2020 Transport Vision
The Rail Network
The stylised exclusive transit network depicted at right must be established incrementally and systematically in Auckland so that all cities in the area can partake in the numerous advantages of rapid public transport. Rapid Transit Corridors can be operated by bus, light rail, tram-train or heavy rail. (The tram-train, is a hybrid between heavy and light rail) For Auckland’s expected growth oly one of the rail options will ultimately have the capacity needed for the passenger volume that must be accommodated to achieve significant congestion relief on the main arterial routes. CBT recommends that rail should be installed immediately on each new network route.
Had a network similar to the one portrayed been constructed when we had the chance in the 1950s, Auckland would be a very different place today. Will the citizens of Auckland 2050 be saying the same about 2005 decision-makers or are our office bearers and planners more enlightened today? This plan must be adopted now and adhered to by successive aauthorities in contrast with our previous short-term fragmented policies that have failed to contribute to an effective ultimate goal. This plan has the best long-term cost/benefit result1. Its layout consists of a number of potential circular overlapping bi-directional routes of which some combinations will be used and others will be more economically available by using inter-rail transfer stations.
Local Feeder Buses
All rail transit cities throughout the world have a comprehensive network of feeder buses in a symbiotic relationship that results in a greater use of buses leading to increased bus profitability. Bus lanes within the local feeder services are essential allowing them to become effective capillaries to the rail network representing the main arteries. This gives a wider catchment of passengers for rail as well as supporting and enhancing local-short-trip transportation. It eliminates hundreds of half empty buses clogging the main arteries. If each mode is used appropriately, it is particularly noticeable that where rail goes, bus travel flourishes and adds a greater impact to public transport.
Benefits
Rail-bus cities experience about half the per capita traffic congestion delay as comparable size cities that lack rail. This occurs because residents of rail-bus transit cities drive fewer annal miles and have an effective alternative when travelling on the most congested corridors.
The research papers indicate that quality public transit provides significant benefits, including congestion reduction, road and parking facility cost savings, consumer cost savings (residents of large rail cities save approximately $700 annually per capita in transportation costs compared with consumers living in cities that lack rail systems), reduced traffic accidents (cities with large rail systems have about a third lower per capita traffic fatality and injury rates) and basic mobility for non-drivers (these make up on average over half the population of most cities).
It can increase economic productivity, community liveability, and property values. Quality rail transit service is expensive to build, but the studies conclude that rail-bus transit service costs are repaid several times over by the reduced congestion, road and parking facility costs, reduced traffic accident costs, and consumer cost savings.
The Research
A comprehensive analysis of transportation system performance in 130 U.S. cities2 finds that cities with large, well-established rail systems with good feeder-bus networks have:
- Lower per-capita traffic congestion costs.
- Lower per-capita traffic fatalities.
- Lower per capita consumer transportation expenditures.
- Higher per capita transit ridership.
- Higher transit commute mode split.
- Lower transit operating costs per passenger-kilometre.
- Higher transit service cost recovery.
Misconceptions
The claims that rail transit is ineffective at improving transport system performance, that rail transit investments are not cost effective, and that rail transit is an outdated form of transportation, are examined. Research finds that critics often misrepresent issues and use biased and inaccurate analysis. They use inappropriate and outdated statistics and draw faulty conclusions by ignoring elements that are favourable to rail. Either from ignorance or intent, critics fail to use best practices when evaluating transit.
Costs
Paved busways and ballast-only tram-train corridors with overhead are comparable in costs. Over time the capital cost of rail vehicles required are about twice that of buses. Rail eventually compensates for this extra cost with lower operating costs. Labour is more effectively utilized by the use of larger, longer and coupled rolling stock and the rolling friction between steel wheel and rail is about one-tenth that of rubber on tarmac. In addition more people are converted to public transit by a train-bus system than by buses alone.
Authenticity
All research papers must be measured for their validity by the guidelines presented in a separate study listed. These guidelines demand critical analysis by the reader to detect whether or not study conclusions are reached by the use of justifiable, appropriate, adequate, current, accurate and impartial statistics and whether the studies have been peer reviewed.
Trends
A publication still in its draft form, "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be: Changing Trends And Their Implications For Transport Planning" 6 examines various demographic, economic and market trends that affect travel demand, and their implications for transport planning during the next century. During Twentieth Century per capita motor vehicle travel demand increased by an order of magnitude. Many of the factors that caused this growth have peaked in developed countries and are likely to decline. This indicates that future transport demand will be increasingly diverse. Transport planning can reflect these shifts by reducing emphasis on automobile travel and increasing support for alternative modes and smart growth development patterns.
A Tale of Two Cities
How has Perth achieved so much while Auckland under-achieves and under-invests in public transit? See the CBT pamphlet on Perth’s ongoing accomplishments.
| City | Population | Boardings | Budget | Rail Routes | Carriages |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Auckland | 1.3m | 25m by 2015 | $2.5bn | 92km | 60 diesel units by 2006 |
| Perth | 1.4m | 55m by 2006 | $15.2bn | 195km by 2006 | 189 electric units by 2006 |
Supporting Research Papers
- "Evaluating Transit Benefits/Costs" at http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf
- "Rail Transit In America" at http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf
- "The Executive Summary" at http://www.vtpi.org/railben.htm
- "Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism" at http://www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf
- "Evaluating Research Quality" at http://www.vtpi.org/resqual.pdf
- "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be" at http://www.vtpi.org/future.pdf
The above papers have been selected from the vast amount of existing studies because they are the latest valid research4 that draw together and extend investigations that have previously meet rigorous academic standards3. Similar research from Europe can be presented.
INTEGRATED RAIL AND BUS TRANSIT SUCCEEDS BEYOND THE PERFORMANCE OF EACH MODE IN ISOLATION. WHEN RAIL ARRIVES BUSES THRIVE. SEE OUR LOCAL BUS NETWORK PAMPHLET.