Welcome. If you're new to this site, start here
Monday, July 10, 2006
Rant - Support the Busway
This is an angry post. I'm angry because I've lived in the Northern Suburbs for 9 years, enduring the failures and frustrations of our public transport system and now, when a great solution comes along, most on-line writing opposes it.
That solution is the Busway. It is the best solution for the largest number of people. Here is my point-by-point rebuttal of the arguments that have been made against it:
"International experience is that public transport users prefer trains"
Tell that to the queue of people who catch the bus from Johnsonville railway station each morning! At peak times, the queue is continous - there's a bus loading at Johnsonville, and it only departs when the next bus arrives and pulls up behind it. In other words, there is a steady stream of people boading a steady stream of buses - to travel from one railway station to another. Ask them which they prefer!
And what about commuters who can't even make it to a train station? No matter how much you upgrade the tracks, they won't get any closer to my house!
This is why 57% of Northern Suburbs commuters choose bus over rail. We do this even though busing costs more, and is less reliable (in the abscence of a busway, that is). If we choose buses even in the face of these drawbacks, will prettier trains really make us change our minds? I don't think so.
"The only argument in favour of buses is that they can provide a “seamless” service ... The light rail option can also do that."
Seamless light rail, to my house? Yeah, right.
Only the busway can provide a seamless service in the CBD and the suburbs. (Some of us live there, you know.)
"The busway will increase pollution"
If all NZ's energy was from renewable resources, that would be true. In reality, one quarter of our energy comes from coal and gas. In other words, we consume 33% more energy than our renewable sources can supply. So, we can burn diesel to run buses, or we can burn coal at Huntly to run electric trains. The environmental difference is not as big as many might claim.
(Yes, I know I've over-simplified the NZ electricity market in this description. But it's late, and I have to get up early in the morning to allow time for a slow bus trip on congested roads! :-)
"Overseas, Rail is More Successful than Busways"
You can find an example to prove almost any point - so here's a counter example to "prove" my point: Adelaide, Australia has run a very successful busway for 20 years.
Rail has obvious advantages for long narrow corridors (like the Hutt Valley and Kapiti Coast). The Nothern Suburbs is not a long, narrow corridor. It is comparatively short and "fat", swinging the balance in favour of buses. (Think about it - rail makes great sense for Upper Hutt; but not for Island Bay. Long narrow corridor = rail; shorter fatter corridor = bus.)
What's Missing from this Debate
Finally, there are three things missing from this debate.
Firstly, there's been no real discussion of the importance of pursuading residents who currently drive to work to switch to public transport. This is particularly important because those who drive clog up Ngauranga Gorge, which is a significant bottleneck in the region's infrastructure. Persuading Northern Suburbs residents to switch to public transport reduces congestion on the Gorge. The busway will appeal to the largest number people who currently drive, since it's the only option which offers everybody fast service from close to home - even faster than taking your car. Are fossil-fueled buses really such a bad thing, if they entice people out of their fossil-fueled cars?
Secondly, the suburbs are growing at the northern fringes: Churton Park, the northern fringes of the Newlands/Pararangi area etc. In otherwords, the suburbs are extending to the north, but the rail line is not. No-one in the new areas can walk to a railway station.
And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, where is the voice of the Northern suburbs commuter? 57% of us currently spend hours each week waiting for late buses, and sitting in traffic congestion once the buses arrive. Think how this is hurting our quality of life - we miss time with our children, we miss time we might spend socialising or exercising. Many of us can't walk to a station, no matter how flash the trains are. Should we continue to suffer, just so the country can burn coal at Huntly instead of diesel on the busway? Quality of life counts. Walk a mile in our shoes before you dismiss the busway.
"Go the busway!"
That solution is the Busway. It is the best solution for the largest number of people. Here is my point-by-point rebuttal of the arguments that have been made against it:
"International experience is that public transport users prefer trains"
Tell that to the queue of people who catch the bus from Johnsonville railway station each morning! At peak times, the queue is continous - there's a bus loading at Johnsonville, and it only departs when the next bus arrives and pulls up behind it. In other words, there is a steady stream of people boading a steady stream of buses - to travel from one railway station to another. Ask them which they prefer!
And what about commuters who can't even make it to a train station? No matter how much you upgrade the tracks, they won't get any closer to my house!
This is why 57% of Northern Suburbs commuters choose bus over rail. We do this even though busing costs more, and is less reliable (in the abscence of a busway, that is). If we choose buses even in the face of these drawbacks, will prettier trains really make us change our minds? I don't think so.
"The only argument in favour of buses is that they can provide a “seamless” service ... The light rail option can also do that."
Seamless light rail, to my house? Yeah, right.
Only the busway can provide a seamless service in the CBD and the suburbs. (Some of us live there, you know.)
"The busway will increase pollution"
If all NZ's energy was from renewable resources, that would be true. In reality, one quarter of our energy comes from coal and gas. In other words, we consume 33% more energy than our renewable sources can supply. So, we can burn diesel to run buses, or we can burn coal at Huntly to run electric trains. The environmental difference is not as big as many might claim.
(Yes, I know I've over-simplified the NZ electricity market in this description. But it's late, and I have to get up early in the morning to allow time for a slow bus trip on congested roads! :-)
"Overseas, Rail is More Successful than Busways"
You can find an example to prove almost any point - so here's a counter example to "prove" my point: Adelaide, Australia has run a very successful busway for 20 years.
Rail has obvious advantages for long narrow corridors (like the Hutt Valley and Kapiti Coast). The Nothern Suburbs is not a long, narrow corridor. It is comparatively short and "fat", swinging the balance in favour of buses. (Think about it - rail makes great sense for Upper Hutt; but not for Island Bay. Long narrow corridor = rail; shorter fatter corridor = bus.)
What's Missing from this Debate
Finally, there are three things missing from this debate.
Firstly, there's been no real discussion of the importance of pursuading residents who currently drive to work to switch to public transport. This is particularly important because those who drive clog up Ngauranga Gorge, which is a significant bottleneck in the region's infrastructure. Persuading Northern Suburbs residents to switch to public transport reduces congestion on the Gorge. The busway will appeal to the largest number people who currently drive, since it's the only option which offers everybody fast service from close to home - even faster than taking your car. Are fossil-fueled buses really such a bad thing, if they entice people out of their fossil-fueled cars?
Secondly, the suburbs are growing at the northern fringes: Churton Park, the northern fringes of the Newlands/Pararangi area etc. In otherwords, the suburbs are extending to the north, but the rail line is not. No-one in the new areas can walk to a railway station.
And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, where is the voice of the Northern suburbs commuter? 57% of us currently spend hours each week waiting for late buses, and sitting in traffic congestion once the buses arrive. Think how this is hurting our quality of life - we miss time with our children, we miss time we might spend socialising or exercising. Many of us can't walk to a station, no matter how flash the trains are. Should we continue to suffer, just so the country can burn coal at Huntly instead of diesel on the busway? Quality of life counts. Walk a mile in our shoes before you dismiss the busway.
"Go the busway!"
posted by John Rusk at 9:38 pm
6 Comments:
Thanks Maximus.
The important comparison is not between improved rail and buses on roads; it is between improved rail and buses on the busway. On a short route (like the J'Ville line), with relatively closely-spaced stations, I'm not convinced that upgraded rail would have any speed advantage over busway buses. That's particularly true if the busway is structured to allow express buses to overtake buses which are stopped at stations (and I believe that is the council's intention).
Furthermore, the overall frequency/throughput of the JVille rail system must be limited, to some extent, by the fact that most of the line is single track. You can send buses back, in the off-peak direction, via the motorway, but that doesn't work so well for trains!
For these reasons, I expect the speed of busway buses to compare favourably with rail.
Like you, I am also puzzled as to why people queue for the bus in J'Ville. Someone from the council should stand at the bus stop one morning and ask them! What are their reasons for preferring buses (in spite of all the flaws in the current bus system), and would a better rail system influence their choice? (E.g. upgraded rail is no use if these people want seamless service to Courtenay Place)
Ben,
Perhaps the council have not explained the busway very well. The fact is, buses from Churton Park, Grenada Village, Glenside, Paparangi and Newlands will all use the busway. It will offer them a fast, un-interrupted route from J'Ville to Wellington. This is clearly stated in the PDF documents on the Council's web site, but perhaps not so clearly in the summary level material.
That's why the busway benefits everyone.
Also, it's worth noting that existing rail users will get a significantly more frequent service. Instead of one train every 20 minutes or so, they will get one bus every 5 minutes or so. Greater frequency makes the service much easier and more attractive to use - and that's why existing rail users will be better off with the busway too.
PS I've just posted a new post on service frequencies. All are better than the current rail, but the busway is the best of all.
The Adelaide O-bahn busway, which you use as an example of a sucessful busway, is a two way, "double track" busway that provides a frequent all day service in both directions. This is more than a little different from what is proposed for the J'ville line under the busway option.
In operation, the Adelaide systems seems a lot more metro like whereas the J'ville proposal seems a lot more like those part time bus lanes that only operate a few hours a day and are idle the rest of the time. Do you know if there are any plans to make use of the busway off-peak or is it strctly peak only? If off-peak and weekend use were possible I think this option would provide more value than it would otherwise.
I don't think there's any decision (yet) as to how the busway will be used off peak. The documents I have read all suggest that there are several options. While this means there's less clarity now (which makes it more difficult for people to decide which option to support) it actually highlights an important advantage: the busway is by far the most flexible scenario.
I would expect "rail replacement" services to run on the busway all day, to provide off-peak services for existing rail users. (What if you want to travel in the opposite direction to the current busway direction? Do you ride a busway bus "around the loop" (i.e. remain on board as it makes the reverse journey by road), or do you catch a road-based bus in your desired direction? I expect that both options are possible.)
Express services, which serve suburbs like Churton Park but don't stop on the busway, might:
(a) run on the busway in peak periods only, as you suggest
(b) run on the busway all day (with some other - new - route serving Nguaranga Gorge and Hutt Rd)
(c) combine (a) and (b), with road services running all day (at an off-peak frequency) and the peak-only services using the busway.
In any case, there is considerable flexibility, which will help in fine-tuning the system to give the best results.
Update 25 July 06: I've made a small correction to the section on non-renewable electricity generation. The original figures (now corrected) included geothermal energy in the coal and gas percentage.
<< Home