Following up last week’s Mangere/Airport RTN post, reader Martin B pointed to this recent AIAL Masterplan: pdf.

Airport terminal

Here are the key Landside Transport pages:

Airport Transport

Map of the future precinct; white dotted lines indicate the rail line and the white rectangle the station:

Airport Masterplan

Good to see both northern and eastern routes are being planned for, however they are completely missing a trick by not taking the station right into the Terminal building (04). We know that AIAL are planning for the line to be cut and cover through their property so why not take it all the way to under the yet-to-be-built Terminal building? Seems pointless to insist that rail users stop just short enough from their destination to have to drag bags across a couple of roads. Interestingly this places the station with the proposed massive new parking buildings.

I have used trains to get to airports all over the world and by far the best have stations fully integrated into the terminals. Given this is a completely new integrated domestic and international terminal building surely it wouldn’t be difficult to future proof for this. Especially as they are claiming they are to reduce congestion while providing 20 000 carparks. The RTN route and service will need to be as good as possible to make sure it attracts as many users as possible to help keep those approach and local roads flowing.

After all, isn’t the plan for a streamlined seamless experience?

Share this

82 comments

      1. Because their business model is generating revenue from retail leases and car parking. Why would a car park operator encourage people to travel by train, beyond doing the minimum required?

        1. Doesn’t matter – by being the business that they are, they are a critical strategic link in the network. That means they have to come to the table, and provide best strategic outcomes.

          1. No, they have to act in the best interests of their shareholders, which is not the same thing at all.

          2. The business they are is a business to make as much money for their shareholders as possible. They ain’t no public service. Maybe you could have argued that when majority owned by councils, not now tho…

          3. Absolutely not. In fact if the directors prioritise the public good over profits they would be negligent, and should be replaced.

          4. Really? We just whupped that argument in the High Court with the Ports. It is of no benefit to shareholders to have your arse hauled through the High Court because you take a wilfully narrow view of responsibilities.

            Anyway, having a good RTN service to the Airport frees up land for higher value development from just being roads and parking. It ensures the roads that are there keep functioning, and don’t infarct through over use, or the area gets a reputation for congestion sending businesses and customers elsewhere. There is not necessarily any conflict between supporting a great RTN service and working for shareholder value.

          5. Patrick, absolutely, the wider public good and maximising profits might not be incompatible. I agree in this case they probably aren’t, given enough imagination on AIAL’s part. But like it or not, if it’s one or the other the directors’ prime objective always has to be maximising returns to shareholders. It is only through regulation and laws that companies can be made to act in the public interest.

            The High Court didn’t whup that argument, just ruled that the correct process wasn’t followed and that the consents shouldn’t have been granted. i.e they didn’t operate within the bounds of the law. As far as I know there wasn’t any ruling that, in general, POAL should take public interest into account to the detriment of profits.

          6. I haven’t got the quote to hand, but in the court’s judgment there is a clear passage about the PoAL’s actions not being in the best commercial interest’s of the company. Actions which they justified by that argument of primary focus on commercial outcomes. At issue is not the idea but its interpretation. PoAL take an extremely narrow and old fashion understanding, that has led them to waste huge amounts of shareholder funds both in court and in the water, and even more goodwill.

  1. Schiphol Amsterdam is a great model. Exit flight, straight down to the underground stn. JFK NYC is to be avoided. Air train to a local subway stn and pricey to get out from there. Plus horrible bus replacements on the weekends last time I was there.

    1. Hong Kong is even better with downtown check-in at the Kowloon station. As for AKL, the line does not have to be directly under the terminal if there are other factors to consider – structural issues, cost. What it should not do is require people to come up to the surface and cross active roads to get to the terminal. It’s easy to build underground connections from the station to the terminal (and vice versa) while they’re out there digging anyway. Having to roll a bag an extra hundred metres isn’t such a bad thing, but yes, the shorter the connection the better. And it shouldn’t be hard if they’re starting with a blank sheet of paper.

      1. Agree – no one will know it isn’t directly below the terminal provided they have direct, underground walkways to the domestic and international part of the terminal. The key is that it is integrated, not a bolt on. The terminal will be large enough that you have to walk anyway, regardless of where you pop up.

  2. I’m waiting to hear what sort of access charge the airport company are looking at, even though they’re saying they won’t contribute to the construction costs.

    That the line doesn’t go under the terminal is pretty silly.

  3. Are they created a dead-end station like Britomart with one track or are they having 2 coming in/out? Just thinking about trains coming from Onehunga and trains coming from Manukau and how they might run loops, or simple CBD-Onehunga-Airport-Onehunga-CBD options and the same for Manukau.

    1. It’s a replica of the Newmarket layout. Trains go in, driver changes ends, then train reverses out, with an at-grade junction that will cause delays if the lines ever operate on a 10-minute frequency.

      It should be one through double track line. No junction, no change of direction.

      This is nothing to get excited about however. They’ve had this plan (or versions of it) since the 1980’s. They have no intention of ever actually building it.

      1. The London Underground operates dead-end termini at 36 tph (Victoria line at Brixton), much more than the 6 tph that you seem to be suggesting is the limit. Admittedly it’s a single-purpose metro, with a state-of-the-art signalling system (just like Auckland!), but even in fully manual days they were were operating 24 tph in such places (eg Bakerloo line at Elephant & Castle in 1970).

        1. Mike, it’s not just the dead-end, it’s the at-grade crossing. Neither the dead-end nor the at-grade crossing are necessary, so why build them? Newmarket had delay issues from day 1, so let’s not repeat that layout.

          1. GB: dead ends are logical and efficient where a major traffic objective is geographically not on a route that would generate much through traffic, so Auckland Airport fits the bill in both respects. A through station would have to have multiple platforms to cope with increased dwell times, and a grade-separated tunnel juction would probably be cheaper than an unnecessary loop.

            And resorting to my London Underground comparison, if you think that 6 tph is the maximum achievable at conflicting flat junctions, I suggest you look at the service frequencies across the flat junctions at places such as Baker Street, Aldgate and Earls Court.

      2. You are assuming they go in and out to run ‘through’ between the Auckland and Manukau sides. They may do only one or the other, or most likely if they did have both lines they’d run them separately and have both branches terminate at the airport station.

        Anyway, at a mere six trains an hour that is easy anyway. Newmarket currently manages four trains an hour bouncing each way plus eight going through each way. Bouncing six with none through is childs’ play in comparison.

        At worst they would need a double island platform with four terminating tracks for heaps of capacity. Running 12tphpd on a twin track section between the junction and the terminal station isn’t any trouble at all. That’s well less that what Britomart achieves with the same configuration.

        1. So using that logic: we should keep Britomart as a dead-end station?

          This is the future Southwestern mainline for a fast-growing area of a fast-growing metropolis we’re talking about, not 1 (or 2) branch lines.

          As Patrick explains in his recent 2.0 post, this RTN line is much more than about the airport; the airport merely happens to be one attractor point on a broad corridor of attractor points; a huge corridor, where a lot of people live and work, and a lot more people will be living and working in the future, and a corridor that also provides a relief route to an overloaded Southern mainline.

          Newmarket is a legacy layout problem (London Underground has numerous legacy layout problems). It doesn’t need to be repeated with a greenfield project. It would be utter insanity to repeat it with a greenfield project.

          Why on earth would anyone interested in promoting rapid rail transit design such a ridiculous scenario as passengers from Manukau visiting relatives in Mangere (or vice versa) having to wait for a driver to change ends halfway through their journey? It would be quicker to drive, which would defeat the purpose of the infrastructure.

          (If you were designing a house and you needed a hallway to connect rooms, would you design the hallway so you had to go off to the side into a broom cupboard, turn around, and then go back out of the broom cupboard to go on your way? No.)

          I think Geoff is right, AIAL have no intention of ever building this, but if someone else (i.e., Auckland ratepayers/taxpayers) pays for it and they’re forced to accept it, they’re going to make sure it’s so half-arsed and unusable that it won’t be used half as much as it otherwise would be, so they can say “told you so” – but the rest of Auckland shouldn’t have to suffer forever just because of the bloodymindedness of a stupid shortsighted company.

          It must be a through station, and Auckland Council can and must require it to be a through station (they are the consenting authority, after all). End of.

          1. Nonsense. It’s at the end of the line; Britomart is in the heart of the city. There is literally nowhere to go. If the line then heads south, and I think it should, that will work fine too. You’ve got the scale all wrong. This offers plenty of capacity for Auckland and Auckland’s airport.

  4. Looks like the Britomart model which has trains (or trams) go to a dead end.
    After they get it up and running they will want Auckland City to pay for an underground loop as an added extra.
    I do agree it should go right into or under the Terminal building to make the experience seamless.
    Any dates for completion?

    1. The difference here is that (presumably) only one line will go direct to the airport terminal. Although that line might have a high frequency of trains, it shouldn’t result in the constant criss-crossing between multiple lines in and out of a dead end (as Britomart does).

      1. No problem with the Terminus model here, in and out with two tracks will work fine and have huge capacity. Either back up the line, or ultimately east and south. As I suggest in my previous post West-City-Otahuhu-Mangere-Airport-Papakura is a pretty fantastic service for the whole city. Giving the coming huge new southern city a western option to add to their northern, north-western, and eastern ones.

  5. Just posted under “Airport terminal”, but that post seems to have vanished:

    I suggest noting the difference between “multi-stoyed car parking buildings will be built close to the terminal” and “there will be new mutli-storeyed car parking buildings”, both on p24 “terminals and surroundings”, with no mention of public transport (rail or otherwise), and “we have…allowed for an underground station” and “designed space for an additional express bus service”, both on p30.

    Also on p30 they do say “the balance between private car use and other modes of transport will have to change”, but from the above it’s clear that they will provide facilities for the former, and just make space available for someone else to provide the latter.

  6. The proposed Auckland Airport Station is underground and is close enough to the terminal buildings to be linked via an underground passageway. Changi, Incheon, Narita and Haneda airports are like this – the station is under the adjacent carpark. Its more cost efficient to construct the station that way.

    1. Seems like it is some 300m away. If provided with good underground access, that’s not too bad. Though one wonders why rail has to be underground and roads on the surface?

      1. A 300 metre distance from the terminal to the station is fine as you can fit in some good retail facilities along the way. Underground stations are more space efficient compared to above ground stations.

  7. Also: how much better it would be for the tracks from the north to approach the station around the western edge of the road network thus allowing through running en route to the eastern tracks.

    1. I assume the second runway is the issue but given it isn’t built yet, and it looks like eventually it will extend over the road/rail anyway, it would make sense.

      Maybe it is so that they dont have to grade separate (to go under the road in) until the last possible moment making it cheaper.

      1. Rail could still be cut & cover under the runway to provide a through service. Hopefully AIAL are talking heavy trains rather than light rail. Station can be built just as cheaply under a yet to be constructed part of the terminal building.

        1. Yes I am concerned with AT’s recent discovery of Light Rail as the answer to too many questions. I agree it is a great technology for certain demands, in particular the QueenSt- Dom Rd corridor, but, in my view, not this one. Partly because our newly upgraded standard rail system is already more than half way there, so the option of the fastest highest quality service is already tantalisingly on offer. But also because of the network optimisation that this route, or rather route extension would bring. Capital cost is not the only question, the value of such a multi layered demand/destination addition to the network would be invaluable; enabling AT to wring more value out of the existing network, in the same way the CRL does.

          The fit with existing running patterns is elegant and efficient to the extreme. For LRT it would be a stretch, slower, less competitive and therefore of less value as a congestion avoider.

          1. Bremen is a good example of a city whose airport is well served by Light Rail. Clean, efficient and convenient way to get to the city centre.. which is less than 4 km from the airport.

            https://goo.gl/maps/2fcbB

            Pretty much the same distance as from Auckland Airport to the Kirkbride Road interchange.

            You have to go 9 km just to get to Otahuhu Train Station.

            We need “proper” trains to AKL..

        2. +1

          Should plan and design for it while it’s still grass.

          Should be obvious (but never seems to be in Auckland/New Zealand – so short-sighted and so penny-pinching – it’s the 4-lane harbour bridge and dead-end Britomart repeated over and over again).

  8. Provided it has a dedicated underground pedestrian tunnel from the station to the terminal, then that isn’t too bad, especially if there are travelators.

    If you have to pop up to ground level and cross multiple roads, then a major design flaw.

    I assume the design is in part because they have to keep the airport operating during all the construction so much like the ChCh airport enlargement, a logistical nightmare compared to a new build. An underground pedestrian tunnel would be a lot less work than a rail tunnel and less disruptive.

    Ideally there would be multiple pedestrian tunnels as well so that domestic and international are given direct routes (and even arrivals and departures).

    1. +1000

      Yes, this should be obvious (but they’ll probably try to force everyone going in opposing directions through a single pinch-point like at the Viaduct Harbour for the Rugby World Cup opening – that was crazy chaos and really scary, how nobody died I don’t know).

  9. Good idea to have the station directly under the terminal but I imagine the plan is probably to have an underpass connection between the building and station or have passengers come up through the carpark building (not ideal) and use the pedestrian bridges rather than cross what look like fairly wide and busy roads.

  10. This looks familiar…A station that trains have to turn around… hang on… Isn’t that what Britomart and Newmarket are? very inefficient and now we have to do some kind of a digging to release the pressure? History repeats? To the point then… Why isn’t the proposal for this station a through station rather than terminus. Singapore’s Changi is at the end of the island, nothing more they can do. But our rail could easily go Manukau – Puhinui – Airport – Mangere – Onehunga… So please have some vision and do the proper thing. We need a through station here!!! (see Zurich airport)

    1. The dwell at the Airport is likely to longer than standard, so I don’t have an issue with the plans saving millions by not doing a long loop. Its not like Heathrow where there is ever likely to be four terminal. The plan is for one integrated terminal.

      I used one like this at Tokyo last year, perfect. What was really amazing was after the de-training staff put out velvet ropes and cleaned the carriages to a sparkle! Waiting to board felt like waiting at the VIP area of a nightclub!

      1. Agreed, it can work. I guess what is proposed is good, what I’m proposing would be better – but it’s not my money 😉

        In terms of the Airport-Wiri – are they still waiting for the rural paddocks and fields to fill in with development before they designate the corridor, or are there better news than that?

        1. You know they’ll wait for it to be built on, or under with a massive new cemetery. That’s the way we do planning here!

    2. I wonder why bother with Manukau. If it’s only one stop from the airport to Manukau where you have to get off and change anyway, surely a non stop bus is very effective and almost no cost? Or rather terminate a whole bunch of buses from south auckland at the airport.

      1. “I wonder why bother with Manukau”

        Because that is the first stop on the line which, in a PT friendly world, would be extended through the eastern suburbs to Botany Downs and Howick.

    3. Narita Airport and Haneda Airport Stations are at the end of spurs off main lines and works absolutely fine operationally. The stations have a very high throughput.

      1. If those mainlines were built before those airport stations were, then those airport stations would have to be on spurs.

  11. Given how hard it’s been to get the CRL started, I doubt that any rail line from the airport to Wiri will be done in our lifetimes. A line from Otahuhu or Onehunga to the airport might get underway, but that’s about it.

    1. You might be surprised at what could happen once we get rid of this rail-opposing government. There could be a step-change in rail development, not simply an extrapolation of the glacial pace of development to-date.

  12. I’ve been to a number of airports around the world and the ones with trains right there are surely the best. However, even if one has to walk a few hundred metres is not so bad especially if there are travelators. I think Kuala Lumpur have done this the best. The airport expects people to take the train rather than the car – it’s quicker too. There are is an express service to the centre and a more local service with concession rates for workers etc. The other thing is a terminal in the centre where one can check in. I think that is a great model and one AKL should look at too.

    1. Why plan to do it in a half-arsed way given that the costs of doing it to world standard will be minor if planned for now? The terminal building is not yet built, but will be before the rail line is in. Now is the time to get it right. There is nothing half-arsed about the driving amenity plans. Makes no sense to have different quality processes by mode. Except of course because that’s still the culture in NZ around PT. The airport company doesn’t have to repeat the mistakes of our public institutions, they’re from the more dynamic private sector, have world-class ambitions, and international consultants. I expect nothing but the best from them.

      1. Patrick thanks for picking up on my earlier comment and running with it. The fact that the terminal building is still to be built is not quite correct. The current international terminal is to remain and be extended, primarily to the north, to include domestic operations in a single terminal. As such, a large portion of the terminal is already there and to build a train station under it could/would prove difficult whilst also trying to minimise disruption to existing services.
        If it’s not practical or possible to incorporate this into the existing terminal, or the planned extension, I would hope they would incorporate an underpass to the new station with access directly from the terminal to avoid passengers having to try and cross the multiple roads to get to it.

        1. So build it under the extension, that seems perfect. At a minimum it just needs a basement ‘box’ 20m wide, 5m tall and as long as the building is wide, the rest can sit under the green space out front.

      2. I don’t disagree with you – it’s far better to have the station in the airport itself rather than outside. I think realistically as the passenger numbers increase rail will have to be the option as there is no way that many cars can go there.

  13. Three thoughts:

    1) if the airport wants a central pedestrian and cycleway boulevard link thingy, why not put the rail under that? Presumably it would be cheaper than putting it under roads with heavy traffic or under buildings, or for that matter in the open air where the land would be wasted.

    2) If it is to be underground why not build the station under the proposed terminal extension, or at the least in the bottom of one of the new carparking buildings. Or just leave the space for it at least.

    3) Wouldn’t they want another station at the east end of the airport precinct. Thats where all the land development goes but its like 1.3km away from the terminal, and regardless of their pedestrian and cycleway link I doubt anyone wants to walk 1.3km across an airport precinct to get to an office or shop.

    1. If you go to page 36 of the master plan document, the diagram indicates the station is under a building which appears to be the building at the bottom left of the picture at the beginning of this article.
      This building appears to have walkways connecting to the south east end of the terminal.

  14. Last time I went to the airport my impression was the International foyer and check-in was a bit of a dump. Chip in some money towards rail to the airport, Auckland airport. We have to do these things without the ‘government’, Kudos, Len Brown.

  15. I recall that I had read some more about this than was detailed in the airport masterplan, and found an article based on an interview with the airport CEO Adrian Littlefield from the May 2015 issue of Australian Aviation. To quote from this article:
    ‘A pencil-sketched rail corridor plan has yet to receive approval or indeed a preferred chording from the CBD, with the airport proposing a route from the north through the suburb of Mangere or from the east along the existing access from this direction. Auckland Council, a relatively newly amalgamated “super city” body created in 2010, has a significant role to play in deciding the routing, as Littlefield explains, with rail “connected into the city’s central planning, which has a two-spur option, one from the south, one from the north, depending on how the council decides to do it.”
    The airport CEO confirm that “ultimately we want to determine how and when it comes, and what form it takes, but we’ve allowed for it in terms of our planning. Our masterplan has been quite holistic in terms of approach, trying to account for these different demands. It always has these principles of being stageable, affordable, flexible, resilient, to deal with the changes both in aviation, transport and public demands.”‘

  16. The airport owns more land than that doesn’t it – doesn’t it own the industrial land along George Bolt as well?

    Regardless it will be interesting to see how many stops will serve that large industrial park. Could possibly warrant a couple (?) but that would slow the service down.

    1. Nothing wrong with a few stops, have you taken the tube from central London to Heathrow, stops in most parts of west London but still quicker than driving (I work in T5 which has the works by the way (train, tube, Bubble Car and bus)).

      Great being able to use the tube to come to work instead of driving and makes my commute home far quicker.

      When I worked at AKL that bus into the CBD took forever. Any train, even with multiple stops has to be a big improvement over that, especially for tourists who’ve just flown thousands of miles and don’t need the hassle of a confusing (semi?) private bus and negating Auckland traffic (not a patch on London) and questionable driving by some of the local inhabitants.

      1. Yes. I foolishly took the tube from Heathrow to embankment with a 80l pack and snowboard bag. Foolish because it was rush hour and what was an empty train got extremely packed and I got lots of nasty looks (unusual since the rule in the tube is make no eye contact).

        Agree – a few stops not an issue but some will complain, especially if they aren’t well used.

        1. Crossrail gonna do wonders for that. Once that’s open I may go back to using Heathrow, a place I’ve been avoiding for years. Pro-tip: Air NZ to Shanghai, Tokyo, or similar, then Lufthansa into Frankfurt and short haul into London City Airport; best view of the city and the airport is like a little provincial kiwi one, like Nelson, no queues. And straight out the door and onto the DLR. Joy.

          1. I’d have to say Patrick that that’s more hassle than straight in to Heathrow (an extra leg with AP security and the like). If you don’t like Heathrow’s tube, take the Paddington Express!

          2. I liked it, you get processed into Europe at the much more efficient Frankfurt, get to freshen up after the long haul all ready to hit the ground running in London, after a short hop.

    2. Probably the more relevant line to look at is the Heathrow Express – 15 minutes direct from Paddington to Heathrow, non-stop. Make sure not to make the mistake (like I did) to get on the train that is painted the same as the Heathrow Express, has the same signs as the Heathrow express, and runs on the same route as the Heathrow Express, but is actually the Heathrow Non-Express, stopping at all stations… which took 45 minutes.
      What we need in Auckland (eventually) is an Auckland Express, but for now I’ll settle for anything that is not a taxi.

      1. City via Otahuhu all stops will be 35min. No taxi will be anywhere near that. And at the peaks, or when our roads infarct [and that can be anytime], you’ll be down $100 and over an hour.

        Also Paddington is just another distribution point, where you likely get onto another tube line, like Otahuhu station will be, the route I prefer that is 3 stops and about 10 mins from the Airport.

        Build the most direct route then it will be fast and attractive for all users including those at the intermediate stops; this hugely increases the value of the project. It really isn’t all about travellers.

        Also Auckland is not London, and AIAL is not Heathrow; we get one shot at this, and it will have to serve multiple purposes, the scale is not there to deliver endless bespoke services for niche markets.

        1. 35 minutes will be fantastic. Looking forward to it. Completely agree that we only get one chance at it – keep up the good work to make sure that we DO actually get that one chance.

        2. It takes an airport like Heathrow serving a city like London to justify an express train just for the airport. Auckland could never justify an express Airport train.

          However we don’t need an express train because if they do it right it’ll only be a bit over half an hour to the central city anyway, as Patrick says that’s well better than taxis or driving most of the time. And then it will be so much more efficient as people can get on and off along the way, most of which would be non airport traffic.

    3. Hate to sound cynical here, but the thing is that airports around the world have realised that they can make more money off retail than they can make off airlines. So airports are now designed to make sure that your walk past retail outlets is maximised. Customer service is way down the list. That’s the sad truth reason why the brilliant Schipol Airport in the Netherlands is never going to be repeated in the western world – it is so convenient as an interchange between train and plane that compulsory chances for retail are reduced to near zero at checkin. So there is probably an ulterior motive with the airport design here in Auckland, making sure that you (as a future passenger) have a good walk past all these wonderful opportunities to purchase Manuka honey, Buzzy Bees, All Black baby onesies, chinese made Greenstone tikis, overpriced dog tucker disguised as food, etc. Only that way can you truly appreciate the joy that is Auckland airport retail haven…

      1. Have you been to Heathrow’s T5. Its straight from the buses/tube/train/bubble car to check-in and the very close to the arrivals hall too. The shopping experience only kicks in after check-in.

    1. Yes this is another sign of AT’s flawed flirtation with LRT for this route. An elevated proper rail solution would be very good here in my opinion. But it will also make the capital cost scary and likely delay the project and crank up the opposition.

      Elevate station and M’way crossing for the Mangere Town Centre excellent way to heal severance.

      Still prefer via Otahuhu not Onehunga.

  17. AIAL will make money from trains, there would be a premium train charge, especially if it goes directly into terminal. Same as any overseas airport train system

    We should go all out and do the Shanghai thing, a special train for the airport!

    1. That’s exactly what we don’t want, an airport levy for using the train out to it. I also disagree that that is usual practice, some airports may do it, but just as many don’t, and it’s the latter we should be attempting to model ourselves on.

      Furthermore, a train ONLY to the airport is the worst possible idea. We want this to be a station on a line that is used for all neighbouring areas, simply another station on e.g. the Onehunga line, that’s the only way to have frequent service and not doom it to failure by charging massive amounts because its only destination is the airport.

  18. What about doing LRT from the East / Puhinui and Heavy Rail from the North / Otahuhu via Mangere?

    Stage 1: LRT, Airport to Puhinui station. Interchange upgrade.
    Transfer to Heavy Rail for the City / West and Manukau / South. Also the Eastern line. Transfer to BRT to Botany and the East.
    Stage 1a: BRT, Puhinui to Botany (designed for future LRT upgrade.)

    Stage 2: Complete AMETI, BRT Panmure to Botany.
    Stage 2a: Heavy Rail route protection / design, Airport to Otahuhu via Mangere.

    Stage 3: Extend BRT, Puhinui – Botany to Howick (designed for future LRT upgrade.)
    Stage 3a: Extend AMETI, BRT Pakuranga to Howick.

    Stage 4: Heavy Rail, Airport to Otahuhu via Mangere.
    Stage 4a: Extend LRT, Airport – Puhinui to Howick via Botany

    LRT acts as the quick fix connection to get the Airport into the RTN at Puhinui while work progresses on the longer, harder, better solution to Otahuhu.
    BRT connects Puhinui and the RTN with AMETI at Botany. This is later extended to Howick from both Pakuranga and Botany.

    Heavy Rail gets built to the Airport from Otahuhu and LRT is extended from Puhinui to Howick.

    Trench / ‘cut and cover’ Heavy Rail under the LRT through part of the Airport precinct to protect the route and allow an easy interchange between the two at the Airport’s terminal stop, one on top of the other.

    1. Why not BRT Botany- Mankau- Puhinui- Airport to start with, future proofed for LTR. As that would mean BRT from Panmure -Pakuranga-Botany… .?

      Will planning rail from Otahuhu.

      I have used Papatoetoe trian to bus and the Bus does get held up getting to Papatoetoe.

      1. Sure you could BRT Airport to Puhinui first but I think you would have to be careful that planners didn’t then decide to sit back and say “well there you go, done.”
        At least by getting LRT fairly easily to the RTN at Puhinui you are making a start on a real permanent upgrade and exhibiting the benefits not just trying to sell the future off plans.
        Also an LRT to Heavy Rail interchange would be a progressive model (façade?) for international visitors.

        But yes absolute minimum do BRT.

  19. Sure you could BRT Airport to Puhinui first but I think you would have to be careful that planners didn’t then decide to sit back and say “well there you go, done.”
    At least by getting LRT fairly easily to the RTN at Puhinui you are making a start on a real permanent upgrade and exhibiting the benefits not just trying to sell the future off plans.
    Also an LRT to Heavy Rail interchange would be a progressive model (façade?) for international visitors.

    But yes absolute minimum do BRT.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *