Every six months the Ministry of Transport produce a monitoring report on how Auckland is performing against the targets the government set for work to start prior to 2020 on the City Rail Link. As a reminder
On 28 June 2013, the Prime Minister announced the Government’s commitment to a joint business case with Auckland Council for the City Rail Link in 2017 and to providing its share of funding for a construction start in 2020.
The Prime Minister also stated that the Government would consider an earlier business case and construction start date if it becomes clear that Auckland’s CBD employment and rail patronage hit thresholds faster than current rates of growth suggest. The two thresholds are:
- an increase in Auckland CBD employment of 25 percent over the February 2012 estimate (the baseline), which is half of the increase to 2021 predicted in the 2012 City Centre Future Access Study ; and
- rail patronage is on track to hit 20 million trips a year well before 2020.
The reports are in August and February each year based on patronage to the end of June and December. So far the reports have been extremely underwhelming, especially in relation to patronage. The first one in December 2013 essentially predicted that Auckland would never make the CRL target. The second one in August 2014 and the third one in February this year predicted that patronage would grow till about 2017 then taper off.
With a new report due soon, I thought it would be worthwhile do give my take on the report if I was writing it for the minister.
CBD Employment
We remain unconvinced that CBD employment is a particularly useful measure of the need for the City Rail Link. Even if just as a measure of demand for travel to the CBD, there are many other factors – such as parking costs and availability, public transport offerings – which can and are changing travel demand.
Data on CBD employment is produced annually and isn’t due from Stats NZ until later this year. At this stage we’re not expecting any significant change in employment numbers as research from Colliers International shows that the Auckland city centre continues to experience historically low vacancy rates. They say prime office space has a vacancy rate of just 1.4% compared to a 20 year average of 8.2%.
We do note that a number of new builds are due to be completed in the next year or two and since the last update, a number of very large projects have been announced or made significant progress towards starting construction over the next few years. In addition many of these projects are along the City Rail Link route.
Rail Patronage
Auckland Transport’s rail patronage data for the year to June 2014 shows patronage of 13,916,822 trips, an increase of 2,481,737 or an increase of 21.7%. This is ahead level needed to reach the target by 2020.
Over the course of the Ministry’s monitoring reports the rate of patronage increases has actually accelerated. We expect that high patronage growth will continue for a number of years yet as the full impacts of rolling out the electric train fleet, the new bus network and integrated fares are rolled out. Extrapolating the trends witnessed in recent years shows – as Auckland Transport have in the chart below – that patronage could hit the 20 million target as early as mid-2017. The chart plots the extrapolations out to 2020 however we expect capacity constraints to prevent patronage rising too much above 20 million trips.
While we expect patronage to reach the 20 million target in advance of 2020, we do see some potential risks to that – although it is worth pointing out none of these risks relate to demand for rail trips. The two biggest risks are:
- Capacity of the rail system – Despite the extra capacity provided by the new electric fleet, there are already reports of capacity constraints emerging. These will be exacerbated by future growth including the changes resulting from the implementation of the new bus network. We recommend that the government urgently enter into discussions with Auckland Council/Transport about the potential of buying additional trains.
- The City Rail Link enabling works – The enabling works will see the main entrance to Britomart closed as part of the works to start building the CRL. It is unknown if this will have any impact on patronage from people looking to avoid the disruption. Conversely it is possible the enabling works may have a positive impact on patronage as a number of other city centre roads will be adjusted to also handle AT moving buses off Albert St during the construction period.
Assessment
Rail Patronage growth has been strong and remains on track to reach the target needed for an earlier start to the CRL.
Employment has been stymied by a lack of available office space however that looks set to change over the medium term as a number of large developments in the city centre become available.
We believe the government should urgently re-consider it’s timeframes for the project with a look to getting it under-way as soon as possible. The longer it is left the greater the number of people and businesses will be negatively affected by crowded trains and construction disruption.
Processing...
If it helps I’ve just relocated from Ellerslie to the cbd. I need Aotea station like yesterday.
That’s exactly it. All these mega-projects are needed today yet they’re 10 years away if not longer. Things are going to get pretty sclerotic in the meantime and that will hurt the CBD.
When do u except the MoT report to be issued? Another question if the government suddenly does a you turn now, would it make a significant difference to the completion date for CRL? Is it possible to deliver CRL much before 2023?
Probably later this month. As for completion, not 100% but probably 2022 at the earliest
That seems a very long time! 1 year for tenders, 1 year for planning/preconstruction, 3 years to build. Should be done by end of 2020 if they hit go this year. I think however the Nats will save it for an election year bribe.
The good news is that with AT starting early on enabling works and the 1st section that should minimise the disruption later (although the govt would be wise to get started before AT is finished to avoid stop/start disruptions).
They’ve said in the past that even if the go button was pushed now that the earliest it could start would be around 2017/18 as still a lot of detailed design work to do and they’re currently focused on getting this done for the enabling works. Not the main tunnel. From there it’s a 4-5 year build I.e. they’ve got to dig out a 40-50m deep hole at K Rd before they start tunneling.
Even more reason to hit the go button now then if it is going to take that long. It’s not like the govt would even have to front up with much money until the construction is actually underway anyway.
Well stage one is starting next year and for surplus obsession reasons the gov is not picking up its half share yet, oh and because it wants to keep maximum fiscal pressure on the current Council up to the next Council elections to create as much of a fertile ‘rates rebellion’ ecosystem as possible… I spoke with Steven Joyce about this on the weekend before last and he even said it with a wink. Twice.
Playing politics with a whole region’s future development. What a charmer that man is.
Maybe Maurice Williamson and John Banks are having a toss up as to who is going to be the nest Mayor?
Enough ordure on Brown and they think they will be a shoe in.
Wow evidence based advice. What a novelty!
Do you think there is any value AT releasing a press release saying that Auckland rail patronage has hit $14 million and highlighting the growth in the Rail and that we are on track to hit 15 million by the end of the year? It might bring it to the attention of the people in charge of the money and would allow AT to sell its message.
Won’t really change anything, the purse string holders and advisors in Wellington will say to the Minister of Transport:
“Hmm, 1 million passengers increase year on year, its 2015, so at that rate they’ll hit, 20 million in umm, 5 years, so thats 20 million in 2020 – Exactly as we planned. Nothing to see or do here yet, but that’s a 2020 Election year bribe right there.”
All the while ignoring that the rate of change is increasing, and its the rate of change that needs to be monitored, not the absolute number.
Its already too late to solve the coming crunch, that opportunity was lost 2 years ago, the only option is to plan to manage the side effects such as Britomart limitations pre-CRL and too few 6 car EMUs at peak.
But isn’t it over 2 million growth this year? We hit 13 million in March (or April) and I am guessing we will hit 14 million in July (i.e. we have already passed the mark but not published the figures) and crystal ball gazing suggest we will hit 15 million by the end of the year. So if we are adding about 2 million passenger trips per year and by the end of 2015 we will have about 15 million passenger trips then it suggests that by 2018 we will reach 20 million mark. Just an idea, if we can get enough public opinion behind the CRL and the growth in Auckland rail network then perhaps we can get CRL a year or two earlier than now. A lot of the stories in NZ Herald are negative about Auckland rail and many of my colleagues are negative about rail because they think it is unreliable, expensive and overcrowded. If the people are behind it perhaps then the government will bribe them with funding to get the job done. Maybe it is wishful thinking.
No-one uses the trains, they’re too crowded 😉
We are actually gaining closer to 3,000,000 a year at the moment, 22% on 14 million is 2,980,000
Actually the CRL advice comes from the Auckland office. I understand most of the Wellington based MoT think CRL is a good idea. Also heard that senior staff have been told off by (previous I think) minsters for suggesting CRL makes sense. Ministerial ideology at its best.
Problem is, if the network is at capacity it is impossible to hit the target. It would help if the trains ran on time (where are you when we need you, Benito?) then there wouldn’t be two trains of people trying to get on one train. Without capacity increases, ridership will indeed level off.
They also should not put it all on CBD employment. It may be a few, but downtown residents may work out side the CBD, and they may use the train for other purposes. And if they’re still not counting students and daily visitors, it isn’t an honest accounting.
The targets are a crock, vote NZ First.
Or Labour, or the Greens.
Do you retain copyright if this is cut’n’pasted into a MOT / MBIE report?
Would be happy for it to be copied and pasted
“The chart plots the extrapolations out to 2020 however we expect capacity constraints to prevent patronage rising too much above 20 million trips.”
I have been looking at capacity constraints, assuming that the CRL would not be in commission before the demand hit 40.million boardings per year.
Subject to the following, I think that 40 million boardings is achievable, with comparatively modest expenditure.
1: Install a pocket siding between the tracks south of Sylvia Park.
2: Install a pocket platform at Henderson
3: Modify Otahuhu to provide a pocket platform
4: Modify the signaling and rail switches at the approaches to Britomart.
5: Learn how to work under ETC0, to avoid excessive speed restrictions in approaches to stations with level crossings.
6: Provide drivers/train managers information systems showing how many seconds ahead/behind schedule they are running.
7: Learn to run trains within a 90 second timeslot.
This will require commitment from AT, Kiwirail and the train operators.
The problem is whether the managements are motivated enough and have the incentive to do something instead of just trying to be safe and sit in comfort zone.
There need a strong leadership and will.
The biggest constraint is the junctions, without fixing them there isn’t the capacity to run higher frequency trains
With the upcoming closure of Westfield perhaps some consideration could be given to slewing the Up main on the platform sit and building a flyover to the West of Up main to the NIMT.
Is there a value that can be ascribed to each additional rail passenger in terms of both straight dollars relating to subsidy per km and positive impact on freight movements along with time savings, emission reductions or reduction in import of petroleum products required?
I think the argument around the benefits of additional rial users is being undersold and RoNS are still receiving too much mind share of transport planners.
I’ve seen $17 in economic gains per peak hour trip bandies about before, not sure where it came from, have to subtract an average subsidy and ticket cost of about $8 though.
The trouble is that it isn’t that simple though, at peak times the trains are so full that new users may simply be dislodging existing users from the inner stations who can no longer get a train, whereas in off peak times a new user is pure gain as there is no further subsidy for a new user on a half full train, no opportunity loss, and the transport benefits to anyone on the road…
$17.42 to be precise is from an old NZTA or MoT economic analysis of the value TO ROAD USERS of every peak time AKL train rider. This is in addition of the value to the rider themselves, for which they pay directly of course. This is not inflation adjusted and I don’t have a link to hand I’m sorry.
This highlight’s urban rail and PT’s perennial tragedy; as it is an economic value not a financial one, which is to say outside of a regulated transfer that value doesn’t materialise, and when regulated as a subsidy, it is perpetually under attack by those who refused to understand its value.
Ok, so with lets say 20K trips are made in each AM and PM peak for train trips, thats 40K * $17.42 = over $700K per working day in benefits that the train system generates to road users. [Thats not inflation adjusted and so is obviously massively too low – but its a start for a ball park number].
Multiply that number by 230 working days a year (365 days less 104 weekend days, less 20 working days holidays a year, less ~11 public holiday days = 230 working days a year).
Gives a grand total of $160 million dollars of benefits to road users via the peak train users each and year the rail system currently delivers.
That $160m figure is about what 20 more 3 car EMUs would cost.
So, if we buy 25 more 3 car EMUs at $8m each ($200 million in total – we buy 5 spare EMUs to handle service requirements for the other 20 EMUs), we could then field 32 6 car EMUs (instead of 12 now). Pre-CRL with 20 TPH via Britomart we could carry 30K people per AM/PM peak = 60K per day, assuming all 6 car EMUs are close to full.
[Post-CRL the 32 EMUs would carry at peak AM or PM, 48K people each AM/PM peak, or 96K people a day over the AM and PM peaks. a Massive 50% jump in capacity.]
Those 25 more EMUs are thus generating $80m additional congestion benefits to road users each year in year 1, and the same again in year 2 and again in year 3 and again in year 4 & 5 etc. Those benefits don’t wear out unlike roads which clog up, which means the roading project benefits erode to zero over time (like 5 years).
The 5 year benefits “return” on that $200m for 25 more EMUs investment is ($80m x 5 = $400m for the $200m CAPEX for 25 more EMUs).
Basically road users get twice the benefits for each dollar invested – a BCR of 2.0. Sound better than any RoNS I’ve seen.
You couldn’t get the same benefits from spending $200m building any roads, and even if you could – the benefits wouldn’t last even 5 years thanks to induced demand.
So by year 5 you’d be back to zero again for a road project.
For the rails doing that is really a no brainer as those benefits keep on giving. With daily peak trip rail usage is up towards 40K rail trips per working day now, in 5 years time it will be double that number at the current rate of growth. We can handle 20 TPH in the system now, if the trains are made longer. And once CRL opens the ROI rockets ahead even further.
That is an interesting calculation Greg. Really goes to show the benefits of rail!
Appreciate your informed posts!
I’m going to say that with existing capacity constraints, we reach 17-18m and then see growth stall. At that point there will be insufficient EMUs to maintain any more growth, and existing users will be suffering from reliability and capacity problems.
The new networks may make this issue worse, not better. We need the EMUs now, not later.
Agreed: We need 72 EMUs immediately and 105 before 2020 on present growth. This is “available units”, further units are needed to cover out-of-service units.
Yes sadly it would save the blushes of some, especially the authors of the previous MoT reports, for growth to be constrained by capacity limits. As this would make their predictions of the rate of growth flattening come to pass. It certainly doesn’t take many experiences of being left on a platform to decide that it just isn’t worth trying to catch a train and to go back to sitting in rush hour traffic getting angry and frustrated and contributing to that grand inefficiency.
The fact is that we have not yet found a ceiling for RTN demand at the peaks, it is already constrained by capacity on buses and trains. There is of course still a great deal of off peak capacity. So I would hope that AT are:
1. Strongly making the case for those additional 20 or so sets required to run full 6-car sets at peak at 10tph on the 3 main lines in the coming years, asap.
2. Urgently fixing the flabby dwell time and bizarre conservative speed restriction issues to increase running efficiency.
3. Planning to incentivise off peak journey growth through variable pricing as part of fare integration.
CBD is not just about office work, it should also be a place for people to live and entertain.
So the measurement should also includes tourist, students and customers.
+1, Is there any way to count that change and or compare it to holiday periods?
Only some 20% of journeys are ‘Journey to work’. It is a nonsense that our agencies insist on only using this minor measure.
yes, the growth in tertiary student numbers in the city centre is largely independently of employment numbers, yet will likely have larger impacts on peak travel demands. The fact the Government thinks it’s appropriate to set such “targets” really just goes to show how little they understand about Auckland’s economy in general, and transport in particular.
The Government really would be better off dropping the employment target before even more photos of crush-loaded trains makes a mockery of their logic …
exactly. And therein lies the major flaw in the Government’s employment target: The City Centre is intensifying in terms of both residential and employment, as well as all the other social and cultural activities you mention. These are likely to generate considerable travel demands independently of levels of employment in the city centre.
Imagine the egg-on-government’s face if a similar nascent demand for passenger rail services sprang up in the long-distance sector also. Up to now politicians and managers have hidden behind the mantra that “New Zealanders simply don’t want to travel by rail” (Therefore don’t provide anything more than a few token tourist trains”). And of course if nothing more than this is ever provided the mantra becomes self-confirming and it becomes very difficult to prove demand even if it exists. Exactly the sort of Catch-22 situation desired by those politicians and managers who want to keep passenger rail repressed.
But what if the same pressure of demand now facing Auckland Metro made itself felt over long-distance travel?
“Impossible”, some will say. “New Zealanders simply don’t want to travel by rail”!
But isn’t this is exactly what many thought about Aucklanders and their moribund metro system back in the 1990’s when the service came close to folding? My, how things have changed! And how they will very likely go on changing!
So watch this space over how long-distance demand might also explode. And avoid clinging to tired old nay-sayer attitudes unless you’re happy getting egg on your face, .
Auckland to Hamilton is the obvious first step.
Another option would be to start with a seasonal service to Tauranga over Summer as it is a long, slow, hot drive in summer with all the holiday traffic. Imagine if they put on a daily train service for the last 2 weeks of December and all of January. Eventually this could be expanded to other dates. If rail was re-instated to Whangarei this would also be a good seasonal service.
This is a much less certain thing than urban passenger rail in Auckland, however we have looked at this a few times before, for example:
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2014/05/14/another-look-at-intercity-rail/
Possibly more certain than the future of Auckland’s urban system was back in the 1990’s!
(Just taking the opportunity to draw some thought-provoking parallels 🙂 )
I think NZers would travel by rail if it was high speed and affordable, but 12 hours from Auckland to Wellington is just too long to ever be very popular. The cost to upgrade to double tracked high speed electric would be hugely expensive, a rail ticket would end up being significantly more expensive than flying and it would still take considerably longer.
Maybe rail to Hamilton would work, even then I don’t see it being that popular.
As the motoring age increasingly fails to deliver on promises of low-cost sustainability, environmental benignness, freedom from congestion and independence from imported commodities, a reservoir of demand for a rail alternative is filling behind the dam. When this bursts, all those pet theories about why trains won’t work in New Zealand and why money shouldn’t be spent on rail will be swept away in the torrent.
I don’t think we will ever see HSR between AKL and WLG. Just too far, too expensive, not enough population, and not enough of a saving over air.
However something like Hyperloop (Elon Musk – Tesla/SpaceX/Paypal) would potentially work (cheaper than HSR, faster than HSR and air). You could have a Hyperloop with stations in Auckland downtown, Manukau (to service airport link), Hamilton, Palmerston North, Wellington.
You would not necessarily have carriages stopping in each stop (you would have AKL-WLG express, but might have a service that does stop along the way also). Trips would take about 45 minutes and the project would cost around 1/4 of the cost of HSR.
10.35 AKL-WLG, Could probably reduce this a lot by electrifying the last 200k still left to be done, for this lin could probably do AKL, Papatoetoe/Otahuhu, Hamilton, Taumaranui, Nat Park, Ohakune, Taihape, Palmerston North, Wellington.
I’d honestly prefer say 9 hours to Wellington for the same price plus a half hour bus to town over An hour to get to the airport, and hour and a half at the airport, an hour and a half on the plane and an hour into Wellington CBD, much less stressful, and just under twice the total journey time. Especially if there was an overnighter from say 9pm-6am. Even if it were daytime, the time on the laptop would be far better.
I can see you’ve gone to a big effort to make the flight times as long as possible but even so it doesn’t come close.
Why do you include a 30 min trip into town for the plane but not for the train? An hour and a half at the airport? 30 min check in for domestic flights my friend.
Lastly, an hour into Wellington CBD? Wellington has a fantastic airport bus with dedicated tunnel under Mt Victoria.
I can leave my house in Howick and be Well CBD in about 3 hours on a good day, 4 on a very bad one.
Long distance trains are never going to work short of Mag Lev which the economics just aren’t there for
I would definitely do it if it was an overnight sleeper. Travelling on those in Europe the benefits are absolutely fantastic.
You get a night’s accommodation plus wake up in the centre of the city.
I am taking the overnight train from Verona to Vienna this weekend with my wife and daughter. We get breakfast served and a good nights sleep.
Get the Auckland Wellington run down to 10 hours and at least daily. And is a gaping hole that tourist trains dont run to Rotorua.
+ 1½ thousand!!!!
I wonder if the new ticket gates at New Lynn which when operational on 27 July will result in an increase in ridership by reducing fare evasion ? I guess it will be difficult to tell the difference between the affect of having the new trains from installing the gates.
I have just been reading the Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan and on page 68 it mentions that over the next 3 years that KiwiRail will spend $47.5 million dollars on the third rail link between Otahuhu and Wiri. Has Kiwirail actually committed to building the third rail? It also mentions electrification to Pukekohe by 2025. Is this real or only aspirational? It also mentions $90 million from 2020 for significant improvements to other rail level crossings.
I used to work on the Silver Fern railcars to Rotorua. (1994-2000)
Nothing wrong with the service, they ran pretty reliably, (twice daily)
Often would return in the afternoons from Auckland with about 2 pax on board (they seat 96)
Lack of patronage killed these services in the past. With numbers like this, there was no hope of making it sustainable.
One of the things that helped scupper this right from the start was the previous removal of the station form central Rotorua and truncation of the line back to the scruffy Koutu freight yard. Then later cutting it even further back to a bleak platform north of Lake Road. And the twice-daily service became once daily then zero, as enthusiasm for passenger trains on the part of the various fly-by-night owners of the privatised railway also fell to zero.
I do not believe this decline was inevitable.