Last month I wrote a post about how we could expand our rail system in a cost effective manner on the isthmus and East Auckland over the next twenty years. Some of the comments and reading I’ve done has lead me to rethink the possibilities for the Airport Line and how to expand over to the Shore as Phase 2.
Firstly on the Airport Line, I recommended double tracking and extending the Onehunga Branch like this:
A cheaper option has been brought to my attention that would leave a service to Onehunga and be far cheap to construct, the downside is that it would lose a catchment through Mangere but a good bus feeder to Onehunga could be a good substitute, here is the other option:
I think the obvious advantage of this route (apart from being cheaper) is no bridge is required (though the new Mangere Bridge is rail proofed).
When I did my original post for Phase 1 I had in mind the following: I was going to propose a second CBD tunnel, running from a spur between Newmarket and Parnell, under the Museum, Hospital and University before crossing the CBD tunnel station at Wellesley and finally with a station under the Tank Farm before going over the shore:
A couple of things have me in two minds since last week though. Firstly, Grafton Station, I’ve been so suprised about how great and well thought out this station is, it is within easy walking distance of the Hospital. Secondly, after talking with Admin I think we can replicate the well thought out nature of Grafton Station by building the Parnell Station right at the bottom of the gully as close to the end of SH16 as possible and building a pedestrian flyover.
As part of the current government plans we get a station under the Tank Farm as rail heads out over the shore, so the only advantage of this $2 billion+ tunnel would be Uni and Museum Stations. Not quite enough methinks when Wellesley Station and a Parnell Station with flyover can do a reasonable job for the Uni. Your thoughts?
I think the plan as it exists for rail over the Shore is actually the best given our current system.
Processing...
Firstly for the Airport Line, I think your option was looked into but ruled out as it wouldn’t be that much cheaper but wouldn’t give anywhere near the patronage of the Onehunga option. Also going via Onehunga makes that entire branch line more viable long term which can only be a good thing. With the bridge supports meant to be able to carry rail surely much of the bridges construction costs would have come down so I still think that is the best option (also a trench is likely to be needed at Onehunga as the station is meant to be sitting on an extended bit of straight track rather than the curve that exists there).
As for the city options, I agree, we don’t need another tunnel crossing the city (just yet). The only thing I would question is the location of the Parnell station, if I am reading your post correctly you are saying it should be just south of Parnell Rise rather than the Mainline Steam location or the Strand. If that is correct then I agree as I think that both those other to locations have some big downsides
The route shown above would be very difficult to build I believe, not least because the university station would be very deep underground. If you consider that the line would have to pass under the Albert street CBD tunnel, and also under Grafton gulley less than 1km away. Plus the route also shows four stations over a distance of about 1800m! Not only it this about a third of the usual spacing for train stations, but if you consider that each station needs about 200m of basically level track the whole lot would pretty much need to be straight and level.
I really don’t think that a station for the Museum itself would be warranted, it would be quite an expense for something that would see minor patronage. There is nothing out there but the museum and the domain. While it would see a lot of patronage when there are special domain events such as Christmas in the Park, I think it is actually better to disperse crowds out to Grafton, Newmarket and Parnell stations rather than have a hundred thousand people try to get into one underground station.
I like the idea of having all lines come through one central interchange point, and the logical place for that is Britomart as that is the only place in the CBD that can act as a terminus station or handle diesel trains (plus it is also the location of the ferry terminal). I’m thinking a few decades ahead here when I expect Auckland will have a busy local rail network (and buses, ferries and perhaps trams) plus fairly extensive regional and intercity connections also.
For this to work it would rely on having the city loop or any shore connections built alongside the existing terminal station (as I have posted here not long ago), as Britomart simply won’t be able to handle it all in it’s current form.
However, the beauty of bringing the Shore line into a new pair of Britomart platforms is that those could be extended to a new CBD tunnel at a later date. The simplest option would be a short tunnel connecting to the Parnell branch in the vicinity of mainline steam, but What I have in mind is a tunnel that extends from Britomart under the Symonds St ridgeline to a university/eastern CBD station under Symonds St between Wellesley and Wakefield. This could then go via a station under the hospital to the western line or directly to newmarket.
At Matt L, I agree with Onehunga being trenched, if it is to be double tracked and extended all 8 or so road crossing should be tranched at the same time… And yes, the Parnell station would about half way between the words “Carlaw Park” and the SH16 symbol on the map…
@Nick R, I believe the harbour tunnels require TBMs..? Makes these tunnels able to be very deep, with deep expensive stations but that is the trade off of having flat stations…
Just thinking 30 odd years in the future and what might be possible, the more I think about it just having a North Shore line branching off Britomart will give the best value for money long term…
In response to the airport connection – the way I see it the best route for this depends on what you’re trying to achieve. If it’s simply connecting the airport to the rest of the network then I would think a new line that more-or-less follows Puhinui Road out to the NIMTL (joining at Puhinui or Manukau Spur) is best. It might not seem like the most direct route, but I doubt there would be a significant journey time difference between a train trip via Puhinui or one via Onehunga (or your alternative option). In terms of build-ability however, the Puhinui route seems to have some big advantages. It’s the shortest length of new track (although a bridge would be needed) and the vast majority of the route would be through airport or state highway land; in theory making the land easier to acquire.
However, it’s a different story if the objective is to connect Mangere and the south-western suburbs with the CBD (or wider network). If the aim is to connect those south western suburbs to the rail based RTN, and the extension to the airport is just the cherry on the top, then the route across the harbour and on to Onehunga is the obvious choice. But I don’t think that’s necessary yet. I don’t see the SW suburbs being attractive targets for increased residential (or commercial) density in the short to medium term. I think a solid QTN or even motorway based bus RTN to serve those suburbs is the most practical and cost effective way forward. Sure, when the rest of the isthmus fills up and land values in Mangere get driven up, light or full rail would be worth considering, but I think that’s 15 – 30 years away.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be planned for now, just that we need to clearly articulate what the route is for and when it will be needed, then add that into the list of rail priorities. Personally, I don’t see it as a high priority in terms of the developing rail – or wider transport – network.
Another advantage to the Otahuhu-Mangere airport option is that it would potentially be faster due to having fewer and smoother curves. It would also have fewer level crossing than a surface Onehunga option.
It would lose the Mangere Bridge catchment (which is going to have convenient access to the CBD through the waterview motorway extension and can be easily provided with bus feeders to Onehunga) but it would gain some of the the heavily residential (and less convenient to existing transport) Favona-Mangere East catchment.
For the Onehunga option, what route is it going to take through Mangere Bridge? There are alot of houses to the west of the motorway (more than an Otahuhu option would require) and their property values are probably higher.
The rail line through Mangere Bridge would be entirely within the motorway corridor.
The two routes lodged by ARTA for the airport rail connection had a connection coming down from Onehunga and then continuing South to Manukau (or somehere there).
As for Mangere being undesirable, providing rail to this suburb would dramatically increase its desirability and likely increase its density. I am pretty sure in a few years time house values in Onehunga, which in many ways is what Ponsonby was like 20 years ago, will have sky rocketed. Onehunga is a cute little suburb with a lot of nice old housing stock, with rail it will be easily and quickly accessible from the CBD – it will be the next suburb to be gentrified.
A rail line through Mangere also provides better access to Ambury Regional Park (and Mangere Domain) so on weekends I would guess it could be popular with people wanting to take a trip somewhere for a walk.
Refer here for what the airport itself thinks of the idea, especially in the context of overall landside access
http://www.manukau.govt.nz/tec/district/planchange/PC14ProposedApp23.pdf
http://www.auckland-airport.co.nz/ToAndFromTheAirport/~/media/Files/Media%20Releases/RLTS%20Submission.ashx
While we are here – have a look too, at the fate of the Sydney and Brisbane airport rail links and ask yourself how it would be avoided in Auckland’s case.
“While we are here – have a look too, at the fate of the Sydney and Brisbane airport rail links and ask yourself how it would be avoided in Auckland’s case.”
Simple don’t hand it over to a private company who runs it seperatly from the rest of the network and charges a fortune, as has been the case in both Sydney and Brisbane (although i’m told Brisbane is better these days). That should help.
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/airportlink-prices-high-on-hit-list-20090520-bfsa.html
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/cut-rail-fares-for-flyers-report-20100311-q1lm.html
Yeah the answer is simple, just make it another of the city’s suburban lines that happens to go to the airport along the way. Have it priced under the same fare structure and have it make local stops.
The one way to ruin the concept would be to make a CBD to Airport express and charge $20 bucks each way.
Jeremy I’m going to disagree with you on your proposed route for the Airport Line. I think R. Lin sums things up quite well in that you really have two options here:
1) The “cheap and cheerful” option of getting trains to the airport ASAP and as cheaply as possible – which means a spur from Puhinui.
2) The “let’s do this properly” option, which involves the ability to run services from Manukau to the Airport and on to Onehunga and to the CBD. One advantage of this would be that some trains could eventually travel via the Avondale-Southdown line to link with the west.
Much of your alignment was built on in fairly recent years.
Are any of the engineers that read this able to answer how much less the harbour crossing would cost seeing as they can use the supports of the road brige (providing NZTA did it correctly)
Simple trade off here. Have two short branch lines with limited catchment that can probably only sustain a low service frequency or combine the two catchments into a single line that can justify a much higher all day service level.
Also the other draw back of having two branches vs. one longer line is a simple matter of track capacity. A single line with a train every 15 minutes requires the same number of track slots as two lines each with a half hourly service.
Even with a CBD rail loop track capacity will be limited. Therefore fewer branches is better in terms of making optimum use of CBD track capacity. Remember each track slot can be occupied by a train that is the minimum or maximum train size. So two short 15 minute frequency branches operated by 2 car EMUs make poor use of scarce CBD track capacity compared with say 4 car EMU’s running every 15 minutes on a single combined line.
General network principal is that having lots of small branches are bad as they fragment the network and result in low service frequencies at the outer ends of the lines. Fewer high quality routes serving corridors that can justify high end to end frequencies are better.
Interesting debate, so from what I have ascertained people agree;
– The existing plan of extending rail over to the shore from Britomart via a station at the tank farm, and
– Airport rail line being an extension and double tracking of the Onehunga Branch,
is the best options..?
Sounds like they are the best options, it would stop trains from the shore from heading up the tunnel but there should be high frequencies through there so it shouldn’t matter to much. The only other option for the Shore that I think should be considered is taking it from the eastern side of Britomart (through a new entrance) and heading across to Devonport and then up to Takapuna before coming across to the Busway. Probably a bit more expensive but would likely have a much bigger catchment area. Tank farm will likely be served by light rail anyway.
I have included a link to how I think the rail should go through Onehunga on in a trench, it would probably only need the purchase of one site on the corner of Princess St and Gloucester Park Rd. http://maps.google.co.nz/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=108812902397627427887.0004837945555293094d4&ll=-36.924954,174.789605&spn=0.027583,0.066047&z=15
I would say yes myself, but the Shore line should be well down the list of priorities however.
I’m working on an alternative North Shore Line alignment through the CBD at the moment 😉
@Nick – down the list of priorities maybe, but if a tunnel for cars to the shore is built (and I’m sure they’d easilt find money to do it) it needs to include rail else it’ll never be built.
I agree that it’s easy to avoid the issue that Brisbane and Sydney face – if we build the connection to the airport via Mangere we’d have a well patronised line. In Brisbane it’s cheaper to catch a taxi or shuttle bus home than use the train, especially if you’re travelling as more than 1 person.