diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'project/templates')
| -rw-r--r-- | project/templates/aucklandrail.xhtml | 305 |
1 files changed, 305 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/project/templates/aucklandrail.xhtml b/project/templates/aucklandrail.xhtml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b65fd3f --- /dev/null +++ b/project/templates/aucklandrail.xhtml @@ -0,0 +1,305 @@ + +{%- extends "base_plain.xhtml" -%} + + + +{%- block title -%}Auckland Rail Maps{%- endblock -%} + + + +{%- block footer -%}{{ plain_footer ("aucklandrail.xhtml") }}{%- endblock -%} + + + +{%- block style %} + <link href="/css/aucklandrail.css" rel="stylesheet" /> +{% endblock -%} + + + +{%- block content %} +<h4>Auckland Rail Maps</h4> + +<p>Git repository: <a href="/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/rail-maps">Link</a></p> + +<h5>14/10/2024</h5> + + +<h5>Overview</h5> + +<p>Auckland, New Zealand has notoriously <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/aucklands-transport-crisis-how-it-was-made-and-why-it-will-only-get-worse/ZQJIDROB7CXKMAKFFVDNF7IN3I/" +class="external">terrible transport</a>. It was bad enough in 2017 that it was estimated to be +costing the city almost <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/336352/auckland-traffic-congestion-costs-city-almost-2b-a-year" +class="external">$2 billion per year</a> in lost productivity and this number has no doubt become +worse since then. You could build a lot of useful infrastructure with that sort of money.</p> + +<p>While a heavy rail loop underneath the CBD is <a href="https://www.cityraillink.co.nz/" +class="external">under construction</a> it is questionable whether this will add enough capacity to +ease the problem. Aside from that the New Zealand government has inexplicably been mostly +interested in applying light rail to the issue, both as part of a +<a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/second-auckland-harbour-crossing-five-combinations-of-tunnels-and-bridges-revealed-construction-begins-2029/PMT66B7P3FESXKRMIG4ARHLMFA/" +class="external">second harbour crossing</a> and an <a href="https://www.lightrail.co.nz/the-route/" +class="external">Auckland airport connection</a>. These strangely circuitous projects have since +been cancelled, and as they were only light rail and generally still included a focus on more direct +car routes they were unlikely to have been effective at reducing congestion anyway. Overall, the +situation remains dire.</p> + +<p>But let's suppose there is a sudden outbreak of common sense, priorities are reworked to be more +sane, and enough political will becomes available to make Auckland's rail network functional. What +could that look like?</p> + +<div class="figure"> + <a href="/img/auckland_rail_map_full.png"> + <img src="/img/auckland_rail_map_preview.png" + alt="Hypothetical Auckland rail map" + height="680" + width="560" /> + </a> + <div class="figcaption">A hypothetical Auckland heavy rail and ferry map</div> +</div> + +<p>The above map was constructed as a 2240x2720 SVG and has been exported as a PNG here. Click to +open a full scale version. Similar styling was used to the current Auckland rapid transit network +map, and since that map has ferries as well, why not have them here too?</p> + + +<h5>Line Differences and Notes</h5> + +<p>While there are really only four rail lines on this map, each of them branches once it leaves the +centre of the city. This strikes a reasonable balance between service frequency and coverage vs +population density. In addition, two extended services out to Helensville and Waiuku occupy a +nebulous area that goes outside of the Auckland urban boundary but doesn't really qualify as +intercity. Nevertheless, those rail corridors are already there so using them to provide effective +transport makes sense.</p> + +<p><i>Metro lines</i>:</p> + +<ul> + <li><i>Northern:</i> This is the main addition. The corridor from Akoranga to Rosedale covers + what is currently the Northern Busway. Running alongside a motorway is not ideal for a metro + line, but we will come back to that. The branches from the new Mount Eden station to New Lynn + and Auckland Airport approximately cover the same area the light rail airport proposal would + have covered except much more direct and hence likely to be used. Finally, the section up + through Browns Bay is a matter of ensuring decent coverage and allowing for a connection to + Whangaparāoa and beyond.</li> + <li><i>Eastern:</i> Rail from Ōtāhuhu to the airport replaces the current AirportLink bus. The + branch through Botany to join up to the existing stub at Manukau covers a lot of the same area + the <a href="https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/projects/southwest-gateway/Southwest-Gateway-Airport-to-Botany-rapid-transit-poster.pdf" + class="external">Southwest Gateway</a> bus rapid transit would cover. A missing station at Saint + Johns is added. The Strand becomes a regular metro station connected in with the rest of the + network.</li> + <li><i>Southern:</i> Not a whole lot of change here. The Onehunga line is now just a branch of + this line, trains now go around the loop formed by the City Rail Link, and the line extends to + Drury.</li> + <li><i>Western:</i> Also not a whole lot of change here. Trains also go around the loop formed + by the City Rail Link, and a new branch is added out to Westgate. Trains on this line no longer + go to Newmarket.</li> +</ul> + +<p><i>Extended services</i>:</p> + +<ul> + <li><i>Waiuku:</i> Makes use of the old Waiuku branch railway and incorporates the new stations + at Ngākōroa and Paerātā. Notably this does not involve trains to Pukekohe at all, as those are + left for intercity services.</li> + <li><i>Helensville:</i> Makes use of the old alignment heading north. Trains actually going + towards Whangārei would use a brand new alignment via Hibiscus Coast, but this section remains + useful for freight and the few small settlements that exist. Woodhill station is to allow for + people to travel to and from the mountain bike park there without needing a car.</li> +</ul> + +<p>Two stations have been conspicuously renamed. Parnell station is now Auckland station because +that is the only suitable location with enough space for a proper intercity rail terminus that +connects reasonably well with the rest of the network. Maungawhau station is now Eden Terrace +because the <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/britomart-to-be-renamed-as-seven-auckland-railway-stations-receive-new-names/5VG2VNAC75C4LEWOQJJZH3OX6E/" +class="external">recent renaming</a> from Mount Eden to a Maori word for mountain and trees was +pointless since the meaning is the same. Further, doing so while claiming it to be from drawing on +intergenerational wisdom shows it to be obvious political nonsense. The station itself ends up +being barely in bounds of the suburb of Eden Terrace after being restructured from the City Rail +Link, so it gets the suburb name. The new Mount Eden station on the map is further south down near +the Mount Eden shops.</p> + +<p>A new ferry line to Te Atatū Peninsula has been added. This would require around a kilometre of +dredging, but otherwise stands out as the only potential expansion for ferry services with minimal +impact to the harbour.</p> + + +<h5>Unmapped Features</h5> + +<p>Each line has its own dedicated track. This generally means a track pair, except in the city +centre where the Western and Southern lines each operate in a one way loop and so use a single track +each. In total this means Te Waihorotiu and Karanga-a-Hape stations end up with six tracks each, +with Waitematā having four.</p> + +<p>Having dedicated track isn't just for isolating each line into its own sector to improve service +reliability. It's outright necessary for capacity. On the map it is noted that each line gets a +minimum of 4 trains per hour. That's on each branch, so towards the centre of the system that +becomes 8 trains per hour. But during peak times it's expected for those numbers to double. At the +busiest stations mentioned above that ends up being 48 trains per hour which a fair bit more than +could fit if lines were sharing.</p> + +<p>Yes, this does mean the City Rail Link project is woefully lacking for the task.</p> + +<p>The extended services out to Waiuku run express between Papakura and Newmarket. Similarly, the +extended services to Helensville run express between Henderson and Eden Terrace.</p> + +<p>Actual intercity services have been left off the map completely. Figuring those out will be an +entirely separate project. Likely included out of Auckland would be train services south to +Hamilton, Tauranga, and Rotorua, train services north to Hibiscus Coast and Whangārei, ferry +services to Gulf Harbour, Tryphena, and Coromandel, and a long distance train to Wellington. The +train services would all operate from Auckland station and share track with the metro lines. +Auckland station itself would have an extra six terminating platforms to accommodate this.</p> + +<p>Passing loops would be needed for maintaining high capacity while running the extended services +and intercity trains express on their way into and out of the city as well as allowing for +freight. Eventually quadruplicating track on significant portions of the Western, Northern, and +Southern lines will become necessary.</p> + +<p>The proposed Avondale-Southdown line makes no appearance because, while useful and necessary, it +is a freight rail connection.</p> + + +<h5>Points of Contention and Comparison</h5> + +<p>Let us address a few questions and objections that may come up.</p> + +<p><i>Is the capacity of heavy rail really needed?</i></p> + +<p>Comparing the passenger capacity of different modes of mass transport to decide what will work is +often a messy subject. As bus rapid transit systems have proven, it is possible to add dedicated +right-of-ways, fare payments before boarding, more doors per vehicle, more platforms per station, +and other optimisations to just about anything. Those things will never apply much to something that +has to contend with mixed traffic on public roads, but let us assume they do. What difference is +left? Only the number of passengers per vehicle.</p> + +<table> + <tr> + <th> </th> + <th>Bus</th> + <th>Bendy Bus</th> + <th>Light Rail</th> + <th>Heavy Rail<br />(6 car)</th> + <th>Heavy Rail<br />(9 car)</th> + </tr> + <tr> + <th>Vehicle<br />Capacity</th> + <td>90</td> + <td>150</td> + <td>340</td> + <td>750</td> + <td>1125</td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Figures are approximate and assume an articulated bus of 18m length, a tram of 45m length similar +to an Alstom Citadis 405, and trains similar to a New Zealand AM class, all operating at maximum +nominal seating and standing capacity. All other things being equal, building light rail lines to +replace buses would get a 2-4x increase. Even if this successfully addressed the traffic problems in +Auckland today it would leave little to no headroom for future growth as higher density housing is +built to solve New Zealand's housing shortage. Transport infrastructure has to last decades. This +detail has already <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-city-rail-link-to-be-bigger-and-more-expensive/WOXHL3N3BEYWQIBNBHVZLICKNY/" +class="external">caught the City Rail Link out</a> requiring some reworking before completion. The +capacity from heavy rail is really the only sensible option for future proofing. Note also that the +heavy rail numbers given here are somewhat lower than what they could be due to the need to operate +on the steep alignment of said City Rail Link.</p> + +<p><i>What about the cost?</i></p> + +<p>The <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/second-auckland-harbour-crossing-governments-mega-plans-revealed/TB3WTGHGR5BYFH6S4XXKWWZNMI/" +class="external">projected cost</a> of the 2023 second harbour crossing proposal was $35-45 +billion NZD. This was outrageous on several levels, such as how the plan involved adding further +inefficient car capacity which would have been pure waste. But most importantly, that price tag. +Fortunately such ridiculous prices are not inevitable.</p> + +<p>There are tricks to keeping the costs of building a subway or other metro system down, as +<a href="https://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/blog/what-is-the-cost-of-building-a-subway" +class="external">multiple</a> <a href="https://conversableeconomist.com/2021/11/24/holding-down-costs-of-megaprojects-the-madrid-subway-example/" +class="external">people</a> have written at length about. Doing some back of the envelope +calculations with numbers from the <a href="https://transitcosts.com/" class="external">Transit +Costs Project</a> adjusted for inflation and with further margin added, it is likely that if New +Zealand were to do things similarly to +<a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/need-for-speed-drives-madrid-miracle/article1327078/" +class="external">how things are done</a> in places like Madrid, Spain, then everything on the map +proposed here could become a reality for less money than that 2023 amount. Good value, that. +Especially if viewed on a per passenger capacity basis.</p> + +<p><i>Is a rail system this big really called for in a city like Auckland?</i></p> + +<p>The city of Copenhagen in Denmark is surprisingly similar to Auckland in terms of size and +population. They both have around 1.4-1.5 million residents in their urban areas and they both have +an average urban density of around 2400-2500 people per square kilometre.</p> + +<p>Both cities are located on islands called (New) Zealand too. That one is definitely a coincidence +however, since the etymology is unrelated.</p> + +<p>The useful point of comparison here is that Copenhagen has extensive passenger heavy rail in the +form of their S-train system which has 170km of track. They also have light rail rapid transit in +the form of the mostly underground Copenhagen Metro with 43km of track. And regular surface light +rail under construction. It's all <a href="https://cphtransitmap.dk/en/" class="external">quite +extensive</a>. Meanwhile, Auckland currently only has around 105km of heavy rail. An approximate +doubling of passenger rail system length in Auckland is thus entirely in line with what is known to +be necessary in a city of comparable size. Especially when the high amount of bicycle usage in +Copenhagen is taken into account, something Auckland does not have to ease traffic pressure.</p> + +<p><i>Will all of this actually fix the traffic congestion issues?</i></p> + +<p>Now that is an interesting question. The truth of the matter is most people use whatever mode +of transport is convenient and that they are in the habit of using. If a city is designed to make +high capacity modes convenient then everything works well. If a city is designed to make low +capacity modes convenient then you get massive traffic problems.</p> + +<p>To go back to the Copenhagen comparison again, if you look at that city on a map you may notice +something. There are no motorways that will take you into the city centre. Now I'm sure that is +partially down to historical reasons, but that's not important. In Copenhagen it is easy to take +heavy rail into the city and not so easy to drive. In Auckland it's currently the other way around. +Building out passenger heavy rail to have a functional network would help a great deal, but it +doesn't completely solve the problem. Those motorways leading right into the centre need to go.</p> + +<div class="figure"> + <img src="/img/auckland_motorways_highlight.jpg" + alt="Motorways leading into the centre of Auckland" + height="490" + width="445" /> + <div class="figcaption">The offending motorways highlighted</div> +</div> + +<p>The corridors are still important to have, since proper roads for traffic that isn't constantly +stopping, starting, and turning unpredictably all the time is important from a safety and +practicality point of view. But at the moment those corridors are set up primarily to dump up to +7600 vehicles per hour into the middle of the city. All that traffic comes from somewhere, and this +is where. It's not even justified from a capacity viewpoint since nearly all cars at peak times only +have one occupant and four lanes of such bumper to bumper traffic is less than seven of those max +capacity 9-car trains mentioned earlier. Once the rail system is working properly, change these +eight lane wide motorways to four lane regular roads and the +<a href="https://cities-magazine.com/traffic-evaporation-impact-reallocating-road-space-from-cars/" +class="external">traffic will disappear</a> while people can still get to where they want to go.</p> + +<p>Some of the space freed up by this redevelopment can be used for quadruplicating rail track where +applicable. A lot of it can be used to add fully separated arterial cycleways. In particular, the +harbour bridge can be reallocated to have four lanes for general car traffic, two lanes for buses +and trucks, one lane for mopeds and microcars, and one lane for bicycles and pedestrians. Ironically +all of this would actually increase its capacity. That is good though, since making it possible for +more people to be able to get around Auckland easier is the whole goal here anyway.</p> + + +<h5>Closing Remarks</h5> + +<p>For quite a while I had no idea where to even begin with Auckland's rail system. It's just that +bad after decades upon decades of neglect. Then I saw the loop formed by the City Rail Link and +things just started falling into place. I could go even further, connecting up Puhinui to Auckland +Airport and reworking the map layout around New Lynn a bit, but I figured this was a good place to +stop. For now.</p> + +<p>Overall though, after a deep dive into all of this I strongly suspect the New Zealand government +isn't really trying to solve this transport problem. No, I'm not talking about any sort of +conspiracy. That would actually be easier to deal with. There are just too many ongoing +institutional and ideological blindspots that prevent things being properly addressed. Most +politicians still buy into the swindle of thinking that adding more cars, the lowest capacity mode +of transport available, will somehow lead to anything but more traffic problems. Just as the most +obvious example.</p> + +<p>Too bad for the people who have to live in that city, I guess.</p> + +{% endblock -%} + + |