Parnell to Museum = Steep Walk

If you follow this blog you may have noticed some grumpy postings about the location currently proposed by Auckland Council for a railway station at Parnell. These include: Parnell Pet Project Politics, Parnell Station - Shakespearean Tragedy, Parnell Station - Poor Process Continues.

A big part of the justification cited for the location is that it affords easy access to the Museum, despite the fact the location is in the cleft of a steep gully. As this sequence of images illustrates. To the left is a walk many of you may have taken in the heart of Auckland. It's from Kitchener Street (top of Victoria), up a paved walkway and steps, to the flagpole on Albert Park. From A to B. You can check the physical elevations of these points using Google Earth. The elevation of A is 99 feet, while that of B is 131 feet, which indicates you climb 32 feet vertically in that walk. Which I know leaves people I know puffed taking this walk on the way to Maidment Theatre from the car park.

This aerial shows a walk I take quite a bit when I'm walking to University from the ferry. From Custom St East, up Emily Place, through Emily Park to the bottom of Princes Street, and then up to Waterloo Quadrant, and so on. The elevations are as follows: A is 39 feet, B is 69 feet, c is 97 feet, and D is 131 feet. I get a bit puffed doing this walk briskly - and I'm cycling fit. Do the math and you see that the vertical climb, from A to D is 92 feet.
This shows the proposed location for Parnell Station (Point A), and a possible route up to the Museum. As far as I know, no budget has yet been allocated for this path and/or steps. It needs to go through some native bush. The elevation of proposed Parnell Station is 62 feet. The elevation of Point B is 163 feet, of Point C is 191 feet, and a slight incline from there up to the museum at Point D at 200 feet.

The whole climb is 138 feet, and there is very steep climb out of the gully of more than 100 feet. This might be a walk in the park for some - but it does not constitute easy and convenient access to the museum. It certainly does not justify building a railway station at this location.

Parnell Station - Poor Process Continues

Yesterday I made my submission to Auckland Council's "Auckland Plan". Part of it was about Parnell Station, and I used this slide to show the 3 options that used to be on the table. (Both Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council reports preferred the Parnell Overbridge site as the best location.) In my last blog on this: Parnell Station - Shakespearean Tragedy I described my experiences trying to inform the "notify-or-non-notify" decision regarding the need to alter the designation of Domain land to provide for the new Super City's decision to opt for the Cheshire Street option for Parnell Station.

However my direct approach to appointed commissioners was not appreciated, so instead I sought, under the Official Information Act, the information that was provided by Super City officers to commissioners, so they could make their "notify-or-non-notify" decision. That information has come, and I had the opportunity to look at it today.


The LA4 part of that information reviews the visual and amenity effects of the change to the designation. That review contains these pictures, which give you an idea of what the lay of the land is like in the area of the Cheshire Street option.

As you can see it's fairly deserted in this gully.....

Looking south (picture to the left here) you can just make out the tunnel in the distance.

Looking East (left of picture) you can see that the line is elevated above the surrounding land which is why the track will have to be lowered by up to 1.75 metres. According to the documents 17,000 cubic metres of earthworks will be required, which is one reason why the project will need to take about 2,500 square metres of the Domain in order to build retaining walls and such like, and to accommodate the necessary realignment of the track (away from the Domain) in order to accommodate the proposed railway platforms.
This image looks North from the same point, ie downhill toward Carlaw Park and the Parnell Overbridge....

This image from Google Earth shows the Super City's preferred option at Cheshire Street. You can see again how squeezed into the gully this option is. In the background you just make out the museum - which will be about a kilometre walk away, uphill, probably quite a nice walk through the bush.

The information provided to commissioners is voluminous in terms of the effects on bush, archaeology, heritage, views and such things should the designation change go ahead. But there is almost no information in terms of the effects of what the designation change will permit - which is that a railway station built at that location will almost certainly preclude the construction of any other more useful station being built in the vicinity.

The information states clearly the statutory context. Which is s.181 of the RMA. This allows a requiring authority to make an application to a territorial authority to alter a designation. (ie: this provides for the Super City to apply to itself to change its own designation.)

Critically, s.181(3)(a)(i) states:

(3) A territorial authority may at any time alter a designation in its district plan if - (a) the alteration - (i) involves no more than a minor change to the effects on the environment associated with the use or proposed use of land...concerned; or....

This is the nub. One effect of the proposed use of the land (a railway station at Cheshire Street), will be that other options for the Parnell Station will be precluded. That is clearly a very significant effect on the Auckland environment.

Though that effect is not explicitly identified in any of the documents that were provided to Commissioners by Super City officers.

The information provided to commissioners by Super City, includes The Tonkin and Taylor Report entitled: Minor Alteration to the Designation: Parnell Enabling Works and dated November 2011.

This report does have a short section headed: "Consideration of Alternatives" which refers to the three options illustrated at the start of this posting. This section states of the Parnell Bridge Option:

The bridge would require modification in order to accommodate the station platforms, and significant track lowering towards Parnell Rail tunnel to achieve the appropriate gradient. However, this location would provide direct connection to Downtown Auckland, the Carlaw Park development and the University of Auckland and AUT.

The Parnell Bridge Option location is illustrated in the Google Earth image shown. You can see how well this location would serve Vector Arena and all of the land uses that are currently developing in the vicinity. This area has the development and transit oriented development potential of a Newmarket.

However the "Assessment of Effects on the Environment" section of the Tonkin & Taylor report makes no mention at all of the negative and precluding effects of building the Parnell Station at Cheshire Street - instead of the Parnell Overbridge option preferred by Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council officers. Instead the report describes the Parnell Overbridge option as "not feasible". Tell that to the engineers who rebuilt the Newmarket Viaduct.

It is time that this charade was brought to an end. Before it destroys the credibility of the Council and Auckland's railway network.

And as an end-note, here's a picture of the Parnell Overbridge. Quite a classic structure with its stone pillars. Crying out for a sensitive heritage station on top.

There's hundreds of them round the world. A good place to put a station - doesn't take up land. It's in the airspace, and can be central to the city.

Here's a simple example in China. So you can see it's not rocket science. Highly feasible in fact.

And if it's a heritage finish that is needed - to match the existing character of the Parnell Overbridge - here's a heritage railway station in Berlin. There may even be a way of incorporating the old Newmarket station building into an overhead station on the Parnell Overbridge. Now wouldn't that be a world-class win-win.

Parnell Station - Shakespearean Tragedy

More than a few planners regard the proposed Parnell Railway station - and the process used to secure it - as another Auckland Shakespearean tragedy....

A few weeks ago I gave some background detail.

Last week there was a helpful NZ Herald article explaining the relentless steps being progressed by Auckland Council to get this third-rated option off the starting blocks. It mentioned that a barrister had been retained to determine whether the related need to modify the rail designation should be notified. Apparently land needed to be taken from the Domain to allow for a wider track footprint. And so the designation needed to be modified. So I wrote to the lawyer, David Kirkpatrick as follows:

David,

I see you have been appointed to determine whether the Parnell designation application should be notified. This project has vexed me for the past year - because I am very familiar with it - having watched its birth at ARC. It is a project that is being driven by politicians rather than by planners, and large sections of the community are not aware of what is at risk.

The main planning issues with the proposed location and the planning process include:

- it was regarded as the least successful of 3 Parnell Station options - in terms of being able to trigger a TOD and associated medium density - work was done by both Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council staff that confirms this (a crucial timing issue being whether it would be possible to rezone land around the Cheshire St location to ever enable the sort of development that would support a TOD, compared with the other options). (There are ARC and Auckland City Council reports to this effect - which you should have.)

- the project has never been publicly consulted - in terms of location or funding - in terms of the LGA, or in terms of RMA.

- it is being consulted now in the Draft Auckland Plan, but no alternatives have been presented in that consultation. It would be inappropriate to pre-empt that poor consultation by not notifying the designation and thereby keeping the alternatives under wraps.

- it conflicts with the priorities set out for infrastructure development in the Draft Auckland Plan, and thereby is likely to lead to a situation that there will never be a station built in a Parnell location which will best contribute to city development plans. (You can see a link to my submission to the Draft Auckland Plan in that regard - in the blog links below.)

The drive for the proposed location has primarily come from those who wish to protect the existing heritage buildings on that site, and to justify the co-location there of the old wooden Newmarket railway station building. This idea has its supporters.

However in my view these objectives, including the notion that the museum will be easily walkable, are far outweighed by the public interest arguments and strategic planning arguments of locating the Parnell station at one of two alternative locations recommended by Council officers.

You can see more detail on the following blogs:

http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2011/09/parnell-pet-project-politics.html

http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2011/10/sabotaging-parnell-station.html

http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2011/11/submission-4-draft-auckland-plan.html

Regards, Joel Cayford

And almost immediately, I got this email from an Auckland Council official:

Hi Joel,

Your email below has been forwarded to me for a response.

As you are aware from today's Herald article, Mr Kirkpatrick is one of the commissioners delegated with making a decision on the notification of the alteration of the rail designation in Parnell.

You sent the below email to Mr Kirkpatrick this morning. The commissioner concerned did not read your email.

With your vast local government experience you will be aware that the commissioners have been delegated to make this decision and it is one that has no requirement for consultation. Therefore, I believe that your email to the commissioner providing your opinion and information was inappropriate. The decision making process in Council must be robust and not called into question.

I ask that you not contact the commissioners regarding this in the future.

Happy to discuss if you wish.

Regards,

Jason Marris | Hearings Manager
Democracy Services

That was interesting. Put me in my place. That's what you call a non-notified decision. Even though it gets a decent mention in NZ Herald it still means: "if you have a concern, keep it to yourself...."

I particularly like Jason's comment: "The decision making process in Council must be robust and not called into question...." Hear hear and amen to that. Fact is, council's decision-making relating to this particular project is political and personal (not robust) and very questionable.

The tests as to whether a designation should be changed are onerous. I feel that if it is good enough for Council to ensure David Kirkpatrick's independence, then it is good enough for me - and the public - to know what information was provided to David Kirkpatrick - both as to whether the decision should be notified or not, and subsequently, should that happen, whether the designation should be modified.

So I have written under LGOIMA for the information that was provided to David Kirkpatrick, by Auckland Council, and upon which he will have made his recommendations.

Will keep you informed.