Auckland Transport and the NZTA have just announced a new round of consultation for the East-West Link that ends up being pretty much identical to what was suggested by the business community in their four pages of paid advertorial last week.
They undertook consultation of a number of options back in October and the consultation report released today is beyond a joke. There are no figures to show what the feedback was and only makes comments such as “Some people told us …” or “Some people considered …”. There is no information about how many the “Some people” is or what the demographics of submitters are.
The biggest part of the news is that the preferred option for The East-West route is a four lane “limited access” state highway all along the northern foreshore of the Mangere Inlet. They stress it will not be a motorway but it sounds like it won’t be far off one. In addition to this any parts of Neilson St not already four laned will be widened and additional lanes will be added to SH20 between Neilson St and Queenstown Rd as well as SH1 as far south as Princess St.
Despite all this they also claim it will improve things for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users and to top it off say that the new road along the foreshore “will achieve positive environmental outcomes” for the Mangere Inlet. This seems like an awful lot of PT, cycle and green washing.
On the issue of cycling, the map below suggests the existing cycle facility along the foreshore will be cut off from the water by the road which doesn’t seem a good outcome at all. It also appears that it will cut off any option to extend rail to the airport.
In addition to the new road a number of changes are proposed on along the frequent bus route that will run between Sylvia Park and Mangere. A mix of separated and on street cycle lanes plus shared paths in some places is meant to improve cycling while for buses some sporadic transit lanes will be included however crucially it appears they will also be able to be used by trucks. It will be hardly fun waiting for a bus there and having a large truck rush past close to the kerb.
AT/NZTA are also going to be holding some open days on the project starting this weekend
- Saturday 20 June from 3 – 6pm. – Where: Onehunga Café, 259 Onehunga Mall.
- Thursday 25 June from 6 – 10pm. – Where: Onehunga Night Markets, Dress-Smart, 151 Arthur Street.
- Saturday 27 June from 9am – 2pm. – Where: Māngere Town Centre, 93 Bader Drive (outside the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board Office).
- Saturday 4 July from 3 – 6pm. – Where: Onehunga Café, 259 Onehunga Mall. .
At this stage there’s no indication of just how much this project will cost and I’ve asked AT for more details on that.
As I asked the other day, how much are the truckies prepared to pay for this new motorway?
Edit: AT have confirmed the new road will cost more than $1 billion while the bus and cycle improvements in the second image will cost $35 million
Processing...
What a joke. Probably the funniest for me is the widening of SH20, You could crash two trucks on that section of road and still not cuase a traffic jam.
Bus lanes in Mangere could be built anytime. Are not in anyway dependent on the massively overblown motorway over the inlet. And that’s just the start of what’s wrong with this pile of double-speak and bullying..
Yeah, and the “Feedback Summary” didn’t say people wanted trucks on their bus priorities. Where did that come from?
I don’t personally mind if this is built as is or as a motorway (both options funded by government rather than Auckland) as congestion in this area is particularly bad and unnecessarily so (lots of stop-start jumbled roads etc). This is the heart of NZ’s industrial/manufacturing economy and there is the inland port located there also.
What I do have an issue with is an apparent removal of Airport rail. Airport rail is an absolute must and it’s future route/viability must absolutely be protected. As for the cycle way, surely if they are building a whole new road etc the cost of tacking on a cycle way alongside the harbour would be quite minimal as would adding bridges/underpasses to connect the area with the cycle way. Do it once do it right.
Pretty clear that Simon Bridges would have had this mess of a project in mind when he was pooh-poohing airport rail in the last few weeks…
I just hope the AT got a good deal from the Transport minister when they allowed this – maybe something like we will give up rail to the airport if you pay for light rail?
The new link is largely required because of the growing freight volumes moving by rail between Port of Tauranga and Southdown, which require hundreds of truck movements per day in and out of the Southdown Metroport site. So not so much caused by the truckies, but rather caused by Port of Tauranga’s very successful effort at competing with Ports of Auckland.
As for airport rail, this new road clearly wipes out that option. That’s probably why AT has ceased route protection work and why Lester Levy has stated that he doesn’t think heavy rail to the airport is the best option (he prefers light rail).
What happens to all the wildlife along the foreshore? Or is AT/NZTA’s plan to have thousands of dead Pukeko’s on the new road, after they tried to move between the grasslands and the water?
The cycle way already exists right along the foreshore and is well used. So will it be destroyed and another narrower one be squashed in like on the NW motorway.
If the area is not future-proofed for rail to the airport it would be one of the most shortsighted moves ever! Something needs to be done about this! Fuss and media publicity or the legacy will be jammed motorways in mangere like the NW has without a busway.
Interesting to see AT reverting to form in its efforts to cover Auckland in tarmac. The consultation process is, once again, proven farcical; the environmental benefits of such a project are risible; its impact on cycle and pedestrian networks disastrous; and its marginalisation of PT (both rail and bus) a travesty. What happened to that board directive concerning prioritising both the environment and active modes? This is not only a sick joke but a sad inditement of the professionalism of those responsible for not only the strategy it seeks to implement but also its design.
I’m actually OK with bus+truck lanes in this area, as truck movements are indeed important to the economy, and cars, notso much trucks, create the congestion around here.
But have the bus+truck lanes INSTEAD of this motorway – put them on the SH20 Onehunga ramps, Neilson St, Great South Rd, Sylvia Park Rd (and perhaps bus only, not truck, lanes on Massey Rd).
Since this option was never consulted on in the earlier consultation it makes a complete mockery of the fedback and consultation process used earlier. So how can you claim a mandate for this when you never asked anyone about it?
Basically all of the “must improve” things listed for options A-F were ignored in favour of ramming this through.
Any plans for SH20 were NZTA admitted completely premature until WRR opens in 2017 as their modelling could not tell them what Waterview tunnels will do to the network.
So they’re throwing down $B on an psuedo motorway when they don’t even know if its actually needed.
I can see AT slavering to get this built as a notional state highway (20B?) as that way NZTA [and us taxpayers] will pay not AT.
And rushing out the consultation summary 3 days before the consultation on the completely new option starts. What a joke.
For me the most important thing is ensuring rail to the airport is not excluded. I don’t know much about the area, but trucks in bus lanes seems to me a very bad idea, and even if not unreasonable in this case creates a bad future precedent. Wouldn’t most trucks use the new road anyway instead of Massey Road?
Two other questions. What impact will the new road have on the volcanic cone in Onehunga? And would it not be possible to reclaim an extra 100m of land in addition to the new road to put a new park and cycleway/walkway on the seaward side of the new road (improving instead of detracting for the foreshore)?
These so-called “business” people aren’t business people at all, nor do they represent the business community. Unless being a pig with a snout in a trough equates to being a business person. WTF? I run a business in Penrose. FWIW, my view of what is needed to improve vehicle movement is to improve a few key intersections, probably with grade separation. Start with Church Road / GSR (and if you did that you might as well do Church Road O’Rorke Road as well) and Neilson Street / Onehunga Drive. Further east, Highbrook Drive / Hellabys Road / SH1 is a mess. And at the same time, drive down demand for road space (go with the flow, right? people want to drive less) by making some basic, easy wins with cycling and PT around the area.. despite the trucks, the main issue here as everywhere else in AK is still SOVs i.e. private cars clogging the place up (and their drivers’ arteries and lungs) at peak hours. And for goodness’ sake get rail to the airport via Mangere.. no-brainer. Don’t cut if off. I can’t believe someone even thought of the plans in this post, never mind signing them off and actually publishing them. What a bunch of complete tossers.
+1 to everything you say.
This plan is so bad it looks like one of Matt’s April Fools Day pranks. I can’t believe that AT would be a part of this. It’s also hard to believe that even NZTA would come up with anything like this in this day and age – it’s the worst of all worlds.
Re legality of building this presumably this would need new designations? And designation hearings are always publicly notified?
What does limited access mean? Trucks only?
You can’t have a driveway onto it, most basically.
80km/hr speed limit? Similar to the South Eastern highway?
Annoyed that it cuts off the water and you can’t even cycle near the water wtf…?
Other thing is why can’t they future-proof it for rail, didn’t AT/AC just buy a bunch of land along the onehunga-mangere-airport corridor for the future rail line?
So the cutting off of rail to the airport is presumably just from Onehunga (i.e. heavy rail), given AT are proposing light rail as the solution?
For all we know, they will say this option doesn’t close off rail to airport at all (which is correct, engineering can do a lot of things – but risks making airport rail more expensive again…).
Among other future-closing disasters this plan means that there will never be fast grade separate rail service between the City [and Shore etc] and Mangere and the Airport. Below; rail route in red, through what is an old rail trench, the new insanely greedy truck highway in Blue. Note both cannot pass under current bridge. And rail line needs to get to the west side of SH20 and of course avoid sharp turns and steep grades. The current plan ends any sensible future use for the Onehunga Line, it will never justify the investment it needs to get decent frequency without it continuing on to serve Mangere and the Airport. No wonder AT are desperately pretending Light Rail can serve the Airport; they have have just had their most popular future project spitefully killed by the truck lobby in government and the future-eaters at HNO.
I don’t think this makes airport rail impossible – but as you point out, it creates the need for the kind of extra funding for rail bridges/over/underpasses which in this country is thrown at road projects only, whereas rail projects have to go through decades of fighting for the same sums.
As of now the two hard bits of the route- crossing Nielson St and SH20- are already built; the line goes under both. Nielson is future-proofed for it; imagine that!. If this foreshore killing project is built there is no way to go under Nielson then over everything else, even if the grades allowed it, the rail line ends up on the east side of SH20. We _could_ run an Airport line from Puhinui area, but what sort of running pattern would that have? Yet another branch off the southern; and it wouldn’t serve the Mangere catchment; so ain’t gonna happen. No RTN repair to the terrible m’way severance of Mangere, no massive uplift of accessibility for this dormitory suburb.
Dumb fail to use joined up transport and land-use thinking except for only one use; trucking. Pathetic sop of some half-pie, intermittent buslanes; woeful. AT being shown who’s boss by business lobby playing big gov card.
Patrick is there anywhere I can see possible options for the rail route south of the Manukau harbour and to the airport? I’ve searched on here and not turned anything up…
Apparently it is not a motorway so they can just put a level crossing in 😉
Could the new road go in a tunnel under the rail line? If you’re going to blow a billion surely this is possible.
Hey any idea why the rail to airport study has been so slow? Years and still no answer? Surely having that finished would make the road design simpler.
Nah, the rail line will be in a tunnel from after Neilson St under the truck lane, under the Manukau, and under SH20, popping up for Mangere Station on the western side of SH20. Simple!
“We _could_ run an Airport line from Puhinui area, but what sort of running pattern would that have?”
Airport trains could run from north, east and south, as opposed to just north via an Onehunga option. Since the whole point of an airport line is to get Aucklanders to the airport, a link from Wiri is far superior (and much cheaper too).
We should also keep in mind that the existing Onehunga Branch is unsuitable for airport rail in that it would require a full rebuild with double track and trenching to avoid the eight level crossings (or most of them). So really, an entirely new line would be required all the way from Penrose, and when you factor in the trenching, it’ll be hugely expensive. Much more cost than patronage from Mangere could ever justify.
Except the point isn’t just rail to the airport, it’s about rapid transit to the south east and access from Wiri does nothing to address that and creates just another branch which limits the frequencies possible on the core of the network.
Geoff, the airport itself would generate less than 10% of the patronage on the line, while 90% would be people going to or from from the Mangere area. If you build a branch line just to the airport it would be an expensive, hardly used white elephant. There just aren’t that many people going to the airport each day, not to mention the fact nobody lives there.
If you build a branch to only the airport then try and serve it with three different lines, you’ll end up with an abject failure of huge operating cost to deliver poor service. What service patterns did you have in mind?
If you want to build something smaller, build the line to Mangere only. That would be far more useful than a branch to just the airport.
Matt and Nick, if the main use of the “airport” line is travel to to other points, perhaps rather local, then is it possible light rail makes some sense? Certainly airport-focused heavy rail has proven to be an albatross elsewhere (Sydney springs to mind).
There are plenty of other nonsensical hypocritical and flip/floppy aspects of the current proposal of course.
It is interesting to take a closer look at the area north of the Mangere bridge on Google earth. If one plots a distance from immediately south of the Neilson St overbridge to a point roughly where the truck road intersects the current rail corridor, one gets a distance of roughly 300m. If the rail corridor is required to achieve a height of 7m above the road, this equates to a gradient of roughly 1:40. There are a number of locations on the national rail network steeper than this. The concept assumes a rail bridge deck height of 1.5m with a height to the new “trucking roads” beneath of 5.5m. According to the NZTA guidelines, Auckland Harbour bridge is legal for trucks to 4.8m height, no vehicle over 4.25m is allowed to travel on the rest of the motorway network –
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/factsheets/53/general-operating-requirements.html
If one accepts that rail will cross the Mangere to the east of the current motorway bridge, then it would seem that rail still is possible to the airport. The debate on going east of versus west of SH20 is interesting. Better access to Mangere Bridge community by going west, better access to Mangere town centre by going east before swinging west across David Lange Park.
The “future proofing” of the motorway bridges envisions the rail being built under the bridges. Where is it supposed to join the bridges? Surely a bit to the southeast of Patrick’s red line above?
While we are destroying large chunks of industrial and foreshore area I guess that the rail line would be able to run a little east of the current designation which may well make the spaghetti-ing possible.
Charles, I reckon light rail could certainly be an option. The vehicle doesn’t matter so much as the route. But to me it seems utilising the rail alignment up through Onehunga and on to the Southern Line (and into the CRL) would be the fastest and most reliable route, simply because from Penrose onwards it’s already grade-A rapid transit corridor. If they can do the same rapid transit with light rail then who cares what type of vehicle it is?
And don’t get me wrong, I think a line to the airport is a good idea. But the airport is just the anchor at the end of a corridor with many other stations, neighbourhoods and destinations. We should really call it the southwest line or something. The fourth main rail line for Auckland that passes through various suburbs and centres and also happens to serve the airport.
Nick R, agree, the airport is just an add-on and it’s a lot more efficient to interline to the existing network. But the other thing people forget with light rail is it cannot handle freight, which the airport and Mangere get A LOT of, and usually has to pass through road traffic. The latter slows it down, while the former is a huge opportunity lost to get rid of all the trucks on Auckland’s suburban roads (which can be hazardous, destroy the road and cause congestion).
Southwest Line would definitely be a better name, as it should not be just an Airport passenger shuttle: the Onehunga line needs to be doubled and extended to allow seemless traffic to the CBD, not only of passengers, of whom there are many commuters plus the Airport, but also the freight, which is a continuous stream to both Mangere and the Airport. Light Rail cannot do the seemless passenger loads without making a massive investment on the entire route, nor can it take freight. The vehicle may matter less for the former, but the cost is high and the weight restrictions prohibit seizing the chance for the latter
Two points:
1) Mangere will not generate the patronage necessary to justify a multi-billion dollar rail link with a price tag likely not too disimlar to the CRL. The Onehunga Branch rebuild alone will be massively expensive, with a lengthy double track trench likely necessary. If airport patronage won’t add much as you say, then Lester is correct, and heavy rail is not a realistic option for Mangere.
2) Your claim that its really about Mangere is not reflected in the public profile of the proposal. It’s called airport rail, and almost everything said about the project is talking about the airport. So either you’re incorrect, or the project has been incorrectly sold to the public by Len Brown as being about something it isn’t. Most people will be quite dismayed when they find out that airport rail won’t actually be of any great benefit to most of the rail network catchment.
Geoff it goes like this:
The accumulation of demand from stations all along the route: Onehunga, Mangere Bridge, Mangere Central, Airport Business Estate and travellers and workers at the Airport, add up to supporting a true Rapid Transit pattern. Able to justify 10min frequencies and full all day hours of service. The Airport is a strong anchor for the line but not its only source; there is a great mix of residential, employment, community, and yes the Airport to provide the ridership to justify the investment. An investment once made is permanent, and place building.
Furthermore it solves a problem in the proposed running pattern for the network post CRL without adding new ones. As the extension and upgrade of the current O-Line to 6tph it provides balance to a line that currently is proposed to run from Swanson to Onehunga via the city but with half the trains stopping at Newmarket because the O-line can’t take 6tph nor is there demand for such capacity unless it were to continue on. In short it balances the network. Frankly if the O-Line doesn’t get the extended then it will never justify the capex needed to fix its ROW and it is likely to be closed in some rationalisation involving a bus or perhaps LRT service between Penrose/Airport/Mt Roskill. A new branch line from Puhinui would further spilt services on the Southern, and only run at unattractive low frequencies that just doesn’t work at airports. No one wants to wait half an hour to get away from the airport nor factor in such flab to their schedule so as to get there on time. That’s one reason why so few take the current bus/train combo.
Mangere town centre and surrounds is the genesis of what could become a great mixed use retail, residential and recreational facilities development. At the moment it is somewhat stranded in an island of sports fields (great), and motorways (…not so great for the town centre). A rail link to Onehunga could be transformational for this township as part of a greater series of developments for this centre. Further north, so long as good quality walking links can be provided to the rail stations, Mangere Bridge already has many of the ingredients to enhance its reputation as an increasingly desirable part of Auckland to live in. Historically, links between Mangere and Onehunga/Penrose/Ellerslie have always been strong with a multitude of journeys made between these centres. In short, a heap of potential without even beginning to talk about the Airport or the Richard Pearse Drive employment precinct.
Double-tracking the Onehunga branch is a luxury for the future. With double track north of Penrose, and ideally from south of Onehunga, a lot of transportation frequency can be achieved. Look to the coastal single track section between Pukerua Bay and Paekakariki which is managed on one of Wellington’s premier commuter rail lines.
Tuktuk it’s not just double tracking but grade separating from all the roads that needs to happen to get frequency, reliability, and safety up to RTN standards.
‘grade separating from all the roads that needs to happen to get frequency, reliability, and safety up to RTN standards’
….yeah, don’t know about that. Here in Melbourne, grade separation has been a major issue with many $$ set aside by the current government, by many $$ – I mean potentially billions. There is definitely a time when grade separation should be done in co-ordination with development along the rail corridors. But, in my view, the density and land value just isn’t there yet for Onehunga. Plan for it, but don’t mortgage the line’s future viability to grade separation. Get the line out over the harbour and into Mangere at least first.
Or build it once and properly. Rail here is of permanent value. You want land value uplift? Put in spatially efficient, high capacity permanent infra. Form follows transport.
The little at grade single track has exceeded expectations so the route has already meet proof of project. The only issue is a central government culture; like in Aus, that is ideologically opposed to rail. Things change.
Patrick, I get the concept, and agree patronage would be high. But there comes a point where you have to accept the cost may be too high. The trench required for lowering the Onehunga Branch and extending it through the rest of Onehunga would be at least six times the length of the New Lynn trench. The cost would be in excess of $1b for the trench alone, to say nothing of the rest of the line.
I support airport rail, but the shorter route through a mostly greenfield at-grade corridor, with access not just north but also east and south, is much bigger bang for your buck. If Light Rail is to reach Onehunga as AT plan, then it could possibly be extended to cater for Mangere.
The rail route should have protected years ago.
Imagine the outcry if a rail line was constructed which removed the possibility of a long planned motorway going ahead!!
Probably the simplest option would be to put the rail in a short tunnel under Manukau harbour and the new road, but will add to the cost involved. I think it could be good if the rail extension to Mangere bridge and this new road were constructed simultaneously, espcially as under the advanced (non-basic) plan the extension to Mangere bridge is due to be constructed I think in the next 10 years. We need to push to speed up this rail extension, and also oppose light rail to the airport (which will kill any possibility of heavy rail for a long time)
Agree. As Patrick has put forward many times on this blog, the distance requires heavy commuter rail, and as the airport industrial zone is a huge employment and freight generator, heavy rail offers the option of rail freight connections and intermodal transfer to/from the airport – this is a growing trend overseas:
http://globalairportcities.com/rail-yard-expected-to-boost-manufacturing-at-charlotte-douglas-airport/
http://www.tractebel-engineering-gdfsuez.com/news/railport-at-liege-airport/
http://www.curtin.edu.au/research/cusp/local/docs/three-mode-plan-perth-draft-public.pdf – especially section 7.2
New Zealand will be held back terribly if heavy rail doesn’t get to our international gateway asap (ultimately as a through route, heading both north and south of the airport industrial zone).
Also, I wonder if trucks on bus lanes along residential streets in the leafy suburbs of Remuera and Epsom would ever be a starter? Question to Lester Levy: Is it only poor people’s health and safety that doesn’t matter?
In any case, perhaps Greater Auckland’s first action should be to protest (a march along the Onehunga Mall/foreshore?) and presence at the AT/NZTA open days?
I wish to take back the part of the comment about Lester Levy; I think he’s a top person, but I was just so upset that he would allow AT to go for this terrible plan.
I really am angry at the complete pig headedness of AT. Fine have your billion dollar truck highway but don’t cut off airport rail. People need to bombard AT with objections over the cutting off of rail to the airport. There are going to be SHAs all along Ihumatao and mangere. Rail would serve these suburbs and get them off the roads,as well as the huge employment zone at the airport. The airport roads are already ridiculously clogged with workers going to and from the airport in the morn and afternoon peaks.
Is this a “bus lane” combined with an arterial truck lane – really? Clear danger of bad accidents as buses stop mid-block and trucks are at or above the speed limit. Perhaps the bus operators will weigh in.
Exactly. It’s a recipe for disaster. Already on Constellation Drive, where the bus stop bays aren’t indented enough, a stopping/stopped/pulling-out bus blocks the T2 land, making them slower than the normal traffic lane. With trucks pulling in and out to avoid these bus movements, and with kids and elderly around bus stops, plus cyclists, it’s going to be total carnage (lots more workload for Middlemore Hospital – is this some sick and sickening form of enforced cross-selling from Lester Levy?).
Again, I wish to take back the part of the comment about Lester Levy; I think he’s a top person, but I was just so upset that he would allow AT to go for this terrible plan.
How much are the truckies prepared to pay? Given their enthusiasm, you’d hope it was quite a lot.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1506/S00631/freight-focus-on-preferred-sh1-20-east-west-link.htm
Those boys wanted a motorway and they’re damn well going to get one, no matter how expensive (in the order of $1 billion I believe) or unnecessary. If the truckies don’t pay, then who will?
What’s amazing with all this nonsense going on is the deafening silence from the Labour / Green opposition. I mean, I don’t particularly want to vote for them, but National’s actions on transport are pushing me firmly in that direction. It would be nice if they appeared to care though.
Or maybe it’s just not being reported.
Not being reported.. https://www.greens.org.nz/news/press-releases/new-report-demands-transport-rethink-govt
Thanks. They need to work the media better!
The media don’t give a shit. If they get to wear a hi-viz beside a minister, they’ll be happy.
Honestly, I’m not sure what more Julie-Anne and her colleagues could have done over the last few years.
Would it be easy to construct a mixed use bridge between the two bits of green field between Panama Road and Highbrook just underneath Fisher & Paykel?
And then once that bridge is considered, consider using existing roads to make LRT transit corridors from Onehunga to Mt Smart Stadium to Sylvia Park, through Panama Road to Highbrook?
Or an additional clip-on LRT station could be added somewhere along the side of the current SE highway that sits in the middle of Sylvia Park so that LRT could travel along Church Street, pickup and drop-off passengers directly into Sylvia Park and move along SE highway in both directions?
Could another bridge with LRT capability be considered a little bit further north in Glen Innes/Glendowie suburbs connecting Taniwha St/West Tamaki Rd/Riddell Road to somwhere along Bucklands Beach Road at the Eastern suburbs peninsula?
This would remove the Bucklands Beach bottleneck as peeps would only need to cross the narrow straight and connect back to Glen Innes train station if needing to get to Britomart?
Would it be easy to construct a mixed use bridge between the two bits of green field between Panama Road and Highbrook just underneath Fisher & Paykel?
Er, no. That would take a bunch of heavy traffic through an existing community and school, plus the peninsula at Highbrook where one might have terminated a bridge a mere 18 months ago now has a nice new building on it. The length of such a bridge would be about 2-3 times that of the existing Panmure bridge, so would cost a lot of money. Which we don’t really have – CBD rail link, light rail for the inner ‘burbs, electric cars, that sort of thing.
If pedestrian and/or bus/rail only from Panama Road to Highbrook then that would surely disincentivise private car usage?
I would have thought that the airport line is a sitter for light rail – passenger traffic only, and if it is laid to 3ft 6in, the LRVs can join the suburban rail network at Onehunga. As a truckee who has been stuck in the traffic at the Neilson Street bridge I say bring it on.
“As a truckee I say bring it on”, like what, spending billions of other people’s $$ on an overblown urban motorway cluster….? First up, stump up the cash. Then let’s have a proper debate (better still a vote) on destroying half the Manukau inlet foreshore in the process.. and foreclosing rail to the airport (itself a line item in the last two mayoral elections). And in case you hadn’t noticed FFs are not a sustainable form of transport. So our billions are going to buy a stranded asset. Which blocks a sustainable one. How ironic and stupid.
What a complete joke. Can I suggest you do some anecdotal traffic surveys of your own the next time you queue along Neilson Street.. plenty of trucks sure, but how many private cars are there? How many have one person in them? What time of day? Then perhaps reflect on what the real solutions are likely to look like.
Exactly. Truckies might also want to reflect on the design of this proposal: the connection with SH20 looks unworkable (tight turns and multi-axles don’t mix well and will require constant road closures for heavy patching), and the connection with SH1 looks like the merging nightmare of SH20 and SH1 at Wiri. I envisage this proposal, as currently designed, creating gridlock on SH1, SH20, and thus the East-West link, and thus, rather ironically, Neilson Street, making truck movements in the whole South-East industrial area slower, not faster.
Light rail is shit once you look at journeys longer than about 10km. It is slower than heavy rail, not as spacious, is elevated rather than being level with the platform, is not suitable for luggage (which is what people going to the airport tend to have).
Your view of the world is totally out of date with regards modern LRT on dedicated Rights of Way.
Go read up on the Gold Coast G-line – the only one in the world (so the G-line folks) proclaim that specifically caters for surf boards. Got to get your priorities right eh?
If a modern LRT system can manage surfboards then I think peoples luggage is a doddle.
As for needing “platforms” to board – the AT screenshots all show low floor units, with street level boarding.
Easier to board than any existing Bus I’d say and lots of people manage to use those to get to/from the airport.
These are pretty much the norm for the sorts of LRT being considered here.
Its not new, or expensive.
Not really, if you look at the details they actually ramp up to a proper platform at the stops. http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Queen-St-LRT_800.jpg
Even with the lowest floor vehicles if you want level boarding you need to come up about 250mm off the road surface.
Yes, and even having to lift something 250 mm is a health and safety hazard. As an almost constant traveller around the world, there is nothing better than to be able to roll a heavy suitcase straight onto (and off) a train, and nothing worse than to having to lift it onto (and off) a bus. And there is nothing better than a working escalator or elevator to get up or down to and from the station platform (need many of these going up and many of these going down at every station, as there is always at least one that is out of order), and nothing worse than a flight of steps/stairs (and I’m not in a wheelchair, pram, or using a walking frame). The savings in ACC claims and hospitalisations (of visitors and locals) over time will make the investment in proper tracks, trains and railway stations worth it.
+1
Patrick and others here (including me) keep making these points also.
Airport isn’t passenger traffic only; as a truckee, you should know that many of the big freight movers have their hubs out at the airport and Mangere, which integrate that moving by air and that coming from the port. Direct heavy rail line gets it all there more efficiently without you needing to worry about being stuck at onramps or in suburban roads. That’s a significant load of freight which also comes and goes from further South, also by rail. It removes congestion for freight and passengers to move the big loads in one train rather than a fleet of trucks, vans and cars, on rail which is built to be loaded, rather than roads needing patches.
LRVs connecting to heavy doesn’t work as nicely as it sounds, as the LRVs cannot go on the mainline (fundamentally differing systems) and so would require a transport mode change, which no one likes. It also removes the benefit of a standardised rail fleet the EMUs are bringing. A proper heavy rail gets the freight and provides a city-wide transit method for those commuting from Mangere and all needing to get to the country’s key entry point. And given the inflated road budget, cost is probably comparable. And even if it is a bit more, it’s investment which has been pushed off too long and will only grow in cost, and it is an investment which will last. The sooner Airport/Mangere/Southwest gets planned and built, the better.
As if this isn’t bad enough, I see the NIMBYs rocked up big time to the Unitary Plan hearings yesterday, absolutely determined to stifle any useful inner-city intensification.
We’re going to need to stop this crap. Time for the Campaign For Better Transport to get back into gear to take this on and get Airport Rail steadfastly put in place. The public want it. They don’t want this crap from the Trucking Lobby.
While we are filling in the upper Mangere inlet why can’t the airport rail run from Westfield Station, across the south of the inlet on an embankment to the Tararata Creek outlet, under S20, follow the creek to Moyle Park, then follow S20A to the Airport. This route would appear to need much less engineering than following S20.
It would actually be quite attractive to run the route to the airport from Westfield, as this not only gets passengers from Mangere/Airport to the CBD, but it is also more convenient for the inland port, does not have the single-line choke of Onehunga (which means passenger and freight trains to Mangere/Airport could increase in frequency from the CBD, as they may use either the Southern or Eastern), and it gives those in Mangere an easy commute to Glen Innes and Sylvia Park as well as Newmarket and the CBD, and the reverse: a proper, across-city network.
They could have (or could still) run a rail line across Mangere from Otahuhu, to near where SH20A joins SH20, near Mangere Town Centre. There is a branch line for shunting that exists by Otahuhu station that goes well toward Saville Dr in Mangere. There was ample vacant land in Mangere allowing for a route, but it has been taken up by housing now.
A rail route on the southern side of the inlet would have to roughly follow Favona Rd, but there is a SHA about to be built next to the inlet there at some point.
A case of building suburbs without allowing for future infrastructure.
This was my thoughts exactly. Being able to connect airport rail to AMETI for example would be one major benefit for this route along with freight consolidation by rail from both inland ports and POAL. There is about 60 something houses in what looks like was originally a transport corridor, I wonder how many houses if any would be lost along the Mangere Bridge route linking Onehunga…
Yeah, this route would be more direct and therefore faster, it gets round the tight and slow curves of extending from Onehunga, and crossing the harbour. Straight and fast; has appeal. It wouldn’t pick up Mangere Bridge, but that catchment probably heads to Onehunga to some degree. There’s a good bus connection options for stations at Robertson Rd, Bader Dr, and Montgomerie Rd, then Airport. Elevate through m’way.
There’s a big advantage in connecting Otahuhu over Penrose because it serves the eastern line as well as Southern. 6thp could come from crosstown line and western-city line. Makes sense.
NZTA did of course propose to put a motorway down that route and faced a revolt from locals, so long as they get stations, they may be less opposed to it’s use for rail….? They would really be getting something useful. The people in the houses on the route would need a good solution in a new nearby development.
Interesting idea, and I see the pluses (connection to eastern line and AMETI area. Also better connections to Manukau if link via Puhinui isn’t built). To me this does not resolve the whole issue. If the airport rail is built via Otahuhu and this link, I think the proposed city-Onehunga light rail should be extended south across the Old Mangere Bridge and down Coronation Road and Badger Drive to the Mangere Town Centre and hopefully the new Mangere Train station, to take care for all Mangere-Onehunga and city e.t.c trips and this light rail line will need to cross this new highway.
Well if we run this Otahuhu-Airport rail extension, then I think there is an argument to replace the current Onehunga Line with LRT as part of an east west line that connects to rail stations for transfers but also connects east even as far as Panmure and west all the way up to Owairaka or even Mt Albert and Unitec! Using the SH20 rail designation for much of its length. So connecting the ends of all of AT’s proposed LRT ‘finger’ routes, and all three rail lines, and much community between. Or LRT could still cross the Mangere inlet and head to the Mangere TC station for that connection too [or instead, and keep the O-Line as it is], as you say.
Under the first model the services that currently terminate at Onehunga would then terminate at the Airport allowing a full 6tph on the whole route Airport: Swanson-CRL-Parnell-NM-Onehunga-Mangere [3 stops]-Airport.
-> LRT on the old isthmus and grade separate rail for the longer journey to Airport, connecting with it for more local distribution.
+1
Like it a lot. Perhaps this is an unexpected positive to come out of this (and worthy of a post of its own?)? – a silver lining (and a great opportunity to up the anti with AT/NZTA: “okay, if you want to do this, then this is what we want in return”).
Interesting idea, but I’m strongly against. A goal with the Onehunga line and hopefully the future Mt Roskill spur is that the Avondale-Southdown link can eventually be completed (reducing significantly the number of freight trains in the inner city rail network) linking the Mt Roskill spur and Onehunga line, and creating a “circle line” through the eastern line (going from Britomart through the CBD rail link, down the western line to Mt Albert, up the Mt Roskill spur, through the new line to Onehunga, up the Onehunga line to Penrose, across to Sylvia Park and up the eastern line to britomart, or vice versa). Turning the Onehunga line to light rail could kill this possibility, and this circle line is much better than any crosstown light rail
“A goal with the Onehunga line and hopefully the future Mt Roskill spur is that the Avondale-Southdown link can eventually be completed (reducing significantly the number of freight trains in the inner city rail network)”
There’s only one freight train each way per day, so I wouldn’t call that significant. KiwiRail have all but abandoned the North Auckland Line unfortunately.
The similarity between the trucking informercial in the Herald and the “preferred option” is spooky. Somebody is getting paid off here.
This sure seems like a coordinated release by Nat-aligned organisations. Business as usual.
I would suggest that it’s a case of AT/NZTA having told the business lobby before it was released. For example I know they told them about the dropping of the motorway through Mangere long before they told the community
Yeah, it’s pretty clear the trucking/road construction lobby is running both the National Party and the NZTA.
Surely the rail designation to the wharf is still in place?
Therefore to build a road there an alternative would need to be provided for, similar to rail beside SH20 Mt Roskill?
Airport Train now.
Can’t they just make improvements to Nielsen and Church Streets rather than a whole new road that will destroy the Harbourside? When you look at the proposed route on google maps you can really see how much of the coast it will hdestroy. It’s about time they fixed the bottleneck at Mt Wellington on SH1 by installing an extra lane in each direction, that would help. On Nielsen St they could create truck only lanes, like bus lanes but only for trucks, which lead to truck priority on ramps at the motorways.
For rail, it’s about time they built that bridge over to Mangere! This would unlock a huge catchment area and provide more transport options out to the rapidly developing Airport Oaks region. More people using the trains in Mangere would mean less single occupancy vehicles. A southern loop could then be created at a later date to extend to the airport and out to Puhinui/Manukau Spur.
Exactly. Of course you can do that. If you were approaching this like a business proposition with the users in mind (as opposed to the road construction industry) that’s pretty much what you might consider.
Yes, Matt L has done a post on the first point you raise, with some really good (and what should be obvious to AT/NZTA) suggestions. On the second point, I recall this is what was indicated (as dashed lines) when the first (in the relatively recent era, ~10 years) consultation pamphlets came out about a Rapid Passenger Transit Network (or something like that, I still have the pamphlets somewhere).
What a waste. A proper rail to the Airport would handle all the freight needed AND greatly improve public transport. Why can’t those making decisions just stop and think what $1bil on that rail link would get vs this road:
-Proper public transport passenger services for Mangere commuters and Airport passengers/tourists to and from the CBD
-Capacity flexibility for passengers with the standard EMU fleet
-Remove the trucks currently occupying (and blocking and destroying) suburban roads en route from the port to Mangere/Airport, where most freight and industry is based (saves road maintenance, reduces traffic and pollution and increases safety)
-Remove trucks moving between ports from the motorway network, reducing traffic and maintenance on the motorways
-Carry mass loads in a single train as opposed to a continuous stream of trucks in traffic
vs a road which will get blocked, broken and cost for the rest of its life as most other such projects do. It is not a long term solution.
Heavy rail would greatly aid commuter life by avoiding all traffic and being a simple, convenient system. And it can make life much easier for tourists (and cheaper). And it can handle the freight loads which all move out towards Mangere and the Airport (in turn reducing road maintenance and reducing congestion). And it is just an addition to what exists to Onehunga (would need a second line or passing bays to make much longer) or Westfield, so much required infrastructure to the CBD and ports (in both directions) already exists, making transfer between networks no problem.
Light rail fails in the latter regard entirely as it cannot connect to the existing rail network and so would need a transfer (inconvenient) or the route to be built all the way (very expensive) and is generally less flexible for passenger numbers due to the lighter permitted loads. As such, light rail may have some use for commuters, but it will be very expensive for what you get in this case, having less peak flexibility and no freight, plus the “brand-new infrastructure type” set-up costs, and may become a white elephant for it. Roads keep getting built, the problem doesn’t go. Auckland needs a solution which can get multiple roles for the infrastructure cost in this region, and heavy rail provides that.
+1!
There is one aspect that has not been commented on so far regarding ‘encouraging’ people to use public transport. The design of the interchanges with SH1 is extremely likely to cause traffic jams on SH1 at Mt Wellington at a point where the traffic normally improves, while the interchange with SH20 will just make the existing jam in the peak periods worse. These will probably make public transport, particularly rail more attractive.
While I would like to have a rail link to the airport, I would expect it to be a route that was not one tracked like the Onehunga Line as this would impact the frequency of trains.
We hear that the cost is expected to be around $1billion. No business case. No arbitrary set of hurdles that have to be reached before it gets funded. Not even any clear sense of the aims other than making things easier for trucks. Well how many? How much easier? In what directions? Where is the current demand? What other changes, other than massive engineering ones have been investigated? What changes in land use are currently going on in the area? Is Onehunga growing as an industrial place or is residential putting pressure on previously commercial areas?
Does this project take trucks off the residential/retail end of Nielson, the western end? No. Are there quick wins possible here, like doing the work on Nielson itself and the bus lanes in Mangere to start.
To me the eastern bypass looks the more rational part, connecting SH1 with south facing ramps directly to Nielson may do much more than trying to connect SH1 and 20 all the way through. This looks likely to generate more movements than it redirects. How much induced traffic does this plan generate?
This looks opportunistic and half-baked at best. A sop to a powerful lobby group.
I’m really dismayed that the road-lobbies always get their way. We get so many trucks on suburban streets and the motorway which block and break the road (and often drive dangerously). This road will not help reduce the numbers of trucks. This road will also not help public transport as any potential additions will get stuck in the queues of, what’s that, trucks… Rail connects Auckland’s Port, Tauranga’s port and the inland port. Most of the trucks go to Mangere and the Airport region (and Highbrook). Surely $1bil would cover extending the line to the Airport, getting the Mangere commuter catchment, the airport tourism, Mangere business and Airport freight forwarders, avoiding transfers between road and rail for passengers and freight. It greatly aids efficiency and gets cars and trucks off the road, reducing road maintenance.
Why do those making decisions not look at this? They only look at passenger numbers for justification and set locations, not the freight and en-route which is significant…
Want rail? Put up the numbers and watch them be squashed. Want road? Here’s far more cash than it should need…..
At a fundamental level, roads and trucks especially are believed to cover their operating costs, not so for rail. And here is the nub of the problem. Nothing to do with CAPEX, everything to do with OPEX.
That may be the perception but it is just not true. Property taxes fund half the road network and almost all of the damage that requires so much spending is caused by heavy vehicles. Furthermore PT has tremendous economic value that it cannot monetise. In particular the decongestion benefits of every selfless person on a bus train or ferry is not priced. Additionally road users do not cover the lost value of the land they sit on or devalue through there negative place effects. Big trucking is subsidised by the ratepayer, by the light vehicle user, and by the tax payer. THEY DO NOT PAY THEIR WAY, or get close to it.
It seems that there is some kind of critical mass that is met when what the road transport lobbyists want and the construction/engineering companies involved in the Waterview connection are due to be winding down justifies fabrication of urgency. Or perhaps its only one of these and the truck lobbyists are just a smokescreen… The only part of this that is justified in my mind is the connection of Onehunga/Penrose to SH1 southbound so reverting to the original option C or D.
Yes the eastern connection of Nielson and SH1 south of the Mt Wellington choke, looks rational, especially linked with improvements to Neilson.
‘THEY DO NOT PAY THEIR WAY, or get close to it’, but the current movers and shakers either reject those arguments or perhaps do not understand the arguments.
There may also be a problem of confusion between an economic business case and long term financial commitments in the form of OPEX that will very tangibly appear as a cost on a balance sheet for years to come. People don’t see the economic benefits because they cannot be easily quantified. They certainly do see the cost of operations on a balance sheet, and from that the consequences in taxes and rates.
There is a need for “economic benefits” indicators to appear on those annual operating cost spreadsheets on the revenue side of the ledger. The challenge is to devise some formulae that is acceptable across the political spectrum. Even if not initially accepted, at least it starts a discussion process.
It is a funny old thing, the acceptance of different ways and means to draft up a business case and on-going revenue and expenditure. In Victoria, Regional Rail by typical ‘conventional accountancy’ means should be considered a complete dead loss. Yet, the financial results as presented are extremely positive and the Regional Rail network has high acceptance across the political spectrum.
http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/2086
20mb download & 275 pages
A little bit off topic however I have always thought the joining of the Waitemata and Manukau harbours was a interesting idea.This paper details various options primarily for power generation and the possible routes. A good read.
Patrick R photos included in paper
Before I was born my great grandmother lived in Otahuhu. One day some surveyors came along and cut down her lemon tree and hammered in some pegs in her back yard and told her that was where the canal would go!
Why are they called bus lanes if trucks can use them?
Can we refer to them as “truck lanes that buses can use” instead? More in line with the rationale for the project.
Its called “PT wash”. Tokenism.
How have they evaluated the options? Surely they had to undertake a CBA to do that?