wellington spine study submission by t randle

7/27/2019 Wellington Spine Study Submission by T Randle

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wellington-spine-study-submission-by-t-randle 1/15

Submission to the GWRC and WCC

Wellington Public Transport Spine Study 2013

Contact details and introduction

Full Name:..........................................................................Tony James Randle

Street Address:...................................................................20 Truscott Avenue

Suburb:...............................................................................Johnsonville

City:....................................................................................Wellington 6037

Phone:................................................................................(27) 484 6266

Email:.................................................................................wellingtoncommuter@gmail.com

Please indicate if you want to present your views inperson to a hearing committee...................................... Yes, I do want to present.

Spine Submission Consultation Questions

1. Taking into account the costs and benefits of each option, which of the proposedoptions to improve public transport in Wellington City do you most prefer?

YES Bus Priority

Bus Rapid Transit

Light Rail Transit

Other

Don’t know

2. Please state how much you agree with the following statement…… The loss of some on-street parking in return for faster more reliable public transport is anacceptable trade-off.

Strongly agree

YES Agree

Neither agree or disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

File: 178401150.doc of 15

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



3. Please state how much you agree with the following statement….. Restrictingaccess for general vehicles to parts of Lambton Quay and Willis Street duringbusiness hours in return for faster more reliable public transport is an acceptabletrade-off.

Strongly Agree

Agree

YES Neither Agree or Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Don't know

4. Please state how much you agree with the following statement…… Using analternative route for some peak bus services through the CBD in return for faster

more reliable public transport is an acceptable trade-off?Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree or disagree

Disagree

YES Strongly disagree

Don't know

5. The average household currently pays around $300 a year in regional rates. Someof the costs of the public transport spine options are likely to be passed on toratepayers through increased rates. For each of the options how much extra wouldyou be prepared to pay each year in addition to your regional rates to make ithappen?

$0 - I would not bewilling to pay more

$1-$10

$11-$20

$21-$40

$41-$60

$61-$100

More than$100

Don'tknow

Bus Priority X

Bus RapidTransit

X

Light RailTransit

X

File: 178401150.doc of 15



6. Thinking about overall priorities for the future of Wellington’s transport networkwhat priority would you give implementing the final public transport spine optionchosen for Wellington?

YES High priority

Medium priority

Low priority

Not a priority

Don't know

7. Do you have any other comments you’d like to make about the Wellington CityPublic Transport Spine Study or the future of public transport in Wellington?

Yes, see following section.

File: 178401150.doc of 15



Further Comments

I was a member of the Wellington Spine Study Reference Group that met at the endof each stage of the Spine Study.

Introduction

Our city already has a very successful bus service. Even though the regional councilhas not invested in increasing bus capacity, Wellington City buses deliver the highestpublic transport usage in the country.

Bus Rapid Transit is the obvious way to deliver the step change needed to liftWellington's public transport service out of the traffic and enable all of us to get atruly great transport alternative to cars.

Bus Rapid Transit vs. Light Rail – the BRT view

Light Rail is superior to on-street bus !

But Bus Rapid Transit is not on-street bus !!

There are many different forms of BRT from fully separated (e.g. Auckland’s NorthernBusway) to CBD compatible systems. The Spine Study rightly points out that anend-to-end, fully grade-separated rapid transit solution is not an option.

The Spine Study recommends a “lighter” form of Bus Rapid Transit. This is finebecause there are many successful examples such as the “Metro-Rapid” solution inLos Angeles. BRT “Lite” is a good solution to deliver rapid transit to and through theWellington CBD.

BRT “Lite” in action - The LA “Metro-Rapid”

The Problem in central LA (late 1990’s):

• Public dissatisfied with slow bus service

• Average bus speeds had declined by 10% since late-1980s

• LADOT found that 50% of the time a bus is in service it is stopped

Los Angeles started the “Metro-Rapid” Programme with two BRT lines,Wilshire/Whittier Boulevard and Ventura Boulevard:

File: 178401150.doc of 15



A tailored BRT solution was implemented in 2000:

• Frequent Service

• Bus Signal Priority

• Headway-based Schedules

• Simple Route Layout

• Less Frequent Stops

• Integrated with Local Bus Service

• Level Boarding and Alighting

• Colour-coded Buses and Stations

• High Capacity Buses

• Exclusive R-O-W and Arterial Lanes

• Off-vehicle Fare Payment

Implementing Metro-Rapid along these PT corridors had the following results:

Reduced Passenger Travel Times:

• Wilshire/Whittier Boulevard– up to 29%

• Ventura Boulevard– up to 23%

Increased Corridor Ridership:

• Wilshire/Whittier Boulevard– ridership up 32.6%

• Ventura Boulevard– ridership up 24.6%

Attracted New Riders

• 1/3 of ridership increase are new riders

The following relevant points are highlighted from the Metro-Rapid experience:

• The Metro-Rapid performance and capacity increases were made without end-to-end dedicated lanes. Light Rail fans (and to a certain extent the studyconsultants) claim that the Spine Study BRT will be at capacity. The Metro-Rapidon Wilshire Boulevard far exceeds the required capacity for Wellington indicatingthat there is potential to implement similar capacity

• Extensive use was made of Intelligent Traffic Systems. Metro-Rapid uses twobus signal priority systems that reduce bus delay and assist in maintaining busspacing …

• BRT can have high capacity on CBD Streets:

Weekday Ridership Pre-Rapid Post-Rapid % Change

Wilshire/Whittier Boulevard 63,487 84,153 32.6%

Ventura Boulevard 10,800 13,650 26.4%

File: 178401150.doc of 15

These were added later. Initial operation did nothave dedicated end-to-end bus lanes (which makesits performance all the more impressive !)



Why BRT is right for the Growth Spine

The Spine Study shows BRT is superior in the most important of PT measures . . .patronage growth:

The Spine Study shows BRT is the fairest service that will increase PT usageacross all suburbs:

File: 178401150.doc of 15

17.90%

16.80%

17.10%

14.00%

14.50%

15.00%

15.50%

16.00%

16.50%

17.00%

17.50%

18.00%

18.50%

2021 2031 2041

E s t i m a t e d % P T M o d e S h a r e

Estimated Future Morning Peak PT Mode Share by Option

Bus Priority BRT Light Rail Reference

-70

90

-40

-60

40

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

Miramar Kilbirnie Lyall Mt Vic / Hataitai Island Bay Newtown

C a n g e n N u m e r o T r p s C o m p a r e t o R e e r e n c e C a s e

PTSS -Local growth in patronage to the CBD (2 hour 2031 morning peak)

Bus Priority BRT Light Rail



The Spine Study shows why BRT is superior to the Light Rail Option in theWellington City context . . . much lower levels of transfer:

In economic terms, the BRT option has $90 million in public transport benefitsagainst only $30m for the more expensive light rail option. We can argue about howmuch more light rail costs but even if it cost the same as BRT, the spine studyshows BRT is still better .

Issues with the Spine Study

IMO, there are two major gaps in the Spine Study recommendations:

• It does not provide options for Rapid Transit to North Wellington . . . Even thoughthis is the largest, most rapidly growing, area of Wellington.

• It does not provide for sufficient capacity for all PT Services on the PT Corridor.It recommends an “Alternate Spine” for bus services from North Wellington.

File: 178401150.doc of 15

Table 13 Percentage of trips to CBD requiring a transfer

Reference Case Bus Priority Bus Rapid Transit Light Rail Transit

Miramar 11% 17% 21% 89%

Kilbirnie 2% 8% 36% 46%

Mount Vic /Hataitai 3% 5% 4% 5%

Island Bay 8% 11% 29% 90%

Newtown 0% 4% 14% 6%

CBD 0% 0% 0% 0%

Rest of Wellington 17% 17% 25% 31%

Rest of Region 57% 57% 62% 66%

Overall Average 29% 30% 36% 45%



Issue 1 – The Spine is Broken

The Ngauranga-Wellington Airport Corridor Plan defines the key objective to support(bold added for emphasis):

the Wellington Regional Strategy, aimed at ensuring most of that growth isconcentrated along a growth spine from Johnsonville, through the CBDand Newton to Kilbirnie as shown in the following diagram.

Ngauranga-Wellington Airport Corridor Plan Final Draft Plan 2008

File: 178401150.doc of 15



The Spine Study stated (bold added for emphasis):

Whilst patronage on the Johnsonville line is sufficient for it to beconsidered as a rapid transit corridor , this option was discounted … for the following reasons:

• Johnsonville and Newlands are already well served by frequent and fast PT services and have a relatively high PT mode share …

• the rail service has recently been upgraded and provides fast

access into Wellington.

• it is unlikely that converting the line to BRT / LRT would result in

substantial travel time benefits as the current rail service is akin toa timetabled BRT / LRT service

Although already officially designated as a Rapid Transit Service, claims that thecurrent rail service already “ provides fast access into Wellington” and “it is unlikely that converting the line to BRT / LRT would result in substantial travel time benefits”

can easily be refuted. Even the GWRC’s own Metlink travel service shows the poor performance given by the current Johnsonville Line:

Whatever its official designation, the Johnsonville Line is not RAPID transit . . . thestandard bus-on-street bus service is much quicker !

File: 178401150.doc of 15



The real reason is outlined in the Spine Study Terms of Reference1 stated (bold added for emphasis):

… This would include consideration of links to Kilbirnie and Wellington Airport, and links to Johnsonville (taking into account the findings of previousstudies of this corridor and the recent upgrade of the line to accommodate the

new Matangi trains). Any options that impact on existing PT infrastructure will only be considered as longer-term options beyond the life of any recently upgraded infrastructure.

The Spine Study does not fix the Broken Spine at the Railway Station. This wasenforced by the GWRC who seem to place more importance on protecting theJohnsonville Rail Line than identifying the best PT options to service NorthWellington.

Issue 2 – The Spine doesn’t have enough capacity

The Spine Study also recommends moving North Wellington bus services off the

Golden Mile and on to Featherston St, Victoria St, and the waterfront streets. The“Technical Note – Secondary Routes through the CBD” covers this issue (bold added for emphasis):

Best practice international experience suggests that a 2-way road, with few passing opportunities has a practical capacity of around 60 public transport vehicles per hour or one per minute in each direction. This relates largely tothe ability for such a system to allow up to a minute delay for each servicewithout affecting subsequent services

Currently along the Golden Mile there are several stretches where only a 2-way road is available, with few passing opportunities. These include MannersStreet and parts of Lambton Quay. Willis Street is also significantly

constrained. …To deal with this issue there are a number of options, including:

1. Remove some standard buses from the Golden Mile during peak hours toreduce congestion by forming a secondary route; or

2. Increase capacity along the Golden Mile by providing passing lanes;or

3. Require buses from the north or west of Wellington to terminate at thenorthern end of the CBD (i.e. Wellington Railway Station) and transfer to BRT or LRT.

Of these options, Option 1 was considered preferable, subject to further investigation. Option 2, increasing capacity along the Golden Mile and the introduction of passing lanes would require road widening whichwould have significant effects on pedestrian areas, central city buildings and overall central city amenity as well as adding to costs. Option 3, … BothOption 2 and 3 would be likely to result in a lower overall benefit-cost ration(BCR).

1 This is also included in the contract with the transport consultants Aecom

File: 178401150.doc of 15



I must note at this point, I raised the issue of a lack of PT capacity at the Spine StudyReference Group Meeting before the Medium List Options Report was released. Iexplicitly questioned the study consultants on whether the proposed spine hadsufficient capacity for all services they verbally reassured me that the modellingshowed there was sufficient capacity. I also asked why a bus tunnel under thisspecific chokepoint area was not considered and I was told this was not considereddue to cost . . . yet a much more expensive Heavy Rail Option was evaluated ?

To address the lack of PT capacity needed for the BRT and Light Rail options, theSpine Study chose option “1. Remove some standard buses from the Golden Mileduring peak hours to reduce congestion by forming a secondary route”. This means:

One of the key conclusions of the Medium List Evaluation was that asecondary route would be required to provide additional capacity through theCBD during peak hours.

File: 178401150.doc of 15



The lack of lanes between Manners and Lambton (3 Lanes only) is the cause:

The alterative option to move all southbound buses to Victoria St was not examined.

File: 178401150.doc of 15



Having southbound buses travel down Victoria/Wakefield streets would have besuperior to the recommended Alternate Spine because:

• This would permit off-line bus stops that would support express bus services and“skip-stop at peak”. This, in turn would increase golden mile PT corridor capacityenabling bus services from all parts of Wellington to benefit.

• Separation of sound-bound from north-bound bus services would also havepedestrian safety benefits.

• It would not take as much road and parking space as the proposed AlternateSpine.

An even better (although more expensive) option is a bus tunnel under theWellington CBD key traffic chokepoint along Manners Street-Willis Street-southLambton Quay:

This option would be very expensive (between $250M and $300M based on costsfrom the Auckland CBD Rail Link Business Case). It would also have a large number of benefits including:

• This would permit off-line bus stops that would support express bus services and“skip-stop at peak”. This, in turn would increase golden mile PT corridor capacityenabling bus services from all parts of Wellington to benefit.

• It would provide higher capacity and more reliable services than any street basedoption, further enhancing the usage of PT.

•

Unlike the previous option, it would enable north/west and south/east BRTservices to remain on the same PT corridor along the golden mile.

File: 178401150.doc of 15



• A bus tunnel will take less road and parking space than any other Spine Studyoption. In fact, it would add road capacity to the golden mile (the only option todo so). This option would open up a range of options for core surface streetsincluding improved traffic flow (Manner/Willis/Boulcott is a major congestionpoint), increased pedestrianisation (Manner Street could be returned to a mall)

and support other urban develop goals by of Wellington City.• It would also have major pedestrian safety benefits. Total separation of buses

from pedestrians has to be the best way to ensure safety of CBD residents.

The Spine Study correctly recommends a contiguous, dedicated road corridor as theessential element to the delivery of a reliable, high capacity rapid transit servicealong the Growth Spine to South and East Wellington. It is therefore verydisappointing to have the same study also recommend diverting bus services fromNorth Wellington (and the northern arm of the Growth Spine) off the bus lanes andaway from the Golden Mile. Indeed, this is the first public transport study I have ever seen that actually recommends moving a major part of the service off dedicatedlanes and back into traffic !

While the BRT option is supported, the “Alternate Spine” for North Welling busservices is not. In fact it is totally unacceptable . . . the Spine Study objective is toprovide Rapid Transit along the Growth Spine, not half the growth spine.

File: 178401150.doc of 15



Conclusion

Firstly, the Spine Study has completed an extensive consultation across manyoptions. It has been an open and thorough process run by professional transport

planners. It has published a wide range of detailed analysis and supportinginformation. As outlined above, I do not agree with all the findings but, as a feasibilitystudy, the process is robust.

Over the past decade, the GWRC plan for buses has been:

• No increase in bus operating subsidies

• No investment in improved bus services

• Raise fares above the cost of car trips

We now know this is not working as peak bus patronage has fallen 10% in the lasttwo years !

In the end, the most important thing confirmed by the study is that Bus Rapid Transit

will deliver a better public transport service to more people because:

• It provides more direct journeys, to more people

• It can support express and all-stops services

• It is less vulnerable to single-points of failure

• It can be implemented in phases providing the benefits of Rapid Transit earlier than light rail

• It costs less leaving making more PT funding available for other improvementprojects . . . such as a bus tunnel under Willis Street.

After a decade of neglect our city’s PT service is dying while we dither about what

medicine to take. It is time to set of a recommended approach and the Spine StudyRecommendation for Bus Rapid Transit is supported.

File: 178401150.doc of 15

wellington spine study submission by t randle

Documents