Today’s announcement that government agencies, in conjunction with Auckland Council and Auckland Transport, will be undertaking a good in depth analysis and review of the Auckland CBD Tunnel business case is most probably a useful step forwards – as it at least represents a step further along the process to making this proposal a reality.
Central government agencies to review business case for Auckland CBD rail link
Transport Minister Steven Joyce has asked officials from the Ministry of Transport, the Treasury and the NZ Transport Agency to work with Auckland Transport, Auckland Council and other agencies to review the business case for a CBD rail link ahead of any further discussions between central government and Auckland Council next year.
The business case, released last month, provides a capital cost of $2.3 billion for the rail link in 2010 dollars.
Mr Joyce says the business case was a first step but it leaves a number of questions unanswered.
“It would be irresponsible for the government to even consider being involved with a project of this size without being confident about having the full facts.”
Mr Joyce says he wants a number of questions answered as part of the review, including:
• Does the business case include the full capital and operating costs needed to realise the project?
• How many additional passengers will the rail tunnel attract over the $1.6 billion electrified network we are currently building?
• What impact will the rail tunnel have on car travel and congestion?
• When will the tunnel be needed?
• How does the tunnel project relate to the growth and productivity of the CBD and Auckland more widely?
Mr Joyce has today spoken with Auckland Mayor Len Brown who has agreed that a formal assessment of the business case by central government agencies is a necessary step.
“The findings of this review will help us determine if, how and when to progress with the CBD rail link project and will give both central and local government the certainty needed,” says Mr Joyce.
These are all pretty reasonable questions, although in my opinion, having read the business case pretty much cover to cover, I think they are generally answered by that document.
While I would personally love this project to be pushed ahead as quickly as possible, I do think it’s justifiable to analyse it and for us to make damn sure it’s a worthwhile way to spend what is a pretty massive amount of money – over $2 billion. We should know what its full costs are; we should know for sure what difference it will make to the capacity and ridership of Auckland’s rail network; we should know what its impact on vehicle congestion is and we should get our heads around – more clearly – what the productivity and economic growth benefits that the project will bring are. As I noted, I think the answers to these questions generally are within the business case already, but I do agree it is useful for them to be brought to the forefront more.
This all begs the giant question – why aren’t we doing something similar for the Puhoi-Wellsford “holiday highway”? That is also a very expensive project. It has many unanswered questions in its business case – probably more than the CBD Rail Tunnel. Why aren’t the same agencies listed above going to undertake a review of the cost-effectiveness of Puhoi-Wellsford – examining a few of the following questions:
- Do the estimates accurately reflect the amount of money we will have to spend on constructing this road? This should take into account whether the road will increase pressure on other parts of the motorway network for widening – after all we wouldn’t want to repeat the same mistakes that are likely to mean we need to waste another $160 million on motorway widening as noted in today’s NZ Herald.
- What impact will the road have on travel times, on reducing congestion and potentially on shifting congestion to other parts of the road network like SH1 to the north and the Northern Motorway (which can’t easily be widened) to the south?
- What benefits could be gained more quickly and at a lower cost by doing parts of the road first – like a Warkworth bypass? What urgent safety upgrades are required in Dome Valley and what are the costs/benefits of doing those or not doing those upgrades?
- When will this project actually be needed (other than on long weekends?)
- How does the project relate to the growth and productivity of Auckland and Northland?
- Why are some analyses of the project’s cost-benefit ratio as low as 0.4?
- What wider economic benefits were used in boosting the project’s BCR from 0.8 to 1.1?
Oh I could go on and on. The point being that we have just as many, if not more, questions to ask about Puhoi-Wellsford as we do about the CBD Rail Tunnel. Surely if we’re being fair we should subject both projects to a similar review.
To not do so would be hypocritical, would it not?
Processing...
Hypocritical. exactly!
In politics, things are pretty simple; Joyce needs to get to his bach faster. That’s all.
Who wouldn’t want to get to their bach 10 mins faster?? Obviously, well worth $2 billion! 😉
Because the man is a complete Muppet, can’t think of any other explanation.
I won’t bother answering that rhetorical question Josh…. 😉
But it’s a road and therefore should get funding automatically.
apparently.
Well they kind of did review the intitial business case for Puford and they didn’t like how it came out (0.4 BCR from memory) so they told NZTA to go away and come up with a better figure. On the opposite side of the coin i suspect this review is chance for SJ to try to find reasons for not fuinding it. I’m sure he’ll find something in there he can spin to back his view.
And I expect Joyce told them to “take their time”.
You are quite right of course. The same applies to Waterview and Transmission Gully.
The ARC business case is shoddy and full of assumptions that wont stand under close scrutiny. I’ve seen more than a few transport appraisals in my time and this one smacks of massage to get the “right answer”.
I remember when under the last Nat government there was no “right answer” other than the best appraisal. No project was sacred.
I am no fan of “wider economic benefits” it is double counting voodoo, and it applies to rail and road. I am unconvinced that Puhoi-Wellsford is worthwhile yet (although I support measures to designate a route and plan for it), but the same applies to an underground rail loop when electrification hasn’t even been commissioned yet.
Sadly NZ has gone back a long way with politicians using transport as a football, which of course results in more money being wasted.
Liberty check this out electrification is already underway: http://www.aucklandtrains.co.nz/2010/12/17/masts-appear-in-xmas-rail-shutdown/
What they’ve stuffed up is the ordering of the trains themselves… does look a lot like political interference, it seems WGTN may have made some promises to China and KR have been made to sloppily widen the ‘short’ list….
A third party report on the engineering feasibility of the southern part of the planned motorway would be interesting, as would detailed costings. Given NZTA doesn’t seem to be even able to face the feasibility of the northern part of the route (ie past Warkworth) there has to be questions over whether that section is able to be built and if so at what cost. But of course that’s past the primary holiday destinations and not so important. And if they are not going to build that section anytime soon then surely it is time to fix some of the most dangerous sections of that road.
Any ideas on how that could be done? Not from NZTA it would seem. Nice flyer from them in the paper yesterday. Walking buses are apparently amongst their achievements of late. Really?