Mind the Gaps in Auckland Transport Planning

It is tempting to attribute blame for the very public disagreement that has erupted between Central Government and Auckland Council about what the economic benefits of the proposed CBD rail loop project might be. However I think it more productive to examine Auckland’s crisis in transport and land use planning, and to consider how it might be fixed.

The most effective transport planning in Auckland has been for its motorway network which is still being built fifty years after being committed to paper. Auckland’s State Highway routes were protected by designations decades ago and ever since Transit New Zealand and its predecessors have employed buildings full of planners and consultants to transform these paper designations into motorways on the ground.

This dedication to planning and infrastructure delivery has never been applied to public transport systems in Auckland – with the possible exception of its much loved and lamented tram system. While there have been legislative initiatives and legacy projects aiming to improve Auckland’s public transport systems and their integration with land uses, these have been only partly successful.

Take the Northern Busway for example. The drive for this project came from Transit - Central Government’s State Highway provider – not from North Shore City Council. At the time Transit wanted consent to extend State Highway One north to Orewa. The Busway was proposed as a mitigation measure to compensate for the increase in congestion anticipated through North Shore City, over the bridge and into the city.

The Northern Busway is constructed within Transit’s State Highway corridor, entirely separate from North Shore City’s local road network. So it is no surprise that during the early years of planning North Shore City was a distant partner, only becoming committed when regional funder Infrastructure Auckland stepped up with $40 million toward the cost of stations which were to be North Shore City Council’s contribution.

North Shore City got a fantastic high capacity busway corridor plus stations at minimal cost to ratepayers. But - despite informal arrangements requiring North Shore City Council to work with Transit, Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council to deliver an integrated public transport system - NSCC failed to deliver its share of matching transport infrastructure at local level.

The pressure to build more park and ride facilities at busway stations is because local feeder bus services remain an unattractive option for commuters, while the absence of significant land development around busway stations is because their locations were designed to support the busway, rather than to stimulate investment. These are missed opportunities because of poor integrated planning.

My experience on this project led me – and others - to call for a regionally integrated approach to passenger transport planning and service delivery. In 2004 we got ARTA – Auckland Region Transport Authority – whose responsibilities were pretty much limited to bus and ferry services. ARTA’s involvement in rail and land use planning was only possible with the agreement of Ontrack and local councils respectively.

This poor institutional design did not prevent Waitakere City making a good fist of the New Lynn railway station which transformed New Lynn’s town centre into Auckland’s first public transport oriented development. The project was driven by a special purpose Development Agency set up by Waitakere Council after a research visit exploring success factors underlying similar rail and urban redevelopment projects in Perth.

Planners and managers there delivered a number of key messages: each project needs its own development agency with appropriate planning powers; land value uplift contributes to infrastructure funding; a high degree of community and private land owner engagement is essential; detailed and iterative planning takes time to get right and must be strongly led; it is critical to get rail freight off surburban railway networks to deliver three minute headway between trains.

We were advised that 40% of commuters using Perth’s rail services get to railway stations by bus, while 25% use park and ride facilities, and the rest either walked, biked or were dropped off. Perth’s CBD transformation involved redirecting CBD bus services to rail feeder stations – to maximise CBD commuter rail demand and to minimise the number of buses cluttering the CBD street network. A fleet of small buses are used to access destinations within the CBD.

Here in Auckland the institutions responsible for coming up with the preferred route for the CBD rail tunnel were ARTA and KiwiRail, and while Auckland City Council was consulted during this process, it did not drive it. It would be unfair to suggest that Auckland City Council went along for the ride – a bit like North Shore City Council did with the Northern Busway project – however it is my firm view that the planning for this very important project has really only just got started, if Perth’s experience and success is anything to go by..

For example, the rump of Auckland City Council now absorbed into the amalgamated Auckland Council, is preparing the Auckland CBD Master Plan. This is considering the look, feel and function of the CBD at a broad scale. (We need to think: “City Activity District” not: “Central Business District”. City planning is about much more than “Business”). Part of this City Master Plan work responds to the preferred tunnel route and will consider the economic development opportunities and potentials around proposed stations.

Like the proposed Spatial Plan, the Centre Plan is at an early stage, and both need to be integrated with the planning of the whole rail tunnel project. This task has not been made easy with transport being run out of a separate organisation whose funding is constrained by a Council struggling to cover the huge costs of becoming a Super City.

So far, I don’t think Auckland Council, or its predecessors, have done nearly enough at either the large-scale planning level or the building by building land use planning level, to have any right to demand that ratepayers or government funders should trust them to go ahead with the CBD Rail Tunnel project as it stands. A step change in rail requires a step change in integrated transport planning. Government funding support for this nationally significant planning effort is essential.

For good reason a Waterfront Development Agency was established with powers to get on with the development and planning of Auckland’s waterfront.

The CBD Rail Tunnel project is at least as important to Auckland as its waterfront, and needs integrated planning which considers land use and transport and economic development together, and an institutional framework to ensure coordinated implementation.

CBD Rail Designation: Government and Auckland Agree

It is hard to see the wood for the leaves and the pages of consultancy documents and media releases that flutter like confetti around Auckland's Rail Tunnel project.

But there is agreement between Ministry of Transport consultants and Auckland Council consultants over one crucial part of that project. Both consultancies agree that the notice of requirement for the designation that will protect the route should be lodged.

Specifically, the Ministry of Transport Auckland City Centre Rail Link Business Case Review states up front:

There is a strategic case for lodging a NoR and it would make sense for Auckland Council to proceed with this.

while the Auckland Council's CITY RAIL LINK Summary Report (prepared with the involvement of Price Waterhouse Cooper, Parsons Brinkerhoff, John Bolland Consulting, Market Economics, Beca, GHD, and Ascari) states:

Auckland Transport and Auckland Council and their advisors are strongly of the view that the overall evaluation results are sufficiently robust to justify the immediate commencement of the designation process, particularly as the CRL is economically justifiable in terms of its transport related benefits alone. This process needs to commence as soon as possible to minimise the potential for any development to increase costs, delay the project, or even prevent its implementation.

I read that as we agree that the designation process should be undertaken now.

No-one is saying that construction should start now.

The Auckland Council report also states:

Auckland Transport and Auckland Council acknowledge that, in line with all major project development programmes, more work needs to be done to further develop the case for funding of the City Rail Link.

That seems entirely sensible, and is also pretty much in alignment with what is stated in the conclusion of the MoT study. This states:

[46] The Review concludes that there is a range of actions that could be undertaken or facilitated by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport which will improve confidence in considering outcomes expected from the CCRL (Central City Rail Loop).

Finalisation and implementation of the Auckland spatial plan and City Centre Masterplan to establish achievable growth projections for the CBD and to quantify where the growth projected for the CBD will occur.

Demonstrating commitment to resolving current and emerging CBD access issues, for example by improving bus operations and addressing capacity issues.

Development of a robust and achievable multi-modal programme for transport in the CBD, which considers a thorough analysis of alternatives and identifies the optimal mix of modes to meet demand.

Beginning implementation of large scale residential developments along the rail corridors.

Implementation of additional park and ride sites, and changes to bus feeder services where appropriate in terms of overall public transport demand.

[47] The implementation of these measures, combined with rail patronage above forecasts and a robust economic case, would provide a strong signal that the conditions are in place to drive the necessary benefits from the project and therefore to reconsider the case for investment.

These points from MoT's consultants are appropriate. Moving Britomart Rail Tunnel project to the next stage after designation - ie getting government funding - will require attention to these areas.

In particular, Auckland Council needs to demonstrate it has the focus and mettle to plan and implement associated land use changes that will deliver the economic developments that justify this investment.

Auckland CBD Rail Link Study

At ARC's Transport and Urban Development Ctte meeting today (10th February 2010) we had a presentation about the Phase 1 Summary Report, as conducted by KiwiRail, APB&B and ARTA (in association with Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council).

The final objective of the work is to enable the preparation of material needed to lodge a Notice of Requirement by the end of 2010. Since December the satudy group has identified and evaluated potential routes for the link and potential station locations and has identified a shortlist of options for more detailed evaluation.

I have pasted a couple of pictures of a map from the report in here to give you an idea of the main short-listed routes and stations:



What particularly interested me was the recommendation there should be 3 stations (not 2) between Britomart and Mt Eden. Also the assessment of land use support the project can bring. Officers informed the ctte that a lot more work was needed. This would include detailed assessment of land use benefits, and also assessment of rationalisation of bus services (where commuters can switch from bus to rail to make the final trip into the CBD for example - like in Perth).

I have not really done justice to the report here. Just a tip off.

You can download the report yourself at:
http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Council/Agendas%20and%20minutes/Transport%20and%20Urban%20Development%20Committee/Web%20version%20-%2010%20Feb%2010%20-%20Agenda%20(part%202).pdf

Auckland CBD Rail Loop and Tunnel Planning

There was an NZ Herald report this week of a political debate that occurred at ARC over the location of railway stations along the proposed Britomart rail tunnel line. You can read that report at: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10604205

I am aware that some rail transport enthusiasts and supporters are questionning the appropriateness of the views that I am advancing in this discussion. Some are saying: "Cayford should keep quiet, the Britomart Tunnel is all that will be funded. If he asks for too much nothing will even happen...." sort of thing.

Fair enough. That's a point of view.

My comeback on that goes like this:

1) Auckland's state highway network - love it or hate it - was planned more or less completely in the 1960's and 1970's. Yet it is only today that the last sections of it are being built. That network was planned to accommodate development and expansion of Auckland, both in terms of land use, population and economic development over a long period of time. As money became available, the top priority sections of that network were built.

2) Auckland's current railway network is pretty much as it was designed almost a hundred years ago. A few new bits have been planned. The Manukau Spur is an example. The Airport Rail link is currently being planned. And a designation to protect the proposed Britomart Rail tunnel section - which was conceived in the 1920's - is to be planned in detail and protected in work that is happening now.

3) But it is piecemeal compared to the planning that is needed if Auckland is going to back itself over the next 30 - 50 years with an electrified rail system, and commit to it.

4) Perth decided to go down the rail route, and decided also to get major bus services out of its CBD. There are still inner CBD bus services, but the line haul bus services now don't go into the centre of Perth. Instead commuters transfer to high capacity electric rail services to get into the CBD. You can see how pleasant Auckland CBD would be without buses during the recent strike. But that can only happen if rail services are commensurate, and planned.

5) Auckland talks about 5 minutes services, but only delivers 12 minute services. Even with electrification the service frequency discussed is still inadequate. How can Auckland get to the 15,000/hour capacity enjoyed by line haul Perth rail services? Do the maths: Assume Auckland has 6 car trains, with each car carrying 100 people. That's 600/train. How many do you need/hour to move 15,000? It's one train every 2.4 minutes.....

6) I won't go on in this blog, but the guts of my argument is that Auckland CBD needs a network of rail services. Not just a single line around the edge. This network needs stations at major destinations including Aotea Square, University/AUT, Hospital/Domain. Otherwise we will just continue being a little - little city, with hundreds of diesel buses cluttering up the streets.

This network won't be built in a day, just as Auckland's state highway network wasn't. But it was planned for the long term. I believe that the strategic planning to support the Britomart Tunnel designation should include preliminary work on the CBD rail network. We may build the Britomart Tunnel and link first, but let's have a better idea about how it will connect with other parts of the rail network.

Good to see John Banks supporting CBD rail extensions...

The Hon Stephen Joyce should be feeling well and truly in a corner over Auckland rail now. Hopefully he will see sense and make some appropriate announcements very shortly. Can't imagine that the Government would like the SuperCity election campaign next year to turn into one where every candidate campaigns against central government transport priorities!

I know there's a lot of enthusiasm for the Britomart Loop - because it will get rid of the bottle-neck and all that - but there are some major planning issues around CBD rail that should be in the public domain.

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.

• The Auckland CBD has changed immeasurably since the Britomart Tunnel was first conceived almots 100 years ago. Other major destinations have emerged: Hospital, Domain, University. If the goal is to reduce the need to take a bus into the CBD - because there is good rail - then these other destinations need to be served by an underground CBD rail network, of which Britomart Tunnel is one corridor. ARTA are engaging with this planning. It needs to be public.

These questions 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.

Planning for the Auckland CBD Rail Network....

Stephen Joyce is right to say that the planning of Auckland's CBD rail network is not complete. But that's not an excuse to delay electrification...

These images are from a small power point presentation I have prepared to bring out some of the thinking that is needed when planning future rail service extensions in Auckland CBD...

This schematic shows the existing service connections and CBD rail network. Newmarket is a significant station where you can change lines. So is Britomart...

There has been talk of a Parnell Station. Actually, when you go along that line, and look North, and look at a map, you are aware of the proximity of the Domain, Hospital and University....

In any case there is a major challenge in preserving CBD rail services when Britomart undergoes engineering changes to make it a tunnel/through station....

This is a logical next step....

It does not require a station at Parnell (though one might be a good idea). Needs a set of points etc, so some trains go under Domain, through to Aotea. This line would likely need a viaduct across Grafton Gully - above motorway - below existing bridge...

And it could be connected to North Shore (in event rail link goes there), but would certainly be connected to Britomart Rail tunnel. Aotea Square would become major destination and line change....

Here it is...