My post a couple of days ago on the potential options for a fast-tracked Airport Railway line generated a lot of interest and debate. Some major points of debate have been the following:
- Whether we really do need the CBD rail tunnel first.
- If we don’t build the CBD rail tunnel first, how could we compensate for the capacity that we would need?
- Are there interim steps like building the line to Mangere Town Centre in the shorter term that could be viable?
- How would the station work at the airport? Would we need to reverse the train out or could it be possible to build it as a loop?
The really big question that sits in my mind is whether Britomart can handle more than 20 trains per hour in and out, without turning into a giant mess. My general understanding of Britomart’s capacity is that, even with signalling and track upgrades that allow trains to run in either direction along the tracks of the Britomart tunnel, the system cannot handle more than 20 trains entering, and then those same 20 leaving, Britomart station in the course of an hour. With trains running at 10 minute frequencies on the three main lines, that only leaves capacity for two trains per hour to Onehunga and potentially on to the Airport – until we get around to building the CBD rail tunnel. We’re stuck with this:
There was a suggestion that perhaps we knock back frequencies on the main line to five trains per hour, in order to squeeze and extra two onto an Airport Line. That could potentially work, although I’m very loathe to be reducing frequencies from the level they are at now, particularly when patronage is likely to boom over the next few years as a result of integrated ticketing and electrification.
I am curious though to know whether that 20 trains per hour is really the capacity limit of Britomart or not. Throughout my various transport discussions over the years I have sometimes heard it mentioned that bi-directional signalling in the Britomart tunnel would boost the station’s capacity from 18 trains per hour (what we’re running in there now) to 24 trains per hour. If that is the case, then we could run trains to and from the Airport every 15 minutes and still have a couple of train slots up our sleeve (some slack in the system is critical when you’re dealing with Auckland’s rail system!) So maybe that’s the answer to our question? Or maybe one train from the west could head straight to the south (and another one do the vice-versa) during peak times to free up two train slots for the extra Airport trains. These all seem reasonable options.
Of course, what these possible solutions do not mean is that the CBD tunnel is unnecessary. I still have a hunch that it would probably stack up better than Airport Rail, although that doesn’t necessarily mean that Airport Rail wouldn’t stack up as a worthwhile investment. The CBD rail tunnel is still essential if we ever want frequencies higher than one train every 10 minutes on the main lines, it’s still essential for improving access to the CBD and it’s still utterly critical for any further rail extensions. Plus, an Airport Line without a CBD tunnel may be possible – but it would mean extremely tight scheduling around the Britomart tunnel, opening up a giant recipe for disaster should anything go wrong (like a train even being one minute late).
Setting aside these possible options, I thought it might be worthwhile taking a look at where things are currently at with making rail to the Airport actually happen. Back in July I noticed that a Memorandum of Understanding between the various parties potentially involved in making rail to the Airport happen (ARC, ARTA, NZTA, Manukau City, Auckland Airport and KiwiRail) was being formulated. This was particularly exciting because exactly the same process kick-started the current investigations into the CBD Rail Tunnel, the preliminary results of we should hear about in the next week or two.
Since that time, we haven’t heard particularly much about the progress of this MoU. Apparently not all of the parties are yet to sign it – which is a little scary as after November 1st everything changes and it wouldn’t be particularly good to leave all of this hanging for the new Council to start afresh on. Looking at the latest version of the MoU – which is version 15 by the way.
The purpose of the MOU is a bit broad, but notes the important parts – that the framework will result in the preparation of documents for protecting transport routes to Auckland Airport. I think it would be useful if this specifically referred to protecting the route for Airport Rail, but this is expanded upon further in later parts of the MOU.
The “Aim” of pursuing the project is outlined below, and does provide more of the specifics. Let’s hope that the motorway components of the study don’t dominate too much though – with rail being sidelined to “some time in the future”.
Looking at project milestones next, it’s good to see the details being fleshed out. Personally I’d like to see some timeframes around when each of the steps will be achieved, but perhaps that’s asking a little too much?
Milestone 1 is basically to get things kicked off by appointing someone to undertake the study, and then reconfirming largely what was done in ARTA’s 2008 study – that rail should be the preferred technology and that it should link the airport to both Onehunga and Manukau City. 
One would think that Phase 1 wouldn’t take that long – because much of the work has already been undertaken.
So shifting on to Phase 2, here’s where there interesting stuff would start to happen – in terms of preparing the Business Case and the first steps of looking at the assessment of effects for the notice of requirement. At this point we will have needed to do some seriously detailed design, so we would know exactly what the alignment of the rail line would be: how it would fit through the SH20/SH20A interchange at Mangere, how many stations it would have, where the airport station would go and so forth.
There’s quite a lot of work in Phase 2, so it’s difficult to guess how long it might take to complete. This is why I would be keen on these milestones having some sort of timeframe attached to them so they don’t disappear off into the never-never.
Phase 3 is the final step of lodging notice of requirement documentation, going through the public submissions process and then (assuming the designation is confirmed) working out the process for actually building the thing:
It seems reasonable to expect that these three steps could be achieved within not much more than a year and a half.
So there is some real progress happening with Airport Rail – as long as all parties can agree on this MOU and get cracking on it. I suppose that the important thing over the next while is to keep an eye on things and make sure the project doesn’t turn into something that mainly focuses on the motorway upgrades and puts the rail link on the backburner. I also think it will be important to ensure that things do move forward, and we can achieve these different milestones a bit quicker than what has happened for the CBD tunnel investigations (which was kicked off by Michael Cullen in 2008).
Processing...
we cant forget the other massive benefits of the CBD rail loop either:
– much improved access to the rest of the CBD
– Making it more ok that bus routes terminate all over the place- for example: for someone who works at the viaduct its a real mission to catch a Dominion road bus, as its a 10 minute walk away… but 6 minutes on a train would get you to khyber pass- a bus stop would be just out the door. In fact, many routes could even terminate at the fringe of the CBD, and the passengers could transfer to a train for a fast and efficient last few km. We do have far too many buses in the CBD for comfort
– Capacity constraints at Newmarket
– a trip thats probably 10 minutes quicker for all western line passengers- if it was 22 minutes (20 to Aotea!) instead of 32 minutes to Britomart, patronage would probably increase hundreds of percent overnight- No competition from private transport at any time of the day. This alone would revolutionise the West, reduce traffic heaps and make the CBD a more attractive destination for west Aucklanders.
-I imagine that we will probably be able to support longer trains on Platforms 1 and 5
-transport within the CBD would be much better… the city circuit takes forever!
-I think Queen Street ultimately needs to be a pedestrian Mall (trams may be acceptable). Not likely with a dozen bus routes using it!
This list of benefits is pretty massive for just one project- I still believe its far more important- but I agree we really should get both (and some more), before Puhoi to Wellsford or ans similar nonsense.
“This was particularly exciting because exactly the same process kick-started the current investigations into the CBD Rail Tunnel, the preliminary results of we should hear about in the next week or two.”
Have you heard that this is coming out soon or is it just speculation? I am really looking forward to seeing it and the response from the government.
I have heard that a release in mid October is likely.
Perfect timing, just after the results come out for the local election. Should give the new mayor something to do in the first few days, lol.
Somewhat annoying actually – it would have been really good to have it a few weeks ago and seen what happened in the leadup to the Super City election.
On the issue of development along the line to increase densities, there is a lot of space near Walmsley Rd that could be developed into a TOD style development
Mangere Town Centre is also largely empty (or largely carpark). Considering the current town centre is a disaster, it’s a good opportunity to attempt a wholesale redevelopment – something to give the place a new start. A rail connection could be the catalyst needed for something like that to become a reality.
Yes there definitely should be a move to migrate the town centre closer to where the station will be, the problem though is it is pretty surrounded by lots of sports fields and parks and that would be politically hard to do unless they were replaced somewhere else nearby. I wonder if the motorway and proposed rail station at Bader Dr could be capped and developed over the top of?
Also any idea what the sticking points are that are preventing the MOU from being signed?
Joshua, have you caught up with the ARC’s plan for a “long haul” service that was announced while you were away? The plan is to run trains between Huapai and Tuakau, using Newmarket as a transfer for CBD passengers. The concept avoids the Britomart congestion problem, so we are not completely restricted to 20tph in planning new rail services as such, just those we want to go to Britomart. You can actually create a much busier network if you think of Newmarket as the focus, instead of Britomart.
Agreed, and as I’ve pointed out before, using the old Strand station to resurrect the old Waterfront Loop could help eke out the capacity as well.
Auckland needs an above ground station to ease the situation at Britomart. Build a double line adjacent to Beach Rd, rising along the front of the old station to meet the Newmarket line somewhere at the foot of the Parnell bank. This was a proposal put forward in the late ’80’s. The new station could be directly above Britomart. Some buildings would have to go but such is progress.
Why above ground? Also until the CBD Loop is in surely the answer to maintain frequency on a Southwestern line would be to run some services directly to the Western line. There’ll be plenty of demand for journeys that are not just Britomart to airport. West to Southwest direct would be popular. But yes we need them both. As for capacity at Britomart, build the Loop, build the numbers on the system then fix that with Nick’s extra platforms under Quay St.
Wouldn’t a peak half-hourly airport service be a far more likely schedule?
The thing about the public desire for an airport train is that it is largely driven by the rip-off monopoly car parking charges at the airport. The key word is “monopoly”. I hate to be a pessimist, but once a rail line is built the cost of parking will fall, and people will drive – thus leading to possibly disappointing rail patronage to the airport in the short term at least.
In which it may become more economic to convert some of that land from car parking to more intensive development. In the end it all comes down to what is charged for a trip, if we use the Sydney model and charge $15-$20 per person then many people will still drive and it will only appeal to the individual traveller. If we make it the same as any other station it would be roughly a 5 stage journey so at the moment that would be $6.10 per person making it a viable option for a family of four going away for a week as well as individual users.
Airport lines, in most cities, are aimed at the individual/business traveller – families/groups are a different market, they can use it, IF it suits them – which the majority of times it does not! The question Auckland has to honestly ask itself is, does the city over the next say 25yrs see real sustained growth in the individual/business user market – IF it does, fine, if not, move right along. Sydney is Sydney and Brisbane is in the booming South East Queensland sector (ie, the regional “Southern California” factor).
Sydney and Brisbane’s airport link systems are fundamentally different however.
Sydney’s is “network orientated” – it’s another line on a large, busy metro train network. The catch for the Airport user, is you can encounter busy trains and these are certainly not baggage friendly experiences – not a project killer, but it can, at times, be an issue. In Sydney you pay a station access charge – many people use the line but do not access the stations, hence no surcharge for them.
Brisbane’s is “airport orientated” a purpose built line, with limited interface with the wider Brisbane metro network – however, it does enjoy the unique benefit of interface with the Gold Coast as a destination – an important contributor to its increasing financial health. Most people only use Airtrain services for the trip to the Airport, hence incurring Airtrain fares, relatively few use it for limited interim stops – those that do however, only pay the standard QR fare.
Obviously, those of you who call Auckland home can and will make a much more informed call as to the type of airport link the city may develop – regardless of how any future line may interface with the wider network, a special Airport surcharge will be very likely – govts always chase the ca$h – fair enough, you gotta pay sooner or later!
There is competition from the park and shuttles now and prices still haven’t come down.
What exactly is the problem at Britomart that limits the inbound trains? I’ve seen the limit stated many times, but never a good explanation for the limit.
One line in, one line out, five platforms. Right now the problem is compounded by signalling and rail alignment in the tunnel which means that trains cannot be travelling in and out in the tunnel at the same time – one must stop and let the other past. That slows things down, but is due for rectification over the summer.
The bigger, and obvious, problem is that until a train has departed its platform is occupied. More so with six-car trains. Coupled with the need for head-way between trains, to ensure they don’t try and occupy the same section of track simultaneously, there’s a finite limit to how many trains any station can process in an hour. In the case of Britomart that limit is lowered by the bone-headed decision to have two-track-wide tunnel feeding a five-platform terminus, though it would be worse with only two platforms since you couldn’t have multiple trains going through their loading/unloading cycle while others come and go.
I had heard 24/hour too.
Is there nothing about the Britomart station design that has not been an absolute disaster in future-proofing terms? If not then the unveiling plaque at the entrance with John Banks’s name on it was prescient!
It wasn’t boneheaded to build a two track tunnel as the station was only designed to have two suburban lines running through it. the rest were supposed to be converted to light rail running at street level. The problem comes as we now use Britomart in a way it wasn’t intended, I.e with four heavy rail lines.
Two platforms is perfectly adequate for a two track line if you are running all EMUs in a suburban service, they don’t need to sit around like lumbering diesels. Bondi Junction in Sydney handles over 20 trains an hour on two platforms.
My understanding is that 24 trains an hour would be the signal limit of the two track tunnel, however the practical limit might be a bit lower once you add in the flat junction at quay park and in particular the single pair of points at the head of the platforms that have to handle all movements in and out between the five platforms and the two lines.
Nick, even if they only laid two tracks it was still bone-headed to not bore the tunnel wider than necessary. Just in case. The extra cost of boring a bigger tunnel would’ve been negligible against the overall project cost, and it would’ve given some future-proofing. Auckland’s public transport is largely in the state it is now because of a general lack of “Just in case” thinking about what the future may bring.
Matt, the actual fact the approach tunnel was built was an amazing piece of foresightedness. The land hand changed ownership in a treaty claim and developers were starting to work on the land for the new owners. There had been no confirmation of any rail extension at the time the council decided to build a railway tunnel just in case. They realised they had to do it then or it would all be blocked in. So yes, the went and built a rail tunnel before there were any plans or funding for a rail station at the end of it.
You need to remember this is in the late 90s when they had seriously proposed closing the railways to use the corridor to build roads. It would have cost them more than twice as much to build a four track tunnel and it would never have happened due to objections from the land owners. I’m pretty sure they had enough trouble sticking in a 15m wide strip of land that they couldn’t build on, let alone a 30m one.
You can excuse the council for not making their last ditch stab in the dark effort a four track wide tunnel, they were already pushing the boundaries of ‘just in case’ spending $30 million on something that might never be used, let alone double that.
Anyway, there is plenty of future proofing there, including a pair of unused ramps that could handle sixty light rail vehicles an hour.
Yes Newmarket is to become a big hub, and looking further forward to a harbour crossing, the the Midtown station becomes a potentially big hub as well. So we are heading to a system more like London where there are multiple hubs, rather than like Melbourne or Wellington, where there is the big one Terminating Station.
I hope when the Loop is built there is some future proofing for the x harbour line….
I’m assuming CBD report has been delayed so as to not give Brown, as the more pro transit candidate, a boost…? Where is it now, on Steveo’s desk?
Patrick, Melbourne actually has two main terminii, one for regional and interstate trains and a second for suburban trains on the other side of the CBD. Plus there is the city loop underground and several large interchange stations outside of the city.
In Melbourne people tend to transfer at the main stations just outside of the city to get a train going in the right direction, and I think Newmarket has a natural role there. For example people coming from the South or Onehunga might swap to get one train down to Britomart via Parnell, one going the other way via the CBD tunnel etc.
I’m a fan of having a dedicated terminus capable of handling diesel powered trains for a regional and (eventually) intercity network. Meanwhile the suburban trains would be operated metro style with high frequencies, through running lines and multiple interchange points across Auckland. I think Britomart is the logical place for that terminus: it has multiple platforms, can take diesel trains, and it is already a terminus and being located downtown is a big bonus. If the CBD metro tunnel was built along side Britomart rather than into it then all the problems would be solved. Plenty of capacity, different service patterns kept separate, the terminating diesels use the custom designed diesel terminus while the electric metros used the custom built metro tunnel. Anyway, if that is not possible I think the Strand is the second best option, however the track alignment makes it pretty hard to get suburban trains to stop there as well as terminating ones. I just think it would be totally silly to turn the grandiose five platform, diesel capable central city terminus station into what would effectively be a two track electric only metro stop.
Yes Nick, as I typed I thought i might be a bit wrong about Melbourne, I just remember that big station teeming with commuters… I’ll have another look tomorrow when I’m there again [!].
And, yes I also think you’re right that ideally, and thinking long term, a suburban electric two line platform next to and connected to Britomart under Quay, leaving Britomart for those intercity diesel services that are surely coming [whatever they currently think in the Waikato], is best. BUT, how politically palatable is it? Can you mount a cost argument? I guess there’s a great benefit in leaving Britomart alone and operating while building the new station and the Loop? What else? no need to go under Downtown, avoiding structural and legal issues there? Cut and cover on Quay would be cheaper, yes? Does it leave Britomart open to attacks of wasteful underuse until those services build up?
Imagine that though, actually building for the future, wow…
Sorry to rehash all of this again, but for Partricks benefit….
Not just the Waikato, they are talking about a Huapai-Pukekohe run due to a lack of terminal capacity and moving the Overlander away from Britomart. Plus there is potential for runs to Waiuku, Tauranga, Rotorua etc. Any of course some suburban lines could still terminate there if need be.
The first section of the proposed CBD tunnel is very difficult as it must pass through the foundations of the old CPO building, which is very old and very protected. That bit will basically need to be dug by hand and reinforced from the inside out, i.e. very expensive. Not connecting to Britomart makes this difficult work unnecessary.
Furthermore a shaft to dig the bored tunnel would need to be located at the end, i.e. in QEII square. This is pretty constrained for the requirements of getting a TBM into place and constantly removing spoil. If the tunnel was in Quay St they could simply diver traffic along the other side of the red fence and a have a huge construction base to work from.
I’m no engineer but it could be that building the extra 900m of cut and cover tunnel and digging the bored section from a nice big site could work out cheaper than working through the constrained connection to Britomart.
The best argument is one regarding, capacity, efficiency and stagability. Firstly Britomart has a capacity of about 20 trains an hour in total. A CBD tunnel would have the capacity for 20 trains each way, or an extra 40 an hour in total…. however, instead of ending up with a total capacity of sixty trains an hour they want to bung the tunnel into the end of Britomart which halves this. This means the whole capacity would be only the 40 an hour of the tunnel, i.e. only 20 more than currently. Effectively this means they are planning to build a billion dollar rail tunnel that can only be used to 50% of its potential capacity.
Secondly to do so basically destroys the opportunity to terminate trains anymore: the problem is any one train going in and out of the terminus section (i.e. the diesel capable bit) is two trains that can’t run through the tunnel. So are they going to justify blocking out two electric suburban trains with a combined capacity of almost 2,000 people to get one 96 seater Silver Fern from the Waikato in? Unlikely.
The custom build underground diesel capable five track rail terminus will become simply a two track metro stop… yet there will be no longer be anywhere to terminate trains once this occurs. Totally crazy no? Instead of converting the terminus into a metro station and worrying about building a new terminus elsewhere (or rather simply not having any non-metro trains), they should just build the cheap metro stop alongside and leave the terminus alone.
Then there is the issue of system capacity. Auckland has three main lines that all lines and branches will feed into. This mean three tracks into the centre and three back out again. The current problem is there is only one track ‘through’ the middle, i.e. one track into Britomart and one out again. Extending Britomart with a two track tunnel means there would be two tracks through the centre of the network, i.e. we would only every be able to run the suburban system at 2/3 capacity. If the new two track tunnel was built alongside then we would be adding two track through to the one we already have, which would match the suburban capacity exactly. Three tracks in, three tracks out and three through the middle.
This of course also means that the end result is a system capacity triple the current capacity, rather than just double. Basically extending the proposed 3km long CBD tunnel an extra 900m past Britomart to Quay Park junction would mean twice as much capacity gain. That’s 200% the benefit from just 30% more tunnel (and cheaper tunnel at that).
The last point is one of staging. A 900m long cut and cover tunnel under the road corridor from Quay Park to alongside Britomart would be cheap and fast to build. We might have the first section done at a cost of $200 million and only three or four years time. One problem with the CBD tunnel is we are looking at ten years and a billion bucks invested before we get an ounce of congestion relief. If we built it in two stages from Quay Park we’d get the doubling of capacity within a few years and then the tripling of capacity a few more after that.
I think all of this is very compelling argument, however it would simply be lost on politicians and the media. For one it means spending and extra 200+ million to double the capacity of a project that has tenuous support to begin with, one that many people think will be a while elephant even with half it’s capacity wasted.
The only saving grace would be if it was actually cheaper to build that 900m long cut and cover section instead of the connecting to Britomart. I suppose one could work out the cost-benefit ratios of the staged expenditure and staged capacity increases, that might give it a higher BCR than the current proposal.
Oh and by the way, if you didn’t know I currently live in Melbourne. Comparing Melbourne and Auckland is a bit of a hobby of mine 🙂
A thought occurs if you started the build on the seaward side of the red fence you could simply dump the spoil straight onto a barge or train, or even use it to reclaim more land for the port without having trucks crossing Quay Street every 5 minutes. Plus you’d have masses of room to work with.
Convinced, the math may work in favour of your scheme, or at least be neutral…. who has been working on the report? I think they could do with your wisdom…..
I have written a report outlining my proposal and it has made it’s way to the team doing the report and some other powers that be. Whether they take it seriously or not I don’t know.
Obviously there are alot of variables but, what are we looking at in terms of travel time between Britomart and the airport by rail?
I agree that pushing the fact that it is a commuter line (with potentially 4 extra stations) that just happens to terminate at the airport would do wonders for its PR (though judging by recent surveys, it might not need it). But a commuter service with more stops means longer travel time. And the longer the travel time, the less attractive it becomes for airport users I would think.
Are we looking at Britomart-Newmarket-Onehunga express and then all stops to the airport? Or Britomart-Newmarket-Airport express?
It is 25 minutes from Britomart to Onehunga and from things I have seen elsewhere that could probably be reduced by a bit further by removing some of the speed restrictions on the line. Electrics should reduce the time slightly further again, perhaps to just over 20 minutes. From there to the airport is 9km and based on roughly what we currently see for timing I think that an all stops would get to town in about 35 – 40 minutes. An express could probably only knock about 5 minutes off that so even an all stops would be pretty competitive with an off peak taxi ride and far faster than a peak time journey.
With new custom designed passenger track, no level crossings or speed restrictions, three widely spaced intermediate stations and electric EMUs only onehunga to the airport could be covered in ten minutes (I.e an average speed of 55kmh including stops).
With a rebuilt onehunga branch and an EMU fleet the trip from there to town should get down to 20 mins.
Overall 30 minutes should be feasible.
Start building the Onehunga to Airport line now with the following timetable as below. When the CBD tunnell is complete all trians can go to Britomart. And when the Puhinui is complete no mention is needed for the change for southern services from Penrose. But a temporary timetable when the Airport to Onehunga is complete as below:
XX.00 Airport to Britomart (Change at Newmarket for Western Services) (Change at Penrose for Southern Services)
XX.15 Airport to Waitakere (Change at Newmarket for Britomart) (Change at Penrose for Southern Services)
XX.30 Airport to Britomart (Change at Newmarket for Western Services) (Change at Penrose for Southern Services)
XX.45 Airport to Waitakere (Change at Newmarket for Britomart) (Change at Penrose for Southern Services)
For a rail line to have any advantage over the bus it must at least match its frequencies, therefore an airport line must 15 minute frequencies from day one I thin.
I would say that rail could operate at lower frequencies than a bus, but would need to be much faster to make up for it. That said, I think if the project would not attract enough riders to require 15 minute peak frequencies then we probably shouldn’t be building it yet.
Man, you gotta love those three “hold points” in the MOU. I’m probably a bit cynical after years of reading this stuff, but I interpret these “hold points” as code to allow NZTA to slow the whole thing down, or nix the whole thing altogether in favour of, well anything but rail…
This MOU would be a lot simpler if it had been drafted as:
“The parties will work together to designate a rail corridor to Auckland Airport. The parties recognise that this action is required urgently so as to minimise any future development costs in relation to a rail link.”
which is a long way from
“Identify the preferred multi-modal transport routes and configurations…” and “ensure that the outcome contributes to… the urban form and economic development of the region”.
Looking at this though I really wonder if it is worth the paper its printed on. By the time this is all finished the second runway will be built and the designation of a rail corridor will be even harder. I really think the designation should be put in place first to, dare I say it, “future-proof” the rail option. I don’t think it would cost that much to do.
The relitigation of whether this is the correct mode or not and BCR economic assessments can come later.
Good point Cam. The business case is necessary to justify construction, not route protection. So I don’t see a need for it to be undertaken prior to sorting out the designation – it may just be an opportunity to put off route protection if the numbers don’t stack up yet.
You would think the following process would make the most sense.
1) Prepare documents for route protection. This would need some level of economic analysis, but not too much detail yet.
2) Lodge notice of requirement and go through RMA process to secure route.
3) Undertake detailed economic assessment to justify construction.
4) Start building it.