The government’s stubborn attitude towards the City Rail Link is going to add $270 million to the council’s debt once it is eventually built. That is from a combination of increased inflation costs and the council having to pay in full for the early enabling works in full. The council is having to officially delay the main works of the project till the 2018/19 financial year after Audit NZ didn’t agree with them that they should include the government’s contribution from 2015/16. A special meeting is being held today to approve the change announced on Friday and the agenda highlights the financial implications from the project being delayed. First here’s the background information.
5. The CRL is the game changing project for Auckland, the most significant piece of our transport network which will ensure that Auckland can continue to grow without transport grinding to a halt.
6. We have been engaged in ongoing discussion with central government about the funding of this project. Government has moved from an initial position of opposition to the project, to one of commitment to contribute to funding from the year 2020. We know that this is not soon enough and have continued to work collaboratively with government agencies and ministers to support our case for earlier funding.
7. In the 2012-22 LTP we assumed central government funding would commence from the year 2015-16 and the financial data for the 2015-25 LTP has carried that assumption through. The consultation document has been written with three alternative scenarios set out for public consideration:
- Option 1 – government funding starts in 2015/16 and project proceeds on original timelines
- Option 2 – government funding starts in 2018/19 – enablement works only for next three years and then construction starting in 2018/19
- Option 3 – government funding starts in 2020/21 – enablement works only for next three years, construction starts in 2018/19, backed by a firm commitment for government funding from 2020.
8. While all three scenarios are described in the public consultation document the LTP financials are currently built on Option 1.
9. Over the last couple of weeks, as staff have been preparing the consultation document for Governing Body sign off later this month, it has become apparent that Audit New Zealand’s view is that it would be more prudent to build the LTP financials on one of the alternative scenarios. In order to ensure we prepare a consultation document consistent with Audit New Zealand’s expectations, I am now proposing that we adopt Option 2 as the basis of our LTP financials.
10. This option will continue to keep the pressure on the Government to contribute funding earlier than the current commitment, but gives more time for us to work with it to achieve a common view. It also allows us to keep faith with our private sector partners by progressing the enablement works. While it delays the construction timing by a couple of years it has only a relatively minor impact on the financial situation.
And here’s the financial implications
So by delaying the CRL by two years adds almost $100 million in inflation costs and we can assume it would be a similar amount again if the project is delayed further to 2020 like the government still seem to be holding out for. The extra debt from enabling works is likely due to the council believing that once they have paid for them that the government will only contribute 50% of the remaining costs and not reimburse them for the early works – despite the governments agencies and the minister himself seeming to agree it is sensible for those works happen as currently planned. Unfortunately the government continue to hold out on the timing.
Even that is too ambitious for new Transport Minister Simon Bridges, who said last night the Government remained committed to a 2020 start.
“The Government would only consider an earlier start date if it becomes clear Auckland’s CBD employment and rail patronage are growing faster than expected. To date, all indications are that this is unlikely to occur.”
Mayor Brown was keen to highlight the Government’s agreement in principle last year to support a project it previously opposed.
“We have moved them from a position of total opposition to one of commitment for funding half the project from the year 2020,” he said.
While the employment target was never likely to be met – and is a bad measure anyway – he definitely may want to get some independent advice on the rail patronage figures. After the government announced they would support the project in June last year the Ministry of Transport started monitoring the targets. In August they released the second update and about patronage say
Rail patronage
Auckland Transport’s Public Transport Monthly Patronage Report for June 2014 shows rail patronage of 11.4 million trips for the year to June 2014, compared to 10 million trips for the previous year. This is an increase of 1.4 million trips or 13.9 percent.
Assessment
Growth of 1.4 million trips for the year to June 2014 is the highest annual growth in Auckland rail patronage achieved to date.
If growth continues at 1.4 million trips per year, annual patronage would hit 20 million trips around 2019/20. We expect patronage growth to continue at a similar rate as for the year to June 2014 until around 2017/18, as the full electric train fleet comes into service and the new bus network is rolled out. After 2017/18, we expect the rate of patronage growth to slow and at this stage do not anticipate it is likely that the threshold of 20 million trips well before 2020 will be met.
Since that time patronage growth has continued strongly and is now up 18% on the same time last year. If it continues on at this rate we could hit 20 million trips in 2017/18 – although 2018/19 is more realistic.
Processing...
With the growth in overall patronage … what is the growth in people arriving at Britomart in the am. peak?
The central government needs to understand building more motorways is only moving the problem and not reducing the traffic.. CRL is the only viable solution
CRL will hugely improve the value of some (small) parts of the city. The Council needs to urgently see how they can profit from this investment instead of existing owners or speculators. The existing figures include revenue from the resale of land/properties. The Council needs to find how to make this resale worth heaps more money.
Auckland needs to cut these guys loose. When there has been 40 plus years of poor decision making,constant delay tactics on common sense schemes , and still worse schemes in the pipeline even now when it is obvious that the motorway only approach -(and not even prioritising that resource for smarter modes in each lane-when things like the northern busway clearly prove otherwise and what a difference a dedicated lane makes). The fact is we can do a congested free network with about 50% of the LTP and can probably get close to a working network just by reprioritising the entire network. Len I know really want to give these guys the finger but feel hamstrung I really believe best for all to do it and tell them to take a flying leap and shove their petrol tax where the sun doesn’t shine. Apply property rates over every carpark in Auckland(supermarkets,malls all carparks) towards the network-not excessive but enough to help sway things in a sustainable direction.
The last thing we need on this massively over-delayed project is more delays…
Things got a bit out of sorts wIth the extra services yesterday with delays at Newmarket and Britomart at least I don’t think much more can be realistically added unless something is done to alleviate this dead end station and I am thinking when it is entirely EMU things may get worse ironically. The trip to Onehunga and return is now slower than under the DMU’s.
I am seeing articles appearing in the Herald designed to undermine Len Brown out of office and joining the dots this will see him replaced with a kindred spirit of our current government. So plainly speaking the CRL is dead in the water. What therefore is plan B or will we reach a high tide mark very soon with rail services and thats the way it will stay?
I think if National had scraped in this time around we might be seeing a more accommodating stance but as it is we are now getting pure arrogance.
Herald didn’t support Len Brown either time he ran. Somehow the people of Auckland managed to make their own minds up.
This is not to be confused with the usual general journalistic difference of opinions. In hindsight and having observed this government in action in this shadowy department over the past six years, this campaign is in its early stages.
An earlier start would mean the nats having to admit they were wrong; they are congenitally incapable of doing this. Saving face is more important than economic sense.
I’m increasingly pessimistic over this project.I think the support for it in National is smoke and mirrors. While I think there are some National MPs who genuinely support the project I think the majority simply want to be seen to be supportive whilst secretly hoping a change of mayor will eliminate the political pressure coming from Auckland. I expect it will never be off the table entirely for National but I can see it slipping down the priority list until it’s a 2030+ project.
Stating the obvious but it has to be said:
This is one of the prices we are paying for not changing the government last September.
Had Lab/Green taken over, this project would almost certainly be getting priority now.
The frustrating thing is that contrary to all the talk, there was no landslide swing towards National. It was, and still is, a hair’s breadth majority over the combined opposition parties. A small percentage voting differently could have swung things the other way. Nevertheless, this is the result that New Zealanders returned. The collective *we* got what ‘we’ asked for, and a well-publicised part of the package was very low priority for the CRL.
I think a lot of the opposition to this much needed project is due to Auckland Council and Auckland Transports complete lack of explaining the benefits to Auckland (and New Zealand) as whole. If they could explain clearly that the CRL isnt a CBD focused project and will allow the creation of town centers around train stations all along the route. It will also benefit those who live in places not served by the CRL as it will decrease traffic (and parking) in the CBD allowing for easier trips into town by car.
The sooner these things can be explained properly to everyday Aucklanders (not those who already read Transport Blog and are therefor probably already on side) the sooner National will back it (as they back everything that they think will get them votes)!
Well expressed. Nats are very poll focused and if they see CRL coming up in poll results, support will follow. They are also very focused on “balancing the books”, so will their contribution be classed as an “expense” or an “asset”. This will be important as whether it affects their desire to “balance the books”
Maybe they should have called it the The Central Motorway Loop, then the funding would have been instant.
Playing devils advocate here. Of course any project is going to more expensive through inflation if it is delayed. Could put a counter point that additional harbour crossing will get significantly more expensive, more so than CRL due to base cost, if it is delayed.
We need a city to take control over it’s own transport needs and management and work to a committed long term plan that meets all modes and smart decisions on transport. Smart means making the best use of what we have-ie interim solutions, eg prioritising space and expenditure for modes that move the most people, long term solutions that will actually work with population predictions and prioritised accordingly,complete networks that make sense and give people choices to get around and enjoy by walking,bike,private vehicle or public transport, ferry, freight or movement of goods. If we think this is happening now,independently,not favouring any industries,getting the most out of past expenditure, a thought for the environment, creating a great place to live, working in the best interests of Auckland then fine, if we don’t then shouldn’t the city itself take over the steering.
Once it starts, even though the project will be delivered in phases it will happen.
If it wasn’t my opinion that self funding the whole project as an auckland region would just release more funding for road construction, which is counter productive, I would be advocating just getting on with it.
The key is to get rail passengers alighting at what will become the Aotea station, once that happens the real benefits of network throughput and reduced travel time from the western suburbs will become easier to sell as benefits. Benefits and value propositions for North Shore residents need to be stated and understood, or we will end up with divide and conquer, resulting in more delay.
Whilst delivering this project in stages increases its cost and reduces its usefulness in the short, but is how a number of infrastructure projects are delivered and I think we need to start talking about it as a possibility.
Linked is the potential that we will start running out of EMU to run 6 car trains in the near term as the rail network starts to deliver the service customers want.
My suspicion is that refusing to fund this is a strategy bu the Nats to force the Auckland Council to privatise their assets – the airport, the port, Vector. This is afterall what they have forced on Christchurch and they need a steady stream of privatisations to keep their backers happy.
You may be right, but lets be clear, Vector is the most valuable of that lot, but its ownership is locked away until 2073 courtesy of the AECT and its Trust Deed (which is controlled by 5 CitRat trustees).
AECT owns 75.4% of Vector Ltd, and Auckland Council can’t be “forced” to the sell Vector because it simply doesn’t “own it” and won’t get its hands on it until 2073 as it stands as stated by the Trust Deed.
AECT currently hands out over $100m a year in dividends from Vector to a group of Auckland power users who happen to live in the old AEPB area and does little else. The payment is about $320 a year (paid for by line charges Vector levies/overcharges everyone in the old AEPB area, to then give 75% of it back to AECT to hand out as a AECT dividend).
AECT could if it wanted to redirect that money to other purposes like helping out with CRL but the current Trustees don’t want a bar of that I’m sure as that smacks too much of anti-free-marketism for them to contemplate or the Government to stomach.
However the next elections for the AECT board is coming up in under a year and if the Labour/Greens can get 100% control of AECT Trust via 5 trustees then all bets are off for this and AECT.
Even former National Party Presidents Collinge and Boag suggest that AECT should be wound up sooner than 2073 now that we have a single council (AC) rather than the fragmented set of councils when AECT was created.
But if AECT is terminated early I’d prefer that the next 10 years dividend stream be used to fund AC’s part of CRL and call the Government out on providing its share rather than selling Vector outright to pay for 100% of CRL. I see that the Central Government should have as much skin in this game as AC does otherwise, Central Government will simply turn around and undermine the CRL by building more roads with the money.
And as Nik points above, the sneaking (and no doubt very real) suspicion is that if AC did pay for all of CRL if it did say use AECT dividends to pay for the Govt’s share, then thats exactly what the Government would do – spend the $1.2b earmarked for CRL, on nothing else but more roads.
Don’t forget the Government handed out a interest free loan to NZTA before the election to allow it to build more motorways (but not bus ways), funded from years of future fuel taxes, effectively the Government has mortgaged that income already so how it will be able to maintain the new roads or existing ones in the future is a big question with that money already spent.
I doubt there is any other single over $1B infrastructure project in this country right now has a better CBR than CRL, and as a result CRL is the most worthy candidate for the measly 20% of the “Future Investment Fund” – that fund the government created to hold all that assets sales cash for the flogged off assets from its last term. And for which the Future Investment Fund was supposed to be used to build the next generation of big infrastructure public assets, just like those power assets were in their day. Rather than having it frittered away we need to spend it on capital items exactly like CRL.
Its likely there will be both a change of mayor & of central government come 2020 anyway so the promises are all moot.
What would be really interesting is a supportive government and an unsupportive mayor. I cannot imagine mayor williamson/banks/hide being helpful towards the crl.
By then it will be like electrification – too late to stop (even if some crazy people still want to by then, which is increasingly unlikely, seeing the continuing rail boom).
Why has Len rolled over on this so easily? Why not use the auditors report as a reason to go back to the government (very publicly) and ask again for the funding start date to be moved forward, maybe presenting some of the passenger current growth stats as supporting evidence. The press seem to be more and more pro-CRL, so Len should use this momentum to make central government look bad if they don’t play ball.
Len Brown couldn’t get good press from the Herald if he single-handedly evacuated a blazing SPCA shelter of its occupant kittens and puppies. He has zero leverage over the government, because his region’s main media cheerleader is engaged in an active campaign to undermine and discredit his mayoralty.
That is totally incorrect.
Len gets bad press because he rooted one of his employees and then failed to resign like any honourable person would. Len gets bad press because he leads one of the most incompetent councils we have seen for some time. A council that increases rates sky high whilst reducing services and running up debt with no plan to manage or repay it. Len gets bad press because he knows he isn’t going to be re-elected and has gone on a spending spree that makes a drunken sailor look rational.
He has no leverage because everyone knows Len won’t be back and good riddance for that.
I didn’t say “Pro-Len”, I said “Pro-CRL”. There have been a number of pro CRL aritcles in the press over the last few months, even from places like NewsTalk!
Yes, but you want Len to use the media to exercise leverage over the government. In a tussle between supporting the CRL (which is not actually supported at the editorial level) or shitting on Len, the Herald will take the latter.
Could we increase the cost of parking to the extent it will reduce the traffic into the city (using the 85% occupancy rate as the guide to cost). Once the single vehicle occupancy rate is down and the increased PT patronage rate increased then the congestion free network becomes a necessity. The increased income from the parking could be used to offset the Governments inability to fund in a timely fashion and would be hurting their supporters (the car driving fraternity).
I think that the sell off of the Councils parking buildings will achieve an increased push towards PT, through increased charges based on reduction in parking supply, so the corporate backers may get the unintended consequences of what they are asking for.
I haven’t heard of anything concrete, but I’m sure someone is coveting the land that the downtown car sits on.
That the AC/AT parking drags the market rate down is a different issue, but one I’m sure that will resolve itself over time.
Lots of people are coveting that land but selling off cheaply as a stupid way to hike prices is dumb.
Better to hand it over the Development Agency and let it demand an economic rent from car parking activities from AT, if hiking those rates to be like adjacent Wilsons or Tournament is required so be it.
That way AT can’t be blamed for parking rate escalation.
My point is about the re-purposing of the land after it is sold by the council will remove some of the parking capacity.
I doubt the council will sell it cheaply, so I’m seeing it as a win on most measures. Unless you drive.
Note that most of the CBD parking capacity is not council owned/controlled – the majority is all private either Tounament/Wilsons controlled, or is private building car parks e.g. for staff and customers of businesses in the building (or casino etc).
AT could turn all its car parks into offices tomorrow and not make a large dent in the supply of total CBD car parking (and hence not get rid off a lot of the into the CBD commuting driving).
AC (and AT) and the retailers in the CBD want/(say they need) car access to the CBD for short stay shoppers to use, its just not long term “all day” commuting parking thats ideal.
So its not in the councils or the retailers interests to get rid of all that existing car parking they control as this is needed to encourage some shoppers to the CBD.
We just don’t need acres of the stuff.
1 Auckland City should retain all land holdings, lease of land ok but retain ownership!
3 The Council has a big influence on parking charges by what it charges for both building and street space, charges for those spaces needs to be sensitive to demand with the aim of increasing the availability to those coming into the city for business. That would mean lower charges for the first hour say and increase it in the second and third hours with the all day parking charge being sufficient to retain 15% of spaces free. If the Council parking charges increased you can be sure the private parking owners would increase theirs to match.
Agreed -if parking is there, people will drive to work, no matter if the competing public transport services work, and work well.
A transport levy based on carparks could be done easily via property rates no need for tolls and no extra infrastructure.Len and David need to remove a corrupt influence not begging for everything non petroleum.Time to march them out of town and do some real solutions.
The problem was always going to be that Minister Bridges and Roads was a “baby” minister with little or no clout to achieve anything. I doubt that he would be able to sway anyone, even with Wellington’s best southerly raging behind him.
I really don’t understand how another outcome could have eventuated? Len Brown is trying to bankrupt the council to deliver a project that doesn’t benefit the vast majority of the super city. You do remember that north of the bridge generates a substantial chunk of the rates income. When do we get our billion dollar project? We have full buses so does that mean we get $2.5b to buy a train set? What is the cost per user of the train set?
Why not recoup the cost through increased ticket prices? User pays or stop complaining!
It does benefit the ‘vast majority’ iyt will enable the city to keep moving and do so more efficiently. The chief beneficiaries are road users, the contribution of road user charges and petrol taxes there is user pays is User Pays. Read this:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/new-motorway-will-derail-commuters-20140217-32hvs.html
If you do the numbers and it achieves the targeted 20m passengers in 2020 you have a train set that now costs an extra $8 per trip just to service debt? If it was your money would you pay this on top of the current cost?
We need to get realistic we are not a metropolis with millions of residents. We so don’t have scale and we aren’t a Sydney. We need to judge where to spend our money carefully. We cannot support projects that don’t benefit all and don’t provide value for money.
It’s very simple. If you think it is needed pay for it yourself or stop complaining. Auckland cannot support a project like this and there are many other priorities that return a much greater impact.
It’s all about cost versus benefit and it doesn’t work.
Anyway Len will be gone in 2016 and some sanity can come back and we can stop trying to create white elephants.
How do you figure that; show us your numbers…
NZTA says the every rail trip in Auckland is worth $17.42 in ‘congestion benefits’ to road users, in addition to the direct benefit to that rider, perhaps you need to think a little about value as well as cost?
Additionally roads are subsidised too, half of of all of our rates go on roads whether we drive or or not.
$2,5b at 6% (an extremely conservative number) divided by 20mil trips is $7.5 a ride.
Your point reinforces what I am saying. $17.42 in benefit? Half of this is gone from the CRL not to mention the costs and subsidies on the existing rail network.
Intresting point about value versus cost. I live on the north shore and work in the CBD. Please tell me what value this project adds to me? Why should I get no development as it is going to a train set I can’t ride?
Up to 50m rail trips per year and untold bus and car trips benefit from not having 100k+ trips per day not on the road. You are making the classic mistake of thinking the CRL only benefits existing users and that it won’t attract new users or benefit others.
The CRL will bring in many more users and it’s been estimated that it combined with the increases spurred on by electrification could push cost recovery up towards 80%. You talk about subsidies for the PT but ignore those for roads. You are aware that councils pay 50% of all local road costs aren’t you
The CRL benefits the shore in numerous ways.
– It frees up buses from other places around the city so more from the shore can be run – bus congestion is a serious issue already and expected to get worse.
– makes trips to/from the north shore to other places in the region by PT quicker i.e. live on the shore and work in Kingsland or Sylvia Park then you have a much faster trip. Works the other way too for those using PT to go to the shore.
– It encourages more businesses to locate in the city centre. That opens up more job opportunities for the region of which the north shore is a part.
– It enables future rail investment to the shore to happen
Just over 20m trips per year is the maximum the current network can carry with the bottleneck at Britomart limiting services. We don’t have the latest estimates but earlier ones suggested that with the CRL patronage could climb close to 50m trips per year.
Funny you should mention the size of the city and then Sydney, they built their city tunnel when the population was 1.3 million (~1926). Many other cities built their first underground systems in the 1-2m size range (not that it is the measure of whether we should build it).
The project does stack up on cost benefit analysis.
Len may be gone by then but the project will continue and it is unlikely we will see a credible candidate stand on a platform of stopping it, especially now the government have agreed to it with the only debate about timing. People just like you (and maybe you did too) called Britomart a white elephant before it was built. Perhaps you are unaware that it passed it’s predicted 2021 passenger volumes in 2011.
I raised no issues about britomart. That was needed.
If you can get 50m patronage great. Find an investor and do it earlier?
I have no doubt it will go ahead at some stage but complaining that you want it early is just silly, and sounds like the toddler who has had his lolly pop taken away.
If I spoke to my bank manager about a buying a Ferrari and he said I couldn’t afford it. What if I went back and said but if I wait the cost is going up, it will cost me $200k now but $220 in 2 yeas. Do you think he would say “ok then that makes sense have some money”?
‘Find an investor’… what like we do for roads?… this is silly, hard infrastructure that benefits all cannot be delivered on the model as Frozen Yogurt, good grief that’s naive.
The only thing you’ve said is ‘I live on the Shore; so it’s not for me’ so to hell with the rest of the city…. is that your point?
Anyway, there’s no interest on half the project, so your math is wonky, oh and I agree, there shouldn’t be on the other half either, as it should be funded just like a State Highway, there’s no financial return on investment on those either, only an economic one, plus we spend $billion a year on opex on the SH system… The real issue is that we don’t invest in the same was for different modes, as clearly we should.
It might pay to point out that north of the bridge is the home of 17% of Aucklanders. It seems my fellow North Shorites think it is much more, but it’s not even a fifth of Auckland. A substantial chunk yes, but a minor proportion of the whole.
Rather than complaining about a $2b project that directly benefits 83% of Aucklanders, why not demand your fair share instead. If everywhere else gets $2b of new rapid transit infrastructure, then to be fair the Shore is due $400m. That would do nicely to extend and improve the busway, which I might add already cost $300m. So no, you don’t get a billion dollar project. If you want a billion dollar project then you’d have to be happy with the rest of Auckland getting a five billion dollar project, if you were fair about how the funds were distributed.
FYI, the city rail link has little to do with Len Brown. It was started by John Banks’ first administration, and continued by Hubbard, Banks again and now Brown. It will continue under Browns successor and might be opened by their successor, depending on how long they stay in office.
I think you miss the point on this one Patrick. We can’t afford itt. It doesn’t benefit 80% of Auckland, as if that was the case even 50mil is a low estimate.
We are a city with a large footprint who can’t afford it. You cannot put roading and PT development on hold for 10 years for a train set that is not financially viable.
It is just immature to say we only pay for half as the goverent pays the rest. It all comes from us whether rates or Income tax and needs to be spent wisely.
Thank god we have oversight of the councils books or we would be another Detroit!
‘It doesn’t benefit 80% of Auckland’ Nonsense. It benefits every road user, for a start. It benefits anyone who depends on the performance of the wider Auckland economy. ….
Why is this the thing ‘we can’t afford’? What we can’t afford, and will never build, are more road lanes across the Harbour. Double the cost and no where near the value, not even a fraction of it.
Thank you Nick. The sense of entitlement of some commenters from the Shore must irk the rest of you.
Yes, having grown up on the Shore there is a peculiar perception that the harbour splits the city in half, and that anything built over there needs to be built here too. Hence why the North Shore has an empty bankrupt stadium and empty bankrupt theatre, and constantly gripes for a third harbour crossing.
Given this is clearly something Auckland wants then you would have no issues asking Auckland if they want it? Why not put the cards on the table and ask the everyday Aucklander if they want no development and the CRL or they want no CRL and a funding for other projects that are needed.
You are out of touch with Auckland (this is not a North Shore thing) as you so elegantly put it.
Go out on the street and ask the public what they want and you will see it’s not this.
Surveys run by the Herald, hardly a fan of PT, consistently show a majority support for increasing PT spend. And then there have been two council elections where the mayor and majority of councillors have been elected in on a pro CRL platform.
A couple years old now, but this survey shows 64% of Aucklanders support the City Rail Link and only 14% oppose it, even when told it would cost over two billion and may need to be funded through new rates or taxes.
http://www.horizonpoll.co.nz/page/267/64-of-auckla
So I’d be more than happy to ask the people of Auckland, they seem to be in favour at a large majority. As for who is out of touch…
‘Go out on the street and ask the public what they want and you will see it’s not this.’
Matt just asking your mum what she thinks isn’t very convincing, but I’m sure you didn’t even do that. This is simply your own view. So what do Aucklanders really think?
Here’s a summary: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2014/09/27/public-continue-to-want-better-pt/
Or there’s this from way back in 2011 [support has grown since then]: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10738341
“Public backing for a central Auckland rail tunnel is more than twice as strong as for the Government’s proposed new “road of national significance” north from Puhoi.
Although a Herald-DigiPoll survey has found support for the tunnel strongest in Auckland, the $2.4 billion project is also enthusing other New Zealanders, who are taking an even dimmer view of the highway proposal than the city’s residents.”
Auckland needs this project now and it is at the heart.Get this pumping then you can look at other key arteries like rail tunnel to shore.
The fact is u can have both instead of another road tunnel at 4.8 b
The earliest the main project can start is 2018 anyway, so it’s a moot point. Three year lead time from go ahead to construction start for major tunnel projects.
Great summary, thanks Matt. AT and Auckland Transport really need to explain the benefits of the CRL. The other day I suggested to a CRL staffer that it be called the Cross City Rail Link, to get away from the perception that it only serves the inner city between Mt Eden and downtown.
Mayor Len Brown is totally responsible for this outcome because HE decided for political reasons for his Mayoralty to bring the project forward himself. He did not include the Government all just another Len Brown On the hoof decision. So he “Jumped the Gun” and has therefore committed Ratepayers to be going it alone until Government money comes forward via the “Original” Time frame agreed for funding.
This is not a convincing argument. But then as one of George Wood’s foot soldiers I guess you would try to say that.
The CRL is bigger than either Brown or Wood, is urgently needed, and the start date is driven by the Downtown project and the clear need to have it operating to accomodate growth in demand that will be otherwise be unmet in a few years, likely 2018-ish.
Brown is doing what he can with very few resources and Wood is doing the bidding of a group of unknown backers. So it goes.
It will begin next year, the argument over the next stage will continue, the government may or may not try to continue to ignore ridership growth and keep playing politics with Auckland’s economic future. Time will tell.
Most likely neither Brown nor Wood will be in office next term, but the CRL will still the most important project in the country and begun. It is a mistake to conflate a disliking for Brown into an opposition to the CRL. You’ll just find yourself on the wrong side of history.
“Since that time patronage growth has continued strongly and is now up 18% on the same time last year. If it continues on at this rate we could hit 20 million trips in 2017/18 – although 2018/19 is more realistic.”
Looks more like 2016/17 now.. http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2015/02/18/december-14-and-january-15-patronage/
Yep about the end of 2016 we hit of exceed 20 million if between 1.5% and 2% rail growth month on month can be sustained for the next 22 months.
Given w ehave only just got 1/3rd of the EMUs in operation I think this will be a no brainer to achieve.
Thats basically an annualised 20% to 24% growth, – the sort of annual growth which we are seeing consistently since middle of last year when compared to the 12 months the year before.
So Simon Bridges, time it seems to dust off the CRL funding agreement now that SkyCity won’t be costing you any more money (publicly anyway) and ensure that your good mate Bill English puts funding into the coming budget?
We need this for the upcoming fiscal year.
That’s a fairly ambitious target, and there’s quite a few traps along the way, including reliability of the rail network and delays to the roll out of the New Bus Network, but whether it 20m by 2017, 18, or 19, it is certain and the CRL by is necessary as soon as it can be opened. And it is important that the Stations are not cost-cut to bits. This is a long term investment, the dropping of Newton is sensible but the remaining stations mustn’t be reduced to merely functional boxes rapidly needing expensive upgrades.