As part of the discussion on Alternative Transport Funding, which was launched yesterday, the Council also released a copy of Auckland Transport’s entire 30 year transport programme which includes the cost of projects and seemingly ranked according to some combination of criteria. The programme unfortunately does not include state highway projects, which makes it difficult to fully assess the merits of the overall transport packages outlined in yesterday’s announcements. However, it’s certainly clear what Auckland Transport projects can and cannot be afforded over the next 30 years under the two scenarios.
The document doesn’t explain the list in any detail, but it seems as though there are a number of projects on the first page which have some form of existing commitment or are ongoing requirements and therefore are not really considered “discretionary”. These are shown below:
The ‘committed’ projects include those that appear to have contracts in place (electric trains, Albany Highway, a few things around Westgate), renewing existing assets and the City Rail Link. I actually wonder if it would be helpful for CRL to be ranked against all the other projects – rather than be included in this “other” list – as almost certainly it would rank either right at the top or very near it.
Anyway, moving on to the top of the list the projects listed below are those that are in both the Basic Network and the Auckland Plan Network – as well as some fairly broad brush allocation of funding to support sprawl in some of the areas identified by the Unitary Plan:
It’s a pretty short list for the 30 year transport programme, as well as being strangely focused on the first decade. The other key thing to notice here is the yellow boxes, which appear to be wrapped up programmes of projects (e.g. walking and cycling) where the amount of funding allocated to the programme varies quite significantly, depending on whether it’s the Auckland Plan Transport Network or the Basic Transport Network.
Even taking a fairly harsh look at the list above, there doesn’t seem to be too many projects that don’t make sense doing at all over the next 30 years. For me the three most glaring ones that need to be questioned are:
- The Reeves Rd flyover at $141 million
- The widening of the almost $200 million and soon to be opened Te Horeta Rd for another $74 million
- Mill Road at $472 million which is something that we’ve highlighted could be looked at for a cheaper option, especially seeing as the government are now widening the southern motorway.
The rest of the projects are those which form part of the Auckland Plan Transport Network only. Essentially, these are the additional projects from Auckland Transport which the additional funding is being asked to pay for:
While there are a few really dumb projects on the list above (Mt Albert Park & Ride, what the heck?) there’s also a lot of pretty good stuff that is missing out under the Basic Transport Network. Furthermore, while there is some, it seems at first glance that there isn’t a huge amount of really expensive dumb stuff in the programme list of Auckland Transport’s projects. That contrasts with the package of state highway projects highlighted yesterday which doesn’t appear to have been questioned at all.
Over the next few days I’ll be starting to look into the detail at the overall balance of the packages, as well as assessing the extent to which they are similar to what we proposed in the Congestion Free Network.
Processing...
Be great to understand the ranking process better. Hard to see how some small improvements in Huapai North would rank higher than the Northwest Busway.
The basic programme actually CUTS walking and cycling from ~10.5 million now (per year) to 5.5 million (per year). That’s almost HALVING the pitiful current funding.
Thanks Len – your “driveable city” slogan is really taking off!
Slicing $50m off Mill Road would at least get us back to where we are now with walking & cycling.
Matt,
I note that the “The widening of the almost $200 million and soon to be opened Te Horeta Rd for another $74 million” is in fact more like $112m, as it includes widening the yet to be built Te Horata north through to Merton Road AMETI link road extension (Listed as “Morrin to Merton Link” which itself is $38m).
Seems to me that the $112m in that second column of figures is a second tranche of spending on the (just about to be opened) Te Horata road as its in the total on the right hand side. So thats $112m we can “bank”.
And yes Reeves Road Flyover is expensive, but the planners say its needed to enable the AMETI Bus lane priority and Pakuranga Bus station south of Panmure bridge.
Still must be better ways to get a solution than a sodding flyover. So lets say we can get something for half that money thats $70m
I think I’d vote that we put that money we’re not spending on these projects into part funding the EMUs planned for the next 2 decades.
That would cover nearly half that extra $400m or so that needs.
Yes you’re right re the AMETI link rd widening
Airport rail link once again low on the list…. There’s no affordable, efficient way out there currently (cough up $16 for the Airbus Express one way or take 90min with multiple transfers, vs as low as 20min by car). It would make it cheaper and easier to get to and from the country’s main access point, can handle more people than the buses, encounters fewer traffic issues, would ease airport congestion, and add an alternative route (remember how the entire region blocks both ways if a single car breaks down?). Even better, if it is designed to handle freight too, that gets many large trucks (which run from the port to the airport) off the suburban roads which further decreases congestion, improves safety (some of those trucks do speed, even near schools) and I have noted some very questionably loaded loads) and it reduces road maintenance as they would not have the same loads. You can also put more containers on a single train, which is more efficient than a constant stream of trucks.
But instead, more roads, which all those new imported cars at the wharf are waiting to fill….
Yeah, kinda hard to believe we won’t be taking rail to the airport for maybe 30 years. 30 years!! (I won’t be around to see it.)
Direct result of the State Highway funding being off the table. This has to change; all options need to considered equally.
An airport rail link would be a white elephant and a massive cost for future generations. Auckland Airport does not have the passenger volume to even contemplate a direct airport link, especially a dead end link that will be of benefit to few other people.
The airport link through Sydney Airport costs $17AUD for a one way trip. How much will they have to charge on our one to make it work?
If a city like Toronto with a population of 5 million can successfully run without an airport train link then so can Auckland.
If we are to make a link to the main train system it should be via a cheap airtrain/monorail system that brings the people to the trains rather than bringing the trains to the people.
A white elephant? Would that be the same white elephant that is the Northern Busway? (copyright John Roughan). That prediction turned out well.
It costs $16.40 one way Sydney city to aiport which is not too dissimialr to the $16 one way on the Auckland airbus. If someone is prepared to pay $16 at present, then……..
Of course the Sydney train goes underground and the train to our lovely airport will go overland – huge cost difference. Then again, if you had been reading this blog you would understand that the airport traffic will be only a percentage of the total usage of the line. Local people in that part of Auckland will be the main users.
Then there are the rip-off car parking fees; I reckon a lot of people would jump at the chance to pay a fraction of the cost to ride on a nice train to the airport.
Cheap monorail?? Hahahahahahahaha.
Hey guess what Matthew? Toronto are building a train link to the airport! So as you have already agreed that what is good for Toronto is good for Auckland, you will now be in favour of the train to Auckland airport. I thank you.
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsandprograms/upexpress/upexpress.aspx
Matthew your issue is in thinking rail to the airport is about serving the airport. Previous studies have shown more patronage would be generated from the other stations on the route (Mangere Bridge, Mangere etc.) than the airport itself. In saying that the airport currently has about 14m passengers per year and is expected to keep growing strongly to about 40m in 30 years. That’s a lot of potential passengers
Sydney costs $16 to access the platform as the railway already goes past the airport.The actual “train fare” from Central to the Airport itself is all of $3.
The Airport rail “station” (a lift and some stairs) is a PPP and of course the private funders and airport authorities want to maximise their profits hence the $16 each way ticket.
Using Sydney Airport links (road or rail) as an example of anything to do with Airport rail here is a bad idea as there is no comparison.
I lived in Toronto. The trip to Toronto airport was appalling by public transport; I soon gave up (as did everyone else). You pretty much had to take a taxi. The only good thing was that taxis were very cheap (i.e., quite a bit cheaper than here). A rail link to Toronto airport would be wonderful.
More importantly, think about how many people in SE Auckland work and play at the airport or britomart and places in between. Air passenger numbers – which wouldnt be insignificant – are just the icing on the cake.
Having no decent PT to the Airport isn’t really an option for the next 30 years. How about a frequent bus service via the motorway and soon to be completed Waterview with limited local stops (e.g. Mangere / Mangere Bridge / Hillsborough / Mt Roskill) with standard pricing (not $16)? This would be a fairly good service for Airport users and it would also get a lot of non-airport use (it should be much quicker than current PT options from those local stops).
AT’s current solution of a bus to Onehunga where you have to wait 1/2 an hour for a train is pretty sad.
Train to Papatoetoe then bus to airport has better freq and route than via Onehunga.
Remember every eastern and southern line train goes to Papatoetoe, so will be getting a train around every 5 mins soon, how’s that for turn up and go? Is bus every 10 on new network? I think so. So not bad, though the transfer ain’t great with heaps of luggage of course.
The big issue now for AC and AT is to seriously start to insist that ALL transport spending is reviewed including State Highways. NZTA should not be immune from the value for money discussion. Especially as it is increasingly clear that the value at the margins of adding to the one mature network looks a great deal lower than improving the underdeveloped ones.
AC and AT need to get braver and start talking truth to power. AC in public, AT perhaps more quietly within their strong partnership with big brother. They may find there is more sympathy with questions to the value of the next round of massive projects like AWHC than they suspect.
AKL needs its share from the NLTF, but we also need the right to influence properly what it is spent on for the good of the whole country.
+1. The underlying issue is that central Govt is spending money on the wrong projects, leaving no money for the projects that do make economic sense. Len Brown says that actually Auckland and Wellington are closely aligned on what transport projects to pursue, but that is only because the Auckland Council just goes along with plainly uneconomic projects, such as the Puhoi to North Warkworth toll road and an additional vehicular harbour crossing.
Why are Len and co buying into AMETI AWHC and the holiday highway?
It hasn’t helped with the CRL funding, which I assumed was the reason for doing so.
More to the point- if those 3 unnecessary projects were ditched- would we even need to talk about tolling, fuel taxes etc?
AMETI is primarily a local project and includes the South Eastern Busway as a large part
But Matt it still confirms to that idea that road amenity must be increased before transit and active can be added, and is therefore way way too expensive and slow to do.
I may be misreading it, but there appears to be no money allocated for electrification to Pukekohe anywhere under either the BTN or the APTN, just a mention of diesel refurbishment being an alternative to it.
Electrification to Puke was one of those listed in the big list yesterday which needed Government support to proceed.
Of course the electrification of the line is separate from running EMUs services on it
Good to see Westfield, Te Mahia and Takanini stations are finally to get their upgrades. The station upgrade project will finally be complete after a decade.
Why are Westfield and Te Mahia going be upgraded? I thought these stations were going to be shut down.
Westfield is ranked right at the bottom. That suggests it’s unlikely to happen.
The big issue now for AC and AT is to seriously start to insist that ALL transport spending is reviewed including State Highways. NZTA should not be immune from the value for money discussion. Especially as it is increasingly clear that the value at the margins of adding to the one mature network looks a great deal lower than improving the underdeveloped ones.
AC and AT need to get braver and start talking truth to power. AC in public, AT perhaps more quietly within their strong partnership with big brother. They may find there is more sympathy with questions to the value of the next round of massive projects like AWHC than they suspect.
AKL needs its share from the NLTF, but we also need the right to influence properly what it is spent on, not just submit to what the central highway planners want to force on us next.
The Reeves Rd flyover is still needed. Otherwise eventually all traffic will be stuck at that bottleneck near pakaranga plaza intersection. Which limits the benefit of the AMETI pakranga – botany.
That problem can be fixed for way less than $144m though.
And thats the point here -, we don’t need all these gold plated last century solutions for these problems.
We want smarter “21st century” solutions that don’t just assume “moar roads” ‘cos we’ll have “moar traffic”.
A bit of decent dedicated bus priority down Pakuranga highway to Panmure station using a dedicated lane in each peak direction could solve the Pakuranga/Botany PT traffic problems for a lot lot less than the Reeves Road flyover. And would encourage all those car drivers out of their cars when they see bus after bus whizzing past as they sit in traffic for an hour each AM and PM peak.
The fly-over is a good example of what Toderian explained as the “try to have your cake and eat it too” attempt at transport planning – the idea that as a condition of improving PT, car convenience needs to be retained at the same level or even ALSO be improved.
Of course that blows any budget out of the water. Same with bikeways as with busways – trying to cram as many cars into the same space as before while somehow improving PT or cycling doesn’t work, or costs exorbitantly while creating new problems like the flyover.
Not needed. Just need to suck it up and prioritise transit over private motor vehicles. Much cheaper than trying to do it all.
Considering the change from the ITP, we’ve come a long way, but still have further to go.
I agree that we should be under-investing in private motor vehicle centric efforts and using the funding for projects that enhance and balance our transport system.
The question I’d ask is: If the readers of this blog are the early adopters on rethinking the transport and related urban issues, when will the tipping point be and how will we know that we’ve reached it; when the majority consider investing in projects that don’t favour private motor vehicles is the best course of action and use of public funds.
Good question. Several years ago I would have said the day that the AA is backing funding for Transit would mean that we’re well past the early adopters: And now they are so are we there yet? It’s hard to know in the middle of a big change to spot exactly when the tipping point occurs… perhaps the better metaphor is the rolling stone increasing momentum; and that it is undeniably doing.
Of course then the floodgates will be open when a National party minister lends proper support to PT or gives Aucklanders the choice on how we prioritise our investment. Or even the choice to pay extra for a taste of change. Is that why they resist?
I think the tipping point will come with the completion and use of the CRL.
As long as that is non negotiable and is completed sometime in the next 5-10 years there will be no going back / ignoring that infrastructure.
I think its effects will actually be felt countrywide and it will force Wellington to look at its Thorndon termination and bring rail to Christchurch.
What I don’t understand and hopefully someone can help me.
If the state-highways which are paid for by the central Government, why is there a big expense on Auckland Council for them?
i.e where is the 8 billion spending coming from? Is this central government 8 billion or AC 8 Billion? .
Line item 47 ($ 403 m for additional EMUs and stabling) strikes me as something that is unrealistic to defer, indeed will have to be brought forward.
I’m not sure how many more EMUs $ 403 m buys but the new trains are already packed.. dozens standing from GI heading into Britomart on the Manukau trains. There’s no way 57x 3-car trains will be enough.. even 6-car trains would be full pretty quickly. Even off peak, they can be half full.
This is the problem we want, right? Needing more trains will be great for the city as it means the investment is working and more and more people are using the rails and not the roads.
2 million new trips over the last year, pretty sure that will continue for the next couple of years as improvements arrive; as more services are added from Dec [we’re told] on the southern line. Then at last some relief for the poor old western next year with re-deployed diesels before eventually the new EMUs.
More capacity and particularly more frequency will mean more riders. If this growth continues at 18-20% then we will need more, and will find the funding. At least the fare income will also be improving.
See my post above (4th one from top, link here: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2014/10/30/auckland-transports-30-year-project-list/#comment-136827)
I said exactly that, and I propose that we can fund half of it tomorrow by not widening the new road under Panmure station anytime soon.
Nor building Reeves Road flyover as planned. Those two measures would give AT $200m this decade to fund half those new trains.
And from we’re seeing now, we’re gonna need ’em real soon now…
As Patrick says, its a nice problem to have and one thats easily fixed – we can easily buy more EMUs from CAF tomorrow and have them delivered well within 3 years tops.
Well before CRL in fact.
And unless CRL gets the go ahead we may well need more EMUs to enable the kinds of running patterns we need to put in place to manage less through trains to BM.
e.g. All trains from the south terminate there, and we run a shuttle service between it and Britomart every 6 minutes.
Stupid I know, but thats being penny wise and pound foolish as they say.
Completely agree with you Greg and Patrick. Nice problem to have, obvious solution.. keep the CAF production line rolling.. funded by culling some of the more egregious not to say harmful road projects. Pending CRL, capacity can be increased with longer trains (Onehunga excepted). Is this just too straightforward or am I missing something?
Anyone read Rudman’s piece in the Herald today? Pretty strong opinions on how the mayor needs to stand up to the roading lobby.
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11350807
And the Government
I thought they were the roading lobby and the Government were the same thing? 😉