Contractor Magazine have run an article on the CRL early works, here.
AUCKLAND’S $2.5 BILLION City Rail Link project passed a milestone in April, with the appointment of two construction consortia to commence the first phase of the CRL in the Downtown area.
It signalled a welcome development in what has been a shaky start to Auckland Transport’s ambitious project. But funding uncertainties mean it could be 10 years before commuters reap the benefits of the 3.6 kilometre north-south route, stretching from Britomart to Mount Eden.
For a scheme first mooted in the 1920s, CRL has been a long time coming. Yet, for the project, whose purpose it is to create a better integrated public transport system, allowing more connections between rail and bus services, it is still early days. Designed to cater for 30,000 people on the rail network at peak hours – double the number currently – while slashing travel times across the rail network, CRL aims to help free-up disjointed rail travel in New Zealand’s most populous city.
Project director Chris Meale says the joint venture appointments meant the City was now; “definitely on the way to building a key missing link in our city’s public transport network.” Britomart Station would no longer be a dead end, and journey times would be vastly reduced. Aotea would be three minutes from Britomart, Karanghape Road six minutes away and Mt Eden nine minutes.
“A number of private sector organisations are forecasting CBD employment growth to be within the region of the government’s target. The government accepts the validity of the patronage data provided by Auckland Transport.”
Here is an update on projects underway or planned to start soon on the northern part of the route.
Processing...
Nice….Though I am wondering if there would be enough escalators and stairs leading down to the platforms? Doesn’t seem like much unless you install those “walk on the left” signs on. 😛
Bloody brilliant. We’re finally starting this project – it’ll be impossible to not finish it.
What now? the government thankfully hasn’t agreed to fund this white elephant, so is work going to stop?
Incorrect. The government has agreed to fund crl subject to targets being met. Patronage is running ahead of target, while the employment target is ridiculous and will have to be revised down. So what happens next? The crl gets built.
Not quite right Stu. Government has agreed to fund the project from 2020 regardless of targets. Targets are for whether they start the project earlier than that.
Well, subject to undertaking a business case.
regardless, nick is still a dick.
And Brown is still a dopey Clown
Details smetails. Key point is that for it to proceed now it needs to hit those targets. So its more accurate to say that central govt has expressed conditional support.
They in fact agreed to fund it, the first stages however are being funded by AT/AC, as well as being part of the redevelopment of the downtown mall which will be demolished soon.
rofl: ‘white elephant’
That’s what the original Britomart was called, which is now bursting at the seams so needs extending, that’s what the Northern Busway was called, which has also blown away all predictions of ridership, and is due extending.
So anytime I hear that phrase I know we’re on a winner. The dull witted can never cope with change.
The acronym TINA springs to mind with the northern busway….. There. Is . No . Alternative…. You know when you have won an argument, when imbecilic insults start coming your way
There. Is. No. Alternative… to the City Rail Link either. It’s the most critical piece of infrastructure that Auckland needs to unlock latent capacity across its entire rail network.
Oh really? No alternative you say. Is that why the NEX buses are full on Saturdays when the motorways are flowing well? Face it, many people want to use PT. you may not share that view but hey, I’m happy for you to drive. And we’ve built the roads for you to drive on. Now we need a mature Public transport system.
I haven’t seen that myself, and if, a big if true, it’s only because people have been priced out if parking
Parking is $2 a hour with a cap of $7 in the city centre on Sundays, and free most elsewhere. Hardly being priced out of its cheaper than a bus ticket.
The other acronym that countered TINA was TIARA – There Is A Realistic Alternative.
There were dozens of editorials in the Herald about the ‘White elephant Northern Busway” mainly by Roughan who claimed it would within a year simply be connected into the motorway and turned into additional SOV lanes, haven’t heard many snippets of wisdom and prophecy from him recently.
You have to have been born with water on the brain if you think the CRL is a waste of money.
I didn’t say we didn’t need it, however the cost is way above what other cities are paying, example look at the new tube line in London, 80% cheaper per km, the funding model is completely wrong, where is the private sector investment? Hitting ratepayers in the pocket with 10% average rate increases is only going to hurt the poor, vulnerable and old massively…
So where is the private sector investment in roads? Nowhere; it’s all funded from taxes and rates. Transport infrastructure is not a profit centre its an economic value enabler. Strawman nonsense.
Rubbish, look at funding for the tube in London and subway in NYC all have private sector investment
No. You’re miles off.
Crossrail attracts development levies, which are like a targeted rate, these are in no way ‘investments’ as in the private sector owning any part of it and receiving a return. This is exactly like funding it from rates:
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/funding
Note it is funding, not financing, or lending, or investing. Crossrail is not a private venture even in part.
Jeez we were modelling crossrail in 1992. Thank goodness CRL hasn’t taken as long.
Patrick,
>> “So where is the private sector investment in roads? Nowhere; it’s all funded from taxes and rates.”
You know I agree with the thrust of your argument, but there is an important nuance to clarify. There is huge, essential private sector investment in the roading system, from vehicle fleets to parking supply, to all sorts of huge operating costs like fuel, as well as intangible costs in liveability, life and health terms. Sure, this isn’t (usually) direct private funding of the bare capital expense of building a piece of road, but that’s not a like-for-like comparison to transit projects (where it is assumed there will be public funding of essential elements like vehicles, drivers, stations, walkable environments, energy, etc., plus public dividends in efficiency, liveability, health, etc.).
It’s worth highlighting this because it reveals more of the true cost of a mass driving transport system, and therefore the comparative benefits of a mass transit system.
The biggest white elephant currently floating around is the third harbour crossing, $5B for the tunnel, how much for the supporting works to enable full utilisation and will NZTA transfer the bridge to Council ownership (ratepayer funded maintenance) once complete?
Don’t feed the troll…….
I think you may want to see the letter from Simon bridges and bill English to Len Brown on the Auckland Ratepayers Alliance Facebook page, more or less saying the opposite and telling Brown he needs to revise his transport plan, and until he does there will be no funding
Saying the opposite to what?
The opposite to approved funding
Frankly, I don’t care what Bridges thinks. He seems to just be toeing the party line that started with Joyce. Doesn’t mean they’re right. Continuing to ignore double digit PT growth in the city is blind ideoligy.
Perhaps you should as the minister of transport, I’d suggest he knows more than you
Your misguided insults aside, we all know a troll when we see one
Bridges should be listening to his advisors.
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/569/docs/569.pdf
And I just bought an Alfa Romeo Giulietta Manual so I’m hardly in the ‘anti car’ camp.
Don’t feed the troll!
Why has this thread got sucked into troll feeding?
Because sadly most posters here can’t tell a troll from a legitimately befuddled newcomer to the debate. These people are sent b.y … perhaps the National Party directly, possibly one of those dodgy PR agencies linked to Carrick Graham and/or Cameron Brewer, to sow FUD about the project – not because they really don’t like it, but to Bring Down Len Brown (which is ALL this government are really concerned by with Auckland. If he was Mayor, Brewer would be pushing the CRL big time).
Put yourself on a pedestal then. We all shall defer to Deloras. ‘not worthy’ bows down.
Trolls will be as wrong about the tunnel as they were about other public transport improvements. Yesterdays Dompost, a peep into the future
http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news/69292170/death-of-the-car-why-generation-y-is-turning-to-public-transport
Rather obvious troll at that.
Just Phil the twat; our pet troll.
You mean the blogs petrol powered, pet-troll, who lives under the harbour bridge?
I thought he’d be busy dealing in frozen OJ, pork bellies and Shale Oil futures to be bothered with posting here.
Yaa Hoo…We are excited…
Might be a dumb question, but are all those projects along the cut&cover section of CRL paying their bit for the foundations, or are they getting it done cheaper due to the tax payers paying for CRL?
I’m assuming it’s all being done at the same time and that’s why they’re jumping on the bandwagon.
The CRL is being done entirely in the roadspace, why would the foundations be redone for neighbouring properties? They’re jumping on board because they see the very real benefit and increased desirability their properties will have being located right next to a central city transit station.
And I suspect, they’re probably also hoping to be able to add direct (underground) entry onto the Aotea station precinct from their buildings (for those that are near enough to the station anyway).
Because if buses and bus stops are “people fountains”, then CRL stations like Aotea and K’Rd are going to become gold dragons that breathe people in & out.
So the more access these people have via your building to the stations, the more rental you can get from your retail customers in your building – simple economics.
For sky city for example, I think it’d be a matter of just having the lifts (and fire exit stairs?) in the current convention centre extended down to a new level where a passageway to the station could be built. Then people would just have to take the lifts up to the 5th floor, cross the airbridge and they’d be right at the casino without going outside! Whether that would be really needed or wanted (by the public) is another thing.
Atrium on Elliot/Crowne Plaza is another matter complicated by the presence of that slip road underneath their Port-cochere.
I think Auckland Transport is a bit reluctant to have exits into private buildings though. Issues with fare control and all that – presumably to keep things simple they’d want the entire mezzanine level of Aotea Station in the fare paid area meaning each entrance would require a gateline.
Will the stage one tunnels be tracked and signalled so they can be used for stabling, or are they just going to get boarded up at the Britomart end until needed?
Boarded up last time I asked. The answer to question you’re asking about the ability to increase capacity at peak times through the bottleneck is unfortunately no.
That’s a shame, it seemed like they’d come in handy. I guess it isn’t in the budget to energise them and build temporary staff access and facilities.
Pity Auckland can’t fund Aotea itself.
Presumably the first phase takes the railway tunnel under the -to be developed- Queen Elisabeth II square. This allows development to take place above the right of way and gets some of the CRL built, but does nothing for rail users. However what could be done, would be to lay tracks from Britomart to a temporary headshunt under the square. This would enable trains arriving at platform 5 to go forward to the headshunt, returning to platform 1. They could then depart without blocking the throat. Platforms 1 and 5 would become through platforms, thus potentially achieving the same increase in capacity at Britomart as will eventuate when the CRL is complete.
Unlikely though. Its more likely that it will be closed off during the construction phase and not opened until they can use the whole Link… chances of a “temporary headhunt” are: zero. Sorry.
More useful would be stabling peak trains inside the tunnel stubs, so you can bring them in in the morning without having to send them out again until the evening peak.
That could squeeze in and extra few trains each peak.
Would a headshunt really increase capacity by that much? After all, trains would still have to come in to Britomart through the throat and then back out again (albeit passing a different platform on the way out). Nothing like the capacity increase that would be achieved by enabling trains to just pass straight through on both tracks.
I think Imperial Advocacy League’s idea of stabling some trains would work though.
What is the cause of the Britomart bottleneck? Is it the two lines in, or is it the 4 platforms? If AT built Aotea now and had one line terminate there with the others terminating at Britomart would that improve capacity in the short term until the CRL is finished (unlikely to be built before 2025 if the government don’t fund until 2020)
Bottleneck is the two lines rather than the five platforms
I believe the cause of the bottleneck is mainly the two tracks in the throat. From what I understand (and please feel free to correct me if someone knows different) the current number of platforms (combined with other elements such as Bi-di signalling) is kinda like a goldilocks figure that ensures that the throat can run to full capacity – fewer platforms at Britomart would mean reduced capacity, more platforms wouldn’t make that much of a difference to capacity (but would provide some redundancy to enable trains to layover for longer periods).
Running some trains to Aotea would get people there sooner which is a good thing for users, but Imperial Advocacy League’s suggestion of stabling peak trains inside the tunnel stubs might be more operationally viable.
I may have mixed up my metaphors there (Goldilocks of course usually refers to hot and cold not more or less lol) but I think you get the point.
And I’m assuming there is no cost effective way of adding a third line in?
It could be done, and probably would be cost-effective if seen on its own. Compared with the benefit of the CRL overall, it would however be a small (and once CRL is built, possibly mostly unnecessary) benefit. In this case, the perfect IS the enemy of the good – we’d be shortchanging Auckland, as once the third rail would be in, there would be a lot of pressure to defer or cancel the CRL again.
Every train that arrives in Britomart must cross the throat from the arrival side to the departure side either when it arrives or when it subsequently departs. In doing so it crosses in front of every platform. It blocks all other trains from arriving or departing from the time the route is set till the time the route is cleared. This must be a significant factor in determining the capacity of the station. The layout I am proposing would mean that trains arriving on the ‘through’ track do not need to cross the throat at all. In fact it results in the same layout as Britomart will have when the CRL is completed with the same increase in capacity. The capacity of Britomart (after phase 1 or after CRL) would be greatest if the throat is also re-modelled so that the through tracks (1 and 5) diverge before (ie at the Beach Rd side of) the crossover switch at the throat.
Yes futhermore trains can be stabled in the tunnels ready for the evening peak, thereby allowing a number of out movements that haven’t cost inward ones. Upping the throughput at the peak and de-stressing the junction before the throat.
This would require extra budget to fitout and commission track and signals, and crossovers if these aren’t planned for? And would they want these tunnels for construction access to the next stage? Hard to see why they would need the whole length.
There is no indication of crossovers in the axiometric above. Adding these if otherwise unnecessary would be a big expense for a short term use. I imagine there will be crossovers before Aotea Station for redundancy and breakdowns, but these are more likely on the straight track further up the line.
Patrick It would require some temporary track work, signals and a switch (or a crossover if you were to use the stabling option). I don’t think it would seriously affect future site access as the next phase is cut and cover. The main thing is that it would allow AT to move to higher frequencies over the entire network much sooner. I have heard people say that the patronage increase the government wants before accelerating CRL is not possible without the capacity increase at Britomart – catch 22. Well this is the way to increase capacity, increase frequencies drive up the patronage and justify an earlier start date.
There’s a little more to it than that as these are two separate tunnels.
Wouldn’t it only have half the capacity of the crl – every train will effectively have to go through britomart and the throat twice (in and out) as opposed to the crl they will just go through once.
Yes you are right, My last comment overstated the benefit, I was thinking in terms of number of trains rather than number of loaded trains. It will still be worthwhile nevertheless.
Its easier to understand if you look at a diagram – see for example http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/05/08/what-to-do-about-britomart/
Trains entering from the right go through the double switch at the throat and proceed to the platforms. If the route is set for a train to enter tracks 4 or 5, trains can still be leaving from tracks 1 – 3. However when that train leaves from 4 or 5, to reach the down line it must cross over at the throat, blocking tracks 1 -3. If the arriving train is to take any of tracks 1-3 it must cross the throat on arrival, blocking tracks 4 and 5. So every train in or out of the current terminal station blocks all other movements either arriving or departing. I don’t know how long this takes, but it will be several minutes, and this will be what is currently determining the capacity for the Britomart spur and thus the whole network. A simple answer to your question is that AT expect the capacity constraint to be eased when trains are running through rather than terminating. If this is the case, it must be the terminating trains that are the problem, not the two tracks in the tunnel.
Aside from building a second tunnel (in which case you may aswell build the crl as the second tunnel)
Will they continue to have 5 platforms? Will the other 3 be used? Would be nice to have one big platform.
They’ll need at least one for the Northern Explorer. My guess is that stays on platform 3, while tracks 2 and 4 will go unused in routine service, although handy to keep in case of planned or emergency closure of the CRL. The the two outer platforms will only serve one track each, giving enough passenger space for CRL trains.
Is it worth running all that ventilation equipment for one train three times a week? With decent PT does the Northern Exporer need to be run out of britomart anyway?
You only need to run it when the train is in the station. The train is there six times a week (arrivals and departures), and hopefully it will become a daily service again.
More importantly, keeping that diesel intercity train at Britomart means it would be possible to start up regular intercity trains to Hamilton and Tauranga from Britomart, which they’d need to be successful, rather than who knows where where they might fail. An hourly service to Tauranga via Hamilton isn’t a crazy idea a few years from now.
+1
I’d pay money for an hourly train to Thames, but I guess I don’t have enough money to bribe anyone into doing that any time soon.