Last week I wrote about the East West
Link Connections and how the cost of the project were ever increasing and how the staging for the project had changed. The post was based on a number of papers I received from the NZTA as a result of an OIA request.
The preferred East-West option
One aspect I didn’t cover were some of the major risks that have been identified for the project. These are described in the paper from December 2015, I’ve left out the funding risk as not really relevant to this post.
- The underlying land use and travel demand assumptions for the project are based on an agreed medium growth scenario associated with the Auckland Plan. Given the preferred option is a long-term response to current and planned future growth, there is a risk that the growth assumptions and associated travel demand may not materialise as planned. This could result in a transport response that is misaligned with the future needs of the network and as such, this will need to be reviewed at each funding stage as the project progresses.
- Given the early stage of the project, there is a future cost risk that outturn costs will exceed the expected estimate, based on incomplete knowledge. This has been accounted for by providing additional contingency in the current estimates. The top cost risk items are:
- Property – the proposed alignment has attempted to minimise impact on industrial zoned property as far as practicable, however there are still a number of properties which will likely be required either in part or whole. Based on the current state of the Auckland property market, any delays to the property acquisition process are likely to result in inflated property costs above and beyond current market rates.
- Neilson St Interchange – the design of the interchange is a complex task requiring careful balancing of competing priorities and community interests. There are significant consenting challenges both with the presence of natural volcanic features (Hopua tuff ring), but also the close proximity to the town centre and the foreshore, both of which have strong public interest. There is a risk that through the consenting process an alternative proposal is put forward that is significantly more costly (CapEx and/or OpEx) than the currently preferred option.
- Foreshore – having regard to the NZ Coastal Policy Statement and recent case law, there are significant policy hurdles to pass with the proposed alignment along the foreshore. Conversely, early engagement with key partners has indicated conditional support on the basis that the proposed response could have the greatest opportunity for mitigation, particularly in tidying up historical reclamation and contaminating activities. It is expected that more than just mitigation will need to be considered to enable reclamation to be considered favourably, though the extent of works required and associated costs is unknown at this stage.
Let’s just step through them a bit
Land Use and Travel Demand assumptions – A lot of assumptions seem to be based most of the Onehunga/Penrose area staying industrial. Most of the area to the west of Onehunga Mall is already earmarked for mixed use and with land prices and demand the way they are it’s likely that over the medium to long term all of those will end up residential. It’s also quite likely that over time, a lot of the other commercial land in the area will be converted to residential, most likely through private plan changes. That will fundamentally change the transport demand for the area and likely the whole purpose of this project.
Neilson St Interchange – The NZTA’s predecessor originally planned to build this interchange as part of the Manukau Harbour Crossing project before revising their consent to not include it. From memory this was due to the significant impact it would have had on the area, especially the Hopua Tuff Ring and the need reclamation to accommodate it. It appears the road builders are emboldened to try again and with what appears to be very similar to what was originally proposed in 2006.
It’s also worth noting that Panuku is meant to be redeveloping the Onehunga Port area to be more people friendly just like they’ve done at the Wynyard Quarter. It remains to be seen how they’re going to make that a success when it will be cut off from the rest of the city by what is effectively a motorway and seemingly poor access for PT and active modes.
Foreshore – The impact on the foreshore where the main thing that originally inspired this post. A number of the documents referenced in the post last week made mention of it and in particular mentioned NZ Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS). Looking at it the NZCPS it’s easy to see why they’re concerned as it basically says they shouldn’t do it. Now to be fair I haven’t read all 30 pages of the document but if you have and I’ve got parts of it wrong then please let me know in the comments. For this I’m just going to focus on a couple of sections.
- Reclamation – As mentioned it basically says that reclamation should be avoided unless there are no other options. But that isn’t the case with the East-West project as we know that other options not only exist but also perform better economically. Here’s what the NZCPS says about reclamation:
Reclamation and de-reclamation
- Avoid reclamation of land in the coastal marine area, unless:
- land outside the coastal marine area is not available for the proposed activity;
- the activity which requires reclamation can only occur in or adjacent to the coastal marine area;
- there are no practicable alternative methods of providing the activity; and
- the reclamation will provide significant regional or national benefit.
- Where a reclamation is considered to be a suitable use of the coastal marine area, in considering its form and design have particular regard to:
- the potential effects on the site of climate change, including sea level rise, over no less than 100 years;
- the shape of the reclamation and, where appropriate, whether the materials used are visually and aesthetically compatible with the adjoining coast;
- the use of materials in the reclamation, including avoiding the use of contaminated materials that could significantly adversely affect water quality, aquatic ecosystems and indigenous biodiversity in the coastal marine area;
- providing public access, including providing access to and along the coastal marine area at high tide where practicable, unless a restriction on public access is appropriate as provided for in Policy 19;
- the ability to remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the coastal environment;
- whether the proposed activity will affect cultural landscapes and sites of significance to tangata whenua; and
- the ability to avoid consequential erosion and accretion, and other natural hazards.
- In considering proposed reclamations, have particular regard to the extent to which the reclamation and intended purpose would provide for the efficient operation of infrastructure, including ports, airports, coastal roads, pipelines, electricity transmission, railways and ferry terminals, and of marinas and electricity generation.
- Walking Access – As mentioned in the quote above, public access should be provided to the coastal area. The section on walking access expands on this more and none of the reasons given for reasons to restrict public from the foreshore seem to be relevant to this project.
- Recognise the public expectation of and need for walking access to and along the coast that is practical, free of charge and safe for pedestrian use.
- Maintain and enhance public walking access to, along and adjacent to the coastal marine area, including by:
- identifying how information on where the public have walking access will be made publicly available;
- avoiding, remedying or mitigating any loss of public walking access resulting from subdivision, use, or development; and
- identifying opportunities to enhance or restore public walking access, for example where:
- connections between existing public areas can be provided; or
- improving access would promote outdoor recreation; or
- physical access for people with disabilities is desirable; or
- the long-term availability of public access is threatened by erosion or sea level rise; or
- access to areas or sites of historic or cultural significance is important; or
- subdivision, use, or development of land adjacent to the coastal marine area has reduced public access, or has the potential to do so.
- Only impose a restriction on public walking access to, along or adjacent to the coastal marine area where such a restriction is necessary:
- to protect threatened indigenous species; or
- to protect dunes, estuaries and other sensitive natural areas or habitats; or
- to protect sites and activities of cultural value to Māori; or
- to protect historic heritage; or
- to protect public health or safety; or
- to avoid or reduce conflict between public uses of the coastal marine area and its margins; or
- for temporary activities or special events; or
- for defence purposes in accordance with the Defence Act 1990; or
- to ensure a level of security consistent with the purpose of a resource consent; or
- in other exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify the restriction.
- Before imposing any restriction under (3), consider and where practicable provide for alternative routes that are available to the public free of charge at all times.
Now the reason this is important is so far the NZTA have yet to say whether provision will be made for the public to have access, like they currently – a photo essay of which can be seen here. So far from what I’ve seen the NZTA have only resorted to saying that they haven’t decided yet.
The drawings developed for the detailed business case (46MB) suggest there will be a narrow path along the seaward side of the massive reclamation as well as the existing walking/cycling path but the new path appears a fairly barren and exposed place to be – perhaps a bit like the cycleway on the causeway along SH16. You can also see the intersection for this new road with Captain Springs Rd will also require people on foot or bikes to make up to three crossings to get across this new mega road.
The drawings also highlight the massive extent of the planned reclamation. As a quick estimation, it appears to be at least 50m wide, if not wider in places and even straighter than the current foreshore which doesn’t seem to meet the requirements in the NZCPS.
It’s worth noting for these drawings the comments in the grey box which says that the “alignment is for cost estimation and to establish an indicative footprint” and that “the actual footprint and location is subject to change“. These drawings are also just a selection of what is in the document but for the foreshore are all fairly consistent.
The red part is a bridge
If this project does go ahead, it seems like a much better job needs to be done on the on the foreshore. As it stands, it appears the NZTA are going for the cheapest option available – which at $1.8 billion is not cheap.
I recently received back an OIA request from the NZTA on a few projects. One part of that was related to the Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing and the other which I’ll cover in this post was about the East West
Link Connections. Among other things the documents highlight a project that is rapidly increasing in cost to a level around three times initial suggestions. Like I did with the AWHC post, I’ll highlight what I found interesting from each of the nine documents in chronological order.
The preferred East-West option
A briefing to the former Minister of Transport Gerry Brownlee giving an update on the project and informing that they would soon start public consultation on the various options they had come up with. They also offered to walk him through the options and “get any input you wish to make on the next phase of the project”. A later document hints at some of that feedback.
A paper to the NZTA board with the recommended approach following the public consultation. This first highlights the initial expected cost at well less than $1 billion.
The East West Link (as it was previously known) was considered by the Board in February 2014 (14/02/112) and was reported to the Minister as part of the Auckland Accelerated Package. The basis for the recommendations at that stage was a scope that is roughly equivalent to the current Option C, with a cost range of $550 million to $660 million.
For reference this was Option C was an upgrade of part of Neilson St and then a route in a little from the foreshore but the costs mentioned don’t quite add up with the ones also listed in the document as shown below
The NZTA ended up choosing option F but also bringing in some of the elements of other options too. In their listing of the reasons for choosing it they praise it for being a new route and one without driveways like Neilson St has. That highlights one of the odd things about this whole project, it’s supposedly about improving freight connections but it’s being pushed mainly for through traffic so all of the local freight traffic will still be trudging through all of the local routes.
They also like Option F as they’d identified four distinct phases. These are shown below along with some of the information about each stage. Stage 2 looks to be over a bridge over 1.2km in length. The section on risks also acknowledges it creates issues for rail to the Airport.
As mentioned earlier there was some mention of the Ministers response with the NZTA saying this.
The expectation was that the Transport Agency would report back to the Minister and Treasury on the preferred option to inform funding decisions as part of Budget 2015. Included in this, the previous Minister of Transport asked the Transport Agency to investigate an option for providing a complete link between State Highway 1 and State Highway 20.
The paper says this in relation to rail. This seems to suggest that rail improvements are a justification for more roads. But why then is the third main not included as part of the East-West project, the cost of doing it would be tiny in comparison the cost of the overall project and would go some way to addressing the MOAR ROADZ feeling of it all.
A memo for the CEO’s board report. It suggests that the board didn’t confirm the preferred option listed above at that time and that more work was being done for approval in April. It notes that if approved to move towards consenting, which is currently happening, that part of the process is expected to cost $20-25 million over a two-year period.
A paper to the board seeking approval of the preferred approach to the project. The first thing I note is they’ve reduced the project to three stages and suggests progressing stages 1 and 2 in the short the medium term with stage 3 not being needed till later, possibly around 2035.
The cost for the project is also confirmed and that it’s not possible to fund it based on normal funding sources.
- The expected scheme cost of a complete staged link is in the range of $1,050 million (at the 50th percentile) to $1,400 (at the 95th percentile) with a benefit cost ratio range of 1.4 to 1.9.
- The financial case being progressed indicates that delivery of the full staged project within a ten year timeframe is not affordable with funding from the NLTF alone. This view is based on the current mix of the forward capital works programme. A change in the forward capital works programme mix or additional sources of funding may change this view.
Following the above, a briefing note was sent to the Simon Bridges as Minister of Transport. There isn’t a lot of new information that wasn’t in the document above but it does note that property costs alone are expected to exceed $100 million. It also says Iwi are supportive of the planned reclamation.
Another briefing was sent to Simon Bridges on the feedback from the Auckland Business Forum ahead of a meeting between Bridges and Michael Barnett. It responds to some of the talking points you occasionally hear in the media such as why not widen the bridge at Mt Wellington. It also suggests that the new E-W road is being designed to expressway standards rather than motorway standards. This is what the NZTA say about the difference between the two.
What’s the difference between a motorway and an expressway?
Motorways are access-controlled, high-speed roads that normally have ‘grade-separated intersections’ – which means they have overbridges (or underpasses) so road users don’t have to stop at traffic lights.
Expressways are also high-speed roads, but they may include well-spaced ‘at-grade intersections’ – which means they often have accesses and driveways on to them and sometimes traffic signals or roundabouts.
Next we have an internal memo in to the CEO giving an update about the project. It mentions that the detailed business case was close to being finalised confirming the route all along the foreshore and also highlighting that the costs had increased further.
- The Detailed Business Case is currently being finalised and will be considered for approval by the NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport Boards in December. The business case recommends a new full link between SH1 and SH20 along the northern foreshore of the Mangere Inlet as the preferred long term response to the issues in the Onehunga-Penrose area (refer Attachment 1). It is proposed that the new link is a new state highway, to be planned, delivered, operated, and maintained by the NZ Transport Agency.
- The cost of the project is estimated to be in the range of $1.25 billion to $1.85 billion (escalated costs) with a BCR range of 1.4 to 1.9.
So the project has potentially increased in cost more than threefold. It’s interesting how there are politicians who decry spending on the CRL just in case costs increase but stay eerily silent on this project. Further how is it the costs increase but the BCR manages to stay the same?
The memo notes that the earliest they could possibly start the project was in 2018 after going through a Board of Inquiry process. It seems this memo could have been in response to press release from the Auckland Business Forum complaining that the project was going too slow. That press release is at the end of the document.
Another paper to the NZTA board, it seeks approval to move towards the consent process following the completion of the Detailed Business Case. It notes that they now want stage 3 started immediately after stage two and the entire project completed by 2028 because they say Neilson St will be too congested “because of additional traffic attracted to Neilson St through the improved access from SH1”. A classic more roads beget more roads scenario. I wonder if they’ve addressed some of the issues with the indicative business case that Cam highlighted very well in December.
As part of the “key outcomes” of the project they talk about travel time savings and reduced congestion but they also claim it will deliver “At least 5.5km of new dedicated cycle paths”. Given that about 4km of cycle paths already exist along the foreshore is this being double counted?
They think they will be able to fund this out of the National Land Transport Fund as a result of the Basin Reserve decision delaying spending in Wellington by what they estimate to be 5 years. If the Wellington planning work is finalised sooner than expected they will either need to re-prioritise work or potentially get a short term interest free loan from the government. On the costs they sought or noted the following amounts:
- $30 million for the NZTA to progress the project for consents etc.
- $135 million to start property acquisition along the route.
- $15 million for the NZTA’s early works projects.
- $32 million for Auckland Transport’s early works projects (which would be subject to NZTA funding assistance).
The early works are a series of projects mainly in and around Onehunga such as widening the motorway, widening parts of Neilson St and removing the bridge on Neilson St over the rail corridor, presumably to supersize the intersection. This work with the exception of the Galway St link was recently put out to tender.
I’m not sure if there is enough space under the bridge for two tracks but regardless, removing the bridge is surely just one more nail in the coffin for rail to the airport (light or heavy) which would now likely have to be built on bridge over the road/intersection. The East-West project has already made getting across the harbour difficult as shown in the video a few months ago from AT.
The final paper and is a briefing to Simon Bridges summarising some of the information from the paper above.
This project is looking to be a classic example of how differently we treat projects. The cost of it is already ballooned to $1.8 billion, seemingly without a single drop of concern and at the current rate it is quite possible it will end up costing taxpayers over $2 billion. Yet despite this and unlike the CRL it hasn’t been subject to detailed cross examination by other government agencies, it hasn’t had usage or job growth targets imposed on it. It was even pulled out of the ATAP process even though that is meant to include projects not yet committed to – which at that stage East-West wasn’t.
This week in Parliament the government have been using patsy questions to talk up their recent transport announcements about the City Rail Link and East-West Link. Both are entertaining in their own ways.
On Wednesday there was almost a bit surreal when Transport Minister Simon Bridges got asked a series of patsy questions by Botany MP and former councillor Jami-Lee-Ross about the CRL. This extended to a couple of questions from other members in the house. What I found most interesting is watching Bridges now defend the decision to allow construction to start in 2018 after he and his predecessors spent so many years defending why they wouldn’t make that a decision.
While we’re far from fans of the project, Bridges quip to Peters about Puhoi to Wellsford was at least funny.
On Thursday Jami-Lee Ross started another patsy to the minister, this time about the East-West Link. It was all a pretty staid affair until Green MP Julie Anne Genter jumped in highlighting that some of the other options for the project were cheaper and had better economic outcomes – something we highlighted here. I think she saved the best line till last.
Normally organisations don’t make announcements late on the last Friday afternoon before Christmas unless it’s about something they don’t want much coverage of by the media. Last Friday the NZTA made an announcement that would fit in that category – they’re now going to try and obtain consent for the East-West Link. This is the $1 billion+ project that will create a new barrier between to the water right at a time when we’ve just spent nearly $30 million to fix the foreshore on the other side on Onehunga. It also comes right after Panuku Development Auckland announced that Onehunga would be one of their top priorities including the redevelopment of the Onehunga Wharf.
The NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport have taken another step towards construction of the East West Connections project, confirming that the preferred option will go ahead to the next stage.
The project, which is one of the top three transport priorities for Auckland, will now start gathering the necessary planning approvals and consents to protect the route between Onehunga and Mt Wellington.
This follows a wide range of feedback received in July on the preferred approach. The project will improve connections into and out of Onehunga-Penrose and also speed up bus travel times between Mangere, Otahuhu and Sylvia Park.
“A team of consultants has now been engaged to start the planning and consent phase of this key project,” says the NZ Transport Agency’s Highway Manager Brett Gliddon.
“People will also have more opportunities to provide further input and feedback as the design is developed.”
The Transport Agency plans to apply to the Environmental Protection Authority for the Notice of Requirement to obtain the necessary land and approvals for the project later in 2016.
At the same time, the Transport Agency and Auckland Transport are planning to start work in early 2016 on a package of early improvements. These are aimed at providing some early benefits to freight and public transport users on both the motorway and local road network.
Auckland Transport spokesperson Andrew Scoggins says this will include upgrades needed for the introduction of the new south Auckland public transport network. This incorporates an upgraded Mangere town centre bus station and new bus stops in Otahuhu town centre.
“Auckland Transport and the Transport Agency will also begin improving journeys for drivers moving around busy Onehunga local roads, starting with four laning a section of Neilson Street.”
The Southwestern Motorway will also be widened to four lanes in each direction between Queenstown Road and Neilson Street and bus shoulder lanes will be added all the way to Kirkbride Road towards the airport.
As Cam pointed out well in this post recently, Option F which is what most closely resembles the final option they’ve chosen appears to fail when an incremental benefit-cost ratio is calculated.
As I’ve said before, this project is like trying to crack a nut with a sledgehammer. Absolutely some parts of the existing road need to have some money spent on it but over a billion?
How transport projects are evaluated has always been of interest to me. I believe that although the standard cost benefit analysis approach that lies behind the NZTA economic evaluation manual has its flaws, the resulting BCR is still an important factor in determining whether a project, or a particular project option, should proceed. I don’t really buy the argument that a project with an unfavorable BCR should be trumped by “strategic” reasons to enable it to proceed. If the strategic reason is any good it will probably be reflected in the BCR, particularly if wider economic benefits (WEBs) are taken into account. I put the Puhoi to Warkworth business case in this category (BCR 0.92) , along with the eye-wateringly expensive Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing for cars and trucks (BCR 0.4).
Recently I took a look at a number of documents on the East-West Connections project – formerly called the East-West Link, released by the NZTA . At this stage they’ve completed an “Indicative Business Case” (IBC) – essentially, an initial investigation of the options for improving connectivity in the area. They’ve published the IBC alongside a number of technical appendices.
This is a welcome step as this is the first time that the wider public is getting a decent look at the project, including all of the options on the table. NZTA’s decision to release the full documentation, without redacting large sections of the analysis, is really good for transparency.
So let’s take a high-level look at some of the specific trade-offs between costs and benefits of the different options. To jump right to it, NZTA’s conclusion is that Option F should be progressed to a Detailed Business Case. Here’s a picture of Option F, which involves a new highway along the Onehunga foreshore:
For context, Options C, D and E also involved building new roads (part of the way) along the foreshore, while Options A and B entailed upgrades to existing roads, including freight lanes. A summary assessment of this “short list” is available in Appendix O of the business case.
NZTA conducted a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of these six options. CBA for transport projects typically compares:
- The financial costs to build and operate the project, and
- The monetised economic benefits of the project, including user benefits such as travel time savings, vehicle operating cost savings, and reliability improvements and other benefits such as vehicle emissions reductions (or increases) and effects on economic productivity (“agglomeration”).
While CBA does have some weaknesses, largely due to shortcomings in the modelling tools available to us, it’s a conceptually robust way to assess project options. Especially in the case of road projects, NZTA’s approach should capture the majority of the economic benefits arising from projects, including productivity improvements for freight users.
This is the summary table:
You can see the net present value of the total benefits exceed the total costs for each option – i.e. the total benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for each option is above 1.
However, there are two problems.
The first is that the NZTA has made somewhat arbitrary assumptions about agglomeration benefits, which in theory reflect the productivity gains arising from improving connectivity between businesses. Rather than formally modelling it using the procedure specified in Appendix A10 of NZTA’s Economic Evaluation Manual, they’ve simply assumed that agglomeration impacts will add 25% on top of transport user benefits for each option.
As Stu previously highlighted in the case of the Mill Road highway, which included a similar “fudge factor” for agglomeration benefits, there is no real reason to do this (other than the rather circular argument that the same thing is being done for other projects).
In the case of East-West Connections, there is a stronger argument to be made for agglomeration benefits, as this project will serve a busy commercial/industrial area. However, it’s still necessary to do the analysis to establish their existence and magnitude! I (perhaps cynically) suspect that the 25% figure has simply been used to make the BCRs all appear higher than they otherwise would be. For public relations purposes it is preferable to have a higher BCR than a low one, even though the purpose of the exercise is an option evaluation rather than an assessment of the absolute economic worth of the project.
The second problem with this table is that it is not consistent with NZTA’s own requirements. Section 2.8 of the EEM sets out requirements for calculating and reporting BCRs. That section requires an incremental analysis of costs and benefits:
In other words, if you are choosing between two options, one of which is considerably more expensive than the other, it’s not enough to say that the more costly option has a BCR above 1. It’s actually necessary to show that the added (incremental) benefits of the costly option exceed the added (incremental) costs.
This is an important step in cost-benefit analysis as it shows you whether spending that extra bit of money for a more expensive solution is justified. Failing to do an incremental CBA is basically an invitation for gold-plating and overspending – i.e. find a worthwhile project, and then jack up the costs as high as possible.
So let’s take a look at an incremental BCR analysis of the East-West options. For simplicity I’ve focused only on Options A, B, and F – the two cheapest options, and NZTA’s preferred option. (Options C, D, and E are fairly similar to F in terms of total costs and total benefits – including them wouldn’t get a different result.)
Here’s a picture of Option A, which is an upgrade of SH20 and the existing Nielson St route to SH1:
And here’s Option B, which is pretty similar but also adds a south-facing ramp to SH1:
I’ve ranked the options from least to most expensive:
- Option A has total costs of $200 million and total benefits of $850 million. Consequently, it has an incremental BCR (relative to spending nothing) of 4.3. In other words, Option A seems like a good project.
- Option B has total costs of $500m and total benefits of $1650m. This means that it has incremental costs of $300m (i.e. $500m-$200m) and incremental benefits of $800m (i.e. $1650m-$850m). Its incremental BCR, compared to Option A, is therefore 2.7. This suggests that it’s well worth spending the extra money for Option B.
- Option F has total costs of $800m and total benefits of $1550m. Relative to Option B, its incremental costs are $300m and its incremental benefits are -$100m. Its incremental BCR is therefore -0.3.
In other words, if the NZTA were to follow their own economic evaluation manual it shows that Option F is not great value for money. It costs a lot more while actually delivering fewer economic benefits than Option B. Negative BCRs are generally not a positive sign that a project is a good idea.
This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t build Option F, or that we should build Option B. There may be some significant positive or negative effects that aren’t captured in this analysis and that may tip things in a different direction. For example, existing traffic modelling tools may not capture travel time reliability benefits very well. Similarly, we haven’t taken a look at environmental costs – on the one hand, Option F paves over the remainder of the Onehunga foreshore, which is negative; on the other, it potentially moves trucks away from the town centre and residential areas, which might be a good thing.
Admittedly I’m not a professional economist, but to me the incremental BCR analysis does highlight several questions that need to be answered:
- Given the fact that Option F costs more than Option B while delivering fewer quantified economic benefits, is there evidence that other unquantified benefits, such as travel time reliability, are sufficiently large to justify the added costs?
- Given that the project is primarily intended to improve convenience for freight users, has the government asked freight companies and shippers in the area if they would be willing to invest their own money to pay for Option F?
- Given the results of the Basin Reserve Flyover hearings, in which a Board of Inquiry found that the incremental economic benefits of the Flyover weren’t sufficient to outweigh the added environmental/amenity costs, is there a risk that approval for Option F won’t be forthcoming?
And finally, given the results of an incremental BCR analysis, isn’t there a case to also progress Option B for a more detailed assessment in the next stage of the work, given that it maximises economic benefits at a lower cost?
We’ve known for some time the East-West
Link Connections is shaping up to be one of those projects that tries to crack a nut by using a sledgehammer. The thin lines that AT/NZTA draw on the maps make the project look small, but in reality, if built this project is going to be massive. It will involve significant reclamation of the northern side of the Mangere Inlet to build a four lane motorway limited access road – with the truck lobby wanting even fewer intersections than currently proposed. As part of the 1960s nostalgic thinking around this new road, it even appears from the maps that the new road will cut off access to the foreshore, just at a time when the Onehunga side of the inlet is about to have its foreshore restored. In addition to the new road along the foreshore the project also involves:
- Adding new lanes on both sides of SH20 between Queenstown Road and Neilson Street.
- A massive new motorway interchange at Neilson St to link people directly to the new road and to Onehunga as well as widening Onehunga Harbour Rd to four lanes.
- Widening Neilson Street to four lanes and upgrading the Captain Springs Road/Neilson Street intersection – note: it seems the widening is only as far as Captain Springs Rd, not all the way to Church St.
- The extension of the Waikaraka cycleway to Sylvia Park
- Widening of Sylvia Park Road to four lanes and direct ramps to SH1 south of Mt Wellington
- Adding new lanes on both sides of SH1 between the new ramps and Princes Street
Even at this early stage the NZTA suggest the entire project will cost $1 billion. If they carry on with the current thinking then my guess is that the cost will probably start pushing up closer to $1.5 billion.
AT/NZTA say they are going to be working closely with local community on some aspects of the project and one of those is the Neilson St interchange – or Gloucester Park Interchange as they now seem to be calling it.
I’ve been sent a presentation following a stakeholder workshop earlier this month looking at the options for this interchange. I don’t know which stakeholders are involved but one will almost certainly be The Onehunga Enhancement Society (TOES). They’re one of the key groups behind current foreshore restoration but they’re also the ones who came up with a horrific alternative plan to put an eight lane road along the foreshore and all the way to Highbrook. As I understand it, one line of their thinking is that if a massive new road is built then as mitigation they can replicate the current foreshore restoration on the inlet. While the eight lane motorway thankfully isn’t happening it seems AT/NZTA are considering some of their ideas for the interchange.
The following images show the potential options being considered for the interchange, in all you can see the route for the rail line to get to the airport.
Option A1 is a version of the TOES concept and amongst other things would require a new bridge across the harbour to go with the two motorway bridges, a rail bridge and a walking/cycling bridge. There’s also a tunnel to link people heading south on SH20 to the E-W Link. It’s actually slightly scaled back from the TOES original version which had the blue connection also as a new bridge.
Option B1 is the NZTA’s concept and is what is shown in the first image. They note it will have impacts on:
- Coastal Edge
- Hopua Tuff Ring
- Sea Scout Hall
- Local access
As you can see from the image, it doesn’t add any additional road crossings of the harbour, and instead sends traffic to/from Onehunga or the motorway via a new bridge over the motorway.
The NZTA have also come up with two composite options which they’re calling Option C.
I personally can’t see the options that require a new bridge across the inlet stacking up, which means the most likely options to be selected would be B1 or C2
As the new road is intended to be limited access – i.e. no driveways – these plans would make it impossible to access some of the neighbouring properties such as the wharf. There are three options for how to retain local road and therefore walking/cycling access.
Option A is a tunnel under the motorway and new Onehunga Harbour Rd
Option B is a bridge over the top of the road – this would likely link in with option A and both option Cs above.
Option C is what they call an inner loop but which appears to be a tunnel using part of the old rail designation.
They then combine each of the interchange options with each of the local road options, with each to go through an assessment to determine the best combination. The presentation also notes that following the workshop AT/NZTA agreed they would assess a few other aspects. It suggests not all are listed but includes:
- Where local roads can go over, not under, the East West Connection arterial.
- Possibilities for cut and cover of the East West Connection arterial opposite the Wharf area.
- Alternatives for the suggested bridge, which crosses SH20 in the current options, to become a tunnel.
As you can see just from this small section alone, it is likely to be hugely expensive to build this road, which will probably do little for truck congestion because the road will be filled with single occupant cars. If the project was really about providing better access for trucks then they’d be getting on with fixing Neilson St and adding measures like truck lanes. That they’re not doing this only adds to my feeling that this is a make-work scheme for road planners/engineers, and a predetermined solution in search of a problem – much like another road crossing of the Waitemata Harbour. There’s probably also a case of those working on the project being beholden to the crazy demands of the stakeholders such as TOES and the trucking companies.
Continue reading East-West and Gloucester Park Interchange
This is a guest post from reader Jeff
What do you think of when you think of the Mangere inlet?
For most of us, it’s probably the journey across the Manukau Harbour Bridge to the Airport, and those little darting concrete catwalks linking suburbs we only know by name.
AT and the NZTA revealed plans to build a nearly motorway grade link between the bridge, and the Southern motorway, right along the Manukau Inlet foreshore.
This is our last chance to see this piece of waterfront land properly activated. What if we could rehabilitate it? What if it could host apartments, sail-boats, restaurants and a promenade? With the old Mangere bridge soon to be removed, there’s room to do something truly special with this area.
“Oh better freight movement!” We reassure ourselves. After all, trucks are the lifeblood of the economy, they keep telling us the economy will grind to a halt without them.
Yes, trucks do link nearly everything, does that warrant such a huge investment of public money to make private KPI’s more efficient, in what is, admittedly, an industrial area that arguably won’t be industrial in only a generation’s time?
But what about Church Street? doesn’t that connect the North Western motorway with the Southern motorway, and eastern suburbs?
What is unworkable about NZTA’s proposed option B?
Currently Church Street functions, albeit poorly, it’s cluttered, congested, and very, very stop starty. A bit of a nightmare Monday to Friday for anyone trying to deliver a consignment, B2B.
With Intersection improvements to Nelson and Church Streets including, removal of on-street parking and traffic Light sequencing, we can mitigate this need without the destruction of a previously destroyed coastline .
If you’ve been to Brisbane, you’ll no doubt have marvelled at their motorway, slinking around the river to inject people & cars into their CBD. But if you look a little closer, you’ll see prime, beautiful, expensive river-front land, crushed and bound by nice, white motorway onramps. Imagine what you could do with those riverbanks… An absolute waste of prime waterfront property.
Let’s take a trip, from end to end of this proposed new link. Will we lose anything?
Starting in Onehunga Bay, we have the Aotea Sea Scouts Hall, New Zealand’s oldest yacht club building. Famously nearly relocated during the Manukau harbour Crossing Duplication
Looking out onto the new foreshore reclamations funded by NZTA as reparations for foreshore destructions five decades earlier. (Note the Sewerage Surge outfall bottom right)
Heading under the bridges. Complete with a 1970’s style skypath. Imagine if this was planted with huge flax bushes, and the bridge properly lit up at night!
Lots of unactivated land under here. Reminds me heavily of Silo Park just a few years ago.
And onto the Path
Under this route runs a huge gas line. The Auckland Council GIS viewer doesn’t show gas lines but if memory serves this gasline powers the soon to be dismantled Southdown Powerplant. There’s a steam output line off that which heads back up a portion of the path providing steam to neighbours.
Now up to Waikaraka Park, war memorial cemetery. A very peaceful spot.
Looking back on Waikaraka Park
There’s a Heliport down here!
Recreational cyclists were abound, I counted just over 50. Including four families, and zero MAMILs. Despite what ones passing impressions may be of this area, it is heavily activated, and quietly beautiful.
Passing through I saw a few happy seals in amongst the mangroves, but with only my wide angle lens on, sorry no usable shots
I love this scene. A peoples space conjoined with heavy industrial, what would surprise you is just how amazingly peaceful it is, industry everywhere, and nothing but the gentle lapping of waves and birds to be heard
We’re now behind the Port of Tauranga Inland Port
Wow, this area had clearly had some special attention some time ago. Gently planted, with man made rock walls and Macrocapra fences run for perhaps a hundred metres.
Westfield junction. Port of Tauranga Inland port behind me. Note the passenger EMU crossing in the background
Heading towards the Soon to be retired Southdown Powerstation
Stage one? Imagine if the whole harbour was linked? Imagine being able to cycle from Mangere Bridge, to Otahuhu, train station, or Otahuhu behind Favona Rd back to Mangere Bridge or
Onehunga? This is one of Auckland’s last hidden Urban oasis.
The point of this photo essay was to give people a little look into a place they might never think about. Would a pseudo motorway on reclaimed land beside it be of any use, when church street simply needs minor intersection, and on street parking removal? What about AT’s Option B? I simply can’t fathom reclaiming more of the already destroyed Mangere inlet to build a road that is only supporting an industrial hub that won’t be there in a generation. Simply put, Penrose-Onehunga, will be gentrified within Gen X’s lifetime.
Coming back home. This is a disused front gate to a home on the Royal Oak hill. This would have once opened onto a foreshore, before the Onehunga Motorway came though in the 60’s
Yesterday both Auckland Transport and the NZTA made announcements on some recent consultations. They were discussing just some high level results rather than any detailed analysis – which will now begin.
AT and the NZTA received quite a bit of feedback about the project with around 1,700 responses. Their summary of some of the key points shows that they’ve noted some of the concerns we and others have raised – such as the land-locking of the cycleway and access for rail to the airport from Onehunga to remain feasible – they’ve also had pressure on the other side from the trucking lobby who want even fewer intersections which would make it even more motorway like.
Fabulous feedback for one of Auckland’s priority projects
A wide range of feedback has been received on the preferred approach for the East West Connections transport project, from suggestions about providing cycling on the seaward side of the new foreshore road to design ideas to improve transport performance.
The NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport would like to thank everyone who gave feedback on the preferred approach to improve transport connections into and out of Onehunga-Penrose and the reliability of bus services between Māngere, Ōtāhuhu and Sylvia Park.
About 1,700 feedback responses were received and approximately 250 people came to the open days. All the information is still being analysed. A summary of feedback, and how it has been used, will be released later in the year. In the interim, these are some of the key themes that have been noted:
- Suggestions regarding the design of the route with the aim of improving transport performance. Key points include the desire to reduce the number of traffic lights and intersections (particularly to assist with heavy vehicles movements), changes to the design of the Neilson Street Interchange and also the interchange at SH1
- The East West Connections project continues to maintain opportunities for achieving future rail connections in the area, including rail to the airport.
- That the project should improve access to the harbour and Onehunga Wharf
- Walking and cycling facilities should be provided along the seaward side of the new foreshore road (with connections back into Onehunga). Opportunities for improved walking and cycling connections should also continue to be explored. For example connections to Māngere Bridge, Onehunga Mall, Mutukaroa-Hamlins Hill and Orpheus Drive.
- Natural features such as Anns Creek and the Hopua Tuff ring should be protected and that potential impacts from the project on water quality, air quality, and noise need to be carefully considered and managed.
- Support for proposed bus and cycle lanes between Māngere, Ōtāhuhu and Sylvia Park, but some concerns that the bus lanes would be shared with freight vehicles.
The NZ Transport Agency’s State Highways Manager, Brett Gliddon says the responses will help refine the agencies understanding of what needs to be considered as the project progresses.
“We are still in the early stages with the concept design for the preferred approach. The feedback will be used to help us make decisions as we move from concept through to detailed design. For example identifying where cycle lanes should be located, things we need to consider when designing intersections and how we can improve access to the harbour.”
Auckland Transport Key Strategic Initiatives Project Director Theunis Van Schalkwyk says the feedback is part of an on-going conversation with the community the Transport Agency and Auckland Transport will continue as designs are further developed.
“We’re very pleased with the level of support we’ve received around the proposed improvements to speed up bus journeys between Māngere, Ōtāhuhu and Sylvia Park. The feedback will be used to help develop the designs for the bus priority lanes and cycle improvements.”
The Transport Agency’s Brett Gliddon says the next steps for the project will be to undertake further investigations on the preferred approach and confirm the land needed to protect the route. If people have feedback, thoughts or ideas at any time we would encourage them to contact the project team on firstname.lastname@example.org”.
AT received massive feedback for the new network on the North Shore with over 3,150 responses or comments. To put that in perspective both the South Auckland and West Auckland consultations had just over 1,000 responses each. Give the level of feedback I suspect that means it’s likely to take much longer to get any results and final decisions about the network.
Local feedback will make a better bus network for the North Shore, AT says
Auckland Transport has begun analysing more than 3150 submissions received from the North Shore New Network consultation.
- Over 2,400 formal submissions (including 26 in Chinese).
- More than 750 comments on the online discussion forum, which will also be counted as feedback and analysed.
- 5 petitions were received.
- More than 32 events were held over the six week consultation period, where more than 3,400 people were engaged with.
“There was a high level of public participation on the North Shore, almost double than previous New Network consultations, and we want to thank everyone for their feedback,” says Anthony Cross, Public Transport Network Manager.
“The more local knowledge and opinion we get, the more informed our decisions will be, and the better the final Network we can deliver.”
The next stage is analysis, which entails evaluating feedback and investigating issues raised.
“When a concern is raised by the community, we look into it in detail,” says Anthony. “This can include exploring different options and the operational and financial implications, such as where bus stops would be or where a bus could turn around.”
“Ultimately we aim to make the best decision for the largest number of people, within the constraints we are given.”
Early results show a range of support and opposition. One resident supported the “better connections to alleviate the demand for parking at the park and rides,” and another commented that “more frequent weekend trips will make public transport a more viable option when travelling with family.”
Once confirmed, the final decisions and service design will be available at www.AT.govt.nz/NewNetwork or people can sign up to an email newsletter to be kept up to date.
Implementation is planned for 2017, a timeframe which is required so that any infrastructure changes can be made, and a competitive tender process can be carried out to decide which bus company will operate each route, on certain parts of the network.
Tenders will be released following service design completion in the first half of 2016. A comprehensive information campaign will be held prior to implementation to make people aware of the changes.
“Many people we spoke to during consultation were eager to see the new bus network happen earlier than 2017, but there’s a lot involved in making changes of this scale, so we’re doing it in phases by area.
“Over the next two years we will have delivered a New Network for the whole of Auckland, starting with the Hibiscus Coast this October.”
Consultation on the new bus network for the North Shore ran from 2 June to 13 July 2015. The changes proposed would provide a number of benefits, including new frequent bus services on key routes across the North Shore running every 15 minutes, 7am – 7pm, 7 days a week, and a more connected, and easier to understand bus network overall.
Past consultations for the New Network have included: Hibiscus Coast, West Auckland, South Auckland and Pukekohe and Waiuku.
More information is available at www.AT.govt.nz/NewNetwork.
Post from Ryan Mearns of Generation Zero
In June NZTA and Auckland Transport finally came out with a new proposed route for the East-West Connections, which is a new road route long pushed by business groups that would link SH1 and SH20 either north or south of the Manukau Harbour. An earlier proposed route that cut through the heart of Mangere was dropped in January 2014 after a huge public outcry, and an excellent local campaign. This new route effectively involved joining SH1 at Syliva Park with SH20 at Onehunga, with a direct connection that looks a lot like a motorway.
This area does suffer from traffic congestion, and does have a large amount of truck traffic, much of it leading to the major Kiwirail terminal and inland port along Neilson Street. So this is one area where we would support some investment to reduce congestion hotspots. However NZTA admitted that it would cost over $1 billion dollars. This is a huge amount of money, and for example is roughly equivalent to the government contribution of the CRL. There is already severe strain on the transport budget from the government spend-up on RONS and the Auckland accelerated motorway projects, so this is bad news for those of us that want the government to progress projects such as the Northern Busway extensions and North-Western busway.
The primary concerns we have for the project are that;
- The design of the proposed new motorway makes it even more difficult to build rail to the airport. To ensure either light or heavy rail can one day go to the airport, any designs for the motorway should preserve the rail corridor.
- The only public transport upgrades proposed are discontinuous shared bus and truck lanes which are poor quality and potentially unsafe. The project should focus on improving public transport in the area to reduce congestion with a network of high frequency bus services with continuous bus lanes.
- Current bike infrastructure in the area is disconnected and of low quality. The solution is to provide high quality bike connections linking Onehunga, Penrose, Mangere, Mangere Bridge and Otahuhu.
- The new motorway proposes to block off the limited public access there is to the Manukau east of Onehunga, with the cycleway on the land side of the motorway. The project should not have to reclaim the Manukau Harbour and should ensure any works near the harbour improve public access, rather than separate the community from the harbour.
- Congestion is an issue in the area, but a billion dollar motorway is not the way to go. The Government should focus any road spending on cheap upgrades to fix localised congestion spots.
NZTA are taking feedback on the East West Connections until the end of Friday. They do have an online form, however it bizarrely focusses on the bus-truck lanes, which are effectively an entirely different project. To help people get the key points across Generation Zero have created a quick submit form, which will send your feedback straight to NZTA.
Click here to go to the form to submit your feedback to NZTA.
More information on the project is available on the NZTA and Auckland Transport websites.
Yesterday Auckland Transport and the NZTA released their preferred route for the East-West link semi motorway. It consists primarily of a new road along the northern shore of the Mangere Inlet, something that has already been subject to a lot of change over the years.
Here’s what exists today (well a few years ago). You can see a little bit of variation but the past engineers have largely straightened out the foreshore.
And here’s what it looked like in 1940, before significant reclamation took place. You can also see the level of impact the mangroves are starting to have and they were bairly noticable.