A significant benefit of the CBD Rail Tunnel project that is often mentioned, but never in too much detail, is the ability of that project to unlock the capacity of the rest of the rail network. What does this actually mean?
Of course most people know Britomart is a dead-end station, and that means there’s a limitation on how many trains can enter and leave the station at peak times. We’re pretty much at that capacity level now, so until we build the CBD Tunnel we can only get more people into Britomart by making our trains longer – obviously there’s a limit in how long that will suffice.
The CBD Tunnel’s business case looks at this matter in a bit more detail:
With all the lines converging on that one little rail link into Britomart, the bottleneck is actually limiting our ability to utilise the rest of the rail network to anywhere near its capacity.
The business case looks at the operating capacity of the various parts of the railway system, post-electrification:
If we analyse this in a bit more detail, there are some interesting results. The Western Line between Swanson and Morningside will have the capacity to operate 15 trains an hour, but is limited to 6 by the Britomart bottleneck. The inner part of the Southern Line (Westfield-Newmarket) will have the capacity to run 20 trains per hour, but will be limited to 8 (six from south of Westfield and two from Onehunga). The Eastern Line will also have the capacity to run 20 trains per hour, but will be limited to six because of Britomart.
By the time electrification is completed, we will have spent over a billion dollars on upgrading the Auckland rail network, plus another half billion dollars on new electric trains. Through both projects the rail system is effectively being rebuilt from scratch: new stations, new signalling, often new tracks, new points and new sleepers. In many cases the only thing that remains of our ‘old system’ are the alignments. This close to brand new system will, post-electrification, have a tremendously high carrying capacity – if only it weren’t for the Britomart bottleneck.
A useful analogy might be to compare this outcome to building a brand new 6 lane motorway, but because you haven’t alleviated the essential bottleneck, you can only open the road for one lane of traffic each way.
The beauty of the CBD Tunnel is that it enables the entire rail system to be used efficiently. It makes it possible to operate trains along the system at the service frequencies we have built the infrastructure for. Obviously it will be a while before we need 15 trains per hour between Swanson and Morningside, but without the CBD Tunnel it is impossible for us to utilise the capacity in the rail system we’re currently spending over a billion dollars to create.
It really unlocks the entire system, allowing us to make full use of a transport corridor with enormous potential capacity. It allows us to make use of the investment in Project DART and electrification. We’re certainly not going to get best value out of that billion dollars if we can’t ever run our trains at frequencies higher than one every 10 minutes.
Processing...
If you look at the Executive Summary of the business case, it is focused almost entirely on CBD benefits. Yet the actual patronage increase in the CBD stations actually isn’t all that great, only an extra 4.68 million passengers a year based on the figures given, assuming 2h in and 2h out for 200 days a year.
To really clinch the case, the ES is forced to rely on an assumed increase in CBD productivity of several billion dollars (present value), yet the 4.68 million passengers a year, an increase from a respectable 7.12 million to 11.8 million, seems more of a marginal improvement than a step change.
I’ll repeat that, a marginal improvement in CBD services is being represented as a step change that will somehow unlock all kinds of economic transformation benefits for Auckland. The point is of course that there is a more than marginal change in potential patronage across the WHOLE SYSTEM, but that is NOT what the Executive Summary has put in front of Joyce.
Well it has sort of, for almost as a footnote on page 4, the ES mentions that with the link, annual patronage on the total network is expected to reach 50 million passengers, twice what would be achieved otherwise (but without explaining why).
This is the essential problem with Auckland Transport and Kiwirail now, and with ARTA and Kiwirail beforehand. They just don’t seem to get the multi-destination transport idea.
All their macro-level “why are we doing this” type studies view PT entirely through a CBD commuter lens. The result is a vision bypass and an underselling of total system PT patronage and benefits, which in turn plays right into the hands of the Owen McShanes, who ask (rightly) why we are spending billions to achieve a marginal increase in CBD commuters, when only 13% of regional jobs are in the CBD. For instance what about Newmarket? New Lynn? etc etc etc.
Nor does the executive summary mention the huge travel time benefits that arise from the tunnel, which must be on this blog somewhere though I can’t find them just off the cuff. But basically double figure time savings for a lot of services, especially on the Western line, purely from having the tunnel so that they don’t have to take the long way round through Newmarket. Which in turn unlocks Henderson and New Lynn as feasible destinations, etc etc. All synergies.
This couldn’t be more self-sabotaging if it had been designed by Sir Humphrey Appleby to make sure that nothing happens.
If I was Joyce I’d be bloody skeptical too if this is all I had been served up, even without his obvious road bias, which just makes things worse.
We transportbloggers only think the rail business case is persuasive because we know already that the tunnel is the difference between a 20 million a year system and a 50 million a year one, which is reasonably probable based on multi-centre development and multi-destination journeys.
But that’s NOT what is being foregrounded in the Executive Summary. I’d like to see a rewrite done ASAP.
Executive summary is here http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/current-projects/Rail/Documents/AT_Report_CBDRailLink_ExecutiveSummary.pdf .
Good points Chris. The difference to Western Line travel times is outlined here: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/rail-speeds.jpg
I think they have hopelessly underestimated the patronage gains the CBD tunnel will provide. 10mins to anyone along the Western line, and 10mins to everyone going to Midtown and the southern part of the CBD. This effectively gives a huge increase in the catchment area, especially in West Auckland.
The CBD tunnel will allow the cancellation of direct services bus services from West Auckland (except Te Atatu, NW) and most parts of the south (not Otara). Also a fair few of those living in the Howick/Pakuranga area and the 40,000 people of Mangere will also be given a quicker journey by transferring from bus at Onehunga and Panmure. This surely adds up to a huge patronage increase?
Then the space freed up by less buses will be helpful for those living in the tramline suburbs (Dominion Road etc) so their bus services will be more efficient.
Indeed.
I think the ultimately the way to justify the CBD rail tunnel is to look at PT operating costs for the 30 years post 2020. What are the operating costs of having an extraordinarily large number of buses rolling around the CBD (paying for very expensive diesel) against the operating costs of eliminating a large chunk of those buses through the capacity an electrified rail network will provide.
That’s the argument that worked for electrification. Over 30 years it was cheaper to electrify the system than to buy new diesel trains and operate them over the same period of time.
One train and one driver vs. twelve buses and twelve drivers. That’s twelve times the staffing cost right there.
Of course none of these arguments will work for Mr Joyce or NZTA because they don’t think people will be in buses or trains. Joycey was clear that he thinks people should move out to the fringe and drive to new fringe office parks and industrial zones.
Excellent comments. I suspect that a number of the Kiwirail senior staff working on the CBD tunnel study are or may have up till recently been Wellington based. While putting together an overall impressive study, the blind spot in the vision is indeed the multi-destination patronage potential that gets unlocked with the Auckland network. Unlike Auckland, the Wellington network will continue to remain very CBD focussed.
I understand that the Paris RER is a noteworthy comparison with what can be achived with Auckland albiet on a much bigger scale. It similarly transformed the connectivity across the Paris region by linking distant communities with lines transversing through the city centre area between opposite points on the compass. The Paris CBD itself is a very sprawling affair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RER
Wow! I know it would increase capacity but not by that much. that is HUGE. I agree with the time saving benefits on the Western line – I am really not sure why the Auckland Council has not spent more time promoting this… Having spoken to a lot of people about this project over the last 6 months I think most people in West Auckland see this project as mainly benefiting the CBD. If they understood how much it would cut down the travel times for them there would be a lot more political pressure on govt and council to build it.
Yes the council and AT really need to articulate the benefits of the project better and it is something I have mentioned before. Far to many people see the project as just a benefit for those who work in the CBD or as only benefiting a few people who use rail. They need to be pushing the increased frequencies it allows, the time savings, the fact it allows further rail development etc.
As for the West Auckland benefit, I agree that most people probably don’t realise the benefit to them and most likely the MP’s out west also don’t realise. I reckon that it could cause a bit of an increase in property prices close to the line as people realise how much faster it would be.
For the frequencies perhaps they should focus more on the times rather than the number of trains per hour, 15 trains per hour probably doesn’t sound that impressive to most people but if you told them it allows 1 train every 4 minutes I think they would be more impressed. In the tunnel itself they have said advanced signalling could allow 30 trains per hour in each direction so that would be 1 train every 2 minutes which means you be on the waterfront, decide to go to K’Rd and be there within 5 minutes.
Bearing in mind what you say about how there will only be room for two trains from Onehunga per hour. What will happen with the Manukau spur? Will they get people to take one train to the Southern line and then transfer? Or will they cut services from Papakura to accomodate services from Manukau? Soryr if these are foolish questions but I can’t quite see how it will work…
There are a number of trains that use the Eastern line that terminate at Otahuhu so my understanding is that they will be extended to Manukau so there shouldn’t be an issue there.
I am still somewhat sceptical of the rail loop, but more for the silver bullet approach that many local body politicians are treating it as. In my view, they’re making the same mistake that we have made until now with motorway investment, which is a failure to see the bigger picture. Yes, a rail loop will improve service times and speed across the existing network, but ultimately do little to expand it. If this project is as expensive as it looks like being, and if funding is in such short supply, then it seems that some cost will be passed onto commuters who are also funding things like integrated ticketing too.
The rail loop really needs to be discussed as part of a broader plan to connect parts of Auckland without access to rail, which would involve a substantial reorganisation of ARTA and their funding priorities. Instead of passenger number totals, subsidies should be issued to bus operators on throughput to rail, with bus services in suburbs near rail stations operating as shuttles around residential areas that return to train stations. Instead of competing to take passengers to the same place, the emphasis should be working to combine our networks to improve service overall.
Where there is no rail access, there needs to be a long-term plan to develop some sort of rail system, which is reviewed every two years or so to ensure that development hasn’t hurried the need for rail. God help us if we end up with another situation like Botany Downs – a huge population base with no access to rail. Areas like this are also in need of having rail services fast-tracked to them, and should be considered just as much of a priority as the CBD loop.
Finally, we need a few fun projects. A tram network out to the end of the waterfront, closing Queen Street to vehicles and running trams through there too – perhaps out to Eden Park and back. It’s clear that there are many many options, but focussing on one element (and using all Auckland’s political sway in one go) might work out to be the worse option of all.
Dan, I wouldn’t say the CBD tunnel is the silver bullet, it is the way to load the gun. There are many discussions going on about connecting areas of Auckland with new rail lines, for example the proposed Mangere and Airport line, a line through Owairaka and Mt Roskill, and a line in the AMETI corridor out to Botany and Flat bush and even an eventual line to the North Shore.
One thing is certain though, none of this can really happen until CBD tunnel is built to relieve the constraint at the core of the network. Currently we have three inbound main lines feeding into just one track. Making that four or five main lines feeding into one track would be impossible.
DThe problem is there is no capacity to extend the rail system until we build this link. We cannot run anymore trains.
Oh I completely agree, and moving to a service with a train every five minutes or so is a huge step in the right direction, but I just worry that the CBD rail loop is being isolated too much from the rest of the infrastructure we’ll need to really make use of it. It would be good if all the other projects under consideration at least got mentioned in the same sentence, if you catch my drift.
The other project can be mentioned in the same sentence, by saying that once the CBD tunnel is built, we can start looking at more frequent trains, trains to the airport, trains to Botany, trains to the North Shore, faster times from Eden Park back to the city (might even be able to sneak a ‘regular service’ in between the special trains), etc.
By looking at the whole network, people will understand that the tunnel will benefit the whole of Auckland and NZ.
Len Brown campaigned on them as a package, that is the right approach.
Although I still think we need to get back to using a blanket term like ‘regional rapid rail’ rather talking about this loop here and that airport line there etc.
You do have a good point Dan regarding feeder buses. Much of the increased patronage will come from using feeder buses to extend the reach of the network. There is no way we can accommodate the extra patronage with Park and Ride. This is something else the study hasn’t mentioned, the CBD link needs the PTMA to function properly.
First off, great blog, read it everyday, helps me alot with my study (2nd year BPlan).
I agree that there was a fundamental error of focussing on the transformational benefits to the CBD in the Business Case and only mentioning the benefits to the rest of the rail network as an aside. As real as the transformational benefits will be, they are at the end of the day assumptions, albeit educated ones – essentially gives Joyce and co a weapon with which to discredit/argue with the business case, no matter how well Darren Hughes argues the point at question time. Also adds to that widespread assumption of the tunnel only benefitting the CBD.
If the business case placed greater emphasis on the frequency/time savings benefits of the tunnel across the rail network, and the extra services it will facilitate – then it will be a lot more difficult to argue with because Joyce and co will have to deal with concrete, unarguable facts – not assumed transformational benefits. Transformational benefits and the frequency/time savings benefits across the network should both be presented as twin, equal arguments, front and centre of the business case – not one emphasised at the expense of the other. I’d happily write it myself!
I think they may have been forced into using transformational benefits somewhat as the CBR process is not great at counting Public Transport benefits. This is especially as the patronage model they are using hopelessly underestimates things.
“but without the CBD Tunnel it is impossible for us to utilise the capacity in the rail system we’re currently spending over a billion dollars to create”.
Impossible? An upgraded connection through the old Beach Road station would bypass Britomart and “unlock” the balance of the system at a miniscule proportion of the cost of the tunnel. Hypothetical, perhaps, but it serves to illustrate that the CBD tunnel really does have primarily CBD benefits.
The rail network still has to go to where people want to go. After Britomart opened they still had some trains head through the old Beach Rd station and no one used them because they didn’t want to be on the outskirts of town.
…and thus you illustrate my point.
The benefits of the CBD tunnel are primarily for trips to, from or through the CBD. If the hypothetical (note the use of the word) link (not station) has little value because trains have to go where people want to go (and you imply that this is the CBD) then trips that are not to, from or through the CBD have little value so “unlocking” the rest of the network has little value.
The claim has been made that capacity constraints at Britomart constrain the entire Auckland passenger rail system. I have illustrated that they only constrain rail travel to and from the CBD.
One running pattern that could make use of a Beach Rd loop is as follows: trains coming up from the south could be interleaved with some stopping at Newmarket and then going to Beach Rd and round to about Meadowbank (where they would reverse); and then there would be other trains which wouldn’t stop at Newmarket but go straight into Britomart. Newmarket-Britomart traffic (not likely to be too much of this in the peak) would be carried by Western Line trains, which would have the space released from the passengers who got off at Newmarket.
This is hardly a perfect pattern, but given the resource pressures on Britomart, and given that about half the current passenger load are going to or from Britomart (the equivalent ratio in Wellington is ninety percent using the main station) – we do not need to run all the trains into there.
The significant savings in travel times benefit non-CBD users such as someone coming from the NEX and transferring to a train, or someone coming into town for social reasons.