|
 Michael Barnett has raised the question of buses as an alternative to rail links. Given the substantial costs associated with the CBD rail tunnel, North Shore crossing and airport rail link, who wouldn't be casting around for lower cost alternatives. In his recent NZ Herald article he noted
"Auckland has long entertained the suggestion of a rail link between downtown and Auckland Airport. But it becomes clear there is a far more affordable and possibly efficient option we should be debating before saying yes to rail. A rail link from the central business district using an inner-city tunnel from Britomart and the Onehunga line (which would need to be double-tracked) and crossing the Manukau Harbour on a route adjacent to State Highway 20 is estimated to cost at least $2 billion, assuming a viable route can be protected which doesn't add significantly further to the cost.
A link that loops to the airport from the main rail line at Manukau is alone estimated at upward of $500 million.
Besides the huge initial cost, the far bigger unresolved issue with a dedicated rail link to the airport is whether it would be used sufficiently - even if doubling as a freight rail route - to justify the likely high operating costs and subsidy such a link will require."
On some estimates a subsidy of $15 per passenger per trip would be required, which would be paid for by taxpayers."
He points to the bus service running at Melbourne as an effective solution worth considering
"Instead, Melbourne has opted for an enhanced bus service to the airport.
This includes a new fleet with specially designed low-floor buses that facilitate passenger access with luggage, and priority access to the freeway for quick access to inner Melbourne. Melbourne's airport patronage has nearly doubled since these innovations were introduced. Given other priorities for improving Auckland's transport system, a serious look at Melbourne's example with an enhanced bus service to the airport, including roading, operational and marketing improvements deserves serious attention."
Encouraging as it is to see more debate about alternative and lower costing options to the rail proposals, the debate needs to be widened. One significant advantage that PRT can offer over buses is that it can run in an additional channel over the top of the road (if elevated). This is both lower cost than making a dedicated busway and easier to accomplish. It can run on demand 24/7, a significant attribute for an airport implementation. Importantly, Mr Barnett's article has implied that taxpayer subsidies need to be greatly lowered. Several PRT studies have shown PRT can run at a signficantly lower subsidy than even buses. If we really are interested in lower capital cost and lower operational cost and thereby lower subsidies, then it is not just a bus proposal that needs a serious look - we need a PRT study for Auckland.
For those that want to see PRT in action before they can support it, Ultra PRT at Heathrow is close to a public debut with internal trialling looking very successful. The impending operation of PRT at Heathrow and all its attendant benefits means we must be prepared to consider the alternatives.
Skybus image courtesy of http://www.roadlesstravelled.com.au
|
You are welcome to add comments to the material published on our site. Your comments can be helpful in addressing the objectives of this site - namely to promote the awareness of PRT and the uptake of a commercial PRT implementation
We encourage robust, respectful and insightful debate but we will remove any overly abusive comments