Staging Rail Link = Sensible Strategy

(NB: I have previously referred to this as the city "loop" project and, understanding the misconceptions and following advice, prefer to stick to "link" in this posting.... Apologies...).

Few Auckland commuters will benefit from an "all or nothing" approach to the Central City Rail Link project....

Other large transport infrastructure projects have had to be delivered stage by stage in the Auckland Region. For example the Northern Busway project (later stages include links to West Auckland and to Silverdale), the State Highway Project (this has been in progress for forty years with latest stages being Waterview Connection and SH20), Rail electrification (later stages will include extensions to Southern and Western lines), the Harbour Bridge (Clip-ons and extended approach road access added over the years).

While it is always cheaper to build a large piece of infrastructure in one go, the fact is that budgets usually don't permit that. It is useful to note also that communities learn as infrastructure projects are incorporated into existing urban fabric. Stage by stage incorporation - incrementalism - has its benefits. Very few projects - when all the stages are built - look the same as their initial design plans.

Infrastructure is improved if feedback and experience can inform designs of later stages. In other words there are substantial benefits to be had if infrastructure can be built in a staged manner.

The whole Central City Link project - tunnels, lines, connections and stations - comes at a significant cost. Estimates vary around $3 billion for everything - including additional trains and some rail interchanges. Many other projects and capital requirements have been incorporated into Auckland Council's new Ten Year Plan. Holding rates down has pushed significant and increasing debt out to the future. (The Draft plan has almost doubled the Treasury Management debt limit from 175% of revenue, to 275% of revenue. This has enabled the Council to adopt a ten year plan which allows council to take out substantial loans, allowing debt to treble from the present level of $4.5 billion.)

This might be called intergenerational equity, but it could also be irresponsible. Council needs to cut the coat to suit the cloth. We should not be spending more than we are earning - as a city.

The Draft Long Term Plan 2012-2022 currently calls for a massive increase in Council debt - out to almost $13 billion - which will require interest payments of $800 million/annum - over 25% of Auckland Council's rates income. Thus a quarter of rates revenue will be to service bank loans.

Consider these points in debating the merits, or not, of staging the Central City Rail Link:

1)  The most important part of the project is the network capacity that will be gained through connecting Britomart through to the Railway in the vicinity of Mt Eden. This capacity increase will be significantly greater if the connection at Mt Eden is in both directions. Not just West Bound. This stage - call it stage 1 of the Central City Rail Link - is the tunnel. The existence of the tunnel alone will free up Britomart (currently an end of line constraint) and significantly increase the carrying capacity of the rail services through Auckland Central Activity District. This will lead to much higher frequencies and greater carrying capacity per hour. Even if there are no stations along the tunnel. This improvement alone will allow Auckland Transport to apply necessary improvements to other feeder parts of the network whose capacity constraints will become the new bottleneck to rail service increases.

2)  Once the tunnel is built and operating, the case for stations built at strategic points along that new corridor will be huge. Land owners and public alike will call for stations, and the argument for private contributions to the cost and amenity of those stations will be huge. This is the experience of station development along Hong Kong commuter rail systems. Build the tunnel infrastructure, and development will follow. That is the appropriate sequencing. The same thing happens when a State Highway is built. There are calls for interchanges and access to the new network. Auckland Council must build the network, and that will be the trigger for next stages of development. Of course future proof planning is required for the route of the tunnel, and future proofing can be built into the tunnel itself to enable/ease the subsequent construction of stations - so that normal service is maintained.

3)   The Manukau Rail spur stands as a bleak reminder of what happens when what is built is a politically motivated whole project. There it was all or nothing. And it was all built - and it is still nothing in regional terms because the fundamental need to build a network was not respected. I was part of the Auckland Study visit to Perth a few years back which was organised by Waitakere City Council as part of the due diligence for the New Lynn Station. We were exposed to the advice and wisdom of a bunch of planners and urban designers. A key take home piece of advice from integrated rail and land use planners was: "Don't build spur lines. Build continuous lines and loops." Continuity is the thing to aim for. Building Auckland's Central City Link alone delivers that enormous benefit. Stations can follow.

Council is right to pursue the City Rail Link project. Auckland has been calling for it for decades. Closing the loop will bring huge efficiencies to the rail network and further justify electrification investment. But it can reduce risk to build it in stages - the tunnel being the first stage - and may be just the step the Government needs to financially support the project.

Parnell Station Jumps the Queue

Auckland Council recently unveiled aspects of its planning work. Generally it looks good, but it is peppered with classic Auckland ad-hockery (not sure if that's a word, but you'll get my drift. This blog and two others below (Waterfront Conflict and MUL Buster) explain why I think this.

The draft Auckland City Centre Masterplan reveals the possibilities for the future of Auckland’s city centre through a 20-year vision.

It identifies eight ‘place-based’ transformational moves intended to:

* Develop the ‘Engine Room’ that is the core CBD and celebrate the waterfront opportunities.
* Enable growth around the City Rail Link stations.
* Create a better-defined network of green spaces through street-based ‘green carpets’.
* Celebrate the unique characteristics and attributes of the urban villages, quarters and precincts, and create better connections between them.
* Transform the public transport and offer the city centre a more pleasant place to walk around.
* Add greater depth and choice to the city centre retail, visitor, cultural and residential offer so as to ensure that Auckland’s City Centre becomes a destination, not just a gateway.
* Develop a compelling value proposition and climate for individuals, corporate citizens and business to invest in their city centre.

All good.

The Council has adopted "...eight moves to transform the city..." These are "key moves" to transform the performance of the Auckland city centre.

These moves are as follows:

1. Uniting the waterfront and the city centre – The north-south stitch
2. Connecting the western edge of the city to the centre ‐ The East‐west Stitch
3. Queen Street Valley CBD and retail district ‐ The Engine Room
4. Nurturing an innovation and learning cradle
5. New public transport stations and urban redevelopment opportunities at K Road, Newton and Aotea Quarter - Growth around the City Rail Link
6. Connecting Victoria Park, Albert Park and the Domain as part of a blue - green park network The Green Link
7. Connecting the city and the fringe – City to the villages
8. Revitalising the waterfront water city

I look closely at the waterfront one of these in the postings below (Waterfront Conflict and MUL Buster - which is the bigger regional Auckland Plan). It's not clear what's what in these plans. They overlap. Use different words, goals and outcomes. We'll be kept on our toes. I hope the Councillors are on theirs...

What I want talk about a little in this posting is transformation step 5. One of the reports that Council has considered relates to "The Engine Room" - a rather post-industrial term for the Auckland CBD (far too business oriented I think. Successful central city areas are known for muuch more than business. Culture for a start... which isn't only about business).

Anyway. When you get into that report it also explores the need for new stations on the proposed city loop (transformation step 5), we suddenly find - at page 61:

...In addition to the 3 new City Rail Link growth node areas, a Parnell station is to be reopened to better connect the eastern side of the city fringe to the city centre. It will also enable growth and access to the medical research centres and university in the Park Road area....

Here's a picture of the site which I've borrowed from the site of the group that has been lobbying for a station there. (http://www.parnell.net.nz/Station/Lobbying.htm)

While the Auckland Regional Council supported the idea of a station there, and the Auckland City Council noted that: "...is not materially inconsistent with the Future Planning Framework's Newmarket/Parnell area plan..." this hardly constitutes a mandate or requirement on Auckland Council to suddenly begin work on a station there now.

If the Council finds itself wallowing in cash to improve the rail network, the highest priority must be unblocking the various rail crossings on Auckland's rail network which will continue to act as bottlenecks on the capacity of the network - especially once it is electrified. (There is a myth that Auckland rail is the same as Perth rail. It's a myth because Perth rail was largely grade separated from the roading network. Auckland's was built on the cheap with a huge number of road crossings at grade.)

These crossings are bottlenecks. They need to be removed. Until they are, investment in electrification and new rolling stock will be prevented from delivering the promised benefits. Building ad hoc new stations is - I think - an irresponsible use of public money now.

My recollection of the debate at Auckland Regional Council is that it was largely driven by the desire to protect the heritage buildngs. That's a good project. The buildings have merit. But it shouldn't be driving Auckland's rail development strategy.

Far more rigour is required before this project should be supported by Auckland Council for funding. Someone even mentioned to me that work on regrading the corridor - so that the station could be built - is scheduled for Christmas! Who is making these decisions? Is this genuine consultation?

This project reminds me of a very poor Auckland Regional Council political decision. One taken against officer advice. And that was the ill-fated Helensville Rail service which had to withdrawn because it was so slow and poorly patronised.

The wording in Auckland planning documents around this Parnell station project is disturbing. It talks about "reopening" the Parnell station. But there was never one at the spot. The line is sloping and a station is unsafe there. It is also a myth that it will be widely used by students at Auckland University. Sure some might use it, but the climb is significant.

I know. I bike it and walk it several times a week.

With the City Rail link project on hold at the moment, there appears to be a cunning plan for the Parnell Station to jump all the queues and get what funding there is. Wrong project. Wrong process.

I'd like to know what does Auckland Transport think about this? And by Auckland Transport I mean its skilled staff. Where is the mandate from the Auckland Transport Statement of Intent that justifies this project?