The CRL is going to be delayed after Audit NZ’s review of the council’s draft Long Term Plan.
Mayor proposes amendment to CRL timing in draft LTP
Following discussions with Audit NZ, the Mayor is proposing an amendment in Council’s draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 on the timing for construction of Auckland’s number one transport priority – the City Rail Link (CRL).
In its draft budget, Council has the CRL project commencing in 2015/16, based on an assumption government’s funding contribution for the project would also start next year, five years earlier than government has so far indicated.
On Tuesday 9 December, council will consider changing the assumption of timing of the government contribution to 2018/19. This will mean enablement works of $280 million will still take place in the first three years of the plan, but construction will not start until 2018/19. This will also delay the completion date to 2023.
Mayor Len Brown says:
“We have a track record of success with central government when it comes to the CRL – we have moved them from a position of total opposition to one of commitment for funding half the project from the year 2020,” says Mayor Len Brown.
“Yes, we still have to work with government on final timing, but I’m confident we can come to an agreement and get on and get this job done.
“I understand why Audit NZ feel that we need to take a more conservative approach to our financial projections and I am proposing that we develop the LTP based on a later timing of government contribution.”
Public consultation on the draft LTP begins January 23 next year. The final plan is due for adoption June 30, 2015.
At first glance this seems like a big blow to the project however looking at the detail it’s not quite as bad as it seems.
The enabling works – the cut and cover tunnel from Britomart to Wyndham St – are unaffected and will still go ahead next year. For the main works, which relate to the remainder of the project, as the NZTA briefing to incoming minister highlighted, there’s still a huge amount of design, land acquisition, finalisation of consents to go before the project could start – let alone the issue of convincing government to pay for its share earlier than they’d previously indicated. It’s been suggested to me that even if the government can’t to the party for a 2015/16 start that the amount of work still to do would have meant the main works were likely to have a 2017/18 start anyway.
Currently the CRL’s funding in the draft LTP really starts to ramp up from 2015/16 and is fully completed by 2021/22 (the negative amount after that is presumably income from the sale of excess land):
I don’t know the extent to which this will change – as the ‘enabling works’ will still proceed as will design and land acquisition for the main project. Presumably the main impact might be on the 16/17 and 17/18 budgets which will allocate a lot less to CRL now.
It’s important to remember though, as we explained last month ahead of the November LTP meeting that discussed CRL, is that this won’t free up funding for other projects as CRL does not have an impact on rates until the early 2020s – meaning that deferring its cost can’t be used for other projects that would have a rates impact sooner.
I do wonder whether the government might take another look at CRL now, as it seems Council has shifted its position on timing to midway between its preferred 2016 start date and government’s 2018 preferred date. Especially given rail patronage is currently tracking to hit the government’s target of 20 million trips in 2018.
Processing...
Sounds like a bit of a storm in a teacup. This year’s election killed off any chance of a 2015 or 2016 start to CRL as a whole.
If its pushed back in the LTP, can it be bought forward later if there is no financial impact on rates in the meantime until it opens?
So did Audit NZ recommend delaying any roading projects? Mill Road?
Govt funding is secure for those, which is all AuditNZ would be concerned about.
Mill Rd isn’t a state highway is it? About half the funding would come from rates.
Be interesting if they were empowered to take into account the current SH1 widening nearby and make some assessment of the value for money..
This is not greatly different from what staff foreshaddowed weeks ago at the last of the Draft LTP meetings (when George Woods unsuccessfully tried to stall the project). Enabling works going out for tender early 2015 (construction 2015-16). By 2017 increased patronage stats from the EMUs will feed into a revised business case and negotiations with Government so that funding for the main CRL project can be included in the 2018-2018 LTP. According to staff construction is likely to take 3-4 years rather than the previous estimate of 4-5 years. So at the most optimistic 2021 is still possible but unless Government really stuffs us around then 2022 or 2023 are the most likely dates for completion. It would appear that the AT discussion you were reporting is just confirmation of that earlier Council discussion. Unfortunately we remain at the mercy of the neanderthals in Wellington who may raise a variety of reasons for further delay. We must make this an election issue for all Aucklanders in the next General Election campaign during mid-late 2017 which will come pretty much in the middle of the next LTP debate.
Thanks Graeme that fits exactly with what we’re hearing.
You and they did in the elections just gone. 51% voted for a Centre Right Government made up of 4 parties.
So what is the strategy that does not dictate to Auckland what they need
Glad the cut and cover is still going ahead. The precinct property work is essential. Too many delays are just costly.
A reminder of this:
NZTA briefing to incoming minister highlighted, there’s still a huge amount of design, land acquisition, finalisation of consents to go before the project could start – let alone the issue of convincing government to pay for its share earlier than they’d previously indicated. It’s been suggested to me that even if the government can’t to the party for a 2015/16 start that the amount of work still to do would have meant the main works were likely to have a 2017/18 start anyway.
Even if Bill English signed the cheque today as NZTA have pointed out the main project could not start until 2018 any how owing to the lead in required before we can start boring under the volcanic rock.
So realism has finally hit the mayoral office on both financial and engineering grounds….
The enabling works still continue on schedule
Or did we not read NZTA’s briefing?
Yes Ben,
We did read that.
But are we (and the Minister) expected to take NZTA’s assessment of these timeframes at their own word, allowing for the fact that this very agencies only experience with modern TBM tunnelling is with a 14m twin road tunnel being bored right now in Waterview, but which is completely and consciously avoiding any volcanic rock in the process. Yet it will be the most expensive roading project in the country when it completes.
The same agency whose traffic predictions for years and years have been totally wrong and overestimated demand for everything, and yet still hold their hand out for even more road widening in the face of the inconvenient truth that traffic has been essentially flat for over 10 years?
The same agency who want “special party”/observer status on the CRL project, yet state that they actually have no particular skills to contribute to it?
they will not be involved with funding, building or operating it and will never have anything to do with it by law.And you suspect their only concern is that CRL government funds may steal money from their future projects hence their intense interest.
Yeah Right, These guys have the inside running on all things sensible, fiscally restrained, that are economically important to the country.
Seems to me the only thing relevant to NZTA and its projects and the CRL is that the machinery that will use the CRL use round wheels. Everything else is different.
Spin it, cut the mustard, spread the jam which ever way you like Greg.
The main project start date is sitting at 2018, a date long predicted that would be chosen. It seems only now after the Mayor has been long warned he had decided to move the main project to the 2018 time frame while allowing the enabling works to go on as planned to coincide with Precinct’s development downtown.
The main litmus test now will come the LTP consultation round and what was put in the submissions. Although that said Council has a knack in ignoring submissions.
It seems Fletcher, Lee, and Cooper (who looks like was vindicated with her 2018 date that was shot out earlier) are in agreement over the 2018 start date being the best compromise possible between Government and Council.
This is Fletcher, Lee and Cooper. Three very different Councillors with three very different view points.
So rather than whinging that the 2015 date got shunted as it was long expect was going to happen the best thing to do would be to rally around the 2018 start date, hold Bridges and English to their word (2017 elections for them) and use these three years (seeming we have a new Development CCO incoming) and get the proper financials that do not include a toll, tax, or extra rates properly sorted
The three key points are:
1. that a start earlier than 2018 for the main work is practically unlikely anyway, there being so much pre-construction work still to do.
2. Stage one is preceding as planed next year
3. The new design with the surface Mt Eden stations take so much complexity and expense out the project that it still should be possible to still complete it in 2021
Right, this gives time for AT to concentrate on getting the new network humming; build those buslanes and interchange stations, work those new trains.
Looks sensible.
Ben, sure, but you overlook two very important things.
1. Elections for Auckland Council in 2016
2. Auckland Energy Consumer Trust (AECT) has election this year*
Both of these have an ability to completely throw any carefully orchestrated 2018 planned start dates by Councillors and Central Government out the window.A vote for 2018 is pretty much a vote to delay it well beyond then too.
2017 will be a new election for Central Government too, no matter who gets in, Ministers English and Bridges (who won’t last to 2017 as MoT anyway) will not feel any inclination to stick to their words or promises then about funding CRL then if they don’t want to – and if they win that election why would they not simply push it out to 2020 as they said all along?.
And if a new Government is elected, they won’t be bound either and who knows what form that will take.
So holding out hope for the 2018 start date to be stuck to, is nothing less than hoping the ducks will stay waiting in a row and is pretty blinkered.
We need to plan some alternatives now for the current LTP as holding this Government to account in 2017 is not going to be an option. And a lot of things are going to change between now and the next LTP for sure.
*now Some of you will now doubt be asking what is AECT and how does it play a part here?
It is simple – $100m a year of cash goes through this organisation a year. And its likely going to be shutdown sooner than later and that dividend stream that currently is handed out to some Aucklanders each year will become available for other purposes like CRL funding.
AECT is the outfit thats owns 75.4% of Vector Ltd a Lines and Gas company,
AECT is owned by everyone in the old AEPB district (in AECT’s words: “Auckland, Manukau and the northern parts of Papakura (the old AEPB area)”.
AECT receives over $100m a year in divends from Vector Ltd and majority shareholder and distributes the majority of these dividends it gets from Vector Ltd,
That amount is over $100m a year in todays $. Currently AECT says its share of Vector Ltd is worth $2B+
AECT is administered by 5 Trustees elected in a postal vote every 3 years, next one is October 2015.
Under its Constitution (Trust Deed), the ownership of (and thus access to the Vector Ltd shares/dividend streams of Vector Ltd) will revert to Auckland Council ,or its replacements in 2073,
This is a bit like how the Civic Theatre languished in private hands for 80 years and was handed back to Auckland City Council in 1998.
There has been talk of AECT being returned to AC ownership earlier than 2073, however, the lack of ring fencing of the income from the Vector Ltd dividends is one stumbling block to that that I see as right now its used to handout $320 to each householder a year in the old AEPB districts and is looked on a “freebie” by those who receive it, (even though they and all other Vector customers paid for that dividend in their Vector Ltd Line charges), so it was mostly their money to start with. Hardly a “freebie” then.
Now all the bitching about AC paying for its half of CRL is now just on $1B, once the committed $280m “enabling works” costs are removed from the picture.
So it leaves $1B on Councils side to be funded, if AECT wanted to, it could suspend its annual AECT dividend payments which go to about 58% of Aucklanders) who are in the old AEPB area and instead, fund the councils $1B CRL build tomorrow via an infrastructure bond (it could even own the Councils share of CRL if it wanted to) – should the trustees vote that way.
Now right now the 5 trustees are all C&R affiliated, Nat Party party hacks, and have been since AECT was formed, but the left block came close to winning the 5 seats up for election last time, and could succeed this time in 2015 in overturning that encumbrancy of Cit Rats.
If it does, then AECT could easily come to the CRL party and quickly e.g. in 2016, and since AECT answers to no one but themselves they can do what they like within the terms of the Trust Deed, which includes this right -“the Trustees may in their absolute discretion, and by unanimous resolution, advance the Termination Date (of the Trust)”, which means they can vote to end the AECT itself, which I suspect is what will happen if the left block gets in to AECT this time.
Todd Niall from National Radio had a story about that earlier this week (Tuesday morning news) about how AECT’s time is pretty much up and they should possibly consider winding it up (presumably puttign the Vector Ltd shares into the council CCO that owns Ports of Auckland and other Shareholding like the Airport. See here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/260716/campaign-for-council-to-own-most-of-vector
It is interesting that former National Party Presidents Collinge and Boag both are mentioned and Collinge (if not Boag too) is all for this to happen sooner than later.
Note: that story fron RNZ contains incorrect information that the Government has to sign it off – the Trust Deed clearly shows that that decision solely rests with the Trustees to advance the termination date of the trust simply by an unanimous decision, that is all that is needed. No Government rubber stamping of any kind is involved.
So if you consider $100m a year dividends could easily pay for the Councilcs CRL build costs tomorrow you have to wonder why talk of delays is even on the table.
All I’d want here is that if CRL start date is delayed to 2018 in the LTP, that allowance is kept in so it can be brought forward again, if and when AECT comes under council control before then.
This will then bring AECT ownership and how it works for the Auckland Community into a spotlight for this years AECT trust elections as it should be.
The only valid argument against doing that is that many of those on North Shore and out West received power company shares in the 90’s and most elected to sell them off soon afterwards, so these people have already benefited from the power company selloffs in the 90’s – whereas those in the AECT area had no such option they were never consulted and their AEPB shares went into AECT.
It would therefore seem unfair that those outside the AECT area who got power company shares are then also able to “double dip” the benefits (even indirectly) if AECT is wound up or helps pays for the CRL.
And it is those out west who will benefit the most with CRL.
However, those who live in the AECT area have received about $$3,000 of dividends per household over the last 20 years from AECT, so you could say that both parties have had their moneys worth from th e90s power reforms.
And maybe its time for the AECT to come to the aid of the entire Auckland area to get CRL built sooner than later.
The Chinese would likely have it finished in 12 months!
What do you mean by “the Chinese” and why is it likely that they would finish the CRL in 12 months?
Haven’t you heard? China has smashed through just about every world record for speed and volume of construction of major railway infrastructure. In a mere 18 years (1995-2013) it has expanded its own network from 62,400Km to 103,144Km (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_China ), and is increasingly exporting its impressive construction capabilities throughout the rest of the world. While other countries dither and set themselves relaxed construction schedules, China powers into it with no fuss. Of course I don’t *know* that they could complete the CRL from inception to completion in 12 months, but I suspect I would have a greater likelihood of being wrong if I said they couldn’t !
I think you will find that is wasn’t “the” Chinese per se that built those railways but specific construction organisations or companies ie. the nationality of those involved was not the key success factor, just as the fact that the Chinese-manufactured structural steelwork on the construction project I am currently involved in is junk is not primarily because it is Chinese…although I am seeing a very strong correlation between Chinese-made and appallingly poor quality in a number of areas.
That being said, the chances of any company from any country completing the CRL (ie fully commissioned and handed over) in a duration of one year is close to nil.
You know if we had *two* Chinese sourced TBMs (as they all are these days) we could finish the tunnels in half the time.
Bulk of the time for CRL is taken up in the consents and pre-construction stages and then station fit out not the tunnel boring though, but again if you did everything in parallel you get 12-18 months build time, but it comes at the expense of increased cost. Waterview will build two tunnel bores one after the other in two years, but need another 1year+ to complete the cross tunnel links and the like.
But if money (or in some cases safety) is no object yes you can build this stuff really quickly.
Hopefully by the time the project goes ahead we might have a council that develops a plan to pay for it.
Great to see in the news today that Lianne Dalziel and the Christchurch Council are going ahead with a Mixed Ownership Model to pay down some debt. If only we had such financial nous at Auckland City Council
We don’t need a plan to pay for it, we need a plan to stop paying for projects we need a lot less than this.
Us delaying this project is like a tech company dithering about whether the Research & Development department really needs to spend so much money – after all, last year’s product line is still selling, so what’s the worry?
Auckland Airport has been “Mixed Ownership Model” for years. It is Christchurch that has been backward.
As was our ports, and the Electricity lines/Gas company (Vector), and of course our buses were 100% private ownership model from the ’90s, unlike Christchurch which kept its Red Bus operation in house.
So we’ve done everything Christchurch is being forced to do by the Government (via CERA) and are we collectively better off than Christchurch is/will be?
Christchurch is only in this situation because they totally underestimated the cost and also likelihood of needing to replace *all* their expensive assets at once, so were well underinsured for a large natural event.
If they weren’t so underinsured thanks to their previous City manager, his staff and decisions, this issue would not have arisen and it would be the insurers coughing the cash up.
Whereas our situation it is totally central Government inflicted by their previous and ongoing policies of a decidedly roads first for everything and private enterprise is better for everything policies.
I understood our port company was owned 100% by Auckland Council.
Is now, wasn’t always. we had Mixed Ownership Model on POAL for a long time (Port of Tauranga was the next largest shareholder from memory, plus it was listed on the NZX for all the other shareholders), but ARC as owner of the majority shareholding bought out the others shares compulsorily some time back, and its been 100% owned (and delisted from the NZX) since then.
I expect the Christchurch disease will strike Auckland sooner than later. Then the Council will have sell some of their assetts to cover the debt short fall.
Christchurch fronted up and made the decision to sell yesterday. Auckland does have a debt problem, that has concerned the Audit NZ Review.
I was not surprised Mayor Len agreed to Audit NZ’s plans. Now he has to cut spending in other areas to ensure that this debt does not overwhelm ratepayers.
The government is looking completely out of touch with Auckland delaying this project and have messed up the convention centre which was promised 6 years ago. National is looking a bit anti business. ….. National should realise Auckland is beyond the farm gate we dont want or need roads to wellington, we are after easy access to airport, our cbd, our port and our homes all of which make more money than the rest of this country. If this carries on we should start demanding tax takes are left in the city and get a special administration separate from the rest of the country and leave the beehive to fart around with how best to truck milk from the farm to the milk shed which is apparently far more important than thousands of people wasting hours on end stuck in traffic when they could be making more money for the economy alot more than a few cows…This is the new Auckland which is internationally focused. If wellington cant govern with this in mind maybe Auckland needs to turn around for a bit, tell the beehive we dont want their narrow anti Auckland growth policies. Because we are sick of living with hamilton style infrastructure with 7 times the population and our government is doing f### all about it. … wait for waterview to open, this will cause further traffic jams as youll be pushing all airport traffic into the spaghetti junction, the same piece of road that prob half the city uses for their commutes. The traffic wil b backed up all the way to the tunnels, the bridge, city onramps etc..oh whatever let the government stuff up the best economic asset it has! But I think len and the council should give the beehive the finger, borrow the full amount to build it, lets see the government ignore the council which control’s a third of its people go into bankruptcy…. I don’t think so… that or paint bus lanes all the way down our main aerial roads and use the full local road budget to pay for the tunnels force every vehicle onto the governments motorways and we will see our under funded this city infrustructure is…. lets show wellington we will not let them turn a blind eye..
Agree with most of this, I don’t even consume dairy products but I do realize its a pretty big part of our economy but the Government should be focusing on Auckland’s transport issues not dairy which already has plenty of highway infrastructure to use and the main hold up will be when they go through Auckland during peak… lol. If the government was serious about reducing congestion in auckland: the north-western would be getting a busway as part of the current works, the CRL would be full-on works starting NOW, pukekohe would be being electrified, northern busway extension would be under planning and nearing construction soon and we would already be talking about a Mt Roskill spur and other improvements.
“I don’t even consume dairy products but I do realize its a pretty big part of our economy”
No its not, Bill English said as much earlier this week when asked about tanking Global dairy prices.
I can’t recall the exact phrasing he used, something like Dairy is “30% of 30% of 30% of your GDP.”
Well I just went from what I heard, but if that is indeed the case then that only emboldens the point that there should be less focus on that and more focus on getting people moving in Auckland.
Agreed,
I found the actual quote from Bill English in Parliament this week: (see this URL for this and more questions and answers in Parliament this week on Dairy and exports overall: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1412/S00075/pq-5-economy-impact-of-dairy-prices.htm )
Actual Quote: “Well, the dairy industry is 25 percent of 30 percent of the economy, so it is actually around 7 to 8 percent of the **whole economy**.” [ Emphasis mine]
There is another answer to a related question, which shows the governments take on where our main Exports come from:
“…the Opposition clearly do not understand how diversified our export sector is. Dairy exports are around 24 percent of the country’s total goods and services exports. Non-dairy agricultural exports are 22 percent, non-agricultural exports are 29 percent, and service exports are 24 percent. So the dairy sector is about a quarter of our exports. By comparison, Australian exports of hard commodities, mainly iron ore and coal, make up 57 percent of their total exports of goods and services. We are considerably less reliant on dairy exports than Australia, and the other three-quarters of our exports are not doing too badly.”
So, English says non-Agricultural and services exports total over 50% of our economy, yet many of his fellow Government MPs are without a doubt stuck in the ’50s mindset when those sectors were 5% total not 50%+ of our exports and the rest without a doubt came from farms.
The way to make those non-farm sectors grow further is to spend less money on bad BCR projects like Holiday Highways and yet more RoNS and East West Motorways and spend the money on smart projects like CRL, and PT and cycling investments which will return the money spent in spades.
Why stop at electrifying only to Pukekohe. With the amount of new subdivision at Pokeno they should be planing to extend it to there at least. Now if they really are serious about extending rail then they should be looking at Waiuku as well with the amount of new subdivision being built around the area. This will have some benefit for those poor suckers stuck on the motorway every work day heading into Auckland.
Double-tracking might be required for anything frequent beyond Pukekohe though, because once you pass the Waiuku branch; one track goes to Waiuku and the other to Pukekohe as single-track, which is OK for frequent services as far a Pukekohe but anything further would have similar timing issues to Onehunga.
From what I can see, the NIMT is double tracked all the way to Mercer.
Oh I see, Google maps is deceiving as always… lol
http://oi60.tinypic.com/taobyp.jpg
Pukekohe is the last settlement of note within the Auckland Region. Anything further south is part of the area where PT is funded by the Waikato Regional Council so they would need to come to an arrangement with AT on this, a process which is likely to be drawn out and far more complex that it should be.
The provinces are suffering just as much from poor transport funding allocation as Auckland.
I live in a dairy area, the combination of subsidy cuts to siphon the money off to fund motorways in Auckland plus Nationals roads of national signifcance, and the increase in axle loads for trucks and tankers is leaving the roads in my district a mess.
PS As a parochial provincial who never hesitates to moan about how Auckland gets all the love I support the CRL. Savvy spending in Auckland frees up cash to fix the problems above.
There is nothing stopping some Financial Input from Eden Local Board when they sell off some of Chamberlin Park for Housing as featured on Campbell Live twice this week! The money could come from that source to make up for the early start Len Brown has wanted.
You obviously did not listen very carefully to a series of statements by me and my colleagues on Campbell Live – the Chamberlain Park project does not involve any property sales. Zero, zip, nada. In any case the sort of money required for CRL eclipses what could be realised from a few hectares of land sales. In fact I would argue that there is already enough money in transport budgets if we just stopped building motorways – a ten year moratorium on motorway expansions in the Auckland area would free up billions so we could have CRL + the Congestion Free Network of busways, upgraded ferry terminals, etc.
I feel sorry for Len and some of the past mayors of Auckland who actually knew what Auckland needed. Government agencies focussed on road building for small vehicles and not providing any viable choices for Aucklanders but to promote a congested gas gussling economy and keep the asphalt plants humming and fuel taxes coming in.The problem is even AT is hamstrung with half of their funding coming from NZTA as well so everything in the right direction looks like a negotiation for some other completely backwards schemes. Public transport primarily and cycling etc are pretty obvious solutions even with the current network. Why would the government want to back such a scheme that makes their overindulgence on a one mode wonder over the last 40 years look completely ridiculous. The problem now is that there is so much congestion that it is killing the economy-freight/workers held up and turning Auckland in the wrong direction. The CRL plus extending the rail network and the new bus-public transport system are solutions but even them seem held up from some common sense right now. Why does a bus network take 3 years to plan and 3 years plus to implement. 4 months to put the bus lane in Fanshawe St so why??????. And don’t get me started on the airport rail. I think there are some transport heads that need to roll or feel the tunnel borer from an upwards direction because it is all too corrupt.
“Why does a bus network take 3 years to plan and 3 years plus to implement”?
In a nutshell, because a previous National Government legally forced the sale of the old ARC owned “Yellow Bus Company” to private enterprise (in the guise of increased competition).
The sale consisted of the buses and their related infrastructure (like the bus yards/bus parks), AND also the routes the buses ran on as the bus companies now owned those routes and took all the money from those passengers, and could then go back to AT (or its predecessors) and demand a subsidy on top as well if it decided it need one and AT more or less had to pay as the bus companies could and did fudge the figures to show it was unprofitable.
This now meant that in order for AT to make changes to bus routes it has to spend years planning the changes it wants, and then even more years waiting for the existing bus contracts to expire, before it can force new ones in their place.
Fortunately under the new law (PTOM) which also controls bus routes, the bus companies no longer “own” the routes – they instead are (as you’d have expect them all along to be doing), providing a bus service to AT with set KPIs to meet, AT gets all the money from the passengers and then hands back a portion to the bus operator for their agreed p[rice to run the services..
As AT decides the routes and operators, it can change the routes and rules more easily as hey need to according to demand patterns without all those extensive and lengthy contract negotiations.
Now there is nothing stopping any bus company setting up competing services to AT’s buses, but they won’t get any money from AT if they do that – unless AT agrees its a needed service, so the route will have to pay for itself from fares. and unless they took HOP I doubt anyone would use them, and using HOP means AT gets all the money up front.
All this means is that the tail is now finally able to be forced to stop wagging the dog.
Thanks realised the privatisation caused issues.Could the routes and frequencies be changed right now.I’m just thinking a smarter network and maximising speed with painted symbols signal rephrasing.Firing this baby up as under attack.
To change 40 years of an imbalanced solution needs a serious move to correct the imbalance. Do everything possible and I mean everything to speed up public transport on congested bus routes -and change to a smarter more frequent network this is not a biggie. This can be done very fast it just involves a directive. Stop waiting for interchanges-or held up by political interference-some symbols every 50m some bus signs-then keep prioritising for speed efficiency. If NZTA were onboard which they are not this would involve one lane each way on the motorway network. I just don’t think we have the balls to do anything and I wonder who at the top wants to fix this problem because right now it looks pathetic and it looks like we are in the hands of BP and Mobil.
The growth in the economy now is being driven by migration, housing, dairy (small-ish?), and the Christchurch rebuild. As dairy exports decline and the ChCh rebuild finishes up in the next 1/2 years, the government might feel the need to boost the economy before the next election in 2017 and a quick way to do that would be to find “shovel-ready” projects, which might be the CRL if the enabling works are done and nothing unexpected happens.
Shovel ready for CRL means the TBM is ordered and is about to arrive, and the southern portal land is ready to receive it – until then its not “shovel ready”.
Since all works start at the southern end not the northern end where the enabling works happen,
You can’t just order a TBM off the shelf, they take time to tender, then order and build/deliver and then commission.
So to have a shovel ready CRL by 2017 you’d need to start on the works around that about, umm, 2015 or so.
Shovel ready usually refers to projects that have all the consents and designs in place and just need the construction funded. The works at the southern end would be part of that construction and could take place while the TBM was being built and delivered – like what happened with Waterview.
Yes but hadn’t the Well Connected Alliance or whatever they call themselves now who are building the Waterview Connection now tendered for and won the main build contract so the tender process was pretty much in place? And the TBMs were on their way (as in ordered but not necessarily buit/shipped/here yet?)
Which means consents and designs and locked down and usually funding too even if the start date is not.
John Key is allegedly a prime minister who listens very carefully to his pollsters. If the council is settling on 2018 as the earliest possible start-date for the “main works” (as opposed to the “enabling works” under the Precinct properties), then the government could easily jump on that date as a way of taking away an issue for the opposition to attack them on. “We started at 2020, we bumped it forward a couple of years, and the council says we can’t start any earlier anyway.”
Indeed. It would be easy for govt to totally kill off CRL as a political issue by agreeing to a 2018 start date.
The big downside (upside for the Govt) is how the CRL dominates prcatically all of the PT discussion for Auckland.
Its fine if the Govt don’t want to start the CRL till 2020. So what else are they doing for PT and by that I specifically mean bus and rail? From what I can tell, nothing except not cancelling projects the previous Labour government signed up to and the addition of some worthy cycle projects, the latter amounting to pennies in the grand scheme of things.
But they never get asked that what they will do for rail, or bus, in between now and 2020. They can keep the discussion confined to the CRL. Its brilliant, when you think about it.
A 2015 start to the enabling works means the CRL is seen to be underway before the 2016 council elections and 2017 general election.
Fait accompli.
After yesterdays fiasco on the harbour bridge, it goes to show that a 2nd crossing is much more important than the CRL. What is the rail loop going to do if the bridge comes to a standstill again. Surely those in power can see the need for a tunnel or whatever. The length of the hold up was a joke and traffic in this day and age should have an alternative. And No I don’t live on the North shore. It is called priorities Mr Brown.
Tunnel from Britomart to the Shore and give the North a Harbour rail connection first. St Lukes to Albany in under 40 mins? I’d be keen.
There is a second crossing, Upper Harbour. There are ferries, there soon will be the Skypath. Just get out of your SUV and live a little. Next thing to build is what’s missing across the harbour, not more of what already doesn’t work: a dedicated Rapit Transit line. Rail tunnels.
A duplicate motorway wouldn’t do anything. If one is blocked then the parallel one will become blocked straight after too. Notice how the northwestern and upper harbour motorways got jammed as people avoided the bridge clog. Same would happen with a tunnel next to the bridge.
Only real hope is a crossing that’s not for traffic, anything else would get traffic congestion.
In order to build that second crossing you’re so keen on, both the existing bridge and new crossing (tunnel) would need to be tolled at least $10 each way.
And there is no guarantee then, that even with the second crossing in place that incidents like yesterdays would not occur and when they did, that they would only be on the bridge rather than in the tunnel.
[A tunnel crash like yesterdays would take much much longer to deal with than 4 hours too so a problem in the tunnel will take longer and cause worse tailbacks].
And a crash on the bridge or the tunnel will likely lead to further crashes on the other crossing as everyone piles on to it to avoid the first, thus causing even more of a problem.
I’m sure you’d be even more pissed off then if you’d paid a $10 toll only to then sit in traffic for 4+ hours than having paid nothing to do the same wouldn’t you?
This incident was no more serious as far as blockages go, than other recent motorway incidents – the concrete truck losing a wheel at the Greenlane on ramp, and several incidents on the Newmarket Viaduct are recent (but by no means the only such examples of late).
All of which caused lane closures and massive tailbacks like yesterday, and those incidents would have made the second harbour crossing just as useless if it existed, as they made the existing bridge crossing at the time, when they happened.
While yesterdays was on the bridge, that is a rarity to (a) be on the bridge (b) affect so many lanes in one direction at once and (c) occur in such a way as to not allow a reconfiguration of the lanes to allow more than 1 lane in a given direction.
And truth is it shows just simply hows a single mode reliance like motorways for everything, doesn’t work when a problem hits. And thats NZTAs and Central Governments fault.
Paying for the crossing will be NZTA’s job, not Auckland Councils. So you can blame Len Brown and the Council all you like it won’t help one iota even as your vented spleen shrinks.
Do you really want to throw down $5 billion dollars of your and my taxes to maybe (and thats a big maybe) protect against a one in 5 year event?
When other events on the same motorway network can and will occur at least once every year even after that crossing is opened and have a worse effect when they do?
Oh and by the way, once that second harbour crossing opens, the existing bridge will become Auckland Councils problem, to maintain and keep in good order.
That will up your rates quite a bit to have to pay for that bridge as NZTA won’t pay to maintain both tunnel and bridge – its one or the other.
A $10 toll will kill demand to the extent that we don’t need to build a second costing (not that we actually need to build one now), maybe we try a $5 toll prior to building a second crossing to see how that goes.
It’s times like yesterday I’m glad I live in the city centre. If I was going anywhere I would have caught the train, oblivious to the carnage on the roads. One lady caught in the jam complained about spending on the southern rail line. Does she think that caused the problem? You could asphalt the whole of Auckland, you’d still have the same issues.
I understood the Southern Rail line was also closed for maintenance and/or an accident. Murphy’s Law.
I think she was talking about the the CRL which heads ‘south’ when looking at it from the shore. She also said it was clear we needed a second harbour crossing. Great news, it’s already there!
There won’t be a second harbour crossing anytime soon as we move from a “rock star” economy to a “rock pool” one. Things will stagnate as the tide goes out, due to returns from dairy diminishing and as Oz drops into a hole because iron ore prices continue to get smashed. Who would have thought that our share index would overtake theirs?
At least we will still be able to afford more roads and National Super.
Best thing I’ve read in the motoring section recently:
http://i.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news/65824937/digging-set-to-start-on-city-rail-link