Well this idea has come out of left field. The NZ Herald reports:
Supporters of a central Auckland rail loop are suggesting an overhead rail track as a cheaper alternative to a 3.5km pair of tunnels costing almost $3 billion.
Engineers and architects of the voluntary Greenways Project believe an attractive high-tech link could be built above city streets and the motorway junction for $700 million less than an estimate of $2.4 billion for underground rail.
That estimate is calculated to top $3 billion in inflation-adjusted terms by a target completion date of 2020, before being trimmed to $2.86 billion by selling surplus land yet to be bought along a tunnel route to Mt Eden.
Greenways has put the cost of its alternative at $1.68 billion to staff of Auckland Mayor Len Brown, and say it should be seriously considered before the council approves a 10-year funding plan next month.
Its suggestion would entail a wider loop than the tunnels, carrying trains above Fanshawe St from Britomart and skirting around Victoria Park to head south. Trains would then run above the motorway – but under the Karangahape Rd bridge – to a junction at Mt Eden with the western line.
Although that would take them further from Queen St than the proposed tunnels, which would run below Albert St to Karangahape Rd and beyond, the group is suggesting a feeder tram circuit for an extra $50 million to maximise patronage.
Aside from the fact that an overhead twin-rail track would be oppressively ugly, enormously destructive, potentially unfeasible due to gradients, the route suggested (perhaps to ease the gradient?) is just dumb – a long way from the “heart” of the city centre, when a critical goal of the project is to bring rail into the very heart of Auckland at Aotea Station.
I can see that the group is genuinely concerned that the forever increasing project cost might mean that it doesn’t happen, but I don’t think proposing a nonsensical alternative really helps things. Perhaps we should instead focus on getting an understanding of why the project’s cost seems to keep going up and do something about that.
Processing...
That also sounds like it would not result in any time savings as you are sending trains on a big diversion.
This is one of the key problems I think PT has had to deal with in this country, there are always these kinds of ideas that come out of the woodwork that people/groups push for various reasons which just serve to muddy the waters. At the same time the roading groups keep chanting “motorways motorways motorways”
Do it once, do it right.
“”We can’t keep revisiting everything, or nothing would get done and more money would be wasted,” he said.”
You tell ’em, Lenny. This is as much attempted sabotage as Joel Cayford trying to replace the link with two dead-end tunnels.
The noise from overhead trains can be horrendous. Stand under the overhead curve at the corner of Spencer and Flinders Streets in the Melbourne CBD. It is loud and squeaky and very unpleasant.
I can’t take the proposal seriously just on the blight and noise issues. A bit like the Basin Flyover in Wellington really.
Stand under the Woodbine Road bridge on the Southern Line near Ellerslie and it’s quite bad enough. Or under the Beach Road bridge.
This proposal would be all of the negative adjectives Matt L uses in the first comment, and more besides. It would just not bring any benefits beyond breaking the Britomart dead-end and I’m not sure that that goal is worth such massive destruction of inner-city quality-of-life, especially when it wouldn’t bring trains closer to the two universities; the largest single destination catchment in Auckland.
Greenways eh? Must be Mike Wilkinson astroturfing for Snapper again….lock the thread!
This is just a fugly monorail concept in drag (and very ugly drag at that).
The only place with an elevated railway in this part of the world I can think of is Sydneys Circular Quay, but thats not exactly the model we want either.
Wow, a nasty as elevated line around Victoria park after all that drama about the Victoria Park viaduct? …and it seems to be designed to put as much of the CBD out of walking distance as possible (and as much of the motorway within walking distance FFS!). There are a few places elevated rail could be designed in properly (Albany central for example) but bunging it along the waterfront ain’t one of them.
I wonder if the realise that getting from Britomart track level to elevated above city streets requires a tunnel/portal/ramp structure about a half kilometre long. Where are they going to put that?
Greenways should stick to cycleway advocacy and photoshopping helmets onto kids heads.
The interference and confusion these sort of left field suggestions create are really quite damaging. People like Pete Bossley should know better – a trained architect of his experience should understand the urban design and land use issues such that a proposal like this would never be seriously considered.
Very well done actually. What was a TunnelNoTunnel debate is now a TunnelAboveGround debate. And we all know how well Aucklanders approve of things above ground (think waitamata crossing).
Gah, and this is why a preview button is needed.
Should read:
What was a Tunnel/NoTunnel debate is now a Tunnel/AboveGround debate.
This
http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?q=ueno&hl=en&ll=35.711888,139.774713&spn=0.003598,0.008234&sll=-41.244772,172.617188&sspn=53.686318,134.912109&hnear=Ueno,+Taito,+Tokyo,+Japan&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=35.711888,139.774713&panoid=jLogc8xrHtXva0fUT90slQ&cbp=12,174.33,,0,-11.9
Not very green at all.
“Greenways has put the cost of its alternative at $1.68 billion”
It’s a scheme that has been sketched out on the back of an envelope. So how come it has such a precise cost? Surely that alone should ring warning bells, even if any savings came at the cost of having a route that didn’t visit the places it really needs to.
Elevated railways don’t have to look bad. Miami’s has a nice clean look, in my opinion. However I doubt if they can pull it off in central Auckland. Maybe if it was planned in to an area of new development it would be okay.
News flash: this is NZ. We always get the cheapest option for public transport, and this option is being discussed as a way of not having to spend money on something else. If we got this, it would look terrible. Think of the Lower Hobson Street bridge, but with a railway on it.
I don’t disagree with you in this case… it would almost certainly end up looking like a much larger more intrusive version of the ugly Sydney monorail (which is going to be decomissioned, I hear). But I think it is a viable option for route sections such as the approaches to the airport, since it creates less disconnection at ground level. When I first saw an elevated suburban Miami Metro station and track I thought it looked good. I’ve Googled it to check and I still think that.
A brilliant timely futuristic affordable practical concept .I think the proposed linkage to a Tram loop is brilliant.Also provides an expanded rail loop rather than the the Mayor’s last century hobbit plan. We all know hobbits just love tunnels. A pity a few more of these “think small” critics could’nt visit Dubai and “Catchup” with what’s going on in the real world.
…monorail…
Firstly it is very misleading to say that the CRL would cost almost $3 billion.
Secondly, this group clearly have no idea. One of the more difficult and expensive parts of the CRL, the tunneling under CPO would still need to take place. And the route seems to go out of the way to avoid the city centre.
This proposal is the epitome of “thinking small” – taking away all but one of the many amenities the tunneled option would have just to try and save some money? I don’t think we should focus on futuristic (!?) solutions, we need to focus on functional, sustainable solutions. Also, Dubai the “real world”? With the amount of money available in the U.A.E. they wouldn’t exactly have an average city’s transport budget now would they? It’s quite literally a sandbox.
Dubai’s the place that got the Football World Cup on the understanding that they’ll be building air-conditioned stadia. Real world – not so much. Monorail is for Disneyland.
grrr pointless distractions are just what we don’t need. Overhead rail may work in low density commercial areas like Albany, or spread out high rises like Dubai. However not for vibrant city streets.
Also works much better with technology like Vancouver Skytrains 3rd rail , rather than standard Heavy Rail.
City Rail loop cost has been looked at extensively by engineers, this is just back of the envelope. A city tram loop would definitely cost more than $50 million too, the trams alone would cost this much.
Also doesn’t the $2.4 Billion include the cost of the new EMU’s, double tracking Onehunga line and a few other addons.
Amusing to bring up Dubai.
The Dubai Metro is underground in the centres of Dubai and Deira.
Yes it is a pity that “think small” critics don’t visit Dubai and see for themselves.
A Singapore example from the 80’s, also noting the lines within the CBD are underground. The heavy concrete construction may help reduce noise, compared with steel.
http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?q=singapore+clementi+MRT&hl=en&ll=1.316151,103.765032&spn=0.000021,0.009602&sll=35.711888,139.774713&sspn=0.003306,0.004801&hnear=Clementi&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=1.316152,103.76491&panoid=Whrj4xzhPia6_cmxpAHS5Q&cbp=12,170.84,,0,0.4
Singapore are building all their new lines underground. The most recent to open, the Circle Line is 36km. It runs under downtown, but for the most part, it connects a lot of newer outlying business parks and low density suburban areas (i.e, the area of non high rise landed properties north west of the city centre).
The next line under construction is 42km underground, and again, apart from the central loop, connects outlying business parks, condos and estates.
Also on the cards are 2 further 21km and 30km lines again, underground.
Considering NZ is technically insolvent a Tram loop (Quay St. Ponsonby Rd Queen St. Symonds St) would solve things for the near future. Even make them free. Better to spend on modernising the present rail links over the greater Auckland metropolitan area and provide some new ones (eg. East Auckland where Flat Bush is projected to have a population of 40000). And yes double track Onehunga. This provides for our commuters and improves investment outcomes for these residents. If these policies are not implemented forthwith with a new Harbour Crossing including Rail Auckland is headed towards the pits .We should all be aware that these projects for Auckland with it’s present antiquated systems are of National importance and need funding on that basis.
Hi Third World. There is plenty of information on this blog to show you what the CRL is designed to achieve and additional stations, while nice, are not the #1 priority.
New Zealand is so insolvent that it has a 10 Billion dollar road construction programme in place. Hard to understand how that’s viable, but shifting some of the money to a project that would actually make a difference is not.
“This is as much attempted sabotage as Joel Cayford trying to replace the link with two dead-end tunnel.”
It’s not sabotage. I know these folks personally, and they mean well. But they are just CLUELESS, and NAIVE folks, from my experience trying to work with them. Head in the clouds people.
And it damages the brand of their Greenways concept too, which was just starting to gain traction. That’s what comes from a group of architects and planners with little technical expertise and lack of political acumen.
“Considering NZ is technically insolvent”
Bull**** Third World. Cutting out a few of the NEGATIVE benefit-cost ratio motorway projects that our government insists on, and we have sufficient money to do more than the city rail link.
Unfortunately I think this is the most tragic aspect of this proposal – that a potentially useful advocacy group diminishes its respectability by putting forward this nonsense.
Aside from the immediate reaction to their words, you have to ask why there are no illustrations of the concept provided. How many big ideas from Architects are presented … erm … with no sexy picture? Isn’t this what designers trade in? Of course it’s clear why in this instance – the outcome would be laughable and tragic at the same time.
Makes me wonder whether the groups good name was hijacked. I hope so, because it reflects very badly on their design judgements if not.
Although I do not like this proposal as I feel the route is significantly worse than the tunnel I must defend overhead rail. I think it can look great. People who say it can’t work in dense urban areas should check out the elevated rail lines (Yamanote) in Shinjuku. They look fantastic flying through the buildings. Wonderful urban pornography.
I am a bit confused with regards to the cost of the City Rail Link. I was under the impression that it cost $2.4 Billion, with some of that already invested in EMUs, so that the actual cost was around $2 billion. How has it ballooned to $2.86 Billion?
Damn, someone got in with “monorail” before I did!
Could I bust out the refrain of South Park’s Mormon song?-
“Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb!”
While I have a soft spot for some of the UK railway arches(?), where warehouses and workshops are built beneath the viaduct (See A Fish Called Wanda, anything with Michael Caine) generally they look pants.
Obi- I think it was reported recently the Sydney ‘El” is being pulled down and replaced with- Trams…
Third World- How is Quay/ Ponsonby/ Queen/ Symonds a loop? That’s about as nonsensical as Mayor Len’s Quay/ Queen/ K rd “loop”…
Insert relevant Simpsons reference here:
Crowd: [heading outside to the front steps while singing] Monorail… Monorail… Monoraaaaaaaaail! MONORAIL!
Homer: Mono – D’oh!
Marge: And that was the only folly the people of Springfield ever took on… Except for the Popsicle stick skyscraper, and that 50 ft magnifying glass, and the escalator to nowhere.
[people yelping as they fall off of the escalator]
This is the one bit of the article that makes sense, but it goes on to say:
As with every project we need to step back and ask “What is the problem we are trying to solve?” The CBD Rail Tunnel solves the problem of the capacity constraint at Britomart, and the wider issue of increasing the capacity of the rail network overall. A monorail project won’t do that.
@ Cameron Pitches – do try to read. Greenways have not promoted a monorail, just a partly elevated heavy rail line along a more western route than the proposed CRL route. And if you just want to solve Britomart tunnel congestion, duplicating it would do that for a fraction the cost and time.
To all – while I disagree with the Greenways idea, it is sad that people wilfully misrepresent and trash an idea without seriously considering it (Peter M and Doloras). After all, the CRL idea has plenty of flaws (including high cost, need for EMUs – so add that to cost, problems with post-CRL rail network routing, etc), but people don’t sneer at you for pushing it.
Sheesh.
I thought there was no room to duplicate extend the entrance into Britomart? Can anyone confirm?
Widening the entrance to Britomart is really really difficult because of the buildings that are located very close on either side of the tunnel. I think it’s possible, at a stretch, to get a third track in (but even that would require rebuilding sidewalls), but anymore than that requires very widespread demolition.
Bob anyone who looks at this scheme with even a little understanding of physical requirements of heavy rail knows that what they are proposing is all but impossible; it involves sudden changes in grade, a hairpin turn, and a station somehow between the Motorway and K’rd, so the assumption quickly becomes that they must be considering some other lighter technology. Quite apart form the almost certain opposition from many who will not find visual merits in an elevated railway.
But that’s only the beginnings of the problems with this idea, the route carefully avoids the most important population centres and seems to be be devised only because of the spatial limitations of their chosen technology; an ‘L’. This route would deliver none of the time savings for the network for anyone heading into the centre of the city. It does link to Wynyard and that will be needed but not until that area is more developed, clearly if a line is headed there it really should be part of a Harbour crossing and not try to do a u turn and go back up the hill. That route is another issue and should not be confused with the desperate need to link the broken ends of the network.
It may be a little cheaper, but not much, in fact the saving looks pretty much a result of have one fewer station. How on earth they imagine the transition from underground to overground somewhere in downtown just isn’t clear, nor the u turn over [?] the Vic Park Viaduct, or any station of scale and rail grade connections between K and the CMJ…
So on balance, a near impossible route, for a much worse outcome, to try to save a small figure on the capex. Back on your bikes boys. Although really it looks like it is devised by people who have no real understanding of just how busy and shape changing the the CRL will be.
Also I am puzzelled by your problem with EMUs…? Huh? One of the great outcomes of the CRL is that it will open up electricity powered travel for so many more people in AK, our own largely renewably generated [80% in 2010] not imported, clean, quiet electricity. Resilience to oil shocks and ever rising oil prices, and cheaper running costs. This is a problem? How exactly?
Designation and EMU costs have been included. This blog can be a bit technical but you need be little smarter, it’s a pretty unlikely cost of EMUs would be forgotten to be included otherwise the council should have hired you for your enlightening insights.
sheesh..
lolled!
Compulsory purchase (if necessary) and some demolition and you would have room for extra tracks into Britomart. Way cheaper than a tunnel.
But also doesn’t give you any time savings or open up the rest of the CBD to the rail network
Nor does it give you any new station sites to spur on development and agglomeration (I’m thinking Newton here), or allow you to through route the train lines to easily link suburban destinations, or take pressure of Newmarket Junction.
I think that last point is important. Newmarket in it’s current form can handle what, less than 20 trains an hour each way? Even with the Britomart constraint resolved you’d still have the Western, Southern and Onehunga lines battling for space at Newmarket. You wouldn’t be able to go much better than a ten minute service on those lines.
@ Jeremy – I didn’t mention designation; dunno where you get that from? EMU costs was not a reference to EMU-related costs inside the CRL (such as catenary or feeder power), but to the separate EMU project, which CRL *requires* to operate (as CRL can’t really use diesel trains). So a portion of the EMU project should be counted towards the CRL.
@ Patrick – as above re: EMUs. I have no beef with EMUs 😉
I do agree with most of what you say about the viability of the Greenways elevated rail idea, but I posted because I thought their idea should be responded to (as you did) rather than sneered at and dismissed without thought ( as others sadly did). I did chuckle over the elevated ‘hairpin bend’ – was it to match the Britomart entry hairpin? (but it is workable, just undesirable). I suspect the overhead-underground transition could be masked by buildings either side and road underpasses & overpasses as the rail gets lower, probably along the Fanshawe St alignment (but again undesirable).
@ Ian – are you suggesting that the buildings over the Britomart entry tunnel be bought and demolished to allow a wider (say an extra 3 tracks) entry tunnel to be built? That would solve the Britomart congestion for a fraction the cost of CRL. Though another entry tunnel can be built without building demolition – it’s just tricky where the new tracks patch into the existing platforms.
Of course Matt is right to say CRL also offers West line time savings and new CBD station catchments, but the point Ian highlights is that these benefits have to justify most of the CRL cost, as Britomart congestion can be fixed far cheaper.
All I’m really saying is that I welcome Greenways and anyone else questioning the assumption that CRL will solve all rail network problems, and not create new ones (see how we struggle with Britomart, that just a decade ago was supposed to solve our rail problems…). And that we should treat new ideas with consideration, not contempt.
Bob fair enough. But I think you miss-characterise Britomart; it was built to just keep rail alive, not to solve all the rail network’s problems. And of course it was chopped and hacked back to a minimum by the forces of regression. Never any kind of full solution but certainly it has done what was claimed it would; show that the low patronage was a result of a crap service, with crap kit, on a crap network not because of some universal ‘love of driving’ as is claimed. But anyway even if it had four tracks entering it it would still remain a terminus and not part of a real network. This is the greatest benefit of the CRL: Creating the network we do not yet have, this is far more important than merely allowing more trains in and out of Britomart. Which is why Ian is really missing the point.
Yes there is a daft hairpin for the southern line to Britomart, but it is at grade and is not trying to somehow go over [?] a motorway flyover [I still can’t workout how they imagine this?]. Anyway the way I see things we eventually do away with the existing loop-around-thearena once the CRL also hits capacity and the need for the Wynyard-North Shore line builds [around 2030? here: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/04/20/the-cross-future-pattern-for-auckland-rail/%5D.
So I don’t even see the CRL as the ‘final solution’ but certainly a huge transformation in how the whole city operates and indeed the very idea of Auckland. And the biggest single step towards Auckland actually entering the 21st century and inching towards competitiveness.
It also offers huge value for money [equivalent to 10 new motorway lanes- where you going to put them?]. But hard for many to understand and even threatening to others because it does represent a huge change for Auckland. Once built and running those lovely new EMUs [that we are getting anyway because they are more efficient and cost effective] I know all sorts of currently threatened suburbanites will excitedly use it and then congratulate themselves and their transformed city for its sophistication…. Brewer and Banks and co will all be there claiming it was all their idea long ago….. and how they really made it happen…… so it goes.