I've already blogged about this a bit, but I need to share with you some Perth wisdom, because at ARC, especially at Chairman Lee level, there is a fixation that buying new electric trains will somehow, magically, be the silver bullet.
It's hard to find another apple to compare with Auckland. Perth comes close - because it has similar urban density (low), private car ownership (high), and a pre-existing railway system (both narrow gauge). A major difference though, is that Perth's old railway was already largely separated from the roading network. Perth's rail network partly arose from the need to drag tonnes of ore for refinement and shipment. These heavy, long trains needed to run so they did not affect road traffic. So they were built with underpassess, viaducts, bridges to run clear over road traffic. Not everywhere, but largely.
Auckland could not be more different. It's railway was always a bit hesitant and runs in a sort of co-habiting way with the roading network. You can see this most clearly at Onehunga and NewLynn where the at-grade road crossings cause more and more conflict between road traffic and train traffic.
Everybody is clear in Auckland about one thing when it comes to electrification and modernisation of Auckland's commuter rail network, and that is that it will carry between 30 and 60 million passenger trips annually. That is the sort of achievement of Perth Rail. So we might as well learn from what Perth did, what it cost, and where the money went.
A very useful power point summary of some of that experience can be seen at:
http://rtsa.com.au/assets/2008/12/the-expansion-of-the-urban-rail-system.pdf
Some useful thinking is in there about what needs to happen to get people to use modern rail in low density urban environments like Auckland. While it's not exactly apples and apples, this presentation also makes the point that the costs of the MetroRail expansion project were "19% for railcars and depots" and "70% for the Perth Mandurrah" section of railway. Then it itemises the elements of that project to include: underground stations & tunnels; freeway bridges and infrastructure; track, signalling and communications; suburban railway stations; train control system; other infrastructure.
A key idea that emerged was the need for integrated planning - where the transport planning of State highways and railways through Perth became integrated. These pics show some of that thinking on the ground.
Probably the most important point throughout that presentation - one which they really bang on about - is the need for comprehensive master-planning. The presentation ends with these concluding remarks about what is needed for success in applying rail to low density settlement:
- A proper understanding of the market
- Good preliminary planning
- The production of highly credible, persuasive Master
Plans that define the demand and scope of work to
sufficient detail to lock the scope in - Followed by good project management and an
understanding how that needs to be applied
In Auckland, with Chairman Lee fixated on buying trains, Ontrack rushing into rail, but land use authorities and state highway authorities prioritising cars and roads - we will certainly spend money, but risk missing the benefits from a modernised commuter rail network that more effective and long term planning can deliver. In particular we must get away from the present silo approach to rail planning. Integrated planning is about more than integrated land and transport planning - it's about integrating the planning functions and coordinating the relevant activities of all the main players.
No comments:
Post a Comment