There was an NZ Herald report this week of a political debate that occurred at ARC over the location of railway stations along the proposed Britomart rail tunnel line. You can read that report at: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10604205
I am aware that some rail transport enthusiasts and supporters are questionning the appropriateness of the views that I am advancing in this discussion. Some are saying: "Cayford should keep quiet, the Britomart Tunnel is all that will be funded. If he asks for too much nothing will even happen...." sort of thing.
Fair enough. That's a point of view.
My comeback on that goes like this:
1) Auckland's state highway network - love it or hate it - was planned more or less completely in the 1960's and 1970's. Yet it is only today that the last sections of it are being built. That network was planned to accommodate development and expansion of Auckland, both in terms of land use, population and economic development over a long period of time. As money became available, the top priority sections of that network were built.
2) Auckland's current railway network is pretty much as it was designed almost a hundred years ago. A few new bits have been planned. The Manukau Spur is an example. The Airport Rail link is currently being planned. And a designation to protect the proposed Britomart Rail tunnel section - which was conceived in the 1920's - is to be planned in detail and protected in work that is happening now.
3) But it is piecemeal compared to the planning that is needed if Auckland is going to back itself over the next 30 - 50 years with an electrified rail system, and commit to it.
4) Perth decided to go down the rail route, and decided also to get major bus services out of its CBD. There are still inner CBD bus services, but the line haul bus services now don't go into the centre of Perth. Instead commuters transfer to high capacity electric rail services to get into the CBD. You can see how pleasant Auckland CBD would be without buses during the recent strike. But that can only happen if rail services are commensurate, and planned.
5) Auckland talks about 5 minutes services, but only delivers 12 minute services. Even with electrification the service frequency discussed is still inadequate. How can Auckland get to the 15,000/hour capacity enjoyed by line haul Perth rail services? Do the maths: Assume Auckland has 6 car trains, with each car carrying 100 people. That's 600/train. How many do you need/hour to move 15,000? It's one train every 2.4 minutes.....
6) I won't go on in this blog, but the guts of my argument is that Auckland CBD needs a network of rail services. Not just a single line around the edge. This network needs stations at major destinations including Aotea Square, University/AUT, Hospital/Domain. Otherwise we will just continue being a little - little city, with hundreds of diesel buses cluttering up the streets.
This network won't be built in a day, just as Auckland's state highway network wasn't. But it was planned for the long term. I believe that the strategic planning to support the Britomart Tunnel designation should include preliminary work on the CBD rail network. We may build the Britomart Tunnel and link first, but let's have a better idea about how it will connect with other parts of the rail network.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Auckland CBD Rail Loop and Tunnel Planning
There was an NZ Herald report this week of a political debate that occurred at ARC over the location of railway stations along the proposed Britomart rail tunnel line. You can read that report at: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10604205
I am aware that some rail transport enthusiasts and supporters are questionning the appropriateness of the views that I am advancing in this discussion. Some are saying: "Cayford should keep quiet, the Britomart Tunnel is all that will be funded. If he asks for too much nothing will even happen...." sort of thing.
Fair enough. That's a point of view.
My comeback on that goes like this:
1) Auckland's state highway network - love it or hate it - was planned more or less completely in the 1960's and 1970's. Yet it is only today that the last sections of it are being built. That network was planned to accommodate development and expansion of Auckland, both in terms of land use, population and economic development over a long period of time. As money became available, the top priority sections of that network were built.
2) Auckland's current railway network is pretty much as it was designed almost a hundred years ago. A few new bits have been planned. The Manukau Spur is an example. The Airport Rail link is currently being planned. And a designation to protect the proposed Britomart Rail tunnel section - which was conceived in the 1920's - is to be planned in detail and protected in work that is happening now.
3) But it is piecemeal compared to the planning that is needed if Auckland is going to back itself over the next 30 - 50 years with an electrified rail system, and commit to it.
4) Perth decided to go down the rail route, and decided also to get major bus services out of its CBD. There are still inner CBD bus services, but the line haul bus services now don't go into the centre of Perth. Instead commuters transfer to high capacity electric rail services to get into the CBD. You can see how pleasant Auckland CBD would be without buses during the recent strike. But that can only happen if rail services are commensurate, and planned.
5) Auckland talks about 5 minutes services, but only delivers 12 minute services. Even with electrification the service frequency discussed is still inadequate. How can Auckland get to the 15,000/hour capacity enjoyed by line haul Perth rail services? Do the maths: Assume Auckland has 6 car trains, with each car carrying 100 people. That's 600/train. How many do you need/hour to move 15,000? It's one train every 2.4 minutes.....
6) I won't go on in this blog, but the guts of my argument is that Auckland CBD needs a network of rail services. Not just a single line around the edge. This network needs stations at major destinations including Aotea Square, University/AUT, Hospital/Domain. Otherwise we will just continue being a little - little city, with hundreds of diesel buses cluttering up the streets.
This network won't be built in a day, just as Auckland's state highway network wasn't. But it was planned for the long term. I believe that the strategic planning to support the Britomart Tunnel designation should include preliminary work on the CBD rail network. We may build the Britomart Tunnel and link first, but let's have a better idea about how it will connect with other parts of the rail network.
I am aware that some rail transport enthusiasts and supporters are questionning the appropriateness of the views that I am advancing in this discussion. Some are saying: "Cayford should keep quiet, the Britomart Tunnel is all that will be funded. If he asks for too much nothing will even happen...." sort of thing.
Fair enough. That's a point of view.
My comeback on that goes like this:
1) Auckland's state highway network - love it or hate it - was planned more or less completely in the 1960's and 1970's. Yet it is only today that the last sections of it are being built. That network was planned to accommodate development and expansion of Auckland, both in terms of land use, population and economic development over a long period of time. As money became available, the top priority sections of that network were built.
2) Auckland's current railway network is pretty much as it was designed almost a hundred years ago. A few new bits have been planned. The Manukau Spur is an example. The Airport Rail link is currently being planned. And a designation to protect the proposed Britomart Rail tunnel section - which was conceived in the 1920's - is to be planned in detail and protected in work that is happening now.
3) But it is piecemeal compared to the planning that is needed if Auckland is going to back itself over the next 30 - 50 years with an electrified rail system, and commit to it.
4) Perth decided to go down the rail route, and decided also to get major bus services out of its CBD. There are still inner CBD bus services, but the line haul bus services now don't go into the centre of Perth. Instead commuters transfer to high capacity electric rail services to get into the CBD. You can see how pleasant Auckland CBD would be without buses during the recent strike. But that can only happen if rail services are commensurate, and planned.
5) Auckland talks about 5 minutes services, but only delivers 12 minute services. Even with electrification the service frequency discussed is still inadequate. How can Auckland get to the 15,000/hour capacity enjoyed by line haul Perth rail services? Do the maths: Assume Auckland has 6 car trains, with each car carrying 100 people. That's 600/train. How many do you need/hour to move 15,000? It's one train every 2.4 minutes.....
6) I won't go on in this blog, but the guts of my argument is that Auckland CBD needs a network of rail services. Not just a single line around the edge. This network needs stations at major destinations including Aotea Square, University/AUT, Hospital/Domain. Otherwise we will just continue being a little - little city, with hundreds of diesel buses cluttering up the streets.
This network won't be built in a day, just as Auckland's state highway network wasn't. But it was planned for the long term. I believe that the strategic planning to support the Britomart Tunnel designation should include preliminary work on the CBD rail network. We may build the Britomart Tunnel and link first, but let's have a better idea about how it will connect with other parts of the rail network.
6 comments:
-
Joel, I do understand where you are coming from. However, I think that it will be difficult enough getting $1.5 billion in funding for the currently proposed CBD Rail Tunnel - let alone anything beyond that.
In terms of a longer term network, I've done a bit of thinking about that myself:
http://transportblog.co.nz/2009/09/19/aucklands-rail-system-in-2030-2050/
Add light rail into the mix:
http://transportblog.co.nz/2009/09/28/adding-light-rail-to-the-mix/ -
October 24, 2009 at 8:21 PM
-
I agree it will be a challenge to get this project funded, but the point is to plan for the long term, not just for what we need now. As someone wisely said: "Rome was not built in a day", so too for CBD rail projects....
-
October 26, 2009 at 5:31 PM
-
Maybe a way to plan for the future is to ensure this tunnel is built in a way that future-proofs it for a potential cross-town tunnel further down the track. I have always thought that one option could be connecting the future North Shore Line with the CBD Rail Tunnel at Midtown, and then continuing it basically underneath Victoria Street to serve a Uni station, then the hospital, then Newmarket and so forth.
Would be expensive, but a good way to have a useful additional route through the CBD. -
October 31, 2009 at 12:52 PM
-
Better late than never to leave a post...
Perhaps there's a different way to modernise the Auckland rail network with digging an expensive tunnel.
I have been reading about the Auckland trams plan, and have noticed that no one is giving the tram track gauge any thought. This may not seem like an important thing to worry about, but it could be the key to a transformation to a European style Tram-train Metro system and negate the need for a underground tunnel in central Auckland.
In many parts of Europe the regional trains and metro trains are also the city trams, like the 140Km Nordhausen narrow gauge (same as NZ), Harz line with its low floor, hybrid diesel-electric Tram-train / LRR (LRR - Light Regional Railcar). Similar in many respects to light-rail but able to use heavy rail lines also.
The vehicle, when entering the city leaves the train network and runs long the street taking on the stopping pattern of a tram, quick, efficient and integrated - tram, metro, train all rolled into one, all because the inner-city tram tracks are the same gauge as the railway tracks.
Youtube Nordhausen Tram-train: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWJM03gBJl4
Auckland light-rail / trams and the suburban train services could in the future be amalgamated into one system - if the track gauge is the same, then their wouldn't be much need for an expensive underground city loop when the city loop could run at street level along a central reservation. It would require modern 21st century rolling stock, but that would cost a lot less than a long tunnel.
Tram-train / LRR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram-train -
June 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM
-
Eample; The Karlsruh Tram-train system in Germany would be the the kind of network Auckland could easily have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadtbahn_Karlsruhee -
June 16, 2010 at 11:42 AM
-
Not sure where you get Perth max line capacity 15,000. There new electric units are much the same as ours. The AM units have capacity 373 per 3 car set, so that gives just about 750 per 6 car set. What Ive seen gives the Mandurah line in Perth ( greatest ridership) has peak time trains every 10 min and off peak 15 min. That means 4500 passengers per hour in peak times
-
July 17, 2014 at 6:34 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Joel, I do understand where you are coming from. However, I think that it will be difficult enough getting $1.5 billion in funding for the currently proposed CBD Rail Tunnel - let alone anything beyond that.
In terms of a longer term network, I've done a bit of thinking about that myself:
http://transportblog.co.nz/2009/09/19/aucklands-rail-system-in-2030-2050/
Add light rail into the mix:
http://transportblog.co.nz/2009/09/28/adding-light-rail-to-the-mix/
I agree it will be a challenge to get this project funded, but the point is to plan for the long term, not just for what we need now. As someone wisely said: "Rome was not built in a day", so too for CBD rail projects....
Maybe a way to plan for the future is to ensure this tunnel is built in a way that future-proofs it for a potential cross-town tunnel further down the track. I have always thought that one option could be connecting the future North Shore Line with the CBD Rail Tunnel at Midtown, and then continuing it basically underneath Victoria Street to serve a Uni station, then the hospital, then Newmarket and so forth.
Would be expensive, but a good way to have a useful additional route through the CBD.
Better late than never to leave a post...
Perhaps there's a different way to modernise the Auckland rail network with digging an expensive tunnel.
I have been reading about the Auckland trams plan, and have noticed that no one is giving the tram track gauge any thought. This may not seem like an important thing to worry about, but it could be the key to a transformation to a European style Tram-train Metro system and negate the need for a underground tunnel in central Auckland.
In many parts of Europe the regional trains and metro trains are also the city trams, like the 140Km Nordhausen narrow gauge (same as NZ), Harz line with its low floor, hybrid diesel-electric Tram-train / LRR (LRR - Light Regional Railcar). Similar in many respects to light-rail but able to use heavy rail lines also.
The vehicle, when entering the city leaves the train network and runs long the street taking on the stopping pattern of a tram, quick, efficient and integrated - tram, metro, train all rolled into one, all because the inner-city tram tracks are the same gauge as the railway tracks.
Youtube Nordhausen Tram-train: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWJM03gBJl4
Auckland light-rail / trams and the suburban train services could in the future be amalgamated into one system - if the track gauge is the same, then their wouldn't be much need for an expensive underground city loop when the city loop could run at street level along a central reservation. It would require modern 21st century rolling stock, but that would cost a lot less than a long tunnel.
Tram-train / LRR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram-train
Eample; The Karlsruh Tram-train system in Germany would be the the kind of network Auckland could easily have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadtbahn_Karlsruhee
Not sure where you get Perth max line capacity 15,000. There new electric units are much the same as ours. The AM units have capacity 373 per 3 car set, so that gives just about 750 per 6 car set. What Ive seen gives the Mandurah line in Perth ( greatest ridership) has peak time trains every 10 min and off peak 15 min. That means 4500 passengers per hour in peak times
Post a Comment