About a week ago I put together a map of what I think Auckland’s rail network should look like in around 25 years time. Now I’ve taken things one step further and added in a supporting light-rail (or in some cases busway) network that would support the heavy-rail lines that I detailed previously. The heavy rail lines would continue to form the backbone of the transport system.
If heavy-rail is the public transport equivalent of the motorways, then to me light-rail (which in this case would probably be quite similar to European trams, running on the street) is the equivalent of main arterial routes. These are necessary to feed into the main railway system, but also they are superb at driving high-quality sustainable land-use patterns. There’s always a strong debate as to whether one should bother with light-rail over bus lanes, and perhaps on some of the routes in the map below (the Upper Harbour route seems most likely) a busway might work best. However, as I explained in this post a while ago, the wider benefits of light-rail in terms of what it does to land-use patterns and how it encourages users who generally wouldn’t take the bus are real and significant.
So, without further delay, here’s the diagram, with the black lines showing light-rail (or busways in some cases):
There is probably scope for some further light-rail lines out west (Titrangi Road perhaps?) and out south. The relatively high number of light-rail lines on the North Shore compensates for that part of the city only having one main heavy rail line, while on the isthmus I also think there’s potential for a few more routes in the longer-term future.
Now I realise that it’s definitely a dream to hope for this kind of system at the moment, but I think there are certainly steps that could be made towards this becoming a reality. For a start, we could ensure there are good bus lanes running along all these routes; then we could make sure that if we are upgrading any of the routes for other reasons we make sure they are future-proofed for running light-rail. Finally, we can make a start on a couple of the routes (Dominion Road and Tamaki Drive in my opinion) that would be immediate successes, and then go from there. With a variety of feeder buses, plus these tram and train networks, I reckon Auckland could very well do away with its auto-dependency and cater quite well for a population of 2-2.5 million.
Processing...
Just a few minor changes to the rail system:
1) extending the red line from Manakau to Papakura, allowing residents in manurewa and Papakura to access emplyment hubs in East Tamaki and manakau without changing trains
2) have an non-frequent (say once evry half hour) Henderson-Manakau service via Onehunga and Southdown, to serve comuters from west Auckland who work in Manakau, and provide Otahuhu comuters with direct services to Manakau
3) extene the Westgate line to Kumeu and close the Swnson-Kumeu track. Allow a freight only Balwin Ave-Western Springs connection for freight trains using Avondale-Southdown (it will be used by passenger trains for special events like big rugby matches at Eden Park).
And for busway/light rail, a Otahuhu-Danemora route to serve East Tamaki workers using rail (its a long walk to some parts of this industrial estate
“a Flat Bush-Danemora route” I meant to say Otahuhu-Danemora route. I tried click to edit, but it didn’t work for some reason.
Good suggestions. The diagram is a work in progress and I think all those ideas have merit.
I would also suggest connecting the Albany – Westgate and Lincoln Rd tram routes as one, or at least have them both terminate at Westgate. This would avoid the need for three trips and two transfers to get from Henderson to Albany, or to move about 4km kilometres between West Harbour and Lincoln Rd, for example.
Likewise, extending one of the two eastern shore routes that terminate at Smales Farm (or is that just one route?) across to Glenfield Rd would allow them to function as cross town routes in addition to feeding to the rail line. maybe Glenfield mall would be an appropriate interchange. Again this avoid the requirement to use tram > train for two or three stops > tram to get across town.
I agree with Nick R here. I would also yhave the tram (or a rail deviation) service a comercial airport at Whenuapai if one ever gets built.
If we get enough money we could make it a rail route, and extend my proposed new line (point 2 in my previous coment) extend from Albany to Manakau via Henderson, Mt Roskill and Southdown.
This would allow the new rail network to serve all Auckland providing linke between all Aucklands main centres.
The harbour crossing has two forms of transport
1) extention of Airport north line
2) Light rail or busway ( which?)
The extention of the Airport north line on the shore would follow the existing motorway foot print …would this replace the current busway?
Mid town becomes the key central terminus for commuter transit between the northline and other significant corridors?.Would this be located within the Aotea environ.. i.e mid town queen st.This would need to be a significant station 4 corridors …each with a minimum of 2 lines.You would have to have multiple levels starting at 40 feet below Queen st to evade current storm water, sewers and a centurys worth of god know’s what….Love the thought …… Ole Robbie may yet have his famous ASB bunker put to some use.
Flatbush corridor is already there on Te Irirangi..Mt Roskill Avondale will follow the designated corridor alongside the infamous waterview extention.
Some significant investment in the central corridors…a number would be under ground….
What would be good is an overlay by proposed time line…get some scope on how you would piece the jigsaw together?
One more food for thought. A Northland commercial corridor future proofed at two dedicated lines .How would you run this through the proposed network?
I like it. Light rail can be pretty fast as well, at relatively low prices. In that northern connection you could have a good speed connection.
Just thinking about South Auckland and lightrail in this comprehensive system, I would;
Have two Great South Road lines. One from Newmarket to Otahuhu. This would replicate the southern line a little, but this frees up the line to be faster for distance traffic, and gives people more choice. A second would go from Southdown/Otahuhu following Gt South Road to Manurewa. And another from Otahuhu through Otara, East Tamaki industrial area, to Pakuranga.
What Melbourne’s system demonstrates is that you don’t need to be scared of having tramlines in parallel to railways. They compliment each other.
Well quite a few updates to make to the plan then! I find it quite useful to have an actual diagram of what the system would look like – it makes you realise where the strengths and weaknesses are, and where extra lines might be needed.
I think a Henderson to Albany busway is probably the best option for that corridor, and I would definitely run some trains from Henderson to Manukau via the airport.
Actually, that first Newmarket-Otahuhu Great South Road tram would be superfluous. The others are still important.
Name one objective study that shows that the benefits of light rail outweigh the massive increase in costs?
That is, a study commissioned by someone who didn’t have a vested interest in the outcome being negative or positive. They simply don’t exist. The closest is the UK DfT which after the Croydon, Manchester, Nottingham, Birmingham and Sheffield experiences came out very cautiously about it. Croydon is now widely seen as an expensive flop, Manchester was a success because it is almost entirely about conversion of old rail lines (so it has dedicated right of way and was cheap, as it reused old track and stations), Nottingham and Birmingham had cost overruns, although Nottingham’s patronage met expectations. Sheffield has failed to met expectations. Tyne and Wear was a heavy rail conversion that has not met expectations either.
The users wont pay for light rail over a bus, that is clear. Bearing in mind light rail requires two pieces of bespoke infrastructure and bespoke vehicles and offers next to no new capacity, it is a very expensive option. In other words, it spends money that could be better spent elsewhere.
Note London, where light rail could arguably deliver the biggest benefits in terms of capacity, has dropped any additional schemes because they weren’t worth it. If London can’t justify it, who can?
You need to consider:
1. Is light rail at grade mixed with other traffic? If so, it adds nothing compared to buses in mixed traffic.
2. Is light rail at grade with a dedicated corridor? If so, why not a bus lane? Besides which a light rail lane is better as a shared use lane anyway as the headways are rarely enough to justify a dedicated corridor (Hong Kong is one of the few locations where the headway is one minute or so and light rail works).
3. Is light rail grade separated? If so, is it better as a busway, if it needs more capacity than that, the marginal cost of moving to heavy rail is such that you may as well go for all out metro rail.
Consider what your goals are. If you have a fixed budget then you can either have a well connected high frequency bus system with low emission vehicles, integrated ticketing, real time bus information, with detailed information at every stop (ala London), or you can pour the same amount of money to build one tramway. Why would you do the latter?
Bear in mind while Melbourne has a well functioning tram system, its bus services and operations leave a lot to be desired, always have done, because politicians and officials focus on the high profile system that gets media attention.
This might be worth a read to see how the UK thinks on this today http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2007/consultletlightrail/pdflightrail.pdf
Liberty, I suggest taking a read of this post: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2009/07/08/buses-vs-trams/
I delve into that argument in much more detail there. In essence though – along some routes trams/light-rail offer benefits in terms of their influence on land-use patterns and also the way that trams/light-rail tends to attract users that wouldn’t ride the bus (due to classier perception but also better ride quality).
There are a lot of light-rail systems being built around the US at the moment. I doubt they’d be making such a significant investment if there weren’t large benefits.
Admin: I read that post. By no means does light rail generally attract enough additional users to justify the massive capital cost and operating losses. The ride quality is a matter of suspensions and road surfacing, and plenty of light rail schemes have hardly commendable ride quality.
You have an incredible amount of faith that US local and state governments are wise spenders of other people’s money. You either can’t be serious or are incredibly naive.
Faith isn’t a substitute for facts.
The US Federal Transit Administration surveyed 21 urban transit projects, 17 of which were rail, completed in the 1990s and since, to determine if they met expectations. The results are:
– An average of a 21% blowout on capital costs compared to the point when the option was selected (best result 28% below estimate, worst 72% above estimates);
– Operating and maintenance costs were slightly below estimates (best result 66% below, worst 78% above);
– Forecast ridership was below estimates in 18 out of 21 cases, 10 of those had less than 75% of predicted ridership. For example Portland has 46% of the projected ridership, Pittsburgh 34%, Sacramento 29%.
Source is http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CPAR_Final_Report_-_2007.pdf
Not to say there aren’t also incredibly wasteful road projects funded in the US as well, there are, the rank incompetence in government funded transport in the US is palpable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge is one example and the most expensive one is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig
It would be interesting to analyse how bus v trams had influenced land-use patterns differently. From a solely transport-focused perspective I agree that buses probably make more sense cost-wise, but once you put the quality of the urban environment and the effects on land-use patterns into the mix the result might be quite different. I will get around to doing a more detailed post on this.
Liberty light rail isn’t marginally cheaper than heavy rail, it is considerably cheaper at $7 million a km (including rolling stock at 5 min headways), electrified heavy rail $25 million a km (without rolling stock…
It’s advantages over busways are many and self evident… An Auckland wide system of similar size to Melbourne’s could be built for 2 billion dollars and if their ridership numbers and Auckland’s historic numbers are anything to go by would attract 200 million rides per year…
Here is my 2 cents:
“1. Is light rail at grade mixed with other traffic? If so, it adds nothing compared to buses in mixed traffic.”
I generally agree here, in mixed traffic there is not so much advantage over buses. However light rail has a few inherent advantages over buses in any corridor which might make it appropriate:
The main one is the fact that they can carry up to three times as many people as a bus. In heavily trafficked corridors this means your staffing costs are one third, that is significant.
The fact that light rail runs on rails makes for a smoother ride without lateral movement or harsh acceleration, the constrained design standard means that they have minimum radii on curves and grades so again the ride quality is better. This makes it more suitable to higher patronage routes than buses.
While not always the case, trams tend to be electric powered and buses diesel. This means they have no local emissions, are quieter, have a smoother acceleration profile and have more torque for hill starts (electric motors have almost 100% of their torque output at any RPM). It also makes them mechanically simpler and easier to maintain.
Also the permanence of rail infrastructure would create more potential for land use changes. The fact that the rail line isn’t going to be taken away in a hurry gives developers the confidence to build at a density in a way that a mere bus service does not.
“2. Is light rail at grade with a dedicated corridor? If so, why not a bus lane? Besides which a light rail lane is better as a shared use lane anyway as the headways are rarely enough to justify a dedicated corridor (Hong Kong is one of the few locations where the headway is one minute or so and light rail works).”
This is the circumstance where light rail shines, where light rail can have the ideal mix of speed and accessibility. Bus lanes in practice tend to be cut short at intersections or any other ‘tricky bits’, where as a light rail line cannot be. Also light rail tends to be in the centre of the roadway, which leads to less conflicting movements from other traffic than bus lanes that tend to be on the side. If you consider the benefits above the improvement is manifold.
So why not a bus lane? Because it would be slower, more expensive to run, less capacity, with a poorer ride quality, greater local noise pollution and fumes. Overall less people would use it and it would not create the same level of land use changes.
Light rail is much more attractive to users than bus lanes, that is a very important point and not to be scoffed at.
I think the real question is, if you are going to the expense of a dedicated corridor and enough buses to carry a high level of patronage, then why not light rail? Why spend as much to create a slower, less capacious, less efficient, less comfortable and overall less patronised service?
I’m not sure why you are suggesting that headways are rarely enough to justify a dedicated corridor, here in Melbourne many outer suburban lines run at better than five minute intervals at the peak, and some central lines serviced by many routes have over 70 trams per direction an hour . They couldn’t do that in a shared use lane and indeed, they can’t on the shared routes in Melbourne. Getting better than five minute headways appears to be impossible in mixed traffic, and there is currently a tram clearways project underway to separate them.
“3. Is light rail grade separated? If so, is it better as a busway, if it needs more capacity than that, the marginal cost of moving to heavy rail is such that you may as well go for all out metro rail.”
I think busways are definitely the better choice in some areas, say where you have only a moderate level of patronage and a high dispersal origins or destinations. For example the Northwestern Motorway corridor. At high levels of patronage I would agree for going to metro/EMU rail with bus feeders.
One advantage of light rail is that you can come very close to metro service levels and capacity on the main corridor, but easily run at street level for sections where a full surface corridor isn’t possible and tunnelling is prohibitively expensive (e.g. some CBDs/OBDs and historic town centres).
Another suggestion for a tramline. I’m not sure about this one, but I’ll put it out anyway : From the Remuera line, through Greenlane, Balmoral Rd (through the Dominion line), then up to either St Lukes and Morningside Station, or to Western Springs.
What about these?
1) Pt Chevalier via Herne Bay
2) Mt Albert shops or Avondale via Great North Road
3) Epsom via Gillies Avenue or Manukau Road
4) St Lukes via Great North Road and St Lukes road
I would say the four long streets of Aucklandd city Dominion Rd, Manukau Rd, Mt Eden Rd, and Sandringham Rd are perfect for light rail/tramways (in that order)
Jezza: The costs are wholly dependent on whether you are talking about rail conversion, at street running or grade separation. One source states North American light rail costs of between US$15 million and US$100 million per mile, depending on this. What are your figures based on?
“It’s advantages over busways are many and self evident” go on then, if they are so self evident, why has this evidence failed to convince authorities in the UK, USA and Australia (besides the odd line in Melbourne, light rail has gone nowhere in Australia). Oh and can you put a ratio of the benefit compared to the extra cost?
Why are believers in rail based transport almost wilfully blind to cost?
Nick R: “The main one is the fact that they can carry up to three times as many people as a bus. In heavily trafficked corridors this means your staffing costs are one third, that is significant” Um no. This is worthless unless you are at very high headways between buses. It will always be cheaper to run more buses. Are you assuming the driver for light rail collects all fares or do there now have to be loads of inspectors to combat fare evasion, whilst actual yields drop off as many hop on and off the back of trams to avoid inspectors. The loss of fares in London due to articulated buses being allowed to be boarded from the rear is around £30 million a year. So the saving is quite illusory. Light rail provides a single route, a busway can be a corridor for multiple routes at either end, so can service more locations at the same cost. The inflexibility of light rail means you can only service one route at a time, and putting rails on local streets in suburbs is quite worthless when the streets themselves are typically uncongested.
The ride quality is hardly enough to offset the cost, and the pollution factor doesn’t exist with trolley buses (which deliver the same environmental benefits at a lower price) and are greatly reduced with hybrid buses. The carbon emitted in laying new bespoke infrastructure for light rail is not taken into account (and its periodic replacement every 30 years) and would be interesting to compare to pavement. Note that local residents in suburbs aren’t necessarily keen on heavy trams squealing round corners at night, they aren’t an improvement over quiet hybrid buses in that department.
“Also light rail tends to be in the centre of the roadway, which leads to less conflicting movements from other traffic than bus lanes that tend to be on the side. If you consider the benefits above the improvement is manifold.”
Oh please, this is a function of design. Design a busway the same way, you get the same results.
“So why not a bus lane? Because it would be slower, more expensive to run, less capacity, with a poorer ride quality, greater local noise pollution and fumes. Overall less people would use it and it would not create the same level of land use changes.”
Complete nonsense. Speed is a function of design, it is patently not more expensive when you consider all capital and operating costs, capacity is patently incorret, ride quality is marginal, pollution is marginal and the numbers to use light rail do not justify the enormous increase in life cycle costs.
For example, in Los Angeles the cost per trip for light rail is US$11.90 but by bus (on a busway) is US$1.79. How can anyone start to justify this sort of glaring gap? http://reason.org/files/760155cae7ee4c80205854259f5c669a.pdf
Melbourne of course has the sunk costs of an already existing system, which makes a huge difference. It is another world to talk about building from scratch. Like I said, you either have legacy tram systems, conversions from abandoned heavy rail or new bespoke systems. There is little hard evidence that bespoke new systems can ever be justified.
The land use changes argument is specious and speculative, speculative with a lot of taxpayers’ money that light rail fanatics are keen to spend. Noticed Melbourne any denser than Sydney or Brisbane? Um no. Noticed Manchester any denser than Leeds? No. There simply is no evidence for this, a few local authority enforced sites adjacent to light rail stops is not a transformation of land use. These are showcased as evidence of change, but it simply isn’t there.
Oh and if you have suburban bus lanes, they can be used by other traffic as well. Bicycles, motorcycles, taxis and HGVs, which of course, get conveniently ignored by almost everyone in these debates. I have yet to see anyone who believes fervently in spending taxpayers’ money on rail based urban transport offering any solutions for the freight sector.
Liberty, surely the fewer cars on the road the more room for freight? I’ve always thought that the trucking firms should be huge public transport advocates to “get everyone off their bloody roads” as I’m sure they’d put it.
In terms of the economic justification of light-rail, as I have said in previous posts you have to be careful about the routes you place it on. For Auckland I would start with two routes – Dominion Road (which is getting close to needing light-rail for capacity reasons) and Tamaki Drive (which would attract a large number of recreational users and tourists who wouldn’t otherwise use the current bus system). Depending on how successful those two lines were (Dominion Road would definitely be a success, Tamaki Drive probably…) then we would consider extending the system further.
I don’t think you can write off the effects on land-use. Come on Liberty, surely you’re smart enough to realise that average overall population density would have nothing to do with intensification along certain corridors. That’s like saying public transport should work better in LA than New York because LA has an overall higher population density. What matters is how the population is concentrated – not the overall figure. Light-rail encourages intensification along corridors – encouraging more people to live within an area that can be provided with a high-quality alternative to the car.
Admin: Where has light rail measurably and sustainably relieved congestion on a road? Why should trucks be stuck in less road space so that the middle classes can get a very highly subsidised extra comfy ride to the CBD jobs? That, after all, is what light rail is for.
What analysis is there to demonstrate that the full life cycle costs of light rail are justified by equivalent benefits? I assume the light rail ideas you have would shut out buses from the same lane? Wouldn’t the capacity on Dominion Road be better met by grade separating bus lanes at major intersections?
I’m not talking average population density, but it is clear the net impact is tiny, at enormous cost. Surely you have to question the value for money of pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into something that has no NET transport user benefits which also has a tiny impact on densities overall. Why is intensification a “good thing”? You get into circular arguments that it is to support public transport, but if public transport is to encourage intensification, at some point someone has to ask what is this in aid of? Why are taxpayers paying enormous amounts of money for transport schemes to subsidise them moving into apartment blocks? Bearing in mind the light rail can only offer an alternative for those taking certain linear trips – which many wont want to. This really is fanciful stuff. There is no hard evidence that light rail relieves traffic congestion, delivers net benefits to users for the cost or makes a notable difference to urban densities near it in new world cities.
As I said, is Melbourne along tram lines higher density than the rest? If so, not by much, and on top of that, how many of them living there don’t use the light rail, because it doesn’t go where they work. These are the hard questions policy makers need answered before wanting to spend a huge quantum sum more for light rail over bus.
Well apparently streets in the inner-suburbs of Melbourne don’t get particularly congested at peak hour, because everyone catches the tram or train.
Liberty how am I the one wilfully blind to cost when I quote figures and you use statements such as “marginally more expensive”, “expensive flop” and “cost overruns” but no figures…
The ARC and light rail experts from MOTAT have given the cost for the proposed waterfront light rail as $4 million a km for the tracks and wiring, and $2 million a tram… You need a tram for every 720m of track (including maintanance etc) to run five minute frequencies… Which is $6.77 million a km…
Personally I’d prefer trolley-bus conversion if the routes cannot be easily grade seperated as you get many of the same benefits that you get with light rail however the buses are $600,000 over the $400,000 of a diesel bus or the $2m of a tram and the wiring cost $180,000 a kilometre rather than $4m…
I think you’ve got a little cheek telling me I’m willing blind to the costs when out of the two of us I some to be the one who actually knows how much the infrastructure costs per km… I’m also not a rail enthusiast, I’m an effective transport enthusiast…
I like tramways as much as the next transit spotter but as someone who works in the sector I have to say investments in new rail infrastructure generally only make sense when they either provide greater capacity for the same cost as buses, or provide a higher quality service which, either users are willing to pay a higher fare for (EU high speed rail fares vs competing coach fares) or attracts a greater volume of users that provide revenue beyond what a bus service would have generated.
A suburban heavy rail train operating at 130km can generate significant additional market share and revenue over a bus based solution. Light rail services however lack any speed benefit and so are limited in their ability to attract sufficient additional revenue over what a bus based alternative can offer. They therefore become a nice to have with little ability to pay the extra capital cost of the investment.
I don’t like to be the cheer leader for busways but there are good examples of land use oriented around busway corridors in cities such as Curtiba that show land use can be shaped around a busway as much as a railway. In the case of Curitiba I believe there are now plans for conversion to rail on some corridors. This justification based on the need to move capacity beyond what the busway could handle. Of course as Liberty point out if they charged users the full cost of using the peak buses along with road users they probably wouldn’t need the extra capacity, but that’s another whole argument again…
Liberty, surely the fewer cars on the road the more room for freight? I’ve always thought that the trucking firms should be huge public transport advocates to “get everyone off their bloody roads” as I’m sure they’d put it.
Admin , Your wrong here.
Transport companies want the lowest per kilo cost for moving frieght. Rail is by far the best yield provider for inter region freight movements.Where possible , service providers will move freight by rail over road transport.
Trucking companies dont give a toss about public transport.They care one hell of a lot about commercial rail though.You really need to figure and future proof commercial rail into your AKL models as I have outlinned.I am happy to help.
Jezza: “The ARC and light rail experts from MOTAT” pardon me if I don’t think volunteers at a museum looking after 50+ year old trams as a hobby, rather than a high density transport service aren’t experts. A small line to the Zoo built a couple of decades ago and a bunch of planners in ARC do not experts make.
Trolley buses have one advantage over diesel buses – emissions. An advantage that is greatly narrowed by low emission hybrid vehicles as are progressively being introduced in London.
I’ve given references above to two US studies into the costs of light rail, that’s where I am getting comparisons from. Real world experience. It is a degree of common sense of course.
LX: Yes you’re quite right. Light rail is either a very expensive busway or a cheap railway, it uncomfortably straddles both. Unless the system is already in place, about the only useful application for light rail has been on a few rail line conversion on routes with high densities of patronage. Docklands in London now has as little as 1 minute headways on some routes at peak times with trains about to be expanded to 6 car equivalents. However, it is entirely grade separated dedicated right of way. It is a cheap metro system, not the tramways talked of here.
The simple truth is that no one has been able to given any evidence given here as to there being any economic advantages of new light rail compared to busways. Not a single report from government or consultants not commissioned by a lobbyist group that demonstrates it is worth the higher cost. I remember asking the WRC to justify its light rail plans when it was seeking government funds for the Wellington transport project, and the WRC had nothing, no credible costs, no assessment of benefits, it just “thought it was a good idea” for the same qualitative arguments put forward here. The arguments moved onto useful spending, like the heavy rail network, buses and roads.
Unless some high quality economic analysis is done, it will just be the wishful thinking of supporters, and it wont get past the hard nosed scrutiny of policy makers and Treasury officials who have to answer questions from politicians and Chairs of funding bodies as to whether the cost is worth it. Nothing I have seen here has demonstrated either such information or even the willingness to believe there is a need to justify it.
The same, of course, goes for a CBD underground rail loop and an airport rail line. Despite Mike Lee’s media games, no serious work has been done on either.
Wrong again Liberty, MOTAT is the only Auckland organisation to recently built any new light rail, they built a 900m extansion to their existing track costing $1.6 million… But I guess it’s easy for Libertarians to write off anyone they consider a fuddy-duddy elderly person, a lot less old people in a libertarian paradise…
Another Trolley-buses advantage is the visible infrastructure which leads to some better land use…
Your also wrong on the studies regardings Airport Rail, a comphrensive study was done by ARTA… Also Lee sent the reports regarding land intensification around the rail network as Joyce had said none had been done…
Maybe you should read some NZ reports ratehr than American Libertarian sites for all your “accurate information”…
Jezza: I know MOTAT has had extensions, and your cheap shots are just vile. How dare you claim I make such judgments about the elderly, you have no idea about my life or the people in it. A 636m extension built 3 years ago on the edge of a suburban street does not make a museum operation “experts”. I was a member of the Wellington Tramway Museum Inc before I emigrated, but I guess that doesn’t fit your nasty little stereotype of me.
I look forward to ARTA publishing its comprehensive study into airport rail and the CBD underground loop. This should include expected net revenues, capital and operating costs and patronage.
Transfund and LTNZ have long had battles from ARTA and the ARC over some years over the paucity of its analysis and the effective optimism bias it has on costs (too low), patronage estimates (too high) and economic impacts (too generous). Given ARTA doesn’t expect to pay for most of this, it is hardly surprising it would do this. It is a persistent problem everywhere of local authorities being too optimistic about projects.
I didn’t think the US Federal Transit Authority was a libertarian site. It’s amazing how rosy your view on anything can be if you ignore evidence collected from official sources that is contrary to what you want to believe.
I’ll repeat:The US Federal Transit Administration surveyed 21 urban transit projects, 17 of which were rail, completed in the 1990s and since, to determine if they met expectations. The results are:
– An average of a 21% blowout on capital costs compared to the point when the option was selected (best result 28% below estimate, worst 72% above estimates);
– Operating and maintenance costs were slightly below estimates (best result 66% below, worst 78% above);
– Forecast ridership was below estimates in 18 out of 21 cases, 10 of those had less than 75% of predicted ridership. For example Portland has 46% of the projected ridership, Pittsburgh 34%, Sacramento 29%.
Instead of just denying the accuracy of the Reason Foundation paper, how about arguing the substance? Are the figures presented wrong?
If I was sitting in the NZTA or Treasury and I saw this sort of high risk of underestimating costs and overestimating patronage with these sorts of projects in the US, I’d be worried. The UK experience is similar in Birmingham, Sheffield and London, for light rail.
What’s going on that means that government officials pushing these projects get it so wrong? Is it because, fundamentally, none of them are really accountable for the financial consequences of these failures? Why should New Zealand not be equally cautious?
Liberty they are not nasty cheap shots, you are a libertarian which means you support the elimination of pensions… Before pensions 1 in 4 elderly people died in poverty now almost none do… Don’t get your knickers in a twist at me because of YOUR callous beliefs…
Also it would seem you are basing your entire belief that light rail is a complete waste of money on a single American report done by a government department, the same type of department you later deride for funding some of the most wasteful roading projects in the US and some whimsical statements about England and then have the temerity to state I’m willingly blind to costs or reason even when I havent advocated light rail for Auckland just pointed out a few of the wrong assumptions you’ve made…
You’ve stated you’re a rail enthusiasts elsewhere on here which is amusing because I’m not anymore than the congestion relief it could provide…