On the Draft

Light Rail, First

The draft plan starts in the wrong direction. The first thing it does is states that light rail is not an option.

Various light rail options were proposed and tested in the development of this draft plan, but none were found to be feasible within the next 10 years. The two key challenges are the high cost of the light rail infrastructure, and how to successfully integrate bus and light rail networks.

Having read the technical document that Opus delivered, I fail to see the basis for this statement. Yes, there are infrastructure costs, but they are not the most expensive of the infrastructure costs that are considered within the scope of this study. Further, the draft plan seems to ignore the run-time costs being lower per-person-per-kilometre than similar capacity for buses, and certainly for private vehicles. The ability for light rail and buses to integrate is not a technical problem. Many cities have implemented coordinated bus and light rail plans quite successfully. I think that the dismissal of light rail is short-sighted and overzealous.

The bulk of the peak-hour traffic in Wellington is based on the in-flow of traffic through a single major artery. Further north, this artery branches into two flows. This limited shaft of traffic into the city is exactly the problem that high-density transport solves. With flow into the CBD from the south, via Adelaide Road, and from the east, via the Mt. Victoria tunnel, we again see high density shafts. The Wellington region is especially well suited to implementation of light rail and enhancement of the existing heavy rail system. This is also true within the city. Many people insist that the topography of Wellington excludes light rail, but there is sufficient space to connect the railway station with the hospital with very little geological work, if modern articulated trams are to be used.

Public Transportation Focus

Light rail is just one piece of the public transportation network needed to keep Wellington moving. At peak hours, the bus companies fail to supply adequate service on multiple fronts. Firstly, buses on main routes are often running at full capacity, leaving behind passengers to wait for the next bus. Secondly, buses between the railway station and Courtenay Place struggle to maintain adequate scheduling, due to dwell times and increased congestion. Bus lanes and priority signalling are a major step to solving the congestion problems, but dwell times cannot be solved as easily. Transport intensification, again light rail, is the most effective way to battle dwell-time problems.

The draft plan does begin to put a focus on public transport, but it stops far too short. In an aim to be “flexible and adaptable”, the proposal does not accomplish much at all. Funding is largely stacked up to roading projects instead of public transport improvements, and given that Wellington City Council has already started backtracking on bus prioritisation projects along Courtenay Place, the mentions of public transport fall to mere lip-service.

Active Modes

This section should really be placed higher than public transportation. It is far too common for pedestrian and cycle plans to be placed last in the list of priorities – a gross injustice to the residents of the city. In fact, the draft plan defers any planning for pedestrian and cycle activities for other projects and allocates no funds. Active modes are a vital aspect to a city with a small footprint. Instead of residents taking short trips in a car or on transit, many choose to travel by their own power, using minimal resources, leaving minimal waste and needing minimal infrastructure. Transportation planners must stop impeding active modes.

Cobham Drive and Hataitai

Currently, the two roundabouts between the airport and Hataitai are dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. The draft plan calls for extra lanes to provide extra road capacity. However, this only worsens the situation for active modes. With the proposed sports complex to sit aside Cobham Drive, this impediment to movement only ensures that patrons will drive; the pedestrian path faces Evans Bay and is fully disconnected from the site of the complex. A more productive measure for this location would be signalised intersections. The effectiveness of roundabouts breaks down at high volumes of traffic and makes safe pedestrian access impossible

The proposal to dual-lane Ruahine St is equally maligned. It is irresponsible to place a 70km/h speed zone in between a public park and a residential area. There is also no plan for a cycle lane or pathway, putting the faster flowing traffic in the same space as cycles on the road. Enhancing the roading that already exists will steal space from the park and further hinder access. Additionally, the corner onto Wellington Road will need significant geological work to safely route the traffic to and from Kilbirnie, which is ignored by the plan.

Inner-city Bypass

The plan places focus on a “ring or bypass route for vehicles”. The current implementation of the bypass is already a roadblock for residents to the south of the CBD. There is next to no priority for active transport modes to cross the bypass route. Further increases of traffic through this route must be accompanied with amenities for people to safely cross in a timely fashion.

Themes

The projects that are depicted in the draft plan should be measured against several themes that are relevant to the lives of those who work in, live in and travel to Wellington.

Many of the sections of the plan place focus on increasing capacity for the existing network. The city cannot widen streets each time there is a congestion buildup. Capacity must be increased via densification. As many trips as possible should be low-overhead. Active transport is cost-effective for everyone when it is safe and amenable. Public transport reduces congestion and waste over short and long distance travel. Private vehicles should not be restricted, but preference should be given to more energy- and space-efficient modes. Roading projects are a very costly solution, which scale poorly, to the problem of congestion. They encourage urban sprawl and reduce the effectiveness of transport planning.

Energy use and waste management of the transport options are becoming more important in light of climate change scenarios and rising energy costs. By placing many people behind a single engine, buses and trains carry far more people for the same amount of energy than private transport and put out much less emissions per person.

Costs associated with individual projects are contentious. Funding for roads comes from a different body than funding for public transport. It’s easy to see why conservative councillors would want to push for projects that they don’t have to pay for. Favouring projects along SH1 earns “free” money, whereas public transport options are funded internally. However, costs to the residents should also be considered. In this time of high petrol prices, many commuters are struggling to pay their commuting bills, while public transport users are sheltered from much of the cost – not by virtue of subsidy, but by efficiency, which becomes more pronounced with increased patronage. Investment in that efficiency is needed in the short term and medium term, based on predictions for petrol demand and pricing over the coming years. Siphoning money, free or otherwise, to roading projects would be contrary to the conditions that city and country are facing.

List of Demands

For whomever reads this and skims for the highlights, here they are:

• Consider cyclist and pedestrian corridors first
• Implement light rail
• Implement bus priority measures
• Stop building bigger roads – they don’t work

On the Consultation Process

Having made submissions for the two previous phases of the Ngauranga to Airport study, I have become aware of several problems that hinder public processes such as this. It is no surprise that the public is often disillusioned by their governments, but it is becoming apparent why that might be.

I saw a poster announcing the consultation process on a bus. It incorrectly indicated the internet address to be “http://www.gw.govt.nz.n2a”;. This address will lead to a “Server not found” error. I can understand that mistakes happen, but no action was taken to correct this as of July 21st, 2008. For advertising that is targeting public transportation users, this effectively biases the responses away from those who stand behind public transport or demand improvements.

The evolution of the three phases paints a very dark picture of the consultation process. It’s not important to point fingers; it indicts the whole system. Despite a very strong public response favouring enhanced public transportation options, including light rail, the draft plan dismisses the light rail option with a hand-wave and proceeds to put forth a plan that fails to reflect any public input.

The activity of the local body gets closer to the daily lives of people as any branch of government. When residents transition from being interested and involved to disillusioned, the local government is not healthy. One should worry about the consultation process when finding a reaction like this:

“I’ll have to be honest and state that after the reading about the urban corridor I’ve done I’ve decided not to make a submission to the Council. Primarily this is because I’ve been becoming increasingly convinced that it’s entirely a waste of time and effort.”¹

¹ http://objectdart.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/the-ngauranga-airport-corridor-plan-mk2/