GUEST BLOG: Mike Lee – Dumb and dumber – NZTA and AT decide to exclude trains to the airport

10
1

CRL-web1
When the mayor and the prime minister, launched the construction of the City Rail Link (CRL) before a euphoric crowd and performing dancers on that gorgeous morning in June, one would have assumed that this historic moment heralded a bright new era for rail in Auckland. But if so one would have assumed wrongly; for it soon became clear that the government, reluctantly log-rolled by Auckland public opinion into supporting the CRL, is determined that the CRL will be the last major project in Auckland’s 20-year rail renaissance.

Screen Shot 2016-08-29 at 9.03.21 am

   This became all-too-clear a couple of week’s later when the board of the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) in Wellington voted to support a raft of resolutions that specifically excluded route protection and ‘any further option development’ of a rail connection to Auckland International Airport.   A couple of weeks later the board of Auckland Transport (AT), marching in lock-step followed suit.

Deliberately excluding route protection for future rail to the airport is one of the most irresponsible planning decisions I have witnessed during my time in Auckland local government.

   Auckland International Airport is of critical economic importance to Auckland and New Zealand. With passenger movements currently 17 million per year and set to double in the next 10 years, the airport company (AIAL) realises that rail rapid transit will be vital to keep its traffic arteries open and has sought AT’s technical advice.

   In September 2011 a multi-agency study that came to be called SMART, including AT, Auckland Council, NZTA, KiwiRail and AIAL, with consultants GHD, after examining the widest selection of modes, light rail, busway, heavy rail, (electric trains) decided on heavy rail from Onehunga (10km from the airport) to the airport and on to Puhinui (6.8km) on the main trunk line as the ‘most economically efficient’ long-term rapid transit solution – providing a single-seat journey to downtown Auckland and ultimately to Hamilton.

  In 2012, rail to Auckland airport after much public consultation became a formal commitment in the Auckland Plan: route protect a dedicated rail connection in the first decade (2011-2020);construction in the second decade (2021-2030).

   However after the mode and then preferred routes were identified, AT and NZTA became strangely reticent about protecting them, despite the council providing a budget of $30m for this purpose.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

   The situation became somewhat more complicated in November 2014, when AT management suddenly announced a preference for light rail (trams) rather than the previously agreed trains.

   While refusing to be drawn into the argument (I am a committed tram supporter for where they work best – as an analogue for buses in the city and along the waterfront), as the council-appointed chair of the SMART stakeholders steering group, my concern has been to get the transport routes protected. However AT and NZTA have refused to deliver on route protection and persisted with the ‘light rail is better argument’ based on a dubious ‘business case’. For instance the latest costs of adding another track to the 3.5 km Onehunga Branch Line is claimed to be $578m. That compares with the $9m KiwiRail spent on building the first track in 2010.

   The same level of confidence can be placed in AT’s journey time ‘data’ that claims a tram coming from the airport and travelling along Dominion Road, would get to the CBD within a minute of an electric train. This despite the train being capable of travelling at 110km an hour – and despite the tram sharing the road for much of the way, having to stop at 20 tram stops, negotiating numerous intersections and keeping to the 50kph speed limit.

   Based on this sort of suspect methodology AT managers claim that connecting to existing rail lines would cost over $1billion more than connecting to a light rail line on Dominion Road (that doesn’t actually exist). Of course AT never thought to ask the public or undertook an airport passenger survey. AT’s ‘business case’ also studiously avoids international best practice – which is odd given we are dealing with the transport needs of an international airport.

   So last month I took myself off to Melbourne which is one major Australian city which does not have airport rail but interestingly has the most extensive light rail system in the world. At meetings with Victorian State government officials I was advised that Melbourne is planning on heavy rail for Melbourne Airport – not light rail. This on the grounds that trains provide a faster, more predictable journey time and carry a lot more people than street-running trams.

   Melbourne planners point out that ‘urban rail can carry more than 40,000 passengers per hour on a single line. The same right-of-way used as a light railway or busway could carry 10,000 passengers per hour or 2,000 passengers per hour in a traffic lane.’

   While such a major Auckland Plan commitment as rail to the airport can only be overturned by the elected council, the real danger is that by deliberately allowing development in the corridor Auckland Council and NZTA will render that commitment meaningless – and this is actually happening.

   While on any objective assessment, heavy rail makes more sense than trams (or buses) for rapid transit to the airport, the final mode choice should be up to the Aucklanders who will build it. But Auckland Transport and NZTA, backed by the government, is determined that Aucklanders will never get that choice. Auckland deserves better than this rubbish.

 

Mike Lee is an Auckland councillor for Waitemata & Gulf.  He is a director of Auckland Transport and the Chair of the Southwest Multimodal Airport Rapid Transit (SMART) stakeholders steering group.

 

 

10 COMMENTS

  1. i am no expert on this issue – and i wonder if mr lee could clarify a question i have..

    and i should clarify that i am a big supporter of rail in general- harbour crossing et.al..

    but in this case as i understand it the cheapest option to construct that would get the job done would be a dedicated busway..?

    ..and would this not be able to provide a traffic-hassle free/efficient delivery service..?..

    (i am sure arriving/leaving passengers would not object to electric/driverless buses..would they.?..and buses would be able to provide a much more frequent service that trains..?..surely..?)

    i note you did not mention this option in the above piece – and was hoping you would be able to detail/articulate the objections to a dedicated busway – as you see them..?

    thank you..

      • National and NTA hate rail and are systematically destroying regional rail country wide just go to the other provinces Aucklanders and witness this and you are next, unless you change the government next year, you see for eight long years the Government aided by the NZTA have been systematically destroying regional rail as they prefer a “roads only policy” to gather more revenue!!!!

        So they don’t think of rail as a viable business to them, because of the lower return for revenue for their coffers to pump up their sagging fortunes.

        Soon we will be the first “first world country without a complete rail system at all and be the laughing stock of the world as we are now already with our loss of our “clean green crown” or our fair tax system now rife with “tax haven rules for the global elite.

        We desperately need a change of government soon before we loose our country entirely.

      • @ quickthinking (an oxymoron there..!..eh..?..)

        i didn’t realise we had 40,000 people an hour flying into ak..

        ..and they would all want to hop the bus..?

        got any stats/facts to support that..?

        ..or did you just orifice-pluck it..?

    • it would be helpful if mr lee – or any other ‘expert’ – could take a minute or two –

      – to enlighten us on why a dedicated busway is such a bad – nay stupid! – idea…eh..?

      ‘cos i dunno about anyone else – but i have never heard the arguments against a (much cheaper/more flexible to upcoming tech-changes) dedicated busway as the way to go (see what i did there..?..)

    • kinda curious mr lee sees no reason to answer/has no answers to this most basic of/could not be more politely worded/totally valid question..

      surely by now mr lee has formulated his arguments against what (seems to me) -a dedicated busway – being cheaper/easier/quicker to build/totally suitable/more adaptable to upcoming transport changes we can’t yet imagine..

      surely mr lee has the words/arguments to show/prove to us the dedicated busway is a terrible idea..

      ..and if not..w.t.f..!..eh..?

      (or is it just the arrogance displayed by so many article writers – in that they will not take questioning from the peasants..?..which is it..?..)

  2. Most of the western world have TRAINS going to their AIRPORTS – why not New Zealand? Are we a ‘special case’ or something?

  3. ‘With passenger movements currently 17 million per year and set to double in the next 10 years’

    Yeah, right! Says who?

    Auckland Regional Council (including Mike Lee) was advised about the dire effects of Peak Oil over a decade ago….basically a countdown to disaster…..and is still banging away with nonsense about growth in consumption of oil and growth in emissions, after the peaking of conventional oil and right at the time when global collapse of the financial system and collapse of the environment are underway.

    Thus we see that central, regional and local government are fully committed to ensuring that NO preparations are made for the REAL future….which is, of course in breach of the Local Government Acts, 2002 and 2012. But nobody in government (central or local) gives a toss about complying with statures.

Comments are closed.