As the Herald reported yesterday, it looks as if Auckland Transport have really dropped the ball in getting a designation in place for rail to Mangere and Auckland Airport – what should be called the “South Western Line”. It is worth emphasizing that the main point of any rapid transit project in the south west is not so much to provide air travellers with a rail link, but to provide the more than 20,000 workers at the airport with a decent alternative, and also benefit the residents of Mangere and South Auckland who probably have the worst public transportation services in the entire region.
Some years back, a cross-stakeholder South-Western Multi-modal Airport Rapid Transit (SMART) study was commissioned to look at the rapid transit options. It was supposed to be making progress towards a designation, and for some time we have been wondering how the study was progressing.
This week, through a LGOIMA request, we finally got our hands on a copy of what has turned out to be an interim, and final report. Unfortunately, Auckland Transport instructed consultants GHD to cut the three phase study short in September of last year.
Phase Three of the study was supposed to “focus on developing documentation to support route protection. This would have entailed developing a draft Notice of Requirement and/or easement documentation for future-proofing of the preferred route. Within the airport designation, it was anticipated that an easement would be agreed and included in the current Auckland Airport Masterplan.”
However, the study was cut short with the following reasons given:
There is no explanation as to why the plans listed have a higher priority than designating rail to the airport. Auckland Transport and Auckland Council have to be the party responsible for driving the rapid transit designation process through, but instead they’ve more or less said “Ugh – too hard!” and sat on their hands.
Fast forward a year later, and things have now come to a head as the NZTA are wanting to push through the Kirkbride Road grade separation project, which will turn SH20A and SH20 into a continuous motorway. There is currently no provision for a rail corridor in any of the draft plans, and it is my understanding that the NZTA are waiting on a clear direction from Auckland Transport on where the rapid transit corridor will run.
The interim SMART report supported an earlier study from 2011 which concluded that a rail loop through South Auckland remains the technically preferred strategic option (I’ll have the detail on a later post) yet no progress has been made in designating the rail corridor.
Most worryingly of all, it looks as if Auckland Transport is now re-litigating the decision for heavy rail and is considering light rail instead for the corridor between Onehunga and the Airport. There are currently no public details on any of the following factors:
- How much would the light rail rolling stock cost, what would the capacity be and where would the rolling stock be housed?
- How much slower would light rail be, compared to a heavy rail solution?
- How much cheaper could a light rail route be, bearing in mind that Sydney’s light rail is now likely to cost $2.2bn – about the same per kilometre as heavy rail between Onehunga and the airport?
So many questions. So few answers.
Processing...
Not to mention the lack of appeal of transferring (with luggage) from EMU to light rail at Onehunga.
You don’t do a short little LR line to Onehunga. You convert the Onehunga line to LR and they transfer at Penrose, where there would be trains going in all directions.
Too bad we cannot get train-like light rail like what they have in Asian countries. Check the rolling stock of LRT and MRT in Manila Philippines
This is a major concern Cam, totally agree with you.
We need designation asap for the line which will pass through the airport. Not light rail either. The study has been conducted and it concluded heavy rail is needed. I do not support more ratepayers money going into a repeat of the study but with a light rail focus.
Think of this from a passengers perspective ( again, AT are useless at doing this), one rail service to the airport is far better than catching a train, then getting off with all your baggage and transferring to light rail. Nonsense!
The issue here is NZTA and likely the MOT. Therefore, the cost to fix this issue in future should come out of a future NZTA/MOT budget (….not taken from a rail/PT budget). Perhaps this will mean $2 billion plus that MOT/NZTA now won’t be able to spend on roads elsewhere because they have cocked this up.
Anyone with any knowledge in the professional transportation planning field has been well aware of a future plan for heavy rail to the airport….the failure to accommodate this, or make any attempt to hasten the designation for a heavy rail corridor is either gross incompetence, or sabotage.
This was the mayors No2 project. It is a key part of the congestion free network. The same political issues as for the rapid rail in 1972. the reality is this SMART project has been overtaken by not so smart spending on motorways.
I attended the open day display for the East -West Connection Proposals at Onehunga Primary School on 11 September and noted that there was no provision for rail to extend beyond the Onehunga Station to the Mangere Inlet. The maps handed out at the open day show the railway as ceasing at Onehunga.
When I asked why, I was told it was not in their brief and that another working party was investigating the rail link to the airport.
Auckland citizens together with ratepayers were informed and sold on the the proposition that the whole point in having a ‘super city’ was so that the most appropriate planning could be properly coordinated.
I also understand that Auckland Airport are providing for rail at the airport end by planning that the route will be constructed under the second runway, currently in the early design stage.
At the very least the rail route to the airport should be designated and this early segment planned at grade before any commencement of the East- West Connection. The lower Onehunga Mall, Onehunga Station and Neilson Street collectively is the very fulcrum on which the East-West Connection rests and the rail segment should provide for double tracking to the waters edge for extension in due course to the suburb of Mangere Bridge
Shouldn’t the Kirkbride Road grade separation be placed on indefinite hold due to all these uncertainties? Or are these special, only affects rail, type uncertainties? New roads impact the need for rail, while they don’t impact the need for roads? Likewise, new rail wouldn’t affect the need for new roads?
Excellent point no difference regarding planning. Lots of differences regarding outcome. One solution is sustainable the other is not and we still havn’t learnt our lesson or petrol companies/fuel tax logic/still to much octane in the decision making room don’t you think.
Further to my comment above………….. In an ideal world early extension to Mangere Bridge suburb could provide commuter transport to employment destinations in Te Papapa etc. and with consequent reduction reduction in some car travel, although that supposition cannot be quantified.
Only when the railway has been extended at grade beyond Neilson Street or in conjunction with this extension should road upgrading proceed.
Furthermore if the Brief did not include the complementary consideration of the railway extension from Onehunga then clearly the Brief needs revision.
I made a submission accordingly
What seems to have happened is that between NZTA, AT, and earlier agencies there has been a failure to reserve a route. This has pushed up the cost OF ANY KIND of vehicle getting a good fast right of way through Mangere and to the Airport. The Airport company is also insisting on an underground solution for rail to the terminals, further making the capex look much higher than necessary. NZTA also did less than they were supposed to when building the Bridge between Onehunga and Mangere to enable it for rail underneath; failure to future-proof that looks spiteful to say the least, what’s worse is they seem to be doing it again at Kirkbride Rd intersection rebuild.
So AT are now just trying to lower the capex by changing the system. But as this seems to be at the cost of having a one seat ride to anywhere meaningful, or true Rapid speeds, it is hard to see how this is an improvement on simply upgrading the connections from trains at Papatoetoe or Puhinui and the frequency and priority of buses between those stations and the Airport.
If instead of trams [LRT] they are thinking Light Metro as in the Sky Train in Vancouver then perhaps there is some merit in this idea, so long as they are intending to at least run them to Britomart, or at a pinch Newmarket, so still using the Onehunga Line. Light Metro can still be rapid, unlike Trams, have decent capacity, and, critically require less gentle geometry than our current bigger trains. Presumably Light Metro and the new EMUs can share track from Penrose. Then there is always the future possibility that they could even through route from Parnell Station to Aotea, Wynyard, and to the Shore with Light Metro… Great way to seel a Harbour Rail Tunnel with direct Shore to Airport services.
Anyway the most vital point is that the right of way is secured as early as possible. And any route at this distance from the centre must be Rapid Transit and not just rambly local serving trams.
Shared route for light rail / heavy rail should certainly be doable, although I don’t know what barriers Kiwirail might flag against this. Tyneside metro shares like this on certain parts of the network. Their light rail resembles ‘normal’ rail rather than a Tram in appearance, size etc, and is much faster than heavy rail in practice – think our new electric trains with less dead weight to drag around in the train cars.
The real problem of course is having a diverse stock holding – specialised trains just for the airport – just what we were moving away from now…. More expensive, less flexible.
They run LR on HR tracks overseas. If the powers that be are still anti LR on HR, then turn the Onehunga Branch into LR and run them up to Penrose and change to trains there. Then push the other way down past the airport to join up the Manakau line and change that to LR as well.
Surely it’s viable in the Southwest line case as because it joins the the main line north of the important freight junction at Westfield. I don’t numbers or times but my impression is that relatively fewer freight movements happen on the North Auckland Line [which starts here] and the branch to Britomart/Strand [via Parnell, if any at all here]. And it’s possible that they could be all happening at night during the passenger service shut down.
So that the requirement for heavy rail passenger vehicles could be reviewed for this section of the line thereby opening the possibility of running Light Metro on the Onehunga/Mangere branch all the way through the Western Line, at first, with a view to eventually connecting it up with a North Shore Line:
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/11/29/300-queen-st-the-perfect-future-transit-station/
Clearly both new lines would be cheaper to build as Light Metro because the geometries are less limiting, but also the option of a direct ride from the Shore to the Airport si so great because these two places are so far apart, potentially taking long car journeys off the road.
Also building a new separate self contained cross town route adds resilience and reserves more capacity on CRL for even great frequencies for the existing lines.
From the Shore to Mangere would be a hell of a long trip on light rail, I’d prefer to drive thanks.
Any solution that isn’t true Rapid Transit would be moronic, and a waste of any money: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2014/10/13/the-great-auckland-transit-revival-theory-and-practice/
Light Metro: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/01/27/light-metro-for-the-north-shore-a-superior-alternative-to-a-harbour-motorway-tunnel/
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2011/10/17/art-light-metro-an-affordable-solution-for-new-rapid-transit-in-auckland/
You might want to contact the authorities of New York City who wisely decided not to extend their lines to the airport but to invest in the Air Train system is take the people from the airport to the train line and link up with existing services.
The system works just fine and is an excellent example of how it should be done. We don’t need Heavy Rail all the way to the airport, we need to bring the people to the existing train system. The advantage is that you can run trains every 3-5 minutes before transferring passengers to the main line and a train that runs say every 15 minutes.
My concern is the lack of passenger traffic at AKL Airport will mean we build a white elephant if we go ahead with Heavy Rail. The numbers going through the airport are tiny compared with global cities. Sydney couldn’t make it work, the developer of the airport rail link there went under faster than the Titanic.
We have that already Matthew, the New Network has a frequent bus shuttle line all day going from the airport to both Onehunga and the southern line.
The first test for any of this would have to be “will it be appreciably better than the buses that are already planned”. I’m of the thinking that little else apart from heavy rail running through to the existing network will pass that test, simply because half the logical route through to the CBD is already there with very fast and capacious heavy rail.
So if heavy rail costs too much, then so be it, stick with the bus shuttle.
Airtrain, light rail, new busway, metro or whatever, they are all going to be very expensive, be it a ‘mere’ billion instead of two billion. The question is are they so awesomely effective as to be worth it?
Sydney couldn’t make rail work because of the enormous beak dip that the airport wanted on each ticket.
If there is more than one person going to the airport in Sydney (unless you’re way out in deepest, darkest West), it’s cheaper to get a cab.
I’m in Parramatta which is hardly deepest West Sydney and it’s $17.50 by train to the airport, the cab is about $100. That compares with $4.70 peak to the city from Parramatta. The international terminal is four stops ~10 minutes from central station
With Opal (electronic Ticketing/Hop) the price falls and there is a cap on the airport access charge, which has always been a question I’m interested in having answered, what will the AKL airport access charge be?
That the airport line was built as a private investment and the economics surrounding it operation have been problematic hasn’t helped.
“My concern is the lack of passenger traffic at AKL Airport will mean we build a white elephant if we go ahead with Heavy Rail. The numbers going through the airport are tiny compared with global cities.”
Best we cancel the white elephant upgrade to the road too then.
I think this project has been converted from a train to the airport to a Mangere commuter service and then been bloated to the point of becoming economically unfeasible. Sure, they should put the heavy rail designation in so that it has a chance of being completed sometime in the future. But for now they should just focus on the original task of getting a train to the airport. And from my eyes, the most logical way is to build it across the open farmland from Wiri to the Airport and put one ordinary looking concrete block elevated station between the Domestic and International terminals. If the Airport want something nicer/underground then they can pay for it themselves.
I agree that the designation is the thing for now, as obviously it needs the CRL to precede it. But I couldn’t disagree more about its purpose. It’s a South Western Line with a really strong anchor [Airport] at the end. Not an airport line with a few stops on the way. Without the residential and employment ridership on the way it wouldn’t stack up. But still it has to be speed competitive for all these users.
Post CRL the Onehunga line needs more volume anyway as it will be the only service between Newmarket, Parnell, and Britomart, so that line needs some work but also more catchment, it needs to go to Mangere which also needs much better connection as it it severed and stranded by m/ways. Mangere Town Centre would become viable as a centre for the first time in its life with this connection.
I think this point about the the airport being just an end anchor needs to be emphasised and if it is smartly part of an overall rapid network. You guys have already proved well and truly all that a fix to the entire network is very affordable if not a lot cheaper than what is planned over the next 30 years we concentrate on a rapid transit sustainable network and learn from our mistakes. The north shore busway has proven what a large impact it can have-exceeding expectations. Current traffic Modelling is obviously based looking backwards rather than forwards.Bang for buck I wish overall modelling would look strongly at your proposals vs what is planned-and also the impact of freeing up the existing road network as the patronage increases-mode shift. Rapid Transit is now proven in Auckland to really move the numbers and is the most sustainable way to go. The John Campbell show last year highlighted how superior the overall vision was with the advertised large rate increases etc maybe it is time to compare the visions again to Auckland rather than trying to sell us a $12 Billion dollar gap when really if we were smart and work on the actual skeleton we don’t need to. It seems to me NZTA still arn’t thinking of a coherant network still trying to do expensive tack ons (1970s thinking) and model one piece at a time and even then at odds with obviously the mayors vision and Auckland Transport. Use the North Shore Busway numbers and build a Auckland Wide transport model from scratch and stop these expensive piecemeal schemes.
An airport station doesn’t necessarily have to be right at the terminal. A few hundred metres away across the carpark is fine if it is closed in from the elements and has a travelator, like Barcelona’s airport train station. People usually have to walk large distances within airports anyway.
I did that hike in Barcelona earlier in the year. It is shit, long, hot, slow, awkward… then the train is low frequency. Just because other cities have shit connections doesn’t mean we should design ours that way. Do it right or don’t bother, we shouldn’t spend billions to have people drag their luggage to the far side of a carpark!
Yes, it’s very inconveniently planned. Best option is the express airport bus which runs between the city centre and the airport every 5min (10min throughout the night) for Terminal 1 and every 10min (20min throughout the night) for Terminal 2.
Why are we letting the airport designation fall by the wayside, but continuing to push designations for daft projects like Penlink and an oversized second harbour crossing?
To those saying it would be light rail to Onehunga, who’s to say they aren’t thinking of taking it further like up Dominion Rd.
Personally I think we shouldn’t be compromising on the solution, fast rapid transit is the key and leave any light rail to shorter local routes like Dom Rd.
If it ain’t Rapid any sum will be a waste. AT’s own ridership figures prove that; all the real growth is on the Rapid Network; Rail plus Northern Busway… If they’re thinking of anything else means they have rocks in their heads.
Have rocks or have fallen for the same pitch from a passing LR salesman
Next it will be pods, narrow cars, monorail.
And so . . . On and on and on and on it drags. Every step forward followed by 7/8ths of a step backward. Generations come, grow weary and die without seeing those public transport schemes come to fruition, which thinking people have long realised that Auckland needs so badly. All they hear is argument and nay-saying. All they know is endless deferment and cancellation, lost opportunity and failure to get beyond the drawing board. All they observe is money being squandered on roads while congestion gets worse. A world-class example of incompetence, denial, and how not to go about things.
End of rant.
Much as it pains me, I see your rant and raise it +1.
I like the Sydney airport link. Fairly straight forward, cost a bit, but cheaper than taking a taxi.
But who is going to use this in Auckland? I totally support the CRL as a no-brainer. I just don’t see such a clear argument for rail to the airport. Yes, they should protect the designation for rail, but that’s decades away. As far as I can tell, mainly tourists will use it. I’ve always had a friend or family member drop/pick me up at the airport and have done so for them. I would never think of using a bus or train to the airport because it would be so inconvenient. If it doesn’t stack up economically for JUST tourists to use, then it’s probably going to be a very expensive venture and an on-going drain on the city for questionable benefit.
So we should base all decisions on what it is you do? I took the bus back from the airport just last week and two weeks prior to that. It was convenient and fast.
12,000 people work at the airport, and this number is set to grow with the airport company’s focus on development of the area. Some of these people might use the train.
You hit the nail on the head with the designation though. Without this in place there will never be rapid transit to the airport.
Given it won’t be built till after the CRL I would imagine a far few business travellers going somewhere near Uptown, Midtown or Downtown on day trips – a pretty certain say 40 min trip for say $10 vs $50+ and an uncertain 50 min in a cab is a win from an expense and time point of view. Also likely to use it would be a big portion of arrivals to Auckland from overseas or domestic destinations if it is quicker than Airbus and potentially cheaper too.
Let’s not forget those traavellers/workers in Auckland that are those close to stations served by the PT network where time/cost considerations are favourable, especially those central dwellers that do not have cars.
In short, quite a lot of people from the airport really and then add to that addtional boardings to/from Mangere Bridge if there is a station there along with existing Onehunga, Penrose and Newmarket passengers and it is not hard to see how the line could perform well, especially if we assume that it won’t come on stream before 2030..
Yeah Ari, I’d certainly agree that rail to the airport is less of a priority than it is to North Shore and Howick.
But what about having frequent shuttle buses to/from Papatoetoe train station instead? Once the line to Papatoetoe is electrified, and if the service were reasonably frequent (say every 15 minutes), then might that not be a decent enough solution?
Oh, and definitely future-proof by restoring the designation from Onehunga!
DB, trains to Paptoetoe are every 5mins at peak and 10 mins at other times. Bus will be at least every 15mins. Happy to transfer, and there is a bridge over the tracks to get over, then it’s a good option now.
Maybe they should just push for an extension of the onehunga line to mangere and let patronage build up. Eventually public pressure might get it the last little bit to the airport. But definately madness to not keep a corridor of land aside for it immediately.
Exactly.
The reasons they have given for stopping the NOR process are fairly spurious – the Airport has now finalised it’s masterplan and must have had an idea where it would be likely to go, the East-West study should work with the possible designation (not the other way round), the RTN capacity constraints seem straight forward – yes Onehunga line will need upgrading but how that is done can be determined later, and the exact details of the plan change development are not necessary – if the designation was in place they’d need to be cognisant of it when they actually develop. I think rather AT ran out of funding (or political will to push it) and decided to put it towards other more pressing matters. Such a shame – now when we eventually do get around to putting a proper RTN along that corridor its cost will be so unnecessarily higher.
agree.
Trams instead of trains. Another example of our tin-pot country. New Zealand doesn’t deserve to call itself a first world country.
With the Onehunga-Airport option now at $1.6b, perhaps it’s time to settle on the Wiri-Airport option, which is only a third of that price, and also of more relevance to Airport travellers and workers, as it enables trains to the airport from south and north, not just north (and most airport workers tend to live in South Auckland).
The current bus service though slow is probably more cost effective and practical for most users.
For business users most would probably use a taxi, unless the train is fast.
For tourists visiting Auckland with luggage getting on a bus and taking you almost to your hotel is great. The issue with the train is that tourists will be dropped off at Britomart or one of the other stations and then have to get to their hotel. Apart for the Accor in Custom St, this will not be convenient.
The option to get a fast bus to a rail hub is not a bad idea provided the bus and rail service is frequent, fast and convenient. With a good interchange, that is lifts to get people with their luggage over any platforms. It is no fun to finish a long flight and then have to lug suitcase up and down stairs. The issue for most people would be the time waiting for the bus, traveling by bus, transferring to the train platform, waiting for the train, then traveling by train to a station and then having to get to their eventual destination. Which is why the airport bus service is good.
Personally I would prefer the Chinese or Japanese solution with a fast train service at 300kph and preferably much more. An extension to Wellington, via Hamilton.and Palmerston North would be nice! If the UK government can propose HS2 as a high speed link then why not have one here. If NZTA cannot build a rail link then perhaps we could ask the Chinese government to use its expertise to help build one.
Last time it was Toronto’s lack of a direct train to the airport that was an exemplar to us all; this time it is New York. Apparently we are supposed to slavishly follow what other cities are doing and sit cowering in our corner, taking no decisions of our own.
Lower Manhattan – Jamaica / JFK Transportation Project
But then once again we see that New Yorkers are unhappy with their feeder system and plan to build a direct route from downtown to the airport: precisely what we need to do.
As for numbers using the airport, there were 15 million passengers in the 12 months ending November 2013. That puts Auckland ahead of all Australian airports except the big 3 of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Sydney and Brisbane already have rail links and Melbourne has announced it will build one.
These are cities with which Auckland is in competition for jobs, money etc. We can’t afford any more 20th century citrat thinking.
Oh and leave the ‘white elephant’ remarks to Roughan. He is spectacularly out of touch enough for you both.
Agree that Airport seems a very poor choice for light rail, but I still have to sigh at how alternatives to heavy rail and bus get name-called here. Clearly this is a war, closed ranks are the order of the day and no opportunity is going to be given to opponents to assert that PT is pie in the sky, nutty or poorly thought through.
Regardless of airport plans, if it is to be built, it pretty much needs to follow the cheapest route.
This means following SH20 and SH20A at least as far as the airport side of Montgomerie Rd.
All routes will at least need to go this far.
I cannot understand why the council has not designated a heavy rail route at least this far. This would protect the route around Onehunga where the east-west route is likely heading and through Kirkbride and Montgomerie, ensuring that NZTA don’t construct a barrier to any future rail development.
While the airport masterplan has rail underground across the east end of the future northern runway, I believe it should cross about 1/3 of the way along the runway to allow for a through station at the international terminal. This would require a similar amount of underground so costs should be similar, and time wasting reversing eliminated.
http://www.aucklandairport.co.nz/downloads/aial-masterplan.pdf
The line is most likely to be developed in stages, costs should be presented extending a single track to each station. The route and stations at Mangere Bridge and Mangere have already been shown in the local area plan
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/areaplans/Pages/mangere.aspx
Onehunga to K’Rd is listed as 27mins post CRL, that’ll make it about 31mins from Mangere Bridge and 35mins from Mangere. This is a huge improvement over the current express bus & walk 68mins.
http://tinyurl.com/maxx-journey-planner
Extending to Mangere is in the Auckland Council proposed 30 year plan. Why isn’t the route designated?
The current cost is bloated by silly ideas like the rail trench through Kirkbride Rd.
Kirkbride Rd needs to be a bridge over both SH20A and the rail corridor, which would work out cheaper overall. The rail trench cost needs to be factored into NZTA’s decision on Kirkbride road, currently it is not.
Single track only will be sufficient to establish the route.
Presenting costs to extend to each station should highlight any other anomalies.
I Say well done to AT for looking into alternatives. realistically we can’t afford heavy rail for 20 plus years without unlikely government support. I’d prefer something rather than nothing.
What alternatives are AT looking into? Do you know? If so, what are they? What is the “something” we’re going to get here instead of nothing?
Realistically, we can’t afford a motorway that goes to the north of Warkworth but is completely useless for Warkworth, Matakana, and all those other fast-growing towns on the Kowhai Coast because it connects to the existing road network at the wrong place – but that’s what we’re going to build (last time I heard and saw). Campaign for Better Transport’s Operation Lifesaver is a far more realistic proposal, but the experts pretended not to understand.
Airport plans and costs also need a good review.
Public works act, surface rail and a station in the carpark opposite the international terminal is an option.
Costs beyond this should be negotiable.
The long term option has been chosen, being heavy rail via Onehunga, for connectivity, commonality, freight potential, speed, etc.
Stop wasting time & money on reinvestigating other options, and put an implementation plan in place.
Thanks for the update Cameron, even though the news isn’t good. As someone who travels overseas regularly, based on my experience, I feel that a city isn’t really a city until it has rail (heavy rail) from/to the airport that directly connects with the rest of the rail system in the city (and country), i.e., no changing modes/tickets) – if you have to do that, it’s just not a user-friendly city (or country). And it’s not just for tourists; many local travellers use rail to/from the airport, as do workers at the airport and the significantly-growing industrial/logistics estates around airports (“airport cities”).
By now, we should have duplicated the track between Penrose and Onehunga, reserved the route between Onehunga and the Airport, and safeguarded its continuation to Manukau City. I recall going to a public meeting organised by Campaign for Better Transport at Ellerslie Hall many years ago where this was all discussed, and Cameron even had some official-looking plans for the rail route (but only single track?) which crossed the Manukau Harbour on the east side of the (new) Mangere Bridge and then crossed to the west side of the SH20 South-Western Motorway before curving west to follow the SH20A expressway to the airport. All that needed doing was making this route double track (but apparently that was too difficult for AT and NZTA to organise in the years before the duplication of the new Mangere Bridge – what the?).
Is this a case of “project teams” of bureaucrats and consultants wanting to make a 30-year career/revenue stream out of a job that should only take a few years?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1411/S00221/action-not-distraction-needed-on-aucklands-rail-link.htm
Thanks Anthony, well said by the NZ First MP, hopefully he’s on a committee that deals with transport and/or urban issues.
““There are many opportunities for light rail – the Auckland city to airport link is not one of them!!” . . . . Denis O’Rourke MP.
Same can be said of the aspirational Wellington city to airport link. It should be an extension of the heay rail we aleady have.
That line would do wonders for Wellington…..but imagine the cost. Eye-watering considering the tunnelling involved.
There may be ways of doing it much cheaper, which no one has considered. E.g. at-grade / covered-over / landscaped, or partial-depth cut / partially-raised cover, whatever is appropriate for each locality. A 1Km extension to a new station beside Civic Square could be achieved, I believe, for $100m and allow a throughput of 20 Trains per hr. However this would require de-trafficking of the waterfront road route. An in-depth study should be done to examine all possibilities before writing a proper rail extension off as too expensive. Unfortunately the only studies done recently have been utterly perfunctory and had the intent of ruling it out from the start.
The very advantage this line has over all others is, strangely, the thing that is hurting it. It has two anchor points, the two largest concentration of jobs in the entire region, the southern hub planned for massive growth. And smack bang in the middle of Onehunga (the end of the rail line) and the southern hub is a PT wasteland, which will no doubt be home to a majority of people who work at or near one of those two hubs as well as those who study and play at places between the two points.
The problem is, the southern hub also happens to be an airport and, to listen to some people on this thread, is a place you only go if you are getting on a plane and even then, you would get dropped off by a friend in a car (well, you can’t take a train right now, can you?). Never mind 12,000 (and growing) workers plus the people in the catchment of the planned 4 extra suburban stations who might travel there and to the rest of the network.
Talk of North Shore rail being the priority is nonesense when the Busway has plenty of enhancement in it. East Auckland of course has its needs, but given the two anchor points and the fact that rail is already half way there (to Onehunga), this would have to be the #1 low hanging fruit if it wasn’t for the fact the CRL is needed first to accommodate new lines.
And notice I haven’t talked about air passengers yet…why would I? They would be the minority but a very important one. An icing on the cake to the tune of 1600pax per day if you captured just 5% of the 12m passengers that pass through the airport each year. Hardly an unreacheable goal.
You wonder if we had called this the SW Auckland rail initiative instead (dropping all references to the airport) would this be held back by perceptions of a subsidised ride for foreign tourists.
Debating whether to link the two biggest employment hubs in the region with rapid transport, extending what is already there (rail half-way) through an area with a large catchment of potential users currently starved of any real rapid PT options. Only in Auckland would we waste time talking about this.
+1. Agree totally.
Very important points KLK, especially about air travellers being a small factor. However, while it is true that a heap of people work at the airport, the census data tells us that the vast majority of these workers live between Mangere and Manukau. The new network gives these residents good direct frequent bus links to the airport as it is. Would a rail line do anything much for someone living in Mangere East or Papatoetoe, they’ll probably just keep catching their local bus to work.
Personally I think the need for this line is mostly about rapid transit out of the area, i.e. like our other rail lines. Agree it should be the southwest line.
Careful not to fall into the trap of only trying to meet existing patterns; a rapid transit link between Mangere and the Centre City would improve the possibilities for more residents there competing the biggest employment market in the country… Rapid Transit is a pattern shifter as well as good at meeting current demands.
I think we are actually saying the same thing there Patrick. The local neighbourhoods are always going to be best served by bus, it’s the long distance regional trips that the rapid transit is good for. Mangere residents working in the city, or North Shore residents working at the airport (but probably not mangere residents working at the airport).
The only reason Auckland Transport is looking at trams is due to reducing cost. I think we need to ask the mayor what is worse for Auckland all these one-off projects trying to fix problems going in different directions but actually making things worse when actually we already have a road network that just needs to be reprioritised in one foul swoop. I think we don’t need tolls or the extra $12b if we made public transport priority over the entire network (yes incl motorways) using what we already have first via paint/removing parking -where optimised for a clear run. Tell Auckland on the news we don’t need the extra roading money but over the next 8 weeks we are changing up to one lane in each direction where required everywhere-global consultation. Public Transport has priority. If we do this it will maximise the existing corridors-make public transport an attractive option. Still carry on with the congestion free network but this way we have the whole network up and the 1000 buses with right of way. At the same time optimise signals. This option does it tick sustainability, get the most of the existing corridors, change behaviour and probably within 6 months also give cars also a better ride. If possible fit in cycle lanes at this time also-if there is width/sensible locations. Team up AT Public Transport/Congestion Free Network/NZTA with one mandate plan over the next 4 weeks and implement the next 4 weeks via all the roadmarking crews in Auckland. I am actually serious. Before school goes back is actually the best time. This is Auckland option 3 and can be done for peanuts using maintenance budgets it just needs a decision from the top.
What the hell has happened to NZ Herald editorials? Has ownership changed or have they had instructions from their National Party masters to shift focus to supporting public transport?:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11361991
Along with the recent editorial calling for building the CRL, you would almost think that the NZ Herald understands what Auckland needs to become a real city. How did that happen?
Whatever the reason, long may it continue.
That’ll be Rudman v Roughan. Today’s was presumably Rudman.
No mention of that mythical beast always held to lurking around Transit projects when viewed from the upper North Shore: The White Elephant.
This is a transport blog not a rail-is-better-than-everything-else blog so I thought. Any kind of public transport is better. Light Rail is better suited than heavy rail to the suburbs. Turn the Onehunga Branch and Manakau Branch into Light Rail and link them via the airport. AT are right to ask those questions because HR costs so much to construct in the first place. LR can go a lot more places and do it cheaper. The Manakau line built as LR could have been much cheaper. This proposal makes a lot of sense.
Not really, given that ~1/3rd of the route is already heavy rail and the other ~2/3rds of the route is alongside motorways/arterial roads (/future motorways) that have very gentle horizontal and vertical alignments in relatively flat terrain, which is ideally suited to heavy rail routes. If no freight trains, or only light freight train shuttles, were going to use the route, then the ground improvement work, track foundation and rail would be much the same for “light” rail as for “heavy” rail, and both would presumably use overhead electrical wires. The huge advantage of heavy rail is it can connect with the rest of the rail network without having to change rolling stock. Over a 100+-year life-cycle of the infrastructure, that operational cost-saving and user convenience is worth many more times than a marginal difference in construction cost.
Having travelled to hundreds of cities in America and Europe and used their public transport systems and taken notes on them, I can tell you it’s a real pain to have to go from one system to another, and can be enough to make one avoid using public transport altogether (perhaps that’s the purpose?). Having one system is much simpler and much more flexible. That’s been my experience anyway.
Yes we expect AT, NZTA, MoT, all to ask all the questions around technologies and cost, true. But with regards this route Light Rail, Trams, are clearly not a useful option. This must be a Rapid Transit route, not a slower local access one, so that means Conventional Rail, Light Metro, or Bus Rapid Transit, at a pinch Tram/trains, but not trams. And because we have a Rapid Transit network already there for much of the route clearly there are huge advantages in extending that system through Mangere and to the Airport.
However as I argue in comment above I would to see a thorough examination of how Light Metro may be able to operate here and on the existing route north of Penrose as the best way to achieve all of these outcomes:
1. A true Rapid Transit service offering competitive times from CRL stations and beyond through Mangere to Airport.
2. Without requiring a transfer for the route with the highest demand [ie one seat to CRL stations]
3. Measurably cheaper to build because of much more flexible alignments.
Light Metro is not the same as Light Rail [confusing I know] http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/01/27/light-metro-for-the-north-shore-a-superior-alternative-to-a-harbour-motorway-tunnel/
I think Light Metro (aka Skytrain) to the airport is absolutely worth looking at.
Translink in Vancouver define Skytrain as “Rail Rapid Transit (RRT)” – or rapid rail, per Robie’s plan – as opposed to “Light Rail Transit (LRT)” and the RRT for their new lines are more like metros (i.e., mainly in tunnel), which fit more in the heavy rail category: http://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/plans_and_projects/rapid_transit_projects/ubc/alternatives_evaluation/ubc_rapid_transit_study_alternatives_analysis_findings.ashx
Note that the travel time by RRT in this (and other Vancouver transit studies) is about 2/3rds that of LRT, thus attracting much better ridership (away from cars) – which is surely what we want to achieve. There is no point spending money on a mode that doesn’t greatly improve travel times over road-based transport.