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.

Submission 4: Draft Auckland Plan

Parnell Railway Station The City Rail Link Plan map (Pg 166) shows a railway station at Parnell. As readers of this submission will be aware I am concerned that the particular location for this station that is being advocated for within Auckland Council is the location known as “Cheshire Street”. This option ranked bottom of a set of options that were canvassed by Auckland City Council, Auckland Regional Council, and Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) prior to the current re-organisation of Auckland local government. The main reason for the low ranking of the Cheshire Street option is that the location does not lend itself to the sort of redevelopment and intensification that has occurred around Newmarket and New Lynn Stations. In fact the Cheshire Street location fails a number of the tests for transport funding prioritisation that are set out in Box11.1 Principles (Pg 163) of the DAP. These include that: “transport investment aligns with growth as envisaged in this plan…”, “ ensure that proposed investment is used optimally…” and “take advantage of all opportunities for transport to assist in place shaping…” There may be some advocates who misread the last of these principles. They may interpret that principle as meaning that because Cheshire Street is an opportunity, then it must be taken advantage of. The problem with this logic is that if the Parnell Station is built at Cheshire, then it will mean that no other station will be built in the vicinity, thereby negating the significant opportunities that are known to exist at Carlaw park and at the Parnell Overbridge options.

Submission 4: Properly consider all options for a railway station at Parnell, taking into account the transport development principles of the Draft Auckland Plan, and taking account of previous work by Auckland City Council, Auckland Regional Council and Auckland Regional Transport Authority, before committing to any construction work on a Parnell Railway station.

Sabotaging Parnell Station

Rumour has it that I am being charged with sabotage of the proposed Parnell Railway Station. Cllr George Wood is facing similar accusations. Apparently because he has written to the Auditor General expressing concerns about the way the Parnell Railway Station project is being gerry-mandered through Auckland Councillors and through Auckland Council processes.

A couple of weeks ago I did write to NZ Herald:

"So. Auckland Council and KiwiRail are full steam ahead with a railway station at Parnell which is in conflict with Auckland Spatial Plan criteria for prioritising infrastructure projects, and before consulting the public.

Not only that but Auckland Council and Kiwi Rail plan to shut down a crucial section of Auckland's rail network to railroad this project through before Christmas. It is hard to understand why Auckland Council would allow this abuse of process. The chosen site was ranked at the bottom of three Parnell Station options assessed by Auckland Regional Council last year.

This manipulation and speed has all the hallmarks of the political interference that foisted the costly Helensville rail service failure on Auckland three years ago. Don't let it happen, Auckland Council unless due process has been followed."

Sabotage? far from it. The truth of the matter is that I DO support a railway station at Parnell, but NOT the option that is being pushed through by certain Auckland Councillors.

I have provided the background to this project in previous blogs, and quoted from Auckland Regional Council reports which quite clearly DID NOT support the option that is now being pushed inside Auckland Council (ie the Cheshire Street option). In particular the ARC report stated:

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.

And this is the critical point. There is no evidence that intensification to justify a station can occur at this location. Those who advocate for the Cheshire option do it for the wrong reasons. They want to support the heritage buildings there - by building the Parnell Railway Station in the wrong place. I support heritage buildings. But they should not by themselves force Auckland Rail development nor the location of stations.

When you build railway station infrastructure you catalyse the transformation and development of a piece of city. Such as at Newmarket and New Lynn and Britomart. The Cheshire Street option can never be that. And its construction will undermine and sabotage the best option for Parnell and Auckland.

I would like to remind Auckland Councillors of its own Draft Auckland Plan. It states at s.197: "Critical infrastructure underpins Auckland's development...". And at s.198: "Investment must connect with the sequencing of development in the identified priority areas...". One of those priority areas is the City Centre - which doesn't include Parnell. So how does any Parnell Station jump that hurdle? And s.191 underlines that infrastructure investment policies: "...include optimising investment and ensuring that it delivers the greatest return...".

But the big policy commitment about railway stations is set out at s.172: "Intensification is encouraged around these stations as it will maximise infrastructure investments."

So. Councillors. Why push on with a Parnell Railway station option that will undermine this policy (because its location is not conducive to the scale of intensification and supportive land uses offered by other options)? Why push on with an option that will sabotage the possibility of a more appropriately located Parnell Station?

I support a railway station at Parnell. One that is consistent with Auckland Council's own Spatial Plan. That is why I hope to successfully sabotage the option currently lined up for Auckland Council endorsement. Before its hasty implementation sabotages the future development of Auckland Rail and land use in Parnell.

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.

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?

Parnell Station = Ad Hoc Planning

I understand pressure is being exerted on Auckland Transport to build a railway station at Parnell in the near future. I am not sure of the proposed location along that 1 km long section of straight railway (shown in the aerial here) which runs up a steady incline. However I am advised that building a station will require substantial civil works along the whole line to provide a flat section of line for the station itself. And while there is a small walkup catchment for a station at Parnell, I consider that this station is not a priority for Auckland now, and building it now may preclude options which will become evident when longer term planning for Auckland's commuter rail networks is undertaken and agreed.

For example, this schematic shows the pedestrian walkup zones around several key CBD destinations - including the learning quarter (Auckland University and AUT), and the Hospital. Present plans for the CBD Rail Loop project (from Britomart, Aotea Square, K Road, Newton, Mt Eden), cannot serve all key Auckland destinations. Choices have been made. However other decisions will also need to be made.

For example, the CBD Rail Loop is likely to be the first stage of the development of Auckland's CBD rail network. The proposed North Shore Rail line needs to be brought into the CBD and properly interconnected with the rest of the network. There has been a lot of talk about these rail projects, but detailed thinking and network planning has not been evident. This is not the time to be rushing ahead with a railway station project at Parnell. Auckland has much bigger fish to fry, and critical transport and land use planning processes must be allowed to unfold - in coordination with the Spatial Plan. This schematic which I produced a couple of years ago shows one scenario for longer term CBD Rail network planning. The line from North Shore would connect at the Aotea Station which would be an interchange between two lines. We need to move beyond producing spur lines, and instead produce loops and end-to-end lines (that's why the Northern Busway needs to run through the Auckland CBD and serve Southern destinations). The more passenger transport vehicles that DON'T terminate in the CBD, the better. These are rough ideas only, but they are rough ideas which aim to join up the thinking between the various projects that are being discussed. Auckland needs more of this type of Rapid Transit network planning. It needs to be focussed on delivery and staged implementation. It must not be de-railed by ad hoc decisions.