The Prime Minister has suggested a new solution to housing problems in Auckland
If you can’t afford a house in Auckland the prime minister has some advice for you – head to Waikato.
John Key was in the region yesterday for a less controversial cup of tea at Zealong Tea Estate, before heading up to Pokeno to see what he made of growth in the area.
In an interview with the Waikato Times he said moving south of New Zealand’s biggest city ought to be a “serious consideration” for buyers struggling to find the cash for Auckland homes.
“They pay less for their home so obviously they’re going to pay more to commute. It’s a tradeoff that people decide all around the world and it will give them a far higher quality of home at a lower price,” he said.
Key said the option would be particularly attractive to those who could work from home.
He added that the Waikato Expressway made it a “really legitimate option, especially for people who work in the southern part of [Auckland] city”.
If living in the Waikato and commuting were really an option for a lot of people I think we’d already have seen a lot more of it than we do. The reality is even if a person worked in South Auckland they’re still guaranteed to be locking themselves into a long daily commute, even if there wasn’t any traffic. Long commutes can impact on people’s quality of life, especially if that commute is unproductive while sitting behind a wheel.
What would make such an idea much more viable was if there was a decent and quality rail service linking at least Hamilton and Auckland. We’ve looked at a Hamilton to Auckland train service a few times in the past including most recently here and here.
Where I differ from some of my fellow bloggers on this issue is that I don’t feel that just starting up even a bare bones service now will be that useful in providing realistic choice to people. Instead however a concerted effort was put into improving the rail network to allow for travel time of around 1½ hours between Hamilton and Britomart then it could be a significant game changer. To do that we’d need to see improvements such as the proposed 3rd (and maybe even a 4th) main line through Auckland, the CRL to free up space in Britomart, a number of track improvements along the route and some trains capable of speeds higher than 80-100kph. The good thing is with most of the infrastructure already in place such improvements probably aren’t super expensive and likely far less than a single section of the Waikato Expressway.
Of course all of this is predicated on the basis that people want to live miles from Auckland. Some of course want to but many more would probably prefer to live much closer if there were more opportunities to do so. The lack of a range of different housing choices helps push people to the edge of our cities however John Key sees this situation as something people want:
But whether or not people heeded his advice, the prime minister predicted that the flood of those choosing to live on the outskirts of Auckland was unlikely to slow. His words come as official channels signal more unease over the state of super-city house prices. Reserve Bank Governor Graeme Wheeler said yesterday that he was concerned about a “sharp correction, leading to financial instability”.
Interestingly Graeme Wheeler also said this.
In Auckland, much more needs to be done, especially in creating opportunities for residential construction in Auckland central.
Processing...
I’d gladly live at Hampton Downs if there was a decent train station and service.
Just curious, but why exactly?
Is that where there’s a racing track?
Maybe he’s a mechanic, but like trains too
‘the prime minister predicted that the flood of those choosing to live on the outskirts of Auckland was unlikely to slow’
Where is his evidence for this? Are more inner dwellings losing value? Are ex-urban one getting disproportionately more pricey? On the basis of the facts you’d have to conclude this guy doesn’t understand markets…. or is he just saying what he prefers to see? Perhaps he just means ‘the flood of people trying to live anywhere available in Auckland is unlikely to slow’? That is more convincing. Like with how we ‘choose’ to move where we choose to live is bounded by the options.
Looks like the Reserve bank governor is more grounded in reality.
Is Hamilton to become South-South Auckland?
Intentionally or not what Mr Key is really alluding to is the equivalent of build it and they will come.
Right now, we are pushing extensive roading ever outwards from Auckland, so the housing is simply going to fill in the blanks.
Where a lot of people would differ is that this is in anyway inevitable or some kind of intrinsically Kiwi way of living, it’s just the way we are designing things to work.
Key doesn’t understand markets? He made $50 million from understanding markets!!
I’m in my early thirties and Key is saying what I’m seeing in the market. I don’t think I have any friends living in apartments, yet you would think people of my age would be well in the target market for apartment living. The trend is particularly prevalent among my friends who have children. The live well out of the central city. Massey, Glen Innes even Laingholm.
I’m not saying I understand the reasons why, just observing what’s happening.
I’m not qualified to speak to his understanding of markets but he seems to have grasp of numbers atleast.
“I used to be able to sit there and look at two digits and tell whether the price was going up or down.” ( New Zealand Herald, home of the advertorial in disguise).
1) He worked in foreign exchange – that’s not ‘understanding the markets’, that’s understanding whether a currency is likely to go up or down against another currency. 2) Glen Innes isn’t very far from town at all, though it’s about as close as middle income earners can afford if they want access to half-decent schools, amenities and transport.
‘Key doesn’t understand markets? He made $50 million from understanding markets!!’
Good grief Matthew that’s my very point. Of course he does, so why is he saying something that plainly contradicts the price signal from the property markets?
The idea of a regular commuting service between Hamilton and Auckland is one of the most ridiculous I’ve heard.
You’ve said so yourself when you stated the hour and a half travel time which would only be possible with massive infrastructure investment. The service would likely run at a massive loss due to the frequency required and the lack of demand such a service would generate.
The idea does point out the stupidity if building a two track system which I’ve advanced on this forum several times only to be dismissed by the so called experts. A 4 track system builds in so many more options and although this is not one option I would entertain it does show the narrow thinking involved in building a two track system.
Who said anything about massive infrastructure investment. CRL will happen anyway and 3rd main already needed and not that expensive in grand scheme of things (~$30-50m). A similar amount easing curves and improving maintenance would go a long way. When single short sections of motorway cost $200m plus then this isn’t all that expensive for what it would do.
Massive investment is implied. Given it is 1 hour 15min to get from Pukekohe to Britomart then it must be that much again to get to Hamilton giving 2 1/2 hours each way. If we stick with the compact city model then the real answer will be to live in Hamilton and work there too and leave Auckland to gentrify or maybe ossify.
There is nothing ridiculous about the idea, and it depends ont he sort of service you want. It does not need to be a gold plated service, but 1.5 hours max and comfortable and consistant with timing will get people is what is required. If you look further south, 2 workers trains leave Masterton every morning and return every night with around 600 on each for a daily commute of 1.5hrs from Masterton to Wellington. In the Wairarapa, Featherston has become the town of choice for a large number looking for a first home, but working in Wellington and at an hours commute. I did it myself for 15 yrs and loved it. With Hamilton the service needs to start from there and base from there, but I would expect most to choose somewhere closer to Auckland to live and towns like Huntly may benefit enormously as a commuter town. The option of extending the service to Tauranga, but should not be done at the expensive of the Hamilton service, in other words, in would need to leave Tauranga very early and would probably only warrant one service a day.
Most people don’t commute from Masterton, but from areas around Greytown, Featherston etc. These are places with a high quality of life, wineries etc. People usually endure long commutes for significant lifestyle benefits, not just slightly cheaper property prices. Hamilton isn’t exactly cheap, much better to live in Waiuku, Pokeno or Hellensville if want cheap property. In this case Wairarapa more similar to Matakana, rather than Huntly. And these places are only 1 hour from Wellington CBD. There are no similar attractions in north Waikato or Hamilton to attract people on a large scale.
Luke, Have you been to Featherston lately?. There is no way in this world that you can call it a high quality of life or that the people who are moving there are moving their for the cafe’s and wineries. They are moving there for the cheap houses. Those who are moving to Martinborough and Greytown for the high life are the weekend interlopers who don’t commute but weekend commute and drive, so tyey should not be compared to the actualy commuters. Take a look at main road Featherston and it looks far more like Huntly, than Matakana with 3 liquor outlets and a large crime rate. I know, I was there a week ago. The one decent restaurant/pub in town has closed down as it could not make a go of it. The rest hold on by the weekend trade. Those who are commuters generally don’t live their for the attractions, they live there for the cheap housing, bigger sections and a quieter lifestyle.
Hi Luke
Before moving to the US and now the UK, I commuted daily for 3 years from Ngaruawahia to Auckland International. It was a quicker commute then when I lived in Browns Bay and commuted to the airport, nor was I the only one.
I’m aware of many Air New Zealand and Auckland Airport staff who commute from Hamilton and beyond.
Around 300 people from Masterton work in Wellington (4%), 200 from Carterton (13%), 80 from Martinborough (14%), 140 from Greytown (17%), and 300 from Featherston (36%). That’s from the 2006 census.
And how many would if there was no train service do you think?
Patrick, a lot still would commute as its the only real employment source for the likes of Featherston and to a lessor extent Carterton and those statistics certainly don’t seem to give the whole picture. Is that just to Wellington for work, or does it cover every where within the Wellington region including Poirua, and the Hutt Valley. If there was no train service there would be buses and less travelling, or more likely far more commuting by road. A large number do that as well and while that might be those statistics number commuting to Wellington, a lot more commute to various stops along the way with the train stopping at Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt and connecting to following Units.
The stats are for Wellingon metro – that’s Wellington City, Lower Hutt, Upper Hutt and Porirua.
Thats interesting LC, but if you look at Metro Wellington’s 2012 patronage numbers there were 705,000 trips for the year. That comes in at around 1300 each way for the working week, and that’s just rail. Alot commute by road and its always been more by road than rail so that means probably somewhere around 2600 or more. I’ve also just found a paper from the 2006 census that has 1400 from the Wairarapa commuting to Wellington each day to employment addresses, but this does not seem to include students who travelled to Varsity and Tech as I did for 5 years.
Agree David obviously needs to time with that hamilton service great post Matt and also the past posts by Nick and Patrick. I learnt a lot. Resusitating the existing rail network a great idea, worked Auckland have the trains in fact 2m away the locals should push hard, and think great for tourism, regional visits. Needs to be done smart, enough for seed to grow.
Well the most ridiculous “massive infrastructure investment” between here and Hamilton is the new section of SH1 east of Te Rapa. The one where you can park up and have a picnic in your own personal quarter acre of reinforced concrete.
The cost of upgrading the tracks to support a 1.5 hour Britomart to Hamilton train service would be far from ridiculous in comparison.
On the other side of the ledger, the amount of productive time gained by being able to do something other than driving would be significant. Maybe you have nothing more useful to do with your time?
I find nothing particularly attractive about the unproductive 2-3 hours I consume every time I head down to the Waikato for business. Especially when I get to the chipseal past the end of the motorway and I can’t even have a conversation. Give me a train with wifi anyday. Like they have in countries with proper infrastructure.
Interesting your comment on costs. According to a recent report, the subsidy per passenger on the Capital Connection is just $3.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/65869811/Capital-Connection-subsidy-may-be-just-3-a-passenger
Bet that cost to the taxpayer sky-rockets when those commuters end up using their cars to drive along Transmission Gully in future.
It would be interesting for someone to do a study on this……could it be that the subsidy ends up being $30 per commuter once all those interest payments on Transmission Gully are taken into account? Now that is a waste of money 🙁
MOT/NZTA are not mode neutral even if rail is more sustainable, better for the environment. especially being electric, even if diesel it is a 10 lane eating highway machine. And people can use their smart phones and have more than 2 wines beforehand if they want and so much cheaper for household running what is that $2500 vs $10,000 for car ownership, even if famalies ditched one car, car already has a global network with nearly all our money last 60 years, now fully invest in the best, and the rest.
the inner-city rail loop would need to be built as well, as there is no exit tunnel out of britomart to allow for an increase in frequency of the trains also extending Electrification to Hamilton i don’t think that’s part of the keygods plan keygod is just shooting his mouth off with his usual bullshit
??? Government funding is committed to the CRL to pay for 50% of the project cost
Whoops, somebody mis-spelt Claudelands! 🙂 Looks great otherwise, but like the post author, I’m not sure that we’re ready for an intercity service serving the rest of the golden triangle yet. I think we have to choose our time, wait for the electrics to be fully rolled out in Auckland and the Auckland lines amplification. Driving is only likely to become less and less affordable by my reckoning, which will work in its favour. And the new network and EMUs (and ultimately, CRL) will make getting around Auckland sans car a much more attractive proposition than it currently is.
Because if the Hamilton-Auckland commuter rail fails again it will be a long time before anybody has the courage to propose a 3rd attempt.
But yes, come down and join us in Waikato. We need more passionate urban, transit, walking and cycling people!
And there’s even our little pet project http://hamiltonurbanblog.co.nz/ , inspired by (Auckland) Transport Blog of course.
I am totally for the Waikato Rail Service. But I can definitely see problems regarding the capacity on the Britomaet Platforms. Though wouldn’t full electrification of all lines free up some of the constraints?
Capacity an issue? Maybe it’s time to buy back the old station and see what can be done with the space 😛
Even if you work in South Auckland, that’s a good 100km each way, or a conservative estimate of $500 a week to drive to work. Anyone who takes his advice is going to end up locking themselves into transport poverty. (Or, more likely, looking for a new job in Hamilton.)
When I worked for Manukau Council I had a number of colleagues who commuted from Hamilton or points even further south. Because they had glide time, they generally worked 4 10 hour days. Not most people’s choice, but for those who like country life and animals, worth the cost in time and petrol.
Seeing as narrow gauge trains can’t go as fast as standard gauge- would changing one of the lines to Hamilton to be standard help?
Ideally we would have started our trunk lines as Standard rather than Cape, but that horse has well bolted.
Assuming the new trams follow the old trams and stay at standard, what are the odds of retro gauging everything eventually? (May have to readapt bogies and such)$$$
According to wikipedia, the QR tilt train has managed 210 km/h.. nominal max speed on 1067 mm in Japan and Queensland is 160 km/h.
That ought to be more than fast enough for 1.5 hours AK to Htown with a few stops
Narrow gague can go fast enough. Re gauging will never happen as there is huge cost and almost zero benefit for freight or passenger. The only way we might consider a different gauge is on an entirely new line.
Anyway, 90 mins from Hamilton to Auckland is easy, only requires an average of 84km/h. Could do that with existing trains and tracks, time tabling would be the only stumbling block.
“90 mins from Hamilton to Auckland is easy, only requires an average of 84km/h. Could do that with existing trains and tracks,”
Easy is a relative term. With existing tracks and trains Papakura-Britomart is going to take the same time as the EMU timetable plus an average 5 minutes wait at Papakura to interleave (say 50 minutes) leaving 40 minutes for the remainder. Add in freight trains with an average speed of, say, 70 km/h and it seems clear that existing tracks are not going to suffice.
It’s double tracked all the way to Te Rapa. We’re not talking masses of passenger trains.
Not necessarily, we could timetable a clear block to run them through, both in the city and with freights. Now we probably wouldn’t want to, but it would be technically simple. That’s what I mean by time tabling being the stumbling block.
“we could timetable a clear block to run them through”
How? With 10 minute frequency of local services (5 in one section) the very very best that could be achieved without cancelling an existing serves is maybe 8 minutes better and that would require the Hamilton service leaving just before a Papakura-Britomart service departed (say one minute). That would require an average 5 minute wait at Papakura. It would then catch up on the previous service (by virtue of being a non-stop service). Allow 1 minute’s separation and then the challenge of interleaving with a 5 minute frequency between Wiri and Westfield where only 4 minutes can be gained. Assume no delays at Westfield junction or the junction for Manukau (existing services and freight would have to be held) and then assuming no delays at Britomart (optimistic given that it is an extra service into a station that will be at capacity).
In reality once a Hamilton-Britomart train reaches Papakura its average speed is going to be limited to that of the current EMU services.
“It’s double tracked all the way to Te Rapa. We’re not talking masses of passenger trains.”
Single track in 2 short sections and, double track or not, 40 minutes from Hamilton to Papakura (107 km by rail) requires an average speed of 160 km/h. Even with no stops the existing track and trains will not do the job.
By not having an even ten minute service and creating a hole in the timetable. If we want to make that compromise it is simple, but I doubt that we want to.
The third main should take care of most of the problems, and city to otahuhu will be fast enough.
The configuration of the third main is going to be interesting. KR want it for freight trains and they want to ultimately extend to Pukekohe. Configuring passing loops on the northern parts of it is going to be challenging and without them it is essentially a long section of unadorned single track. Adding passenger services could make operations interesting.
Regarding John Key’s vision for how our urban communities will develop. This is also being criticised by two economists.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11397320
Brian Fellow does a good job at translating what John Key’s video actually means.
http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/73913/eric-crampton-says-local-government-nzs-funding-report-deserves-better-john-keys-dismi#comment-801893
Eric Crampton also thinks John Key could do better.
Almost every city pair with cities the size and distance apart of Auckland and Wellington throughout the OECD have regular electric train services on schedules that allow commuting. John Key needs to show how construction of the line and the commencement of such a service will be completed before the next election, or he should admit his ideas are just another example of crap government…
What’s going to happen to the Auckland diesel trains once fully electrified? Hamilton & Tauranga are 4th & 6th largest cities of NZ. it’d be a boon if they are connected by these old diesel trains It could be a cost effective project. Also travel time to Tauranga could potentially be shorter given the kaimai tunnel
Premo; be sure to follow the links in the main post…
The Kaimai Express used to schedule the Silver Ferns to take 1hr 23mins from Tauranga to Hamilton and 1hr 25mins back, with a stop at Morrinsville. Google maps says it’s 1hr 20mins by car. InterCity schedules 1hr 50mins.
350kph rail line construction costs between US$17m and US$39m per km (see http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/chinese-high-speed-line-construction-one-third-cheaper-study-suggests.html), so that the 125km from Hamilton to Auckland would cost between US$2,125m and US$4,875m. Given that the government plans to spend between $13,415m and $19,445m on new roads over the next 10 years and the country between Hamilton and Auckland wouldn’t need any major tunnels or viaducts, I suggest such a scheme is very affordable and would offer a much better BCR than most of the road schemes.
Its always imtrigued me that masterton can sustain five services a day, why do hamilton and palmerston north (both much bigger) struggle or fail completely to sustain any commuter trains.
Why are the ratepayers of the wairarapa happier to subsidise commuter trains than those of the waikato or manawatu?
“Why are the ratepayers of the wairarapa happier to subsidise commuter trains than those of the waikato or manawatu?”
Mountain range, narrow winding road, long straight rail tunnel under said range …
Not to mention the train is competitive timewise – the train can do Featherston to Petone in the same time as a car in light traffic.
The other thing to bear in mind is that commuter rail isn’t just about people heading into the office for a weekday 9-5. Particularly at longer distances, where time and expense are greater, you might not see a large number of people using the train every day, but a regular service with a reasonable frequency throughout the day (and evening), enables groups such as knowledge professionals (IT, Marketing, Legal, Finance) to live out of town but still work for companies in the city and have a presence in the city for the odd day when required (and use their time constructively whilst travelling rather than the lost time driving or flying). These people likely as not will employ a number of people locally (or at least spend their wage packet there), so the existence of these services is really important to local economies, even if the numbers don’t appear to stack up initially and the services require some element of subsidy. In a similar vein, it also makes moving branch offices and other facilities out of the city more attractive as management at either end can hop on the train to attend to company business, potentially at fairly short notice.
You see this pattern in the UK, where places like Bristol and Manchester are booming because they offer a metropolitan lifestyle, but much lower housing costs and a better quality of life than London, so there’s plenty of affordable talent there, but you can still be in London within a couple of hours on a comfy (if expensive) train. There’s long been a secondary wave of blue-collar families moving out of cities like Reading and Bristol in search of cheaper housing and good schools, but we’re starting to see a new wave of white collar workers going further out to cities like Exeter (100km west of Bristol) in search of bigger properties and better secondary schools.
The existence of a regular rail service also attracts ad-hoc travel for shopping, visiting friends, kids going to/from education, to/from the airport etc, and again, makes moving from/to the city much more palatable. It might seem like a flimsy thesis on which to spend a lot of money, but as we see time and time again with infrastructure, if you build it properly and it is affordable and convenient to use, people will adjust their lives around it.
Nick’s article last May did a great job of thinking things through, but on the practicalities, as suggested above, another half-baked plan will delay things by years, so can I suggest that:
1) Services have to run to Britomart, anything less will kill demand stone cold (OK, maybe Newmarket would be OK)
2) Services have to be hourly minimum on weekdays, slightly more on Saturdays and 2-hourly on weekends. There should ideally be a last service that allows for drinks and dinner with work buddies, let’s say 9pm.
3) Services need to be able to run fast or semi-fast through Auckland’s suburbs. That means provision of passing loops and ideally stations allowing cross-platform interchange.
4) The provision of airport heavy rail services would make a massive difference to demand levels
Matt my wife is in that exact scenario in Canterbury. We live in Amberley that is over an hours drive to central Christchurch, especially during rush hour. My wife once or twice a week needs to visit either Chch hospital or the airport as she works in medical research. Otherwise she works from home.
The main trunk line goes through Amberley but there is no commuting service, which is a shame because I think it would be popular for all the reasons you outlined.
The drive between Te Rapa (North Hamilton) and Manukau takes about an hour, is free flowing, and pleasant.
The daily commute I subjected myself to for a year when I first moved to Sydney, between Mortdale in Sydney’s Southern suburbs and Parramatta in the West – sitting bumper to bumper and breathing in fumes all the way – took me between 1hr and 1:15 during a typical morning rush. That’s a distance of just 23 kms!!
And don’t be too quick to judge towns in the Waikato. Places like Pokeno or Gordonton offer cheap housing, fresh air, large lots. The former being just on the edge of the AKL region and the latter only 10 mins away from Hamilton’s shopping malls – and bang on the new SH1.
I don’t always agree with him but Key speaks the truth here.
As far as commuter rail is concerned – the sprawl will continue and the demand will grow – then it will happen.
P.S. I had a true “WTF” moment upon driving past Pokeno recently. Life arrived there in a big way.
That is also 1000 km per week if commuting 5 days. 48000 km a year means you’ll have to buy a new car every 3 years, new tyres every year, etc. Fuel plus car depreciation plus mechanic plus tyres is something like 400 $ a week. Say you can rent for 400$ in Te Rapa what will cost you 600 in auckland, you are still 200 worse off per week without counting the inconvenience of driving so much.
Also, trade me doesn’t have a single listing for Te Rapa.
Adam, I have absolutely no argument with anyone sees the appeal of village life. However if they want and to work, study, or play in the city then it matters enormously how that connection is made. Because if driving only then it will eventually kill the quality of the village life that so appeals, and that ‘easy and pleasant’ drive you see now will become more like the Sydney one you mention. If Pokemo continues to grow as it is it will simply be another sadly sprawling and poorly connected and congested Pakuranga.
But if it were to grow more compactly around a village centre; shops, pub, and in particularly rail station with quality services to Hamilton and Auckland, andcritically, an enforced greenbelt between it and other towns on the line, then country life is maintained and the best of both worlds I’d possible for more people. The train is a necessary condition, and the line is there.
Green belts equals inelastic land supply which equals unaffordable housing. Thus destroying one of the key advantages transport infrastructure provides for the community -namely the ability to open up new areas for affordable housing.
Germany doesn’t have green belts, they have a constitutional ‘right to build’. They just ensure that each new development has PT as well as road access.
Green belts are a nonsense anyway – fields where rich pricks can buy lifestyle blocks so their kids can play with ponies and motorcross doesn’t provide amenity value for anybody else.
If a community genuinely wants an area protected they should convert it into a public park.
If private landowners want to ‘protect’ the ‘greeness’ of their land then they should put permanent covenants on their land for that purpose.
Come on Brendon, endless monotonic housing, sprawl-burbia is is fucking disaster of limitless proportions, why go to live near the countryside only to have it disappear? Suburbia, in the pursuit of country living, kills the thing it loves. Preserving the productive and beautiful countryside requires us to live in urban areas properly, at a medium density. And if we do that then the cost of both dwellings and movement can be reasonable. Only if we have to live at stupidly low densities does an urban limit negatively affect dwelling cost.
Patrick I think the carrot works better than the stick. Cities have all sorts of agglomeration benefits. People want to be near them. That don’t need walls.
Really the debate is how people get to and around the cities. If we only provide motorways -John Keys vision if you go back to the original Waikato Times image of John Key toasting the Waikato expressway and encouraging people to use it as a cheaper housing and transport option then yes we will get monotonous stand alone housing serviced by single occupancy vehicles. But as me and PebeKiwi illustrate below that is not the only vision for how our cities could develop.
Any connection between what John Key has said and the Fulton Hogan “village” development at Pokeno I wonder!
If Britomart capacity is an issue, you could make Newmarket the the major Auckland transfer station, and then on to the old railway station platforms. Otahuhu gives a transfer to the eastern line, new market to the western and any service heading to Britomart. Once CRL is in place you can revert to Britomart. Using the CRL loop though assumes electrification all the way to Hamilton.
And there is 3 silver fern rail cars basically unused available
Waikato commuter rail does not need to go to Britomart. A transfer at Papakura is fine and affordable, without compromising Auckland commuter trains.
We’ve got the old station and platforms there that the ferns definitely fit. I’m genuinely curious about what the cost of buying the old station would be and the ongoing lease and fitout expenses.
Agreed Bryce should just go to extent of electrified system be it Papakura now and Pukekohe soon.Why double up cramped lines.
The ferns are basically clapped out from what I can gather, apart from one on long term lease to the dunedin outfit.
To run passenger trains at speeds higher than 100kmph, and also frequently will require an upgrade to the signalling system at least. Under todays conditions, I would imagine in cab siganlling would have to be introduced as well, which is now the norm.
The basic system is now employed by KR for Auckland so no real problem I would expect to extend it’s reach.
That is easily enough said Bryce. But such things don’t come without cost. I would estimate such a system at least $100m Papakura-Te Rapa, track related equipment only. Not sure if that would include the cost of installing Ballises.
Quite possibly, given the price for Auckland network was roughly $90M (couldn’t find exact). There are added benefits for freight as well though. However, we should keep these things in perspective. The estimated price for a single motorway interchange for SH18 – SH1 at Constellation Drive is $500M or so.
This distance requires a 250km/h train so that the commute is less than an hour. That speed means a lot of new trackwork. It is a major investment. Nonetheless I think it is an excellent idea and would re-shape our country and help to reduce the pressure on Auckland.
Also looking North, Whangarei although small at present has significant potential for expansion if it were also to be less than 1hour commute from Auckland.
Britomart is fast becoming a bottleneck and it would be hugely expensive to attempt to retrofit HSR tracks now through central Auckland and across the harbour so a bypass route would have to be found running further West.
My proposal is an HSR service as detailed on my website: http://thinkingauckland.nz/index.php?pg=hsr
Stations at: Whangarei, Oakleigh, Welsford, Dairy Flat, New Lynn, Auckland Airport, Pukekohe, Horotiu, Hamilton, Hamilton Airport.
The line services almost 50% of NZs population living in an area where the terrain is not too unfriendly.
This route provides local advantages by providing a high speed backbone that the local Metro services can connect to.
Whangarei commuters could travel as far as Oakleigh on HSR and then transfer to the proposed new Metro service to Ruakaka.
Welsford would be a gateway to Mahurangi, Matakana and other rural areas.
Dairy Flat would be a hub for commuters in the North of Auckland, hopefully eventually having new Metro lines on the North Shore.
New Lynn would be an Interchange to the existing Western line providing access to the City Centre and to Western suburbs.
The Airport is the airport.
Pukekohe would be an interchange to the existing Southern line, making it feasible to extend this to Pokeno.
Horotiu would be a hub for Te Rapa, Gordonton and Taupiri commuters to Hamilton and Interchange using existing line to Ngaruwahia
Hamilton Airport could become a backup for Auckland only 45 mins away.
Obviously this has to be a central government project and is the cost of preventing New Zealand from becoming bogged down in its pre-occupation with Auckland.
We don’t need, nor can we afford true HSR for the population, any time soon. However, that does not mean the NAL cannot be upgraded to allow higher speeds than what we have now although there would still be a significant cost that I’m not sure is economic. (It can also be straightened out quite a bit I would think and passing loops if freight and passenger are to mix) I would love to see rail going all the way past Whangarei to the Bay of Islands. This would be of huge benefit to tourism in Northland. I just don’t see it happening any time soon. If indeed in my lifetime.
You sought of answered your own question there Bryce, about increasing speeds on the NAL. Really, there is a rail link to the Bay of Islands already. The real missing piece is between Kawakawa and Morewa. And also the track is buried between Morewa and Otiria. If people got behind it in the bay, they could run some sought of service onto the wharf and Opua, or very near/short of it.
But, in regards to not requiring about a HSR between Auckland and Hamilton in particular, I would tend to disagree with you there…. I think the idea needs much more looking into, and definitely not as a trial with any existing equipment. It needs some form of investment to bring about speedier services that will attract customers. And like it has been stated before, running on a time of 1.5hrs Hamilton to downtown Auckland.
I agree we don’t need top end HSR, but 250km/h is pretty much entry level these days. Anything slower and the commutes go over an hour which I think is quite a psychological barrier. Anything faster is going to just get more expensive.
As to whether we need it. Auckland is grinding to a halt with traffic overload. This is not just about moving a few people around within a city. This is about changing the way that people think about where to buy a house. And it is about boosting a number of secondary cities and rural towns. Has huge economic and social benefits.
I checked your website out and think your ideas should be investigated certainly 1000 times better than roading spend for now and future generations.
I would support this idea if the high speed rail link was extended to Tauranga and in the South Island an Amberley to Ashburton high speed rail link was also created something like what is discussed by Christchurch’s major -Lianne Dalziel here http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/65378638/Canterbury-with-a-population-of-2-million.
That would mean most of the major urban areas in NZ would have decent PT options. It would also mean the three major area of ‘attraction’ to migrants -Auckland, Tauranga and Christchurch would be getting decent infrastructure to cope with this influx.
The other imperative is that land restrictions are relaxed so that this massive expansion of the transport network lowers urban land costs. A major weakness for our economy. Some of the capital costs of this project could be gained from the State acquiring the land at existing prices and leasing it out for commercial and residential lease/rental at cost. If a state land developing body acted in the public interest not as a commercial monopoly provider then there would be ongoing benefits of affordability to NZ’s urban areas. Bernard Hickey discusses this sort of thing here in his article “What would Mr Lee do?” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11394719
Here is a link showing the train connections between Lahti a city of 100,000 105 km north of Helsinki. It shows what is possible for urban development from good transport connections, like what is being discussed between Whangarei to Auckland to Hamilton.
http://wikitravel.org/en/Lahti
Note although Finland is a similar size and population to NZ it has nowhere like the migration pressures New Zealand does.
And here is the budget for John Key’s road based housing development vision. There is a lot of money that could be used in different ways.
http://www.infrastructure.govt.nz/plan/mar2010/13.htm
Thanks for the links Brendon. It was the $5B for a tunnel to move cars from a ‘carpark’ on one side of Auckland Harbour to a ‘carpark’ on the other side that I thought could be better spent if redirected to make a good deposit towards HSR.
Many European countries have had HSR for a long time, China is busy rolling it out everywhere, also Thailand, USA and UK. This is a mature technology now.
Obviously not much use by itself unless it is Integrated with an effective local PT system in each city.
PebeKiwi I think fundamentally there is three possibilities for dealing with our transport, housing crisis, debt, migration issue.
The John Key statist plan. 1950s style motorway, single occupancy vehicles and standalone housing sprawl. Central government dictates the big spend on roads, for political not economic reasons. Resulting in infrastructure being the wrong amount, wrong type and in the wrong place. Individuals spend and borrow big on housing.
The First Labour government statist plan-1930s railway and housing plans. http://www.thesustainabilitysociety.org.nz/conference/2007/papers/HARRIS-Lost%20City.pdf. Government spends big on rail and houses often for political not economic reasons. It can be done right like the first Labour government did or the Singapore government does but it often causes a laissev faire backlash as the private sector demand to be part of the house building market.
The third option is devolution of responsibility for transport provision to regional bodies. Competition between the regions provides a check on dodgy political deals and reinforces regions making good decisions. The theory behind this is Tiebot. The links up thread at February 6, 2015 at 6:23 pm relate to this option.
Each option has its pluses and minuses but overall I think the third option is the best.
Nice summary Brendon. The first option, current policy, is being very aggressively pursued and promoted. It is presented as ‘natural’ ie not being an intervention at all, and this is how such a massive distortion can be uncontroversial.
But it is in fact a fairly extreme (especially in its haste) and one-dimensional programme with considerable risk of being an expensive bet on the wrong horse. There is a very high chance that we are simply buying assets from which we will not be able to extract sufficient value. It is time to stop subsidising the highway/sprawl complex because it only makes a high cost inefficient world that is not fit for purpose for our times. And is a Ponzi scheme, backed with our taxes.
This area of policy desperately needs more balance, probably via some mix of the other two mechanisms you describe.
I agree all of the National budget can be more wisely spent on rail, separated cycling and just some safety projects for cars, no more additional car capacity in fact where more than one lane maximised for PT.