Recent Comments

Follow us on Twitter

Manukau Station Open Day Photos

I popped down to Manukau today to have a look through the station with the open day that AT held, here are my thoughts and some photos.

The main entrance is through a few shipping containers, not the most elegant but understandable considering there is a building being built over the station at the moment.

There are currently two ways to get down to the platform, as you can see everything is still very much a work in progress compared to what it should eventually look like on the right.

And here’s another view from the platform level, the escalators must be going in at a later date (the free sausage sizzle was nice although sadly I don’t think that it is a permanent feature)

Here is a view from the other end of the platform looking back towards the main set of stairs. One thing I was pleased with was that the shelters extended almost all of the way down the platform, only the part in the foreground of the right image was uncovered. A train was also put on doing runs back and forth along the line to Puhinui Station but one thing I couldn’t understand was why they put on they did it with one of the oldest and noisiest trains in the fleet, surely an SA set would have been a better look.

Now for my criticisms, as the picture below shows, at the bottom of the stairs there is an open area similar to Britomart. This means that if we ever woke up to idea of extending the line towards Botany we would probably be prevented from doing so due to the station design, at the very least it would be incredibly costly to fix this issue meaning it is likely to never be able to happen.

The other main concern is something I have raised before and that is the location, this is the image that greets people when they exit the station, a sea of carparks. Those carparks should eventually be redeveloped but who knows how many years away that will be.

While out there I also popped up the road to the other major AT project happening in the area at the moment, something I have heard described as the biggest PT project after the electrification works. This is the first of two multi story carparks that are being built which is intended to allow for the land in the image above to be released for development. I can understand the strategy and agree that it is better in a building than spread out at ground level but I am concerned that if the ground level parking is not removed as soon as this opens it will become expected that this is just in addition to what exists now. The problem would be than when redevelopment occurs locals will expect even more parking to be replaced. AT have also talked about some of the space in this building being used as a Park n Ride and setting aside the issue of having a Park n Ride in a built up area like this, the building is about 250m away from the station. While not that far to walk, that time has to be added to the rest of the journey time which would probably make it easier just to stay in the car and drive all of the way.

And here is an image which shows the car park in relation to the station.

52 comments to Manukau Station Open Day Photos

  • Ben

    Thanks Matt for the Photos – you go up and down on the ADK shuttle as well?

  • Andrew J

    Put simply Matt, an SA was not used as none of the SA drivers are trained on the branch, so they can’t take an SA down there!

  • Well all very last century thinking in terms of siting: We are sacrificing open space instead of carparks, but more critically it stops short of both the shopping centre and Rainsbows End. And it’s not just the extra walk that matters, it’s also cover from the elements and the priority that this signals. Shame. MIT could still be built on the airspace over the tracks and would still be really close to the station’s western entrance, but those other destinations would also be right there.

    Furthermore it is important to reduce carparking at every opportunity so that what remains get’s priced properly for the land waste that it is.

    Still it’s an exciting addition, just not as good as it should be. Hope it is more future proofed than it appears to be… look forward to riding down there…..

  • Publius

    How long are the platforms?
    Why was an island platform not used especially as it’s a dead end? Surely the train won’t go out empty to the points to reposition itself on the other platform?

    • Matt L

      They are about 170m long using a measurement tool on the councils GIS maps (it has more up to date images than google maps). As to why not using and Island platform, I can’t answer that but have thought the same question.

  • Luke E

    On the little excursion trip they did, I could see what appeared to be space for a track South. Yet I heard everyone saying it’s silly there isn’t a southern connection. So what’s the deal? Are they planning on putting in one eventually, or what? Surely it can’t cost much extra to lay down the tracks on that bit that’s already been prepared for them?

    • Matt L

      Yes the NZTA left space under the motorway for a link to the south except it hasn’t been built and since then Kiwirail have also built a concrete hardstand for their inland port along with the sidings for it over the path of the track. Sure it could be fixed but at what cost and who pays?

    • Yup, just needs track, the financial pressure that PT infrastructure projects are constantly under leads to this kind of nonsensical corner cutting in Auckland. Compare and contrast with Motorway spending….

      • Geoff

        AFAIK it was Ontrack and NZTA who decided to provide the south formation to future-proof it, and Ontrack included this connection in their inland port sidings design, by having the hardstand further south, and a diamond crossing of the port track with the south triangle track. When ARTA showed no interest in using it, KiwiRail shifted the hardstand and sidings further north. So now we have the situation of NZTA having spent $15m+ building a railway formation, KiwiRail blocking its future development, and AT ignoring the whole thing because it doesn’t lead to Britomart.

  • Well, once passenger numbers swell up and people coming from the south wanting to go to Manukau or coming from Manukau and wanting to go south, complain bitterly in numbers, about the inconvenience of having to change trains at Puhinui and wait, wait, wait for a connection train, then pressure will be brought to bear and money will be found to correct what should have been done properly in the first place! Makes the Onehunga platform length stuff-up look like a walk in the park in comparison mind…

    • bbc

      The Onehunga platform length was not a stuff up, waiting for the planning consent for a much longer platform to come through would have meant delaying the opening even longer. So they built the shorter one, and AFAIK that has been completely sufficient for what has been running there. Now that the permission is through the longer platform it will be extended to accomodate the EMUs – which it should be pointed out won’t be running for a couple of years yet. I don’t see the big deal.

      What is most disappointing about Manukau is that it was merely the amount of $10 million that would have been needed to extend it into the mall, this is the sort of money NZTA uses to buy toilet paper, and would have been produced in a flash if a motorway needed some widening. How much was spent again widening the Southern motorway after the Manukau motorway started causing congestion where it merged? From memory $100-200 million.

      There is an absolute sea of carparking between the station and the former Manukau City Council building – is this all council land? Seems amazing that the government claims Auckland is running out of land for development in the existing MUL and yet we have areas like this that could probably house a few thousand people in terraced housing right next to a direct connection to downtown. Time for the council to take the lead and start doing development itself (although in a few months National’s local government downsizing bill will probably ban them from doing it).

      • Yes bbc this is a tragedy, train users heading to the mall or Rainbows End will have to trudge past parked cars to get to their destinations. 10 mil!? What did that non-ramp in Freemans Bay cost? I fear it was one of those arguments where all the agencies stood around saying ‘you have to pay for it’ I vaguely remember a vote at the old Manukau Council refusing to chip in…. Doh! They could still have their precious parking on top.

        Perfect example of how far we have to go yet: How much is that parking building costing us? Yet three cost cutting decisions at this station seriously undermine its viability:

        1. Stops short of integration with key patronage drivers
        2. No southern connection greatly limiting service pattern and reducing catchment (at least this can be fixed)
        3. Design seems to limit future extension of line (is this the case, or has it been allowed for anyone know?)

        • St Nick

          Looks like theres more car parking area around the mall than actual building area! In a perfect world, it would be great to bring the station right into the mall carpark, underground maybe half of that carparking – then you’ve got half as much land area taken up by cars. Therefore you’ve just created heaps more central land to build on.. You have to look at the positives I guess, its been a good project, but not great.

      • Ben

        [What is most disappointing about Manukau is that it was merely the amount of $10 million that would have been needed to extend it into the mall, this is the sort of money NZTA uses to buy toilet paper, and would have been produced in a flash if a motorway needed some widening. How much was spent again widening the Southern motorway after the Manukau motorway started causing congestion where it merged? From memory $100-200 million.

        There is an absolute sea of carparking between the station and the former Manukau City Council building – is this all council land? Seems amazing that the government claims Auckland is running out of land for development in the existing MUL and yet we have areas like this that could probably house a few thousand people in terraced housing right next to a direct connection to downtown. Time for the council to take the lead and start doing development itself (although in a few months National’s local government downsizing bill will probably ban them from doing it).]

        Sorry quoting at length here so I can draw my remarks
        I hear you very loud and clear bbc in regards to your quote. I have called Councillor Quax out on this more than once and reminded him publically what his penny-pinching did to Manukau Station. Manukau is good but she does have short comings.
        Josh I know you still check here as admin – however I am posting a link of mine to show a PDF embedd of a FB debate I had with Quax over Manukau and commentary around that including a graphic. But those not inclined in clicking here was the answer I gave back to Quax and the CnR boys (Not Fletcher as I have a more respected opinion of Fletcher (and Wood) then I do with the other CnR’s in regards to Manukau for the moment):

        Ok two questions to which I will respond separately: I would agree with you there Michael – but mainly due to short comings. MIT will be built over the top of Manukau Rail Station so least there will be an anchor “customer” right above it. However that $6.12m to get the tunnel to the South End Entrance of the Mall is not prohibitive if the plan was done properly. The tunnel goes to the South End Mall which attracts both commercial and more to the point shoppers in the offpeak and weekends which help make the station viable (like Sylvia Park). Westfield with a bit of incentive would of most likely ripped up the south car park and develop it like the North End where you have a two level car park, plus farmers extended and the movies. Done really well the south end has the rail station and bus station in the basement, car parking on ground level and level one, retail on level two and offices/apartments for levels three through to six and maybe a sky roof garden on level seven. Done super well there would of been a sky bridge over Wiri now Manukau Station Road to the courts and rainbows end for the pedestrians. But no… Oh well – stuck with it now might as well do with what we have.

        Oh the link http://voakl.net/2012/04/08/manukau-station/

  • Simon C

    Yes Patrick. I complained bitterly, particularly about there being no southern connection on the thread before covering the Manukau station. It just seems to be a habit in Auckland of not doing new projects the 100% (Although I was aware of the need for a shorter platform at Onehunga before getting resource concent for a longer one).

    We have Britomart with only two rail lines into the station and are now talking of spending 2+ billion dollars to rectify that though granted there are a lot of extra things like further CBD penetration and development we get with that but how much would have cost just to have at the least a third line into Britomart and have the extra capacity now anyway???

    We have Newmarket which already has trains waiting outside the station because the junction can’t handle the increased train movements when the original plan included an extra connection into the station from the north of the station that would have given more options and was included in the price of the Newmarket station redevelopment.

    Now Manukau…It just seems to go on and on. It’s one thing to make a mistake once, but to keep making the same mistake and show a real lack of vision and understanding of what the project requires to realise its full potential in the future again and again just beggars belief!

  • bbc

    @Simon – it’s nothing to do with a habit in Auckland not doing projects 100%, but rather because of the continuing opposition of central government to fully funding these projects. Britomaty was lucky to have been built at all, and at a time when the rail network was almost dead, Banks bent over backwards to cancel it, luckily to no avail. I also disagree that the CRL in any way could have been avoided if Britomart had three tracks going into it, it’s about more than just increasing the capacity of Britomart.

    I agree with your gist that there’s a lack of funding but I think it’s unfair to those people doing the best they can with the limited money they have available to them. I’m sure the designers of Britomart would have loved to have made it 6 tracks, but who was going to stump up the money? Cristian Fletcher should be congratulated for what she achieved, not told she lacked vision. It was only the vision of people like her that Auckland even has a rail network today. The Auckland of today has a vision and Len Brown, the current council and the Auckland Plan has articulated it time and time again, but because of a anti-urban view of central government there’s no funding to actually carry it out. There are some great people in council at present and in AT – but they simply have no way to actually do what they would like to do and what most of them were voted in on.

    • Greg N

      …there’s no funding to actually carry it out. There are some great people in council at present and in AT – but they simply have no way to actually do what they would like to do and what most of them were voted in on.

      Not criticising the current people at AC/AT on this, but when has any half decent transport plan in Auckland not had this hurdle of lack of funding to overcome?

      Seems its the ongoing issue here.
      Granted there are austerity conditions today, but I can’t actually recall a time when funding constraints didn’t exist even when the times were good – for transport projects in Auckland. Theres always a good reason to delay the spend and never a compelling enough event to justify doing it properly.

      Britomart was approved and built in a similar “slump” period so we got a half-arsed solution then in the guise of “well its better than nothing”.

      Which is true, but oh how so much better could the outcome have been with just a little more forward thinking in the finance department.
      And we still don’t have proper bus facilities around Britomart which were supposed to be part of the plan for giving up the old “Britomart bus terminal” for use as part of the Britomart redevelopment.

      Actually, when you come to consider it, the Government of the day when Britomart was built, and the one now, were similar in their beliefs (market knows best etc etc) so 20 years on you have to ask, whats actually changed if “Auckland Inc” has to go cap in hand each time to the central government for approval for these projects – and who will say no as likely as not.

      And we see the same pattern emerging now with Manukau Station, no southern line link, possibly no CRL eastern link and maybe only 1 station initially.
      Yet more half arsed “better than nothing” solution for which we will pay and pay and pay in the future – whether those future times are good or bad.

      Also I can see the day coming in about 18 months when the EMUs are coming on-stream that CAF will make an offer to AT to add more EMUs to the current 57 order for a knockdown price (especially if CAF can then keep their production line running a couple of months more and knock out some more EMUs to keep their production line and workers fully employed).

      We’d be fools not to consider that possibility and plan for it – the way PT demand is going I feel that we may have to get 40 doubled up EMUs just to get the through put at Britomart we’re going to need until the CRL is there and doing that would require a lot more EMUs than the 57 we got coming now.
      (and thats before we’ve got the first one in service).

      As I recall we were offered an extra frigate or two on the end of the ANZAC class build run for similar reasons and took one at quite a saving over the original buy prices. EMUs could well turn out the same.

  • JeffT

    Hear hear Bbc. Criticism in blogs is in no way meant against the fine men and women striving to achieve a better mix of transport facilities for the public. Their effort and work is greatly appreciated by all.

    • Yes +1000. I have personally thanked Christine Fletcher…. How is she balancing her membership of the opposing side of the Council with support for Len’s PT programme now?

      The reason to keep on the disappointing details of these otherwise exciting new improvements is to try to make sure we do better in the future. More a lover than a hater of this!

  • Gary Young

    I wonder if a parallel can be drawn with the 1930′s rebuild and re-siting of Auckland’s main station. That was positioned just a bit too far from the CBD to make the walk into town attractive to customers and rail patronage just fell away in the years that followed.

    I hope the positioning of Manukau’s station does not turn out to be just that bit too far to make it attractive to potential customers, especially users of the shopping mall.

    I worry that this will turn out to be a plan which looked grand on paper but is only half-baked in implementation.

  • Ben

    Well least it has become apparent to a Councillor the lack of a South-to-Papakura Link on Twitter on the Manukau Line. Sorry had to chuckle “Manukau Branch line: Site of the missing south link? Whoever left this out? http://lockerz.com/s/201432446

    Dear oh dear

    • Greg N

      And to which council(lor) controlled organisations do we the thanks for this cock up?
      Manukau CC, ARTA, AC, AT?

    • Why exactly is it a cock up?

      The southern links were planned and allowed for in the design of the infrastructure, just not built. They can be built when there is funding for it and demand to run such services. I don’t think a corner of hard stand is an issue to chop off. If you wan’t to moan about something moan about the single track link north. That currently limits to about three trains an hour… but likewise that can be upgraded when they have enough trains and a timetable that supports more than three trains an hour!

      You guys need to realise that the council (existing and past) have good planners and good strategies, just very limited funding. They do what they can when they can, even if that isn’t the ideal solution from day one.

      • Ben

        Nick with respect (and I am serious) it is a cock up and it was the politicians who caused the cock up front, left, right and centre. Funding was never an issue with Manukau, Centre Right penny pinching was.

        The Planners had it (semi) right (Wiri is another matter), the money was there but the political will was not in this case.
        Nick I do implore you contact Matt L on Wiri Inland Port ok. There is more to the entire Manukau situation that meets the eye and it more than chopping of a corner.

        So we are “moaning” about a very VERY legitimate cause ok.

  • Bryce

    I acknowledge that it is not how it ‘should’ have been done but the map on the VOAKL site shows that an alignment down Redoubt Rd with a station under-ground, wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility in the future and would add the possibilty of exits on both sides of the road.

  • Simon C

    @BBC, jefft et al My criticism is not of Christine Fletcher, Mike Lee et al who many times on another blog I have shown my appreciation for getting Britomart built and I have commented that many an Aucklander who voted her out of the mayoralty owes her an apology. I also fully understand there’s limited funding.

    It’s not the politicians funnily enough I am critical of, it’s the planning beaurucrats that have continually underestimated what is required for the project to be fully succesful or even how successful the project would be – Onehunga line re-opening is an example of that. And as I said in Newmarket Station’s case, the extra link was funded for anyway, and was also in the plan for the station precinct redevelopment. The latest “problem” looks like it might be that the CRL junction at the Mt Eden portal for the CRL may be built only westwards facing. Hopefully that will turn out to be just a nasty rumour if and when the CRL is built. As many posters commented on that thread, to have only a westwards-facing link at that junction would be a disaster. but as I say, unfortunately there seems to be some form when it comes to these things.

    Further, when it comes to Britomart, let me tell you about a certain conversation I had. I was working in the lower CBD at the time and naturally took an interest in the project. One lunch time I happened to see one of the project architects. I asked him if I could ask a few Qs. He agreed and I said I was worried that only two lines into a station with 5 platforms wouldn’t cut it because I thought with a station finally right in the CBD itself, many more people than before would take the trains into the city. He said that the modelling that had been done to show two lines would be sufficient for fifty years (I kid you not!). I replied that if I was a betting man it wouldn’t take ten years for there to be capacity issues and we agreed to disagree. There you have it.

    BTW, my post before acknowledged that Britomart capacity wasn’t the only reason or positive that comes with the CRL. I’m all for it. But Britomart capacity is the reason the CRL idea first sprung up again a two-three years ago. And that capacity issue is not only the result of funding what I acknowledge was a very unpopular project amongst many short-sighted Aucklanders but also one, which my conversation with a project architect shows above, that suffered from underestimating the requirements needed for the project.

  • Simon C

    BBC If we had the extra capacity now into Britomart, we could also be looking at network expansion like the Mangere (much needed for the seriously PT deprived people in that suburb – see the remarks from a poster in the How do you and your workmates get to work thread)- Airport line much sooner than we are.

  • Simon C

    Nick, is having side platforms that are going to require more demolition at the end of the station rather than an island platform that would’ve allowed the tracks to be more easily extended in the case where the line possibly (and hopefully)is extended further on into the Manukau centre an example of that great planning?

    • I’ve got no idea why they made them side platforms, it isn’t even very good for a terminal station. That really boggles me.

      As for expansion, well there simply isn’t any rail east of Manukau Station on any plan or agenda anywhere. What is on the plan is a busway to Botany, and that is well planned for with the bus interchange.

      Again we can’t have all the miracle perfect stuff from the start, it has to be one step at a time.

  • Simon C

    Oh and Nick, if we’re talking funding, since it’s likely in my estimation that many of the potential passengers for trips into the Manukau Station will come from south of the station one would think that funding would be driven by best possible outcomes, no? Certainly I hope that when the MIT building is completed and it comes into operation that the southern link is built and we get services ex Papakura to there rather than saying, sorry we put the money into building the station but you have to take an indirect route, but what the hey, you can still take the bus.

    • Ben

      Agreed there 100% Simon :)

    • You do realise this station wasn’t really designed to get people to Manukau right? The purpose is primarily to serve as a bus feeder node for wider Manukau residents to access rapid transit to the central city.

      Now that seems to be a strategic fail to me, I agree, but it might pay to keep that context in mind. All they are trying to do now is get people onto the train *from* Manukau.

      • Simon C

        Nick I know that’s the thinking behind the project and I totally think it’s a strategic fail which means we don’t get the optimum result from the money spent on new infrastructure. It’s great we’ve got new rail infrastructure in Auckland, a pity it’s been set up with the wrong aim in mind.

        It’s like Glen said, definitely better than nothing but it could be so much more! And yes, we could possibly make it more in the future but again as Glen said, at more of a cost than if we’d planned it better first time around. But I concede that if your aim is different to start with(from what many posters here would see the reason and justification for having a Manukau Station is) it’s mighty difficult to envision and prepare for the kind of opportunities that might present themselves. And to quote Glen again, we pay, pay, pay later for that strategic failure.

        I don’t expect it to be perfect from day one but I do hope that enough thought has been placed around the project so that extensions or amenments can be made without as much hindrance as possible. And it says something when you start having issues with new infrastructure WITHIN a decade of it being built (Britomart capacity) or again WITHIN two years of a project being completed (trains waiting outside Newmarket to enter).

        Look I’m sorry to be so negative about Manukau. It’s just many of us can see this Station as a piece of infrastructure that could offer so many opportunities to transform (and there’s a word that’s been bandied about on this forum a lot recently!) PT and attitudes to PT in South Auckland and we just don’t want that opportunity to go begging or to fail in such a way that it reinforces the negative perceptions that a lot of people in Auckland do still have about PT (despite a slow and continual positive shift in attitudes in the last decade).

        • Greg N

          Simon C,
          I think you mean me (Greg) when you refer to Glen in your quotes.

          Anyway, I too agree on your comments re: when we build PT infrastructure which is supposed to last 20-50 years and after 10 is suffering from serious design constraints.

          The Newmarket trains waiting issue is a new one to me, but if we are getting this issue now, then thats a real concern and to paraphrase someone “you ain’t seen nothing yet (with PT usage)” – wait til those EMUs start running and see the network constraints come home to roost.

          Then you’ll have a bun fight all round, the public will say to AT “you spent 1.5b of our money on new trains that can’t do their job properly as you didn’t make allowances for them 3 years ago when you upgraded the rail network?”.
          And the government of the day will say to AC and AT – “See! – we told you so, trains won’t work – add more roads to your PT diet immediately please, and no more trains for you until you can make the current ones work better.”.

          As for Manukau, its great there is a station now, but to echo Nick Rs comment I too noticed that there is only 1 track joining the mainline not two. And I am aware that overbuilding too much “stuff” (like the southern link on day 1) which sits idle for 2 years is not a good look on its own and usually raises questions about priorities of spending in the high places. But the thing here is that it seems that not only did we not build the southern link, we also failed to act to preserve a clear path for the southern link and now KR has built over the railpath possibly closing that option off or at the very least, requiring $m more to be spent rectifying something that could so easily have been avoided up front.

          And also noted we did the overbuild thing more than once when we built the CMJ, there was that huge concrete white elephant of the NW/Northern motorway junction structure sitting unused under southern end of K’Rd for years. When the then MoW were queried about it in the late ’80 by reporters, they said “it will be needed in some form eventually, so its way cheaper to do it while we had the construction teams working on the other parts than doing it later on – even if not all of it will be used”. So, overbuilding road links is ok to save future costs, but seems its not allowed in PT?

          But to me the thing that really grates my gears is the shear waste of opportunity we had to put the station all the way to Manukau Shopping Centre due to the cost of $6.5m of doing so and that is a real tragedy.

          I predict that what will eventually happen is that AT will have to put in dual travelators (horizontal escalators) from the shopping centre to the station via an underground tunnel, at a cost way more than that figure quoted for putting the trains there in the first place. And if it is as it seems, its all due to Cr Quax not believing in Manukau station PT project for which he is on record as saying “Manukau station is a boondoggle”. Then thats just an outright case of a local politician playing Russian Roulette with the wider AC public purse to get himself re-elected. Hardly the kind of vision we want, expect or need from our politicians now Auckland is 1 city.

  • andy t

    In regards to the future proofing of the public transport infrastructure works – discussion that seems to be occurring here. I put together the following discussion.

    While I am not particularly familiar with transportation planning (and perhaps a little naïve – this may have already been discussed and discounted or currently being work on). I wonder whether a dedicated program to improve the PT network in Auckland would a possible alternative to the current process where projects are developed & funded on a case by case basis with individual BCRs etc… i.e. A costed program of infrastructure upgrades to achieve a targeted PT Level Of Service (LOS) (e.g. x million PT trips per year by 2060) is approved by the Council & Government – which guarantees constant funding for the length of the program – and allows the transport planners to actually plan confidently (and more cost effectively).

    This hopefully moves away from approval of individual projects, which I suspect cannot often be assessed in isolation anyway, as they are part of a wider network (this network point is key to the fact that a program is required). In addition this may reduce the political interference in the transit planning process, as each individual project developed as part of the program is not subject to same political scrutiny as it is inherently part of the program. In addition the program is not tied to specific projects as its goal is to achieve the LOS by a certain date, how this is achieved is up to the transit planners – therefore as technologies / growth predications change the program can be adapted – or hopefully as the program matures it becomes ‘optimised’.

    Further potentially getting a program sold to the public (and approved by the council and government) could be easier, as it would involve a more generic discussion on the pros / cons of PT to Auckland (and not argument of the whether a specific project is viable such as the CRL (I have had many discussions with people whom are supportive of PT but doubt the effectiveness of the CRL)). It would also involve extensive public consultation to define the public appetite to fund (plus sources of this funding) a desired level of service. In the preliminary planning process a cost vs Level Of Service (LOS) would be developed to estimate the best ‘bang for buck’ – where I guess a key part of this would be identify the cost of the status quo funding regime and associated LOS and would hopefully demonstrate, for example, that by spending 50% more we get 4? times the benefit.

    I guess an example of transit improvement program, though not quite as formalised as I am thinking, would be Auckland’s motorway network which has been constructed over 50 years. It seems to me that the natural progression for Auckland will be construction of PT system which will require the government / council to show a similar level of commitment and I would like to think a program would achieve this most efficiently both in terms of financial cost and political bargaining i.e. the fight’s had up front and as openly as possible.

    • Matt

      I have had many discussions with people whom are supportive of PT but doubt the effectiveness of the CRL

      That’s a failure by AT/AC to articulate clearly what the CRL is really about. Every time the word “loop” appears in a forum I frequent, I politely ask the writer to use “link” because it’s not a loop!
      The CRL cannot fail to be effective, because it’ll more than double the capacity of the network and shave between 10 and 25 minutes off journeys using the Western Line. Those two things alone are metrics that will absolutely nail the value of the Link, never mind that we’ll never be able to add more peak services to Britomart ever again if we don’t build it. Without it, there’ll be no new rail lines, anywhere.
      AT/AC need to spend some money on a clear campaign to explain the benefits of the CRL’s construction, because if people aren’t convinced it’ll be effective it’ll never happen under another Mayor.

      • andy t

        I guess the point i was trying to make, was that AC/AT should be campaigning on what the future PT network will deliver and the benefits to auckland and hopefully by gaining acceptance of this – The CRL will just be, although critical, another project on the way to achieving this.

      • Greg N

        The CRL cannot fail to be effective, because it’ll more than double the capacity of the network and shave between 10 and 25 minutes off journeys using the Western Line. Those two things alone are metrics that will absolutely nail the value of the Link …

        Don’t disagree with those comments. Its a pity that the MoT and NZTA studies don’t agree with the value of those metrics though.

        …never mind that we’ll never be able to add more peak services to Britomart ever again if we don’t build it. Without it, there’ll be no new rail lines, anywhere.

        The only way to get more people in and out of Britomart from now on will be to make the trains longer.
        For DMUs thats not possible, and for SA/SDs I don’t think they can be made longer either.

        When the EMUs arrive, we can do that by doubling the length of the trains (into 6 car EMUs) which halves the planned EMU fleet if you do that. And that means longer term you will need more EMUs at how many $100s of millions in total?

        This should start to make the finance people sit up and take notice, that either with or without CRL we are doomed to spend hundreds of millions more to make what we have work, and its up to AC and AT to make the case to Central Govt for ensuring that those extra funds are put to good use and not wasted patching up the half built system simply due to political expendiency or reaching a GDP surplus 6 months sooner.

        AT/AC need to spend some money on a clear campaign to explain the benefits of the CRL’s construction, because if people aren’t convinced it’ll be effective it’ll never happen under another Mayor.

        AC/AT need to get the NoRs underway first on the route (which they’re doing), and then start educating the affected route owners, public and Govt as to why the CRL is needed can be the next step.

        By my reckoning this time next year is a good time to start the education campaign to dovetail with the upcoming council elections in 2013 and to ensure that the Govt is listening and acting in time for its own 2014 elections (assuming we don’t have a change of Govt before then).

        • Matt L

          One thing to note is that we should have enough EMUs to run 6 car trains on most runs. With the correct timetabling we will see all trains arriving in the key peak hour being double EMUs (with the exception of Onehunga) with the few runs done by single EMUs occuring in the shoulder or off peak. In terms of cost, each EMU is about $7m a piece and I know that AT has options to extend the order above 57 should they need to.

  • Geoff

    Regarding the missed transfers between Manukau and Newmarket services at Otahuhu, it appears they have put the Manukau-Britomart train 4 minutes behind the Papakura-Newmarket train so that Papakura service passengers can transfer to the Eastern, which was always the case with the old timetable. Really what they need to do is hold the first train at Otahuhu until the second catches up, to enable transfers both ways.

    Of course if the Wiri triangle southern link were put in, they could just run the Papakura train via Manukau and problem solved. Post-electrification EMU’s will be able to zip in and out of there fairly quickly.

  • Greg N

    Of course if the Wiri triangle southern link were put in, they could just run the Papakura train via Manukau and problem solved. Post-electrification EMU’s will be able to zip in and out of there fairly quickly.

    Exactly, why having the southern link at Manukau is so important as it gives you options…

  • Don

    Just been looking at the new station on the map. I had heard about it, but for the first time I can see it is conveniently located in a park surrounded by dual carriageway roads that separates it from Manukau mall, the council, from Rainbows End, any residential housing, any other shops, any places of employment … next to a new ‘road of national significance’? You don’t think that maybe somebody doesn’t want this to be a success?

    • Hard to conclude otherwise……

      But may be more incompetence and especially compromise.

      • SteveC

        hard to conclude otherwise until the facts come into the equation as maps and aerial photos can be a bit deceptive, the majority of the wider Manukau metropolitan centre employment area is low density big box retail, however, if you take into account the old MCC offices which are occupied by Auckland Council and AT staff, the office blocks along Putney Way and the higher density retail of the Westfield Mall (relative to the big box stuff between Ronwood Ave and Cavendish Drive) then around 8,000 jobs or 84% of metro centre employment (1996 Census) is within a 5 minute walk of the station

        with the MIT development above the station and development proposed above the forthcoming bus station on the adjacent open air car park, the picture isn’t as grim as you both suggest, yes the Manukau centre as a whole is a desloate, car dependent wasteland, but the station is pretty well placed to anchor some worthwhile development

        I don’t know if the link will work, but have a look at Putney Way in streetview, 6-8 story office blocks, all tenanted when I was doing fieldwork in the area

        https://maps.google.co.nz/maps?hl=en&lr=&cr=&safe=images&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Putney%20Way%2C%20Manukau%22&sa=N&tab=wl

  • Starsim

    Wish it would have come up underneath Manukau Shopping Mall or close to it… Close to Rainbows End maybe? but it gets off in the middle of No Where… But at least we finally got a train station now aye, before I would have to go to Puhinui to catch a train but I live by the Manukau Velodrome.

    I’m sure there is a lot more construction left to do but I think there biggest challenge would be to somehow connect the Manukau train station to the Manukau Shopping Mall.

    Get people to purposefully catch to train into Manukau to do shopping or see a movie.

Leave a Reply