From 1c891069797058d31d7e201b1325d45dc83bc175 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jedidiah Barber Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 00:43:06 +1300 Subject: Auckland rail map article added --- project/templates/aucklandrail.xhtml | 305 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 305 insertions(+) create mode 100644 project/templates/aucklandrail.xhtml (limited to 'project/templates/aucklandrail.xhtml') 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 %} + +{% endblock -%} + + + +{%- block content %} +

Auckland Rail Maps

+ +

Git repository: Link

+ +
14/10/2024
+ + +
Overview
+ +

Auckland, New Zealand has notoriously terrible transport. It was bad enough in 2017 that it was estimated to be +costing the city almost $2 billion per year 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.

+ +

While a heavy rail loop underneath the CBD is under construction 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 +second harbour crossing and an Auckland airport connection. 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.

+ +

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?

+ +
+ + Hypothetical Auckland rail map + +
A hypothetical Auckland heavy rail and ferry map
+
+ +

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?

+ + +
Line Differences and Notes
+ +

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.

+ +

Metro lines:

+ + + +

Extended services:

+ + + +

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 recent renaming 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.

+ +

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.

+ + +
Unmapped Features
+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

Yes, this does mean the City Rail Link project is woefully lacking for the task.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

The proposed Avondale-Southdown line makes no appearance because, while useful and necessary, it +is a freight rail connection.

+ + +
Points of Contention and Comparison
+ +

Let us address a few questions and objections that may come up.

+ +

Is the capacity of heavy rail really needed?

+ +

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.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
 BusBendy BusLight RailHeavy Rail
(6 car)		Heavy Rail
(9 car)
Vehicle
Capacity		901503407501125
+ +

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 caught the City Rail Link out 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.

+ +

What about the cost?

+ +

The projected cost 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.

+ +

There are tricks to keeping the costs of building a subway or other metro system down, as +multiple people have written at length about. Doing some back of the envelope +calculations with numbers from the Transit +Costs Project adjusted for inflation and with further margin added, it is likely that if New +Zealand were to do things similarly to +how things are done 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.

+ +

Is a rail system this big really called for in a city like Auckland?

+ +

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.

+ +

Both cities are located on islands called (New) Zealand too. That one is definitely a coincidence +however, since the etymology is unrelated.

+ +

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 quite +extensive. 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.

+ +

Will all of this actually fix the traffic congestion issues?

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +
+ Motorways leading into the centre of Auckland +
The offending motorways highlighted
+
+ +

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 +traffic will disappear while people can still get to where they want to go.

+ +

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.

+ + +
Closing Remarks
+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

Too bad for the people who have to live in that city, I guess.

+ +{% endblock -%} + + -- cgit