Campbell Live have been doing some great stories on transport and urban issues in the last few years and have easily been one of the best media organisations on the subjects. This week contained quite a few transport segments including on Monday when they dedicated an entire show to trains.
First there was this segment on travelling between the CBD and Papakura by train and by car.
I’m quite sure why John Campbell drove up Queen St to get to the motorway and I was quite surprised by just how quiet the eastern line train looked compared to the Western Line trains I’m used to.
Next up was a segment on extending train services to the Waikato.
We’ve talked about extending rail to the Waikato in the past. Personally I think for it to actually work we will need much faster services, particularly through the urban area and that’s where Kiwirail need to hurry up and get the third main built between Papakura and Westfield. I’ve been told it’s not all that expensive to build but they keep debating with Auckland Transport about who should pay for it. The example for Waikato trains was the Wairarapa Connection in Wellington.
I do think we need to be careful in using the Wairarapa connection as an example as the driving alternative isn’t great being a slow and winding road over the Rimutakas. I think if a trip from Hamilton to Auckland could be achieved in around 1½ hours (instead of the 2+ hours it takes) it would be very competitive.
Lastly on Wednesday they looked at the issue of tolling the motorway and compared a trip from Takanini to Mt Eden by the motorway and local roads.
As they show the local roads are already much slower than the motorways which I suspect will limit some of the diversion from people trying to avoid tolls but again it’s interesting to note that the same trip via train from Takanini to Mt Eden via train would have taken between 50 and 60 minutes (depending on the transfer).
Processing...
The thing that stood out to me in the Takanini to Mt Eden trip was how long it took to get through the ramp signals onto the motorway. Those signals seem to just shift the problem away from motorways onto local roads rather than improving things. In fact more often than not the signals seem to create a net loss.
Thats because NZTA are privileging existing traffic already on the motorway over other users who want to get on (from local roads).
This means in effect that long distance and through traffic is automatically prioritised over local traffic i.e. trucks and long distance commuters get higher priority as they enter the motorway unencumbered by on ramp lane signals.
This is even further reinforced when you get to SEART/SH1 junction going north as an example) where there is a dedicated truck lane which is not ramp light controlled, so allows trucks to join the motorway at any time there no matter how congested – ever wondered why this part of the motorway is so consistently congested – thats one reason why.
In that aspect NZTA and AT are at odds operationally – NZTA wants to protect the motorway from local traffic using it and AT needs local traffic to use it.
Because NZTA owns the motorway it wins.
Ok how about *replacing* ramp signals with tolls?
Has there been any progress with converting the disused Nelson St offramp into a cycle lane from K Rd to Nelson St.
Yes there is progress on both ends (the K’Rd end and the Nelson St end).
At this stage a bridge from South St is the front runner, and is being designed.
See this post from CAA’s website (who are the driving force for this) here: http://caa.org.nz/auckland-transport/full-nelson-coming-closer/
This update from mid September so is about 6 weeks old.
Thanks for that update.
I wondered why he was driving up Queen Street as well. But my son told me that the Symonds Street on-ramp is far preferable to going via Beach Road and Stanley Street, which he described as ridiculously @#$%^&* slow!
He also told me that his friend, a real estate agent, fielded loads of calls the next day from people interested in buying in Huntly!
Nelson St would be the obvious route.
Living in Huntly would be feasible if you work at the airport or elsewhere in South Akl but not anywhere else in Auckland. The commute would be no longer than a cross-town commute and less stressful. The CRL may be a gamechanger for getting around the city and a Waikato train would be my preference. If Pukekohe rail passengers have increased 10-fold in the past decade, there might be enough demand for another Waikato commuter trial.
Joe the CRL is not about ‘getting around the city’ but much more about getting to and through the city. Pukekohe and other more distant dwellers are the big winners from the CRL; it will mean more trains more often to more places more directly for them.
The problem with rail service south of Pukekohe IF your destination is the city centre is the travel time. Campbell Live have made much of the fact that Huntly is an hour’s drive from Auckland, which is absolutely true if you do your driving at night. At peak time two hours would be more usual. That’s the good news for a peak time rail service – you don’t need hills or even a rail line as short as the road if the road trip is slow enough for other reasons.
But if a middle-distance train took the same time from Britomart to Papakura the suburban trains do, it’s hard to see a rail travel time much under two hours to Huntly and two and half to Hamilton. Extending the Papakura – Pukekohe diesel service well be worth a go for use by people working in South Auckland (especially if it doesn’t run as far as Huntly) but that’s a very long trip to anywhere further north. For services to central Auckland the third main would be essential to some point well south of Wiri.
( The old “Waikato Connection” ran to Beach Road, much less well-situated than Britomart, but was a lot faster than would be seen today because thinner suburban services in those days permitted a much faster time north of Papakura. Long-haul trains used to do Auckland – Hamilton in around two hours. )
A much shorter line between Drury and Mercer would of course help a lot. But rail, as we know, is not of National Significance.
The free turn from trucks also probably prevents heavy trucks from having to do repeated hill starts on what is a fairly steep hill, imagine the smoke and noise they would create if they had to stop on the hill.
Assume you mean the SEART SH1 onramp freight lane?
Yeah thats fine in theory but there is no seperate lane for them, just an extended on ramp so the trucks end up dumped in the regular motorway traffic right before Penrose bridge.
Which causes tailbacks and the stop/start hill starts you refer to.
To do a free on ramp like this the entire motorway needs to be designed to handle it, with a seperate run on lane to ensure that lane is kept clear – otherwise its a waste of time.
It’s flat by the time the lane ends. It’s also a T2, which seems to be a surprisingly high barrier in this city.
Rather than say KiwiRail should hurry up and build the third main, I would say Auckland Transport should hurry up and pay their share of the third main. It’s AT preventing it from being built, not KiwiRail. Perhaps the blog should run an article calling on AT to get on with it?
Try to understand the real world a little Geoff; both those organisations are constrained from investing in rail capex by their political masters. Ultimately it is the priorities and micro management of transport infrastructure investment set by central government which explains why this long overdue project languishes. Both AT and KR should be working together to lobby for this both publicly and up the line internally. There is very little evidence of either. It suits the road lobby to have them squabbling with each other; each claiming that the other should spend non-existent funds to complete this common good.
As has been pointed out to you previously Patrick, KiwiRail allocated their share of the third main funding.
I accept you don’t like being critical of AT, but the real world situation is that the third main project is stalled because AT won’t fund their share. KiwiRail is not responsible for the stalling in any way shape or form. It’s entirely on AT’s shoulders.
Geoff, ‘pointed out’ how about a link? Be good to see what you are referring to.
The track is KR’s asset on KR’s land for which AT pay them millions of dollars annually for access rights. The reason they want AT to pony up with capex money is because they, like AT, and as I said above, are extremely capital constrained by their ultimate master; the government.
I give AT plenty of grief, so whatever you think you ‘accept’ it is like many of your views expressed here; distorted by your trainspotter sentimentalism.
Patrick:
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2014/07/04/express-vs-all-stop-trains/#comment-115832
Been several other times as well.
The reason KiwiRail want AT to contribute is because both parties will benefit. That’s entirely reasonable.
As I’ve been predicting for a couple of years now, the issue will come to a head when Manukau goes to 6tph. Unfortunately its going to take another round of bad publicity to wake up AT. Only this time there will be no excuses – they have been repeatedly warned by KiwiRail that the new timetable will make on-time running impossible. Watch how fast AT will find the funding when that time comes.
Not so much a question of AT not being prepared to contribute to the Third Main as KiwiRail so far being unable to provide AT with a defined scheme and robust cost estimate..
There Is also no doubt lingering resentment in Auckland local government circles that Project DART was meant to cater for the 12TPH between Wiri and Westfield but given the mad rush and lack of scope detail that accompanied the $600m DART funding deal between the Labour Government and ONTRACK in 2006/7 it’s probably not surprising the issue of also maintaining freight paths into and out of Westfield was overlooked.
Geoff, again, AT [us] pay KR [also us] rent to access their asset. If they also build that asset they will be paying twice. I get that a train obsessed nostalgist like you would be happy for Aucklanders to over-pay to run its services, but those of us on planet earth know that’s a poor deal.
Of course track is an asset of National Significance and both these organisations are service providers to us all [and not businesses, although we expect them to operate in a business-like way], and should be funded as such, but the government has deemed that only roads have nationally significance. So again, that’s where the problem lies.
Patrick, AT pay access fees for existing infrastructre. If they want more, they need to pay more. That’s the deal they agree to.
“I get that a train obsessed nostalgist….”
What does nostalgia have to with anything? A shame you have again (as has Nick, and as has Matt) resorted to personal insults. It indicates you have little faith in your own argument.
Bottom line: The third main needs to be paid for by both parties who benefit. One of those parties has fronted up with more than their share (70%), and the other party is dragging their heals over their share (30%).
There is no doubt, the third main isn’t happening because of AT management.
That’s not an insult Geoff, it’s an accurate description of how you form your value judgements. You like trains and anything that isn’t trains isn’t acceptable to you.
What it indicates is we don’t have any faith in your ability to form an unbiased argument, or evaluate one rationally.
Again Nick, what does nostalgia have to do with anything? Trains, buses and trams are all old, you could apply that term to any of them. I don’t say you’re nostalgic over buses do I?
I think it’s a case of not being able to argue the topic on its merits, so resorting to ridicule (like your monorail and cookies comments to Jon yesterday).
I take it as a plus when people resort to that in a debate. Resorting to ridicule is an act of conceding the argument.
Saying I want monorails with free cookies wasn’t ridicule, it was simply pointing out that pandering to what people say they want isn’t a good strategy for planning, funding and operating a transit system. Although to be fair Jon’s stance is fairly ridiculous, anyone who doesn’t agree with his bad idea is trying to ‘protect’ AT. Like they really need a couple of blogger enthusiasts to protect them (from whom, Jon?)
I wasn’t really commenting on the nostalgia bit, more the train obsessed bit.
I don’t see how being in favour of outer urban passenger rail makes one “train obsessed”. It’s a relatively modest project in the grand scheme of things, requiring a handful of trains (which are already built and owned) and is par for the course for most rail-served cities. It’s quite minor really, but will make a huge difference in how the areas they serve develop.
It’s funny, I use the local Jetts gym in town, and pay to access it. They recently expanded the facility without me having to pay 40% of the cost for expansion?
Interesting SB, you obviously didn’t sign up to a “want more, pay more” system like AT did!
KiwiRail is not in the business of paying for free infrastructure for other parties.
Sailor Boy, it’s not unusual for end-users to contribute to infrastructure which then becomes an asset of the infrastructure owner. A common example is subdivisions, where for example the developer builds the local roads and contributes to the electricity reticulation (essentially the low voltage portion), but doesn’t retain ownership. The occupiers continue to pay for these services via rates and line charges so in a sense are paying twice, but the argument is that new users (rather than existing users) should meet the capital costs of the new local infrastructure, a principle which I think has been espoused previously on this blog. I have no idea of the arrangement between KR and AT, but it may be similar.
Jetts aren’t in the business of paying for free infrastructure for me either. Kiwirail are in (for better or worse) the business of making money out of railways, track access fees should be set to cover the cost of expansion plus a profit over the life of the asset just like any other business. Or Kiwirail should be brought under NZTA and NZTA reformed to actually prioritise transport over trucking.
Sailor Boy do you mean like this?
http://online.wsj.com/articles/transit-agencies-get-creative-1406668928
“track access fees should be set to cover the cost of expansion plus a profit over the life of the asset just like any other business”
The fact is, they are not. So AT either needs to contribute to the cost of new infrastructure, or (if your suggested system was implemented), pay a higher amount for access. Either way, AT needs to pay up, because KR is not in the business of giving freebies. On the contrary, metro costs have been split off from KR’s own funding because the two were very confused previously, and it became apparent that KR were inadvertantly subsidizing the Auckland metro upgrades (Project DART etc).
But also remember, AT’s official stance is that it prefers restricting the passage of freight trains rather than building a third main. No one should blame KR for the lack of a third main, when it is very much AT preventing it from being constructed.
I’m not blaming kiwirail. I think that they should pay for it but the MoT have put them in a position where they can’t Also, I think that PoA and PoT need to pay for part of it if AT do as they put a lot of trains through the area too.
Seems like Project DART didn’t deliver what it was intended to: regular 10 min frequencies on all lines. That sounds like a KiwiRail problem to me as they didn’t deliver on DART.
It did Trev. But AT want regular 5 min frequencies between Westfield and Wiri, double the specs for Project DART. For that, a third track is needed for a smoothly running timetable.
Geoff, regular 10 minute interval services ( and therefore 5 min intervals between Wiri and Westfield) was always part of ARTA’s requirements but ONTRACK did not acknowledge what it meant. If more time had been spent on planning before unleashing the bulldozers on DART some of these issues might have been avoided.
I reside oitside of Auckland and read this blog regularly but only occasionally comment on the posts. Although I may not agree with Geoff’s point, I think it’s entirely possible and reasonable to refute such an argument without resorting to personal insults.
You may have had a similar argument before but surely it is better the engage rather than isolate?
I enjoy and respect this blog but when some of the main contributors comment is such a way it takes away its credibility. This disappoints me as it is a fantastic blog in general.
+1. Totally agree with you!
+2.
Re: the third main and KR versus AT, it suits the government to have them at odds with each other, and on both sides there will be appointed managers no doubt doing their bit to stir things up. What is happening on this blog is a reflection of the politics going on elsewhere. I should also add that on both sides there will be those who want things to work.
And meanwhile in the real world, the new vision for Auckland is taking shape spreading in all directions with a massive and on-going residential property development boom. “Tradies” are the current zietgiest and they have little need of CBD focused PT of whatever mode. They sit right in the middle of that “swinging vote” who have done really well under National. And with immigration, the government might just have found the perfect “lever” to pretty much keep this property boom going indefinitely baring an external crisis of some sort or another. Will it be another 7 year cycle, or is this property boom going to break the mold? And what does this do to the long term local body and national political landscape?
So, time to come together people to consider how to ensure a post-2016 Auckland Council retains an interest and vision in developing high value “services/high tech/design studio/laboratory led” export industries, and the PT networks, and high quality urban living that comes with that. This of course, means the job of Transport Blog continues to be really important in selling the broad vision, not getting bogged down in internal political squabbles.
-3
The commentators response was not an insult and entirely appropriate. If you read the blog as much as you say, you,d be familiar with the rants of the original poster.
Agreed. I think the blog is excellent and really appreciate the effort put in by the volunteer contributors, but it is disappointing to see personal insults as it brings down the usually very high standard of professionalism by the TB writers.
As far as trains to the Waikato and beyond are concerned it takes about one and a half hours to drive to Hamilton depending of course where you start. A fast DMU train should do it in about one hour fifteen minutes approximately. This is impossible now because the line goes for a joy ride through Pukekohe, …. no contest.
Government is splashing money round on the roads of significance what about upgrading the railways for mass transit (and speedy goods delivery and fuel savings) Railways should be measured the same way as roads and subsidised to the same level heavy vehicles are to make it a fair contest.
An express line should be built from Drury to Pokeno by using cuttings and a tunnel which would cut about fifteen kms off the Auckland to Hamilton line. The existing line would still be needed for suburban trains and access to the steel mill etc.
The proposed motorway north scores about one on their scale whereas making a direct rail route to the Waikato must be about four by comparison. A two rail tunnel would cost peanuts compared to two three lane motorway tunnels at Waterview
Proposed toll will be on the vehicle itself. The SOV driver will face a higher cost if they want to maintain the individual sanctity of their transportation mode and bring three empty seats to town each day. But is that necessarily a bad thing?
Tolling motorways will go some ways to levelling the playing field with PT. Car pooling might also get real traction as the $20 per week cost is potentially divisible, probably quite easily by half as work colleagues etc become more likely to share rides.
Look at the numbers of people at the stations, on the trains, in the footage. In spite of our politicians.
With the cost of electrification to Pukekoe $136 million would there not be more value using that money to put in a third main in from Papakura to as far as the money would allow for freight and diesel passenger services from Hamilton, last stop Pukekoe before the end of the third main.
Yes there are a lot of competing uses for any rail upgrade cash anyone can find! And you could be right, especially if the proposed housing down there takes longer to happen. Basically like services further north that seems to obsess some it all depends on what pattern of growth actually occurs…. Given that the rail freight growth has also accelerated sharply recently or is projected to soon it could well be that the third main is a higher priority….. we don’t have all the facts, except one, which is that it is hard to get any rail capex funding despite huge growth for all uses yet roads get billions spent on them regardless, or even in an attempt to stimulate driving.
North, Patrick? NW perhaps?
There should surely be a strong case to go forward with the triple tracking on the back of freight growth as well as the commuter traffic.
The challenge is that the upgrade work will very likely have to be able to demonstrate a commercial rate of return…..ie on the basis that KiwiRail goes to the bank to borrow money to build the track. The interest payments on the loan then gets added to AT’s bill, along with an “acceptable” rate of return/risk/margin plus of course the build cost itself. And yes, I know roads don’t have to fund upgrades in this way.
Could we learn anything form overseas studies on rail? Are there studies n the Japanese rail system and its impact? Or the european rail systems?
These could perhaps shed light on what is required to make investment in rail viable?
from these studies we could work out if auckland proposed spend on rail is worth going ahead with?
We have already done that several times, the challenge is in getting the 2 year old with fingers in their ears screaming lalala I can’t hear you (Minister for Transport) to listen.
What is it with Auckland people not wanting to pay tolls. Have been a big part of the scene in Sydney and Melbourne for years.