Recent Changes
Recent Changes · Search:

FITWellington.​PublicTransportSpineStudy History

Hide minor edits - Show changes to output

28 June 2017 at 08:54 AM by John Rankin - note lower frequency service of split route
Changed line 46 from:
The route selection is poor, involving a Y shape with one leg going to Hataitai/Kilbirnie and one leg going to Newtown. The consequence is to impose an unnecessary $200M cost on light rail for a second Mt Victoria tunnel along a route that doesn't align well with high growth areas such as Te Aro, Newtown and Kilbirnie. As a consequence the modelling does not pick up higher patronage benefits from growth areas.
to:
The route selection is poor, involving a Y shape with one leg going to Hataitai/Kilbirnie and one leg going to Newtown. The consequence is to impose an unnecessary $200M cost on light rail for a second Mt Victoria tunnel along a route that doesn't align well with high growth areas such as Te Aro, Newtown and Kilbirnie. As a consequence the modelling does not pick up higher patronage benefits from growth areas. The frequency of service south of the split is halved on each leg, making it less attractive than an unsplit route.
26 February 2017 at 08:53 AM by John Rankin - expand list of issues with PTSS
Changed lines 44-48 from:
Tab(spineAssessment) shows we should not be surprised the [[Spine Study -> http://www.gw.govt.nz/ptspinestudy/]] found the light rail proposal was low benefit.
to:
Tab(spineAssessment) shows we should not be surprised the [[Spine Study -> http://www.gw.govt.nz/ptspinestudy/]] found the light rail proposal was low benefit.

The route selection is poor, involving a Y shape with one leg going to Hataitai/Kilbirnie and one leg going to Newtown. The consequence is to impose an unnecessary $200M cost on light rail for a second Mt Victoria tunnel along a route that doesn't align well with high growth areas such as Te Aro, Newtown and Kilbirnie. As a consequence the modelling does not pick up higher patronage benefits from growth areas.

Also, questionable assumptions in the modelling seriously understate the benefits of light rail. It assumes few people shift out of their cars on to light rail and it ignores international experience that introducing light rail can achieve an immediate growth in public transport patronage of up to 25% due to increased service standards, which result in reduced congestion for all road users with significant time saving benefit. The PTSS ignores land use benefits and value uplift from intensification around light rail transit nodes and corridors as experienced overseas. It ignores the greater capacity of light rail
.
26 September 2015 at 06:17 PM by John Rankin - fix markup
Changed line 6 from:
(:cell width=10%:)
to:
(:cell width=8%:)
Changed line 8 from:
(:cell width=65%:)
to:
(:cell width=67%:)
Changed line 13 from:
✗1 ✗
to:
✗ ✗
Deleted line 19:
(:cell:)✓` ✓
Added lines 21-22:
✓` ✓
(:cell:)
Changed line 76 from:
||Have widely spaced stops
to:
Have widely spaced stops
26 September 2015 at 06:14 PM by John Rankin - incorporate Kerry's changes
Changed line 13 from:
✗
to:
✗1 ✗
Changed lines 15-17 from:
Chosen route layout does not achieve this
to:
Chosen route divided and incoherent with minimal interchanges

Slow trips because most routes are shared with buses
Changed line 22 from:
Assume modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity
to:
Modern modular-construction light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity
Changed lines 28-30 from:
Golden Mile route implies frequent stops

Route shares the right-of-way with buses, so will be subject to unpredictable delays
to:
Impractical on a route shared with buses
Changed line 32 from:
✗` ✗
to:
✗
Changed lines 34-36 from:
Missed destinations include the Airport, education and recreation centres, and higher-density residential areas

Too many passengers going to Wellington Hospital will have to transfer
to:
Missed destinations include the Airport, education and recreation centres and higher-density residential and mixed-use areas (Newtown, Mt Cook and Te Aro)
Changed line 40 from:
Little attempt to increase system-wide trip speeds or create an integrated system with timed transfers offering fast trips anywhere-to-anywhere
to:
Little attempt to increase system-wide trip speeds or integrate with rail or bus services
Changed lines 63-67 from:
A fast and reliable route linking interchanges at the Railway Station, Manners St, Wellington Hospital and Kilbirnie

Existing bus routes retained with bus numbers reduced  to well within existing capacity limits

Avoiding the Basin Reserve reduces demand for new roading
to:
Chosen route link interchanges at the Railway Station, Manners St, Wellington Hospital and Kilbirnie

Fast trips because high-capacity vehicles allow a high priority without delaying other traffic

Existing golden mile route retained for congestion-free local buses
Changed line 73 from:
Modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity
to:
Modern modular-construction light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity
Changed line 79 from:
Average stop spacing about 700 metres, on a dedicated right-of-way for most of the route
to:
Average stop spacing about 700 metres for fast running, on a dedicated right-of-way for most of the route
Changed line 85 from:
Interchanges listed above, other important stops include Airport, Rita Angus home, Newtown and Mt Cook/Massey Campus
to:
Airport, Rita Angus home, Kilbirnie and Newtown shops, Mt Cook/Massey Campus, plus four interchanges
Changed lines 91-93 from:
All bus routes running to or south of the Railway Station connect to light rail, with timed transfers at all primary interchanges

New and existing services integrated from Kilbirnie to Waikanae
to:
All bus routes running to or south of the Railway Station connect with light rail at one or more interchanges, with timetables aligned to minimise transfer times
26 September 2015 at 06:01 PM by John Rankin - convert to table markup
Changed lines 3-10 from:
||border=1 id=spineAssessment"PTSS assessed against requirements"
||!Requirement ||!PTSS ||!Comment on PTSS ||
||Tie the city together || ✗ ||Chosen route layout does not achieve this ||
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✓` ✓ ||Assume modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity ||
||Have widely spaced stops || ✗` ✗ ||Golden Mile route implies frequent stops; route shares the right-of-way with buses, so will be subject to unpredictable delays ||
||Reach major destinations || ✗` ✗ ||Missed destinations include the Airport, education and recreation centres, and higher-density residential areas; too many passengers going to Wellington Hospital will have to transfer ||
||Form the core of an integrated network || ✗ ||Little attempt to increase system-wide trip speeds or create an integrated system with timed transfers offering fast trips anywhere-to-anywhere ||

to:
(:table border=1 id=spineAssessment"PTSS assessed against requirements":)
(:cellnr width=25%:)
'''Requirement'''
(:cell width=10%:)
'''PTSS'''
(:cell width=65%:)
'''Comment on PTSS'''
(:cellnr:)
Tie the city together
(:cell:)
✗
(:cell:)
Chosen route layout does not achieve this
(:cellnr:)
Require high-performance vehicles
(:cell:)✓` ✓
(:cell:)
Assume modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity
(:cellnr:)
Have widely spaced stops
(:cell:)
✗` ✗
(:cell:)
Golden Mile route implies frequent stops

Route shares the right-of-way with buses, so will be subject to unpredictable delays
(:cellnr:)
Reach major destinations
(:cell:)
✗` ✗
(:cell:)
Missed destinations include the Airport, education and recreation centres, and higher-density residential areas

Too many passengers going to Wellington Hospital will have to transfer
(:cellnr:)
Form the core of an integrated network
(:cell:)
✗
(:cell:)
Little attempt to increase system-wide trip speeds or create an integrated system with timed transfers offering fast trips anywhere-to-anywhere
(:tableend:)

Changed lines 53-59 from:
||border=1 id=fitAssessment"FIT assessed against requirements"
||!Requirement ||!FIT ||!Comment on FIT ||
||Tie the city together || ✓` ✓ ||A fast and reliable route linking interchanges at the Railway Station, Manners St, Wellington Hospital and Kilbirnie; Existing bus routes retained with bus numbers reduced  to well within existing capacity limits; Avoiding the Basin Reserve reduces demand for new roading ||
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✓` ✓ ||Modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity ||
||Have widely spaced stops || ✓` ✓ ||Average stop spacing about 700 metres, on a dedicated right-of-way for most of the route ||
||Reach major destinations || ✓` ✓ ||Interchanges listed above, other important stops include Airport, Rita Angus home, Newtown & Mt Cook/Massey Campus ||
||Form the core of an integrated network || ✓` ✓ ||All bus routes running to or south of the Railway Station connect to light rail, with timed transfers at all primary interchanges; New and existing services integrated from Kilbirnie to Waikanae ||
to:
(:table border=1 id=fitAssessment"FIT assessed against requirements":)
(:cellnr width=25%:)
'''Requirement'''
(:cell width=10%:)
'''FIT'''
(:cell width=65%:)
'''Comment on FIT'''
(:cellnr:)
Tie the city together
(:cell:)
✓` ✓
(:cell:)
A fast and reliable route linking interchanges at the Railway Station, Manners St, Wellington Hospital and Kilbirnie

Existing bus routes retained with bus numbers reduced  to well within existing capacity limits

Avoiding the Basin Reserve reduces demand for new roading
(:cellnr:)
Require high-performance vehicles
(:cell:)
✓` ✓
(:cell:)
Modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity
(:cellnr:)
||Have widely spaced stops
(:cell:)
✓` ✓
(:cell:)
Average stop spacing about 700 metres, on a dedicated right-of-way for most of the route
(:cellnr:)
Reach major destinations
(:cell:)
✓` ✓
(:cell:)
Interchanges listed above, other important stops include Airport, Rita Angus home, Newtown and Mt Cook/Massey Campus
(:cellnr:)
Form the core of an integrated network
(:cell:)
✓` ✓
(:cell:)
All bus routes running to or south of the Railway Station connect to light rail, with timed transfers at all primary interchanges

New and existing services integrated from Kilbirnie to Waikanae
(:tableend:)
25 September 2015 at 08:17 PM by John Rankin - move dedicated-right-of-way point for FIT
Changed lines 22-23 from:
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✓` ✓ ||Modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity, on a dedicated right-of-way for most of the route ||
||Have widely spaced stops || ✓` ✓ ||Average stop spacing about 700 metres
||
to:
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✓` ✓ ||Modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity ||
||Have widely spaced stops || ✓` ✓
||Average stop spacing about 700 metres, on a dedicated right-of-way for most of the route ||
25 September 2015 at 08:14 PM by John Rankin - move shared right-of-way issue to 'widely-spaced stops'
Changed lines 6-7 from:
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✓ ||Assume modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity; but the route shares the right-of-way with buses, so will be subject to unpredictable delays ||
||Have widely spaced stops || ✗ ||Golden Mile route implies frequent stops; Hataitai route misses high demand points; Hospital route is too short to serve the high-density, mixed-use Newtown area
||
to:
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✓` ✓ ||Assume modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity ||
||Have widely spaced stops || ✗` ✗ ||Golden Mile route implies frequent stops; route shares the right-of-way with buses, so will be subject to unpredictable delays
||
25 September 2015 at 08:04 PM by John Rankin - note possibility of driverless operation if dedicated right-of-way
Changed line 27 from:
The proposed route would operate on a dedicated right-of-way for most of the line, which may make driverless operation practical by the time light rail comes to fruition in Wellington.
to:
The proposed route would operate on a dedicated right-of-way for most of the line, which may make driverless operation practical by the time light rail comes to fruition in Wellington, thereby significantly reducing the operating cost.
25 September 2015 at 08:03 PM by John Rankin - add Russell's comments
Changed lines 11-12 from:
Tab(spineAssessment) shows we should not be surprised the [[Spine Study -> http://www.gw.govt.nz/ptspinestudy/]] found the light rail proposal was low benefit. The proposed route was also intrinsically and unnecessarily high cost. Given the light rail route chosen, the spine study's cost`-benefit analysis correctly found that the proposal did not stack up economically.
to:
Tab(spineAssessment) shows we should not be surprised the [[Spine Study -> http://www.gw.govt.nz/ptspinestudy/]] found the light rail proposal was low benefit.

The operating costs for light rail in the study were also inflated. They included maintenance of rail tracks which may be less than road maintenance costs created by the proposed double-decker buses now planned. These large heavy vehicles were not predicted in the study. Staffing costs were also cited to be more expensive for light rail where, in fact, costs will be lower: a single driver can operate a multi-segment light rail vehicle carrying high passenger loads which would otherwise require multiple buses, each with its driver. The proposed route was also intrinsically and unnecessarily high cost. All these factors combine to make the Spine Study's costs for light rail unnecessarily expensive.

Given the light rail route chosen, the Spine Study
's cost`-benefit analysis correctly found that the proposal did not stack up economically.
Added lines 26-27:

The proposed route would operate on a dedicated right-of-way for most of the line, which may make driverless operation practical by the time light rail comes to fruition in Wellington.
25 September 2015 at 05:59 PM by John Rankin - grant PTSS a pass for the vehicles
Changed line 6 from:
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✗ ||Assume modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity; but the route shares the right-of-way with buses, so will be subject to unpredictable delays ||
to:
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✓ ||Assume modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity; but the route shares the right-of-way with buses, so will be subject to unpredictable delays ||
25 September 2015 at 01:45 PM by John Rankin - add PTSS costs and benefits
Changed lines 1-2 from:
The {PTSS|{$Titlespaced}} considered the option of light rail for Wellington and found it was high cost, low benefit. To understand this conclusion, we can assess the proposed route against the requirements in the ArtOfLightRailInsertion. Tab(spineAssessment) compares how well the PTSS light rail proposal meets these requirements.
to:
The {PTSS|{$Titlespaced}} considered the option of light rail for Wellington and found it was high cost ($938';m;'), low benefit (less than half that of the {BRT|Bus Rapid Transit} proposal). To understand this conclusion, we can assess the proposed light rail route against the requirements in the ArtOfLightRailInsertion. Tab(spineAssessment) compares how well the PTSS light rail proposal meets these requirements.
Changed line 23 from:
This analysis shows light rail needs another look.
to:
This analysis shows light rail needs another look, based on a route that reflects current best practice.
25 September 2015 at 11:29 AM by John Rankin - note use of dedicated right-of way
Changed line 18 from:
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✓` ✓ ||Modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity ||
to:
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✓` ✓ ||Modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity, on a dedicated right-of-way for most of the route ||
25 September 2015 at 11:28 AM by John Rankin - note shared right-of-way
Changed line 6 from:
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✓` ✓ ||Assume modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity ||
to:
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✗ ||Assume modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity; but the route shares the right-of-way with buses, so will be subject to unpredictable delays ||
24 September 2015 at 06:04 PM by John Rankin - attempt to score the PTSS proposal
Changed line 8 from:
||Reach major destinations || ✗ ||Missed destinations include the Airport, education and recreation centres, and higher-density residential areas; too many passengers going to Wellington Hospital will have to transfer ||
to:
||Reach major destinations || ✗` ✗ ||Missed destinations include the Airport, education and recreation centres, and higher-density residential areas; too many passengers going to Wellington Hospital will have to transfer ||
24 September 2015 at 06:02 PM by John Rankin - attempt to score the PTSS proposal
Changed lines 5-9 from:
||Tie the city together || ✗` ✗ ||Only marginal improvement of an overloaded route; no attempt to integrate services at quality interchanges, with integrated timetable design to minimise transfer times ||
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✗` ✗ ||Bendy-buses reportedly impractical on the golden mile, and double deckers too slow at stops without passing lanes; no attempt to separate express and stopping services {*is this light rail?*} ||
||Have widely spaced stops || ✗ ||No reliable information on stop spacing; the Hataitai route misses high demand points; the
Hospital route is too short to serve the high-density, mixed-use Newtown area ||
||Reach major destinations || ✗ ||Missed destinations include education and recreation centres, and higher-density residential areas; too many passengers going to Wellington Hospital will have to transfer ||
||Form the core of an integrated network || ✗` ✗ ||No attempt to increase system-wide trip speeds or create an integrated system
offering fast trips anywhere-to-anywhere ||
to:
||Tie the city together || ✗ ||Chosen route layout does not achieve this ||
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✓` ✓ ||Assume modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity
||
||Have widely spaced stops || ✗ ||Golden Mile route implies frequent stops; Hataitai route misses high demand points; Hospital route is too short to serve the high-density, mixed-use Newtown area ||
||Reach major destinations || ✗
||Missed destinations include the Airport, education and recreation centres, and higher-density residential areas; too many passengers going to Wellington Hospital will have to transfer ||
||Form
the core of an integrated network || ✗ ||Little attempt to increase system-wide trip speeds or create an integrated system with timed transfers offering fast trips anywhere-to-anywhere ||
24 September 2015 at 02:09 PM by John Rankin - add link to spine study findings
Changed line 11 from:
Tab(spineAssessment) shows we should not be surprised the Spine Study found the light rail proposal was low benefit. The proposed route was also intrinsically and unnecessarily high cost. Given the light rail route chosen, the spine study's cost`-benefit analysis correctly found that the proposal did not stack up economically.
to:
Tab(spineAssessment) shows we should not be surprised the [[Spine Study -> http://www.gw.govt.nz/ptspinestudy/]] found the light rail proposal was low benefit. The proposed route was also intrinsically and unnecessarily high cost. Given the light rail route chosen, the spine study's cost`-benefit analysis correctly found that the proposal did not stack up economically.
24 September 2015 at 01:54 PM by John Rankin - add assessment of FIT proposal
Changed lines 1-10 from:
The {PTSS|{$Titlespaced}} considered the option of light rail for Wellington and found it was high cost, low benefit. To understand this conclusion, we can assess the proposed route against the requirements in the ArtOfLightRailInsertion. Tab(spineAssessment) compares how well the PTSS light rail proposal meets these requirements with the FIT proposals described in ANewPublicTransportApproach.

||border=1 id=spineAssessment"Fit to requirements"
||!Requirement ||!PTSS ||!Comment on PTSS ||!FIT ||
||Tie the city together || ✗` &cross
; ||Only marginal improvement of an overloaded route; no attempt to integrate services at quality interchanges, with integrated timetable design to minimise transfer times ||✓ ||
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✗` ✗ ||Bendy-buses reportedly impractical on the golden mile, and double deckers too slow at stops without passing lanes; no attempt to separate express and stopping services {*is this light rail?*}
||✓` ✓ ||
||Have widely spaced stops || ✗ ||No reliable information on stop spacing
; the Hataitai route misses high demand points; the Hospital route is too short to serve the high-density, mixed-use Newtown area ||✓` ✓ ||
||Reach major destinations || ✗ ||Missed destinations include education and recreation centres, and higher-density residential areas; too many passengers going to Wellington Hospital will have to transfer
||✓` ✓ ||
||Form the core of an integrated network || ✗` ✗ ||No attempt to increase system
-wide trip speeds or create an integrated system offering fast trips anywhere-to-anywhere ||✓ ||
to:
The {PTSS|{$Titlespaced}} considered the option of light rail for Wellington and found it was high cost, low benefit. To understand this conclusion, we can assess the proposed route against the requirements in the ArtOfLightRailInsertion. Tab(spineAssessment) compares how well the PTSS light rail proposal meets these requirements.

||border=1 id=spineAssessment"PTSS assessed against requirements"
||!Requirement ||!PTSS
||!Comment on PTSS ||
||Tie the city together || ✗` ✗ ||Only marginal improvement of an overloaded route; no attempt to integrate services at quality interchanges, with integrated timetable design to minimise transfer times ||
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✗` ✗
||Bendy-buses reportedly impractical on the golden mile, and double deckers too slow at stops without passing lanes; no attempt to separate express and stopping services {*is this light rail?*} ||
||Have widely spaced stops || ✗
||No reliable information on stop spacing; the Hataitai route misses high demand points; the Hospital route is too short to serve the high-density, mixed-use Newtown area ||
||Reach major destinations || ✗ ||Missed destinations include education and recreation centres, and higher-density residential areas; too many passengers going to Wellington Hospital will have to transfer ||
||Form the core of an integrated network || ✗` ✗
||No attempt to increase system-wide trip speeds or create an integrated system offering fast trips anywhere-to-anywhere ||
Changed lines 13-21 from:
However, the route options proposed in ANewPublicTransportApproach meet or fully meet the requirements--delivering significantly higher benefits at lower cost.
to:
However, the route options proposed in ANewPublicTransportApproach fully meet the requirements--delivering significantly higher benefits at lower cost. See Tab(fitAssessment).

||border=1 id=fitAssessment"FIT assessed against requirements"
||!Requirement ||!FIT ||!Comment on FIT ||
||Tie the city together || ✓` ✓ ||A fast and reliable route linking interchanges at the Railway Station, Manners St, Wellington Hospital and Kilbirnie; Existing bus routes retained with bus numbers reduced  to well within existing capacity limits; Avoiding the Basin Reserve reduces demand for new roading ||
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✓` ✓ ||Modern multi-segment light rail vehicles with high passenger-carrying capacity ||
||Have widely spaced stops || ✓` ✓ ||Average stop spacing about 700 metres ||
||Reach major destinations || ✓` ✓ ||Interchanges listed above, other important stops include Airport, Rita Angus home, Newtown & Mt Cook/Massey Campus ||
||Form the core of an integrated network || ✓` ✓ ||All bus routes running to or south of the Railway Station connect to light rail, with timed transfers at all primary interchanges; New and existing services integrated from Kilbirnie to Waikanae ||
24 September 2015 at 01:32 PM by John Rankin - add FIT proposal assessment
Changed lines 1-2 from:
The {$Titlespaced} considered the option of light rail for Wellington and found it was high cost, low benefit. To understand this conclusion, we can assess the proposed route against the requirements in the ArtOfLightRailInsertion.
to:
The {PTSS|{$Titlespaced}} considered the option of light rail for Wellington and found it was high cost, low benefit. To understand this conclusion, we can assess the proposed route against the requirements in the ArtOfLightRailInsertion. Tab(spineAssessment) compares how well the PTSS light rail proposal meets these requirements with the FIT proposals described in ANewPublicTransportApproach.
Changed lines 4-9 from:
||!Requirement ||!Fit ||!Comments ||
||Tie the city together || ✗` ✗ ||Only marginal improvement of an overloaded route; no attempt to integrate services at quality interchanges, with integrated timetable design to minimise transfer times ||
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✗` ✗ ||Bendy-buses reportedly impractical on the golden mile, and double deckers too slow at stops without passing lanes; no attempt to separate express and stopping services {*is this light rail?*} ||
||Have widely spaced stops || ✗ ||No reliable information on stop spacing; the Hataitai route misses high demand points; the Hospital route is too short to serve the high-density, mixed-use Newtown area ||
||Reach major destinations
|| ✗ ||Missed destinations include education and recreation centres, and higher-density residential areas; too many passengers going to Wellington Hospital will have to transfer ||
||Form the core of an integrated network || ✗` ✗ ||No attempt to increase system-wide trip speeds or create an integrated system offering fast trips anywhere-to-anywhere ||
to:
||!Requirement ||!PTSS ||!Comment on PTSS ||!FIT ||
||
Tie the city together || ✗` ✗ ||Only marginal improvement of an overloaded route; no attempt to integrate services at quality interchanges, with integrated timetable design to minimise transfer times ||✓ ||
||
Require high-performance vehicles || ✗` ✗ ||Bendy-buses reportedly impractical on the golden mile, and double deckers too slow at stops without passing lanes; no attempt to separate express and stopping services {*is this light rail?*} ||✓` ✓ ||
||Have widely spaced stops || ✗ ||No reliable information on stop spacing; the Hataitai route misses high demand points; the Hospital route is too short to serve the high-density, mixed-use Newtown area ||✓` ✓ ||
||Reach major
destinations || ✗ ||Missed destinations include education and recreation centres, and higher-density residential areas; too many passengers going to Wellington Hospital will have to transfer ||✓` ✓ ||
||Form the core of an integrated network
|| ✗` ✗ ||No attempt to increase system-wide trip speeds or create an integrated system offering fast trips anywhere-to-anywhere ||✓ ||
24 September 2015 at 12:14 PM by John Rankin - insert Kerry's data
Added lines 1-15:
The {$Titlespaced} considered the option of light rail for Wellington and found it was high cost, low benefit. To understand this conclusion, we can assess the proposed route against the requirements in the ArtOfLightRailInsertion.

||border=1 id=spineAssessment"Fit to requirements"
||!Requirement ||!Fit ||!Comments ||
||Tie the city together || ✗` ✗ ||Only marginal improvement of an overloaded route; no attempt to integrate services at quality interchanges, with integrated timetable design to minimise transfer times ||
||Require high-performance vehicles || ✗` ✗ ||Bendy-buses reportedly impractical on the golden mile, and double deckers too slow at stops without passing lanes; no attempt to separate express and stopping services {*is this light rail?*} ||
||Have widely spaced stops || ✗ ||No reliable information on stop spacing; the Hataitai route misses high demand points; the Hospital route is too short to serve the high-density, mixed-use Newtown area ||
||Reach major destinations || ✗ ||Missed destinations include education and recreation centres, and higher-density residential areas; too many passengers going to Wellington Hospital will have to transfer ||
||Form the core of an integrated network || ✗` ✗ ||No attempt to increase system-wide trip speeds or create an integrated system offering fast trips anywhere-to-anywhere ||

Tab(spineAssessment) shows we should not be surprised the Spine Study found the light rail proposal was low benefit. The proposed route was also intrinsically and unnecessarily high cost. Given the light rail route chosen, the spine study's cost`-benefit analysis correctly found that the proposal did not stack up economically.

However, the route options proposed in ANewPublicTransportApproach meet or fully meet the requirements--delivering significantly higher benefits at lower cost.

This analysis shows light rail needs another look.
Page last modified 28 June 2017 at 08:54 AM