Promoting transport solutions

Gridlock traffic has long been the number one complaint about Auckland. With the roads only set to get busier, the Auckland Council will need to find sustainable transport solutions, while making sure our neighbourhoods are protected.

Cameron has worked effectively with the New Zealand Transport Authority, the Automobile Association, rail authorities, public transport providers and advocates. He is committed to leading the charge on addressing local transport issues.

This is after the article congratulating himself and other retrogrades like Ken Baguley for getting the bus lanes on Remuera Rd downgraded to uselessness.

But enough on political game playing; there really is nothing duller, the interesting point is not that Brewer is going to spend the next year painting the CRL as black as he can but rather that his current complaint exactly expresses the reverse of what I believe the Council ought to be doing with the CRL. Here is his big idea:

Orakei councillor Cameron Brewer yesterday said it was crazy to spend $112 million in the coming financial year on land purchases for the rail loop when it had no funding certainty.

Well of course buying property is a really exchanging one asset for another, so not really ‘crazy’ unless a particularly poor deal is made. And here’s the thing, transit stations transform land use and value positively, so the Council is in a strong position to make good deals through the purchases around the CRL. Two of the financially most successful transit systems in world, in Hong Kong and Tokyo achieve this success through the very act of investing in and developing property around subway stations. A recent article at Atlantic Cities on the Tokyo system begins with this observation:

Twice during my recent trip to Tokyo, once at Shibuya and again in a suburb to the west of the city, I exited a subway platform only to find myself swaddled in a massive department store. This was the Tokyu store.

Really innovative councillors, especially from the supposedly business savvy right, should be pointing out the investment opportunities for the Council Property CCO especially around Aotea station and at the Downtown Centre that the CRL offers. The article continues:

…the Tokyu Corporation. Established in 1922 as a regional development company, Tokyu today is a massive “rail-based conglomerate” of nearly 400 companies that employs 30,000 people, only a tenth of which work directly for the railway. Beginning in the 1930s Tokyu surrounded its hubs with commercial and retail buildings and sold land near its intermediate stations to universities at good prices, to create reliable residential (and thus passenger) corridors.

My compliant with the Council is not that it shouldn’t buy property where it intends to change that property’s value through transport initiatives but rather that the Property CCO seems rather lacklustre and lacking in sufficient energy to maximise these opportunities. I guess it doesn’t get any such lead from the Council itself.

No surprise as we certainly don’t seem to be blessed with much quality from the C&R ticket. I am most disappointed with Councillor Fletcher, to whom all Aucklanders owe a debt of gratitude for the construction of Britomart, as she is reported as observing:

C&R leader Christine Fletcher said the time was not right for a big budget and a big spend-up.

Well Sydney built much of its metro in the Great Depression, and in many ways it is the perfect time, interest rates are low, especially for local authorities, the construction industry is largely idle, the city and country needs investment in game changing infrastructure, and property can be easily bought. And we are only talking about getting ready to start the real work later which gives a few years for things to change in Wellington.

Newmarket Station ©Patrick Reynolds 2010

When it comes to Newmarket station though, one sore point since it opened has been station square which has a number of issues, one of which is below.

Station Square exit to Broadway

A report to the Waitamata local board  (in the same agenda as the Fort St report) looks at what the issues are and what some solutions are to fix them up. Here is what some of the report had to say:

Newmarket Station Square was purchased to provide a space that could function as a mixture of:

• a transition and waiting space for rail passengers;
• a civic square for community activities and events;
• a public open space area for respite from the busyness of the commercial streets;
• a pleasant outlook and “backyard” for local high rise residents, while retaining its public use, look and feel.

However, Station Square has faced challenges in becoming what was envisaged following its opening early in 2010 and has a number of fundamental design issues. The space is isolated from surrounding streets with little visible reference to the adjacent shopping centre. There exists a conflict of public/private interests created by private development forming the built edge to Station Square.  The design is barren, uninviting and uninteresting, and there are severe restrictions on the amount and positioning of any fixed elements as Station Square sits over a car park roof.

Newmarket is a very busy station with thousands of students and commuters waiting in and walking through Station Square at certain times during the working week. Station Square’s visitors are mainly transient, making their way to or from a train or apartment. The most visible exception to this is the use of Station Square by young people on weekday afternoons as a gathering space, while they wait for trains after school finishes.

and

Given its location behind Broadway and fronting the Newmarket rail station, Station Square is a key open space for Newmarket. As a business centre, Newmarket continues to grow rapidly, outstripping other retail centres and operating as a strong retail and shopping magnet. The population of Newmarket town centre is growing rapidly, thanks to the construction of new apartment buildings, of which the L&Y development adjoining Station Square is one example.

This significant growth in population will continue to place pressure on the relatively small amount of open space available within walking distance of the Newmarket town centre. Major projected business growth in Newmarket will continue to attract more shoppers and workers into the town centre, who want open spaces and parks for lunch and relaxation, putting even more pressure on the available open space.

Modelling suggests that 3000 commuters will alight at Newmarket during the morning peak by 2016, with 800 of these exiting the station at one time in the busiest 10-minute period. It is estimated that 50-80% of commuters exiting the rail station will do so via the link out to Broadway. The majority of buses travel along Broadway and the town centre is most easily accessed by this link, hence most transfers are and will continue to be via the Broadway walkway.

And here are some of the recommendations to improve the square, the most costly of which is the first one but it is perhaps the most important (I’m not going to put the all of the recommendations up simply due to the size of some of them.

 1. Visibility and legibility

1.1. Improve access and signage

There are two designated pedestrian links giving access to Station Square in addition to the main concourse into the upper level of the railway station, which provides a direct and secure covered access from Remuera Road into the station. These are illegible entries with very poor amenity on both the Remuera Road and Broadway entry points.  Visitors from Broadway will walk past the backs of buildings, service alleyways razor wire and poorly lit dog-legs before arriving at Station Square.

However, this walkway will be in use until the widening and development of the access. Auckland Council approved funding by committee of $700,000 in 2011 towards the necessary relocation of the existing toilets and to redevelop shops 29 and 30, which are retained in council ownership. Negotiations have been completed with the owner of the property on Broadway but still awaiting legal confirmation.

Meanwhile, better signage is needed to signal the access ways to Station Square and then on to the station.  The Newmarket Business Association has some suggestions for this. The upgrade of lighting along the walkways is also recommended.

Options for improvement:

• Develop the access way to Station Square from Broadway as soon as the deal is completed between Council and the owner.
• Improve entry signage to Station Square.  Suggestions have been made to the Local Board by the Newmarket Business Association to install signage.
• Upgrade lighting along access ways including catenary lighting.

1.2. Improve sightlines and surveillance

There are no clear lines of sight between Station Square and outside streets as all accesses are dog-legged, contributing to the impression of isolation.

The balconies of the surrounding apartments that overlook Station Square on three sides, together with the few tenanted shops on the ground floor, provide intermittent passive surveillance. However, the solid concrete canopy over the shops denies any real connection between the residents and people in Station Square.

The railway station has security cameras that are monitored at Britomart Transport Centre by Auckland Transport. The CCTV coverage only includes a small area outside the station at the bottom of the steps into the square. There are no security cameras in the general square vicinity.  The few bench seats in the corner are insufficient to provide ongoing natural surveillance and encourage the necessary activity to relieve the space of its barren emptiness.

Suggestions for improvements

• Design of the new Broadway exit creates a direct line of sight into Station Square from Broadway
• Ambassadors for Station Square and to develop and support positive relationships between retailers, residents and visitors, paid for by Council.
• CCTV installed to cover the Remuera Road and Broadway exits and the open area of Station Square

2. Activate the square

2.1. Work with local business association to bring in appropriate retail activities

Suggestions for improvement:

• Work with the Newmarket Business Association to encourage retail development that will provide activity and colour on the reserve edge and enliven the space.
• Work with businesses to design a market that works within the weight limits

2.2. Activation

Suggestions for improvement:

• Make Station Square into an arts area
• Programme activities in Station Square that target youth
• Bring in more soft landscaping as part of Station Square

3. Amenity and design improvements

Green Station Square and create seating spaces

There is a seating area in the southwestern corner close to the shops but there is no other amenity to encourage apartment residents or the public to use Station Square for recreation.

Station Square is a designated open space and the potential exists for developing an ‘oasis’ in the town centre for the recreation and relaxation of visitors and workers. Station Square sits over an underground carpark, leading to severe restrictions on the amount and positioning of any fixed elements, and any greening of the space would require planter boxes.

Any redevelopment of Station Square must investigate options to solve the ‘fundamental’ problems above and in the safety assessment, rather than providing simply a ‘paint and paper’ of the existing space.  While the options outlined in this report will provide some quick, relatively inexpensive ‘fixes’ to the square’s design itself, they will not in themselves solve the social problems currently plaguing the space.  It must also be noted that a structural engineer needs to be engaged prior to any development of these solutions, as the location and strength of structural beams and pillars will dictate the design above, and these were not known at the time of drafting the concept.

Suggestions for improvements:

• Pursuing initiatives for greening the space and adjacent buildings
• Install a high quality, covered hardwood seating area in the middle part of Station Square
• Position steel/timber planters, planted with 400L deciduous trees and low underplanting, with seats on two sides of selected planters
• Consider installing interactive/brightly coloured sculpture

Getting this square and the surrounding commercial businesses working is really important and hope that the council are able to quickly get any outstanding issues resolved because at the moment the place is a bit like a school report card, has lots of potential but doesn’t deliver.

Kiwi Income Property Trust (Andrew Buckingham) (Douglas Allan) (Gerard Thompson)Andrew Buckingham Douglas Allan and Gerard Thompson on behalf of Kiwi Income Property Trust spoke to their written submission and in particular:

• Supports overall thrust of RLTP, and in particular supports provisions that address integrated management of land use and transportation planning; proposals to complete the motorway network whilst also strengthening Public Transport; and specific works including CRL, AMETI, works proposed in and around New Lynn, upgrading of Te Wero bridge.
• Seeks completion of a functioning isthmus rail loop connecting Britomart, southern line and NIMT by constructing a link between the two lines at Te Papapa/Southdown.
• Seeks implementation of Southdown-Avondale rail connection.
• Seeks additional emphasis on aspects of land use/transport integration, including the need for concentrated office/retail/education activities in identified nodes and Public Transport corridors.
• Seeks a consistent car parking policy to avoid discouraging intensification in identified nodes.

KIPT definitely seems to be a company that gets it as they wouldn’t use PT wash in a submission as the RLTP will have a big impact on how people access their property investments. They also manage to cover off many of the points we raise on this website so congratulations KIPT At pretty much the other end of the spectrium is the Upper Harbour local board which manages to be even worse than Orakei local board.

Upper Harbour Local Board (Brian Neeson)Brian Neeson on behalf of the Upper Harbour Local Board spoke to their written submission and in particular:

• Suggested that the Statement of Priorities is somewhat hollow and meaningless. Safety should be higher up the list.
• 32.4% funding split for Public Transport is misleading as assumes Government will contribute to CRL.
• Major projects: rail electrification: does Auckland have capacity to supply power?
• Strongly oppose the CRL, suggested that the timing is inappropriate and not affordable at this time.
• Stated that other major projects are acceptable or supported (AMETI acceptable with rephrasing).
• Include additional harbour crossing, Penlink and Puhoi to Wellsford motorway as major regional projects in this cycle.
• Major projects next cycle:
• remove CRL;
• shift out development of cycleways along SH corridors and SW airport multi-modal corridor, as not high priority;
• bring forward Puhoi-Wellsford motorway, additional Waitemata Harbour crossing (investigation), busway extension to Hibiscus Coast
• (designation), Penlink (commencement); and
• Other projects supported, except red light camera installation.
• Detailed comments on local projects listed in submission. Budget and timing generally supported, except:
• Rosedale/Greville busway station: more evidence required as to necessity;
• Requested that Auckland transport bring forward the: East Coast Bus priority, Albany SH17/Spencer Road intersection (brought forward and phased), Albany Lonely Track Road/Gills Road intersection; and
• Seeks assurance that agreement with NZTA to progress Coliseum Drive Link will be fulfilled.
• Requested that the intersection of SH17 and The Avenue in Albany be upgraded with urgency.
• Requested that parking in the Albany Village be looked into.
• Requests a left hand turn onto the motorway at en Pickering Drive.

To be honest I am pretty speechless that this would come out of a local board. There are of course plenty of other submissions, some I feel are good and others bad and I will do a post giving a more general coverage of the feedback shortly

The current structure centralises almost all of these decisions in one place and allows for decisions to be made at a more regional which should also help to provide a lot more consistency across the region but it seems trouble is stirring. The local boards are getting upset with this and are appear to be trying to wrestle to get more control in how our transport dollars are spent in their areas along with a greater say in regional project. I guess this shouldn’t really be a surprise, most politicians throughout history have always want to increase the level of control they have, especially when big sums of money is involved. What I am worried that we could be starting to head back to the old days where disagreement at a local level could create big impacts for the whole region and I’m even more worried that the current government could use this disagreement to stall projects it doesn’t like, projects like the CRL.

This issue was highlighted once again the other day with an interesting piece in The Aucklander which looked at the views of some of the local boards on transport spending. Most were pretty standard and didn’t through up many surprises but perhaps the most interesting and concerning response was from the Orakei board.

We want to engage directly with Auckland Transport to develop our own long-term vision for transport in the Orakei area to influence region-wide transport planning. We support new and improved infrastructure for local projects, including the Tamaki Drive corridor and Ellerslie/Panmure Highway – as well as the promotion of travel choices, including walking and cycling. We would like to see train station to service Selwyn College and provide a more convenient connection for people living close to the Poerewa Valley. Funding of major projects will have to be achieved without increasing rates by more than the council’s rate of inflation. We advocate planning for a third rail line to be added to the South Eastern rail link. We do not support a rail link to the airport. Until passenger numbers reach 35 million per annum, it will be unaffordable. If it is contemplated it should be connected via Wiri, not Onehunga so it will pass close by suburbs to the east of the CBD. We support continued planning for a second harbour crossing, but do not support rail to Orewa. We would like to see a budget allocated to trial feeder bus services to rail. We listed motorway tolling as the fourth priority for addressing the shortfall. We don’t know what number could come out of each option and we believe it is not a question of motorway tolling or rates or getting value out of assets that Auckland Council own. The Government already fund about 50 per cent of approved roading and public transport projects so we believe that this level of funding should continue. Rail related projects are a special case but we feel Aucklanders should receive the same comparative funding as Wellingtonians. We believe all funding options other than rates must be explored in partnership with the Government.

What I am most concerned about is that the board want to develop their own transport plan for the area to ‘influence region-wide transport planning’. My concern stems from the risk that what is good for Orakei is not always good for the whole region, as an example one of their listed projects is a train station at Selwyn College. At first glance it seems to make sense, allowing more people to access and make use of the rail network sounds like a good thing but as soon as you look at things a bit more then the decision isn’t so clear cut. Here is an idea of where the proposed station would be:

The station is in a gulley with no easy access options, this would require either expensive property acquisition and/or and expensive road link from down from Kohimarama Rd. This would also make it difficult to serve with feeder buses which would limit it’s catchment to those within walking distance as park n ride would be even more expensive. There would also be issues for things like security and maintenance. Probably the biggest issue though would be impact it would have on travel times for everyone south of the station. The vast majority of the patronage comes from south of the proposed station and even with our new EMUs, stopping at the station would add at least a minute, probably more due to it’s close proximity to Meadowbank, to the timetable. This is unlikely to be of any concern to the Orakei board who are only focused on their own area but the impacts are something that need to be carefully weighed up before any decision is made, something only a regional body can really do.

A Selwyn Train station is only one specific issue and these types of requests aren’t limited just to the Orakei board but it is something I am really worried about. I can see that if the Orakei board is allowed their own transport plan then each of the other local boards will want the same which could very easily lead us to making the same mistakes as in the past. When it comes to how much say local boards have on transport matters, my view is they should be able to lobby for specific improvements in their area but developing their transport plans should not be allowed. These are of course only my views but I’m keen to hear what you think.

But more particularly, I think Vancouver is a really useful comparison because, if we do a lot of things right over the next 20-30 years (and learn from a few of Vancouver’s mistakes) then Vancouver is a pretty good model for where we might want Auckland to be. Even population wise, with around 2.3 million people in Greater Vancouver – there’s a great comparison with what Auckland’s population is likely to be in around 20-30 years.

Importantly – in terms of the desire to make Auckland the ‘world’s most liveable city’ – Vancouver is generally a city that Auckland competes with regularly in the various liveable city survey results that get bandied around every year. In 2011 Auckland did rank higher than Vancouver (3^rd compared to equal 5^th) in the Mercer survey, but we were below Vancouver in the Economist survey (10^th compared to 3^rd). Most relevantly, Auckland’s excellent results in some parts of the survey (political environment, schools and education, health and sanitation, natural environment and recreation) are let down by our performance in that key issue of most interest to this blog: transportation.

Vancouver has a really interesting transport history – making a decision in the 1960s to not allow motorway construction within the City of Vancouver. Even today, there are remarkably few motorway/freeway type roads within the boundaries of Metro Vancouver:

Instead of spending vast amounts of money on road-building, Vancouver has developed an incredibly effective public transport system over the past 30 years – particularly since the opening of the first Skytrain Line in late 1985. From zero passenger rail trips prior to Skytrain opening, there were 25 million trips four years later and then big increases right through to the present day, with over 122 million rail trips (3 million on the West Coast Express, the remainder on the Skytrain system including the new Canada Line). The graph below shows patronage growth over that time, compared to population growth (in 2001 there was a very lengthy strike which caused the dip): Data from here: http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/statistics/Pages/KeyFacts.aspx

To get a better idea about how well Vancouver has done over the past 20-odd years in growing ridership, it’s worth making the inevitable comparison with Auckland:Interestingly, while Vancouver’s PT patronage is so much higher than Auckland’s and while Vancouver has been far more successful than Auckland at integrating land-use and transport policies (most notably through places like Metrotown, as discussed in my previous post), overall Auckland actually has a higher average population density than Vancouver – when you look at the population and size of their respective urban areas (rather than arbitrary administrative boundaries). Data from here: http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf

Of course average population density is misleading in a number of ways (after all, it suggests that Los Angeles is higher density than New York City), but it gives us the general picture that Vancouver’s vastly better PT patronage it not due to it being a vastly higher density place.

Vancouver is also interesting to compare Auckland with because they have somewhat similar urban development aspirations. Let’s compare the development strategy from the Auckland Plan with Vancouver’s regional growth strategy:
Both cities want to contain sprawl. Both cities want to focus intensification centres and around the PT network. Both cities need to protect industrial land that’s becoming a scarce resource. Both cities are concerned about their effect on polluting the natural environment. Both cities continue to grow quickly and face significant housing affordability issues.

While Vancouver’s no absolute urban utopia for us to copy mindlessly, I think it’s a city that Auckland can learn a huge amount from. Over the next few weeks I’m going to really try to look at Vancouver in a bit more detail to be able to tell the story about how it’s turned into the kind of city that can be a model for Auckland (to an extent), and apply the learnings from Vancouver to see what might be key decisions the city needs to make over the next 30 years – particularly in relation to transport.

A really great example of this is what’s happened around the Metrotown Skytrain station in Vancouver – which enjoys around 6.7 million boardings a year (around two-thirds of the entire rail patronage of Auckland’s system). The station opened in December 1985 on the oldest section of Vancouver’s Skytrain system and since then the transformation of the area is pretty dramatic. Here’s what the area looks like now: You’ve got one of Vancouver’s largest shopping malls right on the doorstep of the station, and you also see many fairly high-rise residential buildings within relatively close proximity of the Skytrain Line (which runs between Beresford Street and Central Boulevard).

Here’s a view of the immediate station area – including pedestrian link into the giant shopping mall on the right (with bus interchange) and high-rise apartment buildings nearby: It certainly isn’t perfect – most planners would prefer to see a cutesy town centre with shops that have street frontage. But it is an excellent example of locating high-intensity uses right next to a high-quality public transport stop. It’s not just the shopping centre though as here’s the skyline just around the corner: And just to remind ourselves that Metrotown is not located in the inner-inner suburbs the “1″ in the image below shows its location in relation to Greater Vancouver (about 11km southeast of downtown – by comparison New Lynn is 9km southwest of Auckland’s CBD): I feel that the City Rail Link will open up the potential for key points along the inner Western Line to become model transit-oriented developments, like Metrotown and so many other places along Vancouver’s Skytrain system are. It’s clearly an attractive lifestyle to live in an apartment around Metrotown Station – a quick journey on the Skytrain system to most parts of the city, a large shopping centre on your doorstep, decent amounts of open space. If our planning rules were to allow it, the CRL may well lead to similar types of development occurring in places like Morningside, Mt Albert, Avondale and New Lynn. I think some well-placed clusters of suburban high-rise buildings could really help in achieving levels of intensification envisaged by the Auckland spatial plan while allowing areas with valuable existing character to retain that character.

Metrotown, like so many things about Vancouver, highlights something that could be a model for Auckland’s urban future – not ‘pie-in-the-sky’ pretty pictures of European town centres but an actual North American suburban centre that has integrated transport and urban planning (at least at the high level) really well.

“Does he not realise that the conversion leaves the physical density the same as before and keeps roughly the same number of bodies in the CBD as before, only the bodies were there eight hours during day?

Where to start? Well there clearly will be an increase in residents in the inner city through this move, and they may or may not also all work in in the CBD, this can’t be known, although it is not a long stretch to assume that some or even most will, as it would be probably be a little odd to decide to live right in town but commute to, say, Takanini. Odd but not impossible, and just fine if that’s what occurs. This is of no consequence. What really matters is that a whole block of commercial space will be withdrawn from that market and because of this will help to encourage demand for new construction elsewhere in town. And at the same time a bunch of new grocery-buying, theatre-going, who-knows-what doing people will be moving in. Now as we are told in the original article that BECA, the current tenants of this block, are moving up the road to the old ARC building and not out to the suburbs, we can safely conclude that this will indeed increase net amount of ‘bodies’ in the city.

Beca staff will soon leave the block which is still their international headquarters even though only a handful of staff remain, after divisions gradually shifted to the former Auckland Regional Council headquarters on Pitt St.

So the complete reverse of Bogunovich’s next claim:

“Now they will be there eight hours at night. And that this is yet another sign significant businesses are decentralising rather than compacting in the city?”

This development is clearly putting a small squeeze on the availability of commercial space in the CBD, removing an older lower value block from the market and giving it a new use. Bringing construction and new residents into town which will support new and existing businesses there. Put it this way: If every current office block in the CBD was converted to apartments then demand for new office space would clearly grow, stimulating construction as well as increasing the economic life of the CBD as the needs and desires of these new residents are met.

So of course this is an encouraging move and exactly the kind of thing the Council wants to see. Churn in existing buildings is a sign of economic activity and dynamism in a market. And this sort of repurposing is exactly what we’ed expect to see as a start of vitality returning to the CBD residential market. Is this what so angers the anti-intensivist Bogunovich? Roger Blakeley in the earlier Anne Gibson article here:

“This is music to our ears as we look to quality residential development in the city centre and other centres as part of the quality compact city in the Auckland Plan.”

Quite. But also this but also from the developer:

“Three Malaysian and Singaporean investors have bought apartments.

“They are very impressed with the growth in Auckland City amenities, for example the Auckland Art Gallery, Wynyard Quarter, Britomart and the strategic plan for Auckland City.”

Vincent St is a great location for apartments, so handy to all those amenities. They could also have mentioned just how close these new apartments will be to not only the new Aotea station but especially to the K’rd one on the City Rail Link…. especially useful for when these new city residents wish to visit the rest of the isthmus, including Takanini.

Vincent St and Greys Ave

The market is delivering more sprawl and more  car dependency, which is collectively a bad thing, so we must intervene in the market for the common good

Pretty much everything is couched on this world-view: from both sides of the argument actually.  On the side of smart growth and a balanced transport policy we still hear much about the need to “change behaviour”, the need to “curb urban sprawl”, the need to “get people out of their cars” and so on. On the ‘other side’ of the argument, we hear a lot of criticism about planners engaging in “social engineering”, about public transport advocates wanting to “force people” out of their cars. Essentially both sides of the debate are making the same assumption: that the market (being the aggregated wants and needs of the population) wants to deliver car-based urban sprawl. They only differ in whether this outcome should be allowed or discouraged.

One of the key things that various posts on this site over the past month or two have tried to emphasise is that this paradigm has changed. Increasingly, the evidence is pointing towards the market making a pretty radical departure from its general trends of most of the last century, with a new and thoroughly different paradigm emerging – the market actually wants less sprawl and less car dependency. People actually want to catch public transport because it makes sense for them. People want to live in central parts of the city, not on the urban periphery. People are smart enough to realise that what Auckland needs is not a whole pile more roads, but a world-class public transport system to complement our existing roading network. In short, those promoting this new paradigm no longer need to couch their arguments in terms of the need for change or the need for intervention, increasingly they can simply focus on allowing and enabling this shift to happen.

There are two key pieces of evidence in relation to this paradigm shift: traffic volumes compared to public transport patronage growth being the first and the location of housing demand (highlighted most clearly through house prices) being the other. Let’s start with traffic volumes compared to PT patronage.

Stu’s two posts a few weeks back really highlighted that the current ‘flat-lining’ of traffic growth is not only a pretty dramatic shift from constant increases over much of the last century, but also that this flat-lining has been going on now for quite a long time: seven whole years. Furthermore, a ‘de-coupling’ of traffic growth and economic growth has been going on for around 14 years now, meaning that for the first time we’re able to grow the economy without a similar level of growth in traffic volumes. And in more recent years we’ve been growing the population quite significantly but once again without a commensurate increase in traffic volumes:

The idea that traffic volumes won’t continue to increase, or at least that they might increase at a slower rate than population growth (as each person travels less) is a complete anathema to the “old paradigm”. Under that old paradigm volumes always increase by around 3-4% a year and always would. With most roading projects justified by forecasts of increasing traffic in the future (and the horrors if a road is not widened or added to cope with that increase), the huge dip in per capita travel over the past five years is utterly devastating to the business case for pretty much every new roading project. If our system for assessing such projects actually recognised this fundamental shift, which it doesn’t.

In contrast, public transport patronage in Auckland most particularly has grown in leaps and bounds over this same period – up by around a third since 2006:  Comparing the trends of traffic growth and PT patronage growth, the way to structure arguments for a shift in funding becomes clear: it’s not about what modes we should spend the money on for broader reasons (although those arguments are still valid), but a much simpler “people are using PT a lot more, people are driving less, we need to reflect that in our funding balance”. By the way, the current government funding plan spends about $27 on state highways for every dollar spent on PT infrastructure – about as ignorant of these trends as practically possible.

The second paradigm shift relates to that vexed issue of “how should Auckland grow?” The common assumption is that “the market” wants to grow through urban expansion or sprawl, and that planning intervention is required to encourage/force people to live more intensively and ‘save’ the rural hinterland. Yet again, both sides of the debate accept the paradigm that everyone wants to live on the urban edge, in a “quarter acre paradise”. However, a series of posts – this time mainly by Patrick – have highlighted that the reality these days is actually quite different.

Patrick has noted a series of articles in the NZ Herald and other overseas publications over the past few months which consistently say the same thing: house prices in the inner suburbs are soaring while (especially in the USA) they are still falling on the urban periphery. There are a wide variety of reasons given for this phenomenon, things like higher fuel prices, changing demographics, smaller household sizes, cultural shifts and so forth – all of which are interestingly similar to many of the causes that might be behind the stagnation in traffic volumes over the past seven years.

So the paradigm of “allowing sprawl or forcing/encouraging intensification” really may not be valid anymore, just like the “providing for vehicle growth or encouraging/forcing people onto public transport” is now outdated. People are changing their habits already. The trick now is to ensure that policy decisions, especially when it comes to decisions over where transport money is spent, reflect this new reality. We plan for the future, both in land-use decisions (whether to expand urban boundaries or make intensification easier) and in transport decisions (whether to spend money on holiday highways or city rail links) – let’s ensure that our decisions reflect the new reality of what people actually are doing and what people want. Not an outdated, old paradigm, version of that.

We don’t have to force change anymore, let’s allow it to happen.

Here I want to have a look at the rail network alone. And in particular the next possible stages beyond the CRL and how that might all connect together. Yes this is only part of the RTN resource but because rail is, by definition, a closed system, it does require understanding on its own logic. And we need to have some idea of where we’re heading in order to not close off important opportunities. Peter discussed lineal routes with branches in his latest post. And I did a post on how important Aotea Station will be for the whole of Auckland, here. In this post I want explore a different variation in network design to the one discussed in my previous Aotea post, but one that still has Aotea as the essential heart of the network.

It seems to me that a combination of two largely discrete lines is the most elegant and efficient way to serve Auckland. This pattern reconciles the shape of the existing network with the most pressing new needs. And because no route can be designed separately from how it will be run we need to think about how best to integrate the next major addition to the network, after the CRL and the extension to the airport, the North Shore Line. This line could operate in isolation across the harbour but it would be better if it integrates more fully with the rest of the system. And happily by doing so it creates a more balanced network than the one we have now, or even the much improved network we’ll have once the CRL is built. In the Aotea post I looked at connecting North to East, and West to South. Here is another option with different advantages: North/South and East/West; forming a simple cross shaped network of two lines. Potential 2030+ network:

'The Cross' possible North-South and West-East network model

Now feel free to haggle about various details. How exactly the airport is best reached is a whole debate in itself and deserving of its own post. And whether the North Shore line just heads to Akoranga and Takapuna and allows the the busway north of the Aoranga Interchange Station to serve the northern Shore is also a good debate. You can see that I’m not a great fan of the full Onehunga to Avondale line as it has both a very expensive steep section and a dubious running pattern. Happy to be argued with about that. Of course if there was a strategy to develop Marsden Pt Port and therefore the freight route was put through this route that would change my view.

The big point is, just two lines: North-South and West-East. Hinging on the all important Aotea Station. Rolling stock stabled at yards on the fringes. I added the Mt Roskill spur because this is a booming area and the buses there could do with some relief, and because post CRL rail will be so much faster on the Western Line into and through the city. But also because it is a cost effective way to balance the Western and Eastern Line running patterns. There are also questions around direct West South running through Grafton: I’m a fan, especially once rail reaches the airport as people from all over will be heading there, and it makes no sense to send every trip through the busiest CBD section. Note that the Mt Eden Station has moved with access to both Dominion Rd and Mt Eden roads and is an inexpensive surface station south of the junction to the tunnel entrance and the branch to Grafton.

The really interesting part with this model is how it elegantly knits the North Shore Line into the Southern Line at the bottom of Parnell with the useful addition of a University Station and gives us an opportunity to all but avoid the slow and inefficient loop around the back of Vector arena:

CITY CENTRE 'The Cross'

Here’s a close up of Stanley St. Sitting on the train through here I have often thought how easy it would be to just straighten that bridge out at the bottom of Parnell stay above the traffic on a short viaduct and slide into a tunnel entrance into the cliff on Constitution Hill. Especially as it is so painful crawling around the back of the Vector Arena, and how many of those on board are heading up town from Britomart anyhow. This would also sort out the conflicted Britomart entrance at Quay Park, leaving it for Eastern Line and Intercity trains only.

There are two options, the northerly one over the pub, or a more southerly one between two buildings on the east side of Stanley St, if possible. Unfortunately the building site in the background image between these two is now a building, occupied by Kiwi Rail on the floor level with the track [!]. The land on the other side of Stanley Street I believe is owned by NZTA as they have further massive motorway plans for poor old Grafton Gully.

Parnell to Aotea Options

A University station would be tricky to site and make for a short run to Aotea, but would be extremely busy immediately and not only for the Universities but also the courts, the Art Gallery, the Library and so on. But more importantly I think it is essential to take pressure off Aotea Station as it would likely to become overwhelmed by both Southern Line and Northern Line riders as the only central city destination. There are of course heritage factors to consider too, as there are preexisting tunnels [and here] in the basalt and scoria on this route. But what a great opportunity to access them. We could leave the station cavity rock walls exposed , in an even cooler volcanic version of the Stockholm Subway. There are so many ways our network could be wonderful see here from examples from around the world. I particularly like Shanghai’s light show.

Personally I think the University Station could be called Princes St, Albert Park or even Albert Barracks and it should be sited with very public street entrances as well as in the quad as it’s not just about the Universities. It seems to make more sense for the line from Wynyard Point to be under Wellesley St than Victoria St, but either way here are a couple of options with possible station exists in white:

University Station options- 'Albert Park'

No route with underground stations and tunneling is cheap. But it is not as long nor as steep as the CRL. Of course the harbour crossing is expensive too. But that needs to be put into the context of the numbers that the proposed road crossing of the harbour come to. And it would staged; Aotea to the busway Interchange Station at Akoranga is essentially the harbour crossing. And this plan to link this line to the existing Southern line could follow later. The real question is about the value of these competing ideas for the city as a whole. The fact that there is absolutely nowhere for thousands of additional cars to go either side of any further road crossing whereas a line like this can move tens of thousands of people day and night irrespective of the congestion above both into and right through the city. It directly connects the businesses and beaches of Takapuna to everywhere on the rest of the network including the airport. Like the CRL it helps unlock the hidden value in our already existing long rail lines.

Albany to Airport: It could be called the ‘A’ Line or the ‘A’ Train: ….I look forward to your views.

The 'A' Train; from 8th Ave to Rockaway Beach