to reach a stop.
to:
In contrast, light rail performs best on fast routes with relatively infrequent stops (although stops may be slightly closer together in the city centre and further apart in the suburbs). People wanting fast trips will tend to be willing to walk further to reach a stop (up to 10 minutes).
Added lines 115-118:
* A hybrid option. Light rail shares the golden mile with buses on Lambton Quay, with an interchange at Midland Park, then continues down Lambton Q to Panama St, the waterfront and a stop at Frank Kitts Park. Northbound, light rail travels on Hunter St between the waterfront and Lambton Q. Buses mostly on the golden mile but deviating to the east between Hunter and Johnston Streets:
**southbound, Lambton Q, Johnston St, Featherston St, Panama St, Customhouse Q, Willis St
** northbound, Lambton Q.
Deleted lines 120-123:
* A hybrid option. Light rail shares the golden mile with buses at the north end of Lambton Quay, with an interchange at Midland Park, then continues down Lambton Q to Hunter St, the waterfront and a stop at Frank Kitts Park. Buses mostly on the golden mile but deviating to the east between Hunter and Waring Taylor Streets:
**southbound, Lambton Q, Panama St, Customhouse Q, Willis St
** northbound, Lambton Q, Featherston St, Waring Taylor St, Lambton Q.
Added lines 129-130:
* May require barrier arms at street crossings (cf. the rail crossings on Waterloo Quay).
Changed lines 141-142 from:
* Shared with local motor vehicles but barriers to prevent through motor traffic (Wallace St, although removing on-street parking to make room for dedicated light rail lanes would be preferable).
to:
* Some sharing with local motor vehicles but barriers to prevent through motor traffic (Wallace St, although removing on-street parking to make room for dedicated light rail lanes would be preferable).
Added lines 147-148:
* Miramar (requiring peninsular passengers to transfer at Kilbirnie may discourage patronage from what is a high-growth area).
Deleted lines 152-153:
Added lines 159-160:
A 5-6 minute headway on a route optimised for speed will minimise the perceived transfer penalty.
Changed lines 28-29 from:
Good quality public transport in Wellington is very likely to generate strong patronage growth, as shown by international experience and Auckland's North Shore Busway and electrified passenger rail. (Passenger rail patronage in Auckland was 5 million/yr in 2006, 10 million in 2011 and 18 million in 2016: [[transportblog 2017-01-10 -> http://transportblog.co.nz/2017/01/10/atap-asaps-extra-trains/]])
to:
Good quality public transport in Wellington is very likely to generate strong patronage growth, as shown by international experience and Auckland's North Shore Busway and electrified passenger rail (and Waikanae rail?). (Passenger rail patronage in Auckland was 5 million/yr in 2006, 10 million in 2011 and 18 million in 2016: [[transportblog 2017-01-10 -> http://transportblog.co.nz/2017/01/10/atap-asaps-extra-trains/]])
Changed lines 36-37 from:
to:
* a further 3000 pass/hour on buses during peak periods
Changed lines 42-43 from:
Bus Rapid Transit in Wellington would need four lanes. Light rail would need only two, but light rail without buses would demand too many transfers, so no-one is suggesting this. Light rail and buses need separate routes, with different stop capacity and frequency, to avoid the slower buses holding up the faster trams. This means that a good quality solution needs four lanes through the central city--"Four lanes to the trains."
to:
Bus Rapid Transit in Wellington would need four lanes. Light rail would need only two, but light rail without buses would demand too many transfers, so no-one is suggesting this. Light rail and buses need separate routes, with different stop capacity and frequency, to avoid the slower buses holding up the faster trams. This means that a good quality rapid transit solution needs four lanes through the central city--"Four lanes to the trains."
Changed lines 46-47 from:
Practical capacity for an at-grade light rail system is about 20-24 trams/hr (2`12 or 3 min headway). Higher tram frequencies potentially create traffic congestion at busy intersections and planners are tempted to hold up the trams so the cars can clear.
to:
Practical operating capacity for an at-grade light rail system is about 20-24 trams/hr (2`12 or 3 min headway). Higher tram frequencies potentially create traffic congestion at busy intersections and planners are tempted to hold up the trams so the cars can clear.
Changed line 67 from:
A 7-section tram can carry 10,000 pass/hr at a 2`12 min headway.
to:
A 2.4 m 7-section tram can comfortably carry 10,000 pass/hr at a 2`12 min headway.
Changed lines 3-8 from:
:Light Rail:An urban rapid transit system, faster with fewer stops.
:Streetcar:A local system, slower with more stops. Wellington's original tram system was a streetcar.
:Tram:A light rail vehicle or a streetcar vehicle. Some cities use ''tram'' as a synonym for a streetcar system, which can be confusing.
to:
:Light Rail:A rapid transit system, segregated from general traffic as much as possible, faster, 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.
Changed lines 16-30 from:
The minimum length of a first line should be 5-8 km (European rule of thumb). Time-savings on a short run cannot offset transfer delays.
Light rail is generally viable if peak-hour patronage on the busiest section is 3000 pass/hr (European rule of thumb).
The capacity of a quality bus route is about 60 bus/hr (2011 Bus Review), which for conventional buses gives a capacity of about 3000 pass/hr.
A high-capacity public transport route should be aligned with planning to maximise patronage. This suggests an initial Railway Station, Wellington Hospital, Newtown, Kilbirnie, Wellington Airport.
Other viable routes are likely, such as Miramar, Island Bay, Karori and Lower Hutt.
Aim for an average speed of 30 km/hr, giving a travel time from the Railway Station to Airport of 17 minutes. The average speed should be not less than 25 km/hr, giving a maximum travel time of 20 minutes.
Quality public transport in Wellington is very likely to generate strong patronage growth, as shown by international experience and Auckland's North Shore Busway and electrified passenger rail. (Passenger rail patronage in Auckland was 5 million/yr in 2006, 10 million in 2011 and 18 million in 2016: [[transportblog 2017-01-10 -> http://transportblog.co.nz/2017/01/10/atap-asaps-extra-trains/]])
The potential peak demand is up to 8000 pass/hr:
to:
The length of a first line should be at least 5-8 km (European rule of thumb; Wellington Railway Station to the Hospital is 4km--too short for a first line). Time-savings on a short run cannot offset transfer delays or generate substantial revenue.
Light rail is generally economically viable if peak-hour patronage on the busiest section is over 3000 passengers per hour (European rule of thumb).
The optimum (not operational) capacity of a quality bus route is about 60 buses per hour (2011 Wellington Bus Review), which for conventional buses gives a capacity of about 3000 passengers per hour.
A high-capacity public transport route should be aligned with land use planning to maximise patronage. This suggests an initial Railway Station, Wellington Hospital, Newtown, Kilbirnie, Wellington Airport route. Apart from the airport and Newtown, this is the same as the {PTSS|Public Transport Spine Study} route.
Other viable and feasible routes are likely, such as Miramar, Island Bay, Karori and Lower Hutt.
Aim for an average speed of 30 km/hr, giving a travel time from the Railway Station to Airport of 17 minutes or less. Allowing for a short layover at each end gives a round trip time of 40 minutes.
Good quality public transport in Wellington is very likely to generate strong patronage growth, as shown by international experience and Auckland's North Shore Busway and electrified passenger rail. (Passenger rail patronage in Auckland was 5 million/yr in 2006, 10 million in 2011 and 18 million in 2016: [[transportblog 2017-01-10 -> http://transportblog.co.nz/2017/01/10/atap-asaps-extra-trains/]])
The estimated potential peak demand for light rail on a line from the Railway Station to the Airport is up to 8000 pass/hr, based on:
Changed lines 37-40 from:
A crucial problem in Wellington is a heavily overloaded two-lane bus route through the central city, carrying up to 6000 pass/hr.
Bus Rapid Transit in Wellington would need four lanes. Light rail would need only two, but light rail without buses would demand too many transfers. Light rail and buses need separate routes (stop capacity), which means that a quality solution needs four lanes through the central city--"Four lanes to the trains."
to:
A crucial problem in Wellington is a heavily overloaded two-lane bus route through the central city, with 130-140 buses per hour, carrying up to 6000 pass/hr. Dominion Road in Auckland carries a peak of 120 buses/hr and Auckland Transport deems this sufficient to justify light rail.
Bus Rapid Transit in Wellington would need four lanes. Light rail would need only two, but light rail without buses would demand too many transfers, so no-one is suggesting this. Light rail and buses need separate routes, with different stop capacity and frequency, to avoid the slower buses holding up the faster trams. This means that a good quality solution needs four lanes through the central city--"Four lanes to the trains."
Changed lines 43-48 from:
Ultimate route capacity is 40 tram/hr with grade separation (fewer than for buses because trams can rarely double-berth at stops). One result is that shared bus/tram lanes are rarely acceptable, and never acceptable if the buses stop on the tram tracks: trams have much shorter dwell times.
Practical capacity for an at-grade light rail system is closer to 20 trams/hr (3 min headway).
Tram-trains (also running on `KiwiRail tracks) are unlikely to be cost-effective in Wellington because of greater costs than light rail for limited additional benefits.
to:
Practical capacity for an at-grade light rail system is about 20-24 trams/hr (2`12 or 3 min headway). Higher tram frequencies potentially create traffic congestion at busy intersections and planners are tempted to hold up the trams so the cars can clear.
Ultimate route capacity is 40 tram/hr with grade separation (1`12 min headway--fewer than for buses because trams can rarely double-berth at stops). One result is that shared bus/tram lanes are rarely acceptable, and never acceptable if the buses stop on the tram tracks: trams have much shorter dwell times.
An extensive tram-train system (also running on `KiwiRail tracks) is unlikely to be cost-effective in Wellington because of greater costs than light rail for limited additional benefits (tram-train would let some passengers avoid a transfer between modes at the Railway Station).
Changed lines 54-57 from:
Modern low-floor trams with level boarding from low platforms (~350 mm).
Modular construction for cost-effectiveness ([[Siemens Avenio -> http://wwwmobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/en/urban-mobility/rail-solutions/trams-and-light-rail/avenio/Pages/avenio.aspx]] used as a representative example). These vehicles can be purchased in short lengths then lengthened cheaply as patronage grows, by adding new sections. This is cheaper than coupling multiple trams together because the most costly components are the cabs and control system (Avenio is available in 2 to 8 sections, 18 to 72 m).
to:
Modern low-floor trams with level boarding from low platforms (~350 mm). This effectively means tram-train use of these vehicles would not be possible, as train systems are high platform.
Modular construction for cost-effectiveness ([[Siemens Avenio -> http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/en/urban-mobility/rail-solutions/trams-and-light-rail/avenio/Pages/avenio.aspx]] used as a representative example). The vehicles are modular and can be purchased in short sections, then lengthened cheaply as patronage grows by adding new modules. This is cheaper than coupling multiple trams together because the most costly components are the cabs and control system (Avenio is available in 2 to 8 sections, 18 to 72 m).
Added lines 62-63:
A 7-section tram can carry 10,000 pass/hr at a 2`12 min headway.
Changed lines 94-99 from:
Route capacity is taken as (tram capacity × tram/hr) or nominally 10,000 pass/hr for an at-grade route, ignoring "football match" capacities (potentially up to 16,800 pass/hr with grade-separated intersections).
Minimum lane width based on UK regulations, which seem conservative, generally 3.1-3.3 m. But the {GSDG|Global Street Design Guide} gives 3.0 m (Auckland assumes 3.5 m). Pole location, parallel parking, and truck wing-mirrors are also issues. Refer [[GSDG -> http://nacto.org/global-street-design-guide-gsdg/]].
Minimum side platform clearance to any obstructions 1.5 m, use 2.5 m (including 0.5 m for ticketing machines, seating etc. GSDG gives 2.5-3.0 including canopy supports, or more at busy stops. Island platforms an assumed 4.5 m min (1.5 m for shelter, seating, ticketing), although Auckland assumes 3.0 m.
to:
Route capacity is taken as (tram capacity × tram/hr) or nominally 10,000 pass/hr for an at-grade route, ignoring "football match" crush loading capacities (potentially up to 16,800 pass/hr with grade-separated intersections).
Minimum lane width based on UK regulations, which seem conservative, generally 3.1-3.3 m. But the {GSDG|Global Street Design Guide} gives 3.0 m (Auckland assumes 3.5 m). Pole location, parallel parking, and truck wing-mirrors are also issues. See [[the GSDG -> http://nacto.org/global-street-design-guide-gsdg/]].
Minimum side platform clearance (passenger standing area) to any obstructions 1.5 m, use 2.5 m (including 0.5 m for ticketing machines, seating etc. GSDG gives 2.5-3.0 including canopy supports, or more at busy stops. Island platforms an assumed 4.5 m min (1.5 m for shelter, seating, ticketing), although Auckland assumes 3.0 m.
Changed lines 102-107 from:
In contrast, light rail performs best on fast routes with relatively infrequent stops. People wanting fast trips will tend to be willing to walk further to reach a stop.
FIT has considered three options:
* Buses on the golden mile, light rail on the seaward side of the waterfront, with stops atRailway Station, Frank Kitts Park and perhaps Kumutoto.
to:
In contrast, light rail performs best on fast routes with relatively infrequent stops (although stops may be slightly closer together in the city centre and further apart in the suburbs). People wanting fast trips will tend to be willing to walk further to reach a stop.
FIT has considered three options for the best section of route through the CBD:
* Buses on the golden mile, light rail on the waterfront (likely the seaward side), with stops at the Railway Station, Frank Kitts Park and perhaps Kumutoto (mid-way between the station and Frank Kitts).
Changed lines 114-115 from:
Types of light rail track envisaged:
to:
Characteristics of light rail track envisaged:
Changed lines 122-123 from:
to:
* Grassed track where suitable (practical where no other vehicles use the light rail lane).
Added lines 128-129:
* Controlled right turns needed at most intersections, making other vehicles go around the block (G and Q turns) rather than turning directly.
Changed line 153 from:
The Railway Station hub, for buses and trams, will probably go above and across the tracks, with escalators down to rail and street level.
to:
The Railway Station hub, for buses and trams, will probably go above and across the tracks, with escalators down to rail and street level. Configuration will depend on whether light rail runs on the waterfront, via Stout St to Lambton Quay at Midland Park, or from the existing bus hub to Lambton Quay.
Added lines 1-157:
!! Definitions
:Light Rail:An urban rapid transit system, faster with fewer stops.
:Streetcar:A local system, slower with more stops. Wellington's original tram system was a streetcar.
:Tram:A light rail vehicle or a streetcar vehicle. Some cities use ''tram'' as a synonym for a streetcar system, which can be confusing.
FIT is proposing a light rail system for Wellington, ''not'' a streetcar system.
(:typeset-page fontset=kepler parasep=number autonumber=1 colophon=off headingcolor=ForestGreen colorlinks=on :)
!! System
The minimum length of a first line should be 5-8 km (European rule of thumb). Time-savings on a short run cannot offset transfer delays.
Light rail is generally viable if peak-hour patronage on the busiest section is 3000 pass/hr (European rule of thumb).
The capacity of a quality bus route is about 60 bus/hr (2011 Bus Review), which for conventional buses gives a capacity of about 3000 pass/hr.
A high-capacity public transport route should be aligned with planning to maximise patronage. This suggests an initial Railway Station, Wellington Hospital, Newtown, Kilbirnie, Wellington Airport.
Other viable routes are likely, such as Miramar, Island Bay, Karori and Lower Hutt.
Aim for an average speed of 30 km/hr, giving a travel time from the Railway Station to Airport of 17 minutes. The average speed should be not less than 25 km/hr, giving a maximum travel time of 20 minutes.
Quality public transport in Wellington is very likely to generate strong patronage growth, as shown by international experience and Auckland's North Shore Busway and electrified passenger rail. (Passenger rail patronage in Auckland was 5 million/yr in 2006, 10 million in 2011 and 18 million in 2016: [[transportblog 2017-01-10 -> http://transportblog.co.nz/2017/01/10/atap-asaps-extra-trains/]])
The potential peak demand is up to 8000 pass/hr:
* approximate population along the corridor: 50,000
* 50% of population are commuters (adults and students): 25,000
* light rail attracts 50% of commuters: 12,500
* a 2-hour commuting peak: 6250 pass/hour
* plus 20% for the airport and hospital: 7500 pass/hour
A crucial problem in Wellington is a heavily overloaded two-lane bus route through the central city, carrying up to 6000 pass/hr.
Bus Rapid Transit in Wellington would need four lanes. Light rail would need only two, but light rail without buses would demand too many transfers. Light rail and buses need separate routes (stop capacity), which means that a quality solution needs four lanes through the central city--"Four lanes to the trains."
Costs can be kept to a reasonable minimum using a no-frills approach, with all intersections at-grade.
Ultimate route capacity is 40 tram/hr with grade separation (fewer than for buses because trams can rarely double-berth at stops). One result is that shared bus/tram lanes are rarely acceptable, and never acceptable if the buses stop on the tram tracks: trams have much shorter dwell times.
Practical capacity for an at-grade light rail system is closer to 20 trams/hr (3 min headway).
Tram-trains (also running on `KiwiRail tracks) are unlikely to be cost-effective in Wellington because of greater costs than light rail for limited additional benefits.
Specifications for track and trams "the same as Auckland" if at all possible, probably with standard gauge track (1435 mm). A likely deviation is trams 2.4 m wide, instead of the more usual 2.65 m, probably necessary in Wellington's narrow streets (such as Hunter, Constable, and Riddiford).
!! Vehicles
Modern low-floor trams with level boarding from low platforms (~350 mm).
Modular construction for cost-effectiveness ([[Siemens Avenio -> http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/en/urban-mobility/rail-solutions/trams-and-light-rail/avenio/Pages/avenio.aspx]] used as a representative example). These vehicles can be purchased in short lengths then lengthened cheaply as patronage grows, by adding new sections. This is cheaper than coupling multiple trams together because the most costly components are the cabs and control system (Avenio is available in 2 to 8 sections, 18 to 72 m).
Capacity about 420 passengers for a 2.4 m wide, 7-section vehicle (63 m long). Siemens give the limiting capacity (football match etc) as about 30% higher than this, or 540. Standing room is 4 persons per m'^2^'. Tab(routeCapacity) shows the estimated route capacity for different headways.
For an estimated initial peak demand of 4000 pass/hr, plan for a 5-6 minute headway during the morning and afternoon peaks, 10-12 minute headway off-peak and on weekends, or shorter vehicles and keep the peak period frequency.
Optimise for fairly steep gradients (6-8%).
Vehicle numbers are (round trip + layover + recovery) times for each scheduled trip, plus 10% spare, plus an additional tram for orders of less than 12 trams.
||border=1 align=center cellpadding=3pt id=routeCapacity"Maximum passengers per hour for 2.4 m tram"
||! Route capacity for a range of tram sizes and headways !||
||! Length||! Capacity||! 3 min||! 6 min||! 12 min||! 2`12 min||! 5 min||! 10 min||
|| 18 m|| 109|| 2180|| 1090|| 545|| 2616|| 1308|| 654||
|| 27 m|| 172|| 3440|| 1720|| 860|| 4128|| 2064|| 1032||
|| 36 m|| 236|| 4720|| 2360|| 1180|| 5664|| 2832|| 1416||
|| 45 m|| 296|| 5920|| 2960|| 1480|| 7140|| 3552|| 1776||
|| 54 m|| 362|| 7240|| 3620|| 1810|| 8688|| 4344|| 2172||
|| 63 m|| 420|| 8400|| 4200|| 2100|| 10,080|| 5040|| 2520||
|| 72 m|| 486|| 9720|| 4860|| 2430|| 11,664|| 5832|| 2916||
!! Routes
Initial route from the Railway Station to Wellington Hospital, then by Constable St or Wellington Zoo to Kilbirnie and Wellington Airport.
A high priority on maximizing congestion-free running, and average speed.
Stop-spacing generally around 800 m, adjusted to suitable locations at major destinations.
Minimum curve radius 25 m, generally about 28-29 m for the outer track, including end-throw. Approximate curve speed = sqrt(radius) × 3.6 km/hr).
Nominal stop length 63 m (7-section Avenio). With trams 2.4 m wide this gives a comfortable capacity of about 420. For 2.65 m wide trams, the capacity is about 470.
Route capacity is taken as (tram capacity × tram/hr) or nominally 10,000 pass/hr for an at-grade route, ignoring "football match" capacities (potentially up to 16,800 pass/hr with grade-separated intersections).
Minimum lane width based on UK regulations, which seem conservative, generally 3.1-3.3 m. But the {GSDG|Global Street Design Guide} gives 3.0 m (Auckland assumes 3.5 m). Pole location, parallel parking, and truck wing-mirrors are also issues.
Minimum side platform clearance to any obstructions 1.5 m, use 2.5 m (including 0.5 m for ticketing machines, seating etc. GSDG gives 2.5-3.0 including canopy supports, or more at busy stops. Island platforms an assumed 4.5 m min (1.5 m for shelter, seating, ticketing), although Auckland assumes 3.0 m.
Buses are probably best on the golden mile. The existing stop pattern gives good CBD access for people unable to walk far, and the buildings provide relatively good shelter. Such people will tend to prefer avoiding a transfer, and buses will offer them a slower but more direct service to many destinations.
In contrast, light rail performs best on fast routes with relatively infrequent stops. People wanting fast trips will tend to be willing to walk further to reach a stop.
FIT has considered three options:
* Buses on the golden mile, light rail on the seaward side of the waterfront, with stops at the Railway Station, Frank Kitts Park and perhaps Kumutoto.
* Buses on the golden mile, light rail "somewhere else," taking advantage of space made available from narrowing existing traffic lanes or removing on-street parking. No specific route has been identified.
* A hybrid option. Light rail shares the golden mile with buses at the north end of Lambton Quay, with an interchange at Midland Park, then continues down Lambton Q to Hunter St, the waterfront and a stop at Frank Kitts Park. Buses mostly on the golden mile but deviating to the east between Hunter and Waring Taylor Streets:
**southbound, Lambton Q, Panama St, Customhouse Q, Willis St
** northbound, Lambton Q, Featherston St, Waring Taylor St, Lambton Q.
Types of light rail track envisaged:
* Fully reserved route off-road (Johnsonville Line, Mt Albert Tunnel).
* On-street, centre-running is preferred (gutter running tends to attract delays from turning or parked vehicles).
* Near-absolute priority at traffic signals, anywhere. This needs two priority signals: ''priority in x seconds'' followed roughly x seconds later by ''priority now''. This gives the traffic signal computer time to organize signal phases effectively.
* Grassed track.
* Semi-reserved route separated by raised trackbed (UK: kerbs would be cheaper), roughened to further discourage motor vehicles (Constable St).
* Motor vehicles permitted when turning right at traffic signals at some intersections, timed to clear the traffic queue before a tram arrives (Constable St, Riddiford St).
* Motor vehicles permitted to cross tracks to access private property where this is unavoidable (Constable, Riddiford, Wallace Sts).
* Shared with local motor vehicles but barriers to prevent through motor traffic (Wallace St, although removing on-street parking to make room for dedicated light rail lanes would be preferable).
Note that a lot of the FIT route has not been planned in detail and may change with more information. Detailed design includes identifying route bottlenecks that would slow the system down (increase the travel time), and find ways to eliminate them.
Possible future routes include:
* Karori (large potential demand, difficult and costly, but the alternatives may well be worse).
* Island Bay (Rintoul St tricky and residents appear reluctant to reallocate road space from cars to more efficient modes).
* Miramar.
* Ferries and Hutt Valley (explore route to Petone, then Melling Line and to Waterloo).
* Johnsonville long-term (when the existing line runs out of capacity).
!! Transfers
The golden mile needs good hubs for transfers at each end.
The Railway Station hub, for buses and trams, will probably go above and across the tracks, with escalators down to rail and street level.
The southern hub could be at Te Aro Park (Taranaki St route) or Courtenay Pl (Basin Reserve route).
Midland Park is a possible intermediate hub.
A Kilbirnie hub for transfers to and from the Miramar Peninsular.
Timetables must be arranged to minimise transfer times (this only becomes an issue off-peak, when the headway is greater than 5 mins).