Puhoi-Wellsford SH1 Upgrade

[Matt L]

A track underneath Quay Street would solve that problem. In saying that, there would be no problems with freight trains running through Auckland.

Are you planning on using electric trains or diesel to run these services through the tunnel. The former would require wires to Whangarei while the latter would mean the tunnel would need ventilation of some sort. You would also have the problem of a freight train taking up a couple of slots in the tunnel to Britomart which would hold up passenger services. Also its bad enough that we have an underground station for diesel trains let alone run freight trains through it, just imagine locals and visitors waiting for their train hearing "passengers on platform 5 please stand back from the tracks as the next train passing through is a freight train".

Generally, firms are more likely to choose the quicker option - that is why rail in general does not have a high amount of traffic as opposed to trucking. Improving the existing North Auckland Line is going to do little to attract any additional freight; that is unless you are able to slash the journey time.

In business you need to weigh up the benefits of all options. If it is doesn't matter if your freight is at its destination an hour or two later than you will pick the cheapest option.

If the freight isn't currently going by rail then there are two reasons for that. 1. It can't because it is either time sensitive or can't get through some of the tunnels. 2. Kiwirail haven't done a good job of selling their services.

[eurokiwi78]

The tunnels is the biggie.

If that was rectified and the Marsden Point branch I imagine there would be a few Metroport style trains heading up that way.

After all a truck could probably get containers from Southdown to Sulphur point quicker than a train yet there are plenty of customers using those services.

[john-ston]

Are you planning on using electric trains or diesel to run these services through the tunnel. The former would require wires to Whangarei while the latter would mean the tunnel would need ventilation of some sort.

Diesel, hence me being in favour of the new Auckland Harbour Crossing being another bridge (among other reasons). In terms of the ventilation, we already have a ventilation system in place - the Quay Street tunnel could easily be hooked up to that.

You would also have the problem of a freight train taking up a couple of slots in the tunnel to Britomart which would hold up passenger services. Also its bad enough that we have an underground station for diesel trains let alone run freight trains through it, just imagine locals and visitors waiting for their train hearing "passengers on platform 5 please stand back from the tracks as the next train passing through is a freight train".

Outside of peak hour, the slots wouldn't be a problem. With respect of passenger opinion, freight trains have, on occasion run through Sydney's tunnels (when the Northern Line has been closed) and there has been no problem.

If the freight isn't currently going by rail then there are two reasons for that. 1. It can't because it is either time sensitive or can't get through some of the tunnels. 2. Kiwirail haven't done a good job of selling their services.

Or 3. Because the train takes six hours, compared with a truck doing it in half the time - half the reason that rail lost traffic in the latter half of the 20th century is that trucks were quicker.

[geoff_184]

Seems that a key reason for the Puhoi highway is to transport freight from Auckland to the Whangarei port - getting exports moving

NZTA claimed that currently 3% by volume of freight is transported by rail, 11% coastal shipping, 86% by road

This is extremely concerning, and something CBT should pounce on ASAP. If NZTA are claiming the road is to aid exports, while also claiming rail moves 3% of freight, then they are straight out intending to mislead the council.

Rail moves a third of the country's exports, that's 33%, NOT 3%.

The 3% claim is straight out of the RTF propaganda book, and it includes every usage of trucks you can imagine, which is totally irrelevant. Rail should only be compared to long distance line haul trucking, not local deliveries which make up the bulk of truck usage.

It sounds to me that the road project is to counter and prevent the Marsden Point rail project from happening.

[Jen]

I think all these stats were for Auckland-Northland freight only, not whole of NZ.
Still a rather large discrepancy between 3% and 80%. McDonald in his presentation was apologetic/defensive "please don't shoot the messenger".
Submissions to the committee that I was present for opposed the holiday highway.

[Riggles]

The 3% claim is straight out of the RTF propaganda book, and it includes every usage of trucks you can imagine, which is totally irrelevant. Rail should only be compared to long distance line haul trucking, not local deliveries which make up the bulk of truck usage.

It sounds to me that the road project is to counter and prevent the Marsden Point rail project from happening.

Why is it went someone is promoting a road project that has a whole array of benefits that they should only consider lane distance freight?

[Kevyn Miller]

From the article:

But this is not about Northland prosperity or total project expense. The main issue here is road safety. SH1 from Puhoi to Wellsford in its present capacity as a two lane single carriage way is unsafe.

In the first three quarters of 2009 alone, 100 accidents occurred here.

Eight people were killed. Since the new Northern Gateway dual carriage toll road from Orewa to Johnstone's Hill in January 2009 (to the end of August 2009), there were just five accidents and no injuries. The numbers speak for themselves.

I'm confused about the Northern Gateway reference here. The author says there were 100 accidents and 8 deaths between Puhoi and Wellsford for Jan - Aug 2009. Then compares this figure with the much shorter stretch between Orewa and Johnstone's Hill. Do the five accidents include the old Orewa route as well as the Northern Gateway? Isn't this comparing apples and oranges?

The numbers do not speak for themselves. Anyone have access to the figures to confirm this?

Most journalists are innumerate hence these stats are probably meaningless. The only reliable stats for the safety of highways are at kiwirap.org.nz
As Cam points out, comparisons over the few months since the lastest segment of ALBRT (Albany-Brynderwyn Realignment) are meaningless kiwirap only allows comparison of the Albany-Orewa realignment with the old Albany-Orewa highway.

[Kevyn Miller]

fwiw I sat in on the ARC Transport and Urban Development committee meeting on Feb 10 at which Wayne MacDonald made a presentation with Brett Giddan in attendance.
Seems that a key reason for the Puhoi highway is to transport freight from Auckland to the Whangarei port - getting exports moving. Commuting by Northlanders didn't come anywhere into the reckoning, though the reduction in accidents experienced with the new tollway was mentioned.

In order of priority for the corridor is 1) freight, 2) tourism, 3) connection with ports.
Widely differing stats were provided: NZTA claimed that currently 3% by volume of freight is transported by rail, 11% coastal shipping, 86% by road. Whereas an ARC councillor stated that by weight, the % carried by rail is 80% (petroleum, wood, cement).
Travel by rail takes 6 hours one way and the rail is in such poor condition that an extra driver is required for each train.
So the solution is to take freight off rail and transfer it to road.
* No BCR for the highway was produced and it seems that one has not been determined.
* Alternative scenario and costs for improving the rail to take the freight more efficiently (and relieve the road) not under consideration. The committee asked for this information but it doesn't exist.

Budget for investigation is $136m. That's just investigation costs (four times Radio NZ annual budget...).
The likely format would be a toll road with limited access points (so presumably constrained for general commuting). If a toll road is the final solution an additional corridor would be required given the limited access points and that a non-toll alternative is necessary. Land acquisition costs for the additional corridor were not estimated or provided. A tollway would save 20 minutes for trucks and trailers to make the trip between Auckland and Northland.

I trust this helps.

Did the ARC councillor give the source for his claim? It is almost inconceivable that volume and weight percentages could be that different.

Surely a well informed ARC Transport and Urban Development committee would know that NZTA has no involvement whatsoever with rail planning. That is the preserve of Ontrack, regional councils and the Ministry of Transport.

[Jen]

Did the ARC councillor give the source for his claim? It is almost inconceivable that volume and weight percentages could be that different.

Surely a well informed ARC Transport and Urban Development committee would know that NZTA has no involvement whatsoever with rail planning. That is the preserve of Ontrack, regional councils and the Ministry of Transport.

No source or clarification of the stats were given. The councillor contested the freight breakdown % as he was very surprised at NZTA's figures.
At the coffee break I heard a couple of attendees express surprise at the difference.
I have referred back to the papers I got from the session. The only mildly relevant bit of text is the Background to the briefing which states "In March 2009 the Minister of Transport announced that the Government had identified State Highway 1 between Puhoi and Wellsford as an essential route which required work to reduce congestion, improve safety and support economic growth. This was followed by listing the project in the Government Policy Statement on Transport Funding issued in May 2009 as a road of national significance. The GPS requires the NZTA's planning to reflect the importance of these roads from a national perspective and the need to advance them quickly."
NZTA basically has to carry out what the Minister directs.

NZTA programme released in August 2009 contains a provision of $2.3b for the project.

[luke.xensen]

You don't need to compete with trucks on a time basis you need to compete with them on a cost basis. If you can improve the existing line so that the cost of moving freight is significantly less than by road most businesses will use that mode of transport. The exception of this is time sensitive freight where businesses are prepared to pay more for a quicker service.

Generally, firms are more likely to choose the quicker option - that is why rail in general does not have a high amount of traffic as opposed to trucking. Improving the existing North Auckland Line is going to do little to attract any additional freight; that is unless you are able to slash the journey time.

If rail is to become more common north of Auckland then the only option is upgrading the NAL

Except, that will do nothing - a realignment on the other hand will attract additional traffic since rail will beat roading.

With your reasoning rail would carry no freight in NZ since I doubt there is any line where rail is able to beat road in an A - B journey time. However it doesnt matter for many types of freight, exports usually being one of those. Rail certainly is competitive between Auckland and Tauranga, even when the trains have to go through Hamilton, while the road takes a much more direct route.
The reason rail does not carry more freight at the moment is more to do with the transfer costs not than whether it takes 3.5 or 4.5 hours to move the freight.
A realignment and line upgrades would help to reduce running costs in the long run making rail more cost competitive.
Also are you sure trucks only take 2.5 hours to go from Auckland to Whangarei? I'm imagine if they had to fight there way through peak traffic all the way from Onehunga to Silverdale it might take a bit longer.

I wonder if NZTA have talked to Marsden Point Corporation about what mode of transport they would prefer to shift containers to and from Auckland.
I doubt many people would like to see thousands of trucks a day running between Auckland and Whangarei moving containers.
Maybe NZTA should advertise this more to see how many people would like this. If the trucks were to be sent by road this would need a full standard motorway all the way to the Marsden Point turnoff, another 55km from Wellsford. I think NZTA realise they are losing the propaganda war and are desperately trying to find more ways to justify the project.

Surely a well informed ARC Transport and Urban Development committee would know that NZTA has no involvement whatsoever with rail planning. That is the preserve of Ontrack, regional councils and the Ministry of Transport.

If the project is about Marsden point port, surely the govt should be getting the agencies together to find out which is the best way to move the goods from Auckland to Whangarei. There is nothing stopping NZTA talking to Ontrack, NRC to find out about the other options on the table. It would be irresponsible not to.

[LucyJH]

Hi Kevin

Did the ARC councillor give the source for his claim? It is almost inconceivable that volume and weight percentages could be that different.

I spkoe to the councillor afterwards and she (yes, there are some women on the council) said that it was from a report prepared by Rodney District Council. She said that if you contact the council you should be able to get a copy of the report as it wasn't confidential or anything.

[Riggles]

They certainly do seem like some impressive numbers, 80% of the weight from just 3% of the volume. One would have to assume that they are transporting some extremely dense substance, gold or lead maybe lol. Potentially rail uses some form subatomic restructuring device that enables them to reduce the orbit of electrons within the atoms of the mass they transport, however that seems a touch too flash for kiwi rail.

The only real conclusion we can make here is that both numbers are most likely wrong.

[Nick R]

I think they are conflating exported freight ( bunk goods like coal, steel, milk products etc) with all freight (anything from a couriered letter or furniture deliveries to cattle trucks or containers).

3% of freight being carried by rail overall is believable, if you consider all freight of any kind.

Likewise 80% of exports by weight being carried at some point by rail is also believable, considering NZ's main exports are bulk commodities.

Lies, damned lies and statistics....

[LucyJH]

yeah, or maybe difference is something to do with the area that was being considered. E.g., maybe 3% figure is for all of Northland whereas 80% figure is just freight going from Akld to Whangas or somefing like that.

Or maybe there is a secret osmium mining industry in Puhoi.

[Nick R]

Deposits of Unobtainium underneath tribal lands in the Waikato perhaps?

[john-ston]

Or maybe there is a secret osmium mining industry in Puhoi.

I would lean toward a Plumbum mining industry in Maungatoroto.

[Kevyn Miller]

Surely the cheapest way to move freight between two land-locked cities is to build a canal so you can barge the freight

[Riggles]

:? Surely the cheapest way to move freight between two land-locked cities is to build a canal so you can barge the freight

How about ask the question why the freight is being moved to start with, maybe we would be best to move what ever it is that needs it so the freight can stay where it is

[royce]

Kevyn Miller wrote:
Surely the cheapest way to move freight between two land-locked cities is to build a canal so you can barge the freight

How about ask the question why the freight is being moved to start with, maybe we would be best to move what ever it is that needs it so the freight can stay where it is

Why are we considering spending millions or billions fixing up road and rail to Marsden point and then spend millions or billions on freighting Aucklands freight to and from Marsden point when it would just be cheaper to send it out through Ports of Auckland. If we want we can send freight to Mount Maunganui on the Metroport train. Most of the industry is in South Auckland so I suppose it makes a little bit of sense to have the metroport train.But the least footprint is to use our port. I understand that Auckland port has already dredged the channel to allow for the passage of 7000 TEU container ships. I also understand that Ports of Tauranga hasnt.Obviously Marsden point could cater for larger container ships but it would cost them plenty to upgrade.And then if most of the freight which would go there had to come from the south why would any sane people want to use it. I cant believe the 13 pages of posts on this subject. Just leave things how they are. In the end the Govt is going to look silly for proposing this road and Marsden Point isnt ever going to be the national shipping hub. Auckland will be. Then again the national shipping hub might just be a figment of the business mind and might never eventuate.

[Matt L]

Kevyn Miller wrote:
Surely the cheapest way to move freight between two land-locked cities is to build a canal so you can barge the freight

How about ask the question why the freight is being moved to start with, maybe we would be best to move what ever it is that needs it so the freight can stay where it is

Why are we considering spending millions or billions fixing up road and rail to Marsden point and then spend millions or billions on freighting Aucklands freight to and from Marsden point when it would just be cheaper to send it out through Ports of Auckland. If we want we can send freight to Mount Maunganui on the Metroport train. Most of the industry is in South Auckland so I suppose it makes a little bit of sense to have the metroport train.But the least footprint is to use our port. I understand that Auckland port has already dredged the channel to allow for the passage of 7000 TEU container ships. I also understand that Ports of Tauranga hasnt.Obviously Marsden point could cater for larger container ships but it would cost them plenty to upgrade.And then if most of the freight which would go there had to come from the south why would any sane people want to use it. I cant believe the 13 pages of posts on this subject. Just leave things how they are. In the end the Govt is going to look silly for proposing this road and Marsden Point isnt ever going to be the national shipping hub. Auckland will be. Then again the national shipping hub might just be a figment of the business mind and might never eventuate.

I think the issue is that freight volumes will only increase. There isn't really any more land that the Ports of Auckland can use, in fact the opposite is happening as Aucklanders are calling more and more for the waterfront to be opened to the public. With Marsden Point there is plenty of room to expand, is deeper so can handle bigger ships and is also a shorter distance for ships to travel.