The announcement that AT is looking at Light Rail has understandably received a lot of attention – and will continue to for some time – however there is a lot of other fascinating information in the draft Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) that is worth covering. Like more discussion of Light Rail, I’m going to try and get this information out over a few posts starting with this one.
One area in the document that quickly caught my attention is on what works are planned/needed for the existing rail network to get it working properly prior to the CRL. Improvements are needed to increase the capacity, performance and resilience of the network. Perhaps most concerning is they say that there’s still a significant amount of track and underlying formation that has yet to be renewed by KiwiRail.
The performance of passenger rail services has improved over the past decade at the same time as service levels have increased significantly. Service punctuality (trains arriving within 5 minutes of schedule) has improved from just over 70% in 2005 to around 88% in the year to June 2014. Delays to trains caused by network infrastructure problems have dropped from an average of 1.4 minutes per train in 2005 to just over 0.4 minutes in 2014. However, further improvement in infrastructure performance will be needed if desired levels of reliability and performance are to be achieved by the opening of the CRL.
One factor in improving punctuality and reliability will be ensuring that rail infrastructure is in a fit for purpose condition. While there has been significant improvement in the condition of the Auckland network over the past decade through KiwiRail’s DART and AEP projects, including total replacement of the signalling system, there is still a significant extent of track and underlying formation which has not been renewed.
To get the network up to speed there are four programmes of work planned.
Network Performance Programme – to address existing network performance issues, including catch up renewals to address existing formation, drainage and track issues and replace sleepers.
Network Resilience Programme – to improve current network resilience to provide additional operational flexibility, ability to recover from delays and incidents, make maximum use of the existing network capacity and capability, and improve management of network maintenance and development.
Network Capacity Programme – to enable the operation of regular 10 minute peak EMU services and existing peak freight services following the completion of electrification, and to provide the base for the pattern and frequency of passenger services planned for introduction following the completion of the CRL.
Level Crossing Programme – to remove level crossings on the Auckland electrified rail network to reduce safety risk for vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists and rail users through closure or grade separation, including safety improvements at existing vehicle and pedestrian crossings.
This has set a few alarm bells off for me:
If there’s still a lot of backlogged maintenance yet to happen that means KiwiRail is likely to need a lot more network closures to get this work done. That could mean that we’re likely to continue to see parts of the rail network shut down during some long weekends and probably the Christmas/New Year period for this maintenance to occur. While AT and KiwiRail might try and minimise the impact but doing the work when the network is quietest, such shut downs will increasingly affect more and more people as patronage continues to grow.
The second concern is the suggestion that work is needed to enable 10 minute frequencies. These frequencies have already been delivered to the Southern and Eastern lines however we’ve been waiting for them for around 5 years after they were promised to happen when the New Lynn station was complete. Now admittedly this could just be me reading into the text wrong however later in the document AT say one of the benefits of the investment is to “Increase capacity to enable the operation of regular 10 minute peak passenger rail services and to cater for expected growth in both passenger and freight services“. In the meantime then until I see a Western Line timetable with 10 minute frequencies on it I will remain sceptical. What is clear is that we need to get on with building the third main between Otahuhu and Papakura.
The third key concern is that to pay for what’s planned it relies on KiwlRail getting additional funding from the government. If that funding doesn’t happen then it could put the brakes on how well and how quickly the rail network develops and improves.
There does seem to be a few issues with this table due to there being nothing in the 2015/16 year and with the negative 2018/19 to 2024/24 column. This table from near the end of the document seems to be more accurate (click to enlarge)
In addition to the KiwiRail costs there are also Auckland Transport’s projects. The basic transport programme that has been proposed doesn’t include much in this regard with the only really notable point being the need to spend $8.1 million on refurbishing some of the old Diesel trains to service Pukekohe. I suspect that’s probably more than the trains are work these days.
This just really highlights that despite all the improvements in recent times that there’s still a lot of work to do even just to get our rail network up to a decent level of quality. Will the government provide the funding that KiwiRail need to get this work done?
Processing...
Isn’t no proposed government spending 2015/16 already putting the brakes on? Seriously we might need some intervention money. I would feel more comfortable with a public controlled bus fleet and being able to fully resource a line to the same std if it went down for maintenance, growing patronage and all. We need more resilience so we don’t stuff around the loyal users.
$136 million for rail and the Nationalists will all be screaming Socialist subsidy. However $4 billion Motorway upgrades and the same bunch will be claiming network resiliance and congestion relief! Sorry but $4 billion is a subisdy TOO!
So what motorway is free flow in the morning peak? or evening peak? Even with the $40 b or so spent? With space and enough tarmac to land a 747. Plus a 7 yr full surfacing replacement programme. And the visual, noise and air pollution. Just saying not an engineering triumph, just an engineering disaster. Not a do it once, do it right solution at all, not sustainable – never enough not able to tick one box. It is literally a black hole to our wallet, but let’s keep on going or we could spend our money on rail, new buses, busways, protected cycle paths, and great walking areas. It is all just a change of policy at the top and people knowing what they want.
No Patrick, they’ll claim the roading network pays for itself where as rail does not.
They can claim all they like, yet the truth says otherwise. Yes the “Petrol Tax” goes 100% to the motorway, but this is only possible because they are robbing Paul (the local arterial roads at 50 to 60% “Patrol Tax” Paid) to pay Mary (the motorways).
If anything an indirect subsidy, but still a subsidy.
But ask them why they government has to borrow $500 million from Auckland to help pay for these roads. FACT “petrol tax” isn’t paying for the new roads.
Sick of wasted money on the road/motorway network, for example improve PT by completing projects soon such as the NW busway so less people have to use the NW motorway and then the upgrades will be unnecessary, instead of wasting it on the upgrades just for them to become useless empty slip lanes later when there is a proper PT solution.
I noticed Paerata junction/Mission Bush mentioned there at a cost of 13.2m, does this mean the spur to Waiuku/Glenbrook will be used for passenger services in the future?
Apparently the new (and future) 10 minute frequency cannot be delivered consistently (90% within 5 mins of timetable arrival) with the current network: infrastructure, signalling, scheduling, fleet and staff. This is probably more about the much narrower time slots at key junctions (Newmarket, Puhinui, Westfield) than it is simply about turnaround times at Britomart.
Having a required 3 minute gap between vehicles is a challenge at times when vehicles miss certain slots due to delays that invariably happen. Having the ability to have contingency plans in place for known repeat issues will be key to minimising the impact on performance.
It will be interesting to see if the timetable gets adjusted by 3-5 mins with new EMUs once these have been in action for a while and drivers have got used to them. EMUs have the ability to save 8-10 mins from Papakura, but maybe 5 mins is more realistic once you factor in the variablility of driver behaviour.
EMU’s have the ability to save up to 8-10 mins between Papakura & Britomart!
That all depends on How many yellow signals you pass due to congestion and the limitations of ETCS in this scenario!
Time will tell.
I am disapointed at the slow start to level crossing grade separation in the draft plan (item 47 on page 108). Before 2018 there is only $14.7 million which (assuming a dollar for dollar subsidy from NZTA) might pay for one crossing in addition to the Newmarket (Sarawia St.) crossing that is theoretically already funded (and would have been built by now if nor for protracted planning delays). So what about the other 40-odd crossings on the suburban network? [Note that the number is uncertain because some will probably be closed]. The table does have $228 million for the out years (2018-2015) which looks like a lot but at $15-25 million average for each crossing (and tricky ones such as St. Judes Street are likely to cost several times as much) so not sure how far that will go. On the other hand I am extremely pleased that for the first time ever there is a line item with real money available (apart from a decade ago when the ARC bravely put up an initial $23 million contingent on the other bodies putting up their share – when they all refused to contribute the ARC money was diverted ).
Hey Matt.
Is there anywhere I can look at to explain the basis for the plan A / B for the public transport funding in the regional plan?
Do nothing: $0 / year
Option A (toll): $800 / year
Option B (levy): 80 / year
Unless I’m messing something up, I’m looking at that and going, so you expect under option A, that only 1 in 10 households would use a motorway?
In which case, what’s the current usage, and what are they counting as a “motorway” for this purpose?