Auckland waterfront light rail

[MacSmart-Anthony]

this will be done.

Auckland waterfront light rail study

Wednesday, 12 August 2009, 4:50 pm
Press Release: Auckland Regional Council
Auckland waterfront light rail study

12 August 2009

The Auckland Regional Council (ARC) is looking into the feasibility of a light rail or tram system along Auckland’s Waitemata Harbour waterfront.

Transport and Urban Development Committee chairwoman Christine Rose said planning had not previously anticipated the use of light rail, but the regional council wanted to provide more information to all parties involved in redeveloping the waterfront, to ensure the best outcomes and to enhance the objectives of moving people and adding value to the redeveloped area.

[jarbury]

The full press release: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.ht ... S00171.htm

Auckland waterfront light rail study
Wednesday, 12 August 2009, 4:50 pm
Press Release: Auckland Regional Council


Auckland waterfront light rail study

12 August 2009

The Auckland Regional Council (ARC) is looking into the feasibility of a light rail or tram system along Auckland’s Waitemata Harbour waterfront.

Transport and Urban Development Committee chairwoman Christine Rose said planning had not previously anticipated the use of light rail, but the regional council wanted to provide more information to all parties involved in redeveloping the waterfront, to ensure the best outcomes and to enhance the objectives of moving people and adding value to the redeveloped area.

The feasibility study into light rail for the waterfront will provide information on: the potential demand for light rail and how it has been used in comparable waterfront cities, and examine potential options, implications and costs of such a system in Auckland.
Transport planning for Wynyard Quarter envisaged seven out of 10 trips being taken by public transport, walking or cycling. The recent decision to purchase and redevelop Queens Wharf, with public spaces and a cruise ship terminal, added impetus to the need to evaluate light rail or trams.

“Light rail or heritage trams should be considered in any public transport options for Wynyard Quarter and Quay St as part of the area’s redevelopment,” Councillor Rose says.

“We are striving to add to existing heritage and character, and to enhance Auckland’s waterfront viability and experience for workers, tourists and Aucklanders at large.”

A report to the committee today said modern light rail trips were being used as part of strategic transport networks throughout the world to deliver high-capacity, high-frequency services for peak-hour commuting trips, or in short loops often aimed at tourists. In Auckland, a loop linking Wynard Quarter, Quay St and Britomart could be part of a wider transport solution for the city.

Progress on the feasibility study will be reported back to the Transport and Urban Development Committee in November.

ENDS

[Nick R]

"In Auckland, a loop linking Wynard Quarter, Quay St and Britomart could be part of a wider transport solution for the city."

Good, sounds like they are thinking of this as a 'stage 1' for a longer line or network, rather than just a dinky tourist trolley a km or two long.

IMHO stage 1 should be Quay Park Arena to Tank Farm and Stage 2 to Mission Bay, then think about extending the other way to Ponsonby, Grey Lyn or even Pt Chev.

[Jeremy Harris]

I think this has to be a full heritage option... Anything else if it fails will be very bad for extensive re-introduction of light rail... The Dominion Rd re-development looms, come one ARC pick the right one and go modern..!

[cbtadmin]

The ARC is supporting the idea of a waterfront tram, however the City transport chairman Ken Baguley prefers "some form of electric shuttle buses". This is disappointing, but unsurprising. Auckland City steadfastly refused to endorse trams or light rail when we presented the concept to them last year. Despite light rail being specifically mentioned in Auckland City's own Waterfront Vision 2040 document, council officers reported back that this was "merely aspirational". In the end the Auckland City commitee endorsed an "innovative transport solution" for the waterfront. Whatever that is. It is only the Auckland Regional Council that is keeping the hope of a waterfront tram alive at this point.

And it seems convenient of Mr Baguley to say "any major decisions should be left to the new Auckland Council to be elected in October, 2010", having just endorsed the Government's ill-conceived above ground motorway at Waterview.

Mathew Dearnaley reports:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10590663

Moves to open Queens Wharf in Auckland to the public are heightening regional council interest in running light railcars or trams along the waterfront to Wynyard Quarter...

Progress is to be reported back to her committee in November.

Ms Rose said that although previous transport planning for Wynyard Quarter and elsewhere had not included light rail, the council wanted to provide more information to all parties involved in redeveloping the waterfront.

The study already begun by council officers would give information on how light rail had been used in comparable waterfront cities, in some cases breathing life into previously run-down precincts such as Docklands in London, and examine the costs of such a system for Auckland.

"We are striving to add to existing heritage and character and to enhance Auckland's waterfront viability and experience for workers, tourists and Aucklanders at large," Ms Rose said.

She was attracted to the use of heritage trams from the Museum of Transport and Technology (Motat) as a drawcard for tourists, but

acknowledged there could be a demand for more modern units, depending on whether those were seen as a suitable extension of Auckland's commutersystem.

Motat runs trams along 2km of lines at Western Spring, and has been working with the Campaign for Better Transport on possibilities for extending its services to the waterfront.

It estimated last year, when a proposal was first put to Auckland City Council, that 4km of high-quality tracks and low-profile power-lines could be laid for about $16 million for use by either heritage trams, modern units, or by a combination of vehicles.

The city's transport committee asked officers then for a preliminary report but decided in March to wait for findings of a wider study of integrating public transport services within the central business district before making recommendations on options for Wynyard Quarter.

City transport chairman Ken Baguley said yesterday he had no wish to "pooh- pooh" the proposal, but believed questions of how to integrate existing services should be considered first.

Uncertainty remains over whether the proposed Te Wero bridge across Viaduct Harbour will be designed to carry public transport vehicles, rather than just pedestrians and cyclists, and Mr Baguley said some form of electric shuttle buses may prove as attractive as trams.

The city council has delayed the bridge project until 2016 in any case, after its estimated cost rose to $47.3 million, and is considering installing a temporary crossing for $2 million for up to 14,700 pedestrians an hour in time for the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

Although city officers hope to provide recommendations on options early next year for improving public transport integration, Mr Baguley said any major decisions should be left to the new Auckland Council to be elected in October, 2010

[jarbury]

Cam, isn't this all pretty academic considering light-rail wouldn't be possible until a final Te Wero bridge is built - and that's not going to happen until 2016 at the earliest?

[saljen]

Cam, isn't this all pretty academic considering light-rail wouldn't be possible until a final Te Wero bridge is built - and that's not going to happen until 2016 at the earliest?

\But isnt it only 2016 because the council decided it should be done in 2016. They could just as easily decide to do it tomorrow. It might be part of Mike Lee's tilt at the supercity mayoralty. John Banks has talked about the cbd loop and a giant convention centre. Maybe Mike Lee's visit to motat was finding info about a tram to be part of his grand vision for Auckland to run for the mayoralty on. He might promise the te wero bridge and a tram.

[GetAcross]

But isnt it only 2016 because the council decided it should be done in 2016. They could just as easily decide to do it tomorrow. It might be part of Mike Lee's tilt at the supercity mayoralty. John Banks has talked about the cbd loop and a giant convention centre. Maybe Mike Lee's visit to motat was finding info about a tram to be part of his grand vision for Auckland to run for the mayoralty on. He might promise the te wero bridge and a tram.

Lol, between those choices, I might almost prefer Banksie. Then again, Mike should be pro-tunnel AND pro-tram.

Still not sure he will even run. Maybe a 50% chance.

[Jeremy Harris]

Thats a ruse anyway because the mayor of Auckland is going to have about as much power over a $1.5 billion Ontrack investment as I do over Angelina Jolie's undie draw...

He can promise it all he likes and when it don't happen say well it's not my fault..!

[GetAcross]

Thats a ruse anyway because the mayor of Auckland is going to have about as much power over a $1.5 billion Ontrack investment as I do over Angelina Jolie's undie draw...

He can promise it all he likes and when it don't happen say well it's not my fault..!

You are technically right. However, the Mayor of Auckland will have a LOT more power than Robbie, Dick or Banksie ever had. If the mayor (of 1.4 million out of 4 million) is a popular guy, doing to him what they did to Mike Lee takes on a whole lot more political risk for the folks in Wellington.

Of course that assumes that Mr Mayor X is actually passionate about PT.

[DavidCtram]

The failing of many Lightrail or tram heritage line start ups, is that they don't provide a commuter element as well as a tourist element. To be honest, the Te Wero bridge is actually going to be a convenient hold up for this sort of project.

The ultimate vision of the project should be What is now the Northern busway - new harbour crossing - Westhaven/Viaduct area circuit and Fanshawe Street bypass - Quay Street - Tamaki Drive.

Until the harbour crossing and Te Wero bridge are sorted out, the line should go along Ponsonby Road - College Hill - Westhaven/Viaduct area circuit and Fanshawe Street bypass - Quay Street - Tamaki Drive. Why the two Shopping/dining and commuter areas at either end? In order to become a viable commuter service as well as giving tourist riders somewhere to go, justifying the capital outlay.

Think bigger and effective. The cute tank farm line could be developed once there is enough scale in apartments and workers to warrent it.

[jarbury]

I don't see any advantage in the Northern Busway being light-rail. The capacity improvements wouldn't be much, the speed difference might be negative and it would require more transfers. Either it stays a busway or becomes heavy rail - surely?

[Nick R]

I agree about the Shore there, so I would suggest:

"Ponsonby Road - College Hill - Westhaven/Viaduct area circuit and Fanshawe Street bypass - Quay Street - Tamaki Drive", with extension to Grey lynn, Pt Chev or even along the North Western Motorway to Westgate in the future. Plenty of commuter catchment there.

[DavidCtram]

Why the Northern Busway?
- It was built to light rail specifications, namely curves and gradiants with stations.
- At peak, the buses are so full they are often overloaded and the Park and Rides are too full.
- A lightrail vehicle with multiple articulations can carry several hundreds of people.
- Buses pull up on one side of the platform, people get off the "local bus" and onto the large capacity LRV. The concept is called funneling. Lots of local buses [could even be hybrid buses] doing lots of pick ups and drop offs in North Shore suburbs and funneling to the Light Rail Stations. What this ultimately does is reduce traffic by making the whole system more attractive and the spine of the system, namely the current busway has the capacity, namely the multiple articulated light rail vehicles to cope with the constantly growing passenger numbers.
- Also light rail tracks can be set in concrete, so buses could continue to use the system as well.
- In order to plan effectivately, you have to anticipate how many more people will "need" to use the system in the coming years. If buses and Park and Rides get too conjested, people will seek alternatives.
- So Busway/Lightrail - new Harbour Crossing - Ponsonby/Westhaven - Tank Farm - Viaduct - Tamaki Drive. Start joining the dots.
- And maybe Westgate and even looping back to Albany??? Would suit me in Te Atatu.

[Jeremy Harris]

I agree David, I think a few people have the idea it all has to be heavy rail everywhere in Auckland...

I like light rail mainly for the cost about 2/5...

I get the problems people have with light rail to the shore, i.e. not as fast, not as much capacity, if were going to build a $1 - 2 billion rail tunnel under the Waitemata we should then build heavy rail but I think you're idea of a shared bus/light rail way is good cheaper compromise, with grade seperation light rail it is not too much of a step down and far superior to what we have now...

If we have a very pro PT government sure heavy rail would be great but if its a choice between light rail or nothing, I take light rail...

[jarbury]

If we reallocate two lanes of the Harbour Bridge to light-rail, then I'll support turning the busway into a light-rail line.

If we're spending $1.5 billion on a rail tunnely anyway, then I think it makes sense to go the whole way and heavy rail the line.

[Nick R]

I have the idea that it should be heavy rail on the core trunk routes, based on the idea that heavy and light rail cost roughly the same to construct (for an off road alignment anyway). It is a little different with the busway already in place, presumably it would be a lot cheaper to convert to light rail than heavy, but then again a lot of further infrastructure is needed regardless (i.e. the harbour tunnel, the Akoranga foreshore section, and an extension to Albany and perhaps Orewa).

My thinking is if we are to go to the trouble and expense of uprgading to a rail based mode, then we should take the opportunity to upgrade to the mode that will give us the best potential in the long run.

So light rail could handle up to double the capacity of a bus route, well this is good for saturated bus routes and I am a strong advocate of semi-segregated tram solutions for the waterfront and Dominion Rd among others, but is it enough for a line servicing a quarter of the city? Maybe now, but in four or five decades time when the same infrastructure will still be being used?

Heavy rail could carry two or three times the patronage again, and speed is also a factor. LRV's top out at about 80 km/h while a standard 'metro' EMU can do 110-130km/h depending on the model, or up to 160 or so with the right vehicles. On a route like the Shore line with it's widely spaced stations and 5km of harbour tunnel and approaches, that speed difference could be very significant.

So I say the core routes as heavy rail, the medium speed, medium capacity links filling the gaps between the core and linking it as light rail, and buses to provide local circulators/feeders and to run less patronised routes.

One thing to consider with using the harbour bridge would be, is the improvement gained by constructing light rail in the busway and running it over the bridge significantly greater than just running the busway over the bridge (considering the cost of course), and would this have the effect of then precluding the route from ever becoming heavy rail?
I.e. it could be a case of spending quite a lot for only marginal gain and shooting oneself in the foot for ever making further improvements.

[Jeremy Harris]

Using existing infrastructure (i.e. the harbour bridge and busway) a light rail line from Britomart through the tank farm to and over the bridge and along the busway finishing at Albany is 18 kms of line, say $50 for bridges, viaducts, a depot and station improvements... $4 million a kilometre of rail and wires... $2 million a tram with 16 trams to run 5 minute headways...

Thats:

$50 million
$72 million
$32 million

$154 million total, not bad if a heavy rail line costs 20 times that and only becomes needed in 50 or so years... You could dig the heavy rail tunnels while doing the road tunnels, build the light rail over the bridge and leave the heavy rail line till its needed...

[Nick R]

You're missing a few things (probably the most expensive bits), like the right of way between tank farm and the bridge, from the bridge to Akoranga, and from Constellation to Albany.

The rail and road tunnels are entirely separate, and no one is going to build a rail tunnel that isn't going to be used. So it would be a case of dig the road tunnels, run the light rail over the bridge and upgrade the busway to light rail, and be stuck with that forever.

I would prefer dig the road tunnels, run the busway over the bridge and then when the busway is at total capacity dig the rail tunnels and upgrade the busway to rail.

[LucyJH]

if Mike Lee runs for Mayor he will split the left-wing vote (which is still, however much some environmentalists (myself included) wish this would change, also in most cases the environmental vote) and the left-green movement will lose. The Cit-Rats will win and there will be no major PT infrastructure projects built in Akld for a long, long time.