Quite a few posts recently have highlighted the need for Auckland to have a coherent long-term rail plan. Patrick’s post on Aotea station noted how this station is likely to become the real heart of Auckland’s rail network over time, as well as generating a lot of discussion by posting this long-term rail plan:
A post just a couple of days earlier than that by Matt discussed some comments made by Auckland Transport at an Orakei Local Board meeting about the City Rail Link. Specifically, options of delaying construction of K Road and Newton Stations, as well as a question over whether the link between the City Rail Link tunnel and Grafton station should be provided. What impact such changes might have on long-term rail plans for Auckland was also an issue raised by many commenters.
Digging back into the archives of this blog has highlighted a pretty extraordinary number of “dream rail networks” that could be built for Auckland – with the image above being but one possible option. Nick came up with this option for the northern part of the rail network in a previous post looking into how rail should be provided on the North Shore:
Back in October the former admin put together a ‘step by step’ post to a long-term rail network that’s yet again slightly different to both the above systems:
There are various components that make up all these maps – key ‘projects’ shall we call them. Obviously as a whole package the systems are mind-blowingly expensive to ever consider doing together, but because each transport project we do end up choosing to build tends to have an impact on our future projects, we need to have the very long term in mind right now. My hope, and I think it’s probably an unrealistic hope, is to try to get some general agreement on what this future network may look like. So let’s start with the components, in a very general chronological order of their construction:
- City Rail Link: Obviously a pretty well known project and utterly critical for many of the future rail projects that feed off the capacity enhancements that the City Rail Link provides to the whole rail network. Whether, post CRL, we link our west services with the south, or with the east, or with Onehunga. Whether we have an eastern connection between the CRL and Grafton, or just a western connection, are of course as yet unresolved issues.
- Airport Line: The next obvious project after the CRL, this line serves a number of functions – not just getting travellers to and from the airport. It gets workers to a growing employment area, it serves a transport deprived residential area and it provides a strategic alternative to the busiest section of the southern line. To realise all these benefits both the link to Onehunga and Manukau area necessary.
- North Shore Line: As the Northern Busway reaches capacity (especially south of Akoranga where the bus priority is not as good, and difficult to significantly improve) there will be a need to up the capacity of public transport provision – with rail (of some form) being the natural outcome. It seems likely that north of Akoranga the line would follow the existing busway as all other options are so expensive.
- Avondale-Southdown Line: This link across the southern part of the isthmus enables a full “loop line” around the isthmus to be operated, if so desired. The line could also be built in stages, particularly the western section which will be mostly formed by building the Mt Roskill extension motorway and the Waterview Connection.
- Southeast Line: Branching off from Glen Innes/Panmure, this line serves the southeast area before linking up with the rest of the rail network at Manukau (presuming the design of the station makes this possible).
- Northwest Line: The currently proposed Northwest Busway along SH16 could theoretically be turned into a railway line in the longer term.
It’s hard to think of any other even possibly viable rail lines – even in the very very long term. Perhaps something underneath Dominion Road – but even in the long term Dominion Road’s linearity seems to lend itself to light-rail rather than underground heavy rail.
So if those are the possible projects, we are still left with quite a lot of important questions:
- Do we build all of these using the existing combined passenger/freight approach – or should some lines in the future be completely independent of the existing network and be constructed for passenger only service using technology such as linear induction motors (allowing for steeper gradients and driverless operation).
- How do these lines connect with each other to form a network and what infrastructure does this require to be provided potentially ahead of time at interchange points?
- How does the system operate through the city centre where most of the lines would come together?
- What are logical service patterns and what infrastructure is necessary to support those patterns (i.e. do we need an eastern connection between Newton and Grafton)?
I’m not going to provide answers in this post, because I’m keen for the discussion to happen and for that discussion to inform my next post, which will look at those questions in a bit more detail and perhaps explore some more detailed options.
Processing...
Railway car casinos, John Key is calling for a PPP with Sky City.
I disagree that Auckland needs a RAIL plan.
What it needs is a RAPID TRANSIT PLAN.
There are many good lines in that diagram, and many could be done within a few years if the network was re-organised and
bus rapid transit (BRT) were put on as an interim measure. Brisbane now has 20 BUZ routes which run on local arterial roads
and we’ve recently put on a rapid bus from Springfield to Richland station while a rail corridor is being built. Once the
corridor is built, the bus will be withdrawn.
Public Transport’s main product is mobility – freedom to move around at any time, on any day at any hour in any direction.
That doesn’t imply any particular mode.
That is happening already Bris, We have the Northern Busway operating, the AMETI (south east) busway about to start construction, and a Northwestern busway (of sorts) finally starting to be planned.
Furthermore Auckland is currently engaged in a total PT network redesign along BRT principles, even for those routes that run in simple bus lanes or just on street.
So sure these lines don’t all need to be rail, but some combination of heavy rail, light rail, light metro, Busway, street BRT etc.
I agree with Nick R. I spend about 10 months per year in Brisbane, and the remainder in Auckland. While I agree that the BUZ system in Brisbane is fantastic, it does have its capacity and speed pitfalls, as seen across Victoria bridge linking the CBD to South Brisbane. Auckland is in a worse position for bus infrastructure as it lacks the large underground bus station found in Brisbane.
In order to move large numbers of people, rail is superior.
Patrick, I think you missed my point entirely.
Rail costs easily 150 – 200 million per kilometre
It takes a long time to do it because you need to dig
What is going to connect these places in the meantime???
Over a decade Brisbane was able to introduce 20 high frequency BRT BUZ routes that operate 6 am – 11.30 pm, 7 days a week.
There is just no way on Earth that we would have been able to build 20 train lines in 10 years and certainly not
for the comparatively cheap cost of buses.
The comment about Victoria Bridge – this is simply because that section is due to it being Class B ROW, *not because it
uses buses*. 9000 passengers/direction/hour are carried through this section, which is incidentally the same as when
trams were used to do the same job. Further more 44 million people use the South East Busway in a year, which is four
times the entire Auckland Rail network combined.
Bris, I think you’re mixing up frequent transit and rapid transit. I’m also wondering whether you’re stretching the definition of BRT.
Auckland is embarking on a network of frequent bus route along a quite similar pattern to the BUZ routes in Brisbane. They operate every 15 minutes, all day, every day. However, they are not rapid transit – they still operate in mixed traffic, they still have to stop at traffic lights. They’re not BRT.
You are right to say that not all of the system should/could be built as rail. Some of it (most likely the soutehast and northwest routes) may stay at busways forever. But very high quality busways along the lines of the Northern Busway in Auckland and the Southeast Busway in Brisbane. A good PT network needs a rapid transit backbone, which is what this discussion is about. Yes of course we need better bus routes, but that’s a separate issue.
Yes, of course, and that is pretty much the idea. We are pushing for a Busway on the NW motorway now, for example, that may or may not ever be converted to rail, but clearly should be a busway first.
But in some cases it is pretty clear that extending the existing rail RTN is clearly the best option such as with the airport as the most expensive part of the ROW is already there and is rail. And as Peter mentioned a significant project is adding capacity across the harbour, there is already a bus RTN that stops at the bridge and has to share general lanes. This has been discussed here before and to build any additional crossing to fix this rail appeals on cost grounds over bus tunnels and especially over general traffic lanes. Both of the later present huge issues of what to do with those vehicles on the city streets and subterranean bus systems offer no cost benefit, less speed, lower capacity, and poorer environmental and aesthetic outcomes. So let’s discuss it again, but it will take some mode prejudice to be convinced that rail doesn’t have a role here too.
So yes an RTN network, the backbone of which as now, will be rail. Cos it’s there and will soon be pretty modern, and because in some cases it is the best tool for the job.
Again, I think this misses the point, which is this:
There is no reason why a rapid BRT bus cannot do these alignments now.
We are building a rail line to Springfield – Darra right now. The locals there loved the rail but were upset
that it would take years before they could use it. What was the solution? Put a bus on now, and then when the train line is done,
withdraw the bus and use the train.
Why can’t this be done in Auckland now?
Bris, we are introducing BRT on these alignments right now, including one full busway but also many frequent all-day every-day bus lines. Yes we understand the BUZ concept, and yes we are doing exactly the same thing.
Did you not notice the title of this post is “Our long-term rail future”. Long term.
Its great that its a long term plan. I think I was confused between the difference between a long term *infrastructure* plan, which is what the above map is – a map of all the ‘concrete’ versus a long term *frequent network* plan like this http://www.humantransit.org/2010/08/toronto-a-new-frequent-network-plan.html
We are doing bus improvements Bris. As per my comment above.
This is thinking long-term, what might our ultimate rail/busway network be like? This is important to shape future land-use patterns and also to ensure that we future proof for the system when building projects in the nearer term.
Sounds good, I just take issue to the sole use of the word RAIL in the title.
Not inclusive… language shapes our thinking.
Bris – take a look at this post about the new bus network with at least 15 min all day, every day frequencies http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/04/05/the-redesigned-bus-network/
Just a suggestion- On the first map- the Blue and Red lines are still wrong in the legend…
Best to fix it up before spreading it wider
There are some great ideas here- top two priorities-
1. CRL- ’nuff said
2. North Shore light rail- Our brothers and sisters on the Shore are going to quite rightly bitch and moan about “what’s in it for us” forever.
Luckily for them they have stations up and down the motorway corridor and the possibility of a light rail system that can handle the Britomart to Harbour Bridge gradient challenge. Running these suckers across the centre (strongest) span of the bridge in a “PT lane” (buses and light rail and T4 only) is an easy cheap way of getting Shavian buy in.
Out of interest what roll do you see for Network Modelling, for evaluating (performance vs cost) differing network arrangements?
There is a huge role for network modelling in this. Working out the most efficient service patterns, highlighting conflict points where infrastructure will be needed and obviously working out if/when each project is needed will need to be well informed. Modelling is part of all those processes.
During the model analysis:
Do you envisage assessing the transit network as whole – to develop the ‘optimal’ arrangement i.e. will the network modelling, be multi-modal – covering all transit modes (private cars (including local -> motorways), bus, train, walking & cycling) in the Auckland region? So as to compare differing transit solution arrangements?
What do you imagine the Level Of Service / system performance targets will be for the future network?
Will you compare differing level of services vs costs?
What is the quality of cost curves you have available to compare the differing network arrangements particularly between differing transit solutions. On that note this BBC article adds an interesting road use cost to be considered here
Do you think you will be able to assess the cost($) of ‘sprawl’ on the transit system? This Mid America Regional Council, looks (to my uneducated eye) to have completed a really interesting transportation study where they attempted to cost sprawl infrastructure costs here
Will you assess the cost($) of growth on the transit system? Could be useful for determining development contributions – potentially a very valuable source of funding for the future network.
Note, I have practically zero understanding of transit network modelling (apart from a tiny bit of internet research). Though I have reasonably extensive background in planning (and network modelling) for water utilities (which don’t appear to be anyway near as complicated as transit networks), but where network models are completely integral to planning process. Of which I have seen a single excellent example of planning and lots of poor examples of planning – with the key difference being excellent example looked at the whole network to determine the ‘optimal’ future network (a program of capital works) before getting into detail for individual catchments while the poor planning examples only assessed individual parts of the network in isolation.
BTW thanks for this blog it is a completely fascinating read.
To be honest, in terms of patronage, I’m not completely sold on the idea of the Avondale-Southdown Line. You’d likely get better patronage from decent designated bus lanes along Dominion and Mt Albert Roads (like the ones proposed for Pakuranga-Panmure) so I’d push for that first. With the A-S line, people heading into town on the train from Mt Roskill-Royal Oak would need to detour out to Avondale or Onehunga/Penrose before heading back into town – which will probably cost an extra stage fare or two. What’s more, the bus lanes could be built without the completion of the CRL (perish the thought!).
Don’t fall into the trap of only thinking about CBD bound passengers though. Avondale-Southdown enables a wide variety of trips all over the region plus might well be necessary for freight.
Also Hank as I noted above there are currently projects underway to revolutionise the bus network. I assume we can therefore take your Dominion/Mt Albert bus lanes and priority as a given for the near to mid term, where as the Avondale-Southdown Line is a decade or two away (or more appropriately perhaps the Mt Albert – Onehunga Line).
That is what I was thinking too, especially as West passengers might be looking for a way to Onehunga, Manukau or even the Airport and the SW Line would assist in that greatly.
As for Freight, I hear they are building a “city” at Marsden Point http://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/news/article.cfm?c_id=8&objectid=10799477 . Now that could give the hurry up to build the Marsden Point Rail Line, especially if the refinery up there goes for its upgrade.
Although may someone do some detail path work at Southdown please, is the SW Link going to run around the Metro Port base or right through it?
Nice work Peter though 😀
My top 5 essentials
1. CRL is top priority.
2. Sw Line Onehunga/Airport/Manukau
3. SE Line Manukau/Botany
4. Light Rail for the North Shore using existing harbour bridge
5. and perhaps a light rail loop connecting Albany, Hobsonville and back along the NW busway to Auckland.
As far as service patterns, Im a fan of the Western and southern linking through the CRL. And the Eastern/Manukau line also linking to the Onehunga line through the CRL. This requires the newton to grafton connection.
How about a line from Ranui to Avondale in the plan?
Do we build all of these using the existing combined passenger/freight approach – or should some lines in the future be completely independent of the existing network and be constructed for passenger only service using technology such as linear induction motors (allowing for steeper gradients and driverless operation).
Do not build mixed freight systems. They are a pain in the butt. Brisbane operates freight on the passenger network and it is a constant source of excuses as to why we can’t increase frequency on particular lines. It also makes timetabling a nightmare.
Automatic systems such as Vancouver skytrain are well worth looking at just for the topography (can climb steep gradients) and the automation means very high frequency and span, which is what you need if you want to run a terminate and transfer type system and have all the development benefits as well. Also good during labour strikes!
Yes so it is insane to be building Panmure, and squeezing the rest of the railway designation for highway building along the route without leaving space for a future 4th track in order to fully separate port freight movements from metro services on the Eastern Line. Usual AK short term thinking and status quo bias.
I’ve always just assumed the proposed 3rd line for the port would be bi-di signalling so that freight would stick to their one line? Is this not the case? I don’t think there’s _that_ much freight traffic to/from the port?
How much port traffic? Well all depends on a national port strategy, which we don’t have, as instead we have a government that is naive about how markets are always best.
I think four tracks is a good idea. Then we can have a “heavy” pair that carries primarily freight but also locomotive passenger trains to Britomart, initially the Overlander plus eventually services to Hamilton, Tauranga, Rotorua etc. There could be a place for express services from Pukekohe/Papakura too, either electric or diesel.
Next to this would be the “metro” pair which runs the high frequency all stops EMU service all day long.
We’re already there on the Eastern Line, or will be if the Port gets its way for the number of freight services it runs to the inland port at Wiri. Their desired service levels will destroy the Eastern Line as a passenger service route.
Just a suggestion for the map. Continue the light railway / bus to Howick Beach. Where this is built. http://www.times.co.nz/front-page-feature/dreams-of-beach-wharf.html?limitstart=1 The ferry from Pine Harbour (Beachlands) could then stop at this wharf where you connect to Auckland’s rapid transport network. The Pine harbour ferry is great if you want to get to downtown Auckland, but what if you want to get elsewhere?
It’s hard to think of any other even possibly viable rail lines – even in the very very long term.
Where’s the Piha-Bethells-Muriwai-Link? The Waiheke-Great Barrier Tunnel?
More seriously, I think that all of these justify themselves – they serve hundreds of thousands of people and prevent huge amounts of traffic. The Eastern line is perhaps the most important and urgent, and needs to be planned for. The others need recognition in planning documents, which are currently restricted in their thinking.