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.

Queens Wharf Traffic Hazard

Queens Wharf is becoming a traffic hazard for pedestrians entering and leaving the ferry terminal. At rush hour and throughout the day passengers transfer between the ferry terminal and Britomart and the bus stops in Queen Elizabeth Square.

Many fellow commuters have remarked on the decline in pedestrian safety. It began with the Airport Bus stop being transferred from Quay Street to Queens Wharf. For a while this seemed great - especially if you wanted to get from Devonport to Auckland International Airport. This service is great. Step off the ferry and into the bus...

Of course everyone else has to cross Quay Street to catch that bus. Not too much of a hassle. But it strikes me as extreme laziness on the part of Auckland Transport to casually take up more public space to park its buses, and at the same time create a pedestrian hazard.

You might think: 'exaggeration'. But I write this having almost been run over by a bus that tried to make it across the lights, just at the same time as a ferry load of passengers were unloaded, many of whom were running to Britomart.

When this warship was in, pride of place was given to the huge BP fuel tanker plus ancillary cars. You could visit and look, but it wasn't a straightforward experience for family groups who ran the gauntlet to have a look.

So. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport. Don't say you have not been warned. This growing accident risk is directly of your making. You will be liable for any accidents that are caused in the conflict that is of your making between buses, taxis, ancillary traffic - and commuters who have no alternative.

If the plan is to pedestrianise Quay Street is genuine - in part - one or two lanes - doesn't matter - it does not make sense to introduce another traffic element that has to feed into and across Quay Street precisely where commuters are walking between modes at the busiest public transport interchange in Auckland.

Easy Transport Auckland - Launched

Here we are, it's Sunday afternoon, 12th September, in QE II Square across from Britomart. What's going on over there...?

And who's this woman holding a cut-out bike. Pippa Coom if I'm not mistaken. And isn't that Alex Swney in a cardboard box? And texting - that's Tenby Powell. Another Waitemata Ward councilllor candidate. And back left - wait - isn't that Rod Oram? Must be something important....

And look at that. All lined up and ready to go. Lanes laid out. Must be a race...

That man in a train - complete with white smoke out of its smoke stack. Isn't that Mike Lee? Chairman of ARC. Rob Thomas is the cyclist sharing the road with Pippa. And Jessie Chalmers is the red bus - CV candidate for Waitemata & Gulf local board.

He's sharing this race with the other candidate competing for the Auckland Council ward seat of Waitemata. Alex Swney. Sharing an interest in transport outcomes. Bloody good thing.

Paul Stephenson is another bike person - C&R local board candidate for Waitemata Ward. Seems he's got a cardboard bike too - hiding behind his billboard. Man. We'll have cycle lanes all over Auckland at this rate...

And here we have Greg Moyle. He's a C&R man with enthusiasms for buses - yellow ones. He spoke that he liked shorter ones for the CBD. Good idea Greg, That's what they have in Perth. Not these great clunkers. They can do the inter-town routes.

By the way, that's David Slack the renowned speech writer, holding the microphone. Part of the organising ctte. He's talking to Christopher Dempsey in the ferry. This is Easy Transport Auckland's initiative. A coalition of CAA (Cycle Advocates for Auckland) and CBT (Campaign for Better Transport) and Living Streets Aotearoa. You can see their website: Easy Transport Auckland

And Pippa had a few choice words too. As did one or two other candidates dotting the ranks.

And here's the redoubtable Barbara Cuthbert. Sustainable transport maestro and impressario. Fantastic. And just look at that Tee-Shirt. A collectors item before too much longer... And with her is the thrower of the dice. CBT's Cam Pitche's little daughter, Kate. It is a race...

And look - she's thrown it - the dice. It's above her head. Step out of the way. Looks like the ferry to the right is winning...

Bugger. Start again. And the Britomart Loop project inches into the lead. But they are all important for Auckland. These projects. And it's great to see candidates from across the spectrum lining up to support them...

And here's the finish line. Can you see? 280 kms of new cyclepaths for bikes. And there are equivalent targets for the other modes represented in this race. Check out the website for details. And for how candidates have completed the questionnaire.

Coopers & Co dull Waterfront with more Carpark Buildings

Wednesday’s Herald, 16th December, reports changes to a major Bluewater (Cooper and Company) development adjacent to Britomart. The Property Section (Pg B8) subheadline notes: “developer drops accommodation, cinema plan as recession kills demand….”

It goes on to note: “…Cooper will now build only a gym and carpark on the site…”

The 7464 sq metre site is located in front of the three Scene apartment blocks, and was once home to Oriental Markets. I understand the site is 140 metres long, and 40 metres deep. It is on the corner of Britomart Place and Quay Street. The longest frontage is along Quay Street – across the road from the waterfront. The location and the sheer number of carparks tweaked my interest and concern. How can it be so easy to get consent to build a five story high carparking building, 140 metres long, fronting Auckland’s downtown waterfront, and pretty much in your face from Queens Wharf?

Some Planning History

It appears the original consent for a building on this site – granted in early 2008 - included 1208 carparks (a lot), within the shell of a building containing apartments and other mixed uses – plus the cinema. Activated at the ground floor. I understand that about 3 levels of carparks were to be underground (basement), and 10 split levels above ground, to a total height of 17 metres. The above ground carparks would be behind the outer layer of apartments and other uses (these being 5 storys). From the street (Britomart Place and Quay Street) you would see apartments, shops, and other active uses.

Before that, in 2004, Bluewater applied for a carparking building on the site. This got totally knocked back by Auckland City Council.

In 2006 Bluewater sought, and got, consent for an at-grade carpark on the site. This included some landscaping and shade cloth mitigation for those viewing the carpark from the Scene buildings. It hasn’t been built yet. Currently, the site is used informally for a carpark. Cars on gravel.

Building plans for the site show between 1208 and 1263 carparks being provided. I understand Bluewater has an obligation to provide carparking for users of Britomart site. The total obligation – over time – is 500 car parks. Some of these will be needed for the Westpac building – presently nearing completion. I further understand that Auckland City Council has rights to some 400 of the carparks in the site – it has rights to charge for their use by visitors and suchlike. And that leaves around 300 bonus carparks which will be owned by Bluewater, which appears to consider each carpark to be worth around $50,000!


Recent Planning

As the Herald Newspaper article notes, Bluewater decided the market had changed, so decided to seek some changes to its consent. Apparently it successfully persuaded Auckland City Council that its s.127 application to change the conditions of consent for the proposed building, could be non-notified. It appears that evidence from Clinton Bird was instrumental. This was to the effect that the effects of a parking building on the site (with activation only at ground level), were much the same as the consented development.

I have obtained a copy of the commissioners decision in regard to the change sought in conditions, and of the planners report. Para 16 of the commissioners decision states: “….this is not to say that these commissioners favour a parking building on this prime waterfront site: we do not. Given our conclusion on this particular issue, we believe the ‘horse has bolted’ on that point….” Commissioners were: Mr G Hill (Chair), Miss L McGregor, Mr L Simmons, Ms R Skidmore. I believe independents were used because of Auckland City Council’s interest in the 400 car parks.

Broadly, it appears that commissioners granted consent to the changed conditions which means that no longer will there be 3 basement levels of carparking, and no longer will there be activated edges to the building in levels 2 to 5. Instead carparking will start at ground level, and go up to the top, and out to edge of the building shell from levels 2 to 5. A small amount of activation will occur at ground level – presumably to accommodate the proposed gym.

The application was at pains to mention that this was a temporary activity. That the proposed carparking all the way to the edge of the building was temporary. And that the intention is to deliver the spirit of the original consent. But not today.

Interestingly, information that accompanied the application mentioned “sacrificial floors”. These are floors that can be taken out later – to enable the subsequent construction of apartments or other uses which need higher ceiling levels than carparks. Doubt has been cast on the truthfulness of some of these assertions because of the apparent absence of plans for the provision of infrastructure that would be needed subsequently for apartments (like sewers and other services).

Conclusion

This all seems to be a bit of a con.

Auckland will get “…a parking building on this prime waterfront site…” despite the protestations and hand-wringing of the commissioners.

Auckland’s public realm will be the loser in this. When you look up at this building from the pavement outside on Quay Street, you will see the grills and lights etc of layers of carparks going up 5 stories high. And this along a 140 metre frontage.

Because the matter was not notified, the only legal challenge would be a judicial review of Auckland City Council’s decision not to notify.

In my view Auckland City Council should be shamed.

BTW: I have only recently caught up with the discussion running on skyscrapercity about this (and other stuff), you can see it at:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=461940&page=41

PS: Now we see Coopers and Co advocating a public promenade on Port land, inside the red fence. I am a little cynical about this move - even though I support opening up much more of the Port to public use. This proposal ignores the fact that Quay Street needs to be changed. Its use as a traffic artery (feeding carparks like Cooper's 300 bonus carparks) has to be cut back. One lane each way, prioritise buses, redirect car traffic away from the waterfront. Open up more and more to public pedestrian and cycling, and generally hanging out by the CBD waterfront.