From:
Joe Hewitt
To:
Andrew Wharton
Cc:
Peter Nunns
Subject:
RE: FYI - Possible changes to draft One Network Framework
Date:
Friday, 22 January 2021 2:48:00 pm
Attachments:
image001.png
image002.png
Thanks Andrew,
It’s good to be in the loop. My first thought was around the ‘indicative capacity’ attribute. I
couldn’t easily find the theoretical capacity of the cable car, but according to Wikipedia, each car
has a maximum load of around 100 (30 seated, 70 standing). The same source states that in
1996, Paul Lambert rode 80 trips in one day, so that suggests capacity is in the order of ~8000.
The same source states the normal operating speed is 18km/h, which is faster than average bus
speeds on many of our main corridors, so I wonder why the description specifically excludes
cable cars? Speed (fast or quick) is surely relative to practical alternatives and the cable car is
clearly an efficient connector in its dedicated corridor.
Otherwise it all looked OK to me.
Cheers, Joe
From: Andrew Wharton <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 22 January 2021 10:22 am
To: Joe Hewitt <[email address]>
Cc: Peter Nunns <[email address]>
Subject: FYI - Possible changes to draft One Network Framework
Hi Joe,
I’ve been helping Amy Kearse from NZTA with edits to the proposed One Network Framework
(attached), thought you may be interested in these possible changes. The attached draft has not
been published yet BTW.
Rapid transit – One Network Framework – suggested changes 18-22 Jan 2021 – ref pages 47
and 49
Further to the various emails on this topic, here are some suggestions to amend the ‘dedicated’
PT classification in the ONF to better align with the definitions associated with rapid transit in the
GPS and NPS-UD and allow more flexibility re the bus elements of the classification.
Note, the ONF is about the corridor; rapid transit in the GPS and NPS-UD are about the
services/stops. However, the current wording of the ONF uses some of the characteristics of
rapid transit.
As the ONF is a non-statutory document, RMA decision makers it will not have decisive legal
weight; decision makers will need to have regard to it. This means a rapid transit service may still
need to be justified by using measuring its frequency, quickness, reliability and capacity relative
to the relevant location (as per NPS-UD and GPS definitions), and if it supports NPS-UD’s
objectives of providing well-functioning urban environments, competitive land and development
markets, and having more people living near public transport.
Metro rail and dedicated busways
All metro rail lines and dedicated busways are classified as PT1 ‘Dedicated’, and consequently
are rapid transit corridors. By design, they are able to cater for an increasing frequency and
capacity of public transport service while retaining the services’ speed and reliability.
Class
Public
Strategic
Indicative
Indcative
Description
Transport
significance (Role
capacity –
Capacity –
Service
in Public Transport
Vehicle
People
Level
Network)
Volume (at
Movement
descriptor
peak)
(indicative)
(bi-
directional)
All metro rail
PT1
Dedicated
Corridors where
corridors and
>53000 per
Dedicated and largely
‘rapid transit’
dedicated
day
separated public transport
services are
corridors for
corridors provide for the
operated, providing
non-rail
fast and efficient long
a fast, quick,
public
distance movement of
frequent, highly
transport: all
people by rapid transit. By
reliable, and
services.
definition, they include
high-capacity
dedicated busways and all
public transport
Buses and
metro rail lines. They
service that form
other non-rail
primarily only service public
of urban transport
public
transport (excepting rail
along a dedicated
transport on
lines that can also provide a
PT corridor
largely
goods movement function
operates on a
separated
under the freight mode).
permanent route
corridors: ≥12
The ‘quick’ descriptor
(road or rail) that is
services per
means that gondolas, cable
largely separated
hour
cars and similarly slow-
from other traffic.
moving vehicles are not
rapid transit services on
PT1 corridors. , but which is
exclusive use by one or the
other at a time).
Spine
Corridors where
>12 bus
1000 to
Spine corridors are where
many frequent
services per
10000+ per
many inbound services
services operate
hour
day
come together or outbound
and many different
services operate, usually
bus services merge
within city centres or at
together to create
major transport
very high
interchanges, and much of
frequencies and
the street space can be
overall passenger
dedicated to public
movement. Any
transport infrastructure,
deficiencies on
including significant space
these corridors
utlitised for bus stops.
affect multiple
Examples are Symonds
services and large
Street in Auckland central,
parts of an urban
and Manners Street in
area.
Wellington. The Auckland
Harbour Bridge would also
be considered a Spine
corridor.
Andrew Wharton
Principal Advisor LGWM Interface | Wellington City Council
[email address] | 021 365 051
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its
contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is
appreciated.
