There’s seemingly a lot of confusion around about the impacts of the City Rail Link project – heck the transport minister still thinks that it’s a loop going around in circles under the CBD (surely the ultimate indictment of Auckland Transport’s CRL communications?) In this post I’m going to try to explain – area by area – how the CRL may benefit different bits of Auckland. Of course there are a number of benefits that will come out of the CRL which aren’t area specific, but relate to the whole of Auckland – and even the whole of New Zealand. Let’s tackle those first.
Benefits for all of Auckland (and New Zealand):
We generally don’t invest in transport just for a transport outcome, but because we want an improved transport situation to lead to other, wider, benefits – in particular economic growth and productivity. The CRL will enable the Auckland City Centre to grow much larger than would be feasibly possible without it – the City Centre Future Access Study highlighted the massive transport issues that we’ll face in the not too distant future unless we build the link.
Enabling a larger and more vibrant city centre (amenity of the place isn’t going to be great with thousands upon thousands of buses trawling through it) is shown internationally to significantly boost economic productivity – as city centre workers are generally more productive than those elsewhere. This chart is from the 2010 business case:
There are two distinct elements which make up this difference:
- Some particularly productive jobs tend to exclusively or near exclusively locate in the CBD
- The same job done in the CBD is generally able to be performed more productively than elsewhere
Ultimately a more productive and successful economy should benefit everyone, through an increased standard of living, an increased tax take that can be spend on social services etc. Compared to cities like Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, Auckland has a relatively small city centre as a proportion of total employment – which the economic research above tends to indicate could well be a reason behind Auckland’s relatively poor economic performance.
The other main ‘region wide’ benefit is how having a vastly improved rail system will take pressure off Auckland’s already stressed roading network as the population grows. The price of planned motorway upgrades (e.g. $5 billion Harbour Crossing) highlights that expanding the motorway network to match population growth is just impossible – whereas the rail system has huge unused capacity that the CRL will enable. It also tends to be the car trips which can easily be replaced by rail (longer peak time trips to the city centre) which create the most significant congestion for everyone else – so getting those people off the road could well help your commute, no matter where you live and where you’re heading to.
Benefits for the North
Although the rail system in Auckland does not (yet) extend to the North Shore there are ways in which the CRL still benefits those on the North Shore. Let’s just run through a few:
- The CRL means that fewer buses need to be run into the city centre from the south, west and east – which frees up space in the city centre for buses from the North Shore.
- A future North Shore railway line would link up to the existing rail network at Aotea Station, therefore the CRL is essential to enable that future line to connect up to the rest of the rail network. A North Shore connection at the existing Britomart Station would place too much pressure on the Quay Park junction and basically negate the ability to ever build CRL.
- A large number of buses from the North Shore in the future will travel along Wellesley Street, meaning that Aotea Station will be really handy if passengers from the North Shore wish to transfer onto a train to travel elsewhere in Auckland.
Benefits for the West
For people outside the realistic catchment of the Western Railway Line, the benefits are quite similar to people living on the North Shore. The northwest’s future busway along State Highway 16 will inevitably feed a lot of buses into a city from a corridor that’s not likely to be replaced with rail – and those buses will need to go somewhere and will operate much better if they’re not competing with buses from rail served areas for streetspace.
For those within the Western Line catchment, you are some of the biggest beneficiaries of the CRL as you trips will be significantly quicker if you’re travelling to the CBD, but also you’ll be able to enjoy significantly more trains as a result of CRL unlocking the capacity of the whole rail system – creating a huge benefit even if you’re not travelling into the city centre. Here’s a useful before and after in terms of travel time from key stations to the city centre – note the vastly quicker times from the West:
Benefits for the Isthmus Area:
As detailed earlier, areas in the isthmus along the Western Line will benefit hugely from the CRL in terms of travel time and also increased frequency. The city centre will benefit enormously from improved access – meaning that most places will be within a short walk of the rail network – rather than just a few areas around Britomart.
In other parts of the isthmus, areas near the inner southern line and the eastern line will benefit from faster trips to a greater proportion of the city centre and also increased train frequencies (meaning shorter waits at stations). Areas outside the existing rail network will enjoy similar benefits to the North Shore in terms of their buses not getting stuck in as much bus congestion in the city centre. But also the CRL enables other extensions to the rail system, such as the Mt Roskill branch line – which would be pretty cheap to build and extends the rail network into a part of Auckland with heaps of development potential, along with taking some pressure off Dominion and Sandringham Road buses.
Benefits for the South:
The new bus network in the south revolves around better bus routes for cross-town journeys and feeding a lot more buses into the rail network at key locations like Panmure and Manukau. The City Rail Link will enable higher frequencies along the rail network, meaning less overcrowding on services and shorter waits for trains. It also means faster trips from the south to parts of the city centre beyond the immediate surrounds of Britomart.
The CRL is also a prerequisite for rail to the airport, as without CRL it’s not possible to run trains on the Airport Line at a frequency of greater than half-hourly (and you wouldn’t spend $700m or more on a line that can only run half-hourly). The Airport Line potentially has massive benefits for the south – improving access to the airport itself for employees, acting as a catalyst for the redevelopment of areas around new stations at Mangere Bridge, Mangere Town Centre (and perhaps elsewhere?) and providing a rapid transit quality link between Manukau and the Airport. But none of that can happen until CRL happens.
Benefits for the Southeast:
As part of the AMETI project, a busway will be built between Botany and Panmure. This will provide a really high quality public transport option for a part of Auckland that has historically been incredibly neglected when it comes to public transport. However for trips between Panmure and the city centre, the rail network will still be the rapid transit option and the CRL provides both the additional capacity of extra trains along what will become a very busy section of the rail network, as well as direct trains from Panmure to not only Britomart but also onto Aotea, K Road and Newton stations – providing far better access from the southeast to the wider city centre and its surrounds.
Summary:
As you can see the CRL benefits all different parts of Auckland – whether they’re on the rail network or not. I think the two areas that will benefit the most are the city centre itself and the west: due to the improvements in coverage of the rail network and the “cutting the corner” between Mt Eden and the city centre respectively. However parts of Auckland which aren’t even on the rail network will benefit: either through the CRL making possible future expansion of the network (i.e. Airport Rail, North Shore rail and the Mt Roskill Branch) or CRL removing many buses from the network and therefore allowing the bus system to operate more effectively – such as for the North Shore and the Northwest.
In addition to these specific benefits the economic growth and the significant capacity expansion of Auckland’s transport network that the CRL will provide have the potential to benefit the whole city, and in fact the entire country.
Processing...
Great summary. Think I’ll send it to Ministers Joyce and Brownlee.
Need to send it to Campbell Live and so on so they know what questions to ask.
Excellent post – find it amazing that the benefits are not communicated more clearly as seen by the various TV clips that have been shown lately. There is quite a bit of information available now on youtube, council websites etc, yet it does not seem to get picked up by mainstream media – are they time/resource constrained or is it deliberate?
There seems to be a strange timidity about selling the benefits of this and other plans. AT and AC staff seem to exhibit symptoms of being bullied in their fear of actually standing behind their plans. Perhaps the viciousness of the political debates in AK (Unitary Plan!) and the fact that government’s biggest bullies (Joyce, Brownlee) and Council’s loudest whiners (Brewer, Quax, Wood) never miss an opportunity to obfuscate, belittle, and flat out lie about what should be factual debates freezes them to the spot.
It means that voluntary organisations like us and Generation Zero have to try to fill the void. So stand by, there is a whole lot more coming from us to get information out there and some balance into the debate.
Would be good on something like Q+A given the recent story there.
http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/contact-us-2563899
To be fair, I think Brownlee’s insistence on failing to understand the CRL is politics, not AT’s failure to sell the plan adequately. Brownlee is politically opposed to the CRL so he’s spreading misinformation that supports his political position. Still this is a useful summary of the argument in favour, and it wouldn’t do AT any harm to be more proactive about the benefits.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but I do want to highlight the estimates of the CCFAS.
CCFAS morning peak commuter Estimates (Based on CCFAS Tables 3-10, 6-1 & 6-2):
2011 City Centre screenline surveys: Bus=23,400, Rail=5,600
2021 Balanced Reference Case: Bus=31,400 Rail=12,100
2021 City Rail Link: Bus=29,400 Rail=19,300
Growth in 2021 Bus Numbers without the CRL: 8,000
Growth in 2021 Bus Numbers WITH the CRL: 6,000
2041 Balanced Reference Case: Bus=39,000 Rail=18,200
2041 City Rail Link: Bus=36,100 Rail=31,200
Growth in 2021 Bus Numbers without the CRL: 15,600
Growth in 2021 Bus Numbers WITH the CRL: 12,700
The CCFAS “Balanced Reference Case” predicts the an additional 8,000 more bus commuters by 2021 and 15,600 by 2041. Building the CRL reduces this by only 2,000 bus commuters by 2021 and only 2,900 by 2041 (i.e. by 6% and 7% respectively).
The CCFAS numbers show the CRL just doesn’t make that much difference compared to the huge predicted growth in CBD bound bus travel. Therefore your article’s claimed transport benefits to bus commuters are quite limited. IMO, the CRL is likely to create areas that are winners and losers . . . those close to rail stations will get a great PT service (to/from the CBD) while those far away must either bus/drive then train or take a bus on congested surface roads both on the approaches and within the CBD. The MAJORITY of CBD PT commuters will still BUS into the CBD and their service will be significantly worse irrespective of whether the CRL is built.
Finally, please direct any arguments on these numbers to Auckland Transport and the CCFAS consultants SKM.
Tony you completely miss the point. Yes bus numbers will grow, that is not in dispute. The problem is that without the CRL, Those increases in bus users will have to be spread around all points of the city. With the CRL those from West and South can be shifted onto the rail network freeing up space for more people on buses from areas not served by the rail network.
Its also worth noting that the option chosen as the best was the CRL and some of the main surface bus improvements. You seem to like suggesting that there is a mode bias at play but it simply isn’t true and both buses and trains will benefit.
Lastly we know that the modelling has some issues with it and from discussions I have had, that primarily impacts on the rail network numbers.
I accept the principle of the point you make and I will think again about what you have said. The CCFAS is not very clear about the points made in your discussion for all the considered options. Hopefully it will be possible to confirm (or refute) the points your outlined in your article if AT release the supporting CCFAS patronage information.
In my opinion the CCFAS is based on flawed modelling assumptions, particularly around the speeds buses travel and the willingness of people to transfer from bus to train to save time. Basically it says that buses work better than they do in reality, and makes train travel appear less attractive than it would be.
I’ve seen model outputs where thousands of passengers come over the Panmure bridge in the AM peak and all continue to ride the bus through to Britomart. This is despite the fact the train trip to Britomart is a consistent 19 minutes from Panmure (assuming the trains aren’t failing), while the express bus is timetabled at 40 minutes and in reality can often take over an hour depending on traffic.
So in the real world, once we have a penalty free integrated fare structure and the new bus to rail interchange complete at Penrose, do we really expect everyone will elect to spend 40-60 minutes on a bus when they could spend 19 minutes on a train? According to the last model, yes.
I wait with anticipation for some revised modelling.
Nick, you are forgetting the time to transfer between transport; this could add an extra 10-15 mins and then there is the weather factor as this is still not a fully enclosed station even with the new improvements being made. On a day like today many may just want to stay on the bus. This is one of the reasons I believe AMETI is flawed and the proposal should have been to extend the rail to the East to pick up the passengers from before they get ‘too comfortable’ on the bus.
Gary, trying to extend rail to the east will be a multi-billion-dollar project. It needs baby steps just to get a dedicated bus corridor along one of the pre-eminent automobile spaces in Auckland, never mind trying to jump straight to rail. If rail gets extended east of Panmure it will be next decade before planning commences never mind commencement of construction.
As for transfers, once peak services are at 10-minute frequencies it will be maximum half-hour rail journey – including transfer time – from Panmure to Britomart vs 45-minutes-plus by bus. That’s significant, and the train will be much nicer than the bus.
Gary trains at say Panmure will be at least every 10 mins post electrification, and at least every 5 with the CRL, so your wait time is too pesimistic. An average 2.5 minute wait post CRL, plus the new station there as at New Lynn is well integrated with the bus stop making weather a minor factor. However I agree it will take time for Aucklanders to discover and trust a connection based system but I think we should give them the respect of assuming that they will act rationally over time. Remember even with funding tomorrow the CRL won’t be open before 2020 it seems, so we’ll have had a good 4/5 years of both integrated ticketing [if not quite fares] and of a vastly improved, more frequent and reliable rail system to grow into….
At $2.6 billion AMETI is a multi billion dollar project as well. Why does everyone think that rail would have to follow the same corridor? If it was to go through the Tamaki estuary area I believe it could be done cheaper than AMETI due to reduced property purchases; is there anyone here that could verify this one way or another? I would be happy to agree if someone could prove I was wrong.
Patrick, may be you can help me figure out how this will work? From what documents I have seen all comments are about having 5 min frequencies through the CRL, that is consistent with what I have seen overseas as you need to leave a little flexibility between trains for mainly ‘human factors’ especially during peak times.
The thing I cannot figure in your equation is that we still have 3 lines feeding into this network not 2; each one in your equation would have 5 minute frequencies, therefore if 2 lines were feeding from one direction then the capacity required through the CRL would be one train every 2.5 minutes, which would seem a little tight to me. The alternate would be to have the southern line split at Newmarket with alternate trains going in different directions, this would still lead to shorter than 5 min times between trains and could be difficult to schedule leaving a slow down in the system? The only other option I can think of is that the Eastern line would still terminate at Britomart in the extra platforms which would lead to a further transfer for anyone who wants to go to one of the other city stations? I presume of course that the South and East lines would take preference.
Because of this I made the presumption that the South and East lines would run once every 10 minutes not 5 as you mentioned and each would feed the CRL alternatively especially as the East feeds into the South further down the track?
Do you know how they plan to do this?
I dont know why you think a delay is needed. In London and Prague – two cities I travelled daily on the metro system, the trains come every 2-3 mins. When I was in Sydney recently it was the same at peak times.
It is more than doable with the CRL to have those frequencies.
goosiod; because that is what I thought I had read in the documentation and that is what I thought the were buying the quantity of rolling stock for?
There are a number of options and we will be soon putting up posts with maps our preferred versions.
But yes the signalling will aparently handle 2.5min frequencies, and the junction limitations at the three critical points Britomart, Newmarket, and the Southern CRL portal allow for around 24 trains per hour each way, or up to 48 total movements through the sytem. Spilting Southern line trains after Newmarket; one set to Parnell and one to Grafton is exactly the plan. One set, or line, having come from Papakura [by then Pukekohe] and the other from Onehunga [or Airport, in our plan]. Each then runs through the CRL and exits to the Western line and the other to the Eastern terminating at Man City. So this way you get a two line integrated system. The number of trains would increase with time and demand, but lets just say at some stage 10 tph on each line [so 20 where they overlap] which gives you 5 min freqs at the edges and 2.5 in the four city stations and the spine of the Southern Line. multiple places to switch lines and to join the bus system [and ferries at Britomart].
That’s one basic and elegant system; make sense?
Auckland is so lucky with it’s funny little heritage system because we only have to build 3.5km of new underground to get the basis of a really good modern Metro. So many other cities of our size would be champing at the bit to get this level of amenity for so little.
Thank you Patrick, yes I do understand so that is more frequency thank I thought on all lines (and a little surprising with what is sometimes stated in the media about the signaling); another misunderstanding which is what this post is all about. One other question, does the current order of rolling stock allow for these frequencies or will more be need in the future?
This would require more trains I’m sure, or at least I doubt they’re buying enough for the CRL now! The 2010 Business Case includes additional figures future trains, as well as double tracking to Onehunga.
Nick, maybe they are assuming significantly higher fares for train than bus, based on higher costs. This would explain the modeling.
Gary, I’ve not forgotten about the transfer time. As Patrick pointed out the frequencies that would result from the CRL are enough that wait time is almost negligible. In terms of the time to get from bus to train, the plans for Panmure are very promising for quick and direct connections, mostly under cover too. At the end of the day plenty of people will put up with moving from one seat to another to save 30-40 minutes.
AMETI is a $2.6 billion roading project, of which only a minor proportion is for the bus priority.
Oh and the CRL would allow slightly better frequencies with the existing rolling stock (as it creates shorter, more direct routing), although more trains would be needed for those five minute headways.
Swan, no fares are the same without transfer penalty. In any case with the volumes in consideration, trains would be far cheaper per passenger, so if anything the train fares would haven been much lower.
Cheaper?
Capital costs alone will be $10 a trip post CRL, and that’s with 50m trips a year.
Come on swan where’s your math?
The only way there could be capital costs of $10 per trip and 50m trips a year is with a four year evaluation period! Try forty years for something more realistic.
And the opex costs will more than make up for it. Take five thousand peak two-hour trips on the AMETI corridor for an example. If they go by bus that’s around fifty buses running from Panmure to the city per hour and full load. With a 90 min round trip, that’s a peak fleet requirement of about 75 buses (about $38 million worth of vehicles) with 75 drivers on the payroll. 19km return and 1.5 man hours per run equates to a cost of about $2,450 per hour to operate that section of bus line.
Take the same with the new trains and you are looking at 6 three-car EMUs per hour at full load. With a forty-five minute round trip you can operate that portion with 5 six-car trainsets ($25 million worth of vehicles) and four drivers. That equates to $600 an hour to operate that section of line for those six trains an hour.
So that’s a saving of $1,850 an hour in opex to move the same passengers to the same place. In passenger terms that’s 74c cheaper per trip.
Making some assumptions about the distribution of peak, interpeak and evening frequency (say full, 1/2 and 1/4 in either case) That’s about $17,575 a weekday cheaper to run the trains, or about $100k a week, plus the savings on fleet.
Of course that doesn’t account for the possible infrastructure upgrades and road network externalities of running 50 buses an hour along the E-P highway and up Great South Rd.
CRL 2.8b Britomart ~0.5b DART + electrification + trains 1.6b total ~5b. Opportunity cost of not divesting western line..? (Let’s ignore that for now). Conservatively assume combined cost of capital and depreciation at 10% pa. 500m = $10 a pop with 50m trips a year.
See why I struggle to believe its all money well spent?
More like $3.5b, but anyway even five billion to turn an almost dead asset into a 95km network of rapid transit running to near metro service levels stretching to the extremities of the city. And it can move fifty million trips a year without an ounce of traffic congestion or carbon output? Four lines, each line shifting more people than a six lane motorway? Sounds like an amazing bargain to me! By comparison we have our powers that be planning to spend five billion on a 4.5km motorway tunnel parallel to an existing motorway that has basically no benefit except doubling the number cars that can reach the CBD each hour. I wonder what it would cost to build those four new six lane motorways?
Sound like money well spent!
Tony – Why it is that you have such a fascination with trying to find holes in the case for the CRL but not any other project? why have you not done the same level of analysis on the RoNS projects, or say the additional harbour crossing project?
Transmission Gully!
Or why aren’t you unpicking the considerable expansion of and spending on SH16 yet its very poor bus priority? The CRL isn’t in the way of a true or even partial busway here, what is is the monomodality of the governmnent’s private vehicle centred policy.
The barrier to better bus investment is not the tiny improvements to rail in AK but the 97% proportion of spending on capital investment on new State Highways and other new roads over the three years to 2015. Mr Randle’s advocacy for bus investment would be a great deal more convincing if it was actually directed at the real investment imbalance instead of using it as a fig leaf to attack other Transit modes. And to be effective buses do need their own infrastructure as distinct from the superficial argument that ‘buses use roads too’, especially if they are to in any way rival the effectiveness of grade separate rail systems.
All research stand or falls on the quality of its assumptions and there are a number in the CCFAS that are questionable at best, and certainly conditional. For example a condition of the government agencies’ involvment was that the study must assume that every imaginal Auckland motorway project is also completed including six additional general traffic lanes across the Waitemata harbour. This is the one of the sources of the lack of much variation in the road speeds for private vehicles in the conclusion of every case modelled; billions is assumed to have been spent on further incentivising private car journeys to the Centre City. Also there are clear assumptions around mode choice [always car, then bus, then train], transfer choice [as Nick shows above] that are certainly challengable.
And as for sheeting the source of these assumptions to AT and the consultants it is not clear that this is the case, as NZTA, MoT, and Treasury were also involved in every step of this paper including sign off on the assumptions. Not that I’m assuming AT or the hired help left to their own devices are certain to have made perfect starting points; clearly that’s never possible. We can best mittigate against the always imperfect nature of these studies by being aware of their assumptions.
So, in addition to the points above, and despite the extremely unconvincing optimism about how many buses that either can fit on Auckland’s streets, or that we will put up with having there that these figures rest on, and that the very serious Humphreys of Treasury and MoT, with their well publicised dislike of the high capex/low opex nature of rail investment, still concluded that the CRL is by far the best possible project for the future of Auckland we can be very confident that it most certainly is.
There are other assumptions that also deserve questioning; changes in living and working habits, projected oil price, climate mitigation costs [and other environmental externalities], and generational value changes that if altered would further result in even more value in this project.
In conclusion it is much more likely that the assumptions [from whatever source] are extremely conservative and if anything understate the value of the CRL.
Yes good summary. I see palino is campaigning on that the crl isn’t needed now but wants to intensify manakau. I guess those extra people there are going to be Tele-transporting around.
Nah, all those extra people will just never go north of Otahuhu. Problem solved. (And that of course is the issue with all these “decentralization = less need for transport” theories – it is trying to turn back the clock, disassemble the Auckland metropolitan regions into half a dozen smaller cities with no more communication between them than with Whangarei or Hamilton. A wonderful idea if you get aroused by the glories of a 1950s non-urban New Zealand, but for those living in Century 21 it seems the equivalent of half a dozen Berlin Walls.
Hmm, so if we haven’t been able to make Manukau a success of decentralisation and intensity during the last forty years of trying to do exactly that, what extra does Mr Palino propose we do different?
…or maybe Manukau is naturally just a smaller regional centre and always will be, and can’t usurp the central city in terms of accessibility, demand and function?
Isnt it obvious? Roads and parking buildings! That model has worked so well for the last 60 years and produced in Manakau without a doubt one of the most beautiful urban centres in NZ, if not the world.
Nothing like standing next to the motorway watching the sun go down behind a parking building . If there are enough car fumes you can also get a little bit of a buzz on and the colours are fantastic as the light refracts through the CO emmissions.
Just lovely – he certainly has my vote.
I’ve sent the summary to John Minto, who still seems to be swallowing right-wing talking points on the issue.
I have not been impressed with Minto so far. Having said that, if he split the ‘anti CRL’ vote from Maurice Williamson, maybe it will help Brown?
I’m trying to imagine the sort of person who is undecided between voting for John Minto and Maurice Williamson, and I’m really struggling.
True, but there are grumpy and badly informed people on the left as well when it comes things like Unitary Plan and the CRL.
Minto’s not anti-CRL, he’s just ill informed (by those grumpy people that Louis is talking about). He talks about it as a “loop” and says “on its own it won’t help most Aucklanders who live far away from a train station”. Well, of course not. That’s, as I’ve informed him, why the CRL will come with a renovation of bus routes to turn them into rail feeders, which won’t be much good if we’re stuck to 15 or 20 minute headways.
He’s probably smart enough to listen to evidence, unlike Maurice.
Many of the bus routes are being changed from CBD bound to rail bound with transfers in mind. A lot more people will be taking bus and rail trips which will increase patronage of both modes. So quoting those numbers without the information of bus changes and the linkage of bus and rail connections is misleading.
Sorry this was in response to Tony Randle. Reply didn’t work properly.
Brilliant summary Matt. The CRL has been hijacked a mixture of bad promotion by AC and AT, poor reporting by the Herald and other media outlets, and deliberate lies by politicians and it needs to be stopped. It is unfair that ATB writers have to do this work for no pay because AT cannot do their job!
You’ve totally got it, now if only you understood politics:
“There are two distinct elements which make up this difference:
•Some particularly productive jobs tend to exclusively or near exclusively locate in the CBD
•The same job done in the CBD is generally able to be performed more productively than elsewhere
Ultimately a more productive and successful economy should benefit everyone, through an increased standard of living, an increased tax take that can be spend on social services and so forth.”
The benefits should sort of trickle down to the rest of us, you mean. Excellent I’ll get my umbrella ready. Or not.
The problem is that highly productive jobs are highly compensated jobs and the amount of improvement in compensation tends to be disproportionately weighted towards the highly productive jobs. The very low paid rest of the country is fundamentally unwilling to pay for improvements to the infrastructure for the enjoyment of the most exceedingly highly paid. This political problem is unlikely to go away.
Those of us not working in the CBD ask that the CBD simply pays for the CRL. Instead of waiting for a perhaps unlikely future pay off, we get the highly productive employees of the CBD to pay for the CRL, there are more of us than there are of them. Charge a congestion fee on the CBD, increase rates on the CBD.
As long as the Auckland City Council continues to ask the rest of the country for funding, or proposes a regional fuel tax, the CRL is going to be deeply unpopular.
Did you actually read all the positives for the rest of Auckland? Or are you just dismissing those out of hand?
Only in a country with a culture of auto dependency as deeply ingrained as this country, would someone suggest, with a straight face, that a major PT project was only for the highly paid. Crazy stuff.
Angus wilfully “doesn’t understand” that the CRL is a project that will benefit the entire region. His unswerving ignorance of the CRL’s positive effects that extend beyond the boundaries of the CBD is long-standing, and not just on display in this forum.
goosoid,
It is what Matt L said under his heading “Benefits for all of Auckland (and New Zealand):”
This CRL will enable more people to make more productive contributions in the CBD. He lists facts and figures, you should maybe read it.
To be fair he also says that the CRL means we won’t need a 2nd harbour crossing, but then under “Benefits for the North” says that we will need a 2nd harbour crossing – I think he is confused on that point.
He then goes on through all the approaches of how the CRL will improve access to the CBD, overcome the congestion of the CBD and free up routes to/from the CBD. There is a consistent thread running through all his points, you can’t see this?
Angus those well paid city worker riding trains to work, where do you think they live? Yes that’s right; everywhere from Swanson to Pukekohe and in between. Or even some live in the city and work at other centres. It makes no sense to claim that the only value in a project is in the area immediately around the work itself. It is a network fix, a capacity enabler, it even helps the roading network work better. It will especially enable the rail system to take that critical ‘peak of the peak’ pressure off the top of the motorway system to help prevent it slipping into total gridlock at its most clogged and vulnerable periods.
Every road is somewhere, yet we all chip in and build them together because there is an understanding about how whole networks work and because we see there is economic value to NZ inc in them. Not money to you or me, but to others in NZ and therefore to society as a whole. This system particularly involves a transfer of money from high population areas to thinly populated ones. The CRL is no different; you don’t ever have to ride a train or even live in Auckland to derive benefit from it, in the same way that there are roads all over rural NZ that I will never use but that have economic value for me and all of us.
Patrick, it is capacity building for the CBD or to/from the CBD. It will improve capacity for the commute corridors to the CBD, but without a congestion charge or similar it probably will not reduce congestion (as making the road network more easily accessible is unlikely to reduce congestion).
It is probably good for the economy in the ways road improvements elsewhere are not (for example roads being upgraded for logging trucks in the East Cape). But the rest of the country is economically disadvantaged, whilst the centre of Auckland is our most economically advantaged place. Transfer in one direction is appealing socialist, transfer in the other does not appeal so much.
But there’s no transfer! Auckland is a third of the population and more than a third of the economy and taxes and rates. No one from out of Auckland need pay a cent. But that doesn’t mean some of ‘our’ taxes shouldn’t come back to fund it. Like I say every project is somewhere, why are only Auckland’s projects to be considered local, and why in particular only this one?
To spend on Auckland what they are planning to spend on Wellington’s Transmission Gully on a pro-rata basis you’d ned to spend something in the region of 18billion.
I think, because it is Auckland CBD which the rest of the country is loathe to give more money to (those added value figures that Matt L provides, that gain mostly isn’t being charged on overseas clients), see my previous comments.
And because it is a railway line when NZ has a recent history of railway lines being non-efficient. Our national rail network competed against coastal shipping and our country is 2 islands – it lost, but now we own it again & still loses. These days our Auckland commuter trains are often late.
The CRL is a promisingly good thing, it could be the proof that rail is a workable solution in NZ. Only problem is if we want it to happen we have to find a way to pay for (the majority of) it, because outside of the Auckland political left it isn’t politically viable.
Angus, can you please explain your reasoning that the Core Rail Link only benefits the central business district?
Angus, I get where you are coming from in terms of political sale-ability of the CRL, really I do. It’s not an easy sell: spend 3bn (claimed cost, even if it’s really closer to 2bn) in a highly localised area with a wider (but still mostly local) benefit.
But can you explain how it is that equally or more expensive projects such as Puhoi-Wellsford, Transmission Gully, a mooted second harbour crossing, with fewer likely benefits, whose benefits are equally likely to be highly local somehow ARE politically sell-able? I don’t understand how or why there is a difference. Nobody is demanding that the local populace in Transmission Gully pay for that project. I’m interested to understand the thinking.
Also… isn’t half the problem is that the Wellington govt is unwilling to allow the Auckland Council to raise the revenue itself anyway?! In other words, Auckland is trying to have a conversation about how to pay for it, locally, exactly as you say they must, but Wellington is closing down that conversation before it’s even had a chance to get started. Surely if Len Brown can get elected even if he plans to raise rates / fuel taxes / congestion charges or whatever, then Wellington should let it go?
Yes, increased productivity in the CBD will be A benefit of building the CRL. Not THE benefit but A benefit.
There are lots of others.
If we want rail to the North Shore (where I live BTW), we first need the CRL. Then we need a rail tunnel under the harbour as the bridge probably wont be good enough as it wasnt built in a way that future proofed it for rail. That will then mean we shouldnt have to spend $5bn on a massive roading project for harbour.
Do you have any positive contributions to the transport debate, any options to put forward or is it easier to just shoot down what is being proposed by other people?
I am convinced the government is not going to pay (the majority of this) and I think a regional fuel tax is a horrible, regressive idea.
As above, i think we need to up our offer to government by commiting to raise more funds through a congestion charge & rate rises on the CBD.
But Angus, even with the lies and rumours going around, the CRL is deeply popular according to polls!
Doloras,
Its a genuinely good thing to do, the sort of thing that will always be very popular with most people as long as some other people pay for it.
Now we are arguing about who pays, it becomes difficult.
The choices are:
A – the whole country pays – but as Matt L shows the whole rest of the country is less productive than Auckland and therefore poorer. I classify this as the make-poor-people-pay and is unsurprisingly reflected in a lack of government enthusiasm.
B – make all of Auckland pay through a regional fuel tax – but as Matt L shows the rest of Auckland is poorer than the CBD. And since the government will have to impose this tax on all of Auckland they are not that keen to do the imposing. I classify this as make-mostly-poor-people-pay, though perhaps its even worse than A because fuel taxes are a regressive sort of tax.
C – make the CBD pay – but as Matt L says these people are the most productive and as a group richest people in the country. As a group there is no one less likely to reach into their own pockets than rich people. It would take a courageous left-wing mayor to make this happen – this is extremely unlikely to happen. This is the make-rich-people-pay option.
I am strongly in favour of C – make rich people pay.
Other people disagree for varying reasons.
I will say it again: Only in a country with a culture of auto dependency as deeply ingrained as this country, would someone suggest, with a straight face, that a major PT project was only for the highly paid.
The council’s current proposal for the CRL is for it to be funded 50-50 between central government and the council. This is the same split as for every other public transport project in the country, and for local roads. Auckland’s state highways, on the other hand, are 100% funded by central government.
Of the council’s part, the last business case was prepared assuming that their share would be 40%, which it was for PT projects under Labour. It proposed that half of that money come from rates across the whole city including the CBD, and half from the CBD and Newton alone. This would mean a 10-15% rates hike in the CBD, and only 1% for the rest of the city. Interesting note from the business case – the CBD pays about 6-7% of the total rates in the city already.
I certainly support the idea of “rich people paying more” for running our government and services, but the place for that is in a progessive income tax which accurately measures who’s rich and who isn’t. Saying “the CBD should pay, because they are rich”, ignores the fact that the CBD and Auckland in general are only richer on average, and there are plenty of poor people in Auckland and rich people outside it.
http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/city-rail-link/Documents/crl-business-case-report.pdf
” I certainly support the idea of “rich people paying more” for running our government and services, but the place for that is in a progessive income tax which accurately measures who’s rich and who isn’t. Saying “the CBD should pay, because they are rich”, ignores the fact that the CBD and Auckland in general are only richer on average, and there are plenty of poor people in Auckland and rich people outside it.”
I am suggesting rates on property and congestion charges in the CBD – these do not hit poor people.
Rates are charged upon property value and there isn’t any low cost land in the CBD (not a lot of poor people owning a lot of land in the CBD). Putting this infrastructure project into this neighbourhood will improve these already extremely high land values and kick them into the stratosphere. This will be a massive capital gain for some very wealthy entities and rates are the most effective way to recoup this free profit we otherwise would be donating to them. Congestion charges effect people who will choose to drive their car into the CBD in spite of there being the marvellously improved transport system that the CRL provides. These are people who are choosing to take the most expensive option and if those are poor people it is through their own choice.
Contrast that with what I’m percieving to be the preferred alternative (if the government does not pay) – a regional fuel tax. Which is regressive and non-targeted. Under the proposed plan people who utilise their car in a ways that do not cause congestion would be taxed on fuel, but not be offered much in the way of improved service.
Rates are already targeted based on ability to pay, since they are a percentage of property value. The rich have more expensive houses, and businesses pay 2.63 times more than residents. Paying for projects out of citywide rates already includes a disproportionate share from the CBD, because of higher property values, and that rating differential. So we’re already targeting the rich that way. But there really are a lot of poor people and marginal businesses in the central city. If we’re concerned about having the rich pay, they should pay wherever they are.
But whatever floats your boat. Rates, congestion charge, capital gains tax, fuel tax (or not), I’m not fussy. But I just don’t think the CBD should pay 100% of the cost of a project which benefits the whole city. Especially when in the past projects that benefit a much smaller and more specific group have been funded 50% (or more) from central government, and the rest from ratepayers across the region. Northern Busway, AMETI, and all the station upgrades, but of course all the projects in other parts of the country that Auckland has contributed to.
Paying a bit extra is fine, since it is a huge boon to the CBD. But it is good for everyone, since every trip to the CBD comes from somewhere outside it. That’s 50% of the benefit outside the CBD already, without even thinking about the higher frequencies the CRL allows across the network, and better connections for trips across the region. Anyone going between the North Shore and the isthmus, east, south, or most of the west will benefit from the CRL, even though they’re just passing through the central city.
While the CBD could probably afford to pay for 100% itself and still be ahead, it sets a pretty bad precedent. What if every city, and every part of each city, were paying for its own transport? Auckland and especially central Auckland would be doing pretty well, and the rest of the country would suffer. Not a lot of rural highway upgrades then. Careful what you wish for.
I think the CRL is the single most critical transport project in our largest and fastest-growing city. If the central government won’t pay the same 50% it pays for stuff elsewhere, we need to throw it out and replace it with a government that will.
“Rates, congestion charge, capital gains tax, fuel tax (or not), I’m not fussy.”
How about fares?
‘Cos high fares are a dumb price signal. Or rather the wrong price signal, anyway, shouldn’t you be more concerned with cost recovery level not price of fare? Lower fares may lead to lower subsidy…. Thought you user pays obsessives would be more sophisticated about pricing….
Fares are typically only used to cover operating costs for PT, not capital expenses. I’m talking about the cost to build the thing in the first place.
That said, I think there’s a place for higher fares to the CBD in peak time, which is the situation where PT is most competitive at the moment. Don’t tell Auckland Transport, but I think $3.20 round trip from Kingsland at rush hour is a pretty good deal. Higher fare income should be used to expand service though, not as an excuse to cut funding.
We need some brief case studies of how getting around will improve for people who live, work and mix in different parts of the region. Make it real.
You don’t need the CRL at all to make a northern rail line. You don’t really need it for the airport line either however it does bring about a number of benefits when both are done. The design of AMETI is based on there being a CRL. It could have easily been done without it.
Your evidence for these claims is, as ever, invisible, Richard.
Just like the evidence I was contending. Anyway you never respond when provided with evidence.
There you go again; nothing, nada, zip. Your opinion does not constitute evidence. Your interjections are so often too incoherent to even begin to engage with.
So what are you saying? You want me to produce a design report and give it to you to counter your claims that have no evidence either?
As I said before and the time before that. When I gave you a near mini report you never responded even after numerous requests. Not even with your usual insults.
I didn’t think I needed big pictures and things here as just using common sense was enough to conclude you didn’t need the CRL for the 3 projects I mentioned.
So your evidence is: ‘I said it before’
Time and time again the limitations of the current network have been pointed out, but you seem unable to understand such complexities or more likely these just fail to suit your trolly little lines so you choose to ignore them.
But here you are again: As you know both Britomart and Newmarket have a limits of around 20-24 trains per hour are are or will be completely full meeting current requirements for service at electrification [due to appallingly shortsighted design decisions] so to add any further line to the network and expect to be able to run any reasonable level of service to them to destinations with demand it would only be possible by deleting existing services. And why, as Matt asks above, would you spend hundreds of millions to reduce current services.
Especially when there is a way to double train capacity on the network while also reaching the area of highest demand; the central city, therefore also enabling further extensions of the network with good levels of service.
So whatever you said before; it’s still unconvincing. The CRL is a necessary prerequiste to extending rail to the Airport, for example, and the likely next major destination, or any other destination unless it involves building a separate system, which would be prohibitively expensive.
And yes we do need arguments and evidence here. And if you can’t be bothered with them you cannot expect to be taken seriously.
Eh common sense…always the last resort. If I had a dollar…
Snow Flake – I would be very interested to read your report. Why dont you just put up a link to it anonymously? I understand your concerns around professional duties as I have the same concerns.
That would be more constructive than alleging some terrible Illuminati conspiracy to suppress the publication of your information.
Patrick, your now saying we need the CRL for the CRL. I never disputed that and I agree the CRL is required for there to be a CRL.
Now if we go back to what I said, I said we don’t need the CRL for a Northshore line. Why, well firstly we don’t even know where such a line would go and then in addition by not having the constraint of the CRL you get all sorts of new options. In fact if you did the northern line first you would likely change the route of the CRL.
For the airport line, as we get told daily, people love to transfer and so you couldhaipply run the airport line at what ever frequency you like.
This then goes onto AMETI. This project is setup with the intention for people to transfer to a train. However if we were not planning on upgrading the train line we would likely extend it into the city as per the old ETC design.
No the CRL is the enabler for the rest, it is the high demand source and destination that drives the value in the other lines. It seems you are imaging that a rail network is like a road network; it isn’t. You cannot design its physical extent separately from its running patterns. Your airport line; where does it go? Back and forth to a station so people can change to an existing service, well that’s possible but hardly ideal. Yes we are moving to a transfer system but that doesn’t suggest that it will be made up of journeys that have no purpose except as a connection. Transferring is a way of expanding value and utility not a way of justifying suboptimal projects. Sure you could spend a similar sum building a line from say the airport to Manukau as connecting to the City through Onehunga. But this version is unlikely to win in any cost benefit comparasion. It’s all ‘possible’ but that is not the same as ‘best’.
Quite wrong Patrick, I’m not treating raille roads and I thought my comments about the Northshore line were rather evident about that.
Let me get this straight that. You seem to think it’s fine to have swarms of different bus routes transferring to trains. But dare suggest a train line that gets about 1500 people an our has a transfer its now the worst projects around. It sounds to me that you have quite a bias going on here.
Oh, also remember my first post where I said having the airport line and the CRL would have a number of additional benefits..
No Snowflake you don’t need the CRL for Shore rail and airport rail if you don’t mind 1 train per hour. Or are you contemplating halving services along the Western line, or the Southern, or the Eastern line to compensate? Some facts/evidence behind your opinion would be good.
Snow, where does your North Shore line deliver people to? How do they get from there to other places?
My preferences for a Northshore line would go through the CBD, off to the hospital and then onto the southern line.
If the CRL where to come after I would have it more to the west of the CBD, by about 1 city block.
So people would transfer onto the Southern line, or other services in the CBD?
You could take the one train all the way from Orewa to Pukekohe in such a plan. And you could take a western train all the way to Sylvia Park or something.
OK interesting – I would love to see rail to the shore. Can you show where that will go (tunnels???) and how the link will be made with Newmarket?
Will that still allow a link with Britomart or is that to be left a dead end?
What have you costed that at? Is it actually cheaper than the CRL?
The western line would have connected to britomart as I mentioned above.
I actually posted various plans for such a layout including the northshore and wrapping around to westgate back on the CBT place before I got banned.
Even if we accept that the North Shore line can go first without the CRL, why do you think it should? The CRL seems like it would be way cheaper than your proposal, and pretty comparable to any possible North Shore line. The CRL provides capacity increases for the south, east and west, which a northern extension wouldn’t do. The Shore is only 20% of the city, and it has a brand new busway, which has plenty of capacity left. It’s also likely to grow less than the rest of the city, given the strong opposition to intensification in all the desirable parts of it, and the lack of any greenfields expansion planned there once Long Bay is done. Why the Shore first?
Ok, but what you are suggesting is more or less the CRL on a different alignment, from Newmarket to Wynyard instead of Mt Eden to Britomart. So yes you certainly could build the North Shore line first, but you’d be talking about the line itself plus a harbour crossing plus a city centre underground tunnel and stations at the same time.
Nick, note what I said right at the start. You don’t need the CRL for the northshore line, that is my only point. I would have thought you would agree given your northshore line uses an incompatible rolling stock.
Yes of course it is technically true, but not politically feasible. If we can’t get two billion spent on the CRL which benefits travel in four-fifths of the region, we’ll never get three or four billion for a shore line (with harbour crossing and city tunnel) that benefits travel in one-fifth of the region.
We might see the latter after the former has proven the concept, but not the other way round.
That was meant to say 1 train per hour on every line.
Patrick you make a very cogent point, but when it comes to rates there is another angle to it … ratepayers in the North and East are being asked for two things; one is to pay massive rates increases (40% is common on the Shore) so that they carry an higher share of the rates burden than elsewhere, and they are asked to fund a central rail loop for a rail system that they will be locked out of. There’s a lack of equity there that really has not been addressed in the debate. It is indeed logical and sensible for everyone to chip in for a shared benefit, but then let’s try to ensure that the benefit is shared.
I would love for Matt’s original thesis to be true, that the CRL supports future rail to the North, but is it true? Take a look at Auckland’s 30-year Transport Strategy on the AT website and you will be horrified to find that even at the end of that long planning period there is no plan for an operating rail network on the Shore. Page 113 of the document shows a proposed 30 years of public transport neglect on the Shore, which will lead to heaven knows how much motorway congestion. If that is to be the end result of 30 years of work then we need a new plan. I expected a decent rail network on the Shore by then, with some arterial routes completed much sooner. The same for the East.
That is the context for much of the opposition to the CRL – unfair rates increases combined with neglect by planners who can’t see beyond the centre. Matt’s case for the CRL is strong in my view, but while Auckland Council shows such disregard for public transport on the Shore it is hard to expect residents there to be supportive.
I live in Grey Lynn and my rates also went up a great deal, you know why, because my property has become a whole lot more valuable. I’m sorry but one project, and especially not this one has absolutely nothing to do with your or my rates going up. Why is it that Shore people complain the loudest when anything is planned that isn’t just for them? Is it because it still feels separate from the rest of Auckland? Certainly George Wood still campaigns as if it is a separarte place, like he hasn’t quite got with the programme of a unified city.
Also you are mistaken about rail to the Shore, it is there in the top three projects but its just that it’s buried as part of the massive roadfest that is the Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing. Our view is that this project should proceed just without the eyewateringly expensive and placeruining road lanes. But I understand why you missed it because it is very much like an afterthought on that project.
Very unfair to say that anyone shows disregard for transport on the Shore: you’ve got the only new RTN system for over 60 years in the Northern Busway, a new ferry service just this year, and the bridge, Alpurt… I could go on. Just a little bit me, me, me on the Shore. One project can’t be everywhere and although the CRL is under the city its effects reach about as far as any other could. I will be working just as hard forail to the Shore as I do for the CRL, because it will be the right thing for the whole of greater Auckland, and as I am for Skypath, the next project to help bring our communities together.
The North Shore had a busway at the rate and taxpayer’s expense, and the upgrade and extension of this is planned and on the near term horizon. Once the extension to Albany is in place together with works on the city side we’re talking about a $750m piece of kit. So the CRL costs about two billion plus another billion or so on other upgrades and vehicles to date, but it does for the four rail served parts of the region what the busway has done for the North Shore only. That’s about an even spend on the rapid transit system by my estimate. Do note that about one-fifth of Aucklanders live north of the harbour, and four-fifths live south.
If you want to be equitable, the North Shore should get a touch less than 20% of regional transport funding.
It’s probably worthwhile to note that a rail line to the North Shore would cost more than the CRL and all the existing rail upgrades combined. You can’t prioritise one mega expensive project to benefit one line over a merely super-expensive project that benefits four.
Forget about being locked out from the rail network, the busway will connect to the four rail lines just as easily as the four connect to each other.
The rates increases are due to the central government. Auckland Council is required by law to have rates be the same rate across the region (except, I think, Franklin?). It doesn’t mean that the North Shore is having to pay more than other parts of the city, it just means it will no longer be paying less.
How many extra movements would be needed on the Southern line in that model?
Naturally that was a reply to Snow above http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2013/05/06/how-does-crl-benefit-each-part-of-auckland/#comment-67499
Patrick I’m with you 100%. Please note I however do live on the Shore – Beach haven – and now work on the Shore – Milford. Yet I can actually comprehend/visualise how the CRL will benefit me. The primary benefit to me will come by having more transport modes to choose from when travelling outside my fiefdom! Yet I also see the economic/ecological/socialogical/urban benefits and am excited by these. See unlike the Anti crowd I have visited untold first world cities and this has had a profound impact on me.
So, does the CRL improve freight rail movements?
Nope, it’s passenger rail only. It’s a proper Metro like The Tube or The Subway: You can carry a parcel if you like….
So does it make freight movements any worse? with such an increase in passenger movements?
It probably would cause problems for freight movements, but CRL or no CRL, KiwiRail is building a third track on the Eastern Line, which will be freight only and should make up for it.
Yes, although that problem will be reached with electrification before the CRL could be built. There is a project underway to plan and build a third main to separate freight and passenger services.
I can understand those that complain the project will not benefit them in any way. They never travel outside of the area they live. They never travel to the cbd and would never have any need to use the crl if it was built. Apparently there are some people who lead such an isolated life.
Then again there are also those people that would complain about a project but then happily use it without a moments thought when it is built. We have a few too many of these people in our country.
More needs to be made of the productivity aspects of agglomeration. It would be nice to see government ministers squirm when asked about the lack of agglomeration within the Auckland CBD causing New Zealand’s economic performance to fall behind its trading partners in the knowledge industries. A new report from the Gratton Institute in Australia looks closely at the productivity aspects of agglomeration. It says “…encouraging high-skilled firms to locate outside a major agglomeration hub is likely to fail. CBDs in particular will therefore have an even more important role in future.”
http://grattan.edu.au/publications/reports/post/productive-cities-opportunity-in-a-changing-economy/
All major Australian cities currently have high-capacity rail systems and there are major capacity enhancements planned by Conservative State governments, but our likely next Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, doesn’t “get it” and says he will only support road projects with Commonwealth funds.
Absolutely. Writing a dissertation on the topic as we speak – thanks for that link!
“So, does the CRL improve freight rail movements?”
What is the point that you are making? Our manufacturing industry is and has been in substantial decline for years and our heavy industry that requires rail transport is leading that decline. Furthermore, no substantial industry is based in the cbd or close environs that is likely to require the CRL.
And when the CRL is joined by rail from the North Shore? Well there isn’t any heavy industry here either. If you doubt this, spend a couple of hours standing on the Akoranga overbridge and count the containers passing. You won’t need anything more than your fingers to count them.
And that’s why it makes sense when rail comes to the Shore that it is light metro because it is what will be required. It will result in considerable cost saving over heavy rail and will give many other benefits.
I’m just asking a simple question. Is freight adversely affected by the CRL? I wasn’t looking for excuses as to why (if it is affected) it’s OK.
The two parts of Auckland with some of the cheapest real estate and lower decile areas are in is the south and west (west being almost $250k less than the north shore avg). And if these areas are not given decent access rights to the riches of the central cbd and it’s jobs, schools, shopping, entertainment and culture. Then the gap between rich and poor in Auckland will continue to grow and the socioeconomic issues associated with that will affect the whole region it is not ok. Their are some great little suburbs along the western line that are under performing in terms of what they could offer in the way of housing and amenities. The CRL and fast trains will unlock these parts of Auckland so they can reach their full potential. Sunnyvale to Britomart in less than 30 minutes. It’s not a nice to have. It’s necessary. If not the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The south and west deserve quick access to the region. Get on with it already Auckland Council and Gov. The project will inevitably take longer than planned.. Lets get started. Plus building it will create skilled jobs.