As the Herald reported yesterday, it looks as if Auckland Transport have really dropped the ball in getting a designation in place for rail to Mangere and Auckland Airport – what should be called the “South Western Line”. It is worth emphasizing that the main point of any rapid transit project in the south west is not so much to provide air travellers with a rail link, but to provide the more than 20,000 workers at the airport with a decent alternative, and also benefit the residents of Mangere and South Auckland who probably have the worst public transportation services in the entire region.
Some years back, a cross-stakeholder South-Western Multi-modal Airport Rapid Transit (SMART) study was commissioned to look at the rapid transit options. It was supposed to be making progress towards a designation, and for some time we have been wondering how the study was progressing.
This week, through a LGOIMA request, we finally got our hands on a copy of what has turned out to be an interim, and final report. Unfortunately, Auckland Transport instructed consultants GHD to cut the three phase study short in September of last year.
Phase Three of the study was supposed to “focus on developing documentation to support route protection. This would have entailed developing a draft Notice of Requirement and/or easement documentation for future-proofing of the preferred route. Within the airport designation, it was anticipated that an easement would be agreed and included in the current Auckland Airport Masterplan.”
However, the study was cut short with the following reasons given:
There is no explanation as to why the plans listed have a higher priority than designating rail to the airport. Auckland Transport and Auckland Council have to be the party responsible for driving the rapid transit designation process through, but instead they’ve more or less said “Ugh – too hard!” and sat on their hands.
Fast forward a year later, and things have now come to a head as the NZTA are wanting to push through the Kirkbride Road grade separation project, which will turn SH20A and SH20 into a continuous motorway. There is currently no provision for a rail corridor in any of the draft plans, and it is my understanding that the NZTA are waiting on a clear direction from Auckland Transport on where the rapid transit corridor will run.
The interim SMART report supported an earlier study from 2011 which concluded that a rail loop through South Auckland remains the technically preferred strategic option (I’ll have the detail on a later post) yet no progress has been made in designating the rail corridor.
Most worryingly of all, it looks as if Auckland Transport is now re-litigating the decision for heavy rail and is considering light rail instead for the corridor between Onehunga and the Airport. There are currently no public details on any of the following factors:
- How much would the light rail rolling stock cost, what would the capacity be and where would the rolling stock be housed?
- How much slower would light rail be, compared to a heavy rail solution?
- How much cheaper could a light rail route be, bearing in mind that Sydney’s light rail is now likely to cost $2.2bn – about the same per kilometre as heavy rail between Onehunga and the airport?
So many questions. So few answers.
The NZTA have announced that next year they will be starting construction on grade separating the intersection of SH20A and Kirkbride Rd and bringing SH20A up to full motorway standard. The project was announced last year as part of the governments Accelerated Roads Package which is seeing them pump $800 million into making bigger motorways. For those that don’t know the area well the intersection being grade separated is below. The NZTA don’t explicitly say however the intersection of SH20A with Montgomerie Rd will be closed as part of the motorwayification of the road.
This specific project is costing $140 million and it appears the NZTA have let their most mono-modal engineers loose in the asylum to design it.
Key features of the project include the construction of a trench that will carry SH20A – the main road link to and from Auckland Airport – under Kirkbride Road, new facilities on local roads for walkers and cyclists, and the provision for future bus shoulders on the state highway.
Mr Gliddon says keeping Kirkbride Road at its present level and sending motorway traffic underneath will improve local connections and safety for people on either side of the current intersection.
“Separating the two roads means children will no longer have to cross a busy state highway to get to and from school,” he says. “The airport’s also expected to become a lot busier in the future and separating SH20A from Kirkbride will help manage that.”
The SH20A to Airport project is one of four transport programmes that are being accelerated by the Government to help manage the projected growth in population, jobs, and freight in Auckland. The others are the East West Connection on the north side of Manukau Harbour, and improvements to the Northern and Southern Corridors along State Highway 1.
Construction is due to start in 2015. To minimise disruption to people, it is timed to coincide with work to construct Watercare’s Hunua 4 pipeline across the Kirkbride Road intersection.
Mr Gliddon says that in addition to next month’s public information days, community newsletters and a project website will be used to help keep people informed of what is happening.
”We are committed to working with the community and keeping them up to date with what is going on,” Mr Gliddon says.
Here are some of the issues I have with this
- Despite Kirkbride Rd being only a single lane to the east of the intersection it seems like the engineers plan to monstrously oversize the interchange with it being six lanes wide in a bid to cater for almost every kind of movement in it’s own lane. On top of that the very suggestion of making it easier for kids to walk to school is plan and simple BS. Every corner of the intersection has slip lanes for cars and trucks to hurtle through which is hardly the place we’d want kids crossing the road or riding their bike. On the NZTA page for the project they even try to claim that this will reconnect the currently severed community – it will do nothing of the sort.
- The NZTA say they are designing the project so that it only has the provision for bus shoulders some time in the future. Why not at the very least build those bus shoulders at the same time.
- Cyclists are being kicked off SH20A which is probably a good thing seeing as it’s already a very high speed road but are being dumped on to the local road network instead with no indication that those local roads will be upgraded (other than the diagram below which shows that at least one section of Kirkbride Rd (presumably between SH20A and Ascot Rd) will have both shared paths and on road cycle lanes although the on road lanes also don’t appear to be protected.
- One area that the NZTA suggest a lot of effort will be put is in the landscaping around the road to make it more welcoming for visitors. What’s the bet that they will probably spend more on landscaping than they do on other transport modes?
- The big elephant in the room of course is the question around Airport rail. Auckland Transport have yet to even release a rough route despite work on the project happening as long as 3.5 years ago (I understand they do have one planned/agreed on though). If the NZTA were truly muilti-modal like they try and claim they would at the least be building the project like the Maioro St interchange which has an extra span so rail can be added later easily.
According to the Herald, the NZTA are predicting 140,000 vehicles a day using the road by 2041. That figure seems insanely high so to put that figure perspective there are currently about 40,000 vehicles per day using the state highway to get to/from the airport. There are also approximately another 18,000 vehicles per day on Kirkbride Rd. The only sections of state highway that carry more than 140,000 vehicles as day is on SH1 between the Mt Wellington and Grafton and again between St Mary’s Bay and Onewa Rd. All of those sections need vast expanses of asphalt to move that number of vehicles so having 140k trips a day on a four lane motorway seems like a recipe for congestion.
Overall while I can accept some of the need for the project it ends up feeling just like it’s spending $140 million of to remove a set of traffic lights (maybe two if you include Montgomerie Rd) and not really getting much in return.
If you want to find out more about the project the NZTA is holding some open days in a few weeks.
- Saturday 11 October: Mangere Markets, Mangere Town Centre (7am-2pm)
- Monday 13 October: Mangere Central Community Centre, 241 Kirkbride Road (3pm-7pm)
- Wednesday 15 October: Mangere Central Community Centre, 241 Kirkbride Road (3pm-7pm)
- Saturday 18 October: Sudima Hotel Auckland Airport, 18 Airpark Drive, Airport Oaks (11am-3pm)
In the May budget the Government announced they would fastrack yet another $800 million of motorway projects, partially financed by a $375 million loan. These were projects that had been identified in the Prime Minister’s Auckland speech in 2013. There were 3 main projects as outlined below.
Two of these projects have major potential to impact on 2 key elements of the Congestion Free Network.
The first is the State Highway 20A upgrade, which involves extending the motorway about 2 extra kilometres towards the airport.
NZTA says the main features are:
Grade separation of SH20A and Kirkbride Rd intersection
Upgrading of SH20A to motorway standards: two lanes in each direction plus dedicated bus priority lanes
Reprioritisation of Ascot Rd / Kirkbride Rd intersection
Installation of truck priority lanes and ramp signalling
Relocation and integration of cycle lanes in local road network
Note there is no mention at all of rail to the airport, which would follow the motorway corridor from Onehunga most of the way to the airport. It is of upmost importance that a rail corridor is reserved by NZTA when they are planning and building the project. They have done this on the SH20 extensions through Mt Roskill, however there was a designation already in place so the situation is somewhat different. Auckland Transport has been investigating rapid transit along this route since 2011. Initially they said the route protection was to begin in late 2011, however 3 years later we have learned little. The latest we have is an April 2014 update which suggests that a preferred alignment will be identified in 2014. While the Airport’s Masterplan may be causing issues at the southern end of the route, work should still be moving ahead in the northern area. It is essential that NZTA and AT work together to speed up alignment identification in this area, something which has been highlighted by the Campaign for Better Transport. If the upgrade is built without an alignment for the rail corridor it will add huge extra cost to the airport rail project. For one thing all the new overbridges would have to be rebuilt, which would be a huge waste of money. Auckland Council need to send a strong message to the government that this would be unacceptable, and ensure the rail corridor is allowed for in the design.
The second project is the suite of Northern Corridor projects, which largely revolve around the State Highway 1 to State Highway 18 grade-separation and associated widening. In December 2013 NZTA claimed there were 5 main components to the Northern Corridor projects.
Component 1 is already under construction (costing $19.5 million). Component 2 seems to be the smart low-cost improvements. The announcement above seems to refer to Components 1 to 4, totally leaving out the much needed Northern Busway extension to Albany. Currently the Northern Express speeds the 15km from Britomart to Constellation Station in just over 20 minutes. However the last 4km to Albany can take 15 minutes as there is no bus priority. This busway extension is another project that NZTA and AT have been working on for years, and seems have got bogged down somehow. In 2011 NZTA were saying that the route needed to be designated soon due to the development taking place. Last year we found out a little more about the route investigations, which suggested it would cost $249 million.
planned SH1/SH18 motorway upgrade
The planned motorway interchange upgrade is quoted as costing an astonishing $450 million. For that cost the project is totally unnecessary for something that just replaces a few at grade intersections with ramps. The focus should be much more on cost-effective targeted upgrades, then we could have the busway extension to Albany and plenty of spare change. The result would be lots more people using the busway, and reduced traffic congestion along the entire Northern Motorway and CBD.
The third set of projects around the Southern Motorway don’t have any components of the Congestion Free Network linked with them. However the upgrades should be a good chance to make Great South Road better for pedestrians, cyclists and buses. The one positive of this project is this means the current expensive plans to turn Mill Road into a 4 lane highway should disappear, and be replaced by a much cheaper safety upgrade. This would be a great way to free up over $200 million to help with Auckland Transport’s stretched budget.
In a completely unsurprising revelation, it’s really expensive to get a taxi from the airport.
Catching a cab downtown from Auckland Airport has been labelled one of the most expensive taxi fares in the world by an international travel company.
According to a CheapFlights comparison of prices in 24 cities, New Zealand has the third most expensive per-kilometre taxi fares.
And a Herald investigation has found some Auckland taxi companies quoting price tags up to $86 for a trip — more than the price of some domestic flights — that other companies can deliver for just $35.
The report, released last month but based on data from March 2013, found the average price of travelling the 21.4km route from Auckland Airport to the city’s CBD was $77.41 — or $3.50/km.
The New Zealand price was surpassed only by fares in Berlin that were $4.06/km, and San Jose in Costa Rica that were $3.59/km.
Auckland cabs were 10 times more expensive than in the cheapest city, Buenos Aires, and twice the $1.75/km people using Australian taxis were paying.
Consumer NZ chief executive Suzanne Chetwin said the survey results confirmed anecdotes about the ever-increasing cost of Auckland’s airport journey. “[The survey] just confirms that it is very expensive to get to or from Auckland Airport and it just seems to have got dramatically more expensive over the last few years.”
The herald then goes on to do its own brief survey finding prices varying from between $35 to $86 followed by quotes from the companies involved each trying to throw dirt at each other.
The Herald did check out the cost of the Airbus though which compares extremely well at $16 compared to the taxis. What isn’t mentioned (but that’s important) is that in peak times those buses also get to use the bus lanes where they exist which has the potential to make the journey not just cheaper but faster too.
For getting to the CBD what the Herald didn’t mention is that there’s an even cheaper option than this though. The CBD can be reached through a combination of the 380 Airporter bus and a train from Papatoetoe for a total of $7.60 if HOP is used – $3.06 for the 380 to Papatoetoe followed by $5.04 for the trip to town on the train along minus a 50c transfer discount. Oddly this option while advertised on this page, doesn’t show up as an option on AT’s journey planner (which is probably why they didn’t look at it). The big problem with the 380 Airporter service though is its frequency which is a lousy 30 minutes at peak times and hourly off peak or on weekends.
In the next few years the bus and train option is likely to become more attractive with the new network delivering higher bus frequencies between the Airport and Papatoetoe along with electric trains providing and faster and better quality trains from Papatoetoe to the CBD. Integrated fares *should* also bring down the price by removing the penalty for taking multiple trips.
Of course longer term the ultimate goal is to have rail directly to the airport which would give a quick one seat ride all the way from the heart of the CBD (via the CRL) to the airport. Once that’s in place the trip will faster than a taxi at any time of the day and considerably cheaper too (assuming it’s priced the same as normal PT and not with added terminal fees on top). Add in features like WiFi and I think even business travellers would consider using it over taxis. It would require the Airport to stop pretending it likes the idea of a rail connection though.
On Saturday of all days, Auckland Airport (AIA) released their new 30 year vision including a website called Airport of the Future. In many ways this doesn’t appear all that different from their previous long term vision documents, with the key change seeming to be that they eventually want the future Northern runway to be longer than currently planned and consented for. Here’s the video that they have put together to show the long term vision.
There are a couple of key things that AIA are predicting to happen over the next 30 or so years.
- Annual passenger movements will increase from 14 million to 40 million
- The number of flights in and out of the airport will double to 260,000
- The number of jobs in the airport area will increase from roughly 20,000 to around 40k (airport say it will create extra 27k jobs but that’s across entire economy). To put things in perspective, the entire Highbrook/East Tamaki industrial area and the Manukau City Centre and surrounding industrial areas combined contain about 40k jobs.
- Daily trips to and from the airport predicted to increase from 63,000 per day to 140,000 per day.
That’s going to put a lot of pressure on the transport networks and the airport has been stressing that it’s leaving land aside for a future rail connection. However the more I look at what’s proposed the more it seems just like PT wash as they know it’s what the public want to hear. I’m pretty sure they don’t actually want a rail connection ever, and here are five reasons why.
1. Difficult route
If you look closely at the route above plus the staging plans you can see the route goes straight through about 9 different buildings to the south of Tom Pearce Dr. Even though the airport own the land it is going to be extremely difficult to kick out all of the businesses at or around the same time, especially if they have well established operations. My guess is we can expect increased construction costs as a result to compensate for this issue.
This could be reduced by shifting the corridor slightly north to Tom Pearce Dr.
2. Fully underground route and station.
It’s not 100% clear from the documents but from what I understand, the AIA have basically told Auckland Transport that the entire line has to be underground through their property – although that’s partly a practicality thing too. Starting from the north the line will now obviously have to go under the proposed longer northern runway. By the time it surfaced from that it wouldn’t have long to go before having to dive underground again for an underground station that AIA want. I also can’t see them wanting an at grade line through their airport services area as that would hinder necessary movements. That’s potentially up to 3km of underground tunnelling. The outcome of this is to significantly increase the cost of the project making it harder to justify.
Along with shifting the route slightly north to Tom Pearce Dr, once it’s clear of the runway there’s no reason why it couldn’t raise to the ground level and be elevated through to the terminal.
3. Distance from the terminal.
The main reason for building a rail connection to the airport is to make it easier for passengers and staff to access the area. The plan is to combine the international and domestic terminals into a single building with the domestic one in the south end with the international terminal in the northern end. Now I assume there would be underground links under the multiple roads accessing the terminals however even so the location of the station is potentially up to 500m away from the international terminal. Airports are obviously good at moving people long distances through the likes of travellators however that is quite some distance. The station would also be further way from the terminals than the parking buildings proposed. Perhaps there’s a legitimate reason for it, but it seems this is just another way to reduce demand for any rail service.
Surely it wouldn’t be that hard to extend the route a few hundred metres closer to the terminals.
4. Second Airport area station
As mentioned a bit part of the AIA’s plans is to turn the area into not just a better airport but a massive employment hub too. They are already working on developing a CBD type area with hotels, office parks and retail on their land. It may look close on the image below but those offices are about 1km away from the proposed station. This may be part of the reason for the airport station being short of the terminal but if that’s the case, the reality is most people working in the office areas aren’t going to want to cross a the mega roads needed to serve the terminals and carparking buildings to access it on a daily basis. With a station more directly connected to the terminals, another station about 1km east to serve the office and retail precincts might be better. It might add a little bit to the journey time of trains but help the line be far more useful to more people which should more than make up for it.
It’s no secret that AIA makes a lot of money from carparking and that revenue has been growing strongly. In the year to June 2013 the revenue from their parking business was just over $40 million, about 9% of their total income. Currently the airport has about 7,000 carparks and as part of their vision they want to expand that to about 20,000 carparks (although it isn’t clear if this is extra or total – the herald article suggests it’s extra). The intention is to focus the new parking in two mega buildings that are both directly linked to the terminal and they would be built in the first phase of the master plan which means before 2022. They are the two massive buildings in the image below. To give a sense of scale, the recently build Novotel Hotel right next to the international terminal can be seen right next to the curve in the terminal building. In terms of carparking buildings, the AT’s massive downtown carpark holds less than 2,000 cars.
All up there doesn’t seem like that much commitment and definitely not any real push by AIA to get a rail line to the airport built. At a recent IPENZ discussion I understand they basically said they thought the only people who would use a rail line/PT to the airport were the time rich. This is almost hilarious though as a train would be able to get people to the airport from the heart of the CBD in about 35 minutes, even with stopping at stations along the way. That’s a kind of time that simply won’t be possible to achieve on the roads most times of the day. They apparently also said expected buses to be able to cope with demand for the next 30 years yet seemed to think the roads around the airport would be able to handle a doubling of traffic.
Things definitely aren’t looking good for rail to the airport.
Last week Auckland Airport held an investor day which among other things provided some very useful information about what we can expect from the airport in the future. The presentation gives quite a lot of details around where some of the future growth will come from but for me the most interesting slide in the whole presentation is the image below which is in the section talking about the airports 30 year vision. It really helps to show just how important it is going to be to get some good transport options into the area.
That is an absolutely massive increase in passenger numbers and so it’s no surprise when they say:
Growth means more pressure on land transport system
What’s more is that those passenger numbers don’t include the number of people who would be working in the terminal or in the surrounding commercial areas that will all need to get to and from work somehow. That is currently at around 20,000 people but will invariably increase as the airport continues to develop. To put things another way, 40 million passengers a year equates to an average of about 110,000 per day. Adding in the people working and the total travel demand in the area could be similar in total size to what the central city is today. That in itself is interesting as one of the slides talks about how the entire CBD could easily fit inside the Airport’s land holding.
With that sort of growth and the resulting travel demand it really does highlight how important it will be to get rail to the airport eventually. The Airport says that they have made an allowance for a station at the terminal however they are also saying that they won’t pay anything towards it and that it will have to be built by local and/or central government. To me there are some positives and negatives to that. Positives include that the airport shouldn’t be able to impose an extra terminal surcharge just for using the station – like what happens in Sydney. In addition timing is not likely to be tied to when the airport can afford its share. However negatively it means that all costs go to tax/ratepayers even though the Airport company will benefit greatly from the construction of it.
One other reason we can guess don’t want to help pay for a rail connection is that they are unlikely to want to damage their increasingly successful parking business. The presentation shows that in the last financial year revenues from parking increased strongly to $40.4m with it increasing not just because of more carparks but also improved revenue per space.
They also say they are looking to add more than 1,100 carparks over the next year which will primarily be at their park n ride site although they are also changing some staff parking near the terminal to public parking
The image below shows the current plan that is a part of their 30 year vision including the second runway to the north which they say will likely be needed in roughly 2025. It shows the intention to develop much of the land to the north of the airport and also to join the domestic and international terminals together into a single building.
On the single terminal they have released this image of what the terminal might eventually look like.
I’m aware that they are current working on a master plan which will provide a lot more detail as to how the airport will develop and that it is due early next year. We will follow that development closely.
While the City Rail Link is the most important transport project for Auckland – after those currently under construction have been completed – the surveys tell us that the most publicly popular project is a rail link to the airport. As a side note I suspect a large part of the reason why it’s seen as more popular is that it is much clearer that it is an extension to the network and many people simply don’t understand the importance of the CRL in providing the capacity needed for an airport link to be feasible.
Auckland Transport have actually been investigating the project for years with the current study – known as South-west Multi-modal Airport Rapid Transit (SMART) – start being announced back in February 2011. All the way through the project AT have been fairly quiet on what is happening however in recent times they seem to have gone deathly silent. In fact it seems like it has been about a year since there was even a mention of the study in AT board papers which is never a good sign.
In searching the AT website there does seem to have been a slight update with it suggested that we will hear what the final recommendations are – including a rail alignment – by the end of this year. However the study hasn’t just been looking at issue of rail to the airport, as you will have seen from the projects title, the term multi-modal has been slipped in so that roading options can also be considered (despite no one every calling for more roads to the airport). With that included it will probably come as little shock to people that the roading options will be prioritised ahead of any rail connections.
Transport improvements will be strongly linked to land use and increased demand for transport to or in the area. The improvements are likely to be staged in the following order:
- localised improvements, for example to bus services
- road based solutions mainly on SH20A and SH20B, bus priority along existing corridors, and
- in the longer term, a dedicated rapid transit corridor (eventually rail) connection.
Of course the government has already jumped in promising upgrade the roads in the area. When the study finally comes out it also wouldn’t surprise me if we end up seeing the rail option being deliberately loaded up with costs by saying something like that it needs to be completely underground while a motorway can happily plough across the surface no questions asked.
However while we don’t yet know a route or have any details on timing I thought it might be interesting to speculate on just how much patronage we might be able to achieve if a link was built. The first thing to consider is just how many passengers pass through the airport each year and then what percentage of them may end up using a train if it was available. Luckily the airport company publish monthly reports on just how many passengers they have and the results are below.
Since 2007 passenger numbers have increased by roughly 3 million per year which represents an increase roughly 4% per year. Interestingly it appears to have happened with effectively no increase in the number of aircraft movements. The other thing that really stands out to me is that there wasn’t any noticeable increase in travellers as a result of the Rugby World Cup which probably shows that the visitors that did come for it just came instead of those that would have anyway. Going forward it’s hard to predict what will happen with volumes but a growth rate of half of what has been achieved is fairly conservative yet by 2021, the year the CRL is expected to open it would see passenger numbers at around 16.5 million per year. By 2025 with that lower growth, volumes would reach 18 million per year.
The next question is how many of those passengers might use a rail service. It can be quite hard to find individual results but some searching turned up the following numbers
Sydney – as of the middle of last year was seeing about 16% of travellers using rail.
Brisbane – this is a few years old but it appears Brisbane manages to get about 10% of passengers using rail.
San Francisco – San Fran manages to get about 10% of passengers using rail based on BART and airport figures.
But crucially all three of these connections charge a premium to use the service just because you board at the airport. It would be interesting to see what percentage of share they would see if those extra charges weren’t in place. For Auckland -assuming we don’t follow suit and charge an airport premium – I suspect that getting 15-20% of all passengers using a rail service should be possible. By 2021 that would put potential annual patronage from travellers alone in the range of 2.5 million to 3.3 million.
However air travellers aren’t the only people who might use a rail service. Workers in the airport precinct are another potential source of patronage. Sadly Stats NZ don’t break these details down any further but the Mangere South area shown below which includes both the airport and the industrial area to the north of it currently provides employment to about 22,000 people. That is likely to increase significantly in future years as the Airport has big plans to develop much of the land surrounding the airport. As such 1,000 people a day using a train to get to work in the area and home again (2,000 trips) should be achievable. Note 1000 people is less than 5% of the current workforce.
But crucially a line to the airport via Onehunga is not just about serving travellers but it also provides a high quality PT link to the residents of Mangere and Mangere Bridge. It’s hard to estimate just how much patronage they may generate so using the station counts Auckland Transport have provided in the past, stations like Glen Eden and Papatoetoe are probably a good example of what we can expect. They currently seem to attract about 1,000 boardings per weekday (2,000 trips), although I imagine significantly less on weekends. Adding the potential patronage from the airport employment areas and both these two stations gives us 6,000 trips per day and accounting for weekends say 1.8 million trips per annum.
In the Congestion Free Network we have called for a link to the airport to be completed by 2025. If it were to be completed by that time, then combining everything together gives us potential patronage from this extension at 4.5 – 5.4 million trips per year. To put that in perspective, that’s currently somewhere in between the current patronage on the western line (3.6m trips) and the Southern lines (6.4m trips). Further that doesn’t include any additional patronage that might occur from increased frequencies from Onehunga inwards.
In short there is definitely a lot of potential patronage from extending rail to the airport. The problem is just too far down the priority list so what’s needed is to bring it forward, like we’re suggesting with the congestion free network. What we don’t need is the PT components shoved in a bottom draw like the SMART study seems to be lining up to do.
Unsurprisingly last week’s transport announcements were a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly when it comes to transport spending in Auckland. Overall I guess the good news is that central government finally supports the City Rail Link – making opponents of the project look pretty isolated. Judging from Dick Quax’s tweet the opposition is already fading away:
Critically, the announcements also highlight that the government has backed the previously most controversial part of the Auckland Plan – it’s transport chapter. Finally, after two and a half years of arguing, it seems that central government and Auckland have a similar vision for the city’s future. The Herald is right in noting that this is undoubtedly a massive victory for Len Brown – the result that he’s been pushing for basically ever since he was elected mayor.
Looking in a bit more detail, we start to see that in every section of the major announcements there’s generally a bit of good news but also some pretty dumb aspects of many of the projects that presumably will get weeded out as time goes on. Let’s work north to south – starting with the link up of State Highway 18 and State Highway 1:
Mention of improvements to the Northern Busway is a big positive here – hopefully that means extending the busway right through to Albany, a project that seems like it’s utterly essential in the near term but for some reason has dropped off the radar in the past few years. Probably because it stupidly gets lumped together with further extensions to Silverdale or Orewa which will only make sense in the much longer term.
Furthermore, there’s a pretty good case to do something around here to improve the way SH18 links with SH1 as the current Upper Harbour Highway is a bit of a mess, plus the section of motorway between SH18 and Greville Road seems to suffer from a lot of merging issues. I just struggle to see whether that something has to mean a $500 million or more giant motorway interchange as per the current plans:Presumably some further options analysis will occur here as NZTA figures out how to make its budgets work with all these new projects being lumped in – and perhaps we might end up with something a little more sensible and less expensive.
We’ll come back to how we could do an alternative Harbour Crossing better in a future post, and obviously most of our focus in the past few days has been on the City Rail Link, so let’s shift our focus to the southeast and the AMETI/East-West Link project. AMETI is a series of projects between Panmure and Botany – most crucially including a full busway from Botany to Pakuranga and onto Panmure. While there are some pretty dumb bits of AMETI, like the ugly Reeves Road flyover, generally the approach of the project has morphed over time and a strong component now is to provide the additional capacity for public transport (in the form of the busway) rather than road widening, with the project’s spending on roads generally being on new connections that enable the bypassing of busy town centres. It’s just a shame how horrifically ugly that flyover’s going to be:
Shifting on to the East-West Link project, it was only fairly recently that we began to learn the details about this project and the different options being looked at. All the different options look overblown and really destructive in terms of their environmental and community impacts – particularly the options which it seems the government wants to see, full motorway links between SH20 and SH1:
So another Tamaki River crossing, massive demolition of housing along Panama Road, a big motorway junction through the volcanic crater and Onehunga in option 3. Option 4 is perhaps even worse:
The same issue at Onehunga. Perhaps close to the same issue around Panama Road plus untold demolition of houses through Mangere East as the previously protected motorway corridor through here was sold off decades ago and put into housing.
The big issue I have with the East West Link is that we don’t actually even know whether this level of destruction, and the costs associated with it, are actually necessary or not. Of course there are lots of stories about trucks getting stuck in congestion along Neilson Street and clearly freight volumes are high through this part of Auckland – but what about some smaller scale interventions?
- Truck lanes on Neilson Street?
- A signalised intersection providing access into Metroport from Neilson Street?
- Widening the Neilson Street bridge over the railway line?
- Smaller scale interchange improvements at Onehunga?
- South-facing motorway ramps that link into the Southeast Arterial?
For this reason the East West Link actually reminds me quite a lot of the Puhoi to Wellsford project. In both cases there’s a definite problem that needs to be solved but in both cases smaller scale improvements that may deliver really significant benefits are being completely ignored in favour of massively expensive and destructive motorway options – seemingly for political reasons only.
Shifting further south again, a fairly major widening of the Southern Motorway from Manukau through to Papakura was included in the announcements:
Once again there’s quite a good argument that something needs to be done on this part of the motorway. Where SH20 and SH1 come together in the southbound direction you go from five lanes (three on SH1 plus two on SH20) down to two lanes in a pretty short space of time. This creates massive problems in the evening peak period. Furthermore, the Takanini interchange has some pretty substandard and unsafe parts to it – particularly the northbound onramp which has a very short merge. We’ll probably wait and see the details on this one but I suspect once again the approach is probably overblown: heaps of new lanes everywhere just to shift the queue slightly north or south depending on the peak direction. Adding lanes northbound in particular seems pretty stupid as it’ll just get cars to the Mt Wellington bottleneck faster. Of note the ITP lists the project as costing over $500 million
Finally, we come to SH20A improvements – the road to the Airport.
I guess it’s because politicians spend such a lot of their time travelling to and from airports that these routes tend to get a rather stupid amount of attention. Just a few years back the Mangere Bridge was duplicated, which added an absolutely crazy amount of additional capacity and freed up SH20 during peak periods (at least for a few years). While it’s a bit strange the Kirkbride Road intersection isn’t grade separated, I tend to think that the real transport bottleneck actually occurs at the Airport because all the roads effectively feed into a single roundabout and then one signalised intersection. Once again, making it quicker to get to the bottleneck seems like a waste of money to me. It’s also frustrating that there’s not even any mention (even in a route designation way) of Airport Rail. What on earth has happened to that project – I might need to LGOIMA Auckland Transport over it to see what they’ve been doing for the past two and a half years.
Overall, as I said at the start of the post there are useful bits of the announcements (CRL aside which is obviously a massive positive) in that we might see a Northern busway extension and an AMETI busway happen faster now. But there’s also a whole heaps of “over the top” projects which are pretty unlikely to achieve lasting benefits or could be replaced by far far cheaper projects which would deliver most of the benefits at a fraction of the price. It will certainly be fascinating watching the details of all this unfold over the next few months in particular.
The deal between the government and Sky City for a new convention centre has been announced this morning.
Details of the controversial SkyCity convention centre deal with the Government have been announced this morning – and the listed casino operator will pay $402m for the new centre.
The centre is expected to generate $90m of revenue each year. SkyCity will meet the full cost of the centre and be allowed to have 230 extra poker machines. Its exclusive license will be extended to 2048.
It will cost $315 million to build and fit-out, while the land will be worth $87m.
Construction on the centre is expected to begin in 2014 and open in 2017.
Now I’m not going to comment on the moral debate surrounding this agreement, that can be left to other sites. What I am more interested in is looking at are the potential benefits to some of the transport projects that we strongly believe in.
Sky City is surely one of the biggest beneficiaries of the CRL with its properties either right next to the proposed Aotea station which is expected to become the busiest station on the network. In fact it wouldn’t surprise me if they have already been considering ways to tap into it and funnel passengers from the station through to their premises. The proposed convention centre is less than 200m from the station meaning that will be very easy to access for locals visiting or working at the site.
However if we believe the claims of Steven Joyce (and I don’t tend to believe them) many of the visitors will come from overseas. Those visitors will need to get from the airport to the city. While a good deal are likely to do so via taxis, another project could change that.
Rail to the Airport
We keep getting told that even with massive investment in new roads, congestion is only going to get worse. Even today getting from the airport to the city can take more than an hour outside of the peak. The rail network can avoid that congestion and deliver reliable journey times. Connecting rail to the airport, combined with the CRL means that visitors could be whisked from the terminal straight to the heart of town in around 35 minutes. Further if they are staying in one of the Sky City hotels then it would be super easy for them to reach straight from the station.
Of course a rail connection to the airport isn’t just about people travelling but actually helps to connect the entire south west of the city.
Hobson and Nelson St
Hobson and Nelson Sts currently seem to just be giant traffic sewers whose sole purpose is to funnel as many vehicles as possible to/from the motorways. This has meant that the area has become a pretty horrid place for anyone not in a car. This blog has long called for this to be addressed with our preferred solution being to once again make these streets two way. We first raised the issue a few years ago and the idea quickly caught on, even making it into the councils City Centre Master Plan however it is something we haven’t heard about for a while. With the announcement of the convention centre perhaps it is time for this idea to float back to the surface.
Not only would it help in making these streets nicer places, I believe it could also assist in improving the flow of traffic as currently Hobson St especially gets clogged up in the afternoons as people end up blocking lanes as they try to get into the get into the lanes for the motorway they want to access.
In saying all of this, SkyCity don’t seem to care about any of this with the herald reporting.
The company said as well as the convention and exhibition space, there will be at least 780 carpark and a new linkway bridge over Hobson St.
This is on top of their almost 2000 carparks. Perhaps they are expecting all of these promised international visitors to drive their cars to New Zealand? Adding so many extra carparks certainly isn’t going to help in the councils aims to reduce the number of vehicles in the CBD or to improve the the quality of our streets for pedestrians. This is further reinforced by the building of an airbridge to keep people away from the area. That doesn’t bode well level of interaction we can expect the building to have with the street meaning we will potentially see more gaping holes dedicated to moving cars into underground parking buildings, like the current casino building does (above).
In 2010 Len Brown campaigned on three major rail projects, the CRL, rail to the Airport and rail to the Shore. If there was one issue with them though, it is that to some they are too bold. Despite getting strong support among many members of the public, vocal opponents point to primarily to their price tags as a reason not to build them. However when it comes to the second and third of the projects I mentioned above, I also wonder how much of the opposition to them comes from the mental block of getting over or under the harbours. If we had a rail line to Mangere Bridge or to Akoranga, how different would the argument for extension of the network be?
History and common sense has shown us that when it comes to building expensive infrastructure, it is best to break it down into smaller more manageable projects. There are a couple of prime examples. Earlier attempts at building the CRL also included double tracking and electrification. They fell over in a large part due to the massive cost of doing it all at once. More successfully we have seen the tactic employed across the motorway network where the system has been expanded one project at a time. With the Western Ring Route for example, lots of smaller projects have been much more palatable to the general public yet by the time it is completed, the cost could reach $4 billion. Had the NZTA or its predecessor attempted to build the whole thing at once there would likely have been a lot more opposition.
I guess what I am getting at is that we need to find ways to break down projects and reduce costs wherever possible. In the case of the two rail projects mentioned at the start, getting rail across each of the harbours would likely change these projects from looking massive and expensive, to ones that we could break down over a period of time, extending the network one station at a time. At this stage the thinking about rail to the shore seems to be focused on integrated it into the same tunnels as a road crossing. For rail to the airport you may remember hearing that the recently completed duplicate Manukau Harbour crossing was future proofed for rail. But was it really?
Well it kind of was, but it turns out not in a way that seems to be that useful.
The story goes something like this. Transit, the predecessor to the NZTA, wanted to build the duplicated harbour crossing. They, acting with their motorway only blinkers on, came with with designs and proceeded to try and get consent for the project. It was then that the Campaign for Better Transport and others became aware of just how mono modal the project was and challenged Transit to include provision for rail the the airport, something that had been on high level plans for some time. It took the threat of legal action for the agency to concede and start investigating how they could be done.
I have now been provided with documents from the time (7MB) which discuss the level of future proofing that was included in the project. It started with a high level investigation into what the potential route options were. They consisted of two routes on a separate bridge to the east of the motorway, one through the middle of the bridge piers, sharing some of them, and one to the west of the motorways. That was then narrowed down to two routes, the route through the middle piers (B) and the route to the west (C) as shown below.
So far so good and option B is what has been promoted to the public. However in my opinion, here is where things start to go wrong. Engineers found that because the bridge hadn’t originally been designed with rail in mind, that for option B, there simply wasn’t enough space to include a double tracked line. By this time the bridge had now been consented and the construction contract awarded. Changing the design enough to allow for a double track line was considered too costly. However it wasn’t only financial costs, but the need to get consents changed and that it would have caused delays to the construction.
That means the only option available if we are to use the newly built bridge is a single track line as shown above. You may notice it is called option B3. The reason for that is based on the engineering standards, the original route option was not only a single track but due to the curves it and issues should a collision occur, it would have seen trains limited to 25kph. By strengthening some of the piers and a few other changes, engineers were able to improve the option enough to allow the design speed to be improved to 70kph.
As the line not only serves the Airport, but also the commercial areas surrounding it and the residential areas of Mangere and Mangere Bridge, I suspect that we will eventually need to be running frequencies of at least 6 trains per hour in each direction. I simply can’t see a single track section being sufficient to handle that kind of service level without causing potential delays. That means that despite all of the talk of the new bridge being future proofed for rail, the only realistic option appears to build a double track crossing on a brand new bridge. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be any estimates as to what the cost differences between the two options are but I would have to imagine that double track option would be much more expensive.
More than anything, I think what this case highlights is the result we get when we plan infrastructure in isolation. Transits role was to build roads, yet if they taken a little bit of time to think about what the city might need in the future, they could have made changes to the bridge design early on that could have avoided this problem. Instead, as a result it appears that to fulfil the vision of getting rail to the airport, we will have to stump up for another bridge across the harbour. It also means that we are going to have to be extra vigilant when agencies describe a project as future proofed. It appears that what the engineers and planners call future proofed, isn’t necessarily what us, the general public would expect.