After Queens Wharf, Less Haste Needed On CBD Loop Plan

Britomart tunnel | William M

The appalling unsatisfactory mess we are left with from the final Queens Wharf designs contest, is another reminder that it’s important we get the present major rail projects right the first time.

The pattern of Auckland short-changing major projects by just rushing into something has already left us with a harbour bridge that the original government said only needed to be a few lanes (but later needed clip-ons and now a second crossing)  and the Britomart tunnel, that, as  we often mention, had such short-sighted planning, we have only one line in and one out and now need a tunnel to cope with capacity.

You know how it works in this city.

People talk about such improvements for 100 years before anyone comes up with the money. When the OK for something is finally and often suddenly given, people seem to rush about quickly just to get something built in case the funders change their mind.

And the project flies through before we have a deep breath, consider the big picture, accept this may be a one-shot at getting it right, be very critical on design, and work out what’s best for Auckland for the next 100 years.

None of the final designs for the Queens Wharf building fit the bill and are just some quick fix because of the need to get something up for the RWC.

To hell with opening up the wharf after 100 years so the public has facilities that look great, represent New Zealand, are a tourist icon and suit the needs of the growing cruise industry.
So is the same going to happen with the plan for a CBD rail loop? We’ve been talking about that for decades too – but if John Banks suddenly gets some traction on moving it ahead with the government, have we really finished the debate about where it should go and how many stops it should have?

Are we just going to rush in and make something happen or should we – unlike the Britomart and harbour bridge – be convinced we have futureproofed it so that it can eventually plug into a service from the North Shore, if that becomes an option in decades to come? With Banksy’s unexpected blessing of a CBD tunnel and because of his sway in National circles, there seems a sudden haste to strike while it’s hot and try and force the Government’s signature on it.

But what exactly are we signing the government up for  – which is Joyce’s point that he’s not sure what the taxpayers’ billion plus dollars plus is buying?

Until now,  the ARC has suggested only two stations in the vicinities of Aotea Square and Karangahape Rd for the Kiwirail study being done to recommend a preferred route.

Auckland Regional Councillor Joel Cayford suggested a wider look but ARC chairman Mike Lee has been quoted as saying: “Let’s not get too complicated – this is about the CBD tunnel and we have to justify it to the Minister [of Transport, Steven Joyce] and as soon as possible.”

I too want it to happen tomorrow but as Auckland has been burnt before, I really worry about this haste so I asked Dr Cayford for his latest thinking so we can make sure we don’t have any regrets later.

Let’s get it all out on the table and, if we have to make any concessions and compromises, make sure they are for the best reasons, not just so that we make something happen when there is a small perceived window of opportunity.

As Mr Cayford says:  “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.”

So I asked him for his latest thoughts . We need to carefully debate them before pressing the Go button:

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.  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.

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.  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.  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…..  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.

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.

PHOTO CREDIT: William M on Flickr