There was an NZ Herald report this week of a political debate that occurred at ARC over the location of railway stations along the proposed Britomart rail tunnel line. You can read that report at: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10604205
I am aware that some rail transport enthusiasts and supporters are questionning the appropriateness of the views that I am advancing in this discussion. Some are saying: "Cayford should keep quiet, the Britomart Tunnel is all that will be funded. If he asks for too much nothing will even happen...." sort of thing.
Fair enough. That's a point of view.
My comeback on that goes like this:
1) Auckland's state highway network - love it or hate it - was planned more or less completely in the 1960's and 1970's. Yet it is only today that the last sections of it are being built. That network was planned to accommodate development and expansion of Auckland, both in terms of land use, population and economic development over a long period of time. As money became available, the top priority sections of that network were built.
2) Auckland's current railway network is pretty much as it was designed almost a hundred years ago. A few new bits have been planned. The Manukau Spur is an example. The Airport Rail link is currently being planned. And a designation to protect the proposed Britomart Rail tunnel section - which was conceived in the 1920's - is to be planned in detail and protected in work that is happening now.
3) But it is piecemeal compared to the planning that is needed if Auckland is going to back itself over the next 30 - 50 years with an electrified rail system, and commit to it.
4) Perth decided to go down the rail route, and decided also to get major bus services out of its CBD. There are still inner CBD bus services, but the line haul bus services now don't go into the centre of Perth. Instead commuters transfer to high capacity electric rail services to get into the CBD. You can see how pleasant Auckland CBD would be without buses during the recent strike. But that can only happen if rail services are commensurate, and planned.
5) Auckland talks about 5 minutes services, but only delivers 12 minute services. Even with electrification the service frequency discussed is still inadequate. How can Auckland get to the 15,000/hour capacity enjoyed by line haul Perth rail services? Do the maths: Assume Auckland has 6 car trains, with each car carrying 100 people. That's 600/train. How many do you need/hour to move 15,000? It's one train every 2.4 minutes.....
6) I won't go on in this blog, but the guts of my argument is that Auckland CBD needs a network of rail services. Not just a single line around the edge. This network needs stations at major destinations including Aotea Square, University/AUT, Hospital/Domain. Otherwise we will just continue being a little - little city, with hundreds of diesel buses cluttering up the streets.
This network won't be built in a day, just as Auckland's state highway network wasn't. But it was planned for the long term. I believe that the strategic planning to support the Britomart Tunnel designation should include preliminary work on the CBD rail network. We may build the Britomart Tunnel and link first, but let's have a better idea about how it will connect with other parts of the rail network.
Showing posts with label CBD rail network. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CBD rail network. Show all posts
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Showing posts with label CBD rail network. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CBD rail network. Show all posts
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Auckland CBD Rail Loop and Tunnel Planning
There was an NZ Herald report this week of a political debate that occurred at ARC over the location of railway stations along the proposed Britomart rail tunnel line. You can read that report at: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10604205
I am aware that some rail transport enthusiasts and supporters are questionning the appropriateness of the views that I am advancing in this discussion. Some are saying: "Cayford should keep quiet, the Britomart Tunnel is all that will be funded. If he asks for too much nothing will even happen...." sort of thing.
Fair enough. That's a point of view.
My comeback on that goes like this:
1) Auckland's state highway network - love it or hate it - was planned more or less completely in the 1960's and 1970's. Yet it is only today that the last sections of it are being built. That network was planned to accommodate development and expansion of Auckland, both in terms of land use, population and economic development over a long period of time. As money became available, the top priority sections of that network were built.
2) Auckland's current railway network is pretty much as it was designed almost a hundred years ago. A few new bits have been planned. The Manukau Spur is an example. The Airport Rail link is currently being planned. And a designation to protect the proposed Britomart Rail tunnel section - which was conceived in the 1920's - is to be planned in detail and protected in work that is happening now.
3) But it is piecemeal compared to the planning that is needed if Auckland is going to back itself over the next 30 - 50 years with an electrified rail system, and commit to it.
4) Perth decided to go down the rail route, and decided also to get major bus services out of its CBD. There are still inner CBD bus services, but the line haul bus services now don't go into the centre of Perth. Instead commuters transfer to high capacity electric rail services to get into the CBD. You can see how pleasant Auckland CBD would be without buses during the recent strike. But that can only happen if rail services are commensurate, and planned.
5) Auckland talks about 5 minutes services, but only delivers 12 minute services. Even with electrification the service frequency discussed is still inadequate. How can Auckland get to the 15,000/hour capacity enjoyed by line haul Perth rail services? Do the maths: Assume Auckland has 6 car trains, with each car carrying 100 people. That's 600/train. How many do you need/hour to move 15,000? It's one train every 2.4 minutes.....
6) I won't go on in this blog, but the guts of my argument is that Auckland CBD needs a network of rail services. Not just a single line around the edge. This network needs stations at major destinations including Aotea Square, University/AUT, Hospital/Domain. Otherwise we will just continue being a little - little city, with hundreds of diesel buses cluttering up the streets.
This network won't be built in a day, just as Auckland's state highway network wasn't. But it was planned for the long term. I believe that the strategic planning to support the Britomart Tunnel designation should include preliminary work on the CBD rail network. We may build the Britomart Tunnel and link first, but let's have a better idea about how it will connect with other parts of the rail network.
I am aware that some rail transport enthusiasts and supporters are questionning the appropriateness of the views that I am advancing in this discussion. Some are saying: "Cayford should keep quiet, the Britomart Tunnel is all that will be funded. If he asks for too much nothing will even happen...." sort of thing.
Fair enough. That's a point of view.
My comeback on that goes like this:
1) Auckland's state highway network - love it or hate it - was planned more or less completely in the 1960's and 1970's. Yet it is only today that the last sections of it are being built. That network was planned to accommodate development and expansion of Auckland, both in terms of land use, population and economic development over a long period of time. As money became available, the top priority sections of that network were built.
2) Auckland's current railway network is pretty much as it was designed almost a hundred years ago. A few new bits have been planned. The Manukau Spur is an example. The Airport Rail link is currently being planned. And a designation to protect the proposed Britomart Rail tunnel section - which was conceived in the 1920's - is to be planned in detail and protected in work that is happening now.
3) But it is piecemeal compared to the planning that is needed if Auckland is going to back itself over the next 30 - 50 years with an electrified rail system, and commit to it.
4) Perth decided to go down the rail route, and decided also to get major bus services out of its CBD. There are still inner CBD bus services, but the line haul bus services now don't go into the centre of Perth. Instead commuters transfer to high capacity electric rail services to get into the CBD. You can see how pleasant Auckland CBD would be without buses during the recent strike. But that can only happen if rail services are commensurate, and planned.
5) Auckland talks about 5 minutes services, but only delivers 12 minute services. Even with electrification the service frequency discussed is still inadequate. How can Auckland get to the 15,000/hour capacity enjoyed by line haul Perth rail services? Do the maths: Assume Auckland has 6 car trains, with each car carrying 100 people. That's 600/train. How many do you need/hour to move 15,000? It's one train every 2.4 minutes.....
6) I won't go on in this blog, but the guts of my argument is that Auckland CBD needs a network of rail services. Not just a single line around the edge. This network needs stations at major destinations including Aotea Square, University/AUT, Hospital/Domain. Otherwise we will just continue being a little - little city, with hundreds of diesel buses cluttering up the streets.
This network won't be built in a day, just as Auckland's state highway network wasn't. But it was planned for the long term. I believe that the strategic planning to support the Britomart Tunnel designation should include preliminary work on the CBD rail network. We may build the Britomart Tunnel and link first, but let's have a better idea about how it will connect with other parts of the rail network.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
