Parnell Pet Project Politics

Recognise these two faces? Two peas in a pod. Both let nothing stand in the way of pet projects. Both wanted the character sheds on Queens Wharf demolished. Both want a mega cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf.

Both have track records of delivering personal pet projects, no matter the cost, no matter the fallout, a deal's a deal. Man oh man. Good qualities if you want a champion for a good project. But damaging and expensive otherwise....

Take the Helensville Rail trial service for example. Even as Chair of ARC's Transport Ctte I didn't see that train project coming. Thought it was just a bad idea. So did ARTA. So did Connex (now Veolia). All strongly advised against it. I was advised it would be cheaper to buy the few potential commuters a BMW each. But Mike Lee pushed it through. Every trick in the book. Never really held accountable for the cost of that failure. Blamed Connex. Blamed ARTA...

Now we have a brand new Parnell Railway station in the wrong place being manipulated into being by the same old Mike Lee up to his same old tricks.

Here's what ARC's report into the proposal had to say when a Parnell Railway possibility was considered by ARC's Transport and Urban Development Committee at its 4 June 2010 meeting. The report gave an update on planning investigations into 3 options for a station at Parnell shown in this graphic from the report. The Cheshire Street option is the one being pushed for by Mike Lee - for reasons which are not altogether clear. The report says this about that option:

The Cheshire St site provides the best access to Parnell centre. However the Cheshire St site has nearly 50% of its catchment in the Domain meaning intensive business or residential development could not take place in this half of the station’s catchment, and the walking catchment is more limited.

The report comments on the Parnell Road Overbridge option like this:

The Parnell road over-bridge site was originally favoured by Auckland City Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The Newmarket/Parnell Area Plan, part of the Future Planning Framework, approved by Auckland City Council, located the station close to the Parnell Road over-bridge site because it served the busiest catchment, was closest to the University and would assist the development of the business node at Beach Road/Stanley Street.

The "middle" option - Carlaw Park - is described like this:

The Carlaw Park site appears to combine the advantages of both sites. It can service the university and the Beach Rd/Stanley St business node while providing better access to Parnell centre. The Carlaw Park site is approximately 200 metres from the Cheshire St site and can provide access to Parnell centre within a four minute walk....

The report does not make happy reading for supporters of the Cheshire Street option (like Mike Lee - who appears to be suppressing ARTA and ARC's consideration of this matter.)

There is potential to reduce car trips and hence congestion if the station is located with good access for university students. In the University’s Travel Plan (2007) 15,710 students and 584 staff indicated that they would replace car travel with other modes of travel. Approximately 50% of this group indicated the proximity of public transport to the campus would be a factor in this decision.

The Auckland City Council has looked at pedestrian accessibility, including walking
distances, gradients and safety. In comparing the options, it identifies a number of
safety issues, in particular isolation and personal safety concerns, for the Cheshire
site, and the difficulties of the track to the museum for the aged and infirm....

The 4 June 2010 ARC meeting report also summarises ARTA's position on the matter, along with this tabulation of the relative merits of the two different options that ARTA looked at. It appears that ARTA conducted preliminary investigations into the feasibility of siting a station on the existing rail track between Parnell Road tunnel and the Stanley Street Bridge. Its findings include:

...While no conclusions have been reached, both the northern (former Carlaw Park) and southern (Cheshire St/Mainline Steam) locations are considered to be feasible options. It is apparent that a balance may need to be found between serving different catchments such as museum visitors, Parnell and Carlaw Park business node residents and visitors, and university students....

But it is when land use considerations are brought into play that the Mike Lee option runs into serious treacle. As the report notes:

It is important that development of a station and the wider site in Parnell is based on good urban design principles and leads to a high quality development. Master planning will be essential to ensure that the benefits go beyond the site and that it works for Parnell and wider communities....

The report includes a fair summary of the ideas of Parnell Mainstreet whose concept at Cheshire Street is to consolidate transport infrastructure around the heart of a community, utilizing the existing rail network, an established rail depot, character railway buildings and undeveloped railway land. The ‘idea’ centres on establishment of a ‘destination’ train station, not just a purely ‘commuter’ station nor university station.

In a sense this is a heritage idea driving Auckland's rail network design. A Mike Lee hobby horse - a bit like heritage trams running around the Wynyard Loop.

The report concludes fairly categorically:

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.

The report also mentions that The Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) had committed $1.5 million to Parnell station design in 2011/12 (Regional Land Transport Programme, 2009/10-2011/12).

Those are the only funds that had been allocated to that project by Auckland Regional Council and ARTA before their abolition at the end of 2010. The matter was considered by ARC's Transport Committee (items for information only ) twice more before Council ended.

However the Parnell Station was considered for decision at ARC's last Council meeting on the 27th September 2010. The last hurrah. After ARTA had been pushed into agreeing to Mike's project...

The report makes little mention of the need for Transit Oriented Development, or of the need to connect with the greatest number of land uses. It provides this rough concept outline of where the station would go, which confirms the wilderness nature of its location, and the lack of development opportunities, given the determination to retain the heritage buildings.

Here is the executive summary of that Council report:

A concept design for a new station at Parnell has been developed by ARTA in conjunction with KiwiRail. It has been determined that the preferred location is one adjacent to the existing Main Line Steam (MLS) Depot off Cheshire Street and preliminary design is now being progressed with associated costings.

A total cost of $13.2-15.2 million has been estimated. This includes $5.5m for track
modifications and between $3.5 to $5.5m for platforms, overbridges, lifts, platform
equipment and retailing walls.

Relocation and refurbishment of the Newmarket Heritage Building has a budget of
$4.2m carried forward by Kiwirail from an earlier government commitment. While
there is no detailed costing available at this stage, unspent funds could be utilized for other purposes such as track modifications.

Enabling works for electrification between Newmarket Tunnel and The Strand are
currently programmed to take place in July or August 2011. Re-grading of the track
along this section would involve significant rework of the electrification infrastructure.

This would suggest that a decision on the future Parnell station should be addressed
by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport with urgency, in order to integrate
works and avoid costly reworking.

Thus not only are the Mainline Steam site buildings to be retained, but the old wooden heritage station from Newmarket Station is to be restored there as well. This may be a good idea for a heritage park - but it makes little sense to be developed into a modern station on a line that is destined to carry tens of thousands of commuters/hour. The devil is in the detail. Final extracts from the Council report indicate the rushed nature of Mike's Parnell Project:

In order to meet rail and platform gradient requirements the rail track will need to be re-graded over approximately a kilometre of track and crossover points critical for access to The Strand will need to be relocated. Modification of the access tracks to the MLS Depot is also required. KiwiRail have undertaken preliminary track design and have determined that these modifications are feasible.... (and all before Christmas it seems)

This Kiwirail owned site clearly has potential for development as an integrated transit oriented development, and this could potentially provide opportunities for private sector funding. Parnell Inc have shared their views with the council that in their view that the MLS building could be used for alternative suitable uses, such as a museum and space for local exhibitions and small businesses, etc, and include rail heritage.... (all very preliminary and potential, could this, could that...)

Preliminary modelling has indicated that a Parnell Station would influence rail service frequencies and more analysis would be required to identify any necessary mitigation measures.... (Man oh man)

There are no financial and resourcing implications arising from this report. The cost of a future Parnell Station is estimated in this report and will need to be considered by the Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Kiwirail.... (And that's the big one. No budget has been previously agreed for this by ARC or ARTA)

So suck on that Auckland Council. And do your job properly. It's about time pet projects like this bottom-of-the-priority-list Parnell Station option get the full once over before being included in any Auckland Council budget approval. That means integrating public transport planning with land use planning.

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.

Thank you ARTA and Auckland City for India Vs Black Caps!

I was lucky enough to go to the cricket on Saturday with a mate. What a fantastic night. We started with the ferry trip across from Devonport. Then at Britomart we were informed by the smiling asian woman at the ticket office, that of we showed the ticket inspector our tickets, the train to Kingsland Station would be free. Coffee and pastries in hand, we assembled on the platform among a happy and highly prepared bunch of Indian cricket groupies. Faces painted with Indian flags. We were outnumbered.

Quick trip to Kingsland station, out the door, onto the street, highly organised, good humoured and efficient pedestrian management. And we were there. Indian flags and painted faces everywhere. The fans were everywhere.

We took our seats in the stadium which was filling up, and it was like being in a busy, noisy, colourful India street. What a buzz. Everytime a face went up on the big screen, or a blue uniformed cricketer did some training on the group - the roar went up. And then there was the big game, with 6's and 4's for Africa (India and New Zealand). Reminded me a bit of being at Cardiff Arms a long time ago - I was there when the AB's won 13-12. Such a passion for their sport. An unaggressive passion. The newspapers and TV are full of the results. The Black Caps won.

Back on the street - to go home.

The feel of Kingsland Station - with the Taiko takeout so near, and the neon beckoning other attractions up the street nearby, the co-location of heritage buildings, everything close. I had a glimmer of how many other parts of Auckland could be - if we keep working at it. Make that public realm by our rail stations really work for pedestrians, ensure there is a mix of activities. Good access and street amenity.

We got on the train with a group of youthful Auckland Indians. They seemed to be using the train for the first time. Didn't know it would stop at Britomart and we'd all tumble out. Which we did. They were delighted they hadn't had to pay. Felt a bit guilty. Muttered, "thank you" to the guard as they bounced up the platform ready to continue their night in the CBD.

Thank you ARTA. That free train service was great. Appreciated. A present for Auckland. Maybe you should let people know it was deliberate - not a case of not enough ticket collectors! And bits of Auckland are showing we can do really attractive urban design. Thank you Auckland City Council.

Auckland's Britomart Rail Tunnel Project - Ontrack Designation Process

One benefit of not being a chair this term of ARC is that I have had time between ARC meetings and workshops to take Masters in Planning Practice papers part-time at Auckland University. One paper I took in 2008 was Masters Infrastructure Planning. Its main assignment related to the strategic planning needed to support a Notice of Requirement (NOR) for the proposed Britomart Rail Tunnel project. The form of the assignment was a report to Ontrack.

Below I have pasted the Executive Summary of that assignment. If you are interested, I can send you the whole thing, plus appendicees. Remember - it is an assignment - but I wrote it as if it was objective and informed advice for Ontrack.

My key findings are set out in this Exec Summary.

Having done the research and analytical work needed for this assignment, I felt it would be useful to share my findings and recommendations with ARTA, and so provided a copy to a couple of ARTA Board Directors who tabled it at an ARTA Board meeting in October. At the time I wasn’t sure which organization (Ontrack or ARTA or both) would be carrying out the necessary NOR planning work.

I understand that at that meeting, the ARTA Board resolved to carry out a region wide network planning assessment. I also learned that Ontrack was to lead the NOR work, but in partnership with ARTA. I also provided a copy of the assignment to Ontrack staff who were working on Request for Tender (RFT) documentation in respect to the preparation of NOR documentation for the Britomart Rail Tunnel. You will recall that the previous Govt instructed Ontrack to protect that corridor – after the Downtown Westfield resource consent issue.

Just before Christmas Ontrack issued its RFT (request for tender) documentation. The due date for tenders is 5th Feb, $5 million has been set aside for the work, Ontrack is intending to lodge the completed NOR documentation with Auckland City Council within 12 months.....


Executive Summary - Joel Cayford's Ontrack report

Ontrack has been instructed by Government to protect and designate a preferred route for the Britomart Rail Tunnel in order to provide future passenger transport services. This report is a high level strategic analysis of work needed to support the related Notice of Requirement.
Electrification and expansion of Auckland’s suburban commuter rail network is now strongly supported at national, regional and local levels, both politically and in the transport and land use strategies set out in key planning documents.

Today, Britomart is the only railway station in the Auckland CBD. Its configuration constrains the Auckland rail network’s passenger carrying capacity. The Britomart Rail Tunnel project could release this constraint, and add one, two or three more stations, depending on which historical plan is considered. These plans were all prepared before the Auckland region decided to accept a Northern Rail connection to the North Shore through a harbour tunnel, as its preferred alignment and mode for the second harbour crossing.

The strategic planning issues this project poses are many and varied:

• A key objective for Ontrack is to increase rail freight, which in Auckland shares the network with commuter rail services. The implications of this conflict needs to be understood, and options for managing it considered to avoid rail freight services inhibiting the development of high capacity and high frequency passenger transport rail services.
• While the Britomart Rail Tunnel project has been around in some shape or form for almost 85 years, limited strategic planning for Auckland CBD Rail has been carried out recently that takes account of the provisions contained in Plan Change 6 to Auckland’s Regional Policy Statement, let alone a possible rail connection to the North Shore. ARTA (Auckland Regional Transport Authority), which now has the responsibility for planning Auckland’s passenger transport service network, has not conducted the necessary comprehensive strategic planning to support a NOR for the Britomart Rail Tunnel project.
• Auckland City Council will need to be involved in the planning for the size, location and functionality of railway stations within the CBD area, as well as bus/rail interchanges that might be required on the CBD periphery. ARTA, ARC and ACC will need to coordinate and sequence land use changes, the staging of transport infrastructure construction, and the roll out of new rail services – in order to optimise integration outcomes. There is a need to properly coordinate these planning processes in accordance with RLTS provisions, which suggest a duty to establish an appropriate "CBD Rail Steering Group" including ACC, ARC, ARTA and Ontrack.

This report explores these key issues, and asks several strategic questions, all of which need to be addressed thoroughly in an Integrated Transport Assessment process in accordance with RPS provisions, culminating in the development of a publicly agreed long term Auckland CBD rail network plan, before Ontrack can legitimately proceed to issue a Notice of Requirement for the Britomart Rail Tunnel project.

Ends

I can provide copies of the RFT, if you are interested. The NZ Herald ran a story about this which you can read at:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10551410