The Herald reported yesterday that an increasing number of councillors are thinking of voting to delay the City Rail Link to 2020.
The $2.4 billion City Rail Link could be deferred until 2020 because of mounting concerns by councillors about its impact on rates, debt and big cuts to community services.
A number of councillors are having second thoughts about an early start on the rail project and support deferring work until the Government comes on board with funding in 2020.
Auckland Mayor Len Brown has locked $2.2 billion into a new 10-year budget to begin work on the 3.5km underground rail link in 2016 and completed by 2021.
On Wednesday, all 20 councillors and the mayor will debate the budget and make decisions on the rail project for public consultation.
The issue stems from the fact local boards and the council have promised a huge number of projects over the years, many of which originated in pre supercity days. Cuts and deferrals to some of these projects combined with efficiency savings as a result of having a single council had already brought projected rate increases down to around 4.9%. To take things further Len Brown’s plan for rates was to limit rates rises at 2.5% to 3.5%. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that if you have a programme of spending that requires a 4.9% rates increase but you limit the increase at 2.5 to 3.5% that you will have to cut some projects somewhere. For transport those cuts mean a very reduced transport spend and the tables below show the extent of a 30 year transport programme (not including state highways) with that limited rates increase.
On top of that there were many cuts to other areas of the council’s budgets including a lot of funding for local board projects, something which angered most, if not all of the local boards.
That has contributed to some councillors now supporting delaying the CRL.
Labour councillor Ross Clow was the first centre-left councillor to break ranks with Mr Brown last Thursday on the flagship rail link and call for it to be deferred until the National Government’s 2020 start date.
He said the budget was gutting suburban areas such as Avondale, which had been waiting 30 years for a new town centre, in favour of “pet projects” like the City Rail Link.
“Mr Mayor you have been up there twice in the last few months telling them they are going to get this and that, yet your proposal has absolutely nothing in the budget,” said Mr Clow.
Albany councillor John Watson is another pro-link councillor having second thoughts.
Circumstances had changed dramatically with huge cuts to community services and projects, he said, citing a $20 million project to widen Whangaparaoa Rd.
“Nothing has been signalled on the horizon and that’s totally unacceptable,” Mr Watson said.
On the side of delaying the CRL there seem to be two general groups, the haters and the opportunists.
The haters are those who primarily for ideological reasons either don’t like Len and/or don’t like the CRL/rail. This group includes the likes of Cameron Brewer, Dick Quax and George Wood. Those in this group are unlikely to ever support the CRL although if they’re still around when it opens I’m sure they will happily take some of the credit for its success.
More of a concern are the opportunists who have arisen primarily due to the funding discussions. Some of them look at the cost if the CRL and mistakenly think that by deferring it, it will suddenly mean a heap of money will be available that they can use to fund projects in their local area. Alternatively some know the importance of the CRL and are trying to use it as leverage to get concessions out of the mayor, again for local projects. In many ways this is one of the big issues with having all councillors elected from wards rather than having some elected at large like the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance suggested. I’m aware some have taken this stance in the hope that it will put pressure on the government to stump up with funding but if anything it will do the opposite. Effectively what these councillors are doing is using the CRL to play a game of chicken with an oncoming train.
The whole situation has shades of Robbies Rail to it. Back in the 1970’s mayor Sir Dove Myer Robinson’s plans for a regional rail system were cancelled by the government after support for it was undermined by similar parochial local body politicians and planners.
I part I think some of the issue with this comes from the poor job Auckland Transport have done in really explaining the region wide benefits the CRL provides. That there are councillors and local board members who have a rail line passing through their area opposing the project because they think there are no benefits to their communities is a testimony to the fact it hasn’t been explained well enough. Perhaps a fresh set of eyes is needed to look at how the project is communicated to both the politicians and the public. The video below is probably the best effort AT have made with their comms but it relies on people actually watching it fully to get any info.
Before people get too concerned there are a couple of important things to note. The Herald note that most of the group that supports deferring the CRL do support work on the first section which will be tied in with the redevelopment of the Downtown Mall. That will see the tunnel dug from Britomart to as far as Wyndham St and is crucial if many of the other Downtown projects are to go ahead. By the time we’re getting towards needing to get started on the remainder of the tunnel – likely around 2016/17 – we will have had another 2-3 years of strong patronage growth on the back of the current tranche of PT projects and as the pressure mounts on transport capacity it is likely to leave little choice for both the council and government but to invest in the CRL.
The second thing to note is that by delaying the CRL it won’t actually free up money to build the local projects these councillors are hoping for. While debt will be needed to fund construction the council capitalise the interest until the project is complete and the region starts benefiting from the investment (those interest costs are already built into the overall project cost). What that means is there is no impact on council finances until the projects opens which isn’t likely to be till 2021/22.
While the project will definitely go ahead at some point in time a speed bump imposed by local politicians is far from ideal. I would suggest that it would be a good idea to email all councillors expressing your support for the project to go ahead and be open by 2021/22 along with the regional benefits it provides. It doesn’t have to be a big email and rather than provide a template it’s best if it comes from you in your own words.
Processing...
Ugh, instead of constantly saying “AT is doing a bad job” etc, why don’t you guys (TransportBlog and GenerationZero) begin to help explain the benefits of the CRL?? Instead of bashing, why not produce a video/series of advertisements that clearly explains the benefits. I think that promoting the Congestion Free Network is useless if the CRL doesn’t ever get built!!
My goodness Morgan, how can you reach that conclusion?!
For years, the team of volunteers at Transport Blog has done more than anyone to help explain the benefits of the CRL.
I think this blog is doing a pretty good job of explaining the benefits of the CRL. I have seen some pretty good ideas about how AT could do more – they should put up signs at every train station listing the frequency and time to various stations with and without CRL – would cost almost nothing.
never was my nickname more appropriate.
I still think this project going ahead is a total wast of MONEY to say the least .as i have said in the past ask the people of Auckland let them decide the fate of this total wast of money
Mike you are entitled to your view on the CRL. However the “people of Auckland” have twice elected Len Brown on a ticket with a very clear headline to complete the CRL.
Show me a city in the world that has invested in the rail system which is a “total waste of money”.
None.
Auckland has an extensive history of underinvestment in the rail system, which leads to the mess that we’re in now. Short-sighted attitude like yours is what made Auckland lags behind in public transportation.
Heck, we didn’t even have electric trains in Auckland until 2014!
They voted in this government after being given the opportunity to start the CRL almost immediately by the Greens and Labour. So clearly much of Auckland was not interested. And how is the immediate problems of over capacity at the deadend Britomart and Newmarket now going to be resolved, because after all this was the reason the CRL was being looked at in the first place!
Bit of a logic gap Waspy- I think you’re confusing lack of interest in the CRL with lack of a credible opposition?
Whatever you say mate… I live in Christchurch, we haven’t had ANY suburban trains for 40 years! The world didn’t grind to a halt because of it.
Wow Mike, have you even thought about what you are posting or did you just go for it? You say its a waste of money but can’t back that up with anything, maybe do some research next time.
“Mike Sheerin, Director of Development and Technical Advancement”? Really? I would love to avoid ad hominem attacks but with that quality of posting….
Come on mate that’s below the belt .I have only said what i think .
Would it be fair to say that what you think may be slightly connected with your business’ connection with roads?
Mike- Even John Banks supported the CRL
Come to think of it, if he’d won the first SC election it might be happening already
The problem is at any time did the voters have any idea this was going to put pressure on the whole city to finance a dream .I know i had no idea .Come on let the people have a say here .
Mike, this has been in Len Brown’s election platform for the last 2 elections, the cost has been widely publicised. If you didn’t know about it until now that’s nobody’s fault but your own.
The City Rail link is not a ‘dream’. It is an absolutely essential piece of infrastructure that we need to unlock the potential of the rail system in Auckland. Every major political party has said that the CRL needs to happen, the business community in Auckland is lobbying for it, NZCID considers it essential.
I suggest you do some research for yourself on the project and you may change your mind. The facts all stack up in favour.
No, maybe not. Don’t attack “parochial” planners because the fact it is this is competing with a whole lot of other equally important projects. So that’s just life.
Mike,
And *YOUR* solution to the traffic woes in Auckland is?
Hi Greg
Solution to the traffic woes in Auckland.I have to say currently there is a major project that is going to take some to the problems away .Its about flow as you know
Why not wait and see what difference that makes before spending on something that is a dream .The rail link needs more done to make it good .Like in the safety side of things .Rail crossings are dangerous they need high lighting .If you where to have a look at my web page there is a design there that would do the job …I do think we as rate payers should be asked what we want
You mean Waterview?
Yes it will have an impact when its open, just how much, whether its good or bad, and for how long, not even NZTA (who are building it) are sure – they’re the ones toying with this atomic bomb and even they’re not sure where the fallout will go when they let it off.
But Waterview, is like putting a V8 into a Mini motorcar without doing anything else to the car mechanically to support it – yep, you can do it, yep, it might work for a bit, but you’ll soon find you also need to make all those other components between the massive engine and the road a lot stronger and put on wider tyres – all to cope with all that extra stress put on them (you know, new clutch, gearbox, upgraded front wheel drive, axles, and of course, massive suspension rework to keep the motor from scraping the road), let alone the flared mudguards – the obvious outward sign of a problem.
For Waterview this means yet more motorway widening and ramp controls well beyond whats already been planned – or budgeted for.
That huge SH1/SH18 interchange at Upper Harbour Drive will be really expensive, and won’t be needed without Waterview.
One thing is certain, you cannot build your way out of road congestion – the traffic grows faster than the roads to accommodate it.
LA learned that in the 70s and no where else has managed to pull it off.
As for a say, well, Aucklanders have had that say previously, they voted for Len twice when he campaigned for it. And you may not like it, but if the PM can “campaign” on asset sales and claim a mandate for it when he wins, then so can Len.
And the Auckland public have had that say for the last year or more – via the Shape Auckland website.
And also even more say via the up coming LTP plan discussions early next year.
So you can put your two cents in like everyone else can.
Mike you can’t be serious claiming that safety is the reason that we should just invest in roads. You do know how many people are killed and maimed every year driving, or just walking because of that inherently lethal system?
How many rail passengers have died using auckland’s rail network just getting from A to B? Sadly people do use trains to intentionally end their lives and some fools wander down tracks and get hit, but it is an extremely safe way to actually ravel, especially compared to driving.
Traffic crash hospitalisations in NZ last year = 13,000, including over 300 fatalities. That’s one in every 350 New Zealanders going to hospital each year because of crashing or being hit by a car.
Rail, 60 hospitalisations including 5 deaths. Indeed almost all are at level crossings, but note that a large proportion of those are suicides or attempted suicides.
And if the CRL is delayed too long, those 60 a year “rail” caused hospitalisations would increase.
Not from level crossing accidents, more like from fainting and other causes due to being “packed in like sardines” in the now heavily over-patronised 6 car EMUs.
Well I did my bit… wrote an email to Ross pointing out how much his ward will benefit from the project.
Mike: The cost of the City Rail Link has hardly been a closely-guarded secret. Len Brown has campaigned openly on his support for it twice. It was going to have be paid for somehow.
I could do the same for Brewer, but since he was elected unopposed there is no way I can threaten to pull my vote [again]. Not that he’d get my vote any time before CRL opens anyway.
And trying to get that turkey to change his mind is like pissing yourself in a dark suit – you’ll get a brief warm feeling but no one else will notice any difference.
So will you be standing in the next local body elections?
Unless there is some form of contest, we are keep going to get the same.
I might consider doing that if he doesn’t get any one else standing against him next time.
By the time I found out last year he had no opposition the nominations had closed.
Councillor Clow voted against? Whau Ward has already had HUGE investment in undergrounding the New Lynn tracks and new stations, massive streetscaping, art, multimillion dollar stream daylighting project, and walkways, and the Ecomatters multimillion dollar environmental hub trusts based in his local board area. It makes no sense to invest that kind of money in New Lynn Train station and undergrounding if we are not going to have a train service that gets you to town faster than a car. I suppose that’s the kind of investment your town gets if you are in the favoured political electorate. It’s all about the politics.
What I do not understand is why now when clearly money is a issue .There is lots of people out there thinking the same thing as me .The council has to save money across the board to make ends meet as we all read in the paper ..I work with lots of councils here in NZ and in Aussie there all in the same boat as Auckland trying to make ends meet. Its a fine line telling us this is the case then say to us they are going to spend so much money on this project .That is my problem with the project
Money is always an issue. When has Auckland ever said that it has so much money it doesn’t know what to do with it.
Anyway, if that is true then lets cut down on some of the over the top roading projects which will only encourage more people to drive and cause more problems.
You seem to think that building public transport is like buying smokes when you can’t afford the rent. No – the public transport is the thing that is growing and improving the city. That is what we should be feeding.
I like part of your comment but why not look at what we have and improve that instead of starting new projects which is going to cost us rate payer heaps .When the new motorway is finished and up and running that will help .I is common sense to wait and see what that does to help the problem .Don’t get me wrong here I hate the rush hour traffic as much as any one .Having a train lop wont stop that .
“why not look at what we have and improve that” – You mean like taking a dead end railway line that has stations within 3 kms of the majority of residents and turning it into a Metro style system with 5 min frequencies? That would be the CRL.
“Don’t get me wrong here I hate the rush hour traffic as much as any one” – Actually it doesn’t worry me because I cycle and ferry to work. That is what congestion free travel is all about and exactly the option the CRL will give you and me – along with the rest of the Congestion Free Network.
“Having a train lop wont stop that .” – No the CRL won’t solve congestion . Nothing will do that and sure as hell the Waterview connection won’t. I fully support the Waterview tunnel, it is logical and should have been built decades ago when it was supposed to be the path of SH1. However, it will just induce more traffic and fill up within a few years – just like every other completed roading project in the world (other than the many failed toll roads in Australia and the US).
You can’t “solve” congestion because it is not a problem. It is the sign of a healthy city. Detroit doesn’t have congestion.
The CIty Rail Link unlocks constrained capacity in the existing rail network, boosting it’s carrying capacity by an amount equivalent to the entire existing motorway network.
No shit, it adds the ability to move an *extra* 21,000 people an hour each way. That’s the same as nine motorway lanes each way, or in other words the same as three brand new motorways stretching from Swanson in the west through the city and out to Panmure in the east and Papakura in the south.
That will do plenty for people stuck in congestion, I means tens of thousands of people can get around without going anywhere near congestion in the first place.
Therefore; cheap.
That final point is the most important. And it is simply standard practice with all big capital works. The capex is borrowed at the low government rate but neither capital nor interest is begun to be paid until the project is in use. The reason being that it is considered unfair for ratepayers who are not yet able to benefit form the project, directly or indirectly, to have to pay for it.
So delaying the start to the works will free up precisely zero dollars for other ‘pet projects’ anywhere for Councillors.
And Patrick, equally as important, the same will apply for all those other “big ticket items” too that the councillors may like to chop – it has no rates impact until its built and opens.
Apologies to you – but its Melbourne Cup Day, so there are a some horse racing metaphors in this post, which I can’t go past 🙂
Yes, when even The Granny (Herald) can see the benefits of CRL and the costs, and then says “just do it”, you know that a sea change is either in place – or imminently about to happen.
The Herald once again got it wrong when it described trains “looping” around the CRL – but at least they got the rest pretty much right in its benefits.
And I note that they also said today that Auckland Council officials say that AC can’t “go it alone” and pay for it itself without breaking its debt ratio limits.
As Auckland can’t go it alone no matter what we might want to do right now – we’ll need the Government to step up here.
And we also hear today that the Singapore Government (via their Super fund) can see the benefits of the CRL and how it will transform the city – even if our government can’t.
Why else are they buying up large in waterfront property right now? Definitely is a good time to get in before the rest of the pack do.
But right now, buying existing properties – or ones being built, is not doing much about raising the number of workers in the CBD which is “the second leg of the double” (rail patronage going through the roof and towards 20 million sooner than later – being the first leg, and thats already well on track).
We do need more workers in the CBD, which means more buildings too – to really up the stake.
So come on Minister Bridges, step up to the plate, ignore that advice you got from Brownlee’s officials who all “know” that more roads is the only medicine that is best for Auckland and instead actually, commit funding for a start date for CRL sooner than a waffly “after 2020 sometime in the never never.
Offer some infrastructure bonds if you’re not sure you’ll have the cash. I’m sure there will be plenty of takers.
Mike, as mentioned above you are entitled to your opinion and from recent discussions I’ve had with friends and family I’ve seen there are many people out there with strong thoughts on the CRL and with Len Brown, sometimes people don’t want to separate the two. The CRL may be Len’s “pet project” but it’s been recognized for decades as the key to finally unlocking the potential of rail and providing a viable alternative to the road network for transport within the city. I don’t believe there is any other project out there that will have the same cost/benefit in terms of helping to reduce congestion and spur development. I’ve recently returned from living in Vancouver for the last 4 years and I’ve noticed that this blog seems to draw many parallels between the two cities. I see Vancouver as a great example of where Auckland can go, with a great inner city environment where people are happy to live in apartments and commute without the need for private vehicles. This wouldn’t be possible without the light rail network which was developed over there and I can’t see it possible in Auckland without the CRL. Someone sent me a photo of Vancouver in the early 1990’s compared with today, it’s a shame I can’t post it here as I think it provides a great window into the future for Auckland….let’s hope our city councillors and central government show some foresight and invest in something other than roads, a delay to this project seems ridiculous.
I have to say this is NZ not Vancouver .I just would like the council ask the people of Auckland if they want this big bill .nothing more .I have said what i have and not here for a debate
And Vancouver wasn’t Vancouver 20 years ago. The question is what do we want to become, more like Vancouver, or more like Detroit? What we do now decides what out city will be like in ten years time.
Paying for this really isn’t an issue. Auckland and New Zealand has the money for a lot of transport investment. The real question to ask is how should we spend the money we do have? Two billion to build a four line, forty station metro system, or two billion for an extra leg of motorway or a round of road widenings?
Ha ha I love this one, “NZ is not Vancouver” you sure have hit the nail on the head. The difference is they have actually done something about public transport and NZ hasn’t mainly due to attitudes like yours.
In a democracy we vote people to administrate and make decisions for us. Referendums just become a popularity contest and play on the emotions of the day..
There is no such thing as a true democracy then?
Representative Democracy (Good) or Direct Democracy (Stupid and Bad)
If by “true democracy” you mean “direct democracy” then no, not in NZ (or UK, AU or the US for that matter). In fact there are many mechanisms that try to prevent negative outcomes of our voting systems like requiring super-majorites, preventing the “tyranny of the minority / majority” etc.
Is representative democracy “untrue”? Nonsense, it is not.
Mike public opinion polls frequently show the majority of Aucklanders 1) support the CRL in particular and 2) would prefer greater spending on public transport at the expense of roads.
As others here have noted Len Brown and a number of other Councillors were elected twice on a platform that included the CRL, and the costs were well-known at the time. I think that the level of community support for the CRL far exceeds most major highway projects, for example, so can’t really understand what you’re complaining about.
The only difference between the CRL and highways is that the latter is funded via fuel taxes rather than rates. So your opposition to the CRL because of the cost of the project seems somewhat myopic, to say the least. If I were you I’d be more concerned with the $10 billion in wasteful highway projects that have been identified by the National Government.
P.s. You say you didn’t “come here for a debate” and yet you chose to comment publicly on a blog post. I’m not sure why you think you should be able to post uninformed comments on the CRL without people responding to them?
As long as we also ask them the exact same question for all roading projects and also explain how similar roading projects have “solved” congestion in the past. I am sure the people of Auckland will make the right decision.
But anyway, the people of Auckland have voted for Len Brown twice on a clear platform of improving PT. In addition, people are voting with their feet and flocking to good quality PT when it is provided.
The equation here seems to have been missed by many.
Does Auckland Council fund 100% now or 50% in three years time?
Given the huge amount of debt already on the books of the council and the projected rates increases which are well above expected inflation it is an absolute no brainer to delay the CRL.
I don’t believe the CRL will generate anything like $1.2 billion in 3 years.
We need to take the emotion out and look at the financial reality (cue Patrick Reynolds post waxing lyrical about the CRL!)
No. I think you may be overstating the link between 1) Council budgeting processes and 2) the decision to start construction.
If the Government does not come to the party in the future and budget for its share accordingly, then there’s no reason to suggest that the construction will go ahead and the Council will end up paying 100%. Instead what’s more likely is that the Council, via Auckland Transport, pays 0%, i.e. construction of the CRL won’t start.
All the Council is saying is that they’d like to budget for its share of CRL funding so as to enable it to be built by 2020. If the Government does not budget accordingly then the Council is by no means committed to funding 100%. Instead the Counciil would just underspend it’s capital budget and take on less debt.
Budgeting for funding the CRL does not mean we are committed to construction if the Government does not contribute.
Apologies folks I did get it wrong in my original post
Seems the government contribution will come through in 2020 regardless so we’re looking at 3 years worth of interest on $2.4 billion (as opposed to waiting until the govt contribution to start the project)
No, it’s not $2.4B + the interest! The interest is already built into the cost of the project. It’s just $2.4B! (Already including cost of capital!)
Herald says today that Council can’t fund it 100% – they would exceed debt ratios if they do.
Council can fund its half whenever it wants and will do so to complete the cut and cover works in lower Albert as soon as possible to dovetail with Precincts Downtown mall re-devleopment.
Beyond that point a change of mind by this government (or a change of Government) will be needed.
‘Generate 1.2 billion in three years’ what? That’s ambitious, who on earth expects that? or why would it need to? It will still be there in over a century like the Victorian tunnels under the Thames that are still carrying trains on their network, so I think even the most cautious accountant would be amortising the capital cost of such an enduring piece of engineering out a little bit longer than three years. Even with the hopeless shortsightedness endemic to infra planning in this country these days.
I did correct myself in my second post
Transportblog is very good at weighing up the positives and negatives but utterly useless when it comes to dealing with the financial aspect.
It would be great if one of the writers here could do a post looking at the financial implications of both options to shed some light on this side of the issue.
I believe it will make the delay option look far superior
The advantage CRL has over Robbie’s rail project is that the CRL is not a complete waste of money. This political process was always going to happen and actually needed to happen if CRL is ever to be more than some mayoral “I want a pony” childish plea. Sooner or later people will realise that growth in the CBD is bottlenecked and CRL is needed to achieve future office development and not an optional extra for the transport system.
Yes, and more generally that employment growth in the city centre supports productivity growth, which in turn supports wage growth in the suburbs, which in turn supports all manner of positive socio-econmic outcomes.
The CRL also benefits the suburbs by increasing train frequencies across the network. This not only supports access to the city centre, but anywhere that is accessible from the rail network.
The CRL also benefits the suburbs by removing cars destined to the city centre from the road network, thereby freeing it up for other trips.
For politicians and councillors, such as Mr Clow, to suggest that the CRL does not benefit “the suburbs” is to ignore some of the fundamental socio-economic/transport/land use linkages that underpin cities.
In what way was Robbies Rail a complete waste of money?
Had it been built as promised it would be several decades old, carried billions of passenger journeys, helped NZ through several financial crises and turned Auckland into quite a different city.
Yes Auckland would have been a much smaller more indebted and more expensive city. And thousands of people would have had to found a home somewhere else.
That is purely a personal opinion and crystal ball gazing.
You have produced no evidence that this would have happened in Auckland. In what city was a similar decision made that had a similar result? It is the most unashamedly pro-roads argument I have ever heard.
And from a traffic engineer – what a surprise. The inmates are in charge of the asylum and have been for some time.
Vancouver put its money into transit rather than motorways and it doesn’t seem to have suffered from low population growth. Ditto countless European cities.
And you have put forward the type of daft advocacy that lawyers are trained in. Do you know how big Vancouver might have been if they had built bigger roads? Of course you don’t. My point is simply that if supply costs go up the quantity demanded goes down. Had Auckland spent a fortune of money they didnt have on Robbies train set then costs for Auckland would have been higher so less people could have afforded the place. Instead we got roads they gave suburbs of low hanging fruit. Yes it was a cheap solution but that is why sop many of us live here now.
“daft advocacy” – Good point, if there is one thing lawyers are known for it is not being able to make an argument. Well done.
So your point is that neither of us knows the answer and therefore you are right. What was that about “daft advocacy”?
“Yes it was a cheap solution” – on what planet is it cheaper to build heaps of motorway than to build a few rail lines? It is always cheaper to build public transport than motorways. Look at the cost of the Northern Busway compared to a single motorway exchange.
Honestly, you need to get out of your traffic engineer silo occasionally and engage with the real world.
Well how about on the planet where value for money matters. We could have been saddled with an expensive rail system just at a time when people wanted a house in the burbs and a car in their garage. Luckily his scheme failed to get either political support or a budget. Norm Kirk said he would support it in his campaign but as Mike Moore said he also claimed he would ‘ban the bikies’. He had no intention of doing either. And daft advocacy is as good a term as any for the way lawyers ignore truths that don’t suit them and fabricate an argument based on what does. So we are both true to our training.
What a strange reply. Wellington had a MUCH better rail system than Auckland for decades and yes, it cost money to build. So has Wellington ‘suffered’? Do you know someone who moved elsewhere?
The only real out migration any city has suffered is NZ emigration, caused by overall national. or is that National policies, and the name Muldoon seemed to stick rather well to a brand of economics that made some Australian cities a bit larger with people escaping.
I think we can say three pretty clear things about what is likely to have happened if Robbies Rail had been built and speculate on another:
1. It would have struggled. The timing was sub-optimal, high inflation affecting the capex, smaller more dispersed population, and the car was still glamourous and on the rise.
2. However, other systems started at this time [BART in SF, Melbourne’s odd City Loop, London’s Jubilee Line], did initially struggle with both construction and had slow starts [not the Jubilee which went mental immediately] but now are invaluable and undoubtedly improved the urban form of their cities, ameliorating the worst excesses of the sprawl boom spread, and keeping Transit culture alive during this difficult period ready for return.
3. Importantly though Auckland would now have a fantastic and widespread Rapid Transit corridor on the cheap; whether or not the service or kit on it was any good. And the Right of Way is the most valuable thing. Kit can change.
So perhaps the better outcome might have the cautious but open minded one of agreeing the timing was not yet right but reserving the corridors [which were bought; cheap as chips, mostly over open farmland] for the future time that it suited it better; ie this century. Frankly it was part of a vicious triumphalism over Robbie that all the corridors that could be were flicked off and built on. The car lobby not only won but mutilated the corpse of its opposition and the city is the poorer for it. The stupidity of the clogged six lane Pakuranga Highway is what they have to show for it now.
Few would be the SF or London people who would say either project was a mistake. And the oil crisis did tip the scales rail’s way. The problem though was bigger. Western economies hit maturity about the same time, and the redistributive mechanisms from an earlier age eg unions, tariffs, welfare were clogging the economy. Rail felt it worse due to excessive wages and striking.
I just wish there was some way CRL could be staged. The access to Aotea/Downtown is the sexy bit, the loop function is the practicality. If the sexy bit could be done first it would secure buy-in for the rest.
Perth, as you know, has gone from very anti rail to very pro rail, only because the ‘charismatic’ parts of the system like the underground, the fast freeway running do the talking for the rest which is pretty mundane.
My understanding is that the cut and cover section finishes at the Aotea station, so we will in affect get a staged project.
Once the downtown project green lights and the tunnels go under that building, in essence the project will have started. the concern I have is that this project will take decades to complete, Mangere Bridge anyone, which has recently been duplicated. At the top end of my estimations/guessing, we need to talk about duplication and more trains sooner than anyone expects, a more positive type of induced demand than roading.
If the cut and cover can run trains thru to Aotea, whilst not everything will flow, we should see people getting out of trains at Aotea, imperfectly at first, but it should happen. Not quite the transformational change that a number of people are hoping for.
Cut and cover is to Wyndam St, not including the station.
My understanding was wrong. Thank you for the correction.
I stand by my analogy with Mangere bridge.
They should make sure the cur and cover construction site and hoardings are covered in project propaganda eg pictures of trains and stations, info on journey times saved etc. make the project real for people.
Riccardo I disagree that the CBD stations are the “sexy bit” of the CRL. The benefits to the wider network are the really exciting bit, the CBD stations are the bits that put most ratepayers off the project and cause it to be misrepresented. Actually, if we just didn’t build those stations and called it the rail network link or something similar, I’m sure it would have been built by now.
Why the hostility go the cbd stations? This is bizarre
Auckland, or in particular certain conservative elements have always been very suburban in focus, and are very jealous of the central city. This is a historical thing, but those issues remain today among some councillors and their support base.
Auckland for many years was a collection of borough councils. It was only in the late 1980s that they re-structured down to 4 main cities, and of course the one Super-city council is very recent indeed.
As the motorways expanded and region sprawled, the borough councils, and then the 4 city councils grew at the expense of the core Auckland City. It is only in recent years that the CBD has made a recovery. Compared to Brisbane for example though, it is still a very small CBD for such a large metropolitan region, and quite limited in public facilities…….nothing to compare to the scale of what has been achieved along Brisbane’s south bank for example.
Hopefully that explains why it is very important to sell the benefits of the CRL as a regional network to the region, with the CBD stations almost secondary in the sales pitch. We know of course just how significant those CBD stations will become when the CRL is built.
And stupid it is. No-one overseas would do business with ‘manukau’ or ‘waitakere’ too small and really just collections of housing and light industry. Real value add happens in tall buildings in cbds, that’s why they are there.
I see someone say people form overseas don’t do business out side of the CBD that’s totally wrong .sorry
I agree. I want the CBD stations of course, but if it was between the cut and cover and Aotea Station or the whole tunnel through to Mt Eden – I would take the tunnel. That would allow 5 min frequencies across the whole network and show everybody what can be achieved.
Of course, then everyone would be screaming for the stations in the CBD. And everywhere else in Auckland.
A while ago submission to AT on Parking were made; in essence that was based on the 85% occupancy rate of all council held parking (street, car parks and park & ride) on the basis that this would reduce the number of vehicles on the road in rush hour and travel in and around the CBD. I would like to know if that has been considered as an alternative means of raising funds.
Mlke could make a principled decision, put his momey where his mouth is. Pledge his company will never seek any contracts associated with CRL. This blog could record his decision.
The guy works on ROADs and thinks we should not spend money on RAIL. What we need to do is start slashing the NZTA spend on crazy roading projects freeing up money for a congestion free network.
The NZTA should change their name to NZRA- New Zealand Roading Agency… They are not worthy of the T (for transport), otherwise they would invest in alternative transportation other than private vehicles. They are a joke and pretty set on ruining this country, in my opinion.
+1
why would i want any contracts .Our system is to good for Auckland to have on there streets ..And of course the system is the cheapest system for the contractors to get there hands on
The problem has and has always been the amount been charged by said maintenance contractors to the council is way over the top .in some cases over 100% more than the job cost .No wonder we have huge rate rises in Auckland
I am not trying to be funny here.. But because of the bad grammar I have no idea what you are talking about.
Please differ between ‘too’ and ‘to’, ‘there’ and ‘their’.
Which maintenance contractors are you talking about? The ones for the road?
fine have it your way …
Since this is been recorded here goes .Rockbind system is NZ made .The system for roading is classed as one of the best .We use aggregate that is sourced in the mid north island our binder is also NZ developed it contains no solvent and not classed as a D.G .
Current products been used in Auckland are all D.G and have products in them that endanger the health of workers and the environment .
They also fail after a sort time .There cost is around $29 a sqm to the contractor ours is $25 a sqm to the contractor .The contractor charges upwards of $55 a sqm to the maintenance contractor this price goes up to around $ 90 to $110 a sqm to the city council .Its not brain surgery to see that someone is making a huge amount by clipping the ticket .If the council went straight to the contractor who puts this stuff down they would save heaps
I’d suggest that if this is true and you have bid for projects you haven’t won yet can demonstrate a fit for purpose product at lower prices then you ask the auditor general to investigate. But I do suggest you have someone proof read your submission to them.
If you are so sure of these costings you would go into the maintenance service yourself, or otherwise reporting corruption. So which is it?
Why would i go into the maintenance field . We am a manufacturer not interested in putting this on the ground to say the truth
Then you are not in much of a position to complain if people don’t do the job the way you would have.
So if I understand correctly you sell a product and people charge the council to put it on the ground and it makes you angry that the company applying it has to pay it’s staff to apply the product?
Could we get back to the point of Matt’s post – Council is about to make a critical decision on Wednesday so now is the time for a bit of direct lobbying of the wavering Councillors. Note that a majority of the 21 votes (Mayor + 21 Councillors) is all that is required. I do not see much point in lobbying the die-hard opponents, but rather have focussed on the handful of waverers that will decide the outcome with a few brief texts this morning.
But be aware that this week’s decision is only about the Draft for public consultation in the new year – so there are 7 more months of debate to go before the final decision next June. Over that time we must ensure that the benefits to ALL Aucklanders are made much clearer.
+1
Well Graeme I thought it best to go for the jugular and then bcc the rest of the beast:
HI Ross,
Good on you for sticking up for Avondale – always last on the list since way back – but now there’s a new railway station there and we see some high-density residential development taking place.
But this will only increase if NIMBY-ish planning rules are relaxed and public transport frequency is ratcheted up – meaning bus lanes along the entire length of New Nth and Great Nth Roads, as well as doubling the frequency of train timetables by building all of the CRL.
Town centre development will only occur if the surrounding population is sufficiently dense to support it
I know some your colleagues won’t like you pointing it out it, but there are dubious and expensive roading projects all around Auckland which could be either scaled down, deferred or even cancelled,
so that finally, long-neglected town centres such as yours can get fixed up and equally long-neglected public transport needs properly addressed.
As long as Auckland is beset by parochialism and driven by self interest, it will stay stuck in it’s own congestion. What we need is leadership and we look to you, our elected representatives, to provide it.
Merry Xmas – Peter
+1
Peter, that was a fantastic message to send – friendly and encouraging without pulling any of the necessary punches. If I was on the receiving end I would certainly take notice and give it thought. Good on you.
One message AT failed to advertise is how CRL can positively affect the people who didn’t live close to the train station.
If more people living near the train station are not driving, it will free up road capacity for those who need to drive.
Billboards pointing out that motorway drivers are the main beneficiaries of the CRL would help.
“Get those other people off YOUR motorway! Support the CRL”
Car fans would understand that fairly quickly…
Funny, you don’t see the NZ government having to justify the outrageous expense of the RONS program. You could upgrade every town centre in NZ and fix a lot of archaic bridges with the ridiculous amount of money planned to double lane all those highways which have pretty paltry traffic counts.
That’s because we now have government by opinion – their opinion tested by polling – and if we don’t “like” it well, they just do it anyway. Please don’t mention evidence-based decision making.
At the end of the day, i can’t believe you even have to debate CRL.
Over here, the three main reasons for debating a rail line – none if which apply to CRL – are:
1. Low projected patronage, usually fringe urban and the argument is usually made for buses instead. Mostly by official opponenrs eg Treasury or other central agencies
2. Airport rail -had 2 not so good experiences and not clear if sufficient swap from taxi or car to pay full cost, including capital
3. Should have been built years ago, now victims of construction industry inflation. Everything from city underground lines to commuter lines to high speed rail are victims of this. Not that people think the rail is bad just that the cost is excessive, particularly compared with earlier estimates. Corridors that were needed for some lines were not reserved, forcing tunnelling.
I can’t relate any of this to Auckland. Clearly CRL will get the patronage. It has no complexity like airport rail and doesn’t appear unreasonably priced.
Lets take the low value projects out of Council spending. While everywhere books are declining in popularity (book stores closing and electronic books increasing in popularity) seven million is being spent on a new library for Devonport. Lets not mention that the Takapuna library is an easy bus ride away because it seems everyone who leaves Devonport wants to be able to drive.
It is also continually bemusing that this government is reticent to adequately fund public transport. Campbell Live provided real insight as to how other cities are seizing on public transport to assist in solving their congestion woes.. John Key has a unique opportunity to create a legacy quite unlike any recent National Prime Minister has been able to achieve.
This is a big enough project to wait for government funding.
Says who? We either need it, or we don’t. Auckland’s transport network and rail is being strangled by not having this project. Waiting for govt to have their road to damascus moment is not the way you advance a city into the 21st century.
Sixteen lane motorway to Damascus
“The very existence of libraries affords the best evidence that we may yet have hope for the future of man” – T. S. Eliot
“I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library” – Jorge Luis Borges
Libraries are “low value projects” – taka-ite.
Hmm….
It can wait. A project this big needs government support, just like for the highways. It is only another 6 years.
I love the CRL as much as anybody but the mayor isn’t doing himself any favours with a “CRL at all costs!” approach to the budget. Some of those costs are borne by council staff that have been providing community services who will be out of a job. It’s happening already. Maybe that is an unreasonable cost; council is charged with doing a lot of things, some of which are curtailed or eliminated by going all out on CRL. It’s foolish and naive to think the Councillors aren’t going to pick up on that. Their perspective naturally is much closer to the ground than the mayor’s and they are the ones who have to provide the balance.
Keep in mind no one is expressing opposition to the CRL, or questions its value. But in making Auckland the world’s “most livable city”, does it make sense to CUT services? That’s what you do in an era of decline which AKL is most certainly not in.
“Keep in mind no one is expressing opposition to the CRL, or questions its value.”
The number of people who do exactly that is substantial. The number of people who *profess* they agree with it but want to delay – and then eventually shelve it totally – is even larger.
16 to 7. Good work people.