Tomorrow Auckland’s Councillors will decide on the next steps in the city’s ongoing stadium debate, and it appears one option is technically feasible but isn’t financially feasible while the other one might be financially feasible but not be technically feasible.
As a quick reminder, the Mayor started this process as a way to put an end to new, unfunded stadium proposals or upgrade plans for Eden Park popping up every few years, so that there was at least one preferred option. So, while a stadium is far from the most pressing issue for Auckland right now, this process does feel like a good idea as part of thinking how Auckland will grow and change.
Last year the council narrowed the options down from 5 proposals to two, an upgrade of Eden Park and a new stadium at Quay Park called Te Tōangaroa. Both of the shortlisted options were then asked to provide feasibility studies (at their own expense), which were delivered to the council in early February, the results of which are:
The key finding of council’s review of the feasibility studies is that neither proponent has demonstrated that their proposal is feasible without significant public funding.
A summary of council’s assessment is noted below.
Eden Park 2.1:
- With a high degree of confidence, Eden Park 2.1 is feasible in most respects, but it is not currently financially feasible as it depends on additional council and/or central government funding. The full extent of public funding required cannot be determined, but Eden Park Trust are seeking $110 million in funding from Government for Stage 1 (Lower North Stand Development).
- The proposal to redevelop Eden Park is broken into several stages. Council or government could choose to support or assist with one or several stages if desired.
- A staged approach to developing Eden Park appears to have merit. Stage 1 appears to provide public value by improving the operational effectiveness of the venue and its functionality across a range of activities, including for rugby, cricket, concerts and smaller events. It also enables Stage 2 (redevelopment of the upper North Stand), which could be funded privately. The benefits of Stage 3 (retractable roof) are less clear and appear unlikely to justify the cost. As such, there may be merit in supporting the development of a business case for government support for Stage 1, subject to several conditions designed to resolve challenges with the status quo. This would not involve full endorsement of Eden Park 2.1.
Tōangaroa/Quay Park:
- Te Tōangaroa has not demonstrated the feasibility of their proposal. While it may be technically and environmentally feasible, based on the information provided, council has a low level of confidence in its deliverability.
- It is possible that Te Tōangaroa is commercially feasible, but council has a low level of confidence because it depends on a range of optimistic assumptions regarding infrastructure and construction costs and financing.
- Te Tōangaroa could have significant public benefits if delivered without public funding, providing a major integrated redevelopment and modern stadium well-located in the city centre close to transport links. The proposal would also have financial benefits to council if it meant that renewal of Mt Smart was no longer required. Te Tōangaroa has indicated they would need a further 12 months to provide greater certainty about their project’s deliverability.
It’s interesting that the first line says both require significant public funding as later in the paper they also say that Te Tōangaroa isn’t asking for any public funding, just that the council “avoid making funding decisions that would impact the commercial viability for their proposal within the next 12 months”
The feasibility reports and council review also give some other interesting bits of information about the proposals.
Eden Park
The proposal is to develop Eden Park in stages
- Stage 1 ($110m) – Redevelopment of the Lower North Stand with retractable seating to increase flexibility for rugby and cricket.
- Stage 2 ($144m) – Redevelopment of the Upper North Stand, with potential additions such as hotel and student accommodation.
- Stage 3 ($282m) – Installation of a retractable roof to improve venue versatility.
- Future stage (optional) – Development of the outer oval into a complementary precinct, with potential for a hotel, university facilities, or a small second stadium (5,000 capacity).
- Connectivity improvements – Options to enhance links to Kingsland CRL station to improve transport access
It seems the plans for options like improved connectivity to Kingsland Station aren’t planned till later in the development and by in large are assuming that the City Rail Link solves a lot of the issues with rail services.
Te Tōangaroa
In the past it was a vague about the impact this would have on the rail network through the area. The proposal is to shift the rail lines
Infrastructure Enhancements
The development includes a new integrated bus interchange, layover, and terminal adjacent to the stadium to support the city transport network and event bus services as needed. Additionally, a new metro train station will be constructed between Waitematā and Ōrākei stations. This station will be integrated within or adjacent to the stadium, serving the entire eastern edge of the CBD and lower Parnell. Additionally, the project includes the replacement of the Strand overbridge.
Another initiative that could be integrated into the overall precinct development, offering mutual benefits and value for money through collaboration, is the potential grade separation of the SH16 traffic lanes and the adjacent cycleway and pedestrian pathway along SH16/The Strand adjacent to the stadium precinct
On rail specifically they say
Rail Infrastructure
The stadium design includes significant modifications to the existing rail lines that traverse the site. The main trunk line is moved north to align more directly along Quay Street, with a turnoff/link reconnecting to the Parnell Line. This also involves removing the current The Strand Station and the adjacent stabling provision. These changes create enough space to position the stadium and playing field at grade, rather than elevated above the existing rail network and infrastructure.
The design allows the existing rail network to remain operational while the new alignment is constructed alongside the current lines. A short “block of lines” during the typical Christmas/New Year period will be required to connect the existing and new lines.
We have identified several potential new sites for The Strand Station, which can also serve as a new metro station, either on or adjacent to the stadium.
This high-level design has been shared with KiwiRail. They agree that our proposal is technically feasible. Together, we will continue towards mitigating the impact on operations during construction, particularly during the block of line switch over. We also need to consider the effects of relocating metro train stabling further from the CBD and the impact of a new and repositioned Strand Station on the tourist/intercity train network. The latter may be mitigated by the new metro station and/or the eventual electrification of the rail line to Hamilton, enabling Te Huia to utilise Britomart and/or the CRL tunnels. The design team and KiwiRail are working collaboratively on solutions as the design progresses.
The council’s review of the study shows this image, noting:
the stadium outline is shown in yellow. Existing rail lines are shown in red, while proposed new alignments are in green and magenta. As can be seen, the proposal is to move the Eastern Line north to be alongside Quay St and to move the Southern to Eastern Line connector to run on the northwest side of the new stadium rather than through the current Strand Station. Note that this proposal is preliminary, and detailed design work is yet to be undertaken.
The proponent believes rail services would only need to be suspended for several weeks to connect the new green lines to the existing network. However, KiwiRail believes that disruptions to service are likely to be much longer, given the amount of work required, including dealing with signalling and power systems. It also intended to build apartments on a podium above the rail northeast of the site, immediately to the west of the Strand to Tamaki Drive Road bridge. This is also likely to require rail closures.
…..
The Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) stabling yards shown in the centre of the plan above will need to be relocated. A site has not been identified, not has the cost been assessed. Depending on the final location, rail operating costs may increase.
It’s great they’re talking about potentially a new station in this area that could also serve as a metro station which would help connect this part of the city, though it’s odd it’s hidden so deeply in report as it seems something that should be highlighted as a benefit. It’s also something I called for last year.
Stakeholder Feedback
The council have also highlighted some of the feedback from some key stakeholders including Auckland Transport and Kiwirail. Notably, for Eden Park both seem to be suggesting that further upgrades to Kingsland Station and track infrastructure will be required. For Te Tōangaroa the concern is the rail network will be impacted for a long period of time
What Next
Council officers haven’t made a recommendation other than a generic one to receive the feasibility studies and the review of them but have given councillors a few options for them to consider as well.
- Option 1: Decline to endorse either proposal
- Option 2: Endorse Eden Park 2.1
- Option 3: Endorse Te Tōangaroa
- Option 4: Invite both proponents to submit a business case to establish the case for their proposal
- Option 5: Endorse the staged development of Eden Park, but not the whole of Eden Park 2.1
Councillor Shane Henderson, who has chaired the working group wants the council to pick a preferred option and Radio NZ reports that he’s leaning towards Eden Park.
Which option should councillors pick?
Processing...
It takes over an hour to get on a bus back to the Shore from Eden Park, then an hour more to reach the motorway. Two AT tag-off machines at Kingsland Station. Having to walk to Morningside are just three terrible outcomes of Eden Park.
However, for me, the elephant in the room (which the Cyclone and Anniversary floods highlighted the importance of) is that Eden Park is built on a wetland. Despite all this, the undeniably worst option that Council could pick is to decline to endorse either proposal.
Eden Park is built on a wetland – but Te Tōangaroa is built on reclaimed seabed, so probably just as bad. Either way, the ground conditions will be rubbish. Best place with solid ground might be one of the 50 volcanos – hence Mt Smart Stadium and Western Springs being developed on more solid ground.
Am I the only one that things Quay Park are shooting themselves in the foot by marketing what looks like some knock off Zaha Hadid alien mushroom forest instead of looking like, you know, a stadium?
If they pick Eden Park we are literally the dumbest city on earth. Every decent sporting venue is close to the city centre and gives a buzz to the city when you see loafs of sports fans or Taylor Swift fans filling up hospitality. How does no one remember Eden Park constantly coming cap n hand to Council? Tell them to pay back all the handouts given for operational maintenance so far if they are now so financially viable.
Key finding: “neither proponent has demonstrated that their proposal is feasible without significant public funding”
It feels like any stadium is a hole that sucks money (including the publicly owned stadiums Western Springs North Harbour, Mt Smart).
So, when Quay Park / Te Tōangaroa goes bust, who bails them out?
Eden Park is a charitable trust, any profit is returned into stadium operating / dveopment costs.
Quay Park is a comercial operation, proifts (good luck with that) would be sent to the owners (currently offshore).
Are Sports Stadium Subsidies Worth Public Investment?
A recent literature review surveyed the past 50 years of stadium construction. The authors found that the promised tangible economic benefits—economic growth, income growth, wage growth, employment growth, and higher tax revenues—do not occur the way that sports teams claim. Often, the only economic benefits occur near the stadium—and fall far short of expectations. State and city governments are subsidizing development within a single neighborhood, with no tangible benefits for the rest of the city or state.
Since the funding comes from across the state or city and only a narrow subset of that population receives any benefit, stadium subsidies often impose an invisible tax burden on consumers in the form of forgone public services, such as first-responder equipment, parks, and public transportation. The opportunity costs of these expenditures are sizable, often prompting economists and those opposed to stadium subsidies to ask: what could have been done with the $33 billion in state and local funding routed toward professional sports teams between 1970 and 2020?
For stadium subsidies to yield a net positive benefit for taxpayers, the intangible benefits must outweigh the subsidy costs. And there are some intangible benefits associated with the presence of a professional sports team; in American culture, sports are valued more than their economic impact would suggest. They can create substantial consumer benefits for at-home viewers and city pride surrounding a team. However, when researchers survey residents about their willingness to pay for such amenities, the results suggest that stadium subsidies are still too large.
Policymakers are influenced by sports teams that purport large economic gains for a current investment. Frequently, sports teams solicit bids from multiple states seeking the highest level of subsidies among a myriad of states. State and local policymakers compete for teams, resulting in growing subsidies offered by both the city in which the team is currently located and cities wishing to convince the team to move.
Given that stadium subsidies fail cost-benefit analyses, why do state and local policymakers persist in offering substantial tax-financed subsidies to professional sports teams? The answer lies in the basic political motivation to prioritize re-election above other interests, even when those interests are aligned with good governance and sound tax policy.
Sports stadium subsidies are salient political gimmicks designed to appear as if politicians are providing tangible benefits to taxpayers. Elected officials also fear reprisal by voters if a team were to relocate. And recent moves, such as the NFL’s St. Louis Rams to Los Angeles in 2016, the San Diego Chargers to Los Angeles in 2017, and the Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas in 2020, demonstrate the threat of relocation is real.
The solution to the “economic war among the states” is mutual cooperation, where states form an agreement not to offer stadium subsidies. A similar outcome could be achieved with federal legislation prohibiting such subsidies.
The empirical evidence shows repeatedly that stadium subsidies fail to generate new tax revenue and new jobs or attract new businesses. While attending a sporting event or a concert in a new, publicly subsidized venue might benefit fans of the team or those who attend the event, those subsidies shift spending that would have occurred in other parts of the city or state in the absence of a new sports stadium or arena.
This all may be true, but is everything about financial returns on investments? Some things can’t be measured in dollars and cents.
‘Every decent sporting venue is close to the city centre’
that’s a very small world view of just NZ and Australia. Some of the greatest and most famous stadiums across the world are nowhere near the ‘City Centre’..the key is transport links
London has about half a dozen world class stadiums and none of them are near the City proper.
But all of them are intrinsically connected by Underground lines or train lines to the rest of the city and country. Wembley, the more famous one, has 3 separate lines nearby – two lines into London and one line connecting directly north to the provincial centres at the heart of England. Each train hauling away 1500 people per trip – soon empties the stadium out. That’s certainly a good argument for Tōangaroa and it’s many transport links at Britomart and Parnell. Works well with Wellington Stadium as well, connecting directly to the City as well as the Hutt, Kapiti Coast and Porirua. No cars necessary at all.
It’s a huge advantage. A new station below the stadium would have direct access from the western and eastern lines. Southern line nearby at Britomart. NEX buses (and WEX?) Would terminate/begin on Quay St. Tamaki link buses too. Inner link buses just south of the stadium site. Lots of hospitality options to think the crowd out before it uses any of these.
But transport just won’t be given much weighting.
And I didn’t even mention Regional trains stopping at The Strand.
There is quite literally a connection to the whole rail network going past Eden Park. Tōangaroa looks like it will kill of any use of the Strand for regional trains.
Hospitality will go where the business is, there are currently more pubs close to Eden Park than there are to the Tōangaroa site.
Tangaroa Stadium having success with transit is predicated on the design and construction of an expensive new station (and the relocation of the existing lines). Additionally, its proximity to the North Shore doesn’t mean much without another bridge. Auckland’s put up with years of disruption with its rail network already and I don’t think that we should embark on more without good reason.
As for the Caketin, has it really been a success? It’s location in some ways suits the Wellington Regions peculiar geography; however it is also a windswept shithole that consistently fails to draw large crowds across codes. When did it last have a major concert?
Meanwhile, Eden Park has a station and can already facilitate the movements of dozens of busses both pre-event and after. In particular, busses heading to the North Shore have relatively quick access to the Motorway network; something the Tangaroa Stadium concept doesn’t necessarily enjoy.
Some factual information about the terrible ‘Caketin’.
SKY STADIUM
CHAIR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT 2023/24
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
The financial result for the year to 30 June 2024 is a net surplus of $3.7 million. This result is inclusive of grant income. Excluding the grant income received, the net surplus is $1.3 million.
During the year, the Trust received $2.33 million from the Wellington City Council as a grant towards the seismic resilience works which will commence in the next financial year. The same amount will be received from Greater Wellington in the next financial year. Our cash balance at 30 June 2024 is higher than usual as we prepare for these works.
A full calendar of events, including the nine games in the FIFA Women’s World Cup generated a net event surplus of $6.3 million, compared to $2.7 million in the prior year.
Operating cash flows were positive at $7.3 million, inclusive of the grant income referred to above.
Some highlights of the year:
• The FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023, where we successfully delivered nine matches in 22 days, with attendances of more than 230,000.
• Being the inaugural host of the World Rugby WXV tournament.
• An epic Foo Fighters concert.
• The return of international cricket, with the dramatic Blackcaps vs Australia T20
international, which went down to the last delivery.
• The Wellington Phoenix men’s most successful season to date, including hosting the home
semi-final with a record crowd.
• The Hurricanes run into the finals, hosting home quarter and semi-finals.
EVENTS
Sky Stadium hosted a total of 49 major event days for the year, plus several community event days. 512,112 fans attended events during the 12 months, making the year the biggest in terms of attendance since 2016.
CONCERTS
The Stadium hosted one concert with over 30,000 fans enjoying the epic set by the Foo Fighters in January. This was the band’s first appearance at the Stadium, and their first concert in Wellington since 2005.
EXHIBITIONS
We hosted a total of 10 exhibition days with over 33,000 patrons attending. These events continue to enhance Sky Stadium’s reputation as a multi-purpose venue and as a convenient location for large scale exhibitions. Armageddon, Beervana, Better Home & Living Show, and the Home & Garden Show were all well attended and provide an enormous variety of content for Wellingtonians.
The delivery of Beervana just a week after our final FIFA WWC 2023 match demonstrated our team’s commitment to our partners and delivering great events for Wellington. The Food Show moved their dates meaning it did not take place during the 2023/24 year, however we look forward to seeing them back in August 2024.
FREESTYLE KINGS
The thrills of Freestyle Kings made its debut at the Stadium, with a great show delivered by the world-renowned Australian Freestyle Motocross team.
COMMUNITY EVENTS
The Trust is proud to be able to give back to the regional community through making the Stadium available for a variety of community uses.
We hosted Eid Al Fitr in April and Eid Al Adha in June of 2024. It was a pleasure to welcome the Eid celebrations in the Stadium for the second time, bringing together the Wellington Muslim community. We again hosted the Spirit to Cure step challenge fundraising for the Leukaemia & Blood Foundation, and provided the base for the Wellington Marathon/Half/10k events, with the events starting and finishing at the Stadium
And throughout the year we provided the venue to groups such as the Police, Corrections and Fire & Emergency for training exercises.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Sky Stadium is proud of its position as an iconic venue for the Wellington region. The diverse range of events that we provide each year is possible thanks to the support of our key stakeholders, the Greater Wellington Regional Council and Wellington City Council, along with WellingtonNZ.
We thank the following for working with us over the last year:
Hurricanes Rugby
Wellington Rugby Union
New Zealand Rugby / World Rugby
Cricket Wellington
New Zealand Cricket
Wellington Phoenix Football Club
FIFA
Armageddon
Jade Promotions
Xpo Exhibitions
Wellington Culinary Events Trust
Frontier Touring
TEG Live
“NEX buses (and WEX?) Would terminate/begin on Quay St. Tamaki link buses too.’
Tamaki Link buses already travel along Qualy Street. The plan is to extend the route of the Tamaki Link buses so they terminate/begin in the North Wharf Area, using the existing bus shelters that are already in place there.
Wembley, Twickenham, Accor Stadium and San Siro are all nowhere near their respective city centres.
Quay Park looks great at first but the more you look the more problems arise. Significant closures of the rail network for a start but also it looks like it would bring an end to this location ever being able to be used as a inter-city rail terminal.
Eden Park is not perfect, but it’s not bad either sitting right next to a railway line.
Wembley is in an high density space with hotels malls and hospitality around. Accor is within a planned sporting precinct with many other sporting facilities co located which is useful but you wouldnt repeat unless you are hosting an Olympics. Twickrnham is a quirk where RFU own and manage it, would be like if The All Blacks owned a stadium rather than licensing their rights to one. I don’t know much about San Siro but on Google maps it looks like it has 12.5 hectares of at grade carpark surrounding it, is that what good looks like? There are plenty of great standalone stadiums which are destinations, Eden Park will never be that and the location is awful and needs to fight thousands of residents every time it wants increase events. It is a zombie stadium that continues to exist long after it should of died.
No carparking at the San Siro for events, most fans arrive by Metro or light-rail.
There’s no reason Kingsland couldn’t become similar over time to the Area around Wembley, or for that matter Emirates Stadium.
It’s just a land use issue, building a new stadium to avoid having to change zoning is not a great use of money. We need to be upzoning Kingsland to make better use of the CRL anyway.
Wembley absolutely wasn’t a high density space when the stadium was built over 100 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire_Exhibition.
Transport links were built and extended at the same time. But the area around the station was a bit of a wasteland right through to the 2000s. Outside of events it was very unwelcoming and abandoned-feeling. There used to be a big Sunday market on part of the carparking. I sometimes helped my parents sell clothes there.
Development and density in the area has really increased recently, after the stadium re-build…but that really happened in a big way only from about eighty years after the original stadium was built: https://www.wembleystadium.com/about/local-community/regeneration-of-wembley
I don’t think Wembley is the self-justifying example of vibrancy generation that you think it might be.
The area around it a soulless wasteland of naff chain restaurants and international student accommodation. After games and gigs; the first priority for everyone concerned is to leave (people hanging around in bars afterwards are usually waiting for the underground and trains to calm down).
That said, it does have one strength; its position in NW London makes it more accessible to people outside London than it would otherwise would be.
Could we say the same for a waterfront stadium in Auckland?
I think we’re stuck with we’ve got. By all means we should enhance it.
Just putting new things in the cbd is how medium sized towns are built. 1960s kind of planning.
Auckland is now a city and as such should spread things around a bit more.
The idea of 60,000 people trying to get into the cbd between 5-7 (rush hour) on a weekday to watch a 7:30 kick off is silly. I doubt half of them would make it on time.
At least eden park is a bit further out
“it looks like it would bring an end to this location ever being able to be used as a inter-city rail terminal.”
If you read the proposals, you will see that Britomart would be used for this.
I love the idea of inter-city trains using Britomart, but we have to be realistic about that. There will be limited capacity on the flat junction at Quay Park, especially as CRL grows. At some point I think Quay Park will need to go back to it’s previous use as an inter-city train station.
I’m assuming anyway that the stadium developers won’t be fronting up with the cash to grade separate Quay Park junction and/or build extra platforms in Britomart.
“an end to this location ever being able to be used as a inter-city rail terminal”
They’re literally proposing to rebuild The Strand station as part of the development, so a new intercity rail terminal.
I’m not sure why Kiwirail were talking about underground rail, nor why there would be significant closures to build a new line 50m north of the existing one.
My interpretation of that was a 2-platform through running metro station, so no use for terminating inter-city trains.
I would assume Kiwirail would require any proposal to demolish The Strand station to include replacing its functionality. A multi track station that could handle metro and intercity trains would be a minimum then.
But oh well, we’ll get nothing anyway it seems.
You would think so, but I think the documents just talk about using Britomart for Intercity rail. I’m just struggling to see in that map where you would get the necessary 200 – 250m of platform for an intercity station.
The biggest area is to the east which would have the worst access to the CBD.
It probably doesn’t matter exactly where the terminal station was, because anyone not going to the stadium precinct would just cross the platform to get on a CRL-bound train anyway.
Agree, it’s not vital but an inter-city station without some sort of direct pedestrian access to Beach Rd through some sort of overpass would have been a let down.
Either way the bigger issue is that the diagram above suggests there would be 100m at most for platforms even on the eastern side of the stadium.
Eden Park would be more realistic to be built given by the fact that we have no money. At least it gives a feasible financial report to the govt with minor upgrade to the Kingsland station. But Quay Park is totally mess up with the rail network. If do underground rail network. It will be height limit for goods to transport. Some of good may not go through and shipping cost will increase.
The construction time will be endless (see how long to build City Rail and north shore bridge). No mention about the money, they even not talk about how much to rebuild the network. If Quay Park approve, all commuters will suffer terrible traffic until they retire. Don’t just attract by the look, think about reality.
This is nowhere near true… Twickenham, Wembley, Croke park and virtually every stadium in the USA are a distance away from the ‘CBD’. Eden Park is very handy to Ponsonby Road, Kingsland and Dominion Road and I’ve had some lively nights post game. The reality is that Eden Park is well served with transport options. Imagine how much better if the Light Rail hadn’t been canned without an option. ONce the CRL is operational then clearing the ground after will be even quicker- folk going out east won’t even have to transfer at Britomart.
The CRL won’t allow any more trains through Kingsland. If anything it will mean people get less accepting of shutting down the western line to stage out event trains.
Don’t see how it cant mean more trains through…or more effectively.half will go to the city and onto eastern line half will go to new
market and south.decent distance between Morningside and Kingsland to stage 6 car trains…granted I have no actual basis for this
Still the same two tracks, two platforms and the same signalling system at Kingsland. Still the same level crossings and few sidings at Morningside to stage trains from. The maximum number they can run out of Kingsland today doesn’t change with the tunnel in town.
John – something tells me the signalling system could be upgraded and event stabling built nearby for a lot less than the cost of a new stadium at Quay Park. For all the failings of Eden Park, I’d hate to try and play a game of rugby at Quay Park tomorrow.
The entire rail network will be able to double in capacity and operate more efficiently because Britomart Station will become a 2-way, through station, connecting with Mt Eden Station through the CRL tunnel. These services will also stop at new stations in midtown (Te Waihorotiu Station) and uptown (Karanga-a-Hape Station).
Travel times will be improved, along with connections to other services.
There will be more journey options, including a line running from the West towards the East. This means for some journeys you can avoid the city centre stations if you want to.
Trains will be able to run more often on most lines, especially in peak times. At peak times, our rail services will have the capacity to move the equivalent 16 extra traffic lanes into the city – that’s a lot of cars off our roads.
CRL Stations are also being built to accomodate 9 car trains, thereby increasing capacity as well as increased frequency.
Once CRL opens, travel times from Kingsland Station to Mid Town could be reduce to as low as 10 minutes.
Bus route 20 also travels through Kingsland every 15 minutes, providing access to St Lukes, Ponsonby and to NEX buses at Fanshawe Street.
Off peak rail capacity goes from the current 3 trains per hour to 6TPH (4TPH Swanson-CRL-Manukau and 2TPH Henderson-Newmarket Onehunga), peak capacity goes from the current 6TPH to 12TPH (8TPH Swanson-CRL-Manukau, 2TPH Henderson-Newmarket-Onehunga, 2TPH Henderson-Newmarket). So that *is* a doubling of capacity under the regular timetable.
the problem is if special short-stopping events trains needed to be run, as with the 2011 RWC; as John D points out the nearest stabling and turning point is Morningside with its two sidings. 12TPH seems to be the maximum AT want to run trains on routes with level crossings.
During the 2011 Rugby World Cup the train frequency at Kingsland was a train every 5-7 minutes; pretty close to the post-CRL planned service frequency. The only capacity increase therefore comes from the higher capacity of the EMUs over the SA/SD trains; and that is only about 33% – not to mention the crosstown trains will only be 3-car trains due to the Onehunga branch’s limitations.
9 car trains will not be available until the 2040s-50s by current plans, and AT/KiwiRail seem to want to focus on putting them into service on the Southern line and Pukekohe express services first.
I expect that without major and expensive improvements, Eden Park’s rail service will be hamstrung by infrastructure limitations and the CRL will not solve these by default. Morningside Dr must be grade-separated over the rail line and the George St level crossing must be closed on a much faster timeframe if special events trains and a stabling/turnaround close to Eden Park are desired.
Yee, so in summary of everyone’s comments:
Better overall network access to the Mt Eden Stadium post CRL but not really any more throughput due to lack of stabling or sidings nearby (perhaps Strand/East Britomart via CRL tunnels may help a bit though?).
the old Waitematā/Britomart-Newmarket-reverse-Kingsland routing could be viable for extra westbound events trains, again dependant on stabling/turnaround tracks immediately west of Kingsland, and Inner West level crossing removals.
skip Newmarket, and the west-north tracks on the junction see use again; plus there is the advantage of not parking trains in the way of regular Southern services AND passengers from the south could get the crosstown line to the game. extending the peak 2TPH that terminate at Newmarket to Penrose or Otahuhu could benefit as well
If Kingsland can handle similar volumes to the RWC then it shouldn’t be an issue as the upgrade of Eden Park is to 60,000, the same capacity it had during the RWC.
The key in my view would be improving stabling nearby so event trains can be stored waiting for the end of an event more easily.
The proposal for Quay Park also has a 2 platform station so the same capacity constraints would apply.
Kingsland can only handle those volumes by shutting down the western line and splitting it between morningside going west and Kingsland going east, and running a bunch of special trains. Still only one line and two platforms though.
The Quay Park proposal had the new station, plus Britomart, so literally all trains and lines would serve it by default. Plus the beach rd terminus of the northern express and other north shore buses.
I would very much like it to be Te Tōangaroa as it will be much needed development for the city, including rail lines and the frankly crappy area of Beach Rd. But I think getting multiple agencies to work together just won’t happen in NZ.
It’s a shame but I think we’ll be stuck with the ugly duckling that is Eden Park.
Perhaps this has been done already but they should be looking at how each option will contribute to the development of sport in NZ. Rugby is only popular in provincial areas (take a look at the attendance of the Blues, the Warriors, and Auckland FC – tell me which one is popular in Auckland). How will each of these stadiums contribute to growing sport in a changing demography over the next 50 years?
Plunging billions of dollars into a boondoggle stadium is certainly one way to deprive grassroots sports of the funding it needs …
This is not just about sports.
What then? “Vibrancy” and “hospitality business”? Taylor Swift being more likely to visit?
We are a country were ratepayers gripe about Council staff getting free coffee at work.
But we seem pretty free with public subsidies to some big ticket private companies (yes, sports franchises and events very much fall under that, 90% of the time – this won’t be volunteer clubs and charity groups using the space for free).
How the Wynyard point stadium wasn’t on the shortlist still baffles me. They said that it was because they have a park planned but surely that is more workable than a stadium on existing rail lines. I lost faith in the decision making at that point and it became obvious that endorsing Eden Park would be the only realistic option, even though the whole process was essentially about getting something better than Eden Park.
A stadium on existing rail lines is exactly what you want lol…. Imagine trying to get 50,000 people out to the extremity of wynyard with no rapid transport.
A stadium accessible from only one direction due to the presence of the Ocean on three sides.
Genius.
If you look at the proposal, you will see that it includes increased ( high capacity ) rial access. The days of driving your car to a concert or sports game are over.
If you read the comments above you will realise it is about Wynyard Point not Quay Park. Unless I’m mistaken there were no plans for high capacity rail at Wynyard Point.
Seemed quite logical to exclude it to me given it is out on a point, miles from any rail lines and a decent walk from even the Northern Express.
Ratepayers and taxpayers are going to pay A LOT for this one way or another, aren’t we?
Fun question: Do any of the BCR calculations include the money Eden Park still owes? I know my bank hasn’t written off my previous mortgages when I started a new loan, but it seems that is de rigeur for stadiums…
What’s next? The public should collectively give these people some advice. Sex and travel would be the theme.
“The latter may be mitigated by the new metro station and/or the eventual electrification of the rail line to Hamilton, enabling Te Huia to utilise Britomart and/or the CRL tunnels.” <- Having an out of city line bringing sporting fans / event crowds in via train from out of the city (even Hamilton) surely makes this incredibly valuable. Even if it's still only running a few trips extra on those days it's got to be hugely better than the alternative of sitting for an entire day in traffic.
It’s going to be Eden Park. The fix is in, if even the Left like Henderson want the status quo option. No vision, and councillors are literally being bribed with free event tickets.
Yes and once the competition falls away they will then stick their hand out for a huge dollop of public cash to build something most of us will never go to.
This is exactly what will happen.
Quay Park has too many unanswered questions and they will want relocation of rail lines, etc, to be paid by someone else,, which central or local government won’t agree to.
Left as the only option on the table, EP will water down its grand plans (they promised the overbridge to the train station in 2011). Further, not wanting to change its Trust structure, EP won’t get the necessary (if any) private funding. So will go to Council and will get turned down.
And we’ll be left with what we have.
They are both bad options. We desperately need a replacement for Eden Park as it’s bad for all sports and also bad for other events. But neither of these options are good, it should be on the waterfront, right by britomart and the ferries
I always thought it would be EP, but I hoped a waterfront/Quay Park development would still go ahead, with Bill Foley proposing to build a stadium there for Auckland FC.
A stadium like that would get more regular use with AFC, the Warriors, NPC games. Along with concerts and other one-offs (All Whites qualifiers, Black ferns, etc) there could be a game there almost every week of the year.
But they want to build at Western Springs…
It’s entirely obvious that we are going to go for Eden Park, the other option has far too many technical risks.
People talk about city center buzz etc, Taylor Swift etc, I went to the Eras tour in Singapore, the national stadium isn’t close to downtown, but the city was still full of fans and it was a great vibe over the whole weekend. Same thing in Sydney.
Let’s worry about actually being able to host Eras tour in our countries main stadium before we get carried away with the ‘vibe’. We had the option to host Eras but unfortunately our national stadium is in the middle of suburbia and can’t even do what it is made for: hosting events.
Technical risks can be controlled. Nothing of that is too problematic in terms of being achievable. What it really is is financial risk – will the Quay St stadium actually be viable without (much) Council funding? We literally can’t afford Auckland suddenly being on the hook for a billion or more because something is half-built, everyone is excited (I should add quotation marks to “everyone”) and then the proponents go “Uh, turns out it did cost more, how about we get some co-funding after all…”
I don’t have much faith in our politicians at that point saying “You made your bed, lie in it…”
Neither options can be built without massive ratepayer funding and ongoing subsidies. Eden Park still owes $40 million from the Rugby World Cup. Why doesn’t NZ Rugby pay this money back?
NZ rugby did not incur it. It merely rents EP. EP owes the money.
“NZ rugby did not incur it. It merely rents EP. EP owes the money.”
So what they are really playing there shell games, rather than rugby?
While not downtown the Stadium in Singapore is directly on the Circle MRT, and its only 600m in each direction to the Thomson East Coast line and the East West line
Also requirements for “city centre buzz” aren’t really relevant on an island with an average population density of 8000 people/sq km- ( which is what they claim Auckland CBD’s is)
TBH I don’t think requirements for a centre city buzz should be that high on the agenda for a new stadium. A buzz will form somewhere if there’s a significant event on.
Hell, I go to Taranaki games at Yarrow Stadium and the fish and chip shops in Westown are going off before and after the game.
The fact you had to go to Singapore to go to a Taylor Swift concert says it all really.
Can we talk about how the plan shown removes much-needed car parking along Quay Street slip lane road, and how this is absolutely inacceptable?
(I am joking, but I bet it will come up at some point).
On a more serious note, shame the plans don’t (couldn’t?) include increasing that super tight radius for the Parnell line heading into Britomart…
The big issue with Quay Park is it doesn’t remove the flat railway junction, between the eastern and southern line. This create conflicting train paths which limits frequency and will reduce the benefits of CRL.
maybe the third or fourth track into Waitematā/Britomart from the east that was investigated as a CRL alternative wouldn’t be amiss, if it’s technically feasible.
That does not solve the problem.
CRL has 2-track and the purpose is to through run trains not terminate them. There is a need to remove the conflicting path like has happened at the Maungawhai end of CRL.
I’d go for Eden Park just because it gives us the chance to host significant Cricket World Cup games again. In know it only comes around every 20 or so years, but it’s hard to go past those games at Eden Park in 1992 and 2015 for crowd atmosphere.
And here I am, hoping that we get a stadium that isn’t compromised for 99% of the games that take place there for the sake of a once-every-twenty-years cricket game.
It’s not really that compromised. The South stand has retractable seating which means the seats are close to the action during a rugby game and the plan is to have the same for the North stand.
Cricket is my preferred sport but I’d agree that Eden Park is a poor comprimise for all sports.
Having been to a few other grounds around the country to watch cricket, I’d say that Eden Park is the worst of them.
What happened to Western Springs being cricket?
Why couldn’t the Eden Park option include the #2 ground being turned into a mid sized stadium that only hosts cricket?
I’ve never seen what the issue with Eden Park for cricket is. The action is as close as any ground (for obvious reasons) and you can get a higher angle view than any other ground in the country.
The problem with Eden Park is, it’s far too easy to hit 6s and it’s not a fair contest between bat and ball
Bill Foley’s billions behind Auckland FC will be taking over Western Springs
If you were judging grounds based on a fair contest between bat and ball then most of the grounds in India and Pakistan wouldn’t make the cut even though their boundaries are bigger.
Eden Park is mid range at best in terms of average ODI scores, the pitch ensures it is generally a decent contest between bat and ball.
The overall problem with Eden Park is that it is designed with mega events in mind (e.g. RWC finals) and the rest of the time with <10k audience it is a lifeless wind hole.
Building mid size stadia (20k) is much better for the crowd and presumably cheaper to build?
The only games with less than 10k I can think of are NPC games, which make no sense to be at Eden Park.
It will typically host 4 – 5 games a year with in excess of 25k, usually at least a couple of sellouts.
This could be increased by playing A-league derbies, A-league & NRL playoffs (not that they happen often. We just don’t utilise our stadiums well in NZ, the Warriors playing Newcastle at Mt Smart in 2023 when they probably would have sold out Eden Park being a prime example.
I agree except that the number two could be turned into a 10-15k football stadium that could host League, NPC ( let’s face it most super rugby games as well) and the football team. Finding more revenue for Eden Park is going to be crucial. Cricket just needs to move away from Eden Park. I look at all those boutique grounds around the country with envy.
Why not Eden park no.2 as the boutique cricket ground/winter club rugby?
Develop the rest of the site with a ring of terraced houses and apartment in the middle, use the profits to pay back the handouts.
You can play cricket in Hamilton. Take the train there.
Have done! Fabulous ground. One of the best in NZ
Hamilton also has a great underground train station in the middle of the city, currently used for the storage of graffiti and dead pigeons.
Worth pointing out just how more compelling the case for Eden Park would have been with Light Rail on Dominion Road?
The western line station at Kingsland is always going to be a choke point, but if we could have drained large numbers of people out of the stadium from the other side with a 5 – 10 min walk to Light Rail it would have been so much better. Adds resilience against a rail failure too
They can still walk to the buses on the same route though.
Most likely this will just rattle along until we get another major event, whether that is co-hosting a Rugby World Cup or even FIFA Mens World Cup.
Eden Park is the only sensible choice
There seems to be a myth that all other cities have stadiums right in their CBDs. This is not true. Twickenham, Lordes, Wembley, Sydney, Singapore, not in the CBD. It is actually perfectly located close enough to the CBD and also allows for small business Cafes, Bars and restaurants in neighbouring suburbs to benefit as opposed to all the spectators pouring our and clogging the the CBD businesses. It is actually better for the city businesses to have a more even dispersal of spectators after the game.
When the CRL opens, Eden Park will only be 2 stops to K Road, 3 stops to city, 4 stops to Britomart, so will disperse fans well and give them a choice where to head after events
Eden Park caters for large crowd demand for ODI and T20 Cricket. If the Te Toangaroa option goes ahead and Eden Park is demolished, then Auckland will be left without a venue to host large crowds for ODI and T20 cricket.
Eden Park is well known around the world as an iconic stadium. The Te Toangaroa stadium only caters for rectangular sports and the design will date and it looks quite cringe worthy. The image of Rangitoto in the background is misleading.
If Eden Park is demolished, people will regret it, and once gone it is gone for ever. You cannot replace history and special motivations such as teams wanting to beat the All Blacks at Eden Park. The grass is not greener and Auckland should be grateful to still have a unique piece of history.
“Eden Park is well known around the world as an iconic stadium”
Not really. You mean the rugby world. And only some of it and that’s due to the ABs record there.
I know plenty of Australian/Irish/English fans who have visited and they have been thoroughly underwhelmed. And if you have been to stadiums overseas (Sydney, Brisbane, Paris, Twickenham, Cardiff, Edinburgh, etc), you’ll completely understand. It really is average.
100% Have been to an ABs test at Cardiff and it was magic.
The most amazing thing about the stadium (aside from the roof) was the access. I was up in the nosebleed seats and after the match finished I was out on the main street in 5 mins.
Would also note, it’s slap in the middle of town.
Sounds like they could save a lot by not having cricket at Eden Park and provide a much better experience for rugby (+football + league?). If they are going to rebuild the north stand, move it closer to sideline with three tiers like the south but extend roof to provide more cover. Ideally have cover on ends as well. And only open up lower levels for most events.
Love the look of the downtown stadium, but never going to happen, or look like the render. Like the comment re actual view being fake.
I think the plan is to ultimately build the North Stand as a mirror of the South Stand, with seats much closer to the action than they are now, but a retractable lower level for cricket.
To be fair, the plans for the retractable seating to create an oval (and the “curtains” on upper tiers for lower-attendance games) is very good.
I just don’t believe we will get them if, as expected, Quay Park is deemed too difficult and EP is the default option.
Agree, I think it will be the next major event that we host that finally triggers movement on a new North Stand.
A blithe suggestion that stabling and a terminus for diesel-hauled services should just disappear to an imaginary somewhere-else and doesn’t needing costing or a definite site is not helping a Council decision. Never mind more rail disruption some time.
They include rebuilding the strand station, so the simple answer is that has four platforms so it can be a terminus and/or backup.
There are four siding tracks about a half kilometre long alongside the mainline under and past the strand bridge, plus a bunch more on the port side. Can those not be used for stabling? Don’t think I’ve ever seen the ones on the south side used for anything ever.
“A blithe suggestion that stabling and a terminus for diesel-hauled services should just disappear to an imaginary somewhere-else”
Solution; Retire the diesel hauled locos, and replace them with electric units. Share the stabling at Wiri, alongside the existing Metro stabling yards.
There is no more land at Wiri. There is a need for more stabling, particularly out West and near the city centre to reduce dead running and operational cost.
Can’t they just use the yard at Westfield?
In my opinion the focus on looking at a mega stadium was the wrong question. What Auckland lacks is a well place stadium with a roof of similar size to Forsythe Barr stadium. Albany and Mount Smart are in the middle of nowhere and don’t generate any value capture.
Western Springs doesn’t have any Rapid Transit.
It’s a pity that Carlaw Park wasn’t redeveloped into a stadium.
“Western Springs doesn’t have any Rapid Transit”
Western Springs has several buses that pass outside the front door, including the Frequent 18 double deckers. For major events AT has a team that can arrange special Event Buses, which they already do for concerts at Mt Smart Stadium
Frequent and Rapid transit are not the same thing, and I think most people would call a proper motorway-aligned 80km/h northwestern busway with a station at Western Springs quite a different service from the 11T/11W and 18, which despite their frequency are limited to 50km/h tops, have closer-spaced stops and are beset by intersections and gaps in the bus lanes.
Given your first-hand knowledge of AT I thought you would be aware of this public transport service hierarchy.
If the Waterfront Group has deep pockets they could look at Alexandra Park. The Park probably has the largest onsite vehicle parking of anywhere. Greenlane might not appreciate the potential sound levels. Use a bit of Cornwall Park for vehicle entry/ exit tunnels to improve traffic flow.
Mount Smart as a blank cheque option. Total redevelopment. 45K-50K capacity. Roofed so less to no weather cancellation so performers/ Pro Kabaddi etc can do multiple nights. Roof might cut sound levels. Extra trains for concert/ events; North to South stabled at Wiri & Manukau City, Papakura/ Pukekohe. South to North trains(most) stabled at Southdown branch line industrial area & Westfield track area, use hi-rail/ shunts. (Temporary passenger platforms). Put a tunnel under Church Street for pedestrian access to Mt Smart.(450 metre walk). If the Geotech is suitable, consider elevated rail over-rail-section so Soundbound passenger trains (out of Southdown after concert) cross as few tracks as possible and do not conflict with north-homebound trains. Buses in usual places, aim for as few as cars as possible. Appears to be room to pre-stack passenger trains at Penrose if extra track/ overhead power though easier if the Voltage Power Pylon is shifted.
It’s a shame that this debate came down to binary options of waterfront-ish fantasy options and more of the same at a compromised Eden Park. Mt Smart Stadium has some great attributes and far greater potential to catalyse regeneration of land around, and use rail. Buy it doesn’t have the power broking supporters like Eden Park doe
if/when Eden Park does get picked, a mandatory high density redevelopment of Kingsland could go towards paying for it or paying back the council. Everything south of the rail line and immediately around the stadium – 6-12 storey apartments, ground-floor retail and eateries, sound insulated walls and Wynyard style pedestrian streets and greenways. should be a non-negotiable.
and Te Toangaroa as a urban development still should go ahead without a stadium if EP is picked. probably an easier ask in that case; filling the space in with a park/square and apartment buildings.
Yeh i find it absurd that our national station is in suburbia. Not only the noise from the stadium upsetting all these families in their villas but also the fact that there is a key train station which is not maximising its catchment. Get some modern higher density housing in that area, there are plenty of villas elsewhere.
The stadium is a flood basin so it would just end up a park anyway, they should rezone the area around it though.
” i find it absurd that our national station is in suburbia’
Don’t believe everything that you read in the media. The only people calling Eden Park “Our National Stadium” is the PR dept and new Australian CEO at Eden Park. This is part of the ongoing lobbying by Eden Park management to gain more ratepayer and taxpayer funding.
So basically Te Tōangaroa is implicitly asking Council/Government for probably about a billion dollars to take out the Eastern Line for years and years.
I would call this an absolutely deranged proposal that smells suspiciously like a deliberate attempt to use dissatisfaction around Eden Park to cripple the rail network. Even if it was made from a place of good faith, this would be the result so it’s a distinction without a difference between whether it’s purposive or accidental.
Which is why it was always going to be Eden Park. And a watered-down version, at that…
Eden Park has always been a non viable option. A billion dollar asset with restrictions on how and when it can be used? It will never make money. People presume Eden park only attracts 15k people to a blues game because we don’t want to watch the game but it’s because after Wellington EP has the worst fan experience which creates no atmosphere. I struggle to believe the ‘upgrades’ will address this. Te Tōangaroa looks like they will have to consider every millimeter of space between stand and pitch which will make the fan experience amazing. EP wastes so much space you can almost fit another rugby pitch in.
Stadiums are just sponges for public money .Both will drain the council or government of money that could be invested in housing or better social services or even doing something to prevent kids living on the street or in motels .We need to sort that stuff before pandering to grandios stadiums that are never going to provide a return for all kiwis .
Here are the facts about major sports organisations who continually ask for public money to subsidise building and operating their new stadia.
See: https://journalistsresource.org/economics/sports-stadium-public-financing/
I think the points made are very important.
Stadia do not, by in large create new spending.
By in large, all they achieve is relocating spending.
Thus creating losers as well as winners.
For government funding relocating spending within the country should definitely not be any priority.
Even for local government, Is transferring spending from Mt Eden to the CBD a priority for general ratepayers?
I don’t support spending on Eden park, I’m sick of the limitations put on it. I support spending on another option.
Te Tōangaroa certainly looks a lot more interesting with a lot more potential. Pretty boring to go with Eden Park yet their vote didn’t mean much it seems.