The Campaign For Better Transport

Stuff reports :

Auckland Mayor Len Brown says a report on a proposed $2 billion rail tunnel through central Auckland shows the business case for it is “compelling”.

The tunnel, which would link Britomart with Mt Eden station and create an inner-city rail loop, was one of Mr Brown’s primary election campaigning points and the business case was released today.

The report says that the standard benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for the project is equal or higher than that of two of the Government’s Roads of National Significance.

It goes on to say:

The standard BCR of 1.1, worked out on the 8 percent discount rate, is higher than the 0.8 BCR for the proposed Puhoi-Wellsford motorway and equal to that for the Wellington northern corridor, which includes Transmission Gully.

I thought Transmission Gully was less than one also, but anyway:

With wider economic transformation benefits, such as improved land use, urban regeneration and transformation and economic development, the BCR at the 8 percent rate is 3.5. It is 4.7 at the 6 percent discount rate and 6.6 at the 4 percent discount rate.

Josh Arbury has done a post on Len Brown’s rail plans.  It includes a picture of the underground rail loop and it got me thinking about the optimal way to utilise the new tunnel for the Western, Southern and Eastern Lines.

Imagine a Southern line commuter getting on at Greenlane wanting to go to the new K’ Rd station. Will all Southern line services go via Britomart, forcing our commuter to an extra long journey?  We could make all services take advantage of the tunnel, so that the sequence of stops goes Newmarket, Grafton, Symonds, K’Rd, Wellesley, Britomart.  But what if the same commuter wanted to go to Britomart? That’s four extra stations to endure.

We could get our example commuter to transfer at Newmarket on to another service, but what service would that be? It’s a similar problem for other rail commuters on the Western and Eastern lines as well.  Because each of the three main lines forks as it enters the CBD loop, there is no right answer here. We may be pretty much forced to make users transfer if they don’t want to take the default fork in the line.

But I think that there may be a way around this conundrum. Enter the “cyclone” rail system:

The Cyclone Auckland Rail Service

In this strategy, there are three lines – green, red and yellow, corresponding to the Western, Eastern and Southern lines.  Throughout the day, each service alternates between the left and right fork as it approaches the inner city rail loop. In the map above, for instance, a Green C train would enter the loop going clockwise, going via Symonds, K’Rd, Wellesley, Britomart, Parnell, Newmarket, Grafton and Mt Eden, before returning out west.  The next inbound train would be the Green A(nti-clockwise) train, and would visit the same stations, but in reverse.  Same goes for the Yellow and Red lines.  The service then continues around the loop, and back out the way it came in.  I imagine at peak the A and C trains would only be 5 minutes apart.

Some good outcomes of this arrangement are:

• Its easy to understand. Kind of like the Link bus service is now
• If you get on the wrong A or C train, you are still going to end up at an inner city station you intended to alight at, it will just take you a bit longer
• Transfers to other lines are very easy, as you should be able to transfer at any station on the inner city loop to the line of your choice
• Travelling around the inner city becomes very easy, you just need to know the fastest direction to your intended destination, and make sure you take a colour that isn’t about to pull out of the “cyclone’. e.g. if you are at Britomart wanting to get to Newmarket, take a Green or Yellow “A” train
• Trains can be branded as they will always run on the same lines.  For instance, all yellow line trains could actually be yellow
• It is scalable to include the Northern line train when it enters service. The “C” train would take you to Britomart, while the “A” train will take you to Wellesley.

What are your thoughts? I’ve posted this as an idea on our ideas forum so you can vote and add comments there.

http://ideas.bettertransport.org.nz/forums/85263-long-term

There have been a couple of stories this week in the Herald. The first one talks about Transport Minister Steven Joyce claiming there is a “funding gap” for rail operational costs. The second is a response from Auckland Councillor Mike Lee claiming Steven Joyce is trying to stymie Mayor Brown’s vision. It’s all a bit confusing, but fortunately Josh Arbury over at transportblog.co.nz  has got to the nub of the matter in this post here.

It is appropriate that the Auckland region pays a fair value for track access. It has been doing so since 2003, paying an average $5m per annum.

But now Transport Minister Steven Joyce wants to unilaterally increase this fee to $16m annually. Included in this are loan repayments at commercial rates of interest for the purchase of $500m worth of new electric trains for Auckland. The new trains were originally to be funded through a regional fuel tax of 2c per litre until the Government decided against this in March 2009.

Instead now it is obvious that central Government has decided to stick ratepayers with the bill for the new electric trains. It is disingenuous of the Minister not to mention this and to present this as a fait accompli to the new Mayor.

The Minister also needs to explain to Auckland ratepayers why Wellington’s new electric trains are 90% funded from central Government, and what “track access fees” Wellington ratepayers are expected to pay.

UPDATE: A well placed source tells me that in fact Steven Joyce is still considering how Auckland trains should be funded and what the funding split should be between Auckland and central Government.  Funding of trains is not included in the higher track access fee. It makes the decision to increase the track access fee from $5m to $16m even more confusing.  We will have to wait and see.

Graeme Easte sums up the rail funding issue for Auckland in a letter to the Herald last Thursday:

Len Brown is being attacked for seeking billions from the Government to fund major rail projects for Auckland. But this is a category mistake: the real issue is not about seeking substantial new money but rather about redirecting some of the vast amounts of cash already budgeted for transport funding.

Over the next 30 years the Transport Agency (NZTA) is budgeting to receive over $100 billion in income from fuel taxes and road levies. With about a third of the population, Auckland will provide about a third of that income and is slated to receive a similar proportion in expenditure – somewhere in the range of $30-39 billion. Although about half of that will be required for maintaining existing infrastructure, passenger transport subsidies, etc. that still leaves the other half for new projects – large and small.

So instead of telling us that the cupboard is bare, Government needs to enter into a dialogue with Len and his new Council as to what our spending priorities are. Len has a very strong mandate to tell Government Auckland’s preference is for expanding the public transport network way ahead of new motorways.

Indeed.  Auckland should be investing in transport projects that achieve the best economic, social and environmental outcomes, with a view to reducing our long term reliance on fossil fuels. This investment should not be predetermined based on an obsolete funding model that stems from the transport planning of last century.

Auckland City Harbour News reports:

Investigations into a city rail link between Mt Eden and Britomart show it could have one of the steepest rail gradients in the country.

Last week Auckland Regional Transport Authority strategic transport planning manager Matthew Rednall presented an update to Auckland City Council’s transport committee.

He says earlier this year the council signed a memorandum of understanding to progress investigations for the link.

“Parts of it are very steep, there is a 70-metre height difference between Mt Eden and Britomart.”

He says the gradient would flatten out at points to accommodate underground stations, which would be on 200-metre-long platforms with access points to the surface.

“We are working on what land is required.”

Mr Rednall says stations would be about 700 metres apart, with possible locations at Aotea Square, Karangahape Rd and Newton.

“They are three distinct areas that connect the city,” he says.

“The catchment would provide coverage for the whole of the CBD.”

The New Zealand Herald has reproduced an article by super city mayoral hopeful John Banks on transport in Auckland, essentially rebuking former North Shore Mayor George Wood’s suggestion that rail may not be the way forward:

Quite simply, New Zealand needs Auckland to work, and for that to happen, it needs to work efficiently. Auckland cannot rely on roads and motorways alone to meet the region’s future transport needs, as the city’s roading network is already nearing the practical limits of expansion.

While this is vision of a CBD loop is great to hear, the question remains whether Banks (or any of the other candidates for that matter) is willing and able to deliver on it.

The New Zealand Herald reports Transport Minister Steven Joyce is “worried” that the Super City mayoral contenders – John Banks and Len Brown – are too ambitious for further investment in rail beyond the $1 billion electrification project:

Transport Minister Steven Joyce is trying to dampen early hopes for airport trains and for a central Auckland rail tunnel as officials continue to grapple with how to pay for electrification.