The final version of the Council’s City Centre Master Plan was released, with relatively little attention, a couple of weeks back. There’s a fairly flash little website associated with it here, or if you’re patient you can download the whole 33.2 MB document here. In essence, the Plan seems to be a huge attempt at making Auckland’s city centre a more pedestrian friendly place and, as a result of that, a much nicer place to live, work and visit.
The document is pretty lengthy and has a lot of interesting stuff which relates to transport. That means I’ll need to take a few posts to go through it all – consider this Part 1, which looks at overall elements of the Plan and a number of interesting diagrams which relate to how transport will work in the city centre in the future.
Here’s the Plan’s overall vision:
A lot of connections to how we manage transport in the city centre here. Early on there’s an interesting map perhaps confirming for the first time the approximate route of North Shore rail on the city side: clearly connecting with Aotea Station underneath Wellesley Street.
Another useful diagram highlights the changing modeshares between public transport, active modes (walking and cycling) and driving that will need to occur by 2041 – simply because there isn’t space in the city centre to build mode/wider roads.
I must say I’m somewhat surprised the number of vehicles entering the area at peak time isn’t likely to fall further – I guess that’s thanks to the City Rail Link as without the project most of the streets would be bus only. Ironically one of the likely impacts of the CRL is to make it possible for people to drive to the city centre, as without the rail tunnel most streets are likely to need to be for buses only or at the very least have single or double bus lanes along them.
Another diagram that caught my attention relates to speed limits, proposing that most of the city centre becomes part of either a 30 kph or 40 kph area. This is a great idea:
The main public transport diagram shows that light-rail (of the dinky tram variety I assume) will be considered as a way of linking the city centre with its surrounding suburbs. The primary cross-town bus corridor definitely looks like it shifts to Wellesley Street:
A lot of the devil will be in the detail – how much will the Plan’s vision be taken into account in things like improving the pedestrian friendliness of Stu’s favourite intersection? To what extent will the potential of Aotea station be realised in the location of its entrances and exits? How long will it take for Quay Street to be transformed from a six lane superhighway to our premier waterfront boulevard? Will the powers to be have the courage to put bus lanes along Customs Street, even knowing that might lead to congestion?
One thing is pretty clear throughout the Plan, which I will expand upon in future posts, and that is the utter reliance this vision for the city centre has on constructing the City Rail Link.
Processing...
Link to full version: http://aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans/citycentremasterplan2012.pdf
In pieces: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/ccmp/Pages/documents.aspx
Love those lower speed limits…. be good to have the 40k one we have now on P-Rd enforced; perhaps just with warnings for now. Lot of impatient drivers there when they spot a little break between the lights and traffic….
But spreading it would be even better, as it is pretty nutty that the little narrow side streets off P-Rd are still 50k. Raised Ped tables at the entrance to these streets would be great too.
Let Remuera get rid of their transit lanes and build a better world for the car so long as we can the other way and make a walking/cycling/living paradise on the westside!
I want to see more 30 km/h areas. Pedestrian tables are another great idea. Where have I seen this kind of idea before :-). How many cul-de-sac’s are there in Auckland that you could apply this treatment to for starters?
Back on topic – very exciting for Auckland (Remuera aside :-))
Each to their own, eh? Good for areas to develop their own flavours, I’m all for localism- but with great interconnection. Suburbs can be better places too.
Lower speed limits are key!! Love that they are planning Light Rail too, however the earlier they can start installing it the better. Much cleaner than running buses so better for the city. Looking at the proposed route it maybe replacing the inner link?
Complications around timing for this involve the CRL construction plan. Queen St will need to take Albert St buses will it’s in pieces.
Do we get the cars out first, easy to do and would help surface PT, buses or trams no end, or wait and do it the day the CRL opens and use it as a visible above ground result of the project?
Waddayareckon?
Well preferably I would go down the track of getting cars out first, using buses, upgrading to trams during CRL construction. However ideal and reality in Auckland don’t go hand in hand, and it’s probably easier for the council to wait and do it the day CRL opens.
Why do they need rail for that, why not electric buses?
They don’t, but taking into account the higher capacity of light rail, that less drivers are required (and hence there are lower operating costs) and that urban quality improves with less buses, light rail could end up having a higher BCR in the long term, even though the capital cost is obviously much higher.
I’m with you Swan. I suspect light rail would have higher operating costs …
Yes but Light rail attracts more users than electric buses. Something about light rail, it just fit’s in with a lot of peoples mindsets. Need to try and think about people who don’t normally take PT rather than us regular users.
NB: That NS line is *very* indicative; it will surely be under council owned streets, especially as much of this section will be cut-and-cover.
But yeah that’s our Cross metro pattern: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/04/20/the-cross-future-pattern-for-auckland-rail/
Light rail on those routes above will only be an improvement over the link bus if there is modern rolling stock and dedicated right of way. I hate dinky faux heritage trams, terrible for accessibilty and comfort.
x10… sentimentalists’ noddy trams
Interesting that the “Light Rail” lines look to be pretty much the same routes as the City and Inner Link. In that case it may well be real modern light rail because nothing else could replace those buses.
There is nothing to stop them simply laying tram tracks down the side of those streets and running trams in mixed traffic through congested intersection instead of buses (nothing except sanity of course).We did have a contributor on here recently waxing lyrical about how fantastic street running trams in mixed traffic would be for Ponsonby, presumably because they look cool while doing a poorer job than buses at five times the cost.
While the idea of light rail on city streets has merit, the first step is surely to put full permanent bus lanes on all those corridors, then look at what will need an upgrade to light rail.
Fantastic plan. I definitely like the idea of lower speed limits. Some more active enforcement or traffic calming systems in place on Ponsonby road would be good.
But what’s with light rail along the waterfront past the port? Would not Dominion Road be the transport priority?
Presumably that comes from the ‘looks cool and fun for tourists’ placemaking school of urban design/transport planning.
If that is to be a major concern, then surely extending it along the waterfront to Britomart then up Queen St should be the priority, that has a significant transit function as well as being cool looking and fun.
I think actual transport planners would be involved before routes are confirmed; this has the quality of a marketing doc, details not to be taken too seriously, see the route of that Shore rail tunnel- it isn’t going to do that, but for the general public it’s fine.
“Maybe if we put bus, tram, cycle and rail space along Tamaki Drive we can squeeze out the cars altogether?”
I think this would be a very effective Tram Route as it would encourage new transport users, instead of the normal lot of us just converting. Trams have an appeal to a lot of drivers that currently wouldn’t use a bus if their life depended.
Using it to access beaches down Tamaki Dr through to St Helliers would bring in a lot more casual users for that route.
Maybe if we introduced trolley buses as a new kind of ‘rubber wheeled trams’ all the bus haters would come out in swarms to try out the ‘new modern light rail’, that doesn’t even need rails! 🙂
Haha like your thinking 🙂
Peter M writes: “One thing is pretty clear throughout the Plan, …and that is the utter reliance this vision for the city centre has on constructing the City Rail Link.”
OK, serious question: From what I’ve read on this blog, the primary purpose of the CRL is to shorten the time for and increase the capacity of the Western journey; a secondary purpose is to reduce a bit of walking in the inner city. So, what about adding a third or even fourth track to the NBL, ie between Britomart and the delta near Newmarket, instead of building the CRL? I’m pretty sure the existing ROW is wide enough (except into Britomart), and even the old Parnell tunnel could be used for a third track (but obviously not a fourth). Or put more simply, separate the Southern and Western lines over this section at a fraction of the cost of the CRL, requiring nil or minimal land purchases. Trains will stop at Britomart anyway so don’t have to continue in the same direction; a bit of Quay St might have to be cribbed for the extra track(s); continuous shuttle buses can provide inner city loops if deemed important.
I would appreciate serious answers to this question, but if there’s something obvious that I’ve stupidly overlooked, well, fair enough.
Well first up you are missing a whole lot of reasons for building the CRL especially the main one which is to solve the bottleneck at Britomart cleverly and to convert it from a terminating ‘inter-city’ type station to a through route ‘intra-city’ or metro type station: And the other, in big letters: DEMAND.
So:
1.To change the system from being a terminating half-pie one to being a through routed interconnected network. No ‘widening’ can do that.
2.To enable connection across town [say Meadowbank to Kingsland, GI to Hendo, Parnell to K’Rd] quickly and without adding to congestion.
3.To deliver more people throughout the city centre more quickly without adding vehicles [cars + buses] to streets. Ie not just at Britomart.
4.To allow improvement of walkability of centre ie to reclaim streets from car domination; CRL means people can still get in and around and more efficiency as road lanes and parking is reduced.
5.To increase frequency throughout whole system; If still terminating lots of inefficient dead running and neither Newmarket nor Britomart can handle more anyway.
6.To meet the coming demand from bus integration, fare integration, and the EMUs
7.To make our only clean electric movement system available and useful for many more journeys.
8. Auckland deserves it! It will at one stroke transform our bursting provincial town into a cool little city. Pre CRL; suburban- post CRL; urban. You may not believe me but change can come with one project; so long as it is a completely new one and just more of what there already is.
Your suggestion will do a little to help but not address most, and will still not be cheap. I presume you are searching for ways not to spend on rail? Rail capacity issues need whole of network solutions, not motorway ‘just another lane’ ones. Land purchases are no kind of problem or even much of a cost with the CRL [hint; it’s underground] eg Great opportunity to demolish vile downtown centre. I know the Herald hunted high and low for upset people… nothing on the Puford land owners though.
Also I can think of other things to do with that disused tunnel; cycling and walking route linking Newmarket, Parnell, Domain, city for example.
This is not directed particularly at you jonno but: Wow, so much effort by so many goes into thinking about ways we could avoid doing the job properly… whereas billions are just thrown at motorways and just has a minister says ‘we want to’ and that’s great.
Patrick, thanks for taking the time to explain that; it’ll take me a while to digest it all. One thing does stand out though: you mentioned land purchase for the CRL being minimal, however I read somewhere a figure of $280m, or did I get that wrong? Sure, some land purchases may be on-sold later, but it’s still an up-front cost. OTOH there would no doubt be some pinch points in providing extra tracks along the NBL, as well as shifting tracks over. I presume there’s a study somewhere considering and deciding against this option for valid reasons.
A route via Grafton actually adds a station (but granted, no new CBD stations). And I still don’t understand why it matters which direction a train enters/leaves a station, provided there are sufficient tracks – although sure, the driver will have to run down the platform if it leaves in reverse! Think of Wellington Metro, that I use when on business in Wellington.
I’m actually a rail enthusiast (was brought up in the steam era living next to a station), and as an engineer I love the idea of a shiny new tunnel (we could still build one under the Domain while retaining the old one for your bikeway), but as a ratepayer and taxpayer I also require value for money, as I’m sure you do.
With land purchases it’s the net figure that matters. I’m not sure that the property CCO is currently up to the task of understanding how post CRL the value of property should be altered significantly and positively…. Hong Kong funds its entire metro on property development.
It matters enormously which way a train leaves a station: And particularly the transformation of the system from a Terminus to a Through Route network. The CRL will mean that we no longer have a Wellington-like single point of focus. But a much more flexible, direct, and democratic network [ie not just for downtown workers]. Currently these cities both have bossy and didactic CBD focussed models that are essentially based on Intercity UK terminating Stations. Like Waterloo or Paddington Train Stations compared to Waterloo or Paddington tube stations. AK needs a ‘metro’ system and downtown termination is extremely suboptimal for that. WGTN is pretty much a hopeless case and works adequately as it is- although would be better if it penetrated further into town, but doesn’t have another half of the network screaming out to be connected to like Auckland does.
The CRL is pretty much the Killer App for the whole city. So much so that it is critically misunderstood by almost everyone- including its supporters. It achieves so much for two short and skinny little tunnels: Its solves a crucial bottleneck; it hugely increases network capacity; it virtually shifts a bunch of lower value suburbs significantly closer to town [Western Line]; it spreads prime destination loads [CBD], it sparks revaluation of struggling urban areas [K Rd + Newton], it frees up an auto dominated city centre for streetscape transformation; it provides the heart and backbone to the whole AK PT network revolution [word not used lightly] to a ‘transfer network’ system; it will be the core of the rapid RTN spine for all of AK’s PT; it is required before we can even consider completing the line to the airport; enables us to get full value out of new trains; vastly improves our access to electric powered clean connectivity; transforms whole idea of what Auckland is, positively.
Without it we’re fucked. Or at least will remain mediocre; underperforming. It is in sense that I say it a BARGAIN. Not cheap, but of such high value that it is way better value than any other project out there. This must be understood in the context of the three huge jobs that AT are already doing: fare integration [patience they’re getting there], bus network redesign, and electrification: CRL- Killer App.
Jonno the option of expanding Britomart was investigated as part of the original CRL study but was considered not to provide enough benefits. The biggest benefits of the CRL come from opening up more of the city to the rail network which in turn reduces journey times through faster routes/less walking to get to your final destination.
It also wouldn’t be a cheap option, to expand it within the existing station would likely mean having to buy up and demolish all of the apartments above the tunnel and I’m not sure how it work with all of the heritage buildings either side. A more likely solution would be digging up Quay St and building a new station there but that would cause both significant disruption in its own right and would be expensive (remember it is even closer to the water than Britomart is).
The issue of the tracks up to Newmarket are separate again. For these recent works to enable a station to be built at Parnell a designation had to be obtained to take over a small section of the Domain. To take more land would be almost impossible and not the kind of battle we should be having. On the eastern side tracks couldn’t be built unless you demolished the mainline steam building which I think is heritage listed. In short it would be very hard to add additional tracks through this area.
Britomart is the restraint, it will be at capacity once electrification is introduced, therefore there would be no point introducing extra lines as we wouldn’t be able to put trains on them. We need to make Britomart a through station.
Sorry just re-read your question, you are talking about expanding Britomart Train Station, this could be a option, however we would just be moving the bottleneck of Britomart Station to Newmarket Station. In the long term building the CRL (Allowing a through route in the city, no dead ends) will allow for greater future capacity. Something Auckland’s hasn’t been very good at in the past, planning for the future.
Thanks Joshua, but what I’m raising is the possibility of a cheaper route for the equivalent of the CRL, thereby achieving the same purpose (ie two extra tracks). West-bound trains wouldn’t need to go through Newmarket at all. I accept there may well be constraints that I haven’t thought of, but any lower-cost alternative to spending $3b surely deserves some consideration. Granted, there could still be pressure on the section between Mt Eden and the Newmarket delta, but I’m not sure that matters given the track configuration won’t change west of Mt Eden.
I think it’s time to do something for real, at least once. Remember you get what you pay for. Low cost alternative now means high costs later, and it’s already late
Fair enough Gian, I adopt that approach in all my expenditure decisions, eg building, vehicle purchase etc, ie generally go for the higher capital cost/lower maintenance cost/greater utility/higher resale value option. There’s also fitness for purpose and the time value of money to consider. But what higher future costs do you envisage in this instance?
I notice that the Quay Park photoshop picture still features something that looks like London’s DLR. Interesting.
Not really- just a pretty picture, not an indication of design detail. This is a mood doc.; real projects but not with resolved detail.
jonno1, one day we’ll have to pay (some of us personally, it’s a fact) for all the diesel fumes we breath in the city. And that’s just the start
OK Gian, that argument supports electrification, which I favour too, I was just wondering what were the greater future costs you alluded to above if a cheaper alternative route to the CRL were feasible. Patrick @2.30 has provided some further thoughts on this.
Patrick, you obviously have a lot of knowledge and I am completely behind you on the CRL. I think it will create an awesome city that I will actually want to live in.
While we try and bludgeon the govt and the NZ public into accepting the value of the CRL, I have been musing over what we could do to get capacity of the line up now, so that we can convince the govt of “build it and they will come”. A lot of the anti-CRL people I speak to are convinced they wont come and it will be a huge white elephant.
I understand that Britomart station as a dead end station can only handle 20 trains an hour but that will increase to 30(?) with electrification.
So, why not start running trains now straight from Swanson to Manakau/Papakura via Newmarket and not go to Britomart at all. Instead you have a shuttle service operating from Newmarket to Britomart (stopping at the new Parnell station) just whipping back and forth between the two stations.
Now if we allow the Eastern line (via Glen Innes) up to 8 trains an hour into Britomart, it means you could have 12-22 (after electrification?) trains between Newmarket and Britomart. So I come from Ellerslie every day, I get off at Newmarket, walk across the platform (in an ideal world) and get on the next “shuttle” train. As I will never wait more than 2-5 mins for a train to Britomart from Newmarket, it may not add that much to my journey.
Meanwhile, I think you could have as many trains as the tracks can handle between Swanson and Manakau/Papakura/Onehunga.
I realise that would involve a massive reconfiguration of the timetable and probably isnt possible until electrification is complete but could that work? I have probably completely misunderstood something but I have been mulling it over and it seems like a good idea at first glance.
If that system was working and we had a massive uptake in passengers, it would only put more pressure on Joyce/Brownlee & Co to explain why the money on the CRL shouldnt be spent. Especially if it tracked a decrease in the motorway traffic and parking building occupancy in the CBD.
Interested to hear your thoughts.
“I understand that Britomart station as a dead end station can only handle 20 trains an hour but that will increase to 30(?) with electrification.”
Not so, Britomart as a dead end station can only handle ~20 trains an hour, that is true. But electrification won’t change that at all. The electric trains will be bigger and hold more people each, but Britomart will still remain a dead end station that can only ever handle ~20 an hour (until we build the CRL).
The existing train frequency to the central city is more or less it even with electrification.
Goosoid – On the people who oppose the project, I also had that problem until I actually took some of them on a peak train service into Britomart, this gives them a true picture of how busy our rail network has actually become, many not having been on one of our trains before. For people who don’t take the offer too actually ride on the train, their arguments are suddenly non-applicable as they are forced to admit they don’t know enough to have a valid comment.
I also cheekily point out, what if all these people were driving on our roads, with the current 1.2person ratio? Imagine getting to the city now…
Now if only I could get some of our Ministers, one in particular, to get a train with me…
Joshua another approach I have taken is to point out that without the CRL, in 30 years when the population has doubled there won’t be a road in Auckland we will actually be able to drive along. The streets will look like those in photos of Mumbai and Calcutta. We might as well close the airport too, cos we’ll never be able to get to it.
Maybe some trainspotter could put some clips on youtube showing peak-hour passengers disembarking at Britomart.
I’ve got one I’ll upload soon, not quite peak time though, I work out south unfortunately so don’t often get to town around that time. However I’ll try and get a couple of vids next week as well.
Interesting. Newmarket as it is configured now has its issues too. But I’m quite keen on the idea of running direct West/South trains, probably Henderson /Manukau services which would mean quite a few transferring At Newmarket fro Parnell/Britomart. Running shuttles could work, or just a mixture of direct west/Britomart (bypass Newmarket sort of express trains) and west south and south/Britomart.
Big thing we want from the EMUs is higher frequency all day everyday, ie turn up and go almost anytime any day. That’s another way to provide a better service, meet and grow demand until the CRL is up and running.
You may remember this: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/06/20/an-auckland-metro-possibilities-complications-and-conclusions/
@Patrick (I seem to have problems making the site actually reply in the thread. Browser issue).
Yes I did raed that and that is what got me thinking when I saw your green line from Henderson to Manukau.
So it is possible for Western trains to bypass Newmarket via Grafton?
I agree 100% about frequency. Once electric it doesnt really matter how many trains run as no fuel bills. That is the great advantage of this bypass/shuttle plan as I imagine you could have services every 5 mins on the Henderson/Manukau line. As I have seen before on this sight “if you have to look at a timetable, the system has alreadt failed”. You should never have to wait for more than 10mins for a train.
Also, it will wake people up that it is not just about the CBD. It would mean I could get a job in New Lynn and live in Ellerslie and have a 25min commute by train. Now that is a city! If I wanted to live in a provincial city where I could drive everywhere, I would move back to Christchurch but I want to live in a proper metropolitan area.
Just a few technical points:
– Electrification is not going to incrase the number of trains that can go in/out of Britomart an hour. That is purely dependant on the signalling system which is already maxed out. Higher capacity after electrification comes from longer trains.
– For it to not matter how many trains you run an hour a system has to be driverless. Integrated ticketing and electrification will reduced operating costs, but without going driverless (impossible with mixed use rail) there will still be a large variable cost component to your system.
And your question:
I don’t understand. You might want to have another look at the network in Patrick’s link above. If a western line train wants to south it has to go through Newmarket. There is no question about that.
Hamish, I believe they are discussing having two service patterns on the western line, west to south via Newmarket, and west to Britomart bypassing Newmarket.
Oh that makes sense. For some reason I though that goosoid meant that west south trains could bypass Newmarket, which is of course impossible.
Seems to be a general lack of analysis going into this plan.
To be fair it’s a plan of the “strategic vision” variety, not a statutory document.
Everyone loves the trams!
Was there a Convention Centre there somewhere?