This post is the first of three that will focus on the proposed stations that are to be constructed as part of the City Rail Link project: Aotea Station, K Road Station and Newton Station.
Aotea Station is, without doubt, the most important station that the City Rail Link creates – located in the very heart of midtown Auckland. Unlike Britomart, which has half its catchment in the sea, Aotea Station will be surrounded by the highest density of employment and apartments in the whole of New Zealand. Improving access to this core part of Auckland’s city centre is perhaps the single greatest benefit of the CRL project.
The pictures below show the location of Aotea Station, underneath Albert Street in the block between Victoria and Wellesley streets:
Of course increasing access to such a core part of Auckland is likely to stimulate quite a lot of further development in this area. The City Centre Master Plan highlighted the possible development opportunities in the direct area around Aotea Station:
The station entrance itself (well, the main one, presumably there will be others) was roughly sketched in a presentation to the Council last year and is shown below looking from the northwest corner of the Albert/ Wellesley intersection:
The map below confirms the catchment of Aotea Station will make a huge improvement to the general accessibility of Auckland’s CBD to the rail network:
The combination of Aotea Station’s location improving accessibility to the heart of Auckland’s CBD plus the huge shortcut from the western line provided by the CRL means that travel times between many places in the west to midtown will reduce dramatically. The table below highlights this fact:
My expectation is that, once built, Aotea Station would become the busiest station on the rail network – largely because of its catchment being so large. In the longer term it’s the obvious interchange point with a North Shore railway line which would really boost its numbers even further. It will be a logical interchange point with buses – particularly those heading north-south along Albert Street and east-west along Wellesley Street. It will also probably be the station of choice for university students: as heading from there up Wellesley Street to Auckland Uni and AUT isn’t a particularly long walk.
While all the proposed stations on the CRL are exciting, in pure transport terms Aotea is the most exciting. It will make a huge difference to a huge number of people currently working, living and visiting the real heart of Auckland’s CBD.
I know it’s early stages yet, but is there any word on how many platforms they envision Aotea having? Considering it will be such an important station, will it have a full 4 (or more?), or will it be a minimalist 2?
It will almost certainly have two. With only two tracks in the tunnel and no indication that anything would terminate there, there is really nothing to be gained by having more platforms that tracks.
Having said that, I think they should seriously look at a ‘spanish solution’ platform layout, which splits the boarding and alighting onto separate platforms either side of each track. In practice that means a pair side platforms for boarding, and a third island platform in between for exit only.
2 platforms doesn’t sound like much.. but I’m no expert. Looking at Brisbane’s equivalent – Central station (which also acts as a through station) has 6 platforms apparently. Brisbane has 2 million people, Auckland – 1.5 mill. It does look like Aotea station will be the busiest station in the city, right in the heart of the CBD, closest to Victoria Park, closest for Uni students. Could it cope with all that people traffic? Would there need to be more rail lines in the tunnel if a North Shore line came in aswell?
Auckland’s equivalent of Brisbane Central is Britomart. That has five platforms already and would act as a through station once the CRL is built (although not on three of those five platforms).
The CRL between Britomart and Mt Eden will be only two tracks, one going each way. At Aotea trains will arrive, stop for 30 or 40 seconds at most then continue on their way. There is really no need for multiple platforms, in fact switching the tracks and shuffling them across multiple platforms then back to the same tracks might actually reduce capacity.
The only need here is to ensure the passenger flow capacity is up to the job of potentially hundreds boarding and deboarding every two or thee minutes. You don’t need large numbers of platforms to achieve that, you just need to design the size and layout of the two platforms appropriately.
“In practice that means a pair side platforms for boarding, and a third island platform in between for exit only.”
How is this enforced? It is easy to see how you’d stop passengers making their way from outside to the exit platform (one way escalators). But how do you stop passengers de-training on to the entrance platform?
The doors usually open to the exit side first, and the boarding side a few seconds later. That sets up the passenger flows quite directly.
If you wanted to detrain to the entrance side you could wait a few extra seconds, then fight your way against a one-way flow of traffic, then run the wrong way up some escalators, but I doubt many people would.
There are probably also other visual queues you could give, things like lights or signs above the doorways etc.
Another option if we were to have really high frequencies could be to have 4 tracks at each station, two for each direction. Trains going in the same direction could alternate between the tracks in the direction they are heading so one could be stopped and unloading passengers while another is leaving the station.
I’m trying to visualise overseas systems… There is often a fight to get on and off London tube trains. But that’s a train every 90 seconds, the trains are often packed, and by necessity the doors aren’t open for very long. On the other hand Sydney is far more relaxed and much less crowded and I don’t think I’ve ever had to fight hand-to-hand to board a train there.
Is Auckland’s system ever going to be busier than Sydney’s, so that stops have to be quicker? It’s hard to imagine that’s the case, in which case segregating entrance and exit by platform is just adding expense that isn’t required until Auckland’s population exceeds 4 million.
Sydney does have a lot more track infrastructure than Auckland is ever likely to have, plus double-decker trains, which Auckland is unlikely to ever have. In effect, in the very very long term we are going to be squeezing an awful lot out of a relatively small amount of infrastructure – which calls for a metro-like approach rather than the hybrid commuter-metro system of Sydney.
I have had to fight tooth and nail to get on trains in both Sydney and Melbourne. In Melbourne they have recently had to post people at the station entrances to close off the platforms when they become overcrowded.
I think the key thing is what Peter has touched on above. The CRL is only ever going to be two tracks, but reports have indicated that up to 30 trains an hour per direction would be feasible. That’s almost what Melbourne manages with it’s four track tunnel, but that really depends on whether those sorts of passenger flows can be accommodated. One benefit of that is raw capacity to Aotea, but the more important bit is it allows several high frequency lines to share the tunnel.
One thing to consider is that Sydney has six platforms at it’s equivalent station (Town Hall), so our Aotea need only have one-third the passenger flows on its two platforms to have the same kind of congestion issues.
My understanding from comments posted before is that the doors to the exit platform open first, then after a delay the doors to the entry platform open. This means that passengers who’re getting off have already started to leave before passengers who’re getting on start to board, reducing total time by cutting out the doorway conflicts and by clearing the walkways and also making it extremely apparent which side of the train is which.
There’s no way to really stop a determined person from getting off the train on the wrong side, but I just don’t see why it should be necessary to even try. What’s described above would, in my mind, work quite well enough.
Aotea station would only be on one line though. At Town Hall you have one pair for North Shore / Western, another for Eastern Suburbs / Illawara, and another for Airport & East Hills / Inner West and Bankstown / South. In Auckland all trains would be on two lines but there next stop in both directions would be common (i.e both lines would go to Britomart and Karangahape Road) so its actually an advantage only having two platforms as you can wait knowing that any train on this platform will take you to K’rd / Newton or Britomart, dependent on which direction you were going.
For the sake of future-proofing for the next 30 years, I would also go with a three platform model.
Boarding and Alighting by different sides of the train.
Means if the platform is crowded you can still get people off the train quickly (they alight onto an always empty platform) and even if we dont have the capacity to justify it now, it would help lower dwell times too which should be reason enough to justify it.
We really want to avoid this problem: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/23/yonge-subway/
Aotea Station will be built within the width of Albert Street. There is only enough width to provide a single island platform of circa 10 metres plus two tracks and the associated station walls etc within the available space. To provide any more platforms or tracks would require properties on either side of Albert Street to be purchased and extensively altered and probably demolished. Apart form the proposed future North Shore Line platform which are envisaged to run beneath and at 90 degrees to the CRL platform, teh CRL grades would also rule out vertically stacking platforms.
You wouldn’t need a 10m wide island if you had separate boarding and alighting platforms. Note that with ‘spanish solution’ platforms the central one is completely free of any furnishings or obstacles and is only used by people very briefly to exit by all walking in the same direction to the escalators at each end.
Albert St is nominal 20m wide. That is easily enough for a pair of 3.5m side platforms, a central platform of 5m, the two tracks and the side walls.
I would think the “main” enterance would be approximately at grade from Queen St, along Darby St, through what is currently a vacant lot directly to the platforms.
If the Queen St area is assumed to have the higher density of the area surrounding Aotea (universities are just beyond too), people will prefer a flat route to the platforms, rather than walking up to Albert St only to go down again, so a Darby St enterance would attract the highest number of passengers, making it the “main”.
I always imagined at least 4 entrances. Darby/Elliot Street, Albert/Victoria Street, Aotea Square and Albert/Wellesley Street. This would give you a good coverage of the surrounding area and would ensure minimal hassle when it comes to walking up/down the hill.
I don’t really see an entrance to Aotea Square as an option due to its location, even though it is fairly close. I suspect/would like to see the following:
An extension of Darby St as the main entrance from Queen St
A modification of the Atrium on Elliot to give an exit through the mall (this also gives internal access to the Crowne Plaza which would be really useful once we get a line to the airport)
An exit or two onto Albert/Victoria St (remember the council wants to narrow down Victoria St).
An entrance on the southern side of Wellesley, possibly built into a new building on the corner where Glengarry wines is now.
I suspect that Sky City would want an entrance to their properties so possibly one directly into the Grand (with a clear path to the casino).
I was thinking that an Aotea Square exit would be a sort of tucked into the corner of the new building and lead to the basement with some shops and a path through to the Albert/Wellesley entrance. A cheap solution and it would make it easy to find your way to the Square. Calling it Aotea Station with no obvious route to the square would be a bit silly.
It’s perhaps a little silly, but maybe we could repurpose the specatacular (but hardly used in the daytime) foyer of the Civic Theatre as an entrance to the station? Probably wouldn’t sit too well with the high society types.
That would be a disaster. First of all you’d have to cut holes in the floor or walls to provide access to the platforms as the building is Heritage 1 this will present some issues. Second imagine having an event on at the theatre during rush hour or a game at Eden Park and having theatre goers milling around waiting for the performance while everyone charges around them.
I do understand what you mean about not being utilised much. It would be great if they opened it up so people could have a look inside during the day. I know I’d go several times a year just to look at the interior.
The Civic already has a sweeping staircase leading to the basement leel, there wouldn’t be much cutting going on. Just a thought though, I realise it’s pretty ridiculous.
That’s what I’d always thought too James. Though the additional cost of an Aotea Square entrance would need to be compared with its benefits. Getting something as close to Queen Street/Wellesley Street intersection would be helpful too for university students.
I don’t know if you really need to get an entrance right in Aotea Sq, surely one at the intersection of Wellesley and Albert could still give excellent access to Aotea Sq via the Bledisloe walkway.
I disagree.
1. Calling the station Aotea and having no obvious exit to Aotea Square is just dumb. I know it’s only a hundred metre walk or so but it won’t be obvious which way to go for tourists and other people not familiar with the area.
2. The walk from Bledisloe walkway to Albert Street is surprisingly steep. I walk it everyday so I know.
3. As I have stated the cost will be negligible if the entrance is built into the basement of the building planned for the present council carpark. You’ll have to dig it out for foundations anyway and it beats having a carpark.
4. It would increase foot traffic in Aotea as people coming from an south east of the station will most likely choose the square over the walking around the Civic.
5. It provides a second at level exit to Queen Street to complement one at Darby Street.
The cost would be negligible though. From the renders it looks like the council plan to have a significant building on that carpark. This would require at least 3 or four levels of basement stretching from the Aotea Centre to Wellesley Street. Making the top level of that basement retail with a walkthrough to the station from Aotea would add little to the cost of that building and you would get a high value retail area instead of what would likely be a carpark.
An entrance though that development site via Darby St (fully pedestrianised) really does seem the best way to give Queen St it’s main station access.
If I were the owner of that property I would be doing everything in my power to ensure that my property provided the link between Queen St and Aotea station. Could you imagine the foot traffic, the retail rents you could charge on shops fronting that pedestrian flow? And that would all be on an otherwise low value basement floor. A few dozen basement carparks, or a mall wrapped around the busiest transit station in the country? I know what I’d rather be leasing to tenants.
Is it practical to turn some of the Aotea carpark into entrance/retail? It seems worth investigating, and worth considering if doable.
Would really transform the city. Exciting times.
Hope so Harris after seeing this depressing article this morning http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10796011
Brewer just wants to try and kick the council at every opportunity which is mostly likely so he can say he opposed Len if he decides to run for Mayor. One thing to think about is the change that has been seen at the bottom of town, lower Queen St has had quite a lot of transformation over the last decade which has seen a number of high end retailers move in, the same thing is happening in and around Britomart. This has all been happening since the train station at Britomart was put in which has been quite a catalyst for the whole area. A train station further up the CBD would likely have a similar effect which would help to shunt these lower end stores out but Brewer opposes the CRL as well.
There is now a Louis Vitton boutique where a $2 shop used to be (or is it the Bulgari store, I forget)… what exactly is Brewer’s problem?!
Wrote a more extensive response to Cameron’s piece in the Herald at my blog yesterday when it came up as I was reading.
Actually Matt (L) the very points you raise apart from Brewer’s usual round of kicking the posts (we all know he is going to run for mayor so that is a given)was commented on in my blog (just reread it).
http://voakl.net/2012/04/02/shoebox-shops-the-ruin-of-queen-st-business-nz-herald-news/ <<< it is either the link or I do a post dump in here.
Just a quick note, I think he was more looking at Mid Queen Street not Lower Queen Street – bah go read my post says it all
No, he doesn’t: “Like most Aucklanders I support the [CRL] project in principle.
His concern is how it’s going to be paid for in the face of an openly hostile government.
Key words ‘ in principle’ watch how he votes. No such thing as a transport system ‘in principle’ it has to be in actuality, in fact.
Just like Kaye who ‘supports’ the CRL as an idea, but no breaking ranks over actual funding.
That’s not the same as being opposed to it, though, which was the word used.
Brewer is consistent in his opposition to large increases in rates, and with National being actively hostile to funding public transport capital works I don’t blame him for being sceptical that the CRL can be paid for without ratepayers being stung for the entire sum. His bottom line is “Don’t spend more than you have” and he’s sticking to that, which puts him one up on most of the rest of National who’re happy to keep expensive policies without also keeping the taxation revenue required to keep them funded.
Or, Matt, he’s lying, as I say; see how he votes. When there’s a gap between words and actions, the actions tell the real story.
That’s the same sort of mindset which says the Mt Albert shops, Sandringham shops & Otahuhu shops are failures. That is, assuming that they’re “ethnic shops” because “proper European shops” didn’t want to locate there. The immigrant jibe in the article confirms my suspicions.
I quite like Otahuhu Town Centre and the mixture of shops that they have. Get all sorts of things that you would not get in “proper European Shops” including cooking spices that my wife loves to use in Ethnic dishes.
The response from Ludo Campbell-Reid was more balanced and actual of Queen Street which is what I am inclined to agree with.
Err might need an entire separate post to prevent this one going off in two directions folks
No reason to have more than two platforms, except for possible bifurcation (like Brisbane Central 1-4) which means two tracks either side of the station but four tracks/platforms at the station. Increases capacity slightly.
I can’t see demand for a full four track, and putting it into the project would price it out of existence. The other side of Britomart would hit capacity sooner.
Probably one other important thing to add about Aotea Station is consideration of future connections with the North Shore Line. Presumably that will run under either Wellesley or Victoria Streets and passengers would be able to easily interchange between that line and the CRL. In all likelihood, the North Shore Line would probably be another level down I would think.
I reckon the North Shore line is pretty unlikely given that you now have negative growth in Harbour Bridge traffic, thanks to the Northern Busway. You never know though.
Negative growth in vehicles but positive growth in the number of people going across, the two very different. Therefore if this trend continues the busway will be at capacity sooner rather than later necessaitating a rail link. The speed of catching a train to the city will probably cause a further huge movement of people from cars to PT, further negating the need for a road based crossing. However the people in NZ holding the purse strings don’t seem to think this way, they seem to believe more cars = better and build infrastructure to encourage that.
Let’s hope you are thinking about a world post-CRL. The CRL has clear benefits and is affordable. A line across the harbour would be incredibly expensive and mostly compete with bus travel. i.e. little increase in PT use.
When would the busway hit capacity? In Brisbane, we can do in excess of 400 buses per hour per direction through the busiest section, and around 250/hr/direction traversing a station. There still isn’t bus lanes across the Auckland Harbour Bridge – surely that’s the next goal for the north side.
I’m no expert on underground rail (though I do love the Melbourne loop), so I only ask: can we follow international best practice, please?
does anybody know how ticketing will work in the future for the rail? as this will have an important impact on the design of the station. if you have to buy a ticket, or present your ticket just to get to the platforms, it means a “gate-line” is required. this means a gate line is required at each entrance to the station, or you have an underground concourse with multiple entrances to the concourse, then one gate-line and access to the platforms. but this can mean multiple trips on escalators / lifts etc for people – one down to the concourse, then one down to the platforms.
alternatively, if we are sticking with the idea of buying / validating tickets on the train, then no gate-lines are required at all and the number of entrances is less of an issue. but i suspect that the need to future-proof for gate-lines may be required, which may in turn limit the number of entrances.
Depends where things go with HOP and integrated ticketing.
Best ask AT on that one – but to my know there will be no purchasing tickets on board once HOP works
lack of ticket sales on trains would act as a barrier to new or casual users
If they can simply rock up to the station, put money in the machine, and get a card or ticket then it’s not a problem.
Hop card will be extended to the rail system, and Britomart, Newmarket and the CRL stations will have rows of fare gates that you’ll need to swipe your Hop past to pass. Other stations will be open with simple tag on tag off readers.
so if you access the train at a station without a fare gate, you have to swipe when you get on the train. but what’s to stop you getting on the train without swiping? the bus driver controls this on a bus. so would it require ticket inspectors? and how can they tell if you have swiped or not?
In Australian cities they have tag posts at the entrance to non-gated stations, and it’s an offence to be on the platform or train without a valid card. This requires machines to top-up at the platform entrance, fare-inspectors on trains and a system for imposing fines. While these cost money, it’s considerably less than using staff to collect fares on trains.
As to station design, I imagine that there will be numerous machines at these stations, for dispensing and topping up cards. We may in future also have other technologies such as smart phones, which allow instant and contactless entrance – design should allow for such development.
What’s stopping you is:
a) You wouldn’t be able to exit the train at Britomart, Newmarket or CRL stations if you haven’t tagged on at the start of your trip (or you might just get charged the maximum possible fare as a default).
b) Ticket inspectors have simple hand held readers that can tell if you are tagged on or not, and they can issue fines or evict you from the train.
It is open to abuse, I think fare gates at more stations is a good idea.
Is “turnstiles” the word we’re looking for here?
You run your hop card or paper ticket through it- the light goes green, you move through light goes red- turnstile locks again.
That’s how NY, Paris and London do it. But maybe we’ll choose a more complicated system?
No it isn’t turnstiles, the gates have advanced sensors in them to detect things like luggage or prams so they don’t make it too hard to get through
Was at my local board meeting tonight (to save you looking it up, it was the Orakei Local Board).
Remember Orakei is “Cameron Brewer country”, he was present in this meeting in the public gallery during this presentation.
Stephen Rainbow from AT came along and presented to the board about the CRL apparently he’s been/is going to be doing the rounds of all the boards over this.
Out of that presentation came some comments from him which I’ll put here as you may like to comment.
1. Stephen said that CRL case is being reviewed with idea being that they consider staging it to keep the costs down and (try to?) get Govt on side.
2. Staging may consist of not building 2 or the 3 planned stations immediately, i.e. just putting the tunnel/track to unlock Britomart to get those benefits sooner and lower the costs.
3. He said its going to cost $300 million per station – so staging 2 of the 3 will reduce the 2.4b price tag to 1.8b
Orakei Board members (predictably and parochially) asked him “how will CRL help PT in our area”, to which Rainbow said he had no answer – as we all know it won’t on “face value” actually change much but maybe train frequency.
Rainbow made a comment that under PTOM and review of bus services this may allow them to run buses in loops to the local station, but said out west is where the initial work on bus review is being done as it needs it.
He also said that **2/3rds** of all of NZs population growth in the next few decades will occur in Auckland – something he said that the Wellington folks can’t grasp when he goes there as they are in a city with flat growth and have been for a while.
This also cuts against Minister Brownlee saying on TV today that “the RoNS and transport plans to Govt has are not just about Auckland”.
If not,they bloody well should be if 2/3rd of the population growth is going to be here, so should the transport investment, as a “do minimum”.
Rainbow also said that we won’t know the 2/3rds figure for a couple of Censuses (Censii?) (theres one next year and one 5 years after that). And if the 2018 Census when the true growth patterns of Auckland will show. But that may be too late to alter the course already set.
Anyway – as you can imagine all this stuff on CRL “staging” raised with me more questions than it answered.
So when he left the meeting I caught up with him and asked him some questions before he left the meeting on his comments.
I asked him the following.
1. Has any consideration been given by AT to just building the tunnel and track and southern end of the tunnel links to the Western lines as the very first stage, without stations to get the benefit of making Britomart a through station quicker?
2. If this was done, how long would it shorten the “build” time by and how much would it save/cost compared to full CRL with all stations?
3. At the Mt Eden end are they putting in links in both directions (from west to CRL, and from Newmarket to CRL) or only from West to CRL?
4. How long before the CRL build could start from today?
Answers from him were:
1. “No idea, (AT) haven’t thought about it, but might be worthwhile considering.”
2. Maybe 3+ years for the tunnelling build (as opposed to 5+ for the full CRL), costwise, not a lot less than 1.5b, maybe more.
3. West onto CRL only at this stage – I asked why – he said current modelling shows its more “efficient” with only 1 direction of link” rather than link to Western lines in two directions (West to CRL, and CRL to Lines going toward Newmarket). He said don’t need to tunnel there as they will be above ground.
4. If all goes well and building owners don’t challenge the notice of requirements (NORs), 2 maybe 3 years before the build starts. If they challenge the NORs, at least 4 years before building starts.
So take those as you will.
Of note, been watching a recent (2012) BBC 6 part series on the London Underground (called “The Tube” and available on your favourite BT site), which as you all know is “The GodFather” of all PT systems.
They keep making the point that they are having 4 million people use the London Underground daily as of the end of 2011 – and thats despite single 1 way “cash fare” in the inner zones costing 4UKP for a one way!
But another point was made, that the tube was forecast to achieve 4m users daily in 2016, but its achieved that number 4 years early, and so all the recent building programs they have been doing and are still doing are seriously behind the demand. Example they gave, rebuilding Tottenham Court Road station, to handle 200,000 people a day, but when its opened in 3 years, it may be too small.
So you can imagine with that kind of growth already, what daily patronage figures will be in 2016.
Which raised with me the same consideration here, that the planners (here in AK and Wellington) have no idea how much new trains will unlock a lot of the pent up demand for travel by rail. This means that with Britomart now effectively at capacity, we’re going to be stuck with pretty much the present level of service into Britomart for the next few years until the CRL is built. right now CRL couldn’t begin its build for at least 2-3 years if all goes, well, then another 3 years to build the tunnel and tracks let alone the stations (assuming staged building of stations).
So thats 5 years minimum before CRL can take a train, and probably more like 7 assuming some challenges to the NORs. And of course, with staging all 3 stations could take another 1-3 years after that, so you may not have a fully operational CRL for 10 years, which is pretty much whats planned now.
Problem is I don’t think AT actually have 7-10 years, or really even 5 years to get the CRL loop (at least) working based on the growth of demand likely to occur once the EMUs are all fully operational.
Oh yeah, one other bit of PT news, Orakei Board has managed to get AT to agree to T3/HOV lanes on Remuera Road (instead of Bus Lanes). The logic being that T3 (“HOV”) lanes don’t impact buses much (according to AT surveys they have minimal impact on buses) but T3 lanes will encourage cars on Remuera Road to have more than 1 person per vehicle in order to use the HOV lane – which can obviously reduce car traffic but only if the additional car passengers were going to drive their cars. If it simply moves those T3 occupants from buses to cars, then it actually does nothing to solve that problem (except perhaps leave 2-3 spare seats on the bus for people now driving not busing). They are also going to make other changes (signage and other changes).
From what I gathered AT is going to be asked/requirement to survey the Remuera Road traffic annually and if traffic patterns suggest removal of T3 lanes AT will get Orakei Boards approval before making such changes.
I didn’t see the full list of whats been agreed with AT, as the agreement was put into the minutes before the meeting and voted in with some degree of haste in the meeting and not tabled in the minutes as usual – so we’ll have to wait for the Board minutes to be published to know exactly whats in the arrangement and when it will be active.
grrrrr. The local boards are not supposed to wag the AT dog. It bodes ill for long-term progress on improving public transport and changing road use in the Board’s area if they’ve got an implied veto over AT’s decisions. I doubt any other board, especially the ones south and west, will get such willing supplication.
Comment made by the Board Chair was that this was a real turnaround by AT as they were implacably opposed to the the idea of T anything lanes.
So they were pretty chuffed about the whole thing.
I did get an undertone about also AT making the HOV lanes longer through Remuera – but that was of course being opposed by the Remuera Business Association who don’t want their on street carparks removed at peak times. Gotta be able to park those Remuera Tractors somewhere right even if the PT users all suffer as a result.
Of course, doesn’t matter whether you have bus lanes or T2, T3 or even T100 lanes if you don’t (as is the case now), actually enforce them visibly and also make sure that no-one parks in them during their operation hours (as happens now), as currently they might as well not even be there as they don’t help PT or cars and only frustrate everyone for no actual PT benefit.
I actually reported on the change a while ago as it was in the last AT board meeting, my feeling is they gave in to the nagging.
Thanks Greg, interesting stuff.
The comment that tunnelling isn’t necessary at Mt Eden because the links are above ground is quite staggering. Are they really going to build an at-grade junction, like Quay Park? Surely it would be grade separated!
Not having a CRL-to-Newmarket link would appear to mean many existing trains will still need to terminate in the city, then change direction. Even if you have say the west trains running through to the eastern, that will leave all the southern and Onehunga trains having to change direction somewhere in the CBD.
Sounds like the normal backward and dysfunctional Auckland approach to planning is being applied to the CRL.
So here we are: because the MoT and their masters are so blinkered AC are proposing to chop critical elements off the CRL project. The worst idea I have heard yet is to save a small sum on the intersection at the southern portal and limit the use of the whole line to only running west. I would argue for delaying the two southern most stations in order to spread costs before limiting the routing in this way. But just delaying those stations of course. This could have the advantage of getting the line open quicker and the stations would certainly follow. I know we are in this crazy situations of having to build it to prove just how extraordinarily attractive and overwhelmed the whole network will become so I guess every trick will have to be pulled, so this is the thinking. But it but this is a critical route for a variety of running patterns and resilience on the network, like the lack of a southern option at the new Manukau Station it seem would seem to restrict the running options too much for the cost saving.
How many times do we need to explain the need for a true Network and what that requires?
Greg you beat me to the punch on that one. Had Cllr Wood and Brewer do a info “dump” off my Facebook page last night on the CRL (the bit about Rem’s Road I got from Desley Simpson which I’ll ignore). Staging the project could be worth its while and more “acceptable” to Central Government (although I would have more luck convincing a pie to do a runner than convincing Brownlee to stump up with the cash).
Seems Orakei missed the point on how the CRL benefits them – errrr try freeing up Britomart to get more trains in there with Orakei as a heavily utilised station as it stands plus able to get people out West directly as well.
Oh well lets see where they go with this staged bit for the CRL
As for the Mt Eden portal – no comment knowing The Buggers Muddle the authorities like to play
Ben true, but it’s not their fault if AT/Rainbow can’t explain to them the benefit to their community of having access to the CBD and West Auckland*, regular trains and a working rail infrastructure.
*And to the airport, East and Shore in future.
Ben,
Did you attend the Orakei Board meeting in a capacity as AT representative?
You guys all have to remember that Orakei Boards approach to PT (and trains in general) is that they are only used by the poor masses who mostly live outside the Orakei Board area (and don’t vote for them) – so the Orakei Board and residents have absolutely no real interest in what happens “down” at the Orakei Train Station (or Meadowbank, and/or GI train stations) unless heaven forbid – the park and ride is full – when **they** need to use it – then all hell breaks loose.
The board are stupid if they don’t realise the benefits of the CRL. At the moment, someone catching an Eastern Line train into the city can only get to Britomart, which really is on the very northern edge of the CBD. With the CRL all those people on the Eastern Line will have access to midtown, K Road, Newton and so forth. Vastly improved rail access to the entire city centre and beyond.
AT are pretty dumb if they didn’t point this out. Further reinforcing my concern that they only think the CRL benefits western line passengers heading to the CBD.
Peter,
Stephen Rainbow didn’t actually do AT proud IMHO, and you’re right the feeling put out by ATs presentation was that was that West Auckland is where the “action” is around PT and CRL, so of course Orakei Board don’t see the wood from the trees. Thinking about only putting the CRL to West link in and nopt the CRL to Newmarket link is plain dumb, so dumbf**k in fact I was almost speechless when I heard it from Stephen Rainbow. No matter how few dollars you think you save doing that, you will lose it many times over in the following years. I’d only agree to that is if the Govt said “Western link only or no CRL” and only then if they put a gun to AC’s head as they said it.
Currently the boards view of things are trying to get AT to add more Park And Ride around the existing stations (Orakei and Meadowbank) and also adding a new station at St Johns (they call it “Purewa” station (as its by Purewa Creek) – but the plan is for a station near the western portal of the St Johns tunnel which is what Robbies Rail had as well originally.
They don’t think that if the buses ran to the stations (in a loop) as per PTOM, then D’oh no one would need any park and rides in the first place!
They also don’t care about the travel time for all of those people further down the line. So far AT has batted away that station by saying it will cost $20m+ as it would need access roads for maintenance etc. but expect the calls to get louder once the EMUs arrive (also watch them bitch and moan when they see wires strung up along the causeway). Adding stations is something we have to be really careful about and the neighbouring local board are trying to get a Tamaki station reinstated even though Panmure is less than 1km away.
It’s incredibly Auckland to even consider this. Build an inner city rail loop, but with no stations. They arrive eventually. Still, you create the tunnel and then they have to build the stations, right?? Not building the Newmarket link is simply insane.
It’s a very real pity that the census is delayed until early 2013, and first release of population figures in late 2013, probably just before a general election. Thus, population distribution will make little difference politically until 2014, and the reallocation of seats won’t happen until before the 2016 election. At that point, Auckland will get a lot more powerful, very quickly, at the same time as population pressures make development of infrastructure both necessary and inevitable.
Blast caught in the same argument Greg pointed out [Orakei Board members (predictably and parochially) asked him “how will CRL help PT in our area”, to which Rainbow said he had no answer – as we all know it won’t on “face value” actually change much but maybe train frequency.] But this time from the Neo Liberals across the board.
Groan
And George, just wrote a blog article on this but yep I even mentioned that the CRL opens up North Shore to Newmarket, Eastern Line, Onehunga, Middlemore and oh look the Airport – the neo libs are focused on the fact the CRL only benefits to the CBD, well Aotea Station and Britomart would if they redevelop the Port as The Auckland Water-Frontier as mentioned in my blog. However the CRL benefits the entire network yet they can not see that – SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh and if you hear a bloody curdling scream from the Manukau Station this afternoon – you know I probably threw my tablet out the door after going around and around in circles drove me NUTS
Cutting stations from the build to save money will not infact do that. It will cost more to add in the stations at a later date, due to the usual things – construction inflation, additional overheads and margins, trying to maintain a running network during construction, site access, etc etc.
Also, with the complexity of excavation and construction below grade, It would seem to be most efficient to build the CRLT with the station boxes at the same time – if so, then it is only fitout costs that would be saved. I am no civil engineer, but constructing the station boxes at a later date after the completion of the tunnel would seem very difficult to me.
I’ve seen it suggested before that we could cut the station cavities and then leave them awaiting fit-out in future. I’m not sure how much money it would save, TBH, but the costs of trying to install stations once the CRL starts running would be pretty steep.
I guess that they could cut the platform spaces and finish the track-side work and then leave everything else to be done in the future. It’s work that enters into the track space which is the big issue with post-bore creation of stations, so if there’s no need to work on the tracks it’s much easier to add stations later on. That said, if the idea of having the stations filled with retail outlets comes to fruition there’s an opportunity cost of foregone rental and other income for the period in which the station remains unconstructed.
The sorts of stations I’ve seen are mostly independent of the tunnel bores which contain the platforms, the rest of the concourse, escalator and elevator shafts and the like would be dug and built separately to the main bores.