One of the recent plans that people have been able to submit on is the Regional Land Transport Planwhich is put out by Auckland Transport. They have published a the minutes of the hearings that were held, naturally there were a wide variety of submissions that cover all sorts of topics but I thought I would just post a couple that I found really interesting from different ends of the spectrum. The first is from Kiwi Income Property Trust who among other things are the owners of Sylvia Park and Lynnmall, here is the summary of their oral submission.
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;
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 City Rail Link is, undoubtedly, Auckland’s most important transport project – with this fact being highlighted in the Auckland Plan, which places the project as Auckland’s top priority. However, it is also a very expensive project – but just how expensive? And what is the cost breakdown? And how could costs potentially be trimmed? Those questions are important to explore further – particularly as reports mount about the CRL’s cost going up and up.
One problem that contributes to undermining support for the project is just how little information Auckland Transport share with the public on issues such as this. Really the only information we have to determine the cost of the project, and how it’s made up, is from an Appendix to the 2010 Business Case and then some further details in the 2011 Business Case Review. Here are some of the details from the original business case, which breaks down the costs: There are a few important points in the table above, which are worth highlighting:
The physical works of the project cost around $981 million out of the total budget of $2.4 billion. The rest seems to be property costs, contingency, design, client management, contractor’s margin and something called “funding risk”. I’ll call these the “other costs”.
The $2.4 billion total is actually the 95th percentile estimate (that is, there’s a 5% chance the cost will be higher and a 95% chance the cost will be lower). The “actual” cost (which I presume could be thought of as the most likely cost) is almost bang on $1 billion.
The stations make up a significant portion of the project’s physical cost: Aotea, K Road and Newton stations have a combined cost of around $455 million (excluding the “other costs”), around 46% of the project’s physical cost. Including all “other costs”, K Road and Newton stations are more than $300 million each.
As well as the “core cost” of the project (which has a closest estimated cost of $2 billion), the original business case also highlighted a number of additional areas of cost that would be required to implement the City Rail Link. These are summarised below: The $100 million in associated rail infrastructure works includes duplicating the Onehunga Line and grade separating a number of level crossings along the Western Line, as detailed in Appendix F. Whether these should be included in the cost of the CRL, just as whether the additional rolling stock should be included in the project’s cost (you don’t see the additional cost of buses included in business cases for bus projects) is an interesting debate to be had.
Debates between Central Government and Auckland in the Business Case Review have been very well covered on this blog over the past year, but what was interesting is that the parties generally agreed in their assessment of the project’s cost. This is outlined in the Workstream 6 document:
Our reviewers raised more than two dozen points ranging from major concept suggestions to relatively minor cost queries and opinions, which were referred to the APB&B Study team and Auckland Transport for their views. Most of these suggestions were countered, giving confidence that the original concept and costs had been considered in a robust manner. Some of our suggestions will be carried forward to the detailed design stage, when that is approved.
Both our reviewers were very interested in the benefits to the concept design and construction methods that might be gained through having contractors input to the project. Contractors’ knowledge of techniques and technology could potentially be used to save time and money by optimal design, staging, and construction. Our reviewers are of the opinion that it is conceivable that, given contractor input, it may be possible to reduce the costs if other innovative ways of working could be achieved, and this forms one of our conclusions.
They both agreed with the peer reviewers that the project could be carried out for the estimated cost (excluding property costs) of between $1.9b and $2.2b. Thus they confirm that the estimated construction costs are realistic.
In summary, it seems that the NZTA reviews found the cost estimated in the original business case to be realistic, and if anything their feedback suggested that savings were possible through an innovative contracting process.
The significant number of peer reviews the costing has gone through (APB&B themselves had the costs reviewed by three different external agencies) suggests that these numbers are pretty robust. Which is why it is rather surprising to see higher numbers being bandied about in more recent times.
Coming to our last question, how could the project’s cost be trimmed a bit, we learned from commenter “Greg N” (who himself learned from Auckland Transport’s Stephen Rainbow) last month that various options are being looked at on that very issue: in particular delaying the construction of some of the stations (presumably either K Road or Newton station or both, as they are the most expensive and each are likely to generate much less patronage than Aotea Station) and/or not building the eastern link between Newton and Grafton.
The eastern link, K Road and Newton stations are three very expensive parts of the project, if we recall the table earlier on in this post. If we assume that adding in the “other costs” (design, contractor profit, contingency etc.) doubles the actual cost from its pure construction number, we get the following numbers for those three aspects of the project:
K Road station: $319.6 million
Newton station: $315.2 million
Eastern Link: $180.8 million
A grand total of $815.6 million in those three pieces of infrastructure which seem to be ‘up for debate’ over whether they will actually happen (when the project is initially constructed). Obviously there are good reasons to build the two stations and it seems like there is an argument for the Eastern Link (plus probably a pretty significant infrastructure requirement if you don’t build it as you’ll need to turn a heap of trains around somewhere on the Western Line), so there’s a debate to be had around whether they should be in or out, but it’s fair to say that the cost saving potential is rather significant. Of course ‘future proofing’ for the two stations will incur some cost, which is another matter to consider.
But to come back to the question in the title of this post – what does the CRL cost – is seems the answer is fairly complicated and a bit of a movable feast. But what do we know?
We know is that the core cost of the project has been assessed over and over again (with three stations and an eastern link) at around $2 billion.
We know that a significant chunk of this could be saved (say $500 million and I feel like I’m being conservative with that) by delaying the stations and perhaps not building the Eastern Link.
We know that some extra trains will be needed, and some infrastructure works around the rest of the rail network, though it’s debatable whether they should be included as part of the project.
All up, it seems like there’s a pretty damn good chance the project could end up being under $2 billion – including the additional trains and additional infrastructure needed, if the stations are delayed. If this is the case, then it’d be great to have Auckland Transport start telling the world about this very soon before the project loses even more public support. It would also be good if those that do oppose the project actually came up with some ways that we will be able to move people around the region in 30 years time when there are potentially up to 1 million extra people living in it.
Good to see some further progress on the electrification project today, with the contract for the depot where the electric trains will be maintained and housed, being signed:
Auckland Transport has awarded the $40 million contract for the construction of the Wiri Maintenance and Stabling Depot for Auckland’s new electric train fleet to Downer New Zealand Limited (Downer).
Located next to the South-Western Expressway on Wiri Station Road on the old Winstone’s Quarry Site, the Wiri Maintenance and Stabling Depot will be the facility for maintaining and stabling the new electric trains that will be progressively introduced to the Auckland suburban rail network from early 2014 onwards.
The 7650 square metre building will have seven maintenance berths and will include systems that lift trains to enable maintenance, high level platforms to access the roof of trains along with a wheel lathe.
Downer, with their building construction partner Dominion Constructors, will also be responsible for development of the rest of the site including a train wash, cleaning platforms and stabling for 28 trains. Approximately six kilometres of new rail track makes up the sidings and connections to the Auckland suburban rail network. The facility has been futureproofed to maintain a fleet of up to 109 electric trains.
Mayor Len Brown says the Wiri Depot contract is a critical milestone in the electrification of Auckland’s rail network and a vital move towards a single, efficient, integrated transport network.
“This is a significant step to getting Auckland moving, and having a world-class, modern transport system that this region needs,” says the Mayor.
Auckland Transport Chief Executive David Warburton is pleased to see Downer joining the project that will ultimately result in the introduction of a new fleet of fast and comfortable electric trains as part of the on-going upgrade of public transport services in Auckland.
“The construction of the maintenance and stabling depot is a major step towards giving Aucklanders a 21st century rail service that will help keep the country’s largest city moving. It will also provide much needed jobs in the construction sector during the build. I’m delighted to welcome Downer and their subcontract partners to the team and have every confidence that they will exceed our expectations in terms of delivering the project on time and within budget,” he says.
Downer’s Major Projects Executive General Manager Fraser Wyllie is proud their organisation is able to contribute to the creation of a new era of rail travel for Aucklanders. “We are excited to be able to support the Auckland Transport Team on this transformational project for our city and extend the range of services Downer provides to one of our most important Clients,” he explains.
Significant earthworks to prepare the site for the Depot’s construction commenced in January 2011. The Depot build will commence shortly and take approximately 13 months. Once completed, the Wiri Maintenance Depot will be jointly managed by train operator Veolia and the manufacturers of the electric trains, Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles (CAF).
Fast facts – The Wiri Maintenance and Stabling Depot comprises:
· $40 million contract · 4.4 hectares on the old Winstones Quarry on Wiri Station Road · 7650 square metre building · The works were designed by Opus in collaboration with RLB quantity surveyors, Peters and Cheung geotechnical engineers and Arup consulting engineers · Six kilometres of rail track sidings · Stabling for up to 28 electric trains · Seven maintenance berths · Construction commences May 2012, completion expected June 2013 · The Depot will be operated by Veolia and CAF
A couple of images of the depot were shown at last month’s transport committee meeting:
It’s a pretty tight timeframe to have the depot finished by June next year, in time for the EMUs when they arrive.
Wow another surprise, surprise this morning – Snapper are ruining integrated ticketing by being too useless to get their machines up to spec. Here’s the NZ Herald story:
A $98 million integrated ticketing system for Auckland is ready to go, but is being held up by Snapper and NZ Bus not installing the technology on more than 650 buses.
This has left Aucklanders – who have paid $42 million towards the system – waiting until November at the earliest to use a single card on buses, trains and ferries.
French technology giant Thales has completed a contract to install the new ticketing system and its New Zealand country director, Peter Beggs, has taken a swipe at Snapper, a sister company to NZ Bus, for delays.
On May 3, Mr Beggs told staff in an email – obtained by the Herald – that the “failure of Snapper to deliver a functional bus system that meets the ratified standard has caused delays to project go-live”.
The Thales contract was signed in late 2009 while the HOP card was officially launched more than a year ago now. If Snapper haven’t been able to get their act together in that time I have little hope that they’re doing anything more than running interference on the whole process and it seems unlikely they’ll be able to sort themselves out by November.
Auckland Transport are also running out of patience:
Within Auckland Transport, patience is running out with Snapper, NZ Bus and its investment company owners, Infratil, who together have been delaying Auckland’s integrated ticketing project from day one.
In March last year, the Snapper card was launched under the guise of being Auckland Transport’s Hop integrated ticket, but Snapper has failed to integrate its system to the Thales system on its 650 buses – and already missed one deadline to prove its system could link into the Thales system.
Last night, Auckland Transport chief executive David Warburton said that after sitting down with Snapper and making changes to the transition, he had no reason to doubt the Wellington company would be ready to go live with the integrated ticketing system on November 30.
“We have no intention of having multiple systems. There will be one system that will be the NZTA New Zealand standard,” Mr Warburton said.
So what happens if Snapper can’t meet the deadline? It would be pretty amusing – although annoying in a sense as it would delay the project – if all the Snapper machines had to be ripped out of NZ Bus buses and replaced with machines that can actually do the job properly.
Transport makes a major impact in the lives of everyone and goes far deeper than how quick and easy it is to from A to B, it more than any other single thing impacts on how ‘liveable’ a city is. Transport is also the biggest single cost for the city accounting for about half of the expected capital costs and one third of the operational costs for the council in the draft long term plan. When the current structure for the city was set up by the government a year and a half ago one of the key bits was to set up Auckland transport as a single body to deal with all transport matters in the region and there was good reason for doing so. There had historically been a huge amount of bickering by local politicians who were so focused on only looking after their own patch that they couldn’t see the big picture. In fact this was one of the things that helped to kill off earlier incarnations of the CRL as the government of the day played the different borough councils off against each other to create disagreement over the project from within the region.
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.
Yesterday I posed the question of which piece of transport infrastructure carried the most people during the morning peak. The answer is that at the moment they both carry about the same number of people, the difference of course is that the Britomart tunnel has the ability in the future to carry many many more people in the same amount of space as I intend to show you shortly. I have mentioned before how hard it seems to be to show just how much benefit the CRL brings to the city and this post is another intended to try and show some of this information in a different way to make it easier to understand.
The data for this post came from a couple of sources, the current PT information came from the Screenline Study which counted the number of people on buses and trains that entered the CBD last year. The vehicle traffic numbers come from Auckland Transport’s vehicle counts from which there are AM peak hour counts for the roads the cross enter the CBD. I have then mixed this information together along with information we already know about the capacity of the CRL and the EMUs to put these maps together.
A quick explanation about the maps:
The lines represent places where people enter the CBD from, Red lines are access points from the motorways, Blue from local streets, Yellow from the ferries and Green is the rail network. The size of the line represent the number of people (not vehicles) coming via that route.
For the streets the bus and vehicle counts are merged into one arrow, bus patronage is worked out at approx 30 people per bus for the current map, 40 per bus for the 2017 map and 50 people per bus for the 2022 map. In reality we probably won’t see utilisation that high but I thought it would be useful to show the difference.
For the rail network the current count only includes people entering Britomart so other heavily used stations like Grafton and Newmarket are not included which take up much of the reserve capacity. The final map only shows the network at 60% capacity with the assumption that people would still get off at stations like Newmarket. Also before getting accused of accused of having a CBD only focus, the lines represent capacity to the Aotea station for visual purposes only.
First up here is what we have currently. The rail network is small but it is actually the 4th largest source of arrivals into the CBD when compared against each individual streets. You can also see the massive impact that buses from the North Shore and from the Isthmus and down Symonds St make, over 70% of people coming along these two corridors do so on a bus.
Next we see the what things might look like in 2017. By this time we should have all of our new EMUs running which will boost capacity as well as attractiveness of rail network. There are likely to also be significant increases in the bus network following the implementation of the planned improvements to it. In here I have assumed that only about half of the capacity of the EMUs arriving into Britomart is being used yet that line is already the single biggest on the map.
Lastly we see the impact once the CRL is opened, as mentioned the lines only represent about 60% of the available capacity as not everyone will want to head to the CBD. The capacity of the CRL absolutely dwarfs every other entry point to the CBD and it does so without impact to the surrounding streets once it has been built. It is also worth pointing out that the usage of the bus network has been greatly increased, probably more that we can expect in this time as combined it is around 65% higher than the bus patronage is now.
Going back to yesterdays post, to get the same amount of extra capacity we would need probably another 15 general traffic lanes into the CBD, around an extra 400 buses per hour or some combination of the two.
Thinking of buying a new smart phone, it might be a good idea to get one with an NFC chip in it because AT and Thales are trialling using NFC with the final (real) hop. That would mean you wouldn’t need a separate Hop card and would just need to swipe your mobile phone to pay for your PT trip. It’s also a world first for Thales meaning we could actually be leading the world on something PT related. Here is the press release:
Auckland Transport, Telecom and Westpac to trial Mobile Wallet
Paying for services through your mobile phone is closer to reality after Telecom, Auckland Transport and Westpac have announced plans to start trialling a mobile wallet system from May in collaboration with Gemalto, Thales and Paymark.
In a major milestone for the development of mobile payments technology, the trial will involve some 30 staff from the six organisations. Trial participants will be able to use a mobile phone to make “tap and go” payments to access public transport inAucklandand make purchases at a small selection of retailers.
In a world first, Thales will be using its near-field communication (NFC) application throughout Auckland Transport’s final smart card ticketing system, HOP, before deploying it globally across all networks and banks. The trial, which utilises Telecom’s XT network, is expected to enable participants to pay forAuckland’s buses, trains and ferries through their mobile phones. The phone will communicate with the HOP terminal to complete the transaction without having to swipe or insert a card.
Auckland Transport’s Chief Executive, Dr David Warburton said:
“Mobile phone technology makes the option of paying for transport services using a device the majority of New Zealanders carry with them every day, a natural choice reducing the number of cards customers have to carry. We look forward to working with our technology and service partners in this trial.”
And in aNew Zealandfirst, the trial will also use a Westpac credit card to top up a Telecom XT Prepaid account, using Paymark’s infrastructure. This will make it easier for customers to add credit to a prepaid card without having to go online or pay in a store.
Telecom CEO, Paul Reynolds, said that the days of people having to use multiple plastic cards to pay for goods and services were quickly becoming numbered.
“As we have seen with developments in mobile phone technology, people quite rightly expect their phones to offer more versatility and functionality and simplify their lifestyles. And we’re absolutely committed to developing the mobile wallet through our investment in building a common trusted services manager forNew Zealand.
“The information gained from this trial will be invaluable for developing a mobile wallet with the kinds of innovative products and services that our customers can expect on the XT network.”
Westpac General Manager Customer Technology and Services, Jim Stabback, said the trial is a step toward Kiwis joining the growing global trend of banking via mobile phone.
“This is an important part of Westpac’s innovation pipeline and it’s an excellent opportunity to build further capability in this area as theNew Zealandbanking industry moves toward a mobile future,” Mr Stabback said.
For the trial, Gemalto will provide the essential network infrastructure required for near-field communications including its Trusted Service Management platform (TSM).
“Gemalto is excited to be the technology partner in this strategic trial. Our goal is to provide an open, interoperable and neutral NFC ecosystem for operators, banks, service providers and merchants. This allows them to provide not just secure mobile contactless payments, but also a variety of new services such as loyalty and e-couponing in a fast, secure and convenient manner,” said Tan Teck Lee, Chief Innovation and Technology Officer & Asia President.
“Having been involved in over 50 NFC projects, we look forward to sharing our knowledge and experience withNew Zealandas it transforms its payment environment.”
Earlier this month Telecom, Vodafone, 2Degrees and Paymark announced a joint venture to launch a TSM which will provide a common solution for theNew Zealandmarket to encourage consumer uptake and avoid confusion. The technology and solutions prototyped in this trial will ultimately be available to all New Zealanders, across all mobile operators, via the TSM.
I’m very please with this announcement, well done AT and Thales and if we could just get the real hop rolled out we can start living in the future. I guess it also means I will have to start working on a business case to convince the wife that I need a new phone soon.
Peter’s post the other day highlighting the capacity of the rail network and why we need the CRL got me thinking that about how this critical piece of information is not only missing from Auckland transports marketing of the project but just how hard it is to get that message across to the general public. Part of the problem I find is that people don’t understand how the rail network can be at capacity given how many people it could potentially move so to explain the capacity issue to people you either need to talk to people about it in person or get people to read a few paragraphs about it. Both of those are difficult to do when there are so many people that need to be communicated to for a project like this and the waters also get muddied by electrification and the extra capacity that will deliver.
So how do we solve this, one thing I have been thinking about is a graph to show the capacity constraint that exists today and how it would be affected in the future by the various projects. These numbers won’t be 100% right but do give an indication as to the kind of capacity constraints we will have. The blue line is the rough capacity of the rail network at peak times in the peak direction while the red line is the number of trips using the network in the AM peak, the future AM peak numbers come from some of the work done for the CRL business case.
The first step in the blue line represents the change in capacity with electrification while the second step is the capacity of the network once the CRL is built, in reality that wouldn’t all come on stream straight away as it would depend on how many trains we had. It is also worth pointing out that some of those shown in the red line will be in the counter peak direction. While some of the numbers in here might need tweaking, the real general trend of the graph is what we are expecting to see and the point of this post is to show a different and perhaps easier way of explaining the capacity problem.
Are there other ways that people can think of that would be useful for AT to use to help to easily explain why the CRL is needed?
On Wednesday is one of the most important days of the year, ANZAC day. One of the key parts of the day is the dawn service and in Auckland thousands of people get up early to take part in the ceremony that takes place at the museum. Unfortunately because AZNAC day day is a public holiday it also means that all public transport is operated to a special timetable, a timetable which for trains at least, doesn’t start running till about 7am. That means it is simply impossible for anyone wanting to attend the dawn service to get there by train and I suspect that buses aren’t much better.
I put my address into the MAXX journey planner with a goal of getting to the museum by 5am and as well as no trains running there are also no buses either. That means the only option I have is to drive and to battle with the thousands of others for a car park if I want to attend.
Now I can understand why AT put on minimal services on normal public holidays, I don’t agree but I understand. ANZAC day is something different though and is unique in that there are large numbers of people getting up early to go to one part of the city, surely that should justify some special services so that people can pay their respects.
One thing that Auckland Transport and the Auckland Council seem to struggle with at the moment is the issue of how to sell the City Rail Link (CRL). We have seen AT start to improve things but most people on sites like this tend to think that it doesn’t really do enough to explain the project or it’s benefits. Part of the problem is that the Government review muddied the waters by using dodgy assumptions like that the price of parking wouldn’t increase over a 30 year period, that there was unlimited roading capacity for more cars and buses in the CBD as well as a few others. These issues are currently being addressed by a piece of work called the City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS) and that will feed into an updated business case but to me there is still a big gap we haven’t yet solved and that is, how do we explain the project to the general public.
Saying that we are going to build it is one thing but it tends to lead to a lot of misinformation about what the project actually is and part of the problem is that it can be very difficult to get some of the complex and detailed information across to the public in an easy to understand way. This leads to detractors coming up with arguments that have probably already been answered and already with the CRL we have seen things like:
Why not just put more buses on
Why not use X, Y or Z technology
Why should petrol taxes go towards a rail project
Why should those outside of Auckland have to help pay for it
Auckland doesn’t have the population to support rail
Aucklanders just love cars and will never use PT
We shouldn’t build a tunnel in such a volcanic area/what happens if there is an earthquake
So the question becomes, how do we get this information across to the public in a way that is easy to understand. One thing that we can do is look to overseas examples, here is one from Hawaii which describes a rail system they are currently building.
The information is nice and clear and makes it very easy to understand the process went they went through and the benefits of the process. About the only thing I thought that wasn’t well explained was why fuel taxes should be used to help fund the project. Hopefully AT will produce something similar once the current study and the updated business case are completed so that people across the country can see the benefits of the project.
There are a few important points in the table above, which are worth highlighting:
Recent Comments