Welcome. If you're new to this site, start here
Monday, July 24, 2006
Rail: Neither Popular nor Affordable
Gareth Hughes wrote:
Let's look at those points, one by one:
Is it popular? No.
Actual usage is the only meaningful measure of popularity. It doesn't matter how much rail fans from other suburbs like the J'Ville trains. It matters how much Northern Suburbs residents use them.
The Council's Scenarios documents show that most public transport users prefer the bus. In fact, the 2001 Journey To Work Census (PDF) paints an even bleaker picture, with 63% of northen suburbs commuters choosing bus and only 36% chosing rail.
On the day of the census, only 858 people took the train from the Northern Suburbs to the CBD. (Yes, that's eight hundred and fifty eight.)
Is it really affordable? No.
Sure, passengers pay a low fare for each trip, but it's unrealistically and unfairly low. That's because neither the passengers, nor anyone else, has been covering the cost of rail units wearing out. Instead, the units have been run into the ground, without a cent put aside for their replacement, and now local government is being asked to make a massive lump-sum contribution to buy new rail units.
How much money are we talking about? Under the proposed the rail scenario, about $80m will be spent in the next 10 years alone. Let's assume half of that, i.e. $40m, will be spent on new rail units. $40m is more than enough to buy a brand-new, environmentally friendly Toyota Prius car for each of the 858 commuters mentioned above!
Alarmingly, page 77 of the Scenarios report indicates that, under the rail scenarios, no allowance will be made for depreciation in the future. Does that mean the same mistake will be made again? I think it does! Under the rail scenarios, we'll face the same bill again in another 30 or 40 years's time!
Is it really cheaper? No.
The busway is projected to cost $120-$130m.
The rail scenario is projected to cost $125-$160m.
In other words, the rail line is like a cheap electrical appliance. Repairs are so expensive, it's cheaper to throw it away and replace it with something better.
"...we have a fully operating, popular and affordable train network that is
cheaper to improve rather ripping it up and building a new transport
mode."
Let's look at those points, one by one:
Is it popular? No.
Actual usage is the only meaningful measure of popularity. It doesn't matter how much rail fans from other suburbs like the J'Ville trains. It matters how much Northern Suburbs residents use them.
The Council's Scenarios documents show that most public transport users prefer the bus. In fact, the 2001 Journey To Work Census (PDF) paints an even bleaker picture, with 63% of northen suburbs commuters choosing bus and only 36% chosing rail.
On the day of the census, only 858 people took the train from the Northern Suburbs to the CBD. (Yes, that's eight hundred and fifty eight.)
Is it really affordable? No.
Sure, passengers pay a low fare for each trip, but it's unrealistically and unfairly low. That's because neither the passengers, nor anyone else, has been covering the cost of rail units wearing out. Instead, the units have been run into the ground, without a cent put aside for their replacement, and now local government is being asked to make a massive lump-sum contribution to buy new rail units.
How much money are we talking about? Under the proposed the rail scenario, about $80m will be spent in the next 10 years alone. Let's assume half of that, i.e. $40m, will be spent on new rail units. $40m is more than enough to buy a brand-new, environmentally friendly Toyota Prius car for each of the 858 commuters mentioned above!
Alarmingly, page 77 of the Scenarios report indicates that, under the rail scenarios, no allowance will be made for depreciation in the future. Does that mean the same mistake will be made again? I think it does! Under the rail scenarios, we'll face the same bill again in another 30 or 40 years's time!
Is it really cheaper? No.
The busway is projected to cost $120-$130m.
The rail scenario is projected to cost $125-$160m.
In other words, the rail line is like a cheap electrical appliance. Repairs are so expensive, it's cheaper to throw it away and replace it with something better.
posted by John Rusk at 10:53 pm
About Me
Previous Posts
- Why Transit Oriented Development is not Relevant (...
- Frequency of Service, Part 2
- Frequency of Service
- Good article on busway versus light rail
- Enhanced Rail: No new trains in peak periods
- FAQ 1
- Comments Now Enabled
- Rant - Support the Busway
- Hello
Subscribe
- Site Feed
- No RSS sorry, just Atom format
12 Comments:
Wait until the next stage of the study to see what the detailed costs are. You quote the cost from the NWPT Study without the accompanying footnote:
"Since these costs were prepared additional work has been undertaken by Ontrack indicating costs could be
significantly lower than quoted here." - NWPT Study (page 31)
Lets compare the real costs.
Yes, we have both left things out. The full footnote reads:
"Since these costs were prepared additional work has been undertaken by Ontrack indicating costs could be significantly lower than quoted here. It is not clear, however, whether these results are directly comparable to the figures quoted here. This issue will be considered in more detail during the next stage of this study." [Italics mine]
As you say, let's compare the real costs.
Speaking of real costs: remember the depreciation (wear and tear) costs which I mentioned above. They're roughly "$40m every 40 years". That's an additional cost, which only applies to the rail options, and which is not included in the $125-$160 that you and I are debating here.
While the costs of the four study scenarios have not been published, the Enhanced Rail Scenario has been looked at many times before including GWRC reports on the Johnsonville Line in 1984 (by the Brown, Copeland & Co Ltd) and 1993 (by Travers Morgan). Both reports, by the way also considered replacing the rail line with a Busway, with the latter also considering Light Rail and Bus-on-Street options.
The NWPTS Scenario Report does provide the cost estimates for replacing the the current rail service in Table 1 of the href="http://www.gw.govt.nz/story_images/3158_ScenariosReportp_s6310.pdf"> Scenarios Report Part 2 (1.4Mb Acrobat) as follows:
In summary the previous figures are:
Replace EMUs (12) = $M42
New EMUs (4) = $M12
Increase Passing Loops = $M9
Lowering Tunnels = $M3
Other = $M1.5
The major cost is in the replacement EMUs. The previous estimates use a per vehicle cost of $3M each.
Tony
Tom Beard wrote
More detail is what's needed for all the scenarios. Some things need to be tested/examined to establish their practicality and cost in Wellington. A few examples from different scenarios might be :
- Detailed clearence measurements on the J'ville line to determine what needs to be done (and how much it costs) for operating buses or new(er) units.
- Actual costs of busway construction or rail upgrade, rather than estimates based on other systems.
- Performance of the newer Ganz units on the J'ville line (these units are not as powerful as the old ones and the line is steep (for rail).
- Practicality of operating bendy buses through the streets of Wellington and the Northern suburbs. (I think one was trialled some years back and found to be unsuitable but I don't know why - maybe newer ones are more practical).
- Details of bus lanes, etc to speed up the Golden Mile and around the J'ville hub.
- Speeds and travel times for all options: the technical appendices seem heavy on "assumes", "likely" & "estimates". These need to be firmed up.
- Coordination with other corridor studies (eg Ngaranga - Airport). For instance, bus upgrade through central city would benefit routes other than Northern Suburbs ones, light rail beyond Courtenay might change the value of the CBD section, bus priority Ngauranga - Wellington could potentially benefit Hutt & Northern Suburbs buses (splitting the cost), etc.
And statement of various hidden costs (examples: the depreciation you mention, cost of more and heavier buses pounding the road surface, etc).
Tom Beard's recently posted comments completely refute your claim about rail being unpopular.
As to costs - a busway will need its infrastructure renewed once every 20 years and its buses once every 8 years. I think that's probably more expensive than renewing rail every 30 to 40 years.
Ummm so you think its a solution to traffic congestion to buy everyone a car? Exactly what point did you mean to make by suggesting the capital cost of the rail units (about the same as the useless inner-city bypass for comparison) could buy people Priuses?
Anonymous claimed:"Tom Beard's recently posted comments completely refute your claim about rail being unpopular."
First, wrt to the map, it must be noted that, just sa for the bus, most people close to the rail stations do not have the choice of taking the bus. The GWRC usually prohibits bus services from competing with rail across the region (Johnsonville Station is the notable exception).
Lets look at some facts about the "popularity" of the rail and buses in North Wellington.
The earliest figure I have for Johnsonville Rail (daily) patronage is "Trends in Public Transport in the Wellington Region 1966 - 1976" by the Wellington Planning Authority . It states Johnsonville Line daily patronage at 2,011 for 1966 a level it maintained through until that last available figures in 1982 where 2,113 was recorded in "The Existing Transport System" July 1983 by Wellington Regional Council. This same report recorded Annual Rail trips as 1.656M trips against Bus trips of 0.406M trips (this is rail 80% vs bus 20% for those mathmatically challenged).
The NWPTS reports daily passenger levels for Rail of 1,300 versus Bus of 1,700 and annual Rail trips 1.3M trips against annual Bus trips 1.8M trips (thats Rail 42% versus Bus (57%).
Now the definition of popularity can be quite subjective, but it is clear that the advantages of Rail has not stopped patronage on the Johnsonville Line falling from over 2,000/day to 1,300 (according tot he study) or even under 900 (according to the census). Equally, the inferiority of the bus Bus service has not stopped usage growing from perhaps on 400 to over 1,700/day to become the primary form of Public Transport for this area.
If rail is so good, why are most people in North Wellington getting on the bus (including at Johnsonville Rail Station ?)
Anonymous also claimed:"As to costs - a busway will need its infrastructure renewed once every 20 years and its buses once every 8 years. I think that's probably more expensive than renewing rail every 30 to 40 years."
On what basis is this claim made ?(yes I am asking for the source of this myth) The fact is the Adelaide O-Bahn was constructed over 20 years ago. Made of the highest grade engineering concrete, it has required little in the way of maintanence over this time, and there is no currently identified need to replace any part of it !
Tony: on my map, the green line encloses areas that have both bus and rail service, so those people definitely have a choice. That's defined as being within 800m of a rail station and within 400m of a bus stop (the "service radius" of a transit stop is defined to be higher for a rail because people will generally walk further for its superior service).
What that actually means for my map, though, is that while all of the green area is within 400m of a bus stop, but that much of it is 400-800m from a train station, putting rail at a relative disadvantage for some of those areas. Nevertheless, it looks from the map that in those places that have both bus and rail, passengers prefer rail.
"the advantages of Rail has not stopped patronage on the Johnsonville Line falling from over 2,000/day to 1,300 (according tot he study) or even under 900 (according to the census)". I get Census figures of 1200-1300 if I add up the train figures for meshblocks near the Johnsonville (John's figures don't include people using the line within the northern suburbs). That's still a drop since 1982: why?
For a start, the nature of Wellington work has changed since then. I haven't studied the figures, but I gather that most of the office work used to be concentrated in Thorndon and north Lambton, close to the station. Since then, there's been a spread further along the Golden Mile, to the extent where taking a train, then changing to bus or walking, is not as attractive as taking a bus the whole way.
Secondly, of course, the train rolling stock is now twice as old. When the service has been allowed to run down for so long, it's no wonder that some people switch.
"the inferiority of the bus service has not stopped usage growing from perhaps on 400 to over 1,700/day"
Even more than central Wellington, this amorphous entity "North Wellington" has changed. Most of the growth in the last 25 years has been in greenfield sprawl miles from the traditional transport corridors, so it's no wonder that residents in the new suburbs choose bus rather than train (or more likely, car). It's only now that urban planners are trying to reverse the "Aucklandisation" of a city that was once compact and well-suited to mass transit.
As I said, when service conditions are equal, people prefer rail over bus. Even with geriatric trains and a station that stops on the edge of the city, people along the line who have the choice choose rail. When the rail service is modernised and extended into the city itself, it will be a far superior service, and much more able to support consolidated growth along the "spine" than any bus route.
>urban planners are trying to reverse the "Aucklandisation"
Tom, that's an interesting issue, and one that's fairly fundamental to our differing points of view on this issue. To paraphrase, I want a public transport service that serves the suburbs we have; while you want a public transport service that alters the suburbs we have.
Perhaps I've misunderstood you. Anyway, I posted a question about it in the comments here, in case you'd like to reply.
>and its buses once every 8 years
At least bus replacement costs are borne by the bus company (out of ticket revenues and the operating subsidy negotiated with the Council). Contrast that with rail, where as I wrote a few days ago, depreciation (replacement) is not covered by anyone. The ratepayers are just expected to cough up a huge lump sum every few decades because the trains have worn out. These intermittent lump sums effectively function as a second subsidy for rail, at a level of around $1,000 per passenger per year.
-Ummm so you think its a solution to traffic congestion to buy everyone a car? Exactly what point did you mean to make by suggesting the capital cost of the rail units (about the same as the useless inner-city bypass for comparison) could buy people Priuses?
Thanks for pulling me up on that. I made my point badly (or not at all, perhaps!)
I was simply trying to illustrate the size of the amount we are talking about, on a per-passenger basis. The Prius was a purely arbirtary choice, just because it happens to be environmentally friendly and by no means a budget-priced vehicle.
I don't seriously suggest that as a solution. It was just to illustrate the size of the costs. I'm passionate about good public transport - if I wasn't I wouldn't be writing this blog.
As a postscript, I want to add one key fact on rail "popularity" to my earlier post on Toms Comments.
Accroding to the 1983 Report, the peak patronage level of the Johnsonville Rail Service occured in 1978 and 1980 when the number of users exceeded 2,800/day. This was a time when there were 4 services per hour, one of which was a six car train (compared to todays 3 services per hour each with 4 car trains).
Today, the the rail line cannot attract even half of it's peak patronage (at 1,300/day). The failure of the Johnsonville Rail Line to even hold it's own users refutes the assertion that rail has superior attraction and leads one to the view it is really no more substantial or sustainable than a quality bus service (if not to the proponents, then at least to the actual users).
<< Home