A presentation by National Road Carriers Inc (who seem to be a trucking lobby group, although not quite so rabid as the Road Transport Forum) to the Auckland Council Transport Committee last week highlighted a roading project which has gathered quite a bit of support in recent times. It is an east-west connection between SH20 and SH1 through Onehunga and Penrose. In some plans the connection continues on to Pakuranga/East Tamaki in the east.
The approximate location of the connection is shown in blue in the map below:
NZTA have been studying a route along this corridor for quite some time, and a map in the NRC presentation highlighted a range of route options which are being looked at.
It’s not particularly surprising that trucking groups promote this connection so strongly, as this part of Auckland has a huge number of freight movements each and every day. For example, while the Pakuranga Bridge has a vastly lower amount of general traffic when compared to the Harbour Bridge, it has a very similar number of heavy vehicles travelling across it each day:
Other main roads in the area (Neilson Street, Mt Wellington Highway, Panmure Bridge) also show very high levels of freight movement, particularly when compared to most of the RoNS projects.
Fundamentally, I can see that this is an important part of Auckland to look at when it comes to transport projects, particularly those that prioritise the movement of freight. I get the need for us to be able to shift freight around the city relatively easily, and I understand that most of the freight moved around this part of Auckland is intra-city and not that suitable for rail. Furthermore, with the area being largely industrial the ‘urban impact’ of transport upgrades here is likely to be less than in many other parts of the city – although there will still be sensitive areas around Onehunga (a previous interchange proposal there was declined consent) and the Tamaki River.
The main issue I have about proposed roading upgrades in the area relates to their cost and the issue of whether smaller interventions could achieve the majority of benefits for a fraction of the price. Not much is known about the cost of these upgrade, although this recent article suggested that AMETI plus the east-west connection could cost somewhere around $2.5 billion. So a pretty big chunk of money.
The main existing east-west connection through this part of Auckland is Neilson Street. This is just a two-lane arterial at the moment, but is extraordinarily wide and seems to have plenty of scope to be upgraded to a four-lane road for not much more than the cost of some white paint. The intersection of Neilson Street and Onehunga Mall is certainly problematic, but some version of an upgrade to this interchange with SH20 could resolve that issue. I understand that Auckland Transport is putting in T2/Freight Lanes along this section of road in the very near future to improve the situation as well. So we could get some significant improvement out of the SH20-SH1 corridor through some relatively minor upgrades.
Heading further east, the lack of south-facing ramps connecting the Southern Motorway with the southeast highway is a pretty obvious gap in the system. This leads to the rather unusual situation of the south-facing ramps at Mt Wellington Highway having much higher volumes than the north-facing ramps (in most of Auckland the ramps facing the city have a higher volume). I’m guessing that a lot of traffic has to detour via Sylvia Park Road, causing snarl-ups around the very complex intersections along Mt Wellington Highway just south of its motorway interchange. So I can see the logic in upgrading the interchange of SH1 with the southeast highway and one wouldn’t expect such a project to be too expensive as it’s just another couple of ramps.
Much is already planned further east, as part of AMETI, although I’m hopeful that the public transport elements of AMETI will be constructed before the extremely expensive roading components.
Overall though, I think the point is relatively clear for this project. It’s not a bad idea in principle and certainly something is probably necessary to improve the road network in this part of Auckland over the next decade or so. But I just think we need to look at what we can squeeze out of relatively minor upgrades before starting to focus on giant and enormously expensive additional motorways.
Processing...
First of all I think your headline is slightly wrong as it isn’t the proposed middle rung (like the road lobby like to call it) but it is actually an ADDITIONAL middle rung.
Personally I can see the need to improve freight movement but I don’t think it needs a full blown $billion+ motorway to sort it as I think a decent upgrade to the existing roads along with a few of the things you point out is what we need. At Onehunga there would obviously need to be some improvements and we will also need to change that intersection with Onehunga Mall and Neilson St, seeing as we will need to make some decent changes there when we build a rail line to the airport anyway, perhaps they could be incorporated into the design at the same time. Neilson St would probably need a little bit of widening in some places to allow for two lanes but that shouldn’t be hard. I think some improvements and possibly even grade separation of the Church St, O’rorke Rd and Gt South Rd intersections might be needed and south facing ramps from there to SH1 are a must.
All of this would give a pretty good connection between Onehunga, Penrose and East Tamaki (by way of Highbrook) and would probably be less than $100m all up and wouldn’t require the demolition of a lot of houses (which many of the suggested options do). Overall I think this could be another case of going for the gold plated option when 80-90% of the benefits could be achieved for 10% of the price.
Yeah it has a lot of similarities to Puhoi-Wellsford in that they’re both hugely over the top solutions to real, but much easier solved, problems.
Those bigger options both have shocking impacts on waterways, hugely destructive… won’t happen.
Im kinda mixed on this project. I can definitely see the need for a third crossing of the Tamaki river further down then the current two. Everyday I crawl along Ti Rakau drive from the pakuranga bridge to Botany town centre, If I get into third gear its a great day.
The fact that option 1 and 2 go through industrial areas means I have no issue with it there. The only issues would be the Onehunga foreshore, the cost, and the fact that it creates another major motorway in Auckland and continues our car dependence, along with creating a motorway map in Auckland that seems a bit over the top.
I can defintiely see the need for a route there, but I agree with everyone, something a bit cheaper, Perhaps a 2 lane each way highway, without needing the full motorway.
Neilson St is already pretty much there, just absent the lane markings and with on-street parking. Grade separation of the intersections with Church St, Hugo Johnson Drive and Onehunga Mall would do a huge amount to ease the transit times, and in all three cases the intersections are at the bottom of a bridge which makes it a lot easier to do a separation. It would be a significant job, no doubt about it, and the budget will absolutely be nine figures, but that’s still well short of the billions it’d need for a full-scale motorway.
I think this will happen, but only until long after we need it. Better to build it sooner rather than later, because it will cost a lot more later on. With Auckland set to grow to 2 million over the next several decades, it is only logical that something like this be built to facilitate the movement of goods around the city. The cost of drivers time is by far the greatest cost of traffic jams which is transferred to the costs of goods and services.
Well that is an interesting graph. The difference in the scales certainly helps make it look like heavy traffic is more prominent on the roads than they are. So Heavy is 5% of the total on the Harbour Bridge and 10% on the Pakuranga Bridge. The Pakuranga Bridge connects a couple of industrial areas so perhaps this difference isn’t a surprise, and is already a four lane carriageway. Neilson St, with less than a third of the total volume of the Pakuranga Bridge is nearly 25% heavy, again is this a surprise being an industrial area? It would be interesting to know how much of that traffic is local. Anyway as a proportion Neilson St is the most dominated by heavy traffic.
The southern options 3, 5, +7 would seem to offer little to Neilson St and be extremely destructive to Otahuhu and Mangere, and, of course, expensive.
The big brutal Option 1+2 [why is it two options; to cut it into two parts to make it look more affordable?] would serve East Tamaki to the western ring rd only; would this really help Neilson st much? Or would it require the upgrade of that road and its connections as well?
So why not, as admin says, upgrade Neilson St and particularly its connections to SH1 + SH20 first. [While, as Matt L says, sort the rail corridors through Onehunga at the same time.] And see if this doesn’t ameliorate the issue.
As for East Tamaki, is a great deal of the traffic over the Pak Bridge heading for SH20? Is it more local or mostly going for SH1 [my guess]. So is the new Highbrook Dr and interchange to SH1 already dysfunctional? Is there really any justification for putting a motorway up [and it is up the middle, not across] the Tamaki River to connect a small industrial estate directly to two motorways, at great expense?
This [Option 1+2] looks like roading megalomania, gold plated uber destructive madness. And only conceivable by the argument that runs: ‘look, we have already half destroyed these places we might as well completely fock ’em for good.’ Oh, and its friend; ‘Quickly, we are running out of expensive motorways to build in Auckland- my taxes must be spent on roads.’
Furthermore, on the well observed truism that new roads beget more roads, this big option will lead to calls for more connections like the eastern end of the Pak Bridge approach to join the new Tamaki River Bridge, in the middle of the river, and so on. Every project is sold as solving ‘the problem’ but merely leads to new ones. Also more connections to SH1 will increase peak pressure there too.
The total failure to plan well in the second half of next century in South and eastern Auckland is catching up with us. Another great result from the automobile age.
Here speaks the idiot in chief: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/motoring/news/article.cfm?c_id=9&objectid=10767735
I think you’re being a little unfair to Idiots here Patrick – Eric Thompson is far worse.
Argh. The stupid. Make it stop!
Wowsers, even sloughing aside the outright lies (most New Zealanders don’t live in cities? Try 86%!) the guys vitriolic slander is so intense I wonder if even the board of the RTF would start to think he’s maybe letting emotion get away from reality!
THe internal logic is funny too. Rail is a useless waste of money, but London grinds to a complete halt without it? So is it really that useless if it is essential to a world capitals daily function?! Oh and “Billions and billions of dollars have been thrown at it over the years in this country and it’s still on he slippery slope to oblivion”… if only we had billions and billions, but where is the slippery slope to oblivion, all I can see is sustained massive growth in patronage numbers!
Off topic – but I note in the link above he refers to city residents as city “dwellers”. I also saw another article today about inner city supermarkets refering to apartment “dwellers”. Is it just me or is this a demeaning term? You dont hear of rural dwellers, or suburb dwellers, or village dwellers.
Yeah it feels like it to me. In my opinion, there is a lot of negative connotation attached to living in a city, particularly in the CBD. Along with “shoebox” apartments and the like… All we hear about is good ol “country folk”. I thinks its a hangover from the colonial dream where we all moved from the overcrowded UK or whatever.
Option 5, the connection from the airport to Otahuhu (SH20A to SH1), was on the books (and maps) in the 1960s – you can even see where the property boundaries follow a corridor northeast from Mangere Centre Park.
Upgrading the local roads (Neilsen, etc) that take the feed from the South Eastern arterial, would be the most cost effective option.
Yes Bryan, it’s as clear as on google, until it peters out at the waterway before Savill drive- right, yet another great slash through this poor community, and removal of more houses, ghastly idea. And it doesn’t really help… cos there’s still a whole lot of society to get through before you can link up to SH1. Real popular with anyone not running a trucking firm.
Upgrading Neilson St / Church St would solve 90% of the issue and I think that is just fine.
Get rid of the on street parking for a start.
Hey and what’s with option 6? just a way to use the rail designation?
Well, once Option 6 is built it will be clear that we need the Pah Rd RoNS and so on.
Interesting article from the Economist on fuel taxes not working for the land of the automobile. I note from this article that around 40% of their federal fuel tax goes on mass transit, versus our 10% or so…
http://www.economist.com/node/21538771
Same here, because of the crazed RoNS programme and less driving by impoverished kiwis NZTA face an increasing revenue problem. Easily solved, of course, by ditching the nutty and uneconomic roading obsession… ah well, we shall see next week i guess.
I don’t see why we can’t instead of building a motorway here, just build a “truckway” a new road only for trucks, imagine t truck only equivalent of the Northern busway. We can also build several of these roads where it is important to move freight quickly.
So Steven Joyce gets his goods to move around quickly by truck, the trucking industry is happy, and we don’t get induced congestion and extra sprawl from new motorways, and we can get some of the money saved by building truckways instead of motorways into public transport
Good idea Nick, and it should be paid for by a toll on the trucks as well. Then we’ll see how far the project gets.
Truckies would have to pay for the ENTIRE costs themselves. Including the environmental and social costs, and all interest from any government loans.
I’m not 100% sure about trucks having to pay for the entire thing themselves, in the same way we aren’t sugesting train passengers pay the entire cost of the CBD rail link themselves through reduced fares, but I do agree that the truck industry/users should have to pay atleast a sizeable portion of the costs of these new truckways through tolls, registration fees etc.
I’ll come back to this, but having driven on Neilson in rush hour today, I had the chance to think about things. The Onehunga onramp could be widened and separated at the cost of a few carparks, and this would ease the chokepoint there. Now that there are literally 8 lanes across the Manukau, you can put more volume on at no real cost.
3, 5 and 7 are terrible options, and would each destroy a suburb.
Where’s the FOR case? I’m baffled! What is the problem to which these plans are the solution? I’m totally unconvinced that there is any need for these projects. Neilsen Street is totally sufficient, or will be with minor adaptations.
Looking at that chart again you can see how Puford has lowered the bar. And perhaps this answers your question Ian. If lowly Puford deserves 2billion to move its meager flow then surely all those other roads to it right on the chart qualify too? Genius! Not only is Puford an uneconomic waste but it also opens the door for every interested party to claim that their pet road deserves the same treatment.
If the RTF’s preferred solution to the proposed RONS to Tauranga is built then you will know just how bad things have become. They are pushing for a $2b tunnel under the Kaimai’s for a road that carries about 7500 vehicles per day.
Have they actually suggested tunnelling the Kaimais now?!?!
I was waiting for that to happen but didn’t expect it for a few years yet.
Soon they will be calling for tunnelling of the Brynerdyns once Puford is finished to “complete the link to northland”
Odd that the options map doesn’t show the existing highbrook connection between SH1 & East Tamaki.
Surely it’s presence makes the east end of options 1 & 2 look excessive?
Exactly.
A question: What is a bus to the NZTA? Is it a heavy vehicle? Or does heavy only mean freight? Anyone know? especially relevant to the Harbour Bridge numbers….
Appendix A of this document
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/traffic-monitoring-state-hways/docs/traffic-monitoring-state-highways.pdf
suggests Buses are counted as heavy vehicles. This is a 2004 document but does seem to be the latest. I think you might be onto something here Patrick…
Ok, then are there figures for buses only on the say the Harbour Bridge…..?
Right just had a look at the link Conan found, yes it is from 2004, and says that it should be updated annually but this version is is dated 2011 so we can assume it is current.
And clearly in Appendix A buses are classified as heavy vehicles. As they are classifying largely by axle number. Fair enough, good engineers that they are, probably concerned with vehicle weight more than anything for impact on their surfaces and structures. But this then means that this is a poor resource for arguments about who should drive further investment… the trucking lobby are using these numbers to argue for the lions’ share of NLTF money to be spent how they want…..
Especially with regard to the Harbour Bridge and the Northern Busway having accurate figures on the number of buses, private vehicles and trucks would be very useful.
NZTA doesn’t seem to count them separately for the HB. There must be data somewhere hidden away- I can’t find anything useful on Auckland Transport. Maybe someone can do something clever with timetables, though we need a series stretching back several years to normalise the heavy traffic numbers. We can’t use passenger growth as that doesn’t give us the number of buses those passengers travelled in…
If NZTA doesnt count buses frequently then I wonder where the numbers in the chart are from. They are labelled “Heavy Goods”. It would be good to check the numbers against NZTA numbers to make sure they are not classifying bus passengers as “goods” – although they are all good people to a man 🙂
^^ Bus frequency, not buses frequently
Well some in Kiwi Rail are reported to describe passengers as ‘self loading freight’… whether that is a sneer at a fiddly and unprofitable end of the business or just a bit of smart-arsery, or simply a reflection that they consider themselves a logistics outfit only…. I don’t know. But it isn’t encouraging. NZTA and the MoT seem to have a similar attitude to PT from the outside…..
Of course some of us in the film and photography biz have been known to refer to actors and especially models as ‘warm props’ so I suppose I shouldn’t get too haughty…..