Sabotaging Parnell Station

Rumour has it that I am being charged with sabotage of the proposed Parnell Railway Station. Cllr George Wood is facing similar accusations. Apparently because he has written to the Auditor General expressing concerns about the way the Parnell Railway Station project is being gerry-mandered through Auckland Councillors and through Auckland Council processes.

A couple of weeks ago I did write to NZ Herald:

"So. Auckland Council and KiwiRail are full steam ahead with a railway station at Parnell which is in conflict with Auckland Spatial Plan criteria for prioritising infrastructure projects, and before consulting the public.

Not only that but Auckland Council and Kiwi Rail plan to shut down a crucial section of Auckland's rail network to railroad this project through before Christmas. It is hard to understand why Auckland Council would allow this abuse of process. The chosen site was ranked at the bottom of three Parnell Station options assessed by Auckland Regional Council last year.

This manipulation and speed has all the hallmarks of the political interference that foisted the costly Helensville rail service failure on Auckland three years ago. Don't let it happen, Auckland Council unless due process has been followed."

Sabotage? far from it. The truth of the matter is that I DO support a railway station at Parnell, but NOT the option that is being pushed through by certain Auckland Councillors.

I have provided the background to this project in previous blogs, and quoted from Auckland Regional Council reports which quite clearly DID NOT support the option that is now being pushed inside Auckland Council (ie the Cheshire Street option). In particular the ARC report stated:

One key consideration is the potential for transit oriented development around the station in the medium to longer term.

From the analysis completed by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and ACC to date it is apparent that a station at Carlaw Park would support the business node, university, Vector Arena and provide reasonable access to the Parnell centre, irrespective of any future land use changes in the vicinity of the station.

A station at Cheshire Street will be reliant on significant redevelopment in the area as part of comprehensive masterplan. The KiwiRail site is strategically important, close to Parnell, offers wide views and amenity, overlooking the open space of the Domain, likely to have high land values (assist redevelopment), enable growth of Parnell without affecting the heritage character of the main street, etc.

If a significant redevelopment can be delivered in conjunction with station development, then this location for a future station should be supported.

If the future use of the Cheshire Street site is not transit supportive (i.e. it provides for few residents or employees, is not designed to support walking and PT use and is designed for vehicles) then the location of the station should not be supported.

And this is the critical point. There is no evidence that intensification to justify a station can occur at this location. Those who advocate for the Cheshire option do it for the wrong reasons. They want to support the heritage buildings there - by building the Parnell Railway Station in the wrong place. I support heritage buildings. But they should not by themselves force Auckland Rail development nor the location of stations.

When you build railway station infrastructure you catalyse the transformation and development of a piece of city. Such as at Newmarket and New Lynn and Britomart. The Cheshire Street option can never be that. And its construction will undermine and sabotage the best option for Parnell and Auckland.

I would like to remind Auckland Councillors of its own Draft Auckland Plan. It states at s.197: "Critical infrastructure underpins Auckland's development...". And at s.198: "Investment must connect with the sequencing of development in the identified priority areas...". One of those priority areas is the City Centre - which doesn't include Parnell. So how does any Parnell Station jump that hurdle? And s.191 underlines that infrastructure investment policies: "...include optimising investment and ensuring that it delivers the greatest return...".

But the big policy commitment about railway stations is set out at s.172: "Intensification is encouraged around these stations as it will maximise infrastructure investments."

So. Councillors. Why push on with a Parnell Railway station option that will undermine this policy (because its location is not conducive to the scale of intensification and supportive land uses offered by other options)? Why push on with an option that will sabotage the possibility of a more appropriately located Parnell Station?

I support a railway station at Parnell. One that is consistent with Auckland Council's own Spatial Plan. That is why I hope to successfully sabotage the option currently lined up for Auckland Council endorsement. Before its hasty implementation sabotages the future development of Auckland Rail and land use in Parnell.