Lets Get Welly Moving releases its options for Wellington Transport

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Lets Get Welly Moving releases its options for Wellington Transport

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2807915 5-Nov-2021 09:50

MikeB4: The answer is simple. Picture a funnel you fill a bottle with, now consider Poneke, it's a funnel with the end capped. You can have 10, 20 lanes in it will always end in a bottleneck. Cars create congestion and funnels hasten that congestion. Get the cars off the road and use alternatives and you no longer have that congestion. Mass public transport and alternative personal transport is the best way to cure city traffic issues especially in the capital.

What's a poneke?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2807960 5-Nov-2021 11:21

Geektastic:
MikeB4: The answer is simple. Picture a funnel you fill a bottle with, now consider Poneke, it's a funnel with the end capped. You can have 10, 20 lanes in it will always end in a bottleneck. Cars create congestion and funnels hasten that congestion. Get the cars off the road and use alternatives and you no longer have that congestion. Mass public transport and alternative personal transport is the best way to cure city traffic issues especially in the capital.

What's a poneke?

Poneke = Wellington

The greater region is Te Upoko-o-te-Ika, the harbour is Te Whanganui-a-Tara, the city or port is Poneke

TinyTim

1042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2807978 5-Nov-2021 12:18

Getting back to the options, here is my brain dump of ideas (which probably evolved as I wrote them):

[TL;DR: these are long term options for a part of a future city. Which is great but we also need short term and medium term improvements which aren't covered here. Edit: except for SH1 fixes which are more urgent]

The LGWM options are solely about the CBD-hospital/Newtown-Island Bay corridor, the eastern suburbs and airport, and SH1/basin reserve/Mt Vic tunnel. Notably the Island Bay route has been tagged for higher density housing along its route; the eastern suburbs have been rejected for higher density housing.

These areas are currently served by the high-capacity and high-frequency routes 1, 2 and 3. (Except the airport which currently has no PT but will in the next year or so.) Also we can probably safely assume the CBD "Golden Mile" will be car-free by this time.

So looking at the benefits the options provide, through the eyes of someone who doesn't commute on those routes (and in fact will probably be retired by the time they are finished):

Option 1 (south coast light rail plus new Mt Vic tunnel) $7.4B
• improves the already pretty good transport from the railway station to the hospital, Newtown and Island Bay
• slightly improves transport to the eastern suburbs and the airport
• lengthened Arras Tunnel/new Mt Vic tunnel should reduce traffic congestion around the Basin and Mt Vic tunnel
• does nothing to reduce Terrace Tunnel congestion
• interestingly, it moves the core CBD PT route from the Golden Mile to the Quays.

Option 2 (buses rapid transport to south coast and eastern suburbs/airport) $7.0B
• similar benefits to option 1, but with less capacity to Island Bay and more to the airport.

Option 3 (south coast light rail plus new Mt Vic bike tunnel) $6.6B
• similar to option 1 but the new tunnel is only for bikes and pedestrians
• A bike tunnel here seems to be a bit like the rejected Auckland Harbour bike bridge - why would you exclude other forms of traffic for only minimal cost saving?

Option 4 (light rail via Taranaki St) $5.8B
• similar to option 3 but without the Basin Reserve changes so no SH1 improvements. I really can't figure out why you'd take this option seeing as for most people it's the Basin Reserve that's the real problem (along with the tunnels).

Observations:
• I really like how they're taking into account city growth, but my conclusion is there is too much emphasis on areas that already have pretty good PT (current airport PT aside).
• I understand that LRT was rejected for the airport route because the route is less suitable for high density housing. When I visit other cities my preferred transport options are generally rail first, taxi second, bus third. If other airport users also feel the same then an improved bus to the airport isn't going to have nearly as big an effect on traffic as rail.
• I live in an inner suburb (on the other side of town) so my closest amenities are in town (rather than the suburban centres). So although I don't commute on these routes I do travel on them at other times of the day. My barriers to using public transport out south and east is actually my local number 14 route: outside of peak times it's only every half hour. Solve this barrier (by doubling its frequency) and I'd almost certainly use PT to get into the CBD a lot more. Beyond that the current numbers 1, 2 and 3 would probably be enough for me. I would use LRT over the bus for the airport, and I'd use it to get my elderly parents-in-law to the airport, but I wouldn't put them on a bus.
• if buses can use LRT lanes (like they're proposing for south of Newtown) then why can't they route the LRT along the Golden Mile, where people want to go? Congestion? Routing? There would be some problems but they wouldn't be insurmountable. PT along the Quays would be a barrier to me, for CBD access. Even Featherston Street would be better if Lambton Quay is out.
• On cycling: I feel like WCC and LGWM are putting too many eggs in one bike basket – for a number of reasons I believe they overestimate the impact bike commuters are going to have on traffic (and in the short-mid term, emissions). I watched a video on the success of the bike lanes in London and the success factors they gave (good planning aside) were flat terrain, mild weather and wide thoroughfares. We all know about our hills, our narrow and windy roads and our wind. Even our rainfall is twice that of London. We don't have any of their success factors.
• These options are long-term solutions -- estimated completion time is 15--20 years from now. If we have continued population growth and no transport improvements before then goodness knows what state Wellington will be in by then. Last one out turn off the lights?

So my preference (as a non-Island Bay/eastern suburbs resident) would an option 5 which includes shorter-term PT needs:
* more bus routes for current car commuters in other suburbs who don't have good PT options.
* improve off-peak frequency of other routes that connect to the spine routes 1,2 and 3.
* more park and ride capacity in the outer suburbs. Move inner-city parking buildings to the edge of the CBD, easily accessible from the motorway (like in many European cities where they have massive underground car parks and car-free city centres). How about the old Defence House site?
* do the proposed changes to Basin Reserve and the new tunnel from options 1 and 2
* PT won't solve all SH1 problems so do the proposed Basin Reserve/tunnel changes from options 1 and 2, duplicate the Terrace tunnel and put the entire Te Aro section of SH1 underground (so Te Aro is no longer divided - think how great it would become). I'm sure if they did this they could remove bypass traffic from the Quay and close a couple of lanes to reduce the division between the city and waterfront. You'd probably also reduce traffic along Oriental Parade/Evans Bay Parade by 90% which would be fantastic.

* then bring in LRT as a long-term option for hospital/airport (i.e. using proposed timeframes). Maybe Island Bay. Whatever option is chosen, the important things is to set the decision in stone and start planning for it and remove barriers.

Metlink has (had?) a target of maximum 50% subsidy, which by global standards is very low for low population areas. Increase subsidies to increase PT services (particularly off-peak/weekends) and also pay for daily fare caps (which are proposed with the national ticketing vapourware). This will unfortunately mean higher rates and/or taxes which we will just have to put up with. The countries which we want to model ourselves off all have higher taxes than us.

Perhaps we need to go to an Auckland Transport model by splitting off Metlink and the City Council transport groups into a unified body that means road and PT planning is done together (at least with a view of each other).

wellygary

8323 posts

Uber Geek

#2807980 5-Nov-2021 12:24

MikeB4:

Poneke = Wellington

The greater region is Te Upoko-o-te-Ika, the harbour is Te Whanganui-a-Tara, the city or port is Poneke

Pōneke, is a transliteration of "Port Nick"..

its gradually being replaced by Te Whanganui-a-Tara as the more preferred Maori name..

PolicyGuy

1727 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2808013 5-Nov-2021 13:43

TinyTim:

Getting back to the options, here is my brain dump of ideas (which probably evolved as I wrote them):

...

• On cycling: I feel like WCC and LGWM are putting too many eggs in one bike basket – for a number of reasons I believe they overestimate the impact bike commuters are going to have on traffic (and in the short-mid term, emissions). I watched a video on the success of the bike lanes in London and the success factors they gave (good planning aside) were flat terrain, mild weather and wide thoroughfares. We all know about our hills, our narrow and windy roads and our wind. Even our rainfall is twice that of London. We don't have any of their success factors.

...

• more park and ride capacity in the outer suburbs. Move inner-city parking buildings to the edge of the CBD, easily accessible from the motorway (like in many European cities where they have massive underground car parks and car-free city centres). How about the old Defence House site?

Great work, @TinyTim!

I 100% agree with you on cycling: Wellington is a poster child for a bad place to accentuate cycles or eBikes for commuting. The route from Petone to the city is absolute madness: just that section of a commute is 10km - close to half an hour even if there isn't a howling southerly

I also agree with the idea of more city fringe car parking, however I'm pretty sure the Defence House site on the Aitken St / Mulgrave St corner has been taken by National Archives, who will move from the other side of Mulgrave Street. Archives need more space, and the new site is directly across the alleyway from the National Library, which should offer some operational and visitor efficiencies

TinyTim

1042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2808149 5-Nov-2021 16:59

PolicyGuy:

I also agree with the idea of more city fringe car parking, however I'm pretty sure the Defence House site on the Aitken St / Mulgrave St corner has been taken by National Archives, who will move from the other side of Mulgrave Street. Archives need more space, and the new site is directly across the alleyway from the National Library, which should offer some operational and visitor efficiencies

That's interesting to know. There are other places that may be suitable for a parking building - and probably even more after the next big earthquake ☹.

Wellingtondave

156 posts

Master Geek

#2808795 7-Nov-2021 13:39

PolicyGuy:

TinyTim:

Getting back to the options, here is my brain dump of ideas (which probably evolved as I wrote them):

...

• On cycling: I feel like WCC and LGWM are putting too many eggs in one bike basket – for a number of reasons I believe they overestimate the impact bike commuters are going to have on traffic (and in the short-mid term, emissions). I watched a video on the success of the bike lanes in London and the success factors they gave (good planning aside) were flat terrain, mild weather and wide thoroughfares. We all know about our hills, our narrow and windy roads and our wind. Even our rainfall is twice that of London. We don't have any of their success factors.

Great work, @TinyTim!

I 100% agree with you on cycling: Wellington is a poster child for a bad place to accentuate cycles or eBikes for commuting. The route from Petone to the city is absolute madness: just that section of a commute is 10km - close to half an hour even if there isn't a howling southerly

So someone informed me, whilst the Petone to city [Ngauranga or wherever it ends] walkway is a recreational path / cycling path and probably a good idea to get cyclists off SH2, it was pushed through as such because of the warm and fuzzy aspect of it being of recreational use.

What it really is, is protection for the railway lines / SH2 from, well whatever you want to describe it as - variable weather conditions from the harbour which often wash over the rail lines causing damage and even over to SH2 at times causing traffic and safety issues. They couldn't get the money for resilience or railway protection. No doubt it will get some use and hopefully a lot of use in summer but that's just a spin off benefit apparently.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#2808808 7-Nov-2021 14:39

remember that ebikes are a big leveller. I commute from Titirangi to the Auckland Viaduct (well did until our recent level4 in auckland) and I can cover the 20kmh in about 35/40 minutes including some quite steep climbs. Ebikes are the biggest impact in terms of mobility and sorting out the hills. Given it costs me ~$0.10 per day to charge and operate the bike and I service it twice a year (brakes and checks) at $100 each time and I have no parking costs its quite a time and cost saver. Riding up a steep hill at 25km/h requires little effort and makes most hills flat.

TinyTim

1042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2808980 7-Nov-2021 18:46

Wellingtondave:

So someone informed me, whilst the Petone to city [Ngauranga or wherever it ends] walkway is a recreational path / cycling path and probably a good idea to get cyclists off SH2, it was pushed through as such because of the warm and fuzzy aspect of it being of recreational use.

What it really is, is protection for the railway lines / SH2 from, well whatever you want to describe it as - variable weather conditions from the harbour which often wash over the rail lines causing damage and even over to SH2 at times causing traffic and safety issues. They couldn't get the money for resilience or railway protection. No doubt it will get some use and hopefully a lot of use in summer but that's just a spin off benefit apparently.

There was actually a news story about this a few months ago - complaints that they were emptying the cycle lane budge on non-cycle infrastructure costs. As it stands the cost/m is about the same as Transmission Gully before it even starts (before the inevitable budget overruns, and they only expect 2000 cyclists per day by 2020.

D1023319

524 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#2810548 10-Nov-2021 16:50

Out of interest, i watched the LGWM webinar last night but it only served to increase my blood pressure to unsafe levels.

My main takeaway was:

1. looks like Adelaide road from Basin to Riddiford st to Rintol St becomes one lane each way to provide two lanes for mass transit in the middle

2. During question time - they said (pardon if memory is wrong) their aim is not to improve traffic flow - but unfortunately it may improve as the result of their roading changes to enable Mass Transit to remove choke points. This was in response to question if traffic improves - why would people change to mass transit.
The also spoke about legislative changes for congestion charges and higher parking charges to force people to change.

3. They didnt answer question about the impact on car parking along the routes

4. They didnt answer a question about why is SH1 traffic from the Terrace tunnel to the basin still required to travel along VivianSt but i suspect that is because its prime objective is anti vehicle even if that blocks traffic trying to bypass the CBD to the airport.

5. They said Option 4 was the lowest carbon option which is probably why the Greens like it - not that it is the most effective

wellygary

8323 posts

Uber Geek

#2810550 10-Nov-2021 16:53

D1023319:

5. They said Option 4 was the lowest carbon option which is probably why the Greens like it - not that it is the most effective

The Greens like option 4 for lots of reasons, but the big one will be that it leaves the Basin as a giant round-a-bout that is a huge handbrake on driving across town....

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2810625 10-Nov-2021 17:34

A bridge across the harbour from the bottom of the gorge to the airport please.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2810640 10-Nov-2021 18:22

Geektastic: A bridge across the harbour from the bottom of the gorge to the airport please.

That wont happen in twenty life times. A better option would be to move the airport out of the city

TinyTim

1042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2810715 10-Nov-2021 19:58

D1023319:

2. During question time - they said (pardon if memory is wrong) their aim is not to improve traffic flow - but unfortunately it may improve as the result of their roading changes to enable Mass Transit to remove choke points. This was in response to question if traffic improves - why would people change to mass transit.
The also spoke about legislative changes for congestion charges and higher parking charges to force people to change.

Thank you for getting more information! I'm intrigued to know how mass transit heading south/east from the railway station will help people currently driving to/from the north.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2810834 10-Nov-2021 21:24

MikeB4:
Geektastic: A bridge across the harbour from the bottom of the gorge to the airport please.

That wont happen in twenty life times. A better option would be to move the airport out of the city

Of course it won't. It is far too daring and useful for the NZTA to think about.

Then again so is moving the airport. 😁

We can dream of some amazing Norman Foster masterpiece glinting over the water though...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7