One gets the feeling that the government’s announcement today that they’ll fund half of the City Rail Link project (although construction only from 2020 onwards) occurred because opposing the project was no longer tenable: either in a practical sense (the weight of evidence produced by Council and Auckland Transport over the last couple of years) and a political sense – probably through polling but also the political pressure from Auckland business associations.
The fact that Friday’s announcement will be in front of the Chamber of Commerce suggests that groups like the Chamber and the Employers and Manufacturers Association have been pretty critical in pushing for government to have a change of heart towards the project. The government’s position in relation to Auckland’s transport issues of “gnah gnah gnah we’re not listening” really hasn’t gone down well with these key stakeholders – people who are pretty important to the government.
While some are still quibbling over the sincerity of today’s announcement, berating the 2020 start date or wondering what hooks are attached, presumably we’ll find out more about the hooks issue on Friday, this is a huge step forward for the City Rail Link – basically taking it from an “if” project to a “when” project. Furthermore, I suspect that pushing government to a nearer date to start construction by a few years is a pretty small step compared to the giant leap of “after 2030 if ever” position that was spelled out in Gerry Brownlee’s initial response to the City Centre Future Access Study last year.
So some quick thoughts about winners and losers from today’s announcement:
Winners:
- Len Brown seems like the biggest winner here. After taking a lot of stick from people like Cameron Brewer over the past few years in relation to his ‘inability’ to convince central government over the merits of the project, this shows that Len’s optimism about being able to eventually convince government was not misplaced. Pretty much confirms that he’ll win the mayoral election later this year.
- The project itself and advocates for it. While it would have been nice for government to say what they did today in December last year when CCFAS was released, this still is an important milestone in making the CRL a reality. This means that there’s broad support for the project both at a local and national level and means that it almost certainly will happen at some point.
- The government is also a winner from today’s announcement. People often hassle “u-turns”, “backtracks” or “flip-flops” but I think they’re a critical part of the democratic process. Today shows that weight of evidence plus really good political lobbying over a sustained period of time really can shift mountains in terms of changing attitudes.
Losers:
- The biggest losers from today are clearly the anti-CRL councillors on the Auckland Council. People like Cameron Brewer, George Wood and Dick Quax now look extremely isolated and out of touch. Cameron Brewer’s press release this afternoon is just a few hundred words of exasperated splutter – one wonders how long these councillors can retain their opposition to CRL now. This also means that CRL is unlikely to be a political football during the Council election later this year, which is great for its long term prospects.
- Potentially the opposition parties of Labour & the Greens are losers out of this as CRL is no longer a political football for them to hammer the government over. I think that timing will still be a point of difference between them and the government, as well as other details which may emerge on Friday in relation to how the government plans to fund the project.
In a rather strange way, given the Heart of the City said they oppose the CRL’s notice of requirement, I’ll actually give the final word of the day to the HoTC Chief Executive Alex Swney:
“Today’s announcement by the government to support the Auckland City rail loop is a red letter day for Auckland. The fact is that here in Auckland we cannot simply tarmac our way out of congestion.
Big applause must go to mayor Len Brown. Many doubted he could deliver on this project but here he is turning the government around and bringing them back to the table within his first term. While it might not be a case of the mountain coming to Mohammed, it has at least come as far as the Bombays.
Congestion is the number one concern for Aucklanders and one of the largest costs to doing business in the city. The Central Rail Loop is a significant game-changer that will open up the city other than by road.
We are a city of some 1.5m people, the same size as London was when it began its underground 150 years ago. That was a visionary decision and it established the city as a major international destination. Building the Central Rail Loop is at least as significant to Auckland as building the harbour Bridge was some 50 years ago.
This development will be transformational not just for Auckland but all new Zealand should welcome it. We all need to play a role in making Auckland a more efficient contributor to the New Zealand economy. This announcement acknowledges that.”
A bit of celebration is in order I think.
Processing...
Yep. I know what all the naysayers are saying – Slippery John Key can’t be trusted, this delay is unsupported, they want to use it to force Auckland Council to sell assets, etc, etc – but can’t we have a little bit of celebration, just for a few days, just for a change? In the words of Len Brown: “YEEHAA”.
Already got the Gin out Doloras knocking back a few at this news that stopped the city. Lets just saviour the moment then work on the next steps in bring the CRL into fruition
Nah thanks, gin makes me depressed. 🙂 But yeah – as one lady said on 3 News tonight, it’s not enough to properly fix Auckland transport. We need good-quality affordable high-density housing around transport nodes, more shared spaces, cycle lanes, etc etc etc… on top of the current plan for a New PT Network.
Interesting thing about it was that during the PM’s interview on Radio LIVE, he mentioned something about maybe more announcements made on Friday regarding Auckland transport… I don’t know if I was imagining it but it sounded like the CRL might not be the only thing that the Government is looking at…
And with the Anti-CRL guys, I always found how silly they sounded when making their arguments, and Brewer in particular sounded like he was doubtful about even his own opinions when being interviewed about it on Radio LIVE!
But for me? I’m going to celebrate like Marcus Lush is!
‘First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win’
-Mahatma Gandhi
Drinks on Friday Patrick?
Gotta be on location all day/evening I’m sorry; I know I give the impression that all I do is hang around here but there is the small matter of the day job to keep going….
Len is the new Gandhi 🙂
I really am pleased about this. I reckon with some pushing Len can get the start date to come earlier too. Lots of credit to Len and Key. This blog could take some too. When I started to read it 5 years ago the CRL was basically a dream project that was barely on anyone’s radar. Now its major news.
As to the political benefactors, you saw John Campbell ask Len Brown about selling assets to pay Auckland’s share of the CRL and he said “not on my watch”. That’ll be the next issue to be fought for. You can expect the clown Brewer (and that other clown Thornton) to be yelling SELL SELL SELL.
Great post. Well done to you and your team too. Your tenacity in the face of the naysayers is exemplary. Keep up the good work on our behalf. Thanks.
thanks Ploddy!
You guys at the Auckland Transport Blog also deserve a lot of credit. You have helped progress the debate and organise the thinking of a wide range of advocates and officials to collectively build a case too strong to deny. Well done
Seconded, in a big way. Where do we sen flowers / beer / money?
Matt L
Such a win. Instead of actually being able to convince those that benefit to pay for it
Those that benefit are paying. Aucklanders who get more transport choice will be paying for half of it while the nation which benefits from an improved Auckland Economy through the likes of a greater tax take are paying the other half.
Clearly it isn’t as simple as Aucklanders = those who will benefit.
Realistically Auckland will pay a big chunk of the “other half” too. Remember we pay a lot of fuel tax, income tax & GST.
Yes; a half + a third of the other half = two thirds of the total.
Why doesn’t Wellington should stump up with 2/3 of the Holiday Highway? Or I guess pro-rata. a half + a tiny amount for the number of people there…..
Yes well done to the Transport Blog!!!!
However for those of us on the inner North Shore the fight has only just begun and that is to ensure that we don’t get a second harbour crossing spewing vehicles onto our back doorstep!!! However if that second crossing was to deliver a brand new light metro -well that’s a different story.
It’s interesting that Len Brown said that his meetings were with John Key and Steven Joyce. The real power brokers in the National Party.
The real power brokers in the “centrist/liberal” faction of the National Party, as opposed to Crusher Collins and her reactionary crew.
My favourite moment from the TV3 piece on the CRL: Marcus Lush describing Key, Joyce and Brownlee as “The Colossus of Roads”.
There is nothing to celebrate at this stage. If the Nats win the 2014 election, they will wait out Len’s second term and in 2016, get a blue patsy into the seat, then reneg on any CRL promise they ever made. Only if Labour / Greens win in 2014 can we safely celebrate that the CRL will go ahead…with construction starting realistically in 2017.
It will be interesting in an ominous way as to what other details are released on Friday. It reminds me of the housing accord announcement and how the Government used it as an opportunity to take over land zoning from all Councils in NZ under the pretence of affordable housing.
I am still waiting for the details on how the CRL will double the peak frequency of the southern line.
I’m celebrating. I bought property close the western line last year.
Yeehaa. Thank you taxpayers
“I think that timing will still be a point of difference between them and the government”
I think any difference in timing is likely to be minor. If Labour does return to power, they won’t be able to enact any faster schedule until 2015 anyway. Given that a lead time of 3-4 years is required for major tunnel projects to get started, that would mean tunnel boring starts around 2018-2019, although with preliminary work likely from 2016. Waterview was 4 years from go-ahead to the tunnel machine commencing work.
So perhaps 2018 under Labour or 2020 under National. We may yet see a bit of negotiation over the start time, somewhere between the council’s unrealistic 2015 and the government’s 2020.
I wonder what the other infrastructure projects to be announced on Friday will be? Eastern highway anyone? Or perhaps the Onehunga truck expressway?
Eastern Highway should never, ever hapen.
umm no Geoff. Construction timeline here clearly shows 2015 start to construction. That will be delayed till 2020.
We have had 5 years of lead time, and we have 2 more.
http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/city-rail-link/Pages/crl-project-delivery-and-construction.aspx
Highly unlikely, given the preparation time for major tunnel projects is generally 3-4 years. You have to tender, design and build a TBM to start with, and that’s a process of several years. If Labour were to return to power in January 2015, and speed up the timeframe ahead of 2020, I don’t see the tunnelling beginning much before 2018.
Waterview was approved in 2009, but tunnelling didn’t begin until very recently, in 2013. It took that long to tender, design and build the TBM.
The tunneling itself is quite quick, I think under a year.
The cut and cover and station construction take much longer with more complex mining procedures required.
Also the AT link shows tendering and design is to take place over next 2 years.
At the CRL open day was very impressed by level of detail engineers had about construction methods, they are not starting from scratch this year.
I think the timeline will to be accurate reflect that level of investigation.
Madrid did 75km of tunnels 1999 to 2003. This article has some interesting reflections on speed:
http://tunnelbuilder.com/metrosur/edition2pdf/page2.pdf
including “any lineal project, such as a Metro, can be designed and built in 40 to 45 months, provided funds are available.”
Interesting reflections on types of contracts and project management too….
Yes, I reckon it will be the south-eastern trucking motorway with the backing of business organisations.
I wonder who will act as client? I think it should be NZTA as they have the experience to do this.
good question. Do you think a joint AC/AT/NZTA working group would be the way to go? Pool the strategic nous and construction knowledge perhaps?
Five streams of consciousness from me:
1. Len Brown will now roll home in LG elections; while Cameron Brewer, Dick Quax, and George Wood will be left flapping like fish out of water
2. Smart politics from National re: 2014 general election; they’ve finally realised that the CRL was an Auckland beltway issue
3. Timing and hooks will be the big issues; when and what do we have to give up to make this happen?
4. Steven Joyce is another loser from this. He backed the RoNS – and they were not enough
5. $2 billion to deliver metro rail frequencies across Auckland including the whole of the city centre = Absolute bargain.
It may be a lot of things but a bargain it isn’t. We are talking $20 a passenger subsidies in perpetuity. Noone has ever addressed that fact. This is populism. Better than say fighter jets though I suppose, if that’s the sort of thing you are comparing it to.
$20/ passenger for a modest estimate 20,000,000 extra passengers over 50 years is $20,000,000,000 dollars. This project costs less than 15% of that. Surely running costs on even our current network aren’t $17 a passenger?
the recent subsidies have been very high as they represent expensive modes of operation, old diesel trains and cumbersome ticket collection system with high staff costs.
Both those are being slashed over next few years.
Most importantly the costs are not per passenger, getting much higher patronage will result in costs being slashed as they are fixed costs.
City Rail Link will lead to minimal cost increases. Frequency increase will be at peak times, with full trains and thus minimal subsidy.
Off peak services will stay at same frequency but with much higher patronage, so again opex comes down.
Sailor boy. At say 7% cost of capital and 7% depreciation, you get ~$300m a year so $15 per passenger if you can attribute 20m a year directly to the CRL. Which I presume would mean about 40m to 50m total (with now new lines, higher if we build new lines requiring their own patronage boost). I can’t see us getting to that figure for several years at least in which case the costs mount higher still. And that is just capital costs. Operating costs will push us easily to $20 a head. But anyway, it seems everyone is cool with that, for some reason. Lets hope they announce road pricing on Friday. I have my doubts.
Both those 7% levels are too high, for starters.
Are they John? The average coupon rate for Auckland councils debt is over 6%, and that is main debt issued post GFC with historically low interest rates, so I think 7% is reasonable. Perhaps the depreciation rate should be closer to 4 or 5 percent
Once you take account of the fact that the 20m passengers wont appear over night but, by councils own projections will take 20 or 30 years to arrive (remembering that we also need to get the patronage boost from DART/electric trains/electrification before we can start counting a CRL patronage boost), and you start having to capitalise interest costs in the meantime.
I have done a pack of fag packet calc:
2b capital cost (low?)
Interest = 7%
Depreciation = 4%
3m immediate passenger boost then 1m per year up to 20m then constant 20m
50 year time horizon with constant cost/pax
=$15.50 cost/pax capital costs.
If we take out all of the bloat that Gerry and Steven put into the project – the extra trains, the double-tracking to Onehunga – it’s more like $1.8b. So $2b is about right, if not a little high.
7% interest? On sovereign debt? Where the government is contributing half of a very large number, it makes much more sense for the debt to be on the Crown’s books so that the cost is kept down. More like 5.5%.
You clearly pulled the depreciation figure out of a fundamental orifice, because the IRD gives tunnels a 100 year useful life which equates to a depreciation rate of 1.5%-2.4% depending on the method used for calculation. That also throws out everything else about your bollocks figures. Face it, you just don’t have a clue how much this is going to cost in subsidies, but you’re grasping desperately at ways to make it look bad through your lolbertarian lens because you know that full road pricing is never going to happen and, thus, public transport must be discredited by ignoring the massive invisible subsidies applied to road transport.
Matt it wasn’t Gerry or Steven who added the extra stuff in, that was AT and their predecessors.
Matt,
The government is contributing half so yes fair enough half should be calculated on sovereign debt. The other half is council debt so my number is appropriate for that and government bond rates were at 6-7% last decade so it is not an unreasonable number
Regarding the other costs – well we will need those things to meet our patronage projections right? So we either low the proportion of patronage increases attributable to the CRL, or we increase the relevant capital costs. Personally I am in favour of looking at the total capital over the whole system and total patronage.
Depreciation rates for infrastructure vary but 4%-5% is typical. The tunnel may have a hundred year useful life, or more, with maintenance. It may not. You wont get 100 years without spending money on it. What about the M&E etc etc? Clearly the depreciation rate effects the results. So do the patronage projections. So do assumptions around spend vs opening date which I haven’t taken into account but which will significantly affect the results on the upside. So do assumptions around when we can say that the capital spend on electrification/dart etc is wiping its own nose so we dont need to account for that again which would increase the numbers.
I think overall for a back of the fag packet my numbers were reasonable. But in any case lets just accept the uncertainty and say $10-$20 capital cost subsidy (not including operational costs). Are you happy with that? Is everyone happy with that? This is the reality I am just surprised everyone is so comfortable with this level of subsidy.
I dont want to make it look bad. I would love for it to make sense. But it doesnt. Road pricing has nothing to do with it. In my world two wrongs dont make a right.
I dont know why you think I am a libertarian??
Swan feel free to describe yourself with whatever label you prefer but your comments here consistently mark you as one of those that only sees one side of the ledger. Focused only on the cost of everything and never understanding nor conceding the value of anything.
This is a distortion common in libertarian circles as they have an anathema of any capital expenditure by society, preferring as they do the fantasy that it doesn’t, or shouldn’t exist.
@Swan, the 20,000,000 a year increase is averaged for the 50 years.
The I don’t see how depreciation is relevant? Either we say that we have an asset worth 2.8b that depreciates, or we say that we have an asset worth nothing that doesn’t depreciate, So if we pay 2.8 billion it either costs us 1.4b for 50 years in depreciation, or costs us 2.8 in build costs but not both?
Also, if you include depreciation and capital for the whole network then the old tracks are so old that they don’t depreciate, and the rider ship average is 30m pax/a, not 20m pax/a
Sailor boy that is a bit optimistic. Remember by the time the CRL kicks in we already have circa $2b of investment needing its own 20-30m passengers. And the NPV of trips in 2050 isnt the same as in 2020, so you cant just average. The depreciation matters, but the cost of capital matters even more.
I assumed you guys were simply happy with this level of subsidy, but you are telling me you haven’t actually done the maths?
No Swan, I just completely disagree with your financial analysis.
Also, lets call it an investment, not a subsidy, we are all grown ups here.
What you are disagreeing that its a subsidy. That is frankly outrageous. I would hope everyone who supports it, supports it fully conscious of the level of subsidy. However it appears people want to deliberately deny the existence of the subsidy in some weird act of doublethink.
Well Swan:
1. You claim a quantum of subsidy that doesn’t exist and yes
2. I am happy with a susbsidy, they aren’t a priori bad things, even our own dear old NZTA admits of an economic value of every peak rail trip in Auckland of something like $17.43 to road users. So yes of course there is value in subsidises for some things in society for the general good. I also understand in the advantages of operating subsidised services as efficiently as possible, so even more benefit accrues.
But then I don’t suffer from any kind of religion that can’t cope with the idea of society.
Yes Swan like many people I see primary education as a government investment, I see paying an operating cost to run rail as an equally sensible investment, the government pays for it, it leads to economic growth, and the value is repaid in increased taxation which is lacking from your fiscal projections.
Swan your math is bogus; $20 dollar subsidies per passenger for ever? How on earth can you claim this?
1. with new system opex will be lower, no more expensive, inefficient, overmanned diesels
2. pax numbers will rise ahead of additional opex = cost per passenger and per pax/km fall. How much is unknown, but from the current low base it can’t be insubstantial.
3. In terms of Capex it needs to be amortised over a very long period; In London they are still running trains through Victorian tunnels on Victorian track >150 years.
Then of course we have the usual problem that you libertarians only look at the financial yet ignore the economic costs and benefits when it suits. Economic benefits of people travelling within AK but not cluttering up the roads are clearly useful, as well as a movement system that enhances land value instead of degrading it.
So by any measure, but especially compared to urban motorways, auto-dependancy, with all their hidden costs and uncalculated dis-benefits, The CRL, as the key to unlocking the existing underused network, is indeed a huge bargain.
Patrick even completely ignoring depreciation/amortization it is over $10 a trip on interest alone. And yes that is forever as the line will never even cover operating costs.
P.s. I’m onto my second bottle already
Once the detail is flushed out, I’ll be interested to see the rush to buy/plan for developments around the proposed stations, including plans by AC.
Should be an exciting surge of activity above ground, as well as below it.
very good point – having certainty over the project brings immense value to the private sector as well.
not for property owners who will have their building demolition delayed till 2020. Council may still have to build the first section so Precinct can redevelop the downtown shopping centre.
That will hardly be difficult though. If the company are rebuilding on the site then all they have to do is dig a little deeper when they relay foundations and lay a concrete tunnel stub under the mall and the very start of Albert Street, with AT paying the difference which will be ‘minimal’.
>A bit of celebration is in order I think.
Understatement, big time! I was punching the air a few minutes ago when I heard on the news. A pat on your own backs too. This blog has played its part.
Will be interested next year for sure. Double edged sword for Labour and Greens.
They have certainly lost a big point of difference with National.
On the other hand all the critics will have been silenced by this announcement so no one to rubbish the CRL.
Unfortunately EMU’s a year too late for them to start providing an electric boost to patronage.
However opposition can still easily say that Auckland congested now, why make us wait 10 years, and hard for National to argue against this if the opposition can still get traction.
Meanwhile, over on Kiwiblog, there’s some wrist-slitting going on…..and check out the spin by the site’s creator.
The guy screaming that it’s Point 8 of the Communist Takeover Plan is particularly funny.
You have to love the commentators on Kiwiblog. If they detect a hint of perceived socialism they throw a huge tanty. It must be galling to them that almost all of the financial powerhouse cities rely heavily on public transport.
Very, very disappointed to hear the Greens in a brief clip on this evening’s news describe it as a loop. I despair, really I do.
False and inaccurate terminology only serves to perpetuate the deep level of ignorance among the general public over what the link will actually accomplish, as was indicated by the handful of sadly uninformed vox pops which followed the article.
>They have certainly lost a big point of difference with National.
They can say they’ll do it sooner, though. And any time the government is backing down over stuff that the Opposition advocates, it’s good for the Opposition. Nah, this is a win for Labour and the Greens, and mostly for Len Brown.
The announcement will say it;s going to be run by a PPP or something like that.
And I will riot. 1 man riot if need be.
Well, you can try, but it’s not officially a riot until you’ve got 6 people: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328561.html
I’m sure we can get at least 6… or maybe limit each group to 5 to avoid imprisonment?
That just makes one man riot even more appealing steve haha.
Great news for everyone. Really enjoy reading these posts from abroad. Looking forward to getting home and seeing the ball rolling. Keep up the good work.
Interesting Key mentions NZTA as being the prime mover to changing the government direction. Watching the Campbell live piece was amazing, they nailed it on the head. Very well done to you all at the blog, its been cool, calm and positively precise over the past few years with this and others topics. Lets get the airport done next and have a one seat ride across the city.
I think that we need to come up with some simple soundbytes to help sell the project to those who don’t get it yet. I don’t necessarily think that the loop vs link thing matters so much (as in: so it links Britomart and Kingsland, big deal. Why not use trams or buses instead to do that?) How about:
‘The CRL will allow more trains to run; at present, the network is congested.’
‘The CRL will allow the construction of lines to the Airport and the North Shore.’
‘The CRL will reduce journey times to Britomart for travellers from West Auckland.’
‘The CRL will enable rail patronage to continue to grow.’
Any more?
Like this from a vox pop on National Radio this morning..
The CRL makes Auckland “a well oiled city without us having to put oil in our cars”.
Who doesnt want more public transport but can Auckland really afford all this money just to get the shortest tube line in history? As a rate payer (I appreciate many of those applauding this are not) I do not look forward to putting my hand in my pocket again for something I will probably never use 🙁
Perhaps NZ need to let everyone pay for these things and replace rates with a Poll Tax 😀 Lets see how many people would still be for big spends then.
Phil, you don’t have to actually use the CRL yourself by getting on a train to benefit from it. In particular if you drive regularly into or through Auckland your benefits are obvious and very significant. Plus of course there are wider economic benefits to practically all Aucklanders and NZers.. supporters, naysayers, capitalists and socialists alike.
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/city-rail-link/crl-benefits/
Well if you never use it that will be a conscious choice by you. I can assure you that once it is built it will be so useful and convenient that you would be crazy not to use it.
A good metro rail service is a wonderful thing and completely changes cities – in that it actually makes them cities not just collections of villages. Change is always scary for older people – I am sure there were lots of people against the Harbour Bridge as well.
I pay rent to a landlord who in turn pays rates. The rates he pays are passed on to me through the rent.
We pay rates in every single item we buy from anyone with land rented or owned in Auckland.
Sure Phil, you won’t use it, I will never use the free school lunches to decile 4 and lower schools, we will still both benefit from both because of the economic gain, and the CRL taking cars off of the road, making driving easier.
The “tube line” under the Perth CBD is shorter.
Will the additional CRL trains be added to the current order, so as to get a better price?
Council should proceed with planning and design of the CRL at pace, with intent to construct ASAP. If construction can start sooner than 2020, request money earlier from the state and borrow if necessary.
An earlier start could be made on Aotea station and the cut & cover tunnel back to Britomart. NZ has the construction equipment necessary. Potentially it could be open 2 years prior to the rest of the tunnel, as it may take 2 years to buy & build the TBM(s).
Council needs to sell the benefits of congestion charging to motorists and PT
Just one question; why can’t the council start his project at the original start date of 2015/16 and begin enabling work and possibly building the stations and then have the government money kick in for the tunneling itself in 2020?
At least with this situation the council can spread the cost out over a longer time frame making it easier for them to fund it?
Arguably this is correct. There will be significant critical path enabling works before the tunneling starts. Being able to do this over a period of time will potentially enable economies. The problem is you then have to lock in the design at an early stage presumably before you have awarded the main contract which will prevent any significant contractor initiated innovation.
The thing is, you don’t want to spend tens of millions on stations (or other facilities) years before they’re going to be used… you’ve got to factor in extra costs of capital (interest you have to pay, or other projects you could have done). It’s all good for the Council to keep doing analysis, property purchases etc – those are a drop in the bucket in terms of the total project cost – but to start doing construction work, you’ve got to have certainty around the timeframe, and you don’t want to build parts too far in advance.
With that said, I’d support anything that will bring forward the completion of the overall project.
I am not saying its not a project without merit. I just question if we can afford it and should this project have priority over many others that would bring better long term benefits. A rail tunnel under the Harbour strikes me as more sensible than a rail to the Casino and Kroad. We do after all, already have a rail to Eden Park.
Suggest you have more of a look around the blog Phil… can’t really do rail to the Shore unless the CRL is done.
Phil,
Where do think a tunnel under the harbour (at twice the price of the CRL I add) will end up?
At the casino of course as an “End” not through station (its called Aotea Station) – or worse – somewhere totally out of the CBD in a location near Gaunt Street in Westhaven.
So you’d rather as a ratepayer approve a spend of $5B to create another dead-end Britomart-type station that well over 2/3rds of Auckland can’t easily benefit from.
Instead of spending half that amount to unleash at last the full potential of the entire Transport system in Auckland that *everyone* in Auckland whether they personally even know what a train looks like or use it?
Building train stations away from the CBD doesn’t work – we tried that some 80 years ago when the Auckland train station was moved to Beach Road and it took 70+ years to undo that mistake and bring it back to the people in the CBD as Britomart.
Rail under the Harbour was estimated at 1.4b wasn’t it?
Not that that is anything like a reason to not do this.
I agree Phil – are there better ways to do this in terms of bang for buck?
I’m pro anything that isn’t more tarmac for Aukulofa.
But I’m mindful that we could re-instate the ENTIRE central Auckland light rail system (approx. 67 kms) for the price of the CRL.
In which case, I’d like to see an argument for the CRL being a straight-line link from Kingsland to Britomart with no super-expensive stations added & minimum undergrounding (using existing motorway corridors etc).
I’m wagering the amount of people moving you could do with that combo would be vast compared to this current CRL plan, which seems to mix metro-style stations with heavy rail infrastructure in quite an odd way…
Only odd if you ignore the countless other cities all over Australasia and the US also doing it plus the S-Bahns and RERs in Europe that carry so many countless passengers.
This isnt a Tube/Subway development really except the CRL. It is an urban rapid transit network more akin to the RER (Paris)/S-Bahn (Berlin, Vienna and Hamburg)/S-train (Copenhagen), heavier rail running in from the suburbs rather than just the city area.
It is entirely appropriate and will change Auckland for the better.
Phil won’t need it much; he’ll be so busy nipping back and forth to town on the SKYPATH… but then imagine how much better that will then be for heading to Eden park say; a quick spin on his bike to Britomart then a fast and congestion free trip to Kingsland. Gosh imagine the value of those Northcote properties then?
Then of course when the line to Takapuna via Wynyard, Onewa,and Akoranga is built hot on the heels of the CRL and Airport Line his property will be so well connected he’ll forget where his car is…
The stations are about the cheapest part of the deal. Digging the tunnel dwarfs the costs of stations so leaving them out would save only a fraction while ruining so much of the benefit. Don’t forget that the $2.8 billion also includes more trains, double-tracking to Onehunga, and all manner of other upgrades.
Stations about 300mil each so actually about half of the capital cost. Tunnelling actually isn’t as expensive as you’d think especially for narrow train tunnels [latest total 1.8bil].
Stations are underground buildings and therefore tricky and expensive to build, less so if shallow, but the one that is, Aotea, is in a very busy and tricky inner city spot, so will still be expensive.
That’s my point really – you could run a direct rail link from Kingsland to Britomart down through motorway gulley and Nelson – undergrounding maybe the last few hundred metres to Britomart. You’d need a short tunnel out Kland to motorway gulley. Wild guess – maybe 20% of the cost of the current CRL.
Yet still opens the ‘circuit’. Spend the rest on LRT – FROM Britomart and other stations around Central AKL. Tons more infrastructure for the $$$.
Ben that isn’t physically possible due to the grades involved. As it is the tunnel is at roughly the maximum possible grade and it still passes about 20m under the motorway.
Also underground is great in high land value places, ie cities. And it allows the stations to be where the people are, not where they aren’t ie the motorway.
There’s also very little space in the motorway gullies left.You’d probably have to either move lanes around or take out lanes to achieve it. In one scenario you’re adding cost and in the other you’re removing benefit.
As I’ve said elsewhere, whenever someone starts talking about “LRT” or worse “light rail trams” that’s a sign that they don’t actually know anything about public transport.
Quite the supercilious specimen aren’t you “Dolaras”? Since you’re so superior to the “half-baked specimens” – as you call them below – on these boards, why aren’t you running the show? Generally there’s a fairly open-minded spirit on the ATB, but your rather poisonous presence lowers the tone.
Interestingly the total descent from Morningside to Britomart is only about 57 metres over about 4.5kms. I’m not convinced it’d be so hard to run a link through the motorway gully – there are lots of options on that city section of the NWestern. And I was suggesting it had no stations – throw the focus back on Britomart. Once again, Aotea (proposed) and Britomart are really too close to each other anyway.
(This is a reply to Ben S @ 10:17pm – I don’t seem to have an option to reply to the comment directly (too much nesting?))
As someone with a hint of sarcastic invective and a low tolerance for inconsistency, I should know all about tone lowering. However I’m not quite sure what it is about Doloras’ presence that could be deemed ‘poisonous’. The quote in question, while provocative for sure, does end with the line
“…unaware that those who have actually been following the issue have debated all the alternatives to death over the last 7 years or so.”
which seems to explain the frustration behind the snark reasonably enough… I mean, perhaps Chaos Marxism holds only niche appeal, perhaps Doloras could stand to be more polite, perhaps we could find other small things to be critical of, but to call it ‘poisonous’ seems a tad overwrought.
As for the proposals, it was pointed out above that there does seem to be problems with building a new rail line in the gulley in terms of space, which to me makes the proposal look as though what it giveth on the one hand, it taketh on the other. I guess one could also make the argument that providing more journeys via train may, in the long-term, reduce somewhat the need to import fuel for buses.
On the distance between Aotea and Britomart, they may well be ‘too close’. To which I ask, so what? They are after all the locations in the CBD that are likely to drive the most commuter traffic, being that they encompass much of the employment area. Even if we accept that they are too close, what do you do about it? Do you try and steer growth to other parts of the city to satisfy a minimum distance constraint? Do you provide bus transport from Britomart to Aotea, and if so on which route to said buses travel? Do you simply make people walk? If I understand correctly, you think the station (and many others) should simply be omitted, but doesn’t this just create a lot of bus traffic in and around the CBD? Similarly, doesn’t this reduce the capacity of the PT network as a whole by forcing all non-Britomart journeys to be completed by bus, thus requiring road space, transfer points, etc? Is this bus capacity going to be provided on space that could serve other purposes?
If you think otherwise, please convince me.
Counterpoint – first of all, anyone with “a hint of sarcastic invective and a low tolerance for inconsistency” sounds alright to me. But I’m not taking a slapdown from this ‘Doloras’ ‘specimen’… just for using the term LRT. He – yep, he – pounced on some passing use of a certain terminology with the toxic pleasure a sideline sniper. LRT stands for Light Rail Transit, It’s an accepted term – or not. I couldn’t care less really about who thinks what terminology is appropriate. For example, personally I prefer ‘transport’ to ‘transit’, but Patrick ‘rails’ against it. No biggie, who has the time…?
OK so the alternatives have been debated to death… so what? There’s always another way. Always a fresh idea. Would have thought an amateur transport forum the ideal place for lobbing in ideas.
Sure, you can say the mway gully has no room for a rail corridor – but maybe it could. With a high capacity rail, maybe we could lose a motorway lane. Who knows? All I know is, the journey many a good idea has started with someone saying it can’t be done.
Re Aotea & Bmart – as I said, too close to each other. You raise a lot questions, too many for me to discuss right now – I hope the CRL is the ‘killer app’ as Patrick calls it, but I guess I see us building on past mistakes…. from closing the Auckland Railway Station (which I suspect was in the right place all along) through.. will we end up with a bastard hybrid rail system? EG personally, on a fine day in Auckland I can’t imagine wanting to get from mid town to K Rd via the CRL – except for the novelty – going deep underground at Aotea, waiting for a heavy rail train to roll in… LRT in a warm climate city like AKL is a much better option. Sure we need fast trains in from the far flung burbs… hence the suggestion to run it direct from Kland or Morningside.
@Phil. Name one project that is more important, PT, or roads.
I am sure Phil is referring to the Sky Path.
I would actually put that above the CRL, but it is a tiny project.
Congratulations all, it’s great to see the government has finally bowed to pressure. Can’t wait for Friday!
Woo hoo! Go rail!
Just listening to John Key on Morning Report, he mentioned the possibility of bringing the start date forward if circumstances change such as an increase in development.
2017-2018 is what I am hearing now as well for pulling the date forward
What’s your source Ben?
Key said on Radio NZ this morning that the date could be brought forward yet depending on what happens with development in the city.
He is really getting a lot of positive feedback then. That is the talk of a man who just loooooves being popular. Great, let’s keep the pressure up, as it’s going to be needed sooner rather than later to supply more capacity for those peak hours.
Er, I wasn’t up so early this morning….
A dam has burst….
Auckland you little ripper.
Curia, David Farrar’s company, has been doing polling about the CRL (amongst other things) for National for a while. They’ve obviously heard from enough National voters that it’s a big problem and they think National is on the wrong side of the issue that the “government by focus-group” team has decided that this project cannot continue to be ignored and dismissed.
Well Key going on National Radio
Well theres a turn up – normally “Good news Guy Smiley” only turns up on Radio NZ when he has a positive message to pedal.
Otherwise he, Joyce and Brownlee treat Nat Rad like its a leper pit full of left-leaning greenies.
The Prime Minister himself on radio interviews.
Morning report also has it as well from Todd Nial
As a ratepayer who lives on the North Shore I am very pleased to hear this announcement. I may rarely use it but from everything I have read (on this blog and elsewhere) it seems to make sense to maximise the usefulness of the exisitng rail system (and hopefully reduce some of the bus congestion in the CBD which will be of benefit to commuters on this side of the bridge). I hope AT and the Council improve their communications though – I imagine there will be many on the Shore (and elsewhere) who simply see billions being spent on something they will never use and don’t benefit from.
Exactly right with less buses coming in from the South, West and East of the city there will be more road space for those from the North. I hope they build a terminal station for with a direct link to Britomart or Aotea so commuters from the Shore get the best experience.
Is that not how QEII Square works for the NEXs at the moment.
Completely agree though Molly, this is what I tell all my shore friends when they ask how it will benefit them.
I’m looking forward to the announcement, but I’m worried about the dead rats that we may have to swallow to get this – and to be fair, with this government, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were quite a few.
Something that is annoying me is watching all these half-baked specimens coming out of the woodwork with “better ideas” than the CRL – like, wow, gee, why don’t we make it a BUS TUNNEL instead?!? – unaware that those who have actually been following the issue have debated all the alternatives to death over the last 7 years or so. To quote Todd Rundgren: “If there was a short cut, we’d have found it, but there’s no easy way around it.”
Just point them to the various business cases and the CCFAS which looked at, and all dismissed, the bus tunnel.
“Is that not how QEII Square works for the NEXs at the moment.”
Which is a dismal failure if you ask me. Buses should be stopping on Quay and Customs St. QEII Square should be solely a public space – a block of green grass with a fountain in the middle, paving around it.
That is true. Wellesley street could work well for Aotea.