The changes to the draft Auckland plan have been coming out recently and finally the section on transport has come up. A report on the changes can be read here, and an updated version of chapter 11 (the transport chapter) is here. The council says that overall submitters supported the main themes of the transport chapter however there were concerns that have been addressed, they are summarised as below:
There are a number of major changes that have been made to the document following feedback from both central government and Auckland Transport. These cover a number of areas e.g. changes to what outcomes Auckland aiming for, amending some of the specific targets aimed for, prioritisation of projects and my favourite about explaining the choices arising from implementation of these projects (more on the issue of choices soon). Contrary to what some may think, most of these changes seem pretty sensible and logical and definitely not something to be jumping up and down worrying about.
Moving through the document the council has gone through and prioritised projects and this is where things start to get interesting. Following the feedback the 25 projects that were listed in the plan have been narrowed down to the top 3 and the next 6 after that have also been shown, they are:
Its great to see the CRL at the top of the list but the most interesting of these is #2 where the council has decided to group both AMETI and the East-West motorway link together. I feel that this is a continuation of the previous theme where they just want everything to be on the list. Each of the three top priorities have been discussed further in more detail with amendments made to them, from this we can see that the CRL received 80% support from submitters which is a pretty huge number and shows that it is something Aucklanders clearly want but I wonder if the government will listen now that the general public have formally chosen it as the top project? Among the many many changes made is a little bit on the next steps to be taken on the project, the parts highlighted yellow represent additions to the original document. I would note that the cost already seems out of date though as we are now seeing a cost of $2.8b mentioned.
There is a bit more information about the AMETI and East-West link, the changes say that they were grouped together due to their geographical location and interdependencies mainly in the form of freight movements but the key thing here is probably the cost, together these two projects are expected to cost $2.6b. Of course it isn’t a complete roads fest as we know there are some substantial PT as well as walking and cycling improvements as part of AMETI so perhaps just a majority one. The council is targeting 2021 as a date for completion of the CRL, AMETI and East-West link..
Lastly there were a number of projects that were split into the three decades the plan covers, there have been some changes to the timings of the various projects and the key ones are
- Completion of AMETI has moved from 2021-2030 up to the 2011-2020 timeframe (and of course the East-West link has been added to it).
- The next harbour crossing for both road and PT has been moved to be completed by 2030 where as previously it was just started by then.
- By 2030 the busway will be extended to Silverdale and into town via bus lanes. This confirms that there are no plans to put rail to the shore in the next 30 years.
Most of the biggest projects are happening in the next two decades so if they all happen there are some pretty big changes ahead.
Processing...
Wow have Auckland Council just done a “Holiday Highway” with the inclusion of the East-West link as an extremely huge, now high priority project, likely to be able to have the problems it’s supposed to solve able to be fixed through much cheaper upgrades? Weird how huge projects can come out of nowhere, with no prior justification whatsoever and all of a sudden require billions in expenditure and full completion over the next decade.
I wonder what NZTA thinks, as most likely this should be a state highway?
Seems they are at it with the EAST-WEST Link and you mention State Highway and NZTA in the same sentece – shall we go the whole hog and throw in the Eastern Highway as the new State Highway 100?
Not a fan of numbers 2 and 3 for obvious reasons we all know about…can’t quite believe East-West Link is now number 2. Hadn’t even heard of it until very recently…
On the positive side, the CRL summary looks pretty direct in the way its responding to the govt’s previous demands regarding the inclusion of more detail regarding optimising patronage through land use planning etc…unitary plan can’t come soon enough! Interesting it mentions “Auckland Council, with the government, is preparing a business case…”…
The list shows every sign as being the result of a horse trade: ‘will allow/support your train project so long as we get big road projects on the next two places’… cast around for projects….Ameti had to go in as it has already started so the creative solution was to attach a parasitic mega road on the side. Anyway it’s in Manukau so no real opposition will get going. All of the details that have been demanded for the CRL by government are entirely absent from this and No.3.
This is no way to invest billions in our future.
Very depressing them bringing the harbour crossing forward. They’ve got to to prevent the good sense of it being transit only to take root. The longer they leave it the more the busway will prove that car lanes aren’t needed, the more chance that people will see so many Aucklanders loving using the rail network that the CRL will create, and the more likely that we will experience further increases in the cost of oil. Any addition of traffic lanes into downtown will be both a disaster for the city and an enormous uneconomic white elephant.
Was digging around earlier posts on this blog and look what I found…it seems this is where the idea of combining AMETI and East-West link came from…
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/aboutcouncil/committees/transportcommittee/meetings/transportcomagattfreight20111118.pdf
The influence that trucking lobbies have never ceases to amaze – even the top 3 priority projects are the same apart from the respective positions of the CRL and East-West Link.
What a self serving and mendacious document.
So it argues because there are local generators of truck traffic the area needs a bypass!? Neilson St handles a higher number of truck movements than other roads, yes, and? I can see ways in which Neilson St should be improved, but duplicated? No. This is an answer desperately in search of a question.
And the complete the 1960s vision is an argument? Er, no. Defeat the 1960s vision.
If truck congestion in Onehunga is really causing problems in Taranki (yeah right) then the answer is clearly rail freight. Not more public handout subsidy of highly proffitable trucking biz through uneconomic motorways.
Here’s a better idea. We set up a new industrial area in Puhunui and reclass Onehunga/Penrose as medium density residential. Business gets its motorway connection and we get a huge amount of brownfield land 25 minutes by train to the city. Surely this is a win/win situation?
According to the National Road Carriers document, trains and people in buses are freight, as are an eclectic selection of other goods and vehicles, but surprisingly (!) trucks themselves are not listed …
So the councils top three projects & their completion dates match National Road Carriers Inc. I was surprised to see the CRL on NRC’s list.
Interesting to see the inclusion of targets for reducing greenhouse gases and air pollutants, and talk of renewable transport fuels.
Electrification of rail to Pukekohe has been brought forward to 2021-2030.
Perhaps there’s a back room deal between Len Brown and the National Road Carriers – they support the CRL with the National Party government, and in return get the East-West link. Perhaps that’s why Len Brown is so quiet about the proposed road expenditure, and that new taxes are “sold” mainly for the CRL. While it’s a high price to pay, at least this route offers a chance of being able to sign off the CRL within his term.
Anything beyond the first 3 items is in future terms, and can be changed as peak oil bites.
GENERAL ALERT does the plan include the approximately $1.7 billion that Ports of Auckland Ltd needs spent around the port area to be able to cope with its proposed expansion.
Your Port Your Call headed by Alex Sweny has been highlighting the potential impact and to get a better idea of what’s been proposed have a look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pV7299WWMyY
Apologies if this is potentially sidetracking the post but I believe people need to understand what’s proposed and its likely implications
I do not believe it is side tracking at all Terry. In fact looking at at the video I say it is extremely relevant as money needs to come from somewhere to move goods to and from an expanded Port (seems no one wants to relocate the damn thing).
Although $1.7b is rather cheap. I was thinking more $6b with road and rail projects if the Port turned the Waitemata Harbour into a river.
Just a quick break down on where I got $6b from
$3.5-$4b Eastern Highway (NOW THAT CAN INCLUDE A RAIL LINE TO MANUKAU VIA Botany Centre from Panmure)
$500m-$1b for East West Link and linking that to the Eastern Highway
$500m on Third Rail from Port to Papakura including modifying the Meadowbank tunnel and crossovers between each station
$500m on other support programs such as relocating Wiri Inland Port and cost over runs seems we like to get them.
$2.8b? Flip I saw figures being touted for $3b somewhere for the CRL.
Still have that gut feeling though with the OMcS Rail Fallacy applied $3.6b is going to be the total cost of the CRL at completion around 2025. I do hope I am proved wrong I really do but it just a feeling I have – probably the fact Manukau Line is not inspiring a lot of confidence right now – nor is HOP.
Still say the Nine Project List is interesting – bit saddening though but interesting enough. Waiting to see how it will complement Chapter 8 – Urban Auckland when that goes up for deliberation next week at Council. Also the Draft LTP which we can start submitting on from tomorrow will be of keen interest in seeing what money goes where and where from?
The huge headline figure includes the purchase of rolling stock, however. The tunnel itself is costed at around $1.6b, I believe including stations, which is very reasonable indeed. Given that we’re now getting enough rolling stock to operate with the CRL even before it’s completed, the cost of the project has dropped significantly.
No unfortunately we aren’t getting enough if you believe the business case. The BC assumed that by the time the CRL opened we would be operating a the network with fleet of 57 EMUs and they suggest that an additional 24 EMUs would still be required for their ideal service pattern or 4 extra if we used a more limited pattern. The problem though is this I don’t think the operating pattern they suggest is the most efficient and would only see a substantial capacity increase on the western line.
Also while the cost for the tunnel itself is estimated at $1.6b that doesn’t include property acquisition, contingency, inflation etc.
That being the operative word – inflation.
The operating patterns in the business case are incredibly inefficient.
However, it might be worth thinking about how, if necessary, we might go about reducing the cost of the project. Any ideas?
I’m not an engineer so I don’t know what could be trimmed or not. This document breaks down the costs
http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/current-projects/Rail/Documents/AT_Report_CBDRailLink_Appendix_E_Construction_Costs_Summary_Final.pdf
This is also the MOT review of the costs which suggested found some things were over estimated they also thought some were under estimated with a neutral impact on the total
http://www.transport.govt.nz/ourwork/rail/Pages/AucklandCBDRailLinkBusinessCaseReviewWorkstream6.aspx
What do you mean Mr Anderson? Like dropping or delaying a station?
Peter – I had actually wondered about that but then you see that the stations are at the most about $150m so it wouldn’t make that much difference to the overall cost if we are talking about $2b+ and would probably cut down the benefits quite a bit.
It might also be impossible or at least very hard to build either of the two deep bore station after the CRL is opened as they are meant to be mined out from the inside so if it could happen would be much more costly.
According to Appendix E of the original business case, the construction costs, you get the following “big ticket items”:
Stations:
1) Aotea Station – $138m
2) K Road Station – $159m
3) Newton Station – $157m
Sections of the tunnel:
1) Britomart to northern portal of bored tunnel (cnr Albert & Wyndham) – $90m
2) Bored tunnel (tunnel only, no fitout) – $126m
3) Connection to Western Line (west-link) – $85m
4) Connection to Western Line (east-link) – $90m
The actual direct cost comes to under $1b. But then we see close to $400m of P & G/OH & P (whatever that is). Then there’s design, property acquisition and a massive contingency of $270m and something separate called “funding risk” of $365m. So it skyrockets pretty quickly.
Of the stations, Newton seems the obvious candidate to “do later”. I guess you can build the station box but not fit it out until say 2030. Dunno what other corner you’d cut.
Please. Not enough money about? Just drop the unneeded motorways off the list. Especially the crazy expensive six lane road harbour tunnel and completely unwanted invasive interchanges to just shift a whole bunch of single occupant cars to somewhere in downtown from the Shore. If we are going to price every imagined cost on the CRL, how about counting the car parking assets that will be required for this; What will parking another 10 000+ cars in the CBD cost us all, let alone providing local roads to move them around on, oh and cars themselves, oh and the fuel at god knows what price…? Chuck in some externalities; deaths from accidents, lower air quality, diabetes and obesity…. The east west thing is unneeded but is neither as expensive nor as totally destructive as additional road lanes across the harbour. It really must not get going and get all sorts of vested interests behind it.
Same goes for the economic understanding of the CRL, a billion for the tunnel itself, there is no way we could buy an equivalent quantity of motorway lanes for this price even if there were somewhere to put them, or if they were even a good thing to have. Ten plus lanes. It’s a bargain.
Patrick, it’s not just motorway lanes. How many lanes of suburban street would be carried by the CRL for people who work in the upper CBD and don’t use public transport at present because there’s no convenient access near their workplace? Has to be worth quite a few vehicle movements through Newton Gully/Kingsland.
Matt – I recently went through all of the traffic stats that AT has and a few years ago they split out the am peak hour flows on each of the roads entering the CBD, all up there were about 17,000 vehicles. That includes buses but if you were to say it was all private vehicles at a rate of 1.7 people per vehicle (which we know it isn’t that high) then it would be about the same as the CRL so you could say that eventually the CRL would deliver just as many people to the CBD as all of the roads do now
So, there you go the thing is an absolute bargain.
Not only will it provide the same capacity as all existing roads (and isn’t Britomart already handling about 9k passengers/hour at peak?), it’ll do it in a corridor that’s narrower than any single one of those roads. Talk about a win-win.
Matt, I’m pretty sure the CRL slidedeshow document showed Britomart as having around 12,000 boardings a day. No information on what proportion of those are at peak times though.
P+G = preliminaries and generals, – bits like scaffolding, insurance ( probably quite expensive) that are pretty standard items but need to be resolved.
OH+P = profits and overheads. 7.5% profit margin is typical.
To be honest I think the Newton station is actually one of the key stations for the CRL, it will be smack bang next to large numbers of apartments in the area and the whole upper Symonds Street area is prime land for high density redevelopment which will be spurred on by being 5 minutes from downtown with the loop. Postponing this to save 157 would be rediculous, as Patrick says postpone a motorway project or two and you’ll easily have that money.
There are some good new words in the Auckland Plan’s transport chapter. I just hope they are backed up with a balanced funding proposal sitting behind them.
Some good things:
– Focus on shifting more people rather than vehicles along corridors (hints at bus lanes)
– Spelling out that transport funding priorities need to change from their current roads-focus if we are to achieve the goals of the Plan.
– Highlighting that the transport strategy is “led” by public transport.
– Highlighting the role of transport infrastructure as place-shaping, not just about shifting traffic through those places.
Yeah, and behind those good words are the actual projects, which as usual, are much less balanced. I am disappointed so far.