Better Bus

A Final Word

2006-12-22T11:33:00.001+13:00

A local paper, the Norwester, recently published a letter from me about the busway. I'll quote from that letter here, to summarise my view on the busway decision.

Firstly, some comments on what is perhaps the pivotal event in this whole debate:

In parliament on September 14: Mr Dunne quoted a cost of $115m for the busway and $5m for rail. In response the Minister of Finance said Labour would not support the busway. Dr Cullen went on say, "If we did receive a proposal with that sort of cost, I doubt very much that we would want to give it very serious consideration at all" – implying that his decision was based on Mr Dunne's costs.

But Mr Dunne’s rail cost was false. It included widening the tunnels but not buying any trains!

Even the Council’s new "base case" rail option costs 12 times the figure Mr Dunne gave in parliament! (Base case = $60 million over next 25 years).

Regrettably, when Kerry Prendergast and Ian Buchanan asked for written confirmation of Dr Cullen’s view, he restated it without giving any evidence that he had first sought out unbiased costings.

As I've noted previously, most of his reply (pdf) consists of an attachment written by ONTRACK.

Finally, I wrote these concluding remarks on the busway issue:

I support the busway because it offers more benefits to more people than rail. I’ll never convince the skeptics, but I would have liked to convince the general public in the Northern Suburbs. Local residents stood to gain a lot from the busway. Unfortunately, rhetoric has drowned out the facts (and I’ll accept my share of the blame for that) so let me conclude by quoting the November 10 report from the Regional Council’s Passenger Transport subcommittee:

"In addition to the [main technical] report, WCC commissioned a report from Derek Kemp, an urban design specialist, [on] public transport choice, public transport use, public transport operational efficiency and urban densities, land use planning, urban design and urban form. It found that the busway scenario was clearly superior in terms of the 'qualitative' benefits considered in the report."

In other words, a lot of good would have come from the busway. It's a shame local residents never heard the details, since they never received comprehensive unbiased information [e.g. a detailed mailout from the council to every house in the area]

Double Disapointment

2006-11-26T13:05:00.001+13:00

As you will know by now, the City and Regional Council's have decided to halt all consultation, and go with the "base case" rail option - an option which they never included in the scenarios for public consultation.

I saw a lot of advantages in the busway, so I'm disappointed in their decision. But I'm even more disappointed in how the decision was made:

The consultation process was abandoned part way through. In particular, it was abandonned before the promised consulation on the Councils' final choice.

Much has been made of Labour's position on the issue. Michael Cullen's official letter on the topic is cusory at best. It is disapointing to see that most of it's content was actually written by the CEO of ONTRACK. Did the Minster of Finance more-or-less delegate his decision to ONTRACK, an organisation which presumably has a vested interest in the outcome, and which describes itself as "an advocate for rail"? Yes, he should have consulted with rail advocates, but not only with rail advocates.

The technical report, by consultants SKM, is dissapointing. It seems to make a number of questionable assumptions. For instance, it assumes that the "Petone-Grenada" link will be built, but I understand that's now in some doubt. That link has a significant impact on the very road congestion at the heart of this issue (Ngaruanga Gorge). I would also question the stated assumption that the buses would travel at the same speed as the trains. Surely the buses can do better than an average of 30kph! Surely a more valid assumption would be that a busway bus would take about the same time as the equivalent off-peak car journey (J'Ville to Wgtn via Ngaio Gorge), which takes 40% less time than the train.

The involvement of the Greens and United Future is disapointing. It's understandable in the case of the Greens, although they pushed it a bit too far. It's not so understandable in the case of Ohariu-Belmont's MP, Peter Dunne. He has just campaigned for $1 billion of road spending on Transmission Gully. That's a road so that people who live far beyond the northern boundary of his electorate can drive their cars to work more easily, creating more road congestion in his electorate. When he gets the chance to make things up to his own supporters, by using the busway to solve the road congestion he's created, he backs rail instead. We've now seen him run two transport campaigns, Transmission Gully and rail-verus-busway, which individually and collectively leave his own supporters worse off.

What do you think?

Bus Only?

2006-10-20T07:47:00.002+13:00

Tom reports rumours that the "bus only" option is the likely choice.

While that's nobody's first choice, there is a way to make it everybody's second choice, to get real value out of it, and lock nobody into an unnaceptable long-term choice:

Just change the bus only option as follows:

Treat it as a test not as the long term solution. Run the buses on the roads but just don't rip up the tracks. After 5 to 10 years, make the final decision as to what to do with the tracks. Running the buses on roads for 5 to 10 years will prove or disprove many of the claims/assumptions made by those on both sides of this debate. Was "peak oil" in 2004, and is it about to drive fossil fueled vehicles off the road? Or will road congestion get worse? If the trains stop, will a significant number of rail passengers use their cars instead of riding buses? After the test period, if it becomes clear that rail is the only long-term option, just buy some trains and start running them on the line again. The expense can be justified because the bus option has been tested, and failed.

Use hybrid diesel-electric buses, for a solution that's probably just as green as rail (since rail involves heavy vehicles powered on, basically, 25% coal-fired electricity). Bus on road is cheaper, making the extra expense of these buses more likely to be acceptable.

Do it quickly, to free up the J'Ville trains for a few years use elsewhere in the region (since we have a train shortage, that cannot otherwise be filled for a number of years)

Take bus priority measures very seriously.

This is probably no-one's first choice, not even mine, but if I was the council, faced with a bill not far from $100,000 per passenger for rail, I would want to run a test before I parted with that kind of cash.

Just a thought. Interested in your comments...

Tracks, Lies and Audiotape

2006-10-18T20:23:00.001+13:00

I'm a great believer that debates should be about ideas not personalities. When you disagree, you should attack the message and not the messenger.

But, when Sue Kedgley bolsters her argument with half-truths, well, somebody has to hold her to account. Today, that somebody is me...

I left last night's "Save the Line" meeting with an uneasy feeling that the good people of Johnsonville had been conned.

Firstly, it's easy to drum up support for rail when the public is kept in the dark about the alternatives. I chatted with a number of people after the meeting and was one of the last to leave. I believe a majority of attendees arrived knowing little about the busway, and left knowing no more. During the meeting any mention of the busway was quickly stifled by Ms Kedgley saying, "That's not what this meeting is about. This meeting is about saving the rail." Which is true, it was about saving rail; it was not about choosing the most effective public transport.

Secondly, Ms Kedgley bolstered her argument with a number of misleading statements, which I feel someone has to point out.

She made a big deal of the recent growth in rail patronage; never mentioning that bus patronage has grown by by a similar percentage over the same period!

If the busway goes ahead, she said "the estimates are" for 30 to 40 extra buses per hour. She never mentioned who made that estimate. Did she make it herself? The real estimate, in the North Wellington Public Transport study, is 16-18 extra buses per hour (page E13 in the Technical Appendix). Even allowing for the recent 13% growth, that's still only 20 extra buses per hour. That's one bus every 3 minutes, which equals approximately two extra buses on Lambton Quay at any given time. (Does anyone seriously suggest that Lambton Quay is so congested it can't accomodate two more vehicles?!)

She said (I took notes) that electric trains "emit no carbon". That's like saying that Bill Clinton never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. It may be technically correct, but it's also misleading. The careful wording suggests deliberate deception. Yes, no carbon dioxide is emitted by the actual trains, but 25% of their electricity does come from fossil fuels (including coal, now that Huntly is coal-fired).

She said that the Johnsonville busway would be the only one-way busway in the world. That's another "Clinton-esque" statement. It's easy to find an example of a one-way busway: look no further than Auckland where the last 2.5 kms of the new busway will be one way. The difference is that the one-way portion will run in the mornings only. It won't reverse direction at lunchtime (and it's not a guided busway).

I was disapointed to see her last point make it into Radio New Zealand's piece this morning (listen). I guess I can't complain though, since they included a soundbite from me too ;-)

Johnsonville Busway Meeting

2006-10-17T22:04:00.001+13:00

I've just got back from the Save the Line meeting in Johnsonville.

For those who were there, yes, I'm the guy who asked for a show of hands about how many people actually took the train to work this morning.

(By the way, when relatively few hands went up, I heard the whispered objection, "But many of us don't live in the area." On either side of this debate, where is the voice of people who actually live here?)

Anyway, although we didn't all agree, it was great to meet afterwards with so many people genuinely interested in improving public transport.

I'll blog more about the meeting later.

12 Reasons to Say "Yes" to the Busway

2006-10-12T07:42:00.001+13:00

Gareth Hughes wrote 12 Reasons to Say No to the Busway. Naturally, I can't resist responding! Here are 12 reasons to say Yes:

It benefits everyone. Most northern suburbs residents take buses. The busway helps everyone, not just the minority who use rail.

For current rail users: More frequent services - a peak-period bus once every 5 minutes, instead of a train every 13 minutes.

For current rail users: Service all the way to Countenary Place.

For current rail users (from Johnsonville): Faster, non-stop express service.

For current bus users: avoids road congestion - leading to shorter trips and, perhaps more importantly, more predictable journey times.

For current bus users: helps buses run on time. As a bus user, you don't just suffer from congestion when you are in the bus, you also suffer from it while you wait for late buses that have been held up in traffic. At the affected times of the day, its not uncommon to see a bus arrive 10 or even 20 minute late. The busway will vastly reduce those delays.

Cost effective. Let's quote TransMetro's own pamphlet: busway $120 to $130 million; rail $125 to $160 million.

A resilient, reliable service. If a slip blocks the rail corridor, buses can temporarily revert to running roads.

It can reach new suburbs. New suburbs will be built (whether you like it or not, Tom and Gareth) and only buses will be able to reach them.

One unified service, instead of two parallel ones. Say, it's 7:15 at night, and you want to get to Johnsonville. Should you catch a train, or a bus? Which leaves first? Which arrives first? Where do they depart from? With the busway, there is exactly one clearly defined service, instead of two competing ones with different timetables and departure points.

It will encourage more residents to leave their cars at home. Why? Because it's more frequent, goes into the CBD and reaches everybody (not just people who live close to train stations). When the Newlands bus service boosted frequency and extended service to Courtenay Place, patronage jumped by 40%.

Cheaper, better off-peak services. The busway could provide an off-peak service that's better than the existing peak rail service!

And, one more as an extra bonus:

13. A chance to buy New Zealand Made. Buses are made in New Zealand, trains are not. Come on Green Party, support your own campaign ;-)

(I have just phoned Designline to confirm that they do indeed build here, not just design here. They always build the body in NZ usually, but not always, on an imported chassis.)

Today's Paper

2006-10-10T09:12:00.001+13:00

There's a full page article on rail on page 10 of today's Dominion Post. It mentions passenger rail and freight, but not the Johnsonville line itself.

Environmental Aspects

2006-09-25T18:29:00.001+12:00

I've been putting off writing about the environmental aspects of rail versus busway. I've been putting it off because its complicated. It's complicated both in terms of the facts, and in terms of how those facts may influence our choices.

I can't offer all the answers, but can pose some questions...

Establishing the Facts

At first glance, you might assume that rail is 100% green. On reflection, you might remember that approximately 25% (pdf) of our electricity comes from fossil fuels -- so rail is "75% green".

75% of what? Does rail use more energy than buses, or less? It's widely known that steel wheels on rails have less friction than bus tires on concrete, but we also have to consider:

Trains are really heavy. Surely moving all that steel around impacts on energy use. Here's an example, to illustrate how heavy trains are: an English Electric "DM" unit, as used on the Johnsonville line, seats 60 and weighs 43.5 tonnes. That's about 725kg per seat. The bus I rode to work this morning seats 45 and weights 8.3 tonnes. That's about 184kg per seat.

Trains don't "scale down" well. E.g. The smallest train you can get on the Johnsonville line is a 60-seat "DM" unit pulling (or pushing) a 70-seat "D" class trailer. That's 130 seats, weighing almost 80 tonnes. (The weight is approximate, because I don't have an exact weight for the trailer.) Off-peak there might be only 8 people on the train, for example. That's 10 tonnes of vehicle per passenger. Put those same 8 people on bus, and there's only 1 tonne of vehicle per passenger.

(By the way, why run near-empty trains and near-empty buses off-peak? Why not combine them, to haul more full seats and fewer empty ones.)

On the Johnsonville line, trains always have to make a return trip. There's nowhere to park trains in Johnsonville. (Contrast that with Paraparumu for instance, where there is room to "stable" trains overnight.) Trains usually have to make the return trip empty (the only common exception is reverse trips that take school students). Contrast that with buses - they can be parked overnight at the Newlands depot, so they don't have to drive back to Wellington for the night. (Are Newland's buses parked in the city during the day? I'd suggest they should be, if we're serious about fuel costs and greenhouse emissions. I know I've seen a few parked in town.)

I asked an engineer how to arrive at a definitive answer about this. He explained that you need (i) fuel consumption and ridership figures from the bus company, (ii) electricity consumption and ridership figures from the rail company, and (iii) enough time to crunch the numbers. Unfortunately, I have none of the above :-(

So, for now, I can't give a definitive analysis, but I do suggest that the greater weight of trains may undermine their "greeness" to some degree.

Choices

Let's say we did crunch the numbers, and we arrived at definitive answers about the greenhouse emissions produced by each solution. Does that result absolutely dictate our choice? Or is it just one factor, one the many which influence the overall choice between rail and busway?

For instance, we should consider not only greenhouse gases, but also "environment" in the widest sense of the word. Will building a busway encourage urban sprawl? Or is urban sprawl dictated solely by council policies? As long as the council allows new subdivisions, people will settle in them - whether there's a busway or not. At least if there is a busway, we stand a better chance of pursuading workers to leave their cars at home.

Off-Peak Operation

2006-09-16T14:52:00.001+12:00

There are some interesting possibilities for operating the busway off-peak -- particularly in the periods of lowest demand, such as weekends and after 7:30pm on weekdays.

Rather than have express buses (which serve suburbs but don't stop on the busway) and rail-replacement buses (which serve all busway stations), why not combine the two? Buses would stop at all stations and continue to Johnsonville West, Churton Park etc.

While this would result in longer journey times for J'Ville West etc, it would give better service frequency to most areas. And, it could be more cost effective than the existing arrangement of separate rail and bus services.

Imagine something like this, every off-peak hour:

One route 53 (J'Ville West), stopping at all busway stations
One route 59 (Middleton Rd), stopping at all busway stations
Two route 54s (Churton Park), stopping at all busway stations

That allows a 15-minute off-peak frequency to all the existing rail stations. In other words, instead of off-peak trains running once or twice per hour, you'd have buses running every 15 minutes instead. That's arguably better then the current peak rail frequency! (Which is mostly 13 minutes, sometimes 26, and therefore harder to understand that a once-every-15-minutes bus service).

As for passengers beyond the end of the busway, it's a big improvement for route 53 passengers, since they currently have no off-peak service at all! For route 54 passengers, this option would result in a slightly slower journey. 54's currently run half-hourly off-peak, except for after 8pm, when there's only one per hour. So it's not a big change for route 54 passengers. As for route 59 passengers, they too have no off-peak service at present (but they might need one).

By the way, in this example I'm assuming Newlands buses (55, 56 and 57) will use the motorway off-peak. In reality, those destined for the Northern part of the greater Newlands area might use the busway too, and then leave J'Ville via Helston road. Like the other off-peak busway buses, these could also serve all busway stations.

Personally, I believe a good off-peak service encourages higher on-peak use. Taking the bus to work becomes more attractive if you know you'll be able to get home even if you have to work (or party) late.

Michael Cullen's View

2006-09-16T10:59:00.001+12:00

The Minister of Finance has recently commented on the busway verus rail debate. His comments are reported in today's Dominion Post. I can't find the story on line, but this press release from Peter Dunne refers to the same comments.

I'm not sure why Peter Dunne is making a big deal about the cost differences, when even TransMetro's biased flyer showed rail more expensive than busway (as per Greater Wellington's figures). Mr Dunne's "$5m" to upgrade the rail is bizzare, given than each rail unit costs about $3m.

About Me

2006-09-09T17:47:00.001+12:00

There’s a great series of comments over on Tom’s WellUrban blog. I don’t know quite where to being in answering them all, but for starters, I’ll reply to some questions about me:

Simon asked: John, I am curious as to the motivations behind you pro-bus stance. I ask, not as a slant against any bias you may hold - everyone no matter how objective they attempt to be has their biases. However in all the continued debate around the Northern transport study your name keep surfacing [and a good thing too, we are well short of people who care enough to speak out!] .

Do you have any connection to the bus and coach industry? I know you attempt to introduce facts in your arguments however you seem very reluctant to look at or address both points of view -or indeed a wider context.

First, let me offer a partial apology for offering a one-sided point of view. I have a lot of other pressures on my time at the moment (for personal reasons which I won’t go into here). So, I have to be selective; I simply don’t have time to cover everything. As I’ve said before, I started blogging because only one side of the story was being told (rail). So naturally, my limited time is focused on the side that nobody else was telling (bus).

I have no connections to the bus and coach industry. In fact, if you look at my Blogger profile, or type my name into Google, you’ll see I’m a computer geek at a software company. Neither me nor my employer have anything to do with the transport industry.

I don’t like your suggestion that I have a pro-bus bias. Accuse me of having a pro-public-transport bias, and you’d be right. I want public transport solutions that work well. In the case of the Northern Suburbs, we can have two parallel systems – a rail system that works well and a bus one that works badly – or we can combine them and get one solution that works well for everybody. On that basis, I support the combined solution, which is the busway.

In contexts where I believe rail is the best public transport option, such as the Western Corridor, I support it. (Here are some extracts from my written submission on the Western Corridor Plan.)

Finally, let me point out that on some occasions I’ve been a vocal critic of Newlands bus service. For instance, in 2000 their changes to route 54 added greatly to journey times for many residents. I debated this point with Newlands representatives at a Community Association meeting; conducted a mail drop to affected residents; and contacted the Regional Council about the matter. I’m pleased to see that they now plan to reverse the change. (See the route 54 comments in the latest Scenarios documents).

As I’ve said before, I’m just a guy who’s sick of sitting in traffic. If I have any other bias, it’s the firm belief that long journey times are bad for our society. Slow transport costs me hours each week with my daughter, and I know it does the same to hundreds of other working parents in the Northern Suburbs.

In the many hours I’ve spent sitting on buses, as they crawled down Nauranga Gorge, I’ve often wished for something like the busway – something which would give fast, reliable public transport to everyone in the Northern Suburbs. When people choose public transport, which is best for society and the environment, we should reward them with a quick, reliable service. We should not let public transport be sabotaged by those who choose not to use it, driving their cars and holding up buses on the Gorge. Instead, we should take the buses out of the Gorge.

(The resulting bus service will be quick and reliable. It might even be attractive to some of those car drivers!)

New Page from Bus and Coach Association

2006-09-04T21:49:00.001+12:00

The Bus and Coach Association have posted their views here. It includes their detailed submission, as sent to the Council, plus several other items.

TransMetro's Flyer

2006-08-28T17:58:00.001+12:00

(Flyer? No, not a fast train; just the pamphlet they handed out during the submissions process.)

A reader sent me a copy of the material that TransMetro handed out to passengers. While the bus company has been accused of skewing the results, the same could be said of TransMetro. Here is their entire summary of the busway scenario, as printed in their pamphlet:

No trains

Convert line to busway

Buses use busway in peak direction returning through streets

Cost $120m - $130m over 25 years

Do I detect a hint of bias?

Firstly, they don't even explain what a busway is. Most people don't know about busways, especially guided ones. People need to be told that the buses are guided (for a faster smoother ride) and that the busway will use the same route and stations as the existing line.

Secondly, they don't mention the two big benefits of the busway to rail users: 5 minute frequency and service through to Courtenay Place.

The one-sided viewpoint is evident in many other parts of their flyer too (e.g. they say the busway "costs even more" in spite of having just listed it, at the top of the page, as having lower costs than the rail options!) The flyer concludes by encouraging readers to pick up a submission form and says, "We will even give free advice on how to fill it out". I bet they did!

So, it is fair to assume that many of the submissions on the standard submission form were prompted by TransMetro's flyer and consequently were favourable to TransMetro. In short, both the bus and rail companies attempted to create the appearance that public opinion was on their side. Did they succeed? Or did they merely cancel each other out?

Personally, I wish the Council had circulated an unbiased flyer to all households... but they didn't.

At the end of the day, the submission process is not a binding vote. It not about "winning" or "losing"; it's about providing public input into the Council's work.

Dom Post: Rail servicce under threat

2006-08-26T12:52:00.001+12:00

Today's Dominion Post covers the submission results on page 2, under the headline "Rail service under threat".

That's right: on the Johnsonville line, rail is under threat, but public transport is not.

The busway will use the same route and the same stations. It will provide provide a more frequent service.

(Update, 31 Aug: the Dom Post story is here.)

Submission Results Published

2006-08-26T10:18:00.001+12:00

Results of the submission process have just been published.

The Regional Council has published a summary, a more detailed overview, and a full report (350k PDF).

Submissions were received on two different forms, the Council's standard form, and one handed out by the Bus and Coach Association (representing bus companies). Submissions on the standard forms favoured rail, while submissions on the Bus and Coach form favoured the busway. When you add them all up, the overall majority favours the busway.

I'm sure some people will question the result, given the number of pro-busway submissions that were made on forms handed out by the bus company. However, we should bear the following points in mind:

I have heard that the rail company also handed out material to their customers. But they didn't hand out a form to be completed, they merely handed out material that encouraged passengers to complete the standard form. So, it is fair to assume that a number of submissions made on the standard forms were encouraged by the rail company. (BTW: Does anyone have an example of the form they handed out? I never saw it myself.)

It's not entirely suprising that a majority of rail customers support rail and a majority of bus customers support the busway. That's human nature - we feel comfortable with what we're accustomed to. The actions of the bus and rail companies only served to exaggerate that natural tendency, since each organisation campaigned amongst its own customer base. (By the way, as I've noted before, the busway is just as good as rail for existing rail users. It's a more frequent service, on the same route with the same stations, running right into the CBD - but the rail company was hardly likely to point that out!)

I think Councillor Glen Evans sums it up wisely: "We accept the sincerity of the views put forward on the [Bus and Coach] form, however the form does not include the information available on the standard consultation form. For example, the standard form allows you to comment on other scenarios, the Bus and Coach form does not."[emphasis added]

There's lots of information in the PDF report, and I'll post more about it soon...

The Busway in Brief

2006-08-08T20:27:00.001+12:00

If you're new to this weblog, here's the place to start...

What is the busway?

The Regional Council is reviewing the future of the Johnsonville rail line. One option is "the busway". It is the only option which will benefit all public transport users in the Northern Suburbs.

If you currently catch buses, the busway will let you bypass traffic congestion. No more slow trips down Ngauranga Gorge.
If you currently catch trains, the busway will cut your waiting times and carry you right into the CBD. No more long waits on wet mornings. No more long walks from Wellington Station to your office.

Here's how it works: we replace the Johnsonville train tracks with a special concrete "track" for buses. Buses pick up passengers - at existing bus stops and at rail stations - then they drive onto the busway. They drive all the way down the busway to the city, with no traffic congestion or hold-ups. Once they reach city, they leave the busway and drive along Lambton Quay.

Details

Some buses will act like replacement trains. They will drive along the busway and stop at each station - just like the trains, except they'll be one every 5 minutes in rush hour (so you'll never have to wait long) and they'll drive down Lambton Quay (so you won't have to walk through the CBD).

Other buses will be express services from the suburbs. They will replace the existing buses in Newlands, Churton Park and the surrounding suburbs. They'll stop at existing bus stops all around the suburbs, just like the buses you catch now. Then, they'll drive onto the busway and go non-stop all the way to Wellington. (Express buses will be able to pass buses that are stopped at stations, because the busway will have a passing lane at each station.) Once they reach the city, they will drive down Lambton Quay.

The busway is forecast to be cheaper than buying new trains and fixing the rail tracks. Adelaide, Australia, has run a very successful busway for 20 years.

About this Weblog

I'm not affiliated with any business or special interest group; I'm just a local resident who's sick of spending hours each week stuck in traffic. I want a public transport solution that works for everybody in the Northern Suburbs. That solution is the busway. I started this weblog because the other options made me mad.

If you have any questions about the busway, please email me or leave a comment at the bottom of any page on this weblog. My email address is:

CBD, Part 1

2006-07-29T10:46:00.001+12:00

Sue Kedgley says there's not enough room in the CBD for the buses from the busway. But she's a strong supporter of light rail. In the CBD, light rail will run on existing streets. If there's not enough room for buses, how come there's enough room for light rail?

Here's the council's answer:

Road space would need to be reallocated to enable light rail tracks to be placed on lanes currently used by buses and general traffic. It is likely that existing bus lanes would need to be opened up to general traffic. This would have a significant impact on existing bus services and general traffic. - pg 50, Scenarios Report

In other words, to make room for light rail, the council expects to close the exisiting bus lanes - with adverse impacts not only on Northern Suburbs users, but on all other Wellington bus users too.

When Service Conditions are Equal

2006-07-28T20:04:00.001+12:00

Tom has made an excellent map of train verus bus usage in the Northern Suburbs. It's a great, informative resource for everyone involved in this debate, and I encourage you to check it out.

Preferences

His analysis highlights one of the key difficulties, in trying to predict which scenario people will prefer: it's very hard to construct a "fair" comparison between bus and rail. The most common comparison is between trains on tracks and buses on roads - which skews the comparison because the roads are choked up with cars but the tracks are not. The fair comparison would be between trains on tracks and buses on busways. Of course, we can't run both rail and busway to Johnsonville, just to see which people prefer!

If we did, I suspect preferences might be split down the middle, amongst existing rail users. (Trains are more spacious, but buses are more frequent and take you into the CBD.) Existing rail users will be well served, in different ways, by both options. And that's important. The busway must done in such a way that it is a fair deal for existing rail users. If "we" take away their trains, we must compensate with things like more frequent service and seamless travel to the CBD. Things should work out about even (or better) for existing rail users. So this debate is not really about them. This debate is about existing bus users - the people who cannot walk to a rail station, and whose bus routes will suffer increasing delays and congestion if the busway does not go ahead. Already, traffic congestion costs us hours each week, hours which we could be spending with our families. Only the busway will give that time back to us (and our families). Once existing bus users understand that, their preference will be clear.

"When Service Conditions are Equal"

Anyway, back to Tom's comments, about the preferences of commuters who do have a choice. He quotes a page which reads as follows:

Because transit use is a function of travel time, fare, frequency of service, population, and density, increased transit use can not be attributed to rail transit when these other factors are improved. When these service conditions are equal, it is evident that rail transit is likely to attract from 34 percent to 43 percent more riders than will equivalent bus service. The data do not provide explanations for this phenomenon, but other studies and reports suggest that the clearly identifiable rail route; delineated stops that are often protected; more stable, safer, and more comfortable vehicles; freedom from fumes and excessive noise; and more generous vehicle dimensions may all be factors.

Again, that's great stuff, and should considered by everyone involved in this debate.

Are they Equal Now?

Let's look one-by-one at those points. Are service conditions currently equal, between bus and rail?

Travel time: bus has a significant advantage off-peak; rail often has an advantage on-peak (depending on how much traffic congestion is slowing the buses). On-peak rail certainly has an advantage in terms of predictable travel times. I believe Tom's data is journeys to work, so his map relates to on-peak travel choices.

Fare: One month's bus travel from Johnsonville = approx $86 to $103 (depending on how many days in the month, and whether you ride on into the CBD or get off at Wellington station). One month's rail travel = $60 (or $45 on a "Peace Train" ticket).

Frequency of Service: bus is once every 5 mins at height of morning peak; train is every 13 or 26 mins

Population and Density: Tom's approach successfully eliminates these variables (his train and bus passengers come from the same places)

In otherwords, service conditions are not currently equal. I'd be interested to know how the fare differences influence choice.

Factors that Make Rail Attractive

Now, let's look at the likely reasons that attract consumers to rail, according to the page Tom quoted. Fortunately, some of these attractive features can be preserved in the busway scenario.

Clearly Identifiable Rail Route: The busway will follow the same route. (And it will be important to ensure the the "return routes" of the off-peak buses are also clearly identifiable. I see that as a weekness in the current busway scenario, but I think it can be fixed fairly easily. I'll post details when I get round to it.)

Delineated Stops that are Often Protected: The busway will use the same stops (the existing rail stations)

More Stable, Safer, and More Comfortable Vehicles: Rail has the edge here, although it is worth noting that stability and comfort arise as much from the route as from the vehicle. A key ingedient in comfort is a route with gentle grades, gentle curves and no stops and starts caused by traffic congestion. In terms of the route, busway and train are virtually identical (as you would expect if you put a busway on an ex railway track!)

Freedom from Fumes and Excessive Noise: again, an edge for rail, although at least the busway gets away from fumes and noise caused by other vehicles.

More Generous Vehicle Dimensions: rail wins this one too. (Which is ironic, considering how many people are afraid the buses won't fit through the tunnels!)

Conclusion

Comparing rail with bus-on-road is not entirely relevant to this debate. The better comparison is comparing rail with bus-on-busway (serving the same suburbs via the same route) . Unfortunately, that comparison is much harder to make.

Rail: Neither Popular nor Affordable

2006-07-24T22:53:00.001+12:00

Gareth Hughes wrote:

"...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.

Why Transit Oriented Development is not Relevant (Here)

2006-07-21T09:00:00.001+12:00

Tom also wrote in support of Transit Oriented Development (TOD). He suggests that light rail (modern trams) will encourage benefical patterns of land usage. The TOD approach is typically based on neighbourhoods up to 800m in diammeter, with high density development at the centre, focussed on a rail or bus station.

That's very good idea, but unfortunately it's about 100 years too late for the Northern Suburbs. The patterns of land usage are already established here, and they won't change just because a tram drives past.

In fact, the Council's technical report (2.5 MB PDF) finds that:

[Light rail] has a number of benefits including being able to influence land use
patterns through densification around stations and transit orientated development (TOD). This is however unlikely to be the case on the Johnsonville railway line due to nature of the communities it travels through. The exception is at Johnsonville where densification and TOD are likely to be viable if encouraged by planning policies.

In otherwords, there is only one point, in the whole Northern Suburbs, where TOD is viable. In the rest of the Northern Suburbs:

(a) Housing is too far from the rail line to make (rail-based) TOD viable.

and/or

(b) Land use patterns are entrenched, in the form of long-standing residental neighbourhoods. This is particularly true of those neighborhoods that lie along the rail line itself. They are not neighborhoods that may easily be changed. They contain well-maintained, well-loved, high-value homes. It would be polically, socially and economically infeasible to replace them with new high-density development.

Point (a) is graphically illustrated by the maps in the Council's Scenarios Reports. The maps show which areas are within 800 metres of a rail station. They show that about half the streets in the Nothern Suburbs are within 800 metres of a station.

Note that 800 metres is double the expected maximum walking distance in TOD. (TOD uses a diameter of 800 metres, whereas the Council is using a radius of 800 metres.) Even using double the recommended TOD walking distance, we still only encompass half of the Northern Suburbs. This is exactly the problem I was ranting about earlier.

The busway, on the other hand, gives a bus stop within 400 metres of virtually every home.

The only exceptions are some existing rail customers in the north-western sides of Ngaio and Crofton Downs - they are left with their existing 800-metre walk to their local station. See figure 6 in this section (2 MB PDF) of the report for details.

Frequency of Service, Part 2

2006-07-21T08:39:00.001+12:00

Opposing the busway, Tom Beard wrote:

...the buses will still have to meander through the sprawling suburbs at the end of
the route, and those suburbs will never have the density to support truly
frequent services, especially off-peak.

His assumption is incorrect. The suburbs already support a 5-minute bus frequency during the morning peak right now. As for off peak, they support a 30-minute frequency, which is the same off-peak frequency as Johnsonville rail.

If the current bus service, which suffers heavily from road congestion, can support a 5-minute frequency, the more attactive busway service will have no difficulty in doing the same.

Sources: Metlink timetables for Newlands and Churton Park bus services.

Frequency of Service

2006-07-18T12:34:00.001+12:00

What frequency of service will the various scenarios deliver to existing rail users?

Enhanced Rail: a train every 13 minutes, or every 10 minutes (the latter requires the closure of two stations and the creation of one new one)

Light Rail: a light rail unit (tram) every 10 minutes

Busway: a bus every 5 minutes (even every 3 minutes in some cases)

Source: the Council's Scenarios reports.

Good article on busway versus light rail

2006-07-18T12:17:00.001+12:00

"This paper considers the evidence on the costs and benefits of light rail and bus-based transitway systems, with particular attention given to the biases in the positions taken by advocates of either form of public transport. The lessons to date reinforce the importance of delivering seamless transport services with good geographical coverage and sufficient flexibility to respond to changing market needs if we are to make a difference to the dominance of the automobile." from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1228

Also,

".. the International Union of Public Transport in Europe stated recently that bus rapid transport is increasingly preferred over fixed-rail systems for value for money....We can start the investment, as Brisbane has, in bus rapid transport with clean-fuelled buses and get away from the adage that trains are sexy and buses are boring." from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4484

Enhanced Rail: No new trains in peak periods

2006-07-18T12:11:00.001+12:00

A quick note for rail fans: you might expect that the "enhanced rail" option will mean you'll travel to work on brand new trains. Not so, it would appear:

"Tranz Metro has advised that they intend to operate refurbished units on the line during the peak periods and new units during off-peak periods. During peak periods the new units would be used on other parts of the network where they are required for longer routes."

- from section 4.1.1.1 of the Council's Scenario's Report (2 MB PDF)

FAQ 1

2006-07-12T20:00:00.001+12:00

A local resident emailed me with a number of questions. Here are the questions, and my answers:

1. it's a unidirectional service at peak times with return buses using the existing roads (from the Council site - that answered my question about how two-way bus flow could be accommodated - evidently it can't, or at least not at peak times. It will still be vulnerable to the effects of weather and congestion because the return buses may not get back to the start point in time to start their next journey in time. Correct?

Technically correct, yes. But in practice, because the return journey is in the opposite direction to peak traffic flows, it will suffer relatively little congestion.

2. is the plan to send the equivalents of all 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 buses along the busway? If together they make up a 3-5 minute frequency, how will that be better for Churton Park than the current 5 minute frequency of 54s during the morning peak and 10 minute freuqency in the evening? I'm assuming that Northern Suburbs residents to the east of the motorway will benefit from the busway - is that correct?

I don’t think Churton Park residents will get better frequency of service, just better reliability. I.e. a bus journey always takes about the same amount of time, without unpredictable delays due to congestion. I’d expect the journey duration, during peak times, to be approximately the same as current off peak journey times.

3. what is the reasonable expectation for peak journey times, given that a bus would stop at existing stops in the suburbs and then at each existing railway station? Where (if anywhere) could we expect the bus to get up to 100kph as they are claimed to do in Adelaide?

My memory of the council documents is a little hazy on this point. [The documents are available here.] My expectation is that buses serving J’Ville West, Churton Park, Newlands, Grenada North etc will not stop on the busway during peak periods. I.e. they will run as express services from J’Ville. As I recall, the stations on the busway route will be designed so express buses can pass buses which are stopped to load passengers.

4. If this proposal is accepted and the bus company thereby removes at a stroke its only significantly cheaper competition, how long before it exercises its monopoly by raising fares as high as it dares? If its only remaining competition is the private car and we include petrol and parking fees in the total expense of using the car, the bus company would have a lot of leeway to raise fares.

My impression is that both rail and bus prices are currently set after extensive consultation with the regional council, with the council’s level of subsidy having a large effect on the price. I.e. even now, it is not a pure competitive market. While the demise of rail may give the bus company some extra leverage in negotiations with the council, I think the situation will be closer to a regulated, subsidized monopoly than a pure monopoly. Obviously, the situation you describe already exists in all other Wellington suburbs (i.e. everything south of the Ngaio Gorge) because in all those areas Stagecoach is the sole operator. The council must regulate Stagecoach's fares, and they must be doing a fairly good job. Why? Because a month’s worth of Stagecoach travel costs $65. A months worth of travel on Newlands can cost as much as $120! (That’s 5 sections each way, every day, for a typical month) So the operator with competition is over 80% more expensive than the operator without!

Comments Now Enabled

2006-07-11T20:01:00.002+12:00

Opps, there was a problem with comments. I've fixed it, so anonymous comments are enabled now.

Rant - Support the Busway

2006-07-10T21:38:00.001+12:00

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!"

Hello

2006-07-10T21:29:00.001+12:00

Hi,

This is a blog about bus transport in Wellington's Northern Suburbs. I'm inspired to begin this blog by the current debate around options for the future of the Johnsonville Rail line. So my next post will be a rant, on exactly that subject!