Helensville Rail Service Trial Cancelled

I was Chair of ARC's Transport Committee in 2007 when the ARC voted in support of the Helensville Rail Service trial. At the time I opposed the trial, based on advice received from ARTA and from Connex - the precursor of Veolia. The decision to support the Helensville trial service was made by ARC politicians in the absence of a comprehensive officer report.

There was a lot of enthusiasm for the trial service among some ARC politicians: there had been passenger rail services to Helensville little more than 20 years ago; the line was there and in use by freight services (albeit slow - because of the poor state of the track); and there was strong support from the local Nor-West Rail Support Group. At the time rail patronage was growing strongly across the region and there was a feeling of success in the air....

The advice from ARTA and Connex was predominantly to the effect that regional financial resources were tight, that rail public tranport services are expensive (on a per kilometre basis), and that emphasis must be placed on maintaining and building high patronage core services. I can't recall the exact numbers, but the CEO of Connex advised me that extending the rail service to Helensville was equivalent to extending the length of Auckland's passenger rail line services by about 30% - with all of the attendant servicing costs - but without the justification of significant patronage. I well remember the CEO saying to me at the time, "it would be cheaper to buy each Helensville rail commuter a BMW".

Perth has extended the periphery of its passenger rail services to areas of very high growth. And while Helensville and Huapai and Waimauku will grow, growth is slow in sheer population terms, and competing bus services offer a better service than rail in terms of trip times and frequency. I appreciate the argument that growth could be shaped by the provision of good rails services also. However we need to be mindful of priorities for the money we have.

The figures provided to the ARC yesterday about the performance of the Helensville trial spoke for themselves. The Helensville Trial Service comprised one morning and one evening service to Britomart. The trip time was between 93 and 98 minutes. Bus journeys are quicker. For example the 6:34am Helensville to Britomart bus arrives at 7:50am, 17 minutes before the 6:32am Helensville to Britomart rail service.

The ARC report states that the annual net operating cost to ARTA for the trial service was $367,027. (Though this figure excludes Track Access fees and Station Maintenance.)

On average 14 passengers took each train to/from Helensville. That equated to a subsidy of $45.72/passenger for each trip @ 99 cents/kilometre. Thus the subsidy for a commuter round trip to Britomart was $90. For a commuter using the train for a year - 200 working days - this equates to an annual subsidy of $18,000/Helensville-CBD commuter. And overall this equates to $250,000 annual subsidy for 14 people - a high price to get 14 cars off the road. Maybe the Connex CEO's prediction was understated.

The figures provided in the ARC report do not include the cost of line access. This is the fee charged by Ontrack/Kiwirail, to generate the revenues they are reliant upon to carry out track maintenance. At the meeting a figure of $1.5 million was mentioned as the annual track access fee that would normally be payable for the 30km or so of additional track that is involved with the Helensville service. Apparently Ontrack agreed to waive the fee for the period of the trial.

So. The trial is over. Some investment - $1.25 million - was spent to upgrade station infrastructure and basic amenity. That investment should be protected for the future. And we all learned something. It is a good idea to connect growth areas with good public transport services, to prevent motorcar dominance. But that idea's time, has not yet come to Helensville.