Petition for congestion free network

Written By: - Date published: 10:35 am, July 25th, 2013 - 17 comments
Categories: climate change, public transport, sustainability, transport - Tags: , , , ,

Generation Zero are running petition targeting the Auckland transport system. You can sign it here.

Auckland needs a transport network free of congestion in order to become a livable low carbon city.

Local government elections are coming up in Auckland we want Auckland’s leaders to sign on this vision for Auckland by making a public statement supporting it. Politicians will listen to the people who vote for them so sign the petition to show them that Auckland deserves more from their transport system that provides them with a genuine choice. By investing in a congestion free network Aucklanders will have the freedom to choose between their cars and an efficient public transport system finally.

In association with our friends at Auckland Transport Blog we have developed the Congestion Free Network as an alternative to the ITP (integrated transport programme), which is the current transport strategy for Auckland.

A network free of congestion is a high frequency public transport service of rail, buses and ferries on dedicated infrastructure separated from roads, with a ‘turn-up-and-go’ rate of at least every ten minutes or better.

Detailed information can be found at:congestionfree.co.nz

17 comments on “Petition for congestion free network ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lanthanide 1
    25 July 2013 at 11:15 am

    A network free of congestion is one that is massively over-provisioned for the traffic that runs on it. End of story.

    • BM 1.1
      25 July 2013 at 11:29 am

      So more roads is the answer?
      I like it.

      • Lanthanide 1.1.1
        25 July 2013 at 12:36 pm

        That would be one very expensive way to achieve their goal, yes.

        • weka 1.1.1.1
          25 July 2013 at 12:42 pm

          Hardly.

          “Auckland needs a transport network free of congestion in order to become a livable low carbon city.”

          • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1.1
            25 July 2013 at 12:48 pm

            When I say “their goal” I meant “congestion free”, not anything else.

            • weka 1.1.1.1.1.1
              25 July 2013 at 2:16 pm

              I don’t think their goal is congestion free. I think their goal is congestion free in a low carbon world. Big difference and I think they stated it clearly, albeit without fanfare.

      • tricledrown 1.1.2
        26 July 2013 at 9:51 am

        Backwards Monetarist higher fuel prices would be a lot cheaper and users would pay

    • Colonial Viper 1.2
      25 July 2013 at 11:33 am

      A network free of congestion is one that is massively over-provisioned for the traffic that runs on it. End of story.

      So do you propose focusing on raising the numerator (road provision) or decreasing the denominator (amount of traffic)?

      • Lanthanide 1.2.1
        25 July 2013 at 12:35 pm

        I’m not proposing anything.

        I’m just saying that if they are proposing we have a congestion free traffic network, they must be proposing that it is over-provisioned for the amount of traffic that is to run on it.

        If they’re not proposing that, then it will become congested at least some of the time.

    • insider 1.3
      25 July 2013 at 11:36 am

      Plus one

      some people see the glass half full, some see it half empty. An engineer sees it as twice as big as it needs to be.

      • Blue 1.3.1
        25 July 2013 at 12:01 pm

        “A network free of congestion is one that is massively over-provisioned for the traffic that runs on it. End of story.”

        Wrong, you are now playing in my research arae and need to do more than shoot form the lip. Its called contingency and designing for the future not just today. You’d be quick to moan if a newly designed corridor ran out of capacity in a year. Engineers look forward based on all the information they have to predict future use. We always have more than one soulution, it is the client that decides which one they will use within the constraints of the project budget.

        Decreasing traffic involves providing an alternative as the production and attraction of trips does not disappear becuse you stop building road, or decide cars are evil. The trip generation is still there, how these trips are made is where the question should lie. Whether by Transit systems or an integrated Transportation Network of multiple modes.

        Capacity is also a function of speed (as well as a number of other factors). An element of this is the appalling driver behaviour that exists in New Zealand. If drivers slowed and allowed greater headway between vehicles there is an economic saving of $millions. Slower driving speeds increases capacity and driver behaviour and courtesy is a function of that. Perhaps this is also an area that needs prioritising.

        • Lanthanide 1.3.1.1
          25 July 2013 at 12:45 pm

          “Its called contingency and designing for the future not just today.”

          You call it contingency, I call it over-provisioning. Doesn’t matter what you call it by, it’s the same thing: more capacity existing in a road than is presently required, allowing users of the road to use it without experiencing congestion.

          While there is an ultimate ceiling on capacity, there are many factors that reduce or increase effective capacity of a road as you mention, such as speed and driving behaviour.

    • karol 1.4
      25 July 2013 at 11:37 am

      So you are saying a transport network needs to have congestion in order to achieve the adequate balance between provision and use? But that’s starting from a premise that maximum beneficial use involves congestion. Circular argument.

      And who benefits? Not the general public who will always have to put up with some congestion, according to your equation..

    • wtl 1.5
      25 July 2013 at 11:45 am

      Did you read the proposal? The “congestion-free network” name refers to the development of a public transport network that operates on its own Class A right-of-way (i.e. these public transport routes are not affected by congestion of private vehicles), so that residents have “the option to move across the whole city at speed completely avoiding road traffic.”

      So yes, the idea is to provide a network that is over-provisioned for the traffic that runs on it, except that this network is for public transport only, not private vehicles.

      The point of the proposal is that such a network is very achievable for Auckland and should be a focus for developing our current transport infrastructure.

    • Lightly 1.6
      25 July 2013 at 2:12 pm

      actually, it’s not that at all. ‘Congestion-free’ modes are dedicated routes public transport modes – they don’t get congestion because they run to timetables.

      • wtl 1.6.1
        25 July 2013 at 3:49 pm

        Yes, but any traffic system could obviously become congested if it is overwhelmed. For a public transport network with dedicated routes, this would be where the system could not cope with demand (e.g. too many users, not enough buses/trains, or tracks/buslanes that can not support an increased number of trains/buses). In the sense that the initial network will have a high capacity as well as room to grow, it is over-provisioned, and thus will be a congestion-free public transport network.

        So lanthanide does have a point, although here it is an implicit part of the ‘congestion-free network’, rather than explicit, and as you say, the term ‘congestion-free’ is really referring to a system that can operate independently from the congested roads that private vehicles operate on

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.