Earlier this year, Auckland Transport formally launched the process to obtain designation for the City Rail Link. Submissions closed back in March and those that submitted will know that commissioners have been appointed and the hearings for the notice of requirement (NOR) will be held in August. All up there were 258 submissions on the NOR and I have been keen to find out what was submitted. Last night, the council released the report that has been prepared for the commissioners that examines the various NOR documents as well as the issues raised by submissions and it gives a glimpse of where the key points of contention will be.
The report starts off explaining about the project, how it is proposed to be constructed and how it fits in with some of the existing plans. The report then goes on to note the principal issues that have been raised are.
The following principal matters raised by submitters are relevant across the geographic span of the CRL project:
- Impact on Built Heritage
- Impacts on the traffic network, both during construction and once the CRL is operational
- Pedestrian and vehicular access to property
- Noise effects, both during construction and once the CRL is operational
- Vibration / settlement effects associated with cut-and-cover and tunnel boring excavation methodologies
- Effects on property rights
- Social impact of displacement
- The proposed 20-year lapse date
Importantly it also notes that issues around funding and economic risk are out of scope for this process.
However, these factors need to be distinguished from decisions on the cost and economic viability or profitability of the CRL. In terms of the RMA, case law has confirmed that:
- Decisions on project funding and viability are business decisions, which the decision maker should not be drawn into making or second guessing.
- The cost, economic risk and profitability of a project are business / policy decisions for the promoter or developer of a project, and should not be challenged.
A key requirement of the RMA is that alternatives sites, routes and methods of undertaking the work be considered if certain conditions are met (which the CRL project does). The report then goes on to list some of the numerous studies that have been done on the project since 2004 before getting to the specific objections to the assessment of alternatives. Of these objections I found the one from the NZCID the most interesting as they have been suggesting for some time a route similar to what I discussed in this post. In the end though the authors of this report state that current case law indicates that AT only needs to show that they have assessed alternatives routes that meet the specified aim, which in this case is a rail line from Britomart to Mt Eden. In fact of all of the submissions that related to alternatives, only that by Precinct Properties which relates to the use of the Downtown Shopping Centre for a construction site is considered to need to be addressed.
The report then goes on to address the various issues mentioned above as well as others. Unsurprisingly construction noise seemed to raise the most concern from submitters with 46 submissions specifically commenting on it. I’m not going to summarise the rest of the issues and responses as much of it is highly technical (and would take a long time to read through) so after briefly skimming through them, I went to the end to see the issues that the authors say that AT still need to address before consent be granted. They are:
While I’m no expert, these issues don’t seem too catastrophic. Perhaps some of you planning experts can share some of your thoughts. While this report gives a glimpse at the issues, I’m very keen to see the summary of each submission which I imagine will show up some interesting views, particularly which submitters have explicitly stated either support of opposition to the project.
Processing...
Nice to see progress. Wonder when we will see the more detailed designs for the stations.
Good to have this report before my meeting on the 18th of June with AT about my submission. It was about adding an entrance around Darby St the idea was prompted by a post on this blog (Can’t remember exactly when).
Out of interest does anyone have a question they want asked?
Sure. It’s my understanding that Britomart reached capacity well before it was expected to. Are the plans for the CRL designed to cope with a greater than anticipated volume of passengers?
Yep.
Could you please ask why “permanent closure of Beresford Street” is even being considered?
Doesn’t NEED to happen, and if they knock it off the list there’s one thing sorted already!
Geoff closed to traffic that is; you don’t want a nice leafy square, station entrance, and no cars blasting through? Really, this is an important short cut for you or something?
Thanks PR- that explains it better. A leafy square at the top round the Supper Club (?) would be excellent, I was only wondering about the downhill end..
Supper club goes as that’s where the station will be. The lower end of the upper stump of this motorway severed boulevard will still be open to traffic to serve all the buildings there, but should become a little less frantic without the through running… it’ll be lovely up at the square especially if the planes trees now there survive the construction process. Best hopes for fantastic station building design.
+ 1 breaux!
Interested to see that they proposing a 5-6 year build. But that the 2100m bored section would be cut at 70m/week or done in 30 weeks if two TBM are used at once, or twice that if they do one at a time…. very exciting, totally realistic to have this fantastic asset in operation by 2020!
And at such low impact; almost the entire document is about temporary disruptions during the construction phase, for the life of this asset it will go on service the wider city seamlessly. And remember the Underground in London is still using tunnels built in the 1860s…. so a little short term pain for a hugely valuable and long lasting gain.
Wellington needs a CRL too (and an airport link)! It is so limiting that the entire rail network simply stops dead at the present railhead, forcing 15,000 people a day out into the street at that point, regardless of their actual destination. In fact most people whose city-destinations lie more than about 1 – 1.5Km from rail tend not to use it at all.
I often hear it argued that the Wellington region does not have the population to justify this. But apparently it does have the population to justify a $2.4 billion Levin-Airport MoNS (Motorway of National Significance), which duplicates a largely-adequate existing road. Currently you can drive all the way from Levin to Wellington Airport with little hindrance. You do not have to leave your vehicle somewhere in Thorndon and continue on foot or by bus, the way rail passengers have to. The MoNS will speed your car journey by a few minutes, while rail users will still have to get out and walk. Or go by car instead.
Why is this MoNS(ter) such a priority for a little town like Wellington, while a rail-extension is not even on the radar?
Same deal with the ‘holiday highway’ north of Auckland. What’s the rationale behind building massive motorways (at the expense of badly overdue PT projects) on roads that are adequate for the vast majority of the year?
Would be interesting to find out more about Downtown Mall no longer being required. I wonder if they have reached a short term lease agreement, maybe this section can be built quickly first (soon maybe!) so Precinct can get their site back to build a tower.
I really hope that they build something amazing there. It id the gateway top the entire harbour for tourists, next to the ferry building and britomart and has to be the ugliest building ever.