According to a recent publication from the Auckland City Council, In the next 20 years they expect there to be an additional 54,000 jobs in the Auckland CBD and a further 17,000 residents. Straight away we can tell this is going to result in a lot of pressure on the transport system!

I though I’d try and figure out if those sorts of growth projections are even possible, and what we would need in the way of infrastructure to support them. So let’s start by estimating the number of trips this sort of growth would result in. Of course the number of jobs isn’t directly related to the number of trips, but I think we can get a ballpark figure.

For a start let’s take those extra residents and assume half of them will end up working in the CBD, while the rest would be students or work elsewhere. If we take that half off the number of extra jobs we are still left with 45,500 extra people coming into the city to work each day. Now not every worker in the city comes in each weekday and of course many people come to the CBD for all sorts of reasons beyond work, but I think we can say roughly 45,000 extra commuters a day is the sort of numbers we’ll need to accommodate by 2031 to meet those growth projections.

So how will all these people get there? For a start let’s assume that ongoing walking and cycling improvements have a good effect, and the current 4% walking and cycling mode share gets up to 10%. Knocking 10% off our total still leaves us 40,500 commuters to accommodate on motorised transport. If we assume they all come into the city in the two hour morning peak, what we are really taking about is capacity for an extra 20,000 people per hour. So therefore if we don’t want our transport congestion to get any worse, we’ll need to construct new infrastructure capable of bringing twenty-thousand more people an hour into the CBD over the next twenty years.

So looking at how this might be achieved, the first port of call is the road system. Could we meet our growth needs with new roads for the private car? I don’t think so!

Consider this: A standard motorway lane carries about 2,000 vehicles an hour at maximum. At Auckland’s low occupancy rate of 1.2 people per vehicle this equates to about 2,400 people per hour. Now putting aside the potential for carpooling and the like to improve occupancy, this means we would need an additional eight inbound motorway or arterial road lanes (and another eight back out again) to meet those growth demands with private car travel alone.

In other words we’d need two or three brand new motorways feeding into the CBD, or to double the width of four major arterials.

Could we even consider adding more motorways to the CBD?!

Of course once that traffic had reached the CBD it would need to go somewhere, so we also need another eight to ten lanes of arterial roadway to circulate within the city, and then of course there would be the parking problems. At 1.2 people per vehicle our 40,500 commuters would need about 34,000 new long stay car parks to store their cars in while they were at work. To put that in relative terms we would need to build 27 new carparking buildings of the scale of the new one going in near Britomart!

So what are the chances of all this happening? Absolutely none. Three brand new motorways is simply ludicrous, as is doubling the width of major arterials. The cost in land alone would run into the tens of billions. And widening the streets within the city would be worse (as most of them are now lined with skyscrapers) as would finding places to build dozens of new carparking buildings.

Based on this ‘quick and dirty’ analysis it is plain to see that it is simply impossible to meet anything like these growth targets with private vehicle transport alone. In fact I think it is safe to assume that the level of private vehicle access to the CBD we have today is more or less the most we will ever have, unless we start to tunnel road lanes under the existing streets or build them in the air. Basically if the Auckland CBD is to grow at all, that growth must come on the back of public transport. But luckily public transport is a hell of a lot more efficient that cars on the road.

So what would take to shift the same 20,000 commuters an hour by public transport?

Well to begin with let’s look at ferries. The ‘Kea’ run by Fullers has a capacity for 400 people. Using that as a baseline we would need about 50 new ferry trips an hour to meet the whole increase, or about five times as many as in the busiest hour today. That is feasible, if a little unlikely. For one it would mean the purchase of at least 20 new boats to shuttle back and forth and they would certainly need to extend or duplicate the ferry terminal to handle almost one ferry per minute. But the biggest constraint would be the other end. There is really only a moderate amount of growth to be had out of the Waitemata’s seaside suburbs, so a massive ferry system would involve a huge level of bus feeders, park and ride or transit oriented housing development. Ferries have good capacity, but are probably limited in their potential to expand significantly.

So let’s look at buses. A typical bus can carry about 50 people before things start to get too much like a sardine tin, so to meet our future CBD growth by buses alone we are looking at an extra 400 buses an hour. Now this is a lot of buses, but they can run from all over the region and access the CBD at about a dozen points so this is probably more feasible than the ferries.

Is this central Auckland in a few years time?

The problem of course comes with road congestion. To actually get 400 buses an hour through the CBD is going to require a lot of high capacity bus lanes and some serious bus stops. At one bus a minute per lane we are taking about seven or so new sets of bus lanes leading into the city. Effectively to go with a bus only system would require full bus lanes and bus priority signals on all the motorways and every major arterial leading into the CBD, plus maybe two or three bus-only streets through the city (an a new bus interchange or two for good measure).

Is that actually so unrealistic? I don’t think so, if it is politically acceptable to convert general traffic lanes to bus-only lanes then it would be a relatively cheap proposition in terms of capital expenditure. The real problem I think comes with operational efficiency. Four hundred new buses wouldn’t come cheap, nor would 400 drivers to operate them. Furthermore we would need to find sites fairly close to the CBD in which to stable those 400 buses during the middle of the day.

One option with greater efficiency would be to develop trams (aka “light-rail”). Modern articulated trams of the kind they use in Melbourne and Europe can carry about two hundred people per vehicle. So this drops our requirement down to 100 new trams and 100 new drivers. At one tram a minute we would need to convert only two or three arterials to having dedicated tram lanes, and could probably get away with just one tram spine through the CBD. There are two problems with meeting all our growth with tramways however. Firstly it would be a brand new system that would cost a lot to install, certainly a lot more than painting bus lanes. Secondly trams don’t have the same ‘reach’ as buses. This is fine for travel on busy arterials but for trams to service the whole region there would again need to be a big system of feeder buses linking into the tram network in the suburbs.

So the final option to explore is heavy rail.

The best way to shift tons of extra people into the CBD?

Auckland’s new six-car electric trains will be able to hold about a thousand people at maximum, this means we would need an extra 20 trains an hour into the city to meet our projected growth by heavy rail alone. Twenty trains and drivers sounds a lot more efficient than 400 buses or 100 trams. In fact 20 trains an hour is merely the one way capacity of a single rail line.

Now there is well more that twenty trains an hour’s worth of capacity left in our three main suburban lines, so no problems there: assuming we order another 20 or so trains the lines can handle that growth. The main issue is the capacity at the city end, as we know Britomart is almost at capacity and a CBD tunnel is proposed to alleviate that. Luckily for us the tunnel project would add about 20 trains an hour capacity in the CBD, almost exactly what we need! Now again the rail lines don’t go everywhere, so some bus feeders will be needed. But effectively we just need to build the CBD tunnel project and order a second batch of trains and a bunch more buses to meet all the projected growth in the central city for the next twenty years.

So lets recap, to support an extra 45,000 jobs in the CBD we would need a big increase in walking and cycling plus one of the following options:

  1. Three brand new motorways across the region plus eight to ten new arterial road lanes and twenty-seven new parking buildings in the CBD.
  2. Twenty or so new ferry boats, a hugely expanded ferry terminal plus a massive system of bus feeders and parking to wharves.
  3. Four hundred new buses and drivers, plus bus lanes on every arterial leading into and through the city and a new city bus interchange.
  4. One hundred tram vehicles and drivers, plus two or three new tram lines leading into the city and a central tram interchange, with bus feeders in the suburbs.
  5. The proposed CBD rail tunnel, with about twenty additional trains and and a series of bus feeders to suburban railway stations.

This has really just been an exercise in comparing the people carrying capacity of various modes and in reality the true answer is going to involve a mix of these options. We will need to look at greatly expanding bus priority and new ferries, get more people living next to transit stops and investigate light rail on our busiest bus corridors. Whatever the option bus feeders and integrated tickets are probably essential.

However one clear point stands out, that the CBD rail tunnel and the existing rail lines could single-handedly accommodate twenty years of projected growth in central city commuting.

Share this

48 comments

  1. I think the CBD tunnel, connecting the existing bike networks, a few new ferries and getting the buses run properly would be the most cost effective plan…

    It doesn’t seem anyone in charge gets what is needed – or it’s urgency…

    Good to see it analysed rationally…

    1. obviously the best plan is a combination of all the suggestions.

      A dominion road tram corridor for instance would increase the capacity and at the same time reduce congestion by removing buses. a win win situation.

      CBD rail tunnel is of course necessary, even Joyce knows that.

      New ferry terminals + an increase of services would help people from the east and the north

      Joshua’s eastern rail link is probably the least talked about and most needed after the CBD rail tunnel. The east have nothing except for a bus which takes way too long, or a park and ride at Panmure which creates more congestion in the surrounding area.

      Bit off topic here, but does anyone know why there is no walking link along Wellesly St East from Grafton Road? For someone walking from the hospital to the university or midtown this is the most direct route, but we’re forced to walk along grafton bridge then back down symonds st, or walk down to Grafton road by the bowling club and walk across to auckland uni’s new business school. Just last week i saw 3 people walking down the side of Wellesly st almost being hit by cars and having to run across the controlled intersection as there is no padestrian crossing. There’s not even a damn footpath.

      http://goo.gl/maps/2Bqc

      1. Unfortunately that bridge is legally part of the motorway corridor, so the engineers at NZTA decided it would be for cars only and pedestrains could use the next bridge along via a massive detour (despite protestations from council and the public). Kinda foolish considering it’s the most direct route for pedestrains between the CBD and the domain, to ignore ‘desire lines’ like that is a bit like trying to command the sea to retreat. Even more ludicrous given there is an unused lane in the underpass that would be a perfect feeder for it.

        AFIK they are considering adding a footpath and cycleway to it as part of the proposal to extend the NW cycleway to Wellesley St.

        1. I’ve actually asked NZTA what on earth happened there and basically it was a royal screw up in communication between the council and NZTA (or Transit as they were back then). Effectively two organisations talking past each other – welcome to Auckland.

        2. I was a bizarre oversight but I don’t see why it can’t be rectified — it is a very wide bridge so looks to have room for a bike lane and footpath. There is also spare capacity in the underpass part that runs below Symonds St that is currently a strip of garden — anyone know what the intended use of this is?

        3. The strip of garden is just leftover width from when there used to be an extra traffic lane there. Thats the frustrating thing, they have plenty of room for a footpath and cycleway currently being used for nothing.

          I believe one of the problems now is that the bridge is legally part of the motorway, and it is illegal to have pedestrians on a motorways.

  2. The reality is we will need a mix off all modes as their won’t be a single silver bullet to solve everything. We will see population increases across the entire region as we continue to intensify (providing we don’t decide to let the city start a massive program of sprawl).

  3. The final 1974 report on Robbie’s Rapid Rail proposed funding the CBD tunnel from development contributions in the CBD. Like a pair of simultaneous equations, the need for extra transport and the potential for extra development contributions solve each other’s problem.

  4. Good analysis Nick. I think what would happen if we don’t provide the CBD rail tunnel is not the chaos of gridlock on the roading system or even with the bus system, but rather the CBD simply wouldn’t increase its number of jobs to the extent that is forecast. One could argue that over the past 50 years, as the proportion of Auckland’s jobs in its CBD has declined with many migrating to the suburbs, that this was the result of not adequately improving access to the CBD – particularly via transport options that could avoid congestion. Businesses shifted away because outer areas provided cheaper parking (which was essential when the PT system sucked so badly).

    Many of those extra 54,000 jobs probably wouldn’t locate anywhere except the CBD – particularly in banking and finance industries that generally offer very high-paying jobs. It would be interesting to see the economic impact of Auckland gaining, or not gaining those jobs. Or also the economic impact of those jobs being located elsewhere in the region instead of the CBD. If the jobs were elsewhere, it seems likely they would be lower paying.

    This is the kind of analysis that I’m hoping is going into working out the “wider economic benefits” of the CBD rail tunnel.

    1. “One could argue that over the past 50 years, as the proportion of Auckland’s jobs in its CBD has declined with many migrating to the suburbs, that this was the result of not adequately improving access to the CBD – particularly via transport options that could avoid congestion.”

      You could also argue that big cities naturally spawn business, light industry, and retail sub-centers. Auckland is well over the threshold for being considered a big city. I’d be interested in examples of Auckland-sized cities that had managed to maintain a single concentration of commercial and retail activity.

      1. I don’t think it is realistic or desirable to maintain a single concentration of commercial or retail activity, but it is desirable to maintain at least one very strong centre of activity. If Auckland is to compete on the world stage then it’s really the central city that’s doing the competition. The real donut cities like Detroit that evaporated their centres to the suburbs completely are more or less screwed right now, and will be more so in the future IMHO.

        1. Agree with all that. Years ago I thought that technology would allow people to live just about anywhere and telecommute to work. But the new economy that developed was based around knowledge and ideas and those benefit from having concentrations of people who can interact with each other. A good example being video game development in the east End of London, or of films in Los Angeles. NZ needs a world class city with a world class CBD which will naturally attract clusters of new economy jobs.

    2. To quote the Admin:

      One could argue that over the past 50 years, as the proportion of Auckland’s jobs in its CBD has declined with many migrating to the suburbs, that this was the result of not adequately improving access to the CBD – particularly via transport options that could avoid congestion. Businesses shifted away because outer areas provided cheaper parking (which was essential when the PT system sucked so badly).

      One of the other problems was governance – until 1989 the Auckland area had nearly thirty separate councils, all trying to attract jobs into “their” area, and thus weakening any sense of coherence. The original Auckland Regional Authority was set up in 1963; an attempt to rationalise the council structure was made in 1971 but never got off the ground; the 1989 reforms were a huge step in the right direction; but even as late as 2006 efforts were being made to remove the ARC’s responsibilities for land use and giving them back to the constituent authorities.

      The point is, is that now you can make a strategic choice to grow the CBD, and thus justify the transport investment, which was not possible beforehand.

      1. On that point I’d just note that while the *proportion* of jobs in the CBD relative to the suburbs may have declined, overall the number of jobs in the CBD has only ever increased.This is simply a function of a rapidly growing region. To suggest that in general buisinesses have shifted away from the CBD is nonsense. The CBD workforce has continued to expand, just not at a faster rate that the rest of the city put together.

  5. Yes perhaps I should have made that point a bit more clear: the outcome of not providing some of these solutions is that the CBD will simply not be able to grow to anything like they have projected.

    And that would be a bad thing, the recent trend in the ‘post industrial globalised marketplace’ is a return to the agglomeration of jobs and services in central areas. There is a convincing argument that global cities that wish to attract and retain top calibre human capital on the global market need very strong and lively centres to provide the jobs, services and entertainment that these groups expect. The huge rail patronage increases seen in Melbourne are simply the result of high value jobs and service industries shifting into the CBD, but Melbourne has a large rail and tram system which can soak up that sort of growth.

    What will Auckland do? Continue to focus on inefficient and urban-blighting cars and motorways, and continue to slip in terms of international competitiveness? Or will it make a step change to develop more efficient ways of accessing the city that don’t have such a huge impact on the urban ‘place’?

    1. That’s the particularly interesting part of the situation in my opinion – the question of looking at different growth scenarios for Auckland over the next 20-30 years (centralised, mixed, dispersed etc.), then analysing the costs and benefits of each scenario, including the cost of infrastructure.

      The ARC undertook such a study relatively recently, and the results were quite interesting: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2010/06/04/further-confirmation-that-sprawl-sucks/

      Personally I’d like to know a bit more about the real economic benefits of agglomeration in the CBD, plus what is necessary to make that happen (ie. how important is a pedestrian friendly CBD that’s an exciting and interesting place to be?). Making a fairly wild stab in the dark, I think the benefits might be under-estimated.

  6. Interesting analysis; however you’ve also forgotten about the people already travelling into the CBD – what if they change modes? According to Akld CC ~73,000 people currently enter the CBD during peak time, incl. 4% by walk/bike and 40% by PT. If the walk/bike improvements get their share up to 10%, then that’s another 4300 EXISTING people who are probably not driving (although some may switch from PT). Likewise, if PT continues to improve then you may get further transfer of existing car users. The former scenario means that you won’t need to provide for so many extras driving or PT’ing into the CBD (more like ~18,000 per hour), whilst the latter scenario may mean that you have to provide extra PT services but not so much road capacity increase.

    1. I did the analysis based on net change, trying to figure out what we need if traffic is not to get any worse but assuming it’s not going to get much better. If some people stop driving and others take their place then thats still the same from a planning perspective. So yes I did assume the same numbers driving and using the existing public transport and I didn’t account for existing drivers or PT users shifting to walking or cycling. My figures could easily be ten or twenty percent out of whack, but I think overall the general conclusions are still appropriate whether it’s 18,000 an hour or 20,000.

  7. Well as a member of Melbourne’s expatriate community, I can say people don’t move here because of the copious freeways and the large suburban lot sizes. They move here because of the vibrant city, the urban lifestyle, the laneways, the cafes, the trams and the stadia. That they can get a good job here is almost secondary. They move here because there is always something on and the wider city is an enjoyable place to be.

    There is some really interesting reasearch into globalisation at the moment which is suggesting that economic performance isn’t just about buisiness tax and communications infrastructure, but a big factor is what the city affords the worker’s lifestyle when they are not at work. In an international marketplace where many high value jobs can concievably be done anywhere in the world, what sort of places are going to be the ones that actually attract those jobs? Probably not the ones where you spend an hour stuck on the freeway to get to work and you can’t even walk between the CBD and the parkland next to it.

  8. I can say that I much prefer working in the CBD than out in the suburbs, I used to work out in Greenlane/Ellerslie and while it was ok, there was nothing interesting about it. In town it is easy to go out at lunch time do some shopping, go to a restaurant etc. I also do more exercise as it becomes easy to go for a walk during the day and enjoy the city, doing this I also sometimes run into friends or old colleagues etc, all of this helps to enhance my enjoyment of life.

    Another thing you do miss off your list is that there still is some capacity on our existing systems so some of the growth will take up that i.e. our 6 car electric trains will have about double the capacity of our current 4 car SA sets as each car is longer. Of course this doesn’t change the overall point that we will need further investment if we want the CBD to grow.

  9. That’s the original Spaghetti Junction in Birmingham, UK. It’s quite interesting as it encorporates three waves of trunk transport modes. The motorway interchange was built on the land above and alongside a railway junction, which itself was built along an earlier canal junction.

  10. @Nick, nice to catch you on Josh’s blog.
    Great thread. I think the kick ass conclusion to take to the local body candidates is:

    ……that by delaying the CBD loop, Joyce is damaging Auckland’s future growth prospects and by extension, New Zealand’s future economic growth prospects.

    @Obi, you have quite correctly commented that the high wealth/growth knowledge economy demands high quality and vibrant CBDs as centres of ideas and knowledge. A high wealth future for Auckland is certainly not going to happen based on continuation of mac-mansions and shopping mall culture into the foothills north and west of Albany, east of Botany and west of Drury through Karaka. It is these areas that would appear to be the alternatives to further intensification in the CBD and along PT corridors

    Hard to see Puhoi-Wellsford or Waikato Expressway delivering the same sorts of national economic growth benefits as building the CBD loop asap. It is unlikely that the cost of NOT building these roading links will be as high as the cost of NOT building the CBD Loop.

    1. It would be fantastic to see a high-quality study analyse the real wider economic benefits of various large projects like those you mention.

      However, as I have read the business case for the Holiday Highway, including its shocking assumptions in terms of WEBs, I don’t know if anyone in NZ has the capability to undertake such a study.

  11. Great post Nick, any hope of getting it on the opinion page of the Herald? I know its close to hopeless, they don’t even seem to see any value in an answer to their own articles, god only knows why they wouldn’t feel it vital to show that old media can still foot it with the feedback of the net? Too smug through lack of competition…. Got to keep trying though. The person to send to for opinion pieces is:

    arnold.pickmere@nzherald.co.nz

  12. Interesting to note now Steven Joyce has announced that the CBD tunnel won’t be started for at least ten years. Add in the seven years build time and we are really talking about a good twenty years from now.

    No doubt rail electrification will help a lot, but we’d still better invest in plenty of green paint…

  13. We really need to start hammering Joyce on the economic vandalism… He loves to portray himself as an economic wizz so pointing out the damage he is doing is very powerful…

  14. He’ll never see it. To him roads = economic growth and rail = massive subsidies and distortion of the free market resulting in a drain on the economy.

    Obviously BCR does not matter to him when choosing what to fund other than as a means of justifying the dismissing of rail projects. He does not believe the CBD loop is a worthy project, never will he’s just paying lip service to it to diffuse opposition while pushing it away as far as he can, he’s a consumate politician. Although if enough pressure can be applied to convince the Nats that this issue could effect votes in Auckland maybe we could get some action on this sooner, maybe. Otherwise it will have to wait for a change of government, whenever that may be.

      1. If only we could get a (benevolent) Fuhrer with the power to pass law by decree to rebuild Auckland…. I guess six decades of failed policy is too slow a disaster for anyone to care.

  15. Cam I agree with you about Humpty, but we can spilt the opposition by applying pressure and reason where ever possible. It’s a rock that is gathering a little momentum all the time.

    However it still annoys the be-jesus out of me that the herald and others lists all the work bullied out of the last government as ‘work of the government’ as if Joyce has something even slightly like a balanced programme. Remember there is not one tiny project announced under this regime, and it’s nearly through it’s first term… all he’s done is delay electrification and cut a bunch of ribbons while mumbling insincere platitudes. Minister for Trucking Auckland up, further.

  16. “The government’s new operating model for Metro commuter rail services in Auckland and Wellington will ensure the operation of commuter rail services is contestable and performance-based so that we get the best possible service for commuters at the best possible price.”
    Source: http://www.aucklandtrains.co.nz/2010/09/14/minister-were-committed-to-rail/
    This sounds really disturbing to me. Could we end up with a similar situation to what we have with the buses with several different operators and different fare structure and no free transfers. We need some fare consistancy across the region.

  17. The operatoration of rail already is contestable and we already have a different operator to that of the buses meaning there are no free transfers. I don’t think it will get any worse than it currently is.

  18. But what if the Western Line for example is contracted to a different operator than the other lines like how Dominion Road buses and Northern Express ones are different?

  19. I don’t think that that would be possible seeing as the same rolling stock is used across all lines – I’m assuming he means rail should be privately run with the profits being privatised and any costs being socialised, this probably relates to his planned PTMA changes which will make it difficult if not impossible for AT to gross contract out routes that can be run with a profit.

  20. Rtc, it sounds ludicrous but the actually did that during the privatization of Melbourne’s train system. They took one integral network, split it in two and handed it over to two private companies to ‘compete’. Quite what they were competing for I don’t know, it’s not like customers have a choice in what line they take to get to a particular place. Naturally this failed horribly and after one operator went bankrupt they just handed the whole network to the remaining one. The legacy of this particulalry bull headed swan dive of neo-liberalism is that Melbourne now has two separate fleets of latest generation trains that are not interoperable an can only run on their half of the network.
    How this happened I don’t know, it’s not even consistent with neo-lib economic theory, even that understands natural monopolies and public goods.

    There is a place for competition in public transport, and that is at the tendering and contracting stage. Let the operation go to the best bidder, and if they don’t meet their contractual targets then they lose the franchise. Operators can still strive for efficiency within the bounds of the contract and can increase their company profit by doing so.

    Gross contracting still involves a highly competitive market that forces delivery standards up and costs down. Efficient operators will thrive and turn profits, poor operators will whither and die.

  21. Excellent post. I wonder what the reply of Stephen Joyce or the road advocates will be? (maybe they can commute out from our new urban sprwal extending all the way out to Wakworth and use our new holiday highway and the new harbour tunnell and navigate their way around city streets turned into parking lots for an hour before going into a mmassive parking building and a long walk to work- I’m being sarcastic here but thats what present policies could lead to).

    Of course the best policy will involve a mix of solutions (probably including extra ferries, buses, a Dominion Road light rail and the CBD rail tunnell)

  22. hey first time to post on this site,I think we should make it clear that pro-rail ≠ anti-road and Vice-versa.we can only encourage people to use public transport…make pt more afforable and accessable then you get more people use it…

  23. Hi Connor, you seem to be talking about infrastructure bonds there. They seem to be very effective overseas, so yeah why not in Auckland? I believe Brown was talking about them in his campaigning speeches.

    1. Infrastructure bonds are borrowing though. While I don’t necessarily have a problem with borrowing I think it is prudent to have a look at where we’re directing our current transport dollars. If there are low quality projects to cut (I’m looking at you holiday highway) and redirect the funds then surely that should be plan A.

      Overall, I actually think we probably spend enough on transport in New Zealand. Whether Auckland gets its fair share, and whether we spend that money on the right projects, is a completely different question though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *