Before a Board of Inquiry Transmission Gully Notices of Requirement and Consent Applications

Under: The Resource Management Act 1991

In the matter of: Notices of requirement for designations and resource consent applications by the NZ Transport Agency, Porirua City Council and Transpower New Zealand Limited for the Transmission Gully Proposal

Between: NZ Transport Agency Requiring Authority and Applicant

And: Porirua City Council Local Authority and Applicant

And: Transpower New Zealand Limited Applicant

Evidence of John Godfried Vannisselroy

1

______

QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 1. My full name is John Godfried Vannisselroy.

2. I am providing this evidence as an expert in rail design for passenger operations.

3. I have 39 years experience in the rail industry – including design, construction and operation of railway vehicles. I originally trained in coachbuilding, then worked in rolling stock design, and am now employed by KiwiRail as a Locomotive Engineer driving electric multiple units. I have also been actively involved in the Rail and Maritime Transport Union, providing analysis of ways to improve the quality of the Wellington commuter rail system. As a locomotive engineer, I have an intimate knowledge of the Wellington system.

4. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses as contained in the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note (2011) and agree to abide by it.

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 5. I have been asked to provide evidence on changes that could be made to fixed infrastructure (i.e. tracks, signals, stations, signage and other infrastructure, rather than rolling stock and operational systems) on the Kapiti Line, that would: 5.1. allow a reduction in factors the adversely effect service delivery and therefore the ability of the rail system to attract users

2 5.2. and thereby potentially counteract the predicted traffic induction effect of Transmission Gully, particularly the predicted modal shift of some current rail users to the new road1.

“MORE ATTRACTIVE SERVICE” AND DEMAND

What constitutes a “more attractive service”? 6 Based on surveys of passengers and rail service planning work done in recent years, I have adopted the following as the key determinants of service quality that are relevant to fixed infrastructure. 6.1 Availability of services that meet the needs. 6.2 Frequency of services. 6.3 Transit times, taking into account transit times for train services, time spent waiting (determined by service frequency), and time needed to get to the service. 6.4 Comfort (particularly at stations). 6.5 Safety (particularly at stations, but also on routes leading to stations). 6.6 Adequacy of park and ride facilities (taking into account availability of alternatives such as feeder bus services). 6.7 Legibility of the system (i.e. the ability of passengers to know what services are running, and how to use them). 6.8 There are other key determinants that are not dependent on fixed infrastructure, such as the quality of rail vehicles and the service provided by operating staff.

Effects of service quality on demand 7 My personal experience working in the rail system, and the research I have seen, suggests that: 7.1 There is a group of rail users whose modal choice and frequency of journeys is unaffected by quality. They will generally be users who have no

1 AEE, p 246. I have not been able to find precise figures for this expected modal shift. An analysis of likely numbers is in my view important. Train services are communal, so if a change makes a service less economic that can have impacts on the service or the overall system, and therefore other passengers’ transport options.

3 other choices, but it includes those who have no deadlines and are therefore not seriously affected by delays. 7.2 There is a group of private car users who are very unlikely to ever use rail, unless they have no choice. Nevertheless, the effect of the Supergold Card would suggest that group may be smaller than has been estimated in some modelling. 7.3 Between the two groups above are many users and potential users who will make major changes in their modal choice, for some or all journeys, depending on their circumstances and the services they are offered. It is that group which is most sensitive to changes in quality. 7.4 Improving comfort levels is unlikely on its own to generate major behavioural change; although there is evidence that the introduction of new rolling stock will attract new users to the system. For example: the introduction of the then new Ganz-Mavag electric multiple units in the early 1980s resulted in a 14% increase in patronage, and a similar increase can be expected with the current introduction of new electric multiple units from Rotem. 7.5 New levels of service (e.g. new stations, significantly increased frequency) has generated measurable modal shift to rail (and other public transport). 7.6 A high quality service will be far more attractive to people who are considering whether to make a shift to rail in light of other drivers (e.g. fuel increases, shifting to a new location). Those users are likely to be particularly sensitive to service quality, as they have not yet become resigned to things like the smell of urine at stations, unreliability of train arrival and transit times, and uncomfortable rolling stock. For example: fuel price rises have seen significant shift from private car usage to suburban rail, however service quality issues have seen the majority of those users drift back to other means of transport. 7.7 A poor quality of service will tend to encourage modal shift away from rail where people feel they have a choice, or have a new car-based option available to them (e.g. a new road, an additional car in the household). A poor quality of service will therefore be likely to increased induced traffic effects of new roads.

4 7.8 Other travel demand management measures (e.g. work travel planning) are less likely to be effective if a high quality and reliable public transport service is not available.

KEY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITATIONS ON THE KAPITI LINE 8. I undertook an exercise some years ago, as part of input to the Western Corridor Planning process, to identify the changes that would be most important to allow more reliable, frequent and faster services. I have updated that work to provide information for this purpose, taking into account changes made to the lines over the last few years. I have also included information related to legibility which was not involved in my earlier analysis.

Key limitations 9. The most important limitations on the lines are listed below. These are ordered by their overall significance for supporting positive modal shift, but different limitations affect different groups of users (e.g. for some users lack of park and ride space may be the most important factor driving their modal choice). 9.1. The single track section of line between Paekakariki and Muri stations (more precisely known as the single track between North and South Junctions). 9.2. Congestion caused primarily by terminating services at intermediate stations (specifically at Porirua and Plimmerton Stations), but also by ill-considered timetabling. 9.3. Numerous restrictions affecting the operating speeds of rail services. 9.4. The lack of passing loops or relief facilities through most of the line. 9.5. The lack of operating stations for a number of locations, notably the suburbs of Muri and Raumati, but also specific event locations such as Queen Elizabeth Park and the ferry terminal. 9.6. The lack of real time information (planned but not yet scheduled for installation). 9.7. Low park and ride capacity

5 9.8. Stations are often unattractive, uncomfortable, perceived as unsafe, and difficult to access safely and conveniently. 9.9. Poor provision in relation to bus replacement services (signage, marked bus stops, etc).

North and South Junctions Single Track 10. The single track section extends 2.9 km. 11. This has the same effect on train services as a single lane piece of road or bridge has on road traffic – services going in one direction must wait at a signal until the service going in the opposite direction has gone through the stretch from the pervious signal. 12. In addition to this obvious effect, this particular part of the line is a very steep section of track (going uphill towards the south) with a number of narrow tunnels that date from when the line was built in the 1880s, and speed restrictions for freight trains. Freight trains frequently stall on the grade, further delaying other services. 13. North South Junction is the “tail” that “wags the dog” for rail operations on the Western Corridor and in turn this effects rail operations on the Hutt Corridor due to services on both corridors sharing the same tracks through the Kaiwharrawharra “Throat”. Without massive changes to rail reliability on the rest of the Western Corridor, the North and South Junctions single track limits this section of the corridor to a practical maximum frequency than 20 minutes in each direction (unless services were run in only one direction, in which case a greater frequency would be possible). 14. The problem created by the single track has been long recognised. Greater Wellington Regional Council commissioned BECA to prepare a feasibility report for possible tunnel deviations as a solution to the problem. That study - the 2005 Pukerua Bay – Paekakariki Railway Tunnel Feasibility Report - recommended that two new tunnels be built to replace the existing line (leaving the existing line available for other uses such as a walkway/cycleway). That solution would greatly reduce the grade problem for heavy trains (changing the grade from 1:66 to 1:100), remove the limitations on wagon/freight size for the freight trains, and ensure that an incident in one tunnel would not prevent the use of the line. The feasibility

6 study did not find any significant legal, planning or geotechnical problems, and provided a firm cost estimate of between $239million and $272million (2005 figures). 15. More recently, a partial solution, involving daylighting one tunnel and extending the double track slightly, has been developed by KiwiRail, as a cheaper alternative. This solution, would retain a significant section of single track on grade. As such it would still be the major restraint to timetable flexibility on the suburban rail network. 16. None of those possible solutions are currently planned to be implemented due to funding constraints. 17. Implementing the full solution proposed would have significant benefits for reliability and frequency, and reduce transit times by increasing speeds from the current 60/70kph to 100kph (and possibly up to 120kph) through this section.

Congestion at Turnbacks 18. Terminating trains at both Porirua and Plimmerton requires the termination train to occupy one to the main lines while the train is reversed, and at both locations the terminating train is restricted by track and signalling to significant stretches of 25kph running. This impedes following and opposing train movements in the area. 19. Rebuilding these turnback stations to allow the terminating trains to berth at a third platform, clear of both main lines would relieve congestion and allow better flow and flexibility for through trains (usually express trains to outer suburbs). 20. Upgraded signalling and track (points/turnouts) would enable speeds to be increased from 25kph to 50/70kph. Running at 25kph through sections as long as 750m, results in unnecessarily long transit times. 21. At Porirua Station in particular, it would be relatively easy to add a third platform in the centre of the station, creating far greater flexibility for timetable design.

Speed Restrictions

7 22. There are numerous points along the line where tight curves restrict train speeds. In some instances these are isolated (such as a solitary 85kph curve between North Junction and Paekakariki), while in other places there are sections contain multiple curves (such as the numerous 60/65 & 70kph curves between Plimmerton and Pukerua Bay). 23. Easing curves allows higher speeds to be maintained as well as reducing wear and tear (braking and flange wear) and reducing energy consumption (accelerating away from restrictions). 24. Many tight curves are historic. Others can be reduced through modern civil engineering. Picking off the cheapest and most beneficial should be a priority.

Passing Loops 25. The Wellington commuter rail system operates a combination of express and all-stopper trains. Many of the express trains only cover the southern part of the line (e.g. travelling only to or from Plimmerton). This allows: 25.1. Passengers on express trains to be offered a faster and more comfortable journey 25.2. More efficient use of available rolling stock and operating staff 25.3. More services for the same level of funding, at least for southern communities 26. Running this arrangement on the Kapiti line is made more difficult, however, because express trains are able to overtake all-stopper trains only at Plimmerton. The lack of overtaking “loops” greatly reduces the options for efficient use of the available rolling stock. It also means that breakdowns create far greater problems than would be necessary if the affected train was able to be moved off the line into a passing loop.

Numbers of operating stations 27. Services have recently been suspended at Muri station, due to safety concerns with the station. While passenger numbers at that station are relatively low, people living near Muri will find services to a closer station more attractive, particularly as the walk to Pukerua Bay station is unsafe.

8 28. Residents at Raumati have been campaigning for a station there for many years. They currently have to either drive or use unattractive feeder bus services to get to Paraparaumu station if they wish to use the train system. Providing a station would improve accessibility for many residents, and make public transport more attractive. When Waikanae residents were provided with a direct rail service (rather than needing to drive to Paraparaumu), patronage increased. 29. The managers of the Tramway Museum at Queen Elizabeth Park have also been seeking a small platform to allow users of the park to travel by public transport. There is currently no public transport to the core part of the park and the only public transport museum in Wellington. 30. The InterIslander ferry terminal is poorly served by public transport, yet is a location used by hundreds (and at times of the year thousands) of foot passengers. Construction of rail platforms adjacent to this terminal would reduce both travel times and the number of mode changes required – opening up public transport as a viable alternative for a large number of ferry travellers.

Real Time Information 31. Passengers on rail currently only have access to information on what services are timetabled, and major delays (by text). Greater Wellington Regional Council are introducing real time information, which will allow a passenger at a station to see exactly when their train will arrive. The system is currently being rolled out for buses in Wellington City. 32. Real time information has a number of benefits for passengers. That includes information on whether they have just missed a service, accurate information on delays, and information to allow them to confidently manage their time at a station (e.g. go and buy a coffee if the service is still ten minutes away). The information collected also provides benefits to operators, and in particular for the rail service, will help ensure better bus- train connections. 33. Real time information also helps reduce passengers sense of being negatively affected by delayed services. It is the lack of accurate information that causes much of the stress for rail passengers.

9

Park and ride 34. The Wellington rail system has hundreds of carparks in the park and ride system, used by people who do the majority of their journey by rail. The majority of use is by commuters, but there is also significant use outside the peak, presumably by people doing journeys for other purposes (e.g. recreation). 35. Many of the park and ride carparks are filled early in the morning peak, and it is likely that some potential rail users choose to drive a longer distance (to another station or to their destination) because they cannot be sure of getting a carpark at their nearest station. Provision of additional parks at over-subscribed park and rides would therefore be likely to encourage more use of rail.

Station quality 36. Passengers spend considerable time at stations. Key things they require are: 36.1. shelter 36.2. seats 36.3. both real safety and perceived safety 36.4. information about services 36.5. easy access by foot or car

37. They will also appreciate additional services, such as regular cleaning, toilets, coffee vendors, etc.

Bus replacement infrastructure 38. Bus replacement is an important part of the rail system, particularly at present when significant rail upgrade work is required. Bus replacement is unpopular with passengers – the bus journey takes longer, is less comfortable, and it is difficult or impossible to travel with pushchairs, bikes, etc. Added to the attractiveness problem is poor bus replacement infrastructure. Bus replacement stops are not signposted and often some

10 distance from stations, they do not have timetable information, and they often have no shelter or seats, and poor lighting.

11 CONCLUSIONS 39. There is significant elasticity in transport choice in Wellington. Experience over recent years (e.g. the effects of reduced reliability of services, the opening of Waikanae station, and the introduction of free travel for Supergold Card holders) has shown that there is significant potential for modal shift between private car and rail. 40. Service quality is an important factor in determining the modal choice of people who could use a private car option. 41. The ability to improve service quality is limited by the fixed infrastructure of the Kapiti Line. Removing some of those limitations would result in either direct service quality improvements, or allow those to be achieved through operational changes (e.g. through increasing service frequencies). 42. The most important limitation is the single track between Paekakariki and Muri. Other factors I have identified are a lack of infrastructure to allow express trains to overtake slower trains, distance to the nearest station for some suburbs, inadequate park and ride capacity at some stations, and poor facilities for making journeys comfortable and allowing passengers to access accurate information. 43. Rectifying some or all of these limitations would allow travel demand management activities to be undertaken to reduce the potential for induced traffic and modal shift from rail as a result of providing new roading infrastructure.

12