Later today (2pm in the town hall if you’re interested) Auckland Council’s transport committee will receive a report and presentation from Council and Auckland Transport staff on the City Rail Link project. Much of the documentation just a repeat of an earlier confidential report to the Transport Committee last month – talking about funding options and a possible consenting process for the project over the next few years.
Obviously a key discussion point at the meeting will be the reasons behind the differences between the Council’s review of the business case and Central Government’s review. I’ve discussed that matter to death over the past week, but it’ll be interesting to see what – if any – discussion there is on that matter at the meeting. However, while that matter is certainly interesting, perhaps the most practically useful thing that’s discussed in the report is the issue of “where to next?”
There’s quite a bit of discussion about funding options for the local share of the project – with the Council looking at pretty much all possible options:
I certainly agree that any funding package is likely to involve a number of these options. Looking at betterment or ‘capital value uplift’ taxes is something that I think is worth looking at in particular. If somehow the government can be talked into coming up with around half the project’s cost then I think finding the other half is probably feasible for the council. Finding $2 billion – that is, if the government can’t be talked around – might be somewhat more difficult.
In terms of the process moving forward, the council’s report also looks at a possible process for securing the designation and all necessary resource consents:
I must say it’s a rather strange process to lodge the notice of requirement and then immediately put it on hold, although I understand that’s what happened for the future Waitemata Harbour Crossing, because that’s never been notified for submissions. It will also be interesting to see whether the council decides to go through the new “one stop shop” consenting process that was used for the Waterview Connection project. There are pros and cons with the process (it’s faster, but riskier that if it’s declined there’s no opportunity to appeal).
One thing that will be useful as the project goes through the consenting process we should learn a lot more about its details. It’ll be great to start seeing some design options for the stations as time goes on.
Processing...
One thing I’m really interested in, other than the detail of station design, is how the connection to the Western Line is resolved. Do western Line trains heading down the CRL still have a Mt Eden platform to stop at? If so it will be pretty close to the new Newton Station, if not it’s along way back to Kingsland. Ideally there needs to be an interchange station here that facilitates easy transfers between the three possible train directions…. or will we end up with a set of separated platforms? West to CRL back at Wynyard Rd, west to Newmarket where it is, and Newmarket to CRL…? In fact that connection looks the least elegant and the most destructive of existing buildings to fit in.
The good news about the amount of property the council will need to buy here is that it offers a fantastic opportunity for an ambitious urban renewal Transport Oriented Development. A lot of low value, low rise, light commercial there now that could well be replaced with quality apartments…. Could they even work with no/minimal carpaks?
Our first real junction station… we aren’t good at these in AK: Newmarket, Quay Park, hardly best practice, let’s see what we can do….
My understanding is that Mt Eden station goes. Its not very far between Kingsland & Newton.
The most recent plans show the ramps down to the tunnel starting well back either side of the current mount Eden station so if it were at all retained it could only service trains that ran between the western line and Newmarket, however these would be few if any as they would still require the double pass at Newmarket junction.
One option might be to relocate the station to the straight section of track just east of the Dominion Rd-New North intersection. This would provide excellent interchange opportunities with Dominion Rd QTN and the buses o new north too.
…at the cost of an extra minute of travel time on the western line. Probably well worth it if we ever see a tramway or busway on Dominion Rd, the alternative of connecting at Newton or K Rd would involve a substantial amount of doubling back.
Other things that are not on the list 😉
1.) Increase parking fines.
2.) Reestablish tolls on the Waitemata Harbour Bridge.
3.) Toll all the motorways.
4.) Charge non-Auckland New Zealander to use the isthmus.
Now, these will probably require legislation….
They can only do the first one, the others require legislation because they involve non-council assets. They’ll never happen, of course, at least not with Joyce in charge. And, realistically, only 3 would be a reasonable course of action.
Tolling the bridge is probably viable for another harbour crossing but not , I don’t think, the CRL
Can they actually decide to fast-track it Josh? I think the Minister himself has to decide whether a project qualifies to go through the new fast-tracked EPA process…but I could be wrong about that. Too lazy to look up the legislation 🙂
They can request it, but you’re right that it’s a decision made by the Minister for the Environment. However, if Wiri Men’s Prison is acceptable as a project of national significance this would easily be one too.
That’s if Auckland Council prefer this approach. I reckon there are good reasons to stick with the traditional path.
Other things not on the list:
– Charge non-Aucklanders higher fares (including Super gold card)
– Declare independence from New Zealand
Is the latter before or after Waiheke declares independence from Auckland?
We’ll have to see whether we will allow Auckland to join the Commonwealth of Waiheke. 🙂
Maybe they can’t toll the motorways, but what about tolling the local roads coming into the CBD? (E.g. Bond Street, Wellington Street, etc).
It will be interesting to see whether the Council chooses to redevelop ‘station’ sites in an integrated way themselves, as is occuring with the Waterfront CCO, or leave it up to the market. This could be another way of partially funding the Loop, though I am not too sure about how developing the properties for a commercial return could be lawful using compulsory acquisition powers, etc.
I believe that the Government will need to investigate the potential for tolling in the long-term as cars move to electric or hybrids. I sincerely hope that debt repayment doesn’t fall on the train users in the form of a massive train fare increase.
A congestion charge where the motorways are NON-tolled would be a very weird outcome, seeing that we already use motorways as our preferred way of getting around. Also, no real chance to get that acceptable to NZTA anyway, who would logically say “over our dead body” with even more traffic trying to use the motorways.
Bryce, I’m no laywer, but I think it would be a perfect (and probably perfectly legal, unless Joyce passes a law against it, which I think is quite feasible if he hates the idea) way of raising money by saying: You go and develop, but because you are now near a new train station, you now pay twice the development contributions. That would hit developers only once they redevelop, not existing owners, which could be legally tricky.
Main problems with that approach is that you’d actually somewhat DIS-incentivise new development, and also, that the money would only come in after the fact, and with little certainty as to when and how much.
Re-reading my own comment: Maybe it would NOT be such a perfect thing after all. I guess some higher development contributions would be in order, but it obviously is not the way to get the main funding.
charging all cars that enter the CBD at peak time would be a good way to raise a bit of the money. Looking at the tables from the previous post 35,000 car passengers is say 30,000 cars. Multiplying 30,000 by 5 days times 48 weeks a year gives 7,200,000. This means the charge could cover almost $100 million of debt for each dollar. Would start with $2 when tunnel opened, raising to $3 and then $4 after a couple of years.
This could pay for about a third of the councils half share.
I think the council will have to borrow most of the money upfront to pay for construction, but then as long as it has future revenue streams that offset this, will be no problem.
The problem with most such funding methods is that they are at the mercy of government – like with the regional fuel tax, all it takes is the Wellington Overmasters deciding that Auckland should NOT have a new funding stream, and a law will be passed, or some other way found, to take away the legality, or at least the certainty, which is needed for getting funding. That limits all the more “unusual” funding methods (including tolls of any kind).
John Banks wanted to use Infrastructure Bonds as a way of generating revenue. Or at least that’s what he announced at last year’s CBT AGM.
Bonds are a debt instrument, not revenue. Revenue still needs to be found service and pay down debt over the life of the asset,regardless of the debt instrument used.
The annual car-parking levy is an interesting one. Sydney, Melbourne and Perth all have them. In Sydney it’s set at $2,000 per car-park per year and brings in $100 million annually for transport projects.
I’m interested to see that the council has decided the levy is “not feasible” based on existing legislation. My understanding is that a parking levy cold feasible be introduced as a targeted rate – but it would have to be based on the area of land used for parking, rather than the number of parks per se (the latter would be more ideal).
Given that the government has removed other funding options (eg regional fuel tax), I would have thought that a bluntly applied parking levy would still be preferred to no levy at all. Although I should say that I’m not an expert on local government financial mechanisms …
I’m not sold on the idea of any regional fuel taxes or parking charges. Given that TransportBlog has shown the huge disparity in travel times in bus vs. train travel, I can assure you that the differential between car and bus would be just as large. Why should we punish someone because their bus ride takes half an hour longer than it does to drive into the CBD?