EQUITABLE LIGHT RAIL | womeninurbanism

EQUITABLE

Light

Rail

FOR AUCKLAND

The government has been looking at the best option for rapid transit from the city to airport via Dominon Road, Mount Roskill, Onehunga & Māngere.

This project needs to be about connecting communities, not just about speed from the city to the airport. It needs the mum in Mount Roskill to be able to get to childcare and then work in Onehunga, or to help the student in Māngere to get to music lessons down Dominion Road.

We are advocating for a street level Light Rail (LRT) option for Dominion Road rather than a Light Metro (grade separated) option.

Street level Light Rail will be more accessible and safer for everyone, not to mention cheaper and quicker to build than Light Metro. Choosing this option will avoid a whole lot of accessibility issues in the future.

Street level LRT still runs free of traffic, so that it’s quick, reliable and dependable. Regular people making regular day-to-day trips deserve dependable transport too - more so than people making niche express city-to-airport trips.

Scroll down to sign our petition for street level LRT (this will go to Minister Twyford), and to see our rationale.

WE WANT THIS:

NOT THIS:

(For video footage, click here)

WIU'S REASONS FOR

STREET LEVEL

Light

Rail

1. It's More Accessible

Light Rail

LRT would travel along the street at street level, creating easy and quick access for everyone (step-free access), especially those with different mobility needs. No lifts or stairs -just leave the shop and hop on board.

Street level LRT would allow for more stops along the line to serve a wider catchment of people, especially along the Dominion Road corridor.

LRT allows stops to be located in the right places to suit the neighbourhoods it runs through (the middle of town and village centres, near convenient walking connections and side street links), rather than having the stations located where it is feasible to build them, which is often the wrong place for users.

Convenient access to key destinations on the line is particularly beneficial for women, who "trip chain" or make multiple trips in a day, more so than men.

Metro

Light Metro would require people to travel up or down to stations, relying on the use of (working) lifts, stairs, and potential overpasses / underpasses. This would add time and complexity to people's journeys.

It would also have fewer stops along the way, favouring time savings over collecting and being accessible to more people.

2. It's Safer

Light Rail

Getting on and off LRT at street level means there are more ‘eyes on the street’ all around you at all times, increasing actual and perceived safety, which counts especially after dark.

Metro

Light Metro would mean waiting at potentially lonely station platforms, and access would rely on the use of lifts and stairwells, which can become isolated places especially after dark.

It would also rely on lifts, CCTV and lighting to always be maintained, in working order, and on the expenses of maintaining and running them remaining a priority at every budget, whatever the political and economic climate.

3. It's Less Expensive

Light Rail

LRT would be cheaper and faster to build, and have barely any station maintenance, being on the street.

LRT could be built both from Māngere to Queen Street and in the northwest, with plenty of $$ left over, for less money and time than the one metro line from Māngere to Queen Street.

Metro

Light Metro has a bigger resource footprint, takes longer to build and leaves a larger maintenance burden.

Elevated lines and stations would have higher ongoing operating and maintenance costs including for maintaining and cleaning: roofing, cladding, flooring, lighting, CCTV, supervision by security, lifts, stairwells and the superstructure itself.

Metro is three times the cost of LRT so we get only one-third as much for the same money (or residents end up paying three times as much for about the same thing through rates, taxes or user charges).

Metro will use up decades worth of budget to deliver one line.

4. Less Carbon

Light Rail

LRT would reduce car capacity on Dominion Road and also replace the need for buses, reducing carbon emissions.

Metro

Light Metro would not necessarily change the current streetscape of Dominion Road, and would not replace cars in the same way, because it makes fewer stops, reducing the catchment significantly.

5. Good for the Local Economy

& Town Centres

Light Rail

With more people on foot using the street for Light Rail, personal safety improves, which in turn attracts more people. This increased foot traffic, coupled with the quietness and fresh air from being radically less dominated by cars, will create an environment businesses can thrive in.

Metro

Light Metro causes people to wait away from shops at elevated or underground platforms.

It leaves the street dominated by traffic (and potentially by ugly infrastructure, if elevated) and creates a far less inviting or customer-friendly streetscape.

6. We won't have to demolish people's homes.

Light Rail

Keep people's homes and businesses - yay!

Metro

Metro means:

1. demolishing houses and businesses, and cutting off side streets and footpaths to build a trenched or ground level fenced off rail line;

2. or it means demolition to elevate concrete viaducts over homes and communities;

3. or it means demolishing homes to dig big holes in the ground for underground stations.

There is this strange idea out there that metro that is elevated, trenched or tunnelled, is somehow not impactful because it’s not running on the street - when in fact it is far far worse than street level LRT.

EQUITABLE

Light

Rail

FOR AUCKLAND

WE WANT THIS:

NOT THIS:

SUBMIT HERE FOR STREET LEVEL LRT:

WIU'S REASONS FOR

STREET LEVEL

Light

Rail

1. It's More Accessible​

Light Rail

LRT would travel along the street at street level, creating easy and quick access for everyone (step-free access), especially those with different mobility needs. No lifts or stairs -just leave the shop and hop on board.

​

Street level LRT would allow for more stops along the line to serve a wider catchment of people, especially along the Dominion Road corridor.

Convenient access to key destinations on the line is particularly beneficial for women, who "trip chain" or make multiple trips in a day, more so than men.

​

​

Metro

Light Metro would require people to travel up or down to stations, relying on the use of (working) lifts, stairs, and potential overpasses / underpasses. This would add time and complexity to people's journeys.

It would also have fewer stops along the way, favouring time savings over collecting and being accessible to more people.

2. It's Safer

Light Rail

Getting on and off LRT at street level means there are more ‘eyes on the street’ all around you at all times, increasing actual and perceived safety, which counts especially after dark.

​

​

​

​

​

Metro

Light Metro would mean waiting at potentially lonely station platforms, and access would rely on the use of lifts and stairwells, which can become isolated places especially after dark.

It would also rely on lifts, CCTV and lighting to always be maintained, in working order, and on the expenses of maintaining and running them remaining a priority at every budget, whatever the political and economic climate.

3. It's Less Expensive

Light Rail

LRT would be cheaper and faster to build, and have barely any station maintenance, being on the street.

LRT could be built both from Māngere to Queen Street and in the northwest, with plenty of $$ left over, for less money and time than the one metro line from Māngere to Queen Street.

​

​

​

​

​

Metro

Light Metro has a bigger resource footprint, takes longer to build and leaves a larger maintenance burden.

Elevated lines and stations would have higher ongoing operating and maintenance costs including for maintaining and cleaning: roofing, cladding, flooring, lighting, CCTV, supervision by security, lifts, stairwells and the superstructure itself.

​

Metro is three times the cost of LRT so we get only one-third as much for the same money (or residents end up paying three times as much for about the same thing through rates, taxes or user charges).

​

Metro will use up decades worth of budget to deliver one line.

4. Less Carbon

Light Rail

LRT would reduce car capacity on Dominion Road and also replace the need for buses, reducing carbon emissions.

​

​

​

​

Metro

Light Metro would not necessarily change the current streetscape of Dominion Road, and would not replace cars in the same way, because it makes fewer stops, reducing the catchment significantly.

​

5. Good for the Local Economy

& Town Centres

Light Rail

With more people on foot using the street for Light Rail, personal safety improves, which in turn attracts more people. This increased foot traffic, coupled with the quietness and fresh air from being radically less dominated by cars, will create an environment businesses can thrive in.

​

​

Metro

Light Metro causes people to wait away from shops at elevated or underground platforms.

It leaves the street dominated by traffic (and potentially by ugly infrastructure, if elevated) and creates a far less inviting or customer-friendly streetscape.

​

6. We won't have to demolish people's homes.

Light Rail

Keep people's homes and businesses - yay!

​

​

Metro

Metro means:

1. demolishing houses and businesses, and cutting off side streets and footpaths to build a trenched or ground level fenced off rail line;

2. or it means demolition to elevate concrete viaducts over homes and communities;

3. or it means demolishing homes to dig big holes in the ground for underground stations.

There is this strange idea out there that metro that is elevated, trenched or tunnelled, is somehow not impactful because it’s not running on the street - when in fact it is far far worse than street level LRT.

1. It's More Accessible