Ports of Auckland did a press release back in September that didn’t really get picked up on:
Working with KiwiRail, Ports of Auckland has doubled the rail services between its Waitematā seaport and Wiri Intermodal Freight Hub.
The increased service starts this week and will bring the port to the doorstep of importers and exporters in South Auckland, potentially reducing the number of trucks coming into the seaport and opening up more space to handle growing volumes.
Ports of Auckland General Manager Commercial Relationships Craig Sain said, “This is just the beginning. With our developments in Palmerston North and Wiri, we’re on our way to make more effective and increased use of rail to improve our service offering.”
“Containers moved by rail was up by 64% in 2013/14, but it is still a small percentage of the total containers coming through the port. We’d like to see this number grow over the coming years,” he said.
In 2010, with the opening of the Wiri Intermodal Freight Hub, KiwiRail ran four services of 23 wagons a week in each direction. Over time, this number increased to eight services and starting today there will be sixteen services a week.
“There is ample capacity on the line to the Port to increase services further and we will continue to work with KiwiRail to get the most out of the line,” Mr Sain said.
KiwiRail General Manager Sales – Freight Alan Piper said, “Ports of Auckland’s drive to increasingly move freight by rail to its Wiri inland port has seen a rapid increase in growth of daily services this year. This is a great example of KiwiRail working closely with its customers and provide flexible growth capacity to enable more use of rail to transport goods around the country.”
Now sixteen services a week may still not sound significant, but each train can haul about 70 twenty foot equivalent containers. Each train is at least 35 trucks off the road. Take a look at this video – it’s been sped up 4x, since the train is so long:
With freight volumes increasing though, the need for a third track on the Eastern Line (in particular between Wiri and Southdown, with an estimated capital cost of between $50m – $70m) becomes more apparent as passenger services are increasing too. Kiwirail might argue that Auckland Transport should contribute to the cost, but I’ve heard that Kiwirail charge Auckland Transport a track access fee in excess of $18m annually .
As the owner and landlord of the Auckland rail network, it would be fit the current charging model for Kiwirail to invest more in the network, and recover the costs through an increased charge in exchange for higher passenger rail frequencies. This needs to happen before the opening of the CRL if Kiwirail wants to continue to grow its freight operations. Would it be too much to ask that the Goverrnment’s contribution to the CRL be in the form of a capital injection to Kiwirail, so that not only the CRL track could be built, but the third main as well?
On the other hand, $50m – $70m is at the bottom end of NZTA’s project expenditure, so perhaps it could be included as a line item in the freight focussed East-West connection project.
Every month I comb through the reports to the AT board looking at what the organisation is up to (that they’ll say in public). I’ve already covered the separate reports on additional bus priority and the New Network for the Hibiscus Coast so this post covers the rest of the reports for the meeting held yesterday. As such this post is a combination of a lot of little items
Once again all of the most interesting papers appear to be in the closed session which means we only have the agenda items to go off. The items being discussed are:
Items for Approval/Decision
- Budget Realignment
- Development Proposals
- CRL Update
- Parnell Station Update
- Wynyard Quarter Roading
- PT Security & Fare Evasion
- Ferry Downtown Access
- Ferry Services Strategy
- Off Street Parking
Items for Noting
- Deep Dive – Wharves
- Heavy Rail Strategy Update
- Customer First Strategy
Most seem fairly self-explanatory however two items draw a bit more attention for me. They are the vaguely titled Development Proposals – what are AT thinking of developing? – and the Heavy Rail Strategy update. The latter is interesting as it’s the first time I’ve seen AT refer to heavy rail as opposed to just rail and comes just after the herald suggested AT were looking at light rail to the airport.
On to the board report and there are number of brief updates on a range of projects. Many we’ve talked about separately or there hasn’t been much change in the report from last month but the ones that stand out are:
Onewa Rd – AT say they are going to be creating an additional westbound general traffic lane after the intersection with Lake Rd. It’s not clear why they are creating a general traffic lane and not a bus or transit lane seeing as westbound bus priority has been needed (and promised) on the road for a long time.
Electric Trains – As of the time of writing the report there were 31 of the 57 on order now in the country with 28 given provisional acceptance. From December four trains a month start arriving which means they should all be in the country by the middle of the year. They also say they have successfully tested modified software to control traction on the EMUs fixing issues from the overhead feed which was presumably the issue behind the problems earlier in the year. The report also talks about six car EMUs being in operation from mid-November however I suspect that’s been held off till the new timetable.
City Rail Link – There are a number of comments related to the recent briefings to the incoming minister about the CRL however perhaps most significantly they say:
The City Rail Link has recently been subject to an intense period of public scrutiny due to the Council’s deliberations on the Long Term Plan (LTP). Extensive media coverage on the project led to a significant amount of feedback, including positive endorsement of the CRL by a variety of proponents. This was a timely reminder of the need to continue to “tell the story” of the CRL and its benefits, especially across the entire region. For example rail-users (and potential new rail users) will see their journey times substantially reduced as well as a much more frequent service. More effort will go into promoting these and other benefits of the CRL story from now on, particularly in the lead-up to the beginning of the enabling works in the second half of 2015
AT telling the story of the projects benefits across the region has been something we’ve talked about numerous times. It will be interesting to see what they come up with this time.
Northcote Cycle Route – AT say that as a result of the consultation they are making changes to what they initially proposed, particularly in Queen St. I suspect this will mean AT are watering down the proposal to retain more car parking
Newmarket Crossing (aka Sarawia St) – was approved last month after an in dependant review looked at the options again. I’m sure some of the Cowie St residents will continue to fight the proposal though.
Pukekohe Bus Rail Interchange – AT say they have $1.5m in funding for this financial year to upgrade the station which I’m sure is something that will get the locals will be pleased about. AT will also be moving the facilities to refill diesel trains from Papakura to Pukekohe
Puhinui Station – The station will be getting an upgrade to the standard Auckland design to improve customer experience. It is expected to be finished by June 2015.
Grafton Bridge – From early next year AT will be allowing taxi’s to use Grafton Bridge as part of a one year trial. While they say they will review the impacts in 3 months. Overall this seems like it could be quite a bad outcome for those on bikes but we’ll have to wait and see.
Integrated Fares – The AT board signed off the business case for integrated fares last month although we’re still waiting to hear just what that will entail. What we do know from the report to the board is that integrated fares won’t go live till the end of next year. This is due to AT needing to re-program much of the system to handle proper integrated fares. As for HOP as it is now, once again the board report¹ says that the percentage of trips on the PT network using HOP has remained the same as last month, AT say they think the ” Get onboard with Jerome” campaign will improve results over the coming months.
Yesterday Peter asked if the Auckland’s motorway network built on “strategic misrepresentations”?. In it he briefly mentioned engineer Joseph Wright who questioned how much the motorways would cost. In response I put this image in the comments however it probably justifies it’s own post (we’ve posted it before many years ago). It was from July 1962.
One of the things I find very frustrating about Auckland’s transport history is that even when we were repeatedly told by many different sources that the motorway system alone wouldn’t solve our problems (and make many of them worse) that we failed to listen. Even worse is despite the outstanding success of the high quality rapid transit investments we’ve still acting like an addict and telling ourselves that just one more motorway will solve our problems and then we’ll stop.
The current Metro Magazine has has an article by me on Auckland, its new urban nature, and surprise!: Why we need a change in transport infrastructure investment to unlock its true value.
Most here won’t be unfamiliar with the arguments but the discipline of writing for print and the general reader called for a rethink of the arguments and evidence. Also the photos aren’t bad either:
Coincidentally I came across this brilliantly accessible piece by NSW transport academic Michelle Zeibots on the relationship between different urban transport systems and their outcomes for city efficiency:
Most people will take whichever transport option is fastest. They don’t care about the mode. If public transport is quicker they’ll catch a train or a bus, freeing up road space. If driving is quicker, they’ll jump in their car, adding to road congestion. In this way, public transport speeds determine road speeds. The upshot is that increasing public transport speeds is one of the best options available to governments and communities wanting to reduce road traffic congestion.
Emphasis added. This supports my assertion that the biggest winners from the new uptake in ridership on Auckland’s Rapid Transit Network are truck and car users.
This relationship is one of the key mechanisms that make city systems tick. It is basic microeconomics, people shifting between two different options until there is no advantage in shifting and equilibrium is found. We can see this relationship in data sets that make comparisons between international cities. Cities with faster public transport speeds generally have faster road speeds.
Yet parts of the highway complex in NSW are now talking about ‘solving congestion’ by building a third road crossing instead: required because of the traffic to be generated by the massive $11billion and more WestConnex project, proving, if ever proof were needed, that all motorways lead to are more motorways. And missed opportunities to invest in higher speeds on all modes through the spatial efficiency of Rapid Transit systems.
This paradoxical phenomenon is understood under various names as this Wiki page shows [Hat Tip to Nick], but perhaps this is as helpful for the average citizen as the Duckworth Lewis system is to the average cricket fan. Which is why I so like the way Zeibots has simplified it in the Sydney Morning Herald article above.
Anyway go out and grab a copy of the new Metro with the Jafa flavoured cover to see my version:
Back in July and August, Auckland Transport consulted on changes to the bus network on the Hibiscus Coast as part of the region wide new network. The main driver for consulting on the changes now is that AT want to extend some Northern Express services to the future Hibiscus Coast busway station before the middle of next year and so it makes sense to reorganise the rest of the network in the area at the same time to take advantage of it.
The results of that consultation are now available and the final proposed network is going to the AT board today for approval. All up AT received 874 responses with 71% supporting or strongly supporting what was proposed. That’s quite a bit better than the 56% combined support for the changes to the network in South Auckland. One interesting aspect I noticed from the demographic information of submitters that stated their gender was that 59% were female. I think this is good as often transport discussions tend to be far too male dominated. The feedback has resulted in a number of changes with 10 of the original 11 routes being modified. The key issues raised and the changes as a response to them are below
I personally thought extending the NEX to Orewa itself would have been a useful anchor point rather than having it terminate at the Hibiscus Coast Station which is only accessible by car or local bus however AT say that to take the NEX through congested local roads would affect its reliability and therefore the quality of the service. In addition AT say some people wanted the new NEX services to bypass Albany busway station or in some cases all busway stations to ensure there was capacity for those going to the Hibiscus Coast. In response AT say they believe that there are greater benefits of access, simplicity, and legibility to be gained from keeping all NEX services running the same route at all times of day and serving all the busway stations. Further the buses to the Hibiscus Coast will be in addition to the existing NEX buses providing additional capacity and will be timed to leave at the same time as buses going just to Albany to help spread the load out. The proposed frequency for the NEX hasn’t changed from the consultation and will be every 15 minutes at peak (6am-9:30am city bound & 3pm-6:30pm outbound) and 30 minutes off peak.
One other aspect that AT will pulse buses at the busway station. That means for connecting buses there will only be around a 5 minute wait between services. The same thing will happen with the Gulf Harbour ferry.
I won’t go through all the details in this post however the consultation report goes all of the issues as well as the investigations and considerations AT undertook before coming to their final decision. One change I will cover though is that buses won’t use the Hibiscus Coast Highway like proposed and will instead use Centreway Rd. In addition all services except the express will loop around the town centre.
So here is what the proposed map looked like for the consultation.
And here it is with the changes that have been made (click to enlarge however unfortunately it isn’t super high quality).
While the AT board are expected to approve the changes today, staff note there are a number of risks associated with the changes that will need to be addressed.
- Hibiscus Coast Station won’t be built by the time the New Network is implemented, due to ongoing legal disputes (refer Attachment 1), which will mean the customers’ experience when making connections will be sub-optimal. It is important that high quality temporary facilities are in place. Four new shelters have recently been installed adjacent to the current park and ride facility for this purpose. Temporary toilets will also be provided.
- Because the full park and ride facility will not be built by the time the NEX is extended to Hibiscus Coast Station, there is likely to be dissatisfaction with the amount of carparking, although this will maximise the potential market for the feeder bus services.
- The cost of providing these recommended services is to be negotiated with the incumbent operators for implementation in mid-2015. Should the cost of providing the new services exceed expectations we may have to reduce the level of service from what is recommended in the consultation summary and decisions report.
- These service changes are proposed to be implemented before integrated fares are in place across the network. While customers with a monthly pass or a SuperGold Card will not be affected, all other passengers who make a connection under the New Network, will pay more than they do currently if required to transfer. This is likely to generate some negative publicity. An interim solution may be possible, however, service improvements are considered to outweigh this interim disbenefit.
- Feedback suggests that some people have a poor understanding of how connections will work or are concerned that they will be reliable. We will need to work with operators to ensure connections are reliable, and to clearly communicate how connections will work under the New Network.
On the busway station itself AT have given some more details about the environment court challenge it is facing.
Resource consent for the Busway Station (Silverdale Park and Ride), which was granted on 10 July, has been appealed against by two submitters who own adjacent parcels of land. Their principal area of contention is the traffic capacity on Hibiscus Coast Highway for future developments in the Plan Change 123 (Silverdale South) area. The appellants are arguing that the Busway Station affects the amount of traffic that can be generated in the Plan Change area, thereby placing potential restrictions on their developments.
So the argument is over how much traffic the park and ride may generate and who should be able to clog up the roads more. This is perhaps a good example of one of the main issues with park and ride in general that people often don’t think think about. The other being the cost of it at around $10,000 per space for an at grade carpark. As part of the consultation AT received a number of comments wanting to see the proposed 500 spaces expanded including buying some of the neighbouring land for it. They say there is no plans to do that.
Do you live on the Hibiscus Coast, what do you think of the changes?
58: Four Seasons in One Year
What if we made more of seasonal change in Auckland?
Auckland does not, despite what many of us say, have a tropical, or sub-tropical climate, but a temperate maritime one. All the palm trees in the world could not fool permanent residents of Auckland that this city is winterless. We may have four seasons in one day, but we also have four seasons in one year. It is just that you wouldn’t often know it as you watch our gardens, parks, streets, and cityscape through the seasons.
The largely evergreen-ness of Auckland reflects our native flora and that is an important defining characteristic of the New Zealand landscape. But at a finer grain, in our city parks, residential streets, and private gardens, we are sometimes missing out on some of the small delights of life with an insistence on nothing but greenery all year round.
Current dogma dictates that is pretty much impossible for the public sector to plant exotic flowering trees and plants in Auckland. So perhaps it is up to residents, in front and back gardens and balconies everywhere, to embrace a new blossoming of Auckland life?! We often hear calls for more colour in Auckland, more flowering plants would go a long way to answering that call.
Stuart Houghton 2014
Last week, I took an empirical look at construction cost overruns for recent road projects in New Zealand, concluding that NZTA and regional transport agencies systematically underestimated the costs to build roads by an average of 34%. These findings are in line with Oxford professor Bent Flyvbjerg’s international work on infrastructure cost overruns. They obviously pose a challenge for people writing business cases – how can you be sure that you’re choosing a good project?
However, Flyvbjerg’s thesis has considerably broader implications. He suggests that infrastructure costs are low-balled (and benefits are overestimated) due in large part to “strategic misrepresentation”. Or, in plain English, when planners and politicians lie about a pet project to ensure that it gets built.
Coincidentally, I happened to be reading Paul Mees’ brilliant book Transport for Suburbia when thinking about this issue. Mees, who died last year at far too young an age, does a fantastic job communicating the theory and practice of high-quality public transport networks. The book is based on case studies of a number of cities, including Auckland.
In chapter two, Mees takes a look at the fateful decision that Auckland made, in 1954, to scrap its comprehensive public transport system, fail to invest in a regional rail network (as had been promised for over two decades), and build an urban motorway network. Interestingly – or disturbingly – the decision seems to have been made on the basis of two big “strategic misrepresentations”.
The first strategic misrepresentation was that Auckland wasn’t dense enough for good public transport. As this was easy to disprove by looking at the facts on the ground – which showed that 58% of motorised trips in Auckland were taken by public transport (and only 42% by car), and that the average Aucklander took 290 PT trips a year – it was necessary to lie with statistics.
In an MRCagney working paper on population-weighted densities that I published in September, I showed that Auckland is a relatively high-density city by New World standards – certainly dense enough to sustain high-quality public transport. My colleague Nick Reid used the same data to demonstrate how pro-sprawl think tank Demographia is still using misleading statistics to make its case. But Mees shows that the misuse and abuse of population density was even more rampant in the 1954 decision:
The Committee carefully sifted the Fooks table, deleting all the anomalous cities, such as Vienna and Zurich, that might have alerted readers to its real purpose. The Committee then added its own density estimate for Auckland, calculated using the very same methodology Fooks wrote his book to debunk, namely dividing the population of the region by the gross area under the jurisdiction of the Auckland Regional Planning Authority. This was not an inadvertent error either, as the same Technical Committee (with much the same membership) had only four years earlier estimated the urbanized area of the region at 30,000 acres, instead of the 113,000 used for the Master Plan’s calculations. This gave a density of 15 residents per acre not 4 (37 per hectare not 10), double the figures for Australian cities cited in the Master Plan and triple the figure given for Los Angeles.
The second strategic misrepresentation, which would be familiar to Flybjerg, was that motorways would be relatively cheap. While both rail investment and road investment carried a substantial price-tag, the decision to choose roads was made on the basis of the fact that they wouldn’t be that much more expensive than rail. But Mees finds that was simply not true:
The Auckland Technical Committee’s cost estimates proved to be no more robust than its density calculations. It had claimed that the rail scheme would cost £11 million [according to the RBNZ's inflation calculator, this is equivalent to $560 million in today's dollars], almost as much as the £15 million price tag [$760 million] for the motorways. In 1962, an engineer named Joseph Wright claimed that both figures has been distorted to favour motorways. Motorway costs had been underestimated, with the true figure closer to £40 million [$2 billion today], while rail costs had been inexplicably inflated from the  Halcrow estimate of £7.25 million [$370 million]. ‘Where did the figure of £11 million come from?’ he asked. ‘I understand that the committee which produced the Master Transport Plan had 26 members, only three of whom had any experience of handling public transport… The whole Master Transport Plan has a motor car complex’… Wright was no car-hating train-spotter: he was the Ministry of Works engineer in charge of the Auckland motorway project.
In short, Auckland was sold its motorways on the premise that they would be quite cheap. But within a few years, it was apparent that the true cost would be much, much higher. Even Wright’s estimate of £40 million, or $2 billion in today’s dollars, to complete Auckland’s road network now seems laughably optimistic. These days, transport agencies can easily spend $2 billion on motorway expansions in a few short years.
When the government announced, at the last budget, that it would be spending an additional $800 million on a package of Auckland motorway projects, few people batted an eye. It’s evident at this point that a mere $800 million isn’t enough to complete the network, or even do anything more than provide a temporary fix. But remember: the designers of Auckland’s motorway network claimed that it would be finished for that sum.
Cock-up or conspiracy: What do you think happened here?
Auckland Transport want to roll out 40km of new bus priority measures over the next 3 years to speed up buses, make them more efficient and support the new bus network being rolled out across the region. This is fantastic news as the lack of progress AT have made to date on rolling out bus lanes has been a regular cause for concern for us and since AT was formed in late 2010 only bus lane added across the region has was on Fanshawe St earlier this year – something we campaigned on.
AT say they are targeting for 15km to be added this financial year and the remaining 25km over the following two years adding to the 88km of existing bus and transit lanes around the region. The works won’t all be bus lanes, in some cases they will be improvements to stops, kerb realignments or pocket lanes at intersections. Many of the improvements are also about making the existing bus lanes work better by addressing the missing gaps in them. The focus so far has been on the routes that make up the Frequent Transit Network which are the routes that will have buses running at a minimum of every 15 minutes from 7am to 7pm, seven days a week (below). As part of the new network AT are also rolling out a new contracting model (PTOM) for which stringent KPIs have been set in the areas of punctuality and reliability and these new priority measures play a critical role in operators being able to meet those KPIs.
And here are the list of the key projects bus priority projects over the next three years. AT say a road on the list doesn’t mean there will be a bus lane along the entire corridor but that these are the corridors that have high levels of congestion for buses and have priority measures identified that will increase the operational efficiency and customer experience.
The cost to roll out these bus priority measures is $12-15 million over the next 3 years which seems like fantastic value when compared to many other transport projects. That cost is made up of $2.2 million of capital expenditure (CAPEX) in this financial year and $5-6 million in the following two years as well an additional $500,000 in operational spending in those years for investigation and review. The big issue though is that currently following two years projects are not included in the base transport programme and so will need funding to be made available.
One thing that does help is they say recent stakeholder engagement internally and with NZTA, Local Board, business associations, emergency services and local residents has been positive. These are also not the end of bus priority measures and AT are conducting a systematic investigation of all future RTN routes.
It’s great to see AT finally getting on to this. I don’t know if any economic evaluation has been done but the benefits from freeing up trips for thousands of bus users per day must be huge, especially when you consider it will cost just 10% of some motorway interchange projects. It’s also about the same cost as the NZTA are about to spend on adding one lane to the motorway northbound at Ellerslie.
A blast from the past: the Talking Heads’ ode to urbanity, “Cities”. This is from the band’s fantastic concert film Stop Making Sense:
The Talking Heads emerged from 1970s New York. The city itself wasn’t doing so well at the time – like many other large American cities, it was struggling with deindustrialisation, white flight, and a crime wave. But it was a fantastic time and place to make music. Grandmaster Flash and Afrika Bambaataa were originating hip-hop; Television, the New York Dolls, Patti Smith, and the Ramones were putting together punk rock.
People were swapping ideas and innovating. Things were happening. That’s what happens in cities.
Talking Heads frontman David Byrne realised how important urban places are to creativity. A few years ago, he wrote a great book about cities and streets, drawn from his experience touring all over the world and riding around cities on his folding bike – it’s called Bicycle Diaries.
Auckland Transport have released more details about the route for the Glen Innes to Tamaki Dr shared path that they and the NZTA are going to build over the next few years. The $30 million path will be built between 2015 and 2018 in four stages (down from five initially). The stages are shown below and previously section 2 was two separate stages.
AT say the project features are
- The path will be around four metres wide and constructed mostly in concrete. Timber boardwalks will be used for short water crossings such as Orakei Basin and concrete for longer structures such as the proposed Hobson Bay crossing.
- The path will be safe and convenient for use by people on foot or on bike.
- Good lighting will extend hours of access, particularly during winter months.
- The route’s geography is hilly in places, but the design of the path will keep gradients as low as possible.
- The path design will link into local communities and the project will identify future links that could be built at a later date.
- The path will connect communities with public transport along the route.
AT have put out this video showing the route.
And here are the
I think the thing that surprised me the most was that the path will travel down the northern side of the railway line till around Purewa Cemetery before crossing over to the southern side. I had previously thought they would squeeze it in on the southern side. Being on the northern side might in future open up the opportunity for some of the areas on the northern side of the tracks to have access to Meadowbank station which would be useful, although it might also increase calls from the local board to have another station in the vicinity.
I also wonder what the longer term plans are for the section of land between the path and the railway line south of St Johns Rd. We know it’s now not going to be used for an Eastern Motorway.
And here are a couple of images of what the path may look like.
My biggest concern with the path is that there won’t be enough done to build cycle facilities on roads that lead to/from the path. That includes both in the eastern suburbs and of course Tamaki Dr. Overall though I think the path will be very popular and busy with people walking and on bikes, especially across Hobson bay on a nice day.