(:description The current approach to public transport in Wellington is no longer tenable. Proposed investments in the bus system will bring welcome improvements, but will not achieve the step change in public transport performance that Wellington needs. Our aim is to double ridership by progressively building a world-class light rail system in Wellington city. The first stage, between the Railway Station and the Airport, via the Hospital, can be completed by 2030, for an estimated cost as low as $450 million. :)
=<{$Description}
(:typeset-page headingcolor=ForestGreen fontset=kepler colorlinks=on subtitle="A Strategy and Implementation Plan" autonumber=1 toc=on colophon=off parasep=number watermark=draft :)
!! What's the strategic context for the proposal?
FIT stands for fair, intelligent transport. FIT's vision for Wellington is ''a modern and vibrant city designed around the needs of people''. Wellington will be:
* A healthy, safe city where the built environment and transport system enhance the unique character and beauty of the harbour capital;
* A city with reliable, low-cost, fast and convenient electric public transport that takes people where they want to go; and
* A city that actively promotes walking, cycling and public transport to reduce transport costs, encourage physical exercise and mitigate against pollution and climate change.
FIT proposes investing in light rail as essential infrastructure for realising this vision. Light rail is a form of public transport designed to provide fast, efficient, clean service to people living in urban areas. It uses electric rail cars, running on tracks in existing roads, separated from other road traffic. It is designed to carry lots of people, with connections to buses and suburban trains at major interchanges. One multi-segment light rail vehicle can do the work of 5 or more buses.
This paper sets out the case for light rail in Wellington.
!! What are we trying to do? Articulate the objectives using no jargon.
The current transport system over-privileges the faster movement of private motor vehicles, to the detriment of a reliable, fast and convenient public transport system. There are 3 problems which make this approach no longer sustainable.
# International agreement on climate change requires a new approach to sustainable transport that eliminates burning of fossil carbon by 2050 or shortly thereafter (urban traffic uses almost 20% of New Zealand's fossil fuel).
# Slow and unreliable inner-city public transport, with few and poor-quality transfers, limits options, discourages patronage, frustrates wider use of walking, and increases costs.
# Spending on urban transport is primarily for greater motor vehicle use, which attracts new traffic onto already overcrowded streets, is incompatible with good urban design, and has high environmental and social costs.
When measured against the public transport systems in other New Zealand cities, such as Auckland, Christchurch and Dunedin, Wellington has a good public transport system, with good patronage. However, Wellington has a long way to go to measure up against the public transport systems in other cities around the world. The potential to grow patronage is huge, but to achieve this growth, we need to make public transport an attractive and compelling alternative to the private car. This means making public transport more reliable and predictable, improving connectivity between services, and offering competitive fare structures.
FIT's proposal aims to double the number of public transport trips per person, while halving the carbon footprint per person from transport, by 2030. FIT proposes to achieve this by creating ''an integrated, congestion-free public transport network'' in Wellington.
!! How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?
The investment logic behind Greater Wellington's [[indicative business case -> http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/Transport/Public-transport/Docs/BRT-IBC.pdf]] for introducing {BRT|Bus Rapid Transit} identifies three problem areas: failure to maximise the capacity of key corridors for moving people and goods; increasing congestion within a constrained corridor that will continue to impact on levels of service; and failure to grow patronage due to unattractive and unreliable public transport services.
The problem of moving traffic is primarily a peak hour one. Maximising capacity will never be achieved by expanding road space along the primary route from Ngauranga to the airport, nor by the proposals for BRT on key routes. Efficient movement of people and goods will only be achieved by introducing measures aimed at reducing traffic volumes entering the city, particularly at peak hours. The best way to reduce congestion is to restrict parking and road space for private motor vehicle traffic.
The second problem is self-evident but current proposals, particularly the new motorways north of the city, will make the situation worse. When the Kapiti Expressway and Transmission Gully are finished, Wellington will see an estimated 11,000 extra vehicles entering the city on a daily basis. This increase will negate any potential improvement on levels of service.
The proposed solution to Wellington's public transport problem, BRT based on double-decker buses and an all-diesel bus fleet, will improve the service, but will not bring about the step change in performance that Wellington needs. The time frame for electric buses is unknown and achieving full replacement could take much longer than expected. A proposal which ignores climate change and does not aim to reduce CO'_2_' emissions is not fit for purpose.
Greater Wellington has acknowledged that the BRT system proposed is so low grade it is not Gold, Silver or Bronze standard, and does not even qualify as "BRT-light". The system will make only a marginal difference to operating conditions in the city centre. It is cheap but ineffective. Even when more comprehensive BRT is implemented, it does not achieve the ride quality that a rail-based system delivers. As a result, many people are not prepared to get on a bus but they will get on light rail.
BRT is a poor substitute for, and rarely produces anything like the benefits of, light rail. Whenever it gets difficult the traffic engineers give up and send the bus into the general traffic lanes -- if it's a light rail car, the system has to be engineered from end to end. Wellington cannot afford to waste time and money developing solutions that won't produce the benefits that light rail can deliver.
The downfall of double-decker buses is the slow boarding and unboarding times at busy stops. They have high capacity but will clog up the shopping streets even more than the current bus fleet does. The upper deck is unpopular with many passengers and does not meet accessibility criteria. Double-deckers work best on express routes with few stops; everywhere else, they slow the system down. A public transport system based around double-decker buses will not attract substantial numbers out of their cars.
The flexibility of buses is their weakness. They can always be diverted or rerouted, so there is no certainty in the minds of the public about where they operate. Car drivers and delivery vehicles can park in priority lanes in the knowledge that the bus can always drive around them. At signals, buses usually have to blend in with other road traffic to get through intersections -- even when they are awarded special priority, they are still treated as just another road vehicle.
There is no prospect of improving the situation in Wellington unless additional rail investment is made. If Greater Wellington seriously wants to get more people on public transport, it will be much easier with light rail than with any bus-based system. Look at any of the 30 French cities with light rail systems and look at the patronage trends. Then look at the trends in cities that rely on buses.
!! What's new in our approach? Why do we think it will be successful?
Creating a healthy and safe city involves more than just dealing with transport issues. It involves transport planners and urban designers working together to develop the open, public space in a way that facilitates the effective movement of goods and people, and also accommodates their leisure needs. In New Zealand, road and traffic engineers have traditionally driven transport development and the role of the urban designer has been secondary if not totally ignored. We have had numerous international visitors to our shores promoting the idea of urban design first, traffic engineering second. FIT has based it proposals on their advice and research.
FIT proposes to:
* Develop an integrated public transport system based on light rail as the prime people mover, initially along the high demand corridor between the railway station and airport;
* Promote transit-oriented development along the light rail corridor and at stations; and
* Implement a traffic management policy to reduce the amount of traffic entering the city, particularly at peak hours.
The strength of light rail is its lack of flexibility -- it says to passengers, this is a permanent route that you can rely on to base living and working decisions on. And it gives investors and businesses long term certainty. It also says to car drivers -- do not park on the rails; and to road engineers -- give this route priority. In short, inflexibility works.
From studies of overseas light rail systems, we know that successful light rail systems follow 5 design principles.
# Tie the city together. Light rail lines span the city from urban fringe to urban fringe, via the city centre.
# Use high-capability vehicles. That means large capacities, all-door entry, train-style fare payment before boarding, doors at platform level for easy access, and priority over other traffic.
# Have widely-spaced stops. Stops are far enough apart to improve travel times, but also serve critical transfer points where feeder buses or trains connect.
# Reach major destinations. Light rail lines emphasise access to education campuses, office complexes, hospitals, shopping areas, major suburbs, and the CBD.
# Form the heart of an integrated network. Reconfigured bus lines serve major light rail stops, and fare structures encourage easy transfers to and from buses and trains.
A line from Johnsonville to the airport, via the railway station and hospital, is the minimum work programme that satisfies these principles. The first proposed project, from the railway station to airport with connections to the commuter train network, will partially realise light rail's benefits for Wellington and prove the concept in Wellington.
Most people travelling by light rail start and end their journeys as pedestrians. So successful light rail systems also pay close attention to street-level urban design. Light rail becomes one part of a complete, living street. This transit-oriented development applies 3 principles.
# Use spaces (like roads) that the public already has a right to use, create dedicated lanes for light rail tracks, and give light rail priority at intersections.
# Rethink streets from building façade to building façade to make safe, aesthetic spaces that facilitate public transport, walking and cycling flows, and attract development along the light rail corridor.
# Foster an open, transparent process where community groups work together to design high performance public transport that is compatible with the ways they want to live, recognising that every decision involves trade-offs among competing priorities.
Freeing up space for light rail in Wellington's often narrow streets will be achieved by moving on-street parking off-street. The price of central city parking will be the primary instrument for giving drivers an incentive to leave their cars at home and take public transport.
While this approach to public transport is new to New Zealand, cities overseas have been implementing it successfully since the 1980s. There is no reason to think Wellington will be any different.
!! Who cares? If we are successful, what difference will it make?
To be an attractive alternative to the private car, public transport must: go where lots of people are; be there when people need it; and make trips fast, predictable, and reliable. Light rail is the best way to do this.
Light rail is a ''congestion-free'' transport mode. A well-designed light rail system can scale to absorb growth in passenger numbers without the system slowing down. This can be achieved by making the light rail cars longer with additional modules and by increasing the service frequency. Unlike buses, the time taken for people to get on and off does not increase as passenger numbers increase, so travel times do not increase and remain predictable.
Overseas experience shows that investing in light rail creates an economic halo around the stations along the corridor. The area within about 400 metres of a station becomes a focus for commercial, social and residential development. When stations are placed about 700-800 metres apart -- closer together in the city centre, further apart in the suburbs, but always at major destinations -- the result is a rich and vibrant urban environment.
The principal measure of success from investing in light rail is that improved public transport in Wellington city attracts people out of their cars and onto public transport. This will result in the following benefits:
# increased public transport patronage, as measured by--
** shift in mode share from private cars to public transport
** increased cost-recovery from fare-paying passengers
** reduced carbon footprint per capita
# improved public transport service quality, as measured by--
** reduced travel time and travel time variability
** increased carrying capacity during peak periods
# increased economic activity along the light rail corridor, as measured by--
** higher value land uses along the light rail corridor and at stops
** increased residential population density along the light rail corridor
!! What are the risks and the payoffs?
The case against light rail in Wellington generally finds expression as 4 major risks.
# There is no room for light rail and cars -- the idea will not fit on Wellington's narrow streets.
** Light rail will only run on a few specially selected and well-designed streets. We are not proposing to replace the entire bus network with light rail -- just to supplement the buses with an additional high-capacity cross-city corridor. Existing bus routes would be reconfigured to connect with light rail at major interchanges. Many European cities, such as Freiburg in Germany, run light rail on streets as narrow as those in Wellington.
# If light rail costs hundreds of millions or a billion dollars, then you have a problem -- when there are other things like the airport runway extension and convention centre to pay for.
** There is no point bringing overseas visitors to the airport and convention centre without an efficient way of connecting them. What light rail does is provide the city with a suitable international image to complement other needed investments to grow the economy. Visitors expect light rail as an essential part of a modern, smart city. New Zealand and Wellington can afford anything it wants in the field of transport -- like the $3bn+ being spent on Transmission Gulley and $1bn+ on the Ngauranga to Airport road corridor.
# Light rail would be out of commission for a couple of years in the event of an earthquake -- buses would still be running.
** A contingency plan would be put in place to get light rail back up and running as soon as possible -- likely to be a matter of months not years. In the meantime additional buses would be brought in immediately to replace light rail for a short period, so there would be no advantage in opting for a bus-based system in the long term over a light rail system. Light rail operates in other earthquake-prone cities, such as Vancouver, Canada.
# Light rail is for the long term -- Wellington is not dense enough to support light rail.
** Experience elsewhere shows this is a red herring. Rail-based systems are often introduced in what look to be unsuitable situations but development occurs around rail nodes and density increases along rail corridors over time. If Wellington is dense enough for heavy rail -- why would it not be dense enough for light rail? Wellington city has a population just over 200,000. Tampere in Finland, with a similar population, is about to let a contract for its first light rail line. Ulm in Germany, with a population of 120,000, has just let the contract for its second light rail line. There are several cities in France with even lower populations building light rail lines.
!! How much will it cost? How long will it take?
We have identified feasible and affordable options for light rail and a supporting bus network. We are confident that we have workable options, combining buses and light rail, but have not identified a best or preferred option. We propose buses and light rail on fully separated routes, both on or close to the Golden Mile.
We have identified a single light rail route from the Railway Station to Wellington Hospital, Kilbirnie and Wellington Airport, with options in three places: south of the Railway Station; the Michael Fowler Centre; and Wellington Hospital. See Fig(lightRailMap). Only the last option, 3a or 3b, will materially affect costs. Further investigation is needed to develop and cost a route from the Railway Station to Johnsonville.
%center id=lightRailMap%[[Attach:light-rail-map.png"Light rail route and options" -> Attach:light-rail-map.pdf]]
The identified route is within the area defined in the {N2A|Ngauranga to Airport} study, but does not run by the Basin Reserve. Recent experience suggests it will be challenging to find an acceptable Basin route, and multi-segment light rail cars can be difficult on large, multi-lane roundabouts. This corridor is more suited to buses, with no particular reason to run a high-capacity light rail route that way.
Light rail costs have fallen in recent years, and in 2014 the International Railway Journal quoted €25-30';m;' per kilometre ($42-51';m;'/km) for a typical line in France. Now Besançon, France has opened a new line for €17.5';m;'/km ($30';m;'/km). Using these figures as a guide, we consider the costs set out in Tab(indicativeCosts) are reasonable and conservative. We have assumed:
* an all-up cost of $40 million per route kilometre (including depot and vehicles but excluding tunnels)
* a further 20% for design and a contingency allowance
* all interchanges can be built within this all-up cost
* all costs exclude GST
||border=1 id=indicativeCosts"Comparative costs of options 3a and 3b"
||!Stage ||!Cost item ||! 3a||! 3b||
||''Railway Station to Hospital'' ||||||||
|| ||3.8km @ $40';m;'/km || $152';m;'|| $152';m;'||
|| ||Design & contingency (20%) || $30';m;'|| $30';m;'||
|| ||''Total'' || ''$182';m;'''|| ''$182';m;'''||
||''Hospital to Kilbirnie'' ||||||||
|| ||2.3km @ $40';m;'/km via Zoo || $92';m;'|| −||
|| ||Single-track tunnel beneath Mt Albert: 720m @ $200k/m || $144';m;'|| −||
|| ||2.2km @ $40';m;'/km via Constable St || −|| $88';m;'||
|| ||Design & contingency (20%) || $47';m;'|| $18';m;'||
|| ||''Total'' || ''$283';m;'''|| ''$106';m;'''||
||''Kilbirnie to Airport'' ||||||||
|| ||2.1km @ $40';m;'/km || $84';m;'|| $84';m;'||
|| ||Double track tunnel beneath runway: 250m tunnel @ $300k/m || $75';m;'|| −||
|| ||Single track tunnel beneath runway: 250m tunnel @ $200k/m || −|| $50';m;'||
|| ||Planning, design & contingency (20%) || $32';m;'|| $26';m;'||
|| ||''Total'' || ''$191';m;'''|| ''$156';m;'''||
||'''''Grand Total''''' |||| '''''$656';m;''''''|| '''''$444';m;''''''||
This proposal should be relatively inexpensive to build, given good project management and a "no-frills" approach to control of nice-to-have costs.
FIT acknowledges there are technical challenges in the Constable St option, but is confident that the engineers can find workable solutions. Clearly, the cost saving would be considerable -- enough to fund over 5km of light rail construction. FIT suggests that the money would deliver better value if spent on extending the line to Johnsonville, where tunnelling is unavoidable.
With the right political leadership and commitment, the first stage, from the Railway Station to the Hospital, could be open by 2025. The second stage, to Kilbirnie and the Airport, could be completed by 2030.
!! What are the midterm and final "exams" to check for success?
To bring light rail successfully to fruition will mean passing a number of checkpoints:
# Greater Wellington recognises that the current bus-based improvements, while important and necessary, are an interim measure which will not solve the transport problems facing Wellington city.
# Greater Wellington puts light rail back in the 10 year transport plan and secures central government funding for the initial Railway Station to Airport project.
# Greater Wellington facilitates a public dialogue about route options, identifies a preferred route, and protects the chosen corridor.
# Commit to and build the stage from the Railway Station to the Hospital, with a goal of opening the service to the public by 2025.
# Commit to and build the stage from the Hospital to Kilbirnie and the Airport, with a goal of opening the service to the public by 2030.