# data[].attributes.body
Matt Lowry, a blogger on the "Greater Auckland" website, demonstrates an excellent example of a changing viewpoint. Furthermore, Matt follows a reasoned, informed decision-making process. He has done extensive research, looked at all sides of the issue, and found that his understanding and viewpoint have shifted somewhat. He still doesn't completely agree with the decision and, more recently, has made suggestions as to how it could be improved.

# data[].attributes.headline
Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown: The case for light rail is lighter than ever

# data[].attributes.subject
Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown: The case for light rail is lighter than ever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wayne Brown: The case for light rail is lighter than ever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OPINION: 'Why I remain skeptical about the economic case for Auckland light rail.'

# data[].attributes.headline
Auckland Light Rail - AT (2016) - 4 mins 

# data[].attributes.subject
Auckland Light Rail - AT (2016) - 4 mins 

# data[].attributes.body
Note: this is based on an earlier proposal with more surface-based LRT options.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Government unveils $15 billion light rail plan for Auckland, but who will pay?| Newshub

# data[].attributes.headline
Explain aspects of a contemporary New Zealand geographic issue

# data[].attributes.subject
Explain aspects of a contemporary New Zealand geographic issue

# data[].attributes.body
This achievement standard involves explaining aspects of a contemporary geographic issue.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The nature of the contemporary geographic issue of the Auckland LRT proposal.

What makes it a geographic issue?

# data[].attributes.body
Different viewpoints individuals (or groups) hold in relation to the issue; and

How one viewpoint has changed over time

# data[].attributes.body
Different possible courses of action to address the issue:

Explaining their relative strength(s) and weakness(es)

Recommending one course of action with a reason(s).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Great cities have great public transport

Investing in high capacity, quality, rapid transport is critical to developing a modern, connected city. Driving housing and job growth, light rail will help regenerate neighbourhoods and create people-friendly streets by getting cars off the road.

Aucklanders deserve to have easy, reliable and efficient transport choices and Auckland Light Rail is our opportunity to dramatically expand our rapid transit network to make Tāmaki Makaurau a better place to live now and in the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Auckland Light Rail is our chance to reshape our neighbourhoods to work better for us and change how our city grows. Get to know the Auckland Light Rail Project.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.lightrail.co.nz/media/pitpbv3z/alr-route-map.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Minister of Transport, MP for Roskill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Michael Wood: Light rail should have come years ago

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OPINION: Transport Minister hopes objectors will get onboard as the project is rolled out.

# data[].attributes.headline
Simeon Brown: National transport spokesman 

# data[].attributes.subject
Simeon Brown: National transport spokesman 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Government's plans for light rail in Auckland could cost up to $29.2 billion, according to Treasury papers released this morning.

The papers also said the cost of building light rail does not include the cost of building infrastructure to realise the additional urban development planned along the route from the central city to the airport.

In late January, Finance Minister Grant Robertson and Transport Minister Michael Wood unveiled the Government's preferred option for light running - a hybrid system running in tunnels from Wynyard Quarter to Mt Roskill and then proceeding at street level to the airport.

The ministers said the "hybrid" system had been chosen over two other options: light rail at street level costing $9b and light metro above or below ground costing $16.3b. This was because it had greater carrying capacity, was less disruptive and better aligned to a linked-up rapid transit transport network, they said.

The ministers said the new line would be designed, consented and built by the early 2030s at a cost of $14.6b.

The Treasury papers said information provided to it by the Light Rail Establishment Unit noted cost estimates with an accuracy range of -50 per cent to 100 per cent based on a "very low level of design".

This meant the costs for the Government's option "could range between $7.3b and $29.2b".

Treasury added the current level of cost estimates are not unusual for the indicative business case phase of the project and these costs "should not be relied upon to provide an accurate indication of likely final cost of the project".

The light rail project will connect the largest business and residential area in the country - the inner city - with the second largest employment area - the airport precinct. It will run past Eden Park and through suburbs that are expected to get 66,000 new homes with 150,000 more people living in them.

But Treasury said the establishment unit had not provided any costs for enabling infrastructure for the extra housing and infrastructure needed to realise the extra capacity on water, wastewater, stormwater, other utilities and additional transport requirements.

Robertson has said the Government will fund the "lion's share" of the project, but is being guarded about other funding options, including "value uplift" - a charge on businesses and developments that benefit from the project - and a possible $1000 tax on homes within walking distance of about 18 stations.

Treasury said greater commitment is also needed from Auckland Council, which is providing some resources to get the project off the ground.
Related articles
In an aide memoire to Robertson last September, Treasury staff said a formal commitment needs to be signalled in the coming months between the Crown and the council for the council to undertake upzoning areas along the route, master planning along the route and agreement by council to own and operate light rail, including the operating and maintenance costs.

Treasury also wanted to see a commitment from the council to help pay for light rail and enabling infrastructure and suggested general rates, targeted rates, development contributions as funding tools.

Mayor Phil Goff has said the council would have a role to pay providing infrastructure around the project, but given its financial position it does not have the capacity out of rates to pay for light rail.

Aucklanders will contribute to the project through their taxes, he said.

National transport spokesman Simeon Brown said the Government should not be steaming ahead with its light rail "vanity project" when the cost could explode to $29b and New Zealanders are in a cost of living crisis.

"Treasury's advice was scathing of the project, saying the Government should not pick a preferred option for light rail until further analysis could be undertaken - advice the Government has clearly ignored," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Govt's Auckland light rail project could cost $29b, Treasury says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Route planned from the central city to the airport.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: Light rail to Auckland Airport not worth the spend

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OPINION: Rail links to airports are a risky business, writes Lynne Mitchell.

# data[].attributes.headline
John Roughan: Light rail is a transport investment Auckland can't afford

# data[].attributes.subject
John Roughan: Light rail is a transport investment Auckland can't afford

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
John Roughan: Light rail heavy on cash, light on practicality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Light rail is an investment New Zealand cannot afford

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Simon Wilson: Finally, the light rail breakthrough Auckland needs

# data[].attributes.headline
Simon Wilson: NZ Herald Transport writer

# data[].attributes.subject
Simon Wilson: NZ Herald Transport writer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Simon Wilson: Finally, the light rail breakthrough Auckland needs?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An ambitious plan for light rail and an even more ambitious process to achieve it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs

# data[].attributes.subject
Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs

# data[].attributes.body
This is the full publication

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Auckland city to airport Light Rail, quick look, price, critique and alternative gondola.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As regular readers will know, we're not fans of the current plans to put light rail in a tunnel across the isthmus at enormous financial and opportunity cost.

There are a number of factors that play into why we think a surface-running system is better for Auckland. Here's why we think light rail should be brought back up into the light:

It's cheaper to build - For the same project budget as the proposed tunnel version ($15bn or so), we could also potentially build the Northwest line as far as Westgate - or, alternatively, build surface light rail for Dominion Rd and Sandringham Rd as well as our proposed crosstown route. Either of these approaches would provide better transport options to more Aucklanders, sooner.

It's faster to build - Most comparable overseas surface-running light rail systems tend to take 2-4 years to build. The City Centre to Mangere line is a bit longer than average, so 4-5 years is more likely, although potentially some parts could be completed and in use sooner. Whereas, the tunnelled option is at least the scale of a second City Rail Link - and that project shows us we'll be lucky to have anything completed within eight years (of when it actually starts, which is not likely to be till around early 2026).

The town centres need some love - The town centres along Dominion Rd are in need of an upgrade, something that would inevitably happen as part of a surface option - but unlikely with a tunnelled option, given the route won't be anywhere near them. That means any upgrades would fall into council's 'who knows when, if ever' bucket.

It's not, and never was, just about end-to-end journey times - While tunnelled options do have faster end-to-end journey times, most people won't be travelling end-to-end. So from a user perspective, the difference isn't as meaningful as the project team seems to think it is. Furthermore, the journey times presented by the ALR team so far don't include the time it takes a person to get from an underground (or overhead) platform to the surface. Stations like Britomart and New Lynn show this can easily take a minute or more, and when this is factored in, the journey times become almost identical with surface light rail. Surface-level stations also provide easier and therefore more equitable access for those with disabilities, prams, luggage, bikes etc. as there is no need to wait for lifts or to try and negotiate stairs or escalators.

A better viewing experience - Public transport is simply a much nicer, more rewarding and more attractive experience when you have the option to look out the window and see the city passing around you. So while tunnels can be cool as construction projects, they are incredibly boring for end-users.

It won't be wasted - Even with a tunnelled option tucked away underground, we will always need high-quality surface public transport for lots of people on the Queen St and Dominion Rd corridors. So why not light rail?

The full tunnel capacity won't be used - The light rail team themselves say one of the main reasons for the tunnel is to provide enough capacity for both the City Centre to Mangere line and a future Northwest line. That means that outside of where the two lines share a route, we're building a very expensive bit of infrastructure - but are planning on only ever using a fraction of its potential capacity.

Starting with surface routes doesn't mean we can never build a tunnelled option - Seemingly in trying to justify their project by including modelling capacity out over 50+ years, the light rail team proceed as if this is the only project that can ever be built - rather than considering that a surface option could be the first stage of a wider network development. A surface option can also help build usage for further future investment. And if it does have capacity issues in the future it's hard to see anyone complaining that it was too much of a success. No one is saying we shouldn't have built Britomart because we now need to build the CRL, or that the Northern Busway is a failure because we need to upgrade it less than 15 years after it opened. And if we ultimately did need to build another line, that will provide a better overall network - after all, two lines are better than one.

Better environmental outcomes - As well as having lower embodied emissions as a result of using less concrete and steel, a surface design lets us improve other environmental outcomes in the corridor through ideas such as the use of green tracking and other techniques.

The state of play

Currently the ALR project is meant to be going though a more detailed planning, design and consenting process, with a target to award the main construction contract in late 2025. It's worth noting that by that point it will have been over 10 years since light rail was first announced by Auckland Transport and eight years since Labour campaigned on it.

Part of the work is meant to include refining the design so it will integrate with other large proposed investments, such as a future line to the Northwest.

And that got me thinking about one of my big frustrations with the project: how it so closely mimics (indeed, duplicates) the CRL, especially between Kingsland and Mt Eden. I believe the modelling even includes luring some trips off the CRL. Beyond the odd accounting, why spend all this money to basically double up on what's already available?

Based on the maps we've seen so far, it appears the plan is something like the map below (note: I've also added a potential route for a Northwest line).

Of course, one of the benefits of tunnelling is that you don't have to strictly follow road corridors. So if we have to have a tunnelled solution, are there options for planning the route to pick up additional new catchments?

Here are couple I've been thinking about:
Serving Great North Road
Could we also serve another area where a lot of development is already occurring, with more to come, with a route something like this for the Great North Road ridge:

The big challenge with this would be the grades, but given light rail and light metro can handle steep grades ( Sydney's light rail can do up to 7%) it should be feasible, and with stations shallower than Karanga a Hape will be. The route is slightly longer by about 350m than the current option and with a few more stations would be a little slower, but the trade-off is a much bigger catchment.
Serving the Hospital
Another option could be to avoid Kingsland entirely with a line that looks something like this.

This would pick up Eden Valley, Auckland Hospital (and the Domain) and a better located University station - plus is only about 100m longer than the current plan. The downside here again is the grades around Grafton Gully. Could the line cross over the top before diving underground to get below Queen St? It would also run under homes and businesses most of the way, more than the current plan.

Just to be clear, I'm not really saying either of these options are better than the current plan, or even that we should build them. I'm really just questioning if there are other options out there that could make the current plans for light rail more useful for our city and our times and the challenges we're up against.

Share this

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can a different route fix tunneled light rail? - Greater Auckland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As regular readers will know, we're not fans of the current plans to put light rail in a tunnel across the isthmus at enormous financial and opportunity cost. There are a number of factors that play into why we think ... Continued

# data[].attributes.body
However, an important question for you to consider is- why is Matt's opinion of any significance to us (or anyone)?

# data[].attributes.headline
August 2015: An Update on Mangere and Airport Rail

# data[].attributes.subject
August 2015: An Update on Mangere and Airport Rail

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Update on Mangere and Airport Rail - Greater Auckland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week I highlighted an With a dedicated corridor between Onehunga and the airport the travel time of light and heavy rail is not likely to be all that different. The issue comes in north of Onehunga. AT say above the … Continued

# data[].attributes.headline
October 2018: Light Rail: How we got here

# data[].attributes.subject
October 2018: Light Rail: How we got here

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the last few weeks we've seen numerous articles and opinion pieces about Light Rail and the airport. A common and incorrect theme amongst many of them has been the suggestion that the choice to use light rail was a political one and that it's a vanity project that we can choose not to do or do something different. We also sometimes get accused of setting light rail as a policy. In this post I thought I'd look at a brief history of how the proposal for light rail has developed in Auckland.

The beginning

The story begins over 100 years ago. Trams were the initial agents of sprawl as lines spread out from the city centre to establish new suburbs and open up land for housing. By the late 1930's tram tracks covered most of the key corridors of the isthmus. But it's not just that the trams were there, the system and supporting road network were deliberately designed so that most people lived close to a line and that they were easy to get to. The map below shows the routes and a 400m catchment and with the exception of a few holes, covers most of the area.

It goes further than that too, the rough grid pattern was designed to make it easy to walk to those lines. Just take a look at the street network of the central isthmus, it is a stark contrast to the curvilinear streets and cul de sac pattern found many post-war suburbs. Those newer suburbs had auto-mobility ingrained in them, making it hard to walk around the neighbourhood, let alone serve them with frequent and direct public transport.

The trams were pulled out in the 1950's but the street network lives on and to this day those old tram routes remain some the busiest bus routes in Auckland, with Dominion Rd the busiest of the lot. At peak times more people catch buses along many of these routes than drive them in cars. As such, the central isthmus suburbs have some of the highest PT modeshare in the region. Below are the PT results from the 2013 census.

I'll get into why all of this is important shortly.

1990's - Auckland's darkest hour for public transport

The mid 1990s were darkest hour for PT in Auckland with ridership declining to its lowest ever levels. Just over 33 million trips were recorded in 1994 in contrast to around 94 million today. To help turn this around, plans were created to build light rail down Dominion Rd as well as replace some of our existing rail lines. Britomart was even designed, where the coloured walls are today, to allow for ramps down from the surface so light rail could exit out of the eastern end. That's a feature that will never be used as we need all the tunnel capacity we can get for the since revived rail network, but it is useful for highlighting that it's hard predicting the future, that transport plans frequently change, but at a high level, our key strategic transport corridors remain the same.

Or to put it another way, we know where we need to build stuff but we have to continually update and adjust what and when we build based on the evidence available.

The 2008 study

In 2007 the former Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) undertook a piece of work to investigate rapid transit options for the southwest to help feed into various strategic plans. The results of this are still often quoted today. It assessed bus, light rail and various heavy rail options. Reading through the executive summary again there are a number of things that stand out. I won't name them all but most importantly for this post, light rail performed well but didn't rank highly in the results due to the extra costs and that we haven't built or operated light rail here before.

The study was relatively high level essentially picked the mode with the most stringent design standards, heavy rail, as that would at least cater for changes in thinking in the future.

The fight for the CRL highlighted a looming threat

The early 2010s saw Auckland locked in battle over the City Rail Link. The government were determined to prove that the project wasn't needed and that just putting on more buses would solve the problem. In 2012 government agencies worked with the council and Auckland Transport on the City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS). Having initiated the work, Transport Minister of the time, Gerry Brownlee, rubbished it on release because it supported the CRL. That was in part because it found that capacity improvements for buses in the city would only provide short term relief. Bus congestion was now a looming issue but there was no plan to solve it.

The graph below from the subsequent Central Access Plan shows the number of buses per hour on Symonds St at peak times compared with how many it is designed to handle.

2015 and filling the void

Auckland's PT renaissance began with those central isthmus routes when the former Auckland City Council installed the city's first bus lanes. Since then, improvements to the rail network and the development of the Northern Busway have shown that even higher quality public transport is instrumental in getting more people to use PT. Previous work, including that done by the former ARC, had come up with developed a 'rapid transit' network (RTN) for Auckland that could largely be summarised as a line to the North, South, East and West, which left significant gaps. The most notable of these was the central isthmus but the Northwest was also missing.

Auckland Transport had been (very) quietly working on the issue of bus congestion in the city and at the beginning of 2015 shocked everyone, including the mayor, by announcing they wanted to build a light rail network. This would both fill the RTN through the central isthmus and help address bus congestion by taking the buses from one of Auckland's busiest corridors - thereby also leaving space for more buses from other routes.

Unlike the 1990's plan which was to build light rail in the hope that more people would use PT, this plan was to build light rail because so many already were doing so.

Since then, there has been plenty of debate about modes and timing for the core isthmus route. Subsequent work as part of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project confirmed that a "mass transit" solution was needed for Dominion Rd and eventually the NZTA and Simon Bridges agreed Light Rail was the long term solution.

The extension to the airport

Prior to the announcement above, AT had already kicked off a separate piece of work to look at progressing the corridor protection. This was taking a more detailed look at the corridor and the alternatives. Where previous studies had compared various extensions of the existing rail network to building an entire new light rail line all the way from the city, the need to build light rail on Dominion Rd anyway changed the whole equation. This is because a large chunk of the costs was effectively taken away. Some have argued this is not really a fair comparison but it would be remiss of officials not to update their thinking based on the latest information available.

This is not dissimilar to what we've seen in other big transport projects where planning for some projects starts happening before prerequisite projects have been delivered.

But not only was it now more cost competitive, it opened up a much wider area of Auckland to better transport with stronger connections to the rest of Auckland. A further advantage was the ability to use light rail as a catalyst for more housing along the route and that feature has become a very strong component. Much of this work is contained within the business case already completed for the project - which is still currently on the Auckland Transport website.

I should point out that when it first emerged that AT were looking at a light rail option, we were sceptical and felt heavy rail was a better option. However, over time we've made an effort to understand why AT and the NZTA preferred light rail as the solution to the North and have shared this through many blog posts.

Enter the politicians

It was not until after this technical work had been done and light rail chosen as the preferred option that the politicians got involved in support. It started with Phil Goff making light rail a key platform for his election. It then became a central part of Michael Wood's campaign to replace Goff in parliament and finally the policy of the Labour (and Green) party, with Jacinda Ardern launching it as Labour's first major policy announcement in last year's election.

In recap, more than most large transport projects, light rail has emerged as the preferred option based on technical analysis. It's the opposite of a political pet project and that's exactly how it should be.

Share this

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Light Rail: How we got here - Greater Auckland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the last few weeks we've seen numerous articles and opinion pieces about Light Rail and the airport. A common and incorrect theme amongst many of them has been the suggestion that the choice to use light rail was a ... Continued

# data[].attributes.headline
December 2018: A history of the light rail project

# data[].attributes.subject
December 2018: A history of the light rail project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A history of the light rail project - Greater Auckland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There have been some slightly strange conspiracy theories floating around recently about how the City Centre to Mangere light rail project came into existence. This led to the work initially recommending a four-line light-rail system. Lines would travel along Sandringham, … Continued

# data[].attributes.headline
February 2022: Sooo… Tunnelled Light Rail 

# data[].attributes.subject
February 2022: Sooo… Tunnelled Light Rail 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Friday the government announced their decision on Light Rail.

I should start by pointing out that it's fantastic the government have agreed to invest so much in public transport in Auckland. At $10.3 billion in today's value, or $14.6 billion with inflation by the time it is finished, this will easily be the largest single transport project ever attempted in New Zealand. It's more than double the current biggest, the $4.4 billion City Rail Link. The scale of the investment is something far beyond what I think most would have imagined possible.

So, it's odd then to feel somewhat disappointed by it all. Thinking about it all over the weekend I think this is primarily for two reasons.

1. That the government have chosen what we think is the 'worst of both world's' option of tunnelled light rail, the poor process that led to it and the huge opportunity cost it entails.

2. Because of the scale of the investment, there is an ongoing concern that this will end up the same way as the Northern Path bridge, with the government cancelling it in a few months/years - or, given how long it will take to get spades in the ground, that a future government will do so.

I'll cover both of those points later in the post, but first: here's the actual announcement (and you can watch the whole thing here), which also included a bonus announcement about a future harbour crossing.

Overall, the government have gone with exactly the same tunnelled light rail proposal as outlined in the summary released last year by the Auckland Light Rail team (ALR).

I had wondered if they may have asked for more work to confirm if it should just be a tunnel in the city centre and then surface-running beyond, but they haven't. Their press release states the following features of the option:

24km route with up to 18 stations or stops from the City Centre to Māngere and the airport, running every five minutes so people can turn up and go.

Capable of carrying up to 15,000 passengers per hour at peak, which is four times more passengers than a dedicated busway or trackless trams.

Removal of up to 13 car lanes or taking 12,000* cars off the road, which is a great result for local streets, communities and carbon emissions (*average of 1.2 people per car).

Integrates with current train and bus hubs and the City Rail Link stations and connections. Light rail can also be extended to the North Shore and North West without having to transfer from one line to the other.

Includes safe walking and cycling along the corridor and with connections to all stations.

Estimated to bring up to 66,000 new homes by 2051 and open up housing along the corridor in Mt Roskill, Onehunga and Māngere.

Creation of up to 97,000 new jobs by 2051.

They've also released this video of the route:

A couple of comments about the features and the maps.

It is absurd that the ALR team still won't show the locations of stations, especially as they would have needed to make decisions about this for the modelling in their business case.

Capacity of 15,000 passengers an hour might sound like a lot, but it's not that much for a $15 billion project. Based on a services every five minutes, the actual capacity being discussed is more like 5,000 per per hour.

Which 13 car lanes are we taking off the road?

Given safe walking and cycling options to stations are promised, can they be delivered now?

A lot of the housing estimates seem based on potential densities much higher than Kāinga Ora plan on delivering, or than the private sector are delivering even on sites that allow it next to existing train stations.

ALR have been careful to note that because it's tunnelled, the route doesn't have to follow roads. If you look closely at the video above and also if you superimpose the first map over a street map of Auckland, it suggests that between Kingsland and Wesley the route isn't actually on Sandringham Rd but swings west of it, possibly in order to serve St Lukes mall. This may just be how it's been represented on the maps though.

It's notable that none of the maps show the existing rail network. If they did, I suspect a lot people would ask why we need so much extra capacity between Kingsland and Aotea. With Kingsland set to become the best connected suburb in the region, how many towers will it be zoned for? The route as shown also leaves a very big hole in rapid transit right through the middle of the isthmus.

What on earth is with that alignment at the airport end of the route? That is not how you build a rail line. It's odd that we'd go to so much expense to tunnel the route through the isthmus only to wiggle around like that at the airport end. Also note, the line seems to stop well short of the terminal. While this may just be a drawing error, it does line up with rumours we've heard in the past.

At the city end, there is also a somewhat odd wiggle to get from Aotea to Wynyard. This seems to be similar to what was shown in the 2012 City Centre Masterplan, and seems primarily about connecting to a road harbour crossing.

Speaking of a harbour crossing, the announcement also included that the government were bringing decisions on that forward too.

"The Government is also committed to an additional Waitematā Harbour crossing, and has brought forward planning for the crossing to ensure a fully integrated transport network for Auckland. Public consultation on options for the additional Waitematā Harbour crossing will begin this year, with a preferred option selected in 2023.

"To kick the can down the road could either preclude a second crossing from being a possibility in the future, or require what will be established transport infrastructure to be reconstructed meaning additional costs.

"The Northern Busway is growing by 20 percent a year and will run out of capacity in 10-15 years, so new transport options for the future are needed, and the planning must begin now. This decision alongside the City Rail Link means that we can now ensure rapid transit to the North as well as the South, East and West.

It does make some sense to work out where the tunnel needs to go, and the government have been clear that rapid transit will form the basis for it. However, it still remains unclear if it will include lanes for general traffic, even though the most recent analyses show a road crossing would increase congestion and undermine the city's goals to make the city centre more people-focused. To his credit, Mayor Phil Goff in his speech said another road crossing would be a disaster.

Of course, there's also the question still to answer of how (or whether) people will be able to walk, bike, scoot, roll etc across the harbour too. We still think a combined PT and active mode bridge would be best (not least because active modes are all about fresh air!) but that's harder to deliver if rail is already in a tunnel.
A wider view
Stepping back from the detail a bit, I think the wider question here is how we got to this point of being disappointed by a nearly $15 billion PT project. To me, this is in part the result of our broken business case processes that are simply not fit for answering the questions that needed to be answered.

The light rail team's analysis has shown that there's value in connecting a wide range of places to transit: the universities, Wesley, Mangere Town Centre, etc. But the business case processes - and the short timeframe to deliver a recommended option - boxed them into thinking that the way to connect them all is with one line zig-zagging all over the city.

To quote Dr. Ian Malcolm, they " were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should ".

Had they known from the start that the government would sign off $15 billion, what kind of surface light rail and busway network, serving a wide part of the region, could have been designed? And how would the benefits of that network stack up against this single-line project?

For example, even at the internationally high cost-per-km surface option the ALR team suggested, with $15 billion they could have delivered another 15km+ of surface light rail. That would be enough to also build the proposed NW line as far as Westgate, or alternatively surface light rail for Dominion Rd, Sandringham Rd as well as for our proposed crosstown route, complete with green tracks.

Put another way, two good lines are better than one great line (and this proposal isn't a great line to start with).

There is also a need for funding for projects like the Airport to Botany Busway, an Upper Harbour Busway, and a vast amount of local bus improvements - not to mention a need for rapid transit projects in other cities around NZ.

Interestingly, a lot of the justification for the chosen option is about future-proofing for lines to the North Shore and Northwest. But perversely, this solution has possibly done the opposite of that. Previous modelling has suggested that both of those lines could each end up busier than this one, and both lines will almost certainly be fully grade-separated. By taking up the most ideal next city centre tunnel corridor, the proposed plan may lock those other routes into a lower capacity solution and prevent them from being able to run driverless services.

As for the $14.6 billion cost, it is also worth noting that it is just a P50 estimate - meaning there's a 50% chance the actual cost will end up higher, which is quite likely with the way construction costs have been going up in recent years. Any increase in costs will only increase the chance of the project being scaled back or scrapped altogether, as well as potentially sucking funding away from other beneficial projects across the city.
Emissions criticism
Since the announcement, there has been some criticism that all the concrete and steel needed will see emissions from construction will increase at a time we need them to be going dramatically in the opposite direction (see graph below from the Auckland Light Rail business case).

While I think it is a fair criticism, especially given the surface option would see emissions increase far less (and that we should be highly sceptical of any modelling predicting usage 60 years out), in part this criticism is only possible because the ALR team have done the work to actually assess the emissions.

Assessing emissions is something that just doesn't tend to happen on other transport business cases, so generally gets completely ignored by media.

For example, we're now being subjected by media to daily complaints about Transmission Gully not being open. Yet that I can think of, not one is bothered by the lifetime emissions from that project, even though it is expected to result in more driving including people shifting trips from electric trains into their cars.

As you can imagine, we're going to have quite a bit more coverage of this in the coming days and weeks, including a dive through the now released Indicative Business Case and some ideas we've had to improve what's been proposed.

Share this

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sooo... Tunnelled Light Rail - Greater Auckland

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Can a different route fix tunnelled light rail? - Greater Auckland

# data[].attributes.headline
August 2022: Can a different route fix tunnelled light rail? 

# data[].attributes.subject
August 2022: Can a different route fix tunnelled light rail? 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As regular readers will know, we're not fans of the current plans to put light rail in a tunnel across the isthmus at enormous financial and opportunity cost.

There are a number of factors that play into why we think a surface-running system is better for Auckland. Here's why we think light rail should be brought back up into the light:

It's cheaper to build - For the same project budget as the proposed tunnel version ($15bn or so), we could also potentially build the Northwest line as far as Westgate - or, alternatively, build surface light rail for Dominion Rd and Sandringham Rd as well as our proposed crosstown route. Either of these approaches would provide better transport options to more Aucklanders, sooner.

It's faster to build - Most comparable overseas surface-running light rail systems tend to take 2-4 years to build. The City Centre to Mangere line is a bit longer than average, so 4-5 years is more likely, although potentially some parts could be completed and in use sooner. Whereas, the tunnelled option is at least the scale of a second City Rail Link - and that project shows us we'll be lucky to have anything completed within eight years (of when it actually starts, which is not likely to be till around early 2026).

The town centres need some love - The town centres along Dominion Rd are in need of an upgrade, something that would inevitably happen as part of a surface option - but unlikely with a tunnelled option, given the route won't be anywhere near them. That means any upgrades would fall into council's 'who knows when, if ever' bucket.

It's not, and never was, just about end-to-end journey times - While tunnelled options do have faster end-to-end journey times, most people won't be travelling end-to-end. So from a user perspective, the difference isn't as meaningful as the project team seems to think it is. Furthermore, the journey times presented by the ALR team so far don't include the time it takes a person to get from an underground (or overhead) platform to the surface. Stations like Britomart and New Lynn show this can easily take a minute or more, and when this is factored in, the journey times become almost identical with surface light rail. Surface-level stations also provide easier and therefore more equitable access for those with disabilities, prams, luggage, bikes etc. as there is no need to wait for lifts or to try and negotiate stairs or escalators.

A better viewing experience - Public transport is simply a much nicer, more rewarding and more attractive experience when you have the option to look out the window and see the city passing around you. So while tunnels can be cool as construction projects, they are incredibly boring for end-users.

It won't be wasted - Even with a tunnelled option tucked away underground, we will always need high-quality surface public transport for lots of people on the Queen St and Dominion Rd corridors. So why not light rail?

The full tunnel capacity won't be used - The light rail team themselves say one of the main reasons for the tunnel is to provide enough capacity for both the City Centre to Mangere line and a future Northwest line. That means that outside of where the two lines share a route, we're building a very expensive bit of infrastructure - but are planning on only ever using a fraction of its potential capacity.

Starting with surface routes doesn't mean we can never build a tunnelled option - Seemingly in trying to justify their project by including modelling capacity out over 50+ years, the light rail team proceed as if this is the only project that can ever be built - rather than considering that a surface option could be the first stage of a wider network development. A surface option can also help build usage for further future investment. And if it does have capacity issues in the future it's hard to see anyone complaining that it was too much of a success. No one is saying we shouldn't have built Britomart because we now need to build the CRL, or that the Northern Busway is a failure because we need to upgrade it less than 15 years after it opened. And if we ultimately did need to build another line, that will provide a better overall network - after all, two lines are better than one.

Better environmental outcomes - As well as having lower embodied emissions as a result of using less concrete and steel, a surface design lets us improve other environmental outcomes in the corridor through ideas such as the use of green tracking and other techniques.

The state of play

Currently the ALR project is meant to be going though a more detailed planning, design and consenting process, with a target to award the main construction contract in late 2025. It's worth noting that by that point it will have been over 10 years since light rail was first announced by Auckland Transport and eight years since Labour campaigned on it.

Part of the work is meant to include refining the design so it will integrate with other large proposed investments, such as a future line to the Northwest.

And that got me thinking about one of my big frustrations with the project: how it so closely mimics (indeed, duplicates) the CRL, especially between Kingsland and Mt Eden. I believe the modelling even includes luring some trips off the CRL. Beyond the odd accounting, why spend all this money to basically double up on what's already available?

Based on the maps we've seen so far, it appears the plan is something like the map below (note: I've also added a potential route for a Northwest line).

Of course, one of the benefits of tunnelling is that you don't have to strictly follow road corridors. So if we have to have a tunnelled solution, are there options for planning the route to pick up additional new catchments?

Here are couple I've been thinking about:
Serving Great North Road
Could we also serve another area where a lot of development is already occurring, with more to come, with a route something like this for the Great North Road ridge:

The big challenge with this would be the grades, but given light rail and light metro can handle steep grades ( Sydney's light rail can do up to 7%) it should be feasible, and with stations shallower than Karanga a Hape will be. The route is slightly longer by about 350m than the current option and with a few more stations would be a little slower, but the trade-off is a much bigger catchment.
Serving the Hospital
Another option could be to avoid Kingsland entirely with a line that looks something like this.

This would pick up Eden Valley, Auckland Hospital (and the Domain) and a better located University station - plus is only about 100m longer than the current plan. The downside here again is the grades around Grafton Gully. Could the line cross over the top before diving underground to get below Queen St? It would also run under homes and businesses most of the way, more than the current plan.

Just to be clear, I'm not really saying either of these options are better than the current plan, or even that we should build them. I'm really just questioning if there are other options out there that could make the current plans for light rail more useful for our city and our times and the challenges we're up against.

Share this

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can a different route fix tunneled light rail? - Greater Auckland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As regular readers will know, we're not fans of the current plans to put light rail in a tunnel across the isthmus at enormous financial and opportunity cost. There are a number of factors that play into why we think ... Continued

# data[].attributes.body
"For more than 50 years Auckland's rapid population growth has not been matched by investment in transport infrastructure. This has resulted in congestion and more than 40% of the city's carbon emissions coming from transport. These are two of the biggest challenges facing the city, and can only be addressed by transformational change...

The city's other major challenge is for more and intensified housing to stop sprawl".  Phil Goff, Mayor of Auckland - 28 Jan 2022

"Our largest city needs a linked-up rapid transit transport network that will serve Aucklanders into the future, making it faster to move through the city, connecting communities, providing greater access to businesses, all while reducing congestion".  Michael Wood, Minister of Transport - 28 Jan 2022

Repeated studies have shown bus congestion from the main isthmus arterial roads into the CBD is nearing gridlock, and upzoning under the Unitary Plan will allow much more intensive housing along those routes, such as Dominion Rd. Add to that, thousands of additional homes coming in the redevelopment of Housing New Zealand's blocks in Mount Roskill, and Māngere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rod Oram is a weekly columnist who covers business, economics and politics.

Comment
Transport plan is not anti-car - it's pro-people. It will free up roads for those who need them most. And it's not wishful thinking
Opinion: Responses were sceptical, muted and mixed this week when Auckland Council released its board strategy to reduce the city's transport emissions by 64 percent by 2030.

Too ambitious, too difficult, too short a time, too much intrusion into people's personal choices, too draconian on cars and too little money was on offer were typical criticisms.

Only those deeply into the issues were excited by the range of proposals and the positive impact they would have. All Aboard Aotearoa and its member groups are insightful sources. Limited experience here and abundant abroad show we will make Auckland a much better place to live and work, with economic and health benefits to boot.

So, clearly there's a big task ahead to make the public more aware of our transport problems, and more enthusiastic about our solutions. The local body elections will only make the task harder. The proposals could easily become a campaign flash point, and reduce support for the proposals in the new council and local boards.

Let's start with some real time data. I'm writing these words just after 5pm on Wednesday, August 17. This is what Auckland's traffic looks like right now:

All quiet on Motutapu Island, at least, according to this screen shot from the TomTom Traffic Index's Auckland page.

This is a screen shot from the TomTom Traffic Index's Auckland page. The index covers 404 cities across 58 countries on six continents. It ranks Auckland's traffic as the 66th worst in the world.

If you think we could live with that, then consider this real time data from the Auckland page as I write: there are 255 traffic jams around the city (stretches of road where free flow is impeded) totalling 214.6km.

Yet, it could be worst. We're only at 83 percent congestion as I write, and only 5 percent above the average for this time and day of the week. Oh, and our current congestion level so far this year is running 2 percent higher than last year. But how bad would it be by 2030 if we don't act?

Next data point. We have approximately 540,000 households in Auckland. We're adding about 1,000 new ones a month. By 2030, we'll have added another 100,000 households, an increase of 18.5 percent.

So, let's say we want to remain highly reliant on cars for getting around the city, where will we build the roads (and places to park cars) to accommodate such an increase in people? Roads are expensive. How big a bill are you prepared to pay?

Next data point. Auckland's traffic fumes caused an estimate 939 premature deaths in 2016. That's a figure from the first such scientific modelling of air pollution in New Zealand, released last month.

The estimated toll of premature deaths across the country from traffic fumes that year was 2,247, while traffic accidents caused only an additional 327 actual deaths. The total deaths from all sources of air pollution was 3,317 of which only two were industrial.

The cost to the nation of that pollution was an estimated $15.6 billion in 2016. If we invested a fraction of that each year on more, better and wider transport options, imagine how much better off we'd be in economic and personal terms.

Almost all cities of the world are wrestling with these issues. C40 is a network of some 100 large ones sharing knowledge and experience on how to tackle their climate crises. Transport is a particular focus for them. It accounts for a third of their emissions, and is their main, and fastest growing, source of air pollution; 36 of them have committed to making a major area of their city zero emissions by 2030. Auckland is one of them.

Yes, the key goal of Auckland Council's Transport Emissions Reduction Plan is big. But we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than half by 2030. That's what it will take for transport to play its fair share in meeting our international climate commitments. And we might have to go even harder and faster, given the speed with which climate is changing here and around the world.

The plan is designed to give people more transport options so they choose not to use their cars as much, as this chart from the plans' summary shows:

We'll need to make some big changes to reach our goals

Some of these are highly challenging and essentially beyond the control of the city and its people. A crucial example is a 50 per cent cut in aviation emissions. That depends mainly on clean tech breakthroughs by global aircraft, engine and fuel makers.

But other big goals such as a reduction in vehicle/kilometres by 50 percent by 2030 are within our power. Other cities such as London and Brussels have achieved similar goals over similar timeframes.

We're lagging very badly, though, because of our high usage of cars and low usage of public transport, walking and cycling, as this recent Newsroom analysis showed. But the government has plans to invest more in those non-car modes of transport. We can catch up with other cities abroad if we appreciate the benefits of doing so and get stuck into the challenge.

Such a transport transformation is pro-people, as this chart from the summary of the benefits shows, and other cities are already achieving them.

Those changes have some big benefits

It's not anti-car, as many critics contend. In fact, it will reduce traffic so vehicle journeys will be quicker, more efficient, less polluting and less frustrating. That applies to moving people and freight.

And it's not wishful thinking, which is another uninformed criticism of it. A great deal of analysis has been going on in the Climate Change Commission, government and council over the past year or more, as this analysis on the Greater Auckland website reported recently.

Big transport transformations can happen fast. Just one historic example is the speed with which cars displaced horses in US cities in the early 20th century, as this famous pair of photos of New York City's 5th Avenue shows: "Spot the car" in 1900; and "Spot the horse" in 1913.

Chart 4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rod Oram: Right now, there are 255 traffic jams around Akld - we can do better

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Auckland transport plan is not anti-car - it's pro-people. It will free up roads for those who need them most. And it's not wishful thinking,

# data[].attributes.headline
The Auckland Light Rail (ALR) Proposal: Tunnelled Light Rapid Transit (LRT)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Auckland Light Rail (ALR) Proposal: Tunnelled Light Rapid Transit (LRT)

# data[].attributes.body
The Government has chosen its preferred option for a new mass transit service from the city centre to Māngere.  It's a light rail line that will run in tunnels all the way from Wynyard Quarter to Mt Roskill, roughly following the route of Sandringham Rd, not Dominion Rd.  It will then proceed on surface track along the route of State Highway 20, deviating to stop at Onehunga and Māngere townships before continuing to the airport.  The Government says this light rail option will see transport available every five minutes from about 18 stops - cutting travel times from the CBD to the airport in half for many commuters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Government has chosen its preferred option for a new mass transit service from the city centre to Māngere.

It's a light rail line that will run in tunnels all the way from Wynyard Quarter to Mt Roskill, roughly following the route of Sandringham Rd, not Dominion Rd.

It will then proceed on surface track along the route of State Highway 20, deviating to stop at Onehunga and Māngere townships before continuing to the airport.

The Government says this light rail option will see transport available every five minutes from about 18 stops - cutting travel times from the CBD to the airport in half for many commuters.

In another announcement today the Government has brought forward the timetable for a second harbour crossing and intends to make the key decisions next year.

Auckland Mayor Phil Goff has welcomed the city centre to Māngere light rail route, saying it is critical to "prevent future gridlock".

Announcing the decision today, Infrastructure Minister Grant Robertson said the line would help in "preparing for and safeguarding our country's economic future today".

The Government estimates there will be up to 66,000 new homes and 97,000 new jobs along the route by 2051.

Transport Minister Michael Wood said the Government was "proceeding with the option recommended by the Auckland Light Rail Establishment Unit".

"Our largest city needs a linked-up rapid transit transport network that will serve Aucklanders into the future, making it faster to move through the city, connecting communities, providing greater access to businesses, all while reducing congestion," Wood said.

A "support package" for affected businesses will be created.

"Addressing future disruption is front of mind for the Government, and designing a support package alongside business will be a major part of this engagement in 2022," said Wood.

"We are making a commitment to businesses in the area that significant disruption will be addressed through a comprehensive package, including direct financial support."

The new line, known as City Centre to Māngere (CC2M) will have 18 stations or stops, with trains able to run every five minutes.

It will be capable of carrying 12,000 people per hour, which the Government says is four times more passengers than can be carried on a dedicated busway or "trackless trams".

At about 11km, the tunnel will be the longest in New Zealand.

A detailed business case will now be prepared. It is not clear yet when digging will start, or how long the project will take. The ALR Establishment Unit put the cost at close to $15 billion.

In choosing this option, the Government has rejected an even more expensive "light metro" underground option, which would have been faster and had slightly fewer stations.

It has also rejected a much cheaper surface light rail option, which would have run on Queen St, and then on Dominion Rd or Sandringham Rd.

Second Auckland harbour crossing

Robertson and Wood have also revealed the Government has brought forward the timetable for an additional harbour crossing and intends to make the key decisions next year.

This will include choosing a route, deciding on tunnels or another bridge, and confirming what transport modes will be able to use the crossing.

Tunnels are currently the favoured option. The crossing will be for mass transit but could also carry cars. The likely option for transit is a light rail service.

Robertson said the CC2M light rail line would "integrate with other major infrastructure projects across Auckland, like the additional Waitematā Harbour crossing".

This will enable a second transit service to be developed on the North Shore, complementing the Northern Busway.

This means the CC2M light rail line is likely, in time, to be extended across the harbour to the Shore.

"The Northern Busway is growing by 20 per cent a year," said Wood, "and will run out of capacity in 10-15 years, so new transport options for the future are needed."

There is no news for commuters in the northwest corridor, although a dedicated bus lane is being constructed now on parts of State Highway 16.

The announcement means Auckland will have three mass transit systems: the existing rail service, the new light rail, and rapid bus lines. Further light rail and bus lines are planned for the future.

All of the "new" projects are already contained within the Auckland Transport Alignment Project, but the announcement today signals there will be progress, at last, on CC2M light rail, and faster progress than was planned on the new harbour crossing.

Goff: Light rail route to prevent 'future' gridlock'

The Auckland mayor welcomed today's announcement, saying light rail was critical to Auckland's future to address congestion and reduce emissions.

"City Centre to Māngere Light Rail is the critical link needed to develop a rapid transit network around the city to prevent future gridlock.

For more than 50 years Auckland's rapid population growth had not been matched by investment in transport infrastructure.

This resulted in congestion and more than 40 per cent of the city's carbon emissions coming from transport.

"These are two of the biggest challenges facing the city, and can only be addressed by transformational change, which the light rail project is part of.

"The city's other major challenge is for more and intensified housing to stop sprawl. The light rail corridor will enable housing intensification, which will cater for 200,000 additional people within the city, a quarter of the city's projected future growth.

"It will also enable access to a forecast 97,000 extra jobs which will be created in the corridor," Goff said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Auckland light rail to slash CBD-airport travel time, second harbour crossing decision in 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Light rail gets the green light, second harbour crossing is now on a fast track.

# data[].attributes.body
Aspects of a geographic issue refer to the nature of the contemporary geographic issue, viewpoints that relate to the issue (and how they change over time), and evaluation of courses of action relating to the issue.

Contemporary issu e refers to an issue that is affecting people or places now or in the near future.

Geographic issue refers to a topic, concern, problem, debate, or controversy related to a natural or cultural environment, which also includes a spatial dimension.

The contemporary geographic issue must be a local or national issue within New Zealand.

# data[].attributes.body
This proposal has changed so many times over the years that most of the articles you will find online actually relate to older, (and therefore probably irrelevant), proposals. Try to use only articles from the last year or so

# data[].attributes.body
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1gAfhxHYyp6-yHuwURtjo2Q3ZUxJMkpF4T6d85BxSPME/present?slide=id.p

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Auckland is the largest city in New Zealand, and with a population of over 1.6 million people, it's no surprise that its transport network has become increasingly congested. With a growing population and the introduction of new technologies such as Uber, the need to solve Auckland's transport network problems has never been greater. In this article, we will discuss some potential solutions to help alleviate these issues and provide a more streamlined transport system for all.

Auckland's transport network consists of an extensive range of options including buses, trains, ferries, carpools and ridesharing services such as Uber. However, despite having these various options available, there are still many issues with congestion and overcrowding on Auckland's public transportation system which can be frustrating for commuters. This can be especially true during peak times when the demand is highest. Additionally, the cost of transportation can be prohibitively expensive for some residents who are unable to afford cars or other modes of private transportation.

Thankfully there are several solutions which could help improve Auckland's transport system and make it more efficient for everyone involved. We will look at some ideas for improving existing infrastructure as well as introducing new technologies which could revolutionize how people get around Auckland in the future. So let's dive into some potential solutions to Auckland's transport network problems!

Overview Of Auckland's Transport Network Challenges

Auckland's transport network has seen a lot of growth over the past few decades, and with that growth have come some serious challenges. From traffic congestion to inadequate public transport options, the city is struggling to keep up with its own success. Let's take a closer look at what's causing these problems and what solutions are being proposed.

Traffic congestion is one of Auckland's biggest transport network issues. With so many people living in the city, it's no surprise that there are often delays on the roads. In addition, many of Auckland's roads are not designed for the amount of traffic they now receive, which makes congestion worse. To tackle this problem, Auckland Transport has proposed investing in more public transport infrastructure such as buses and trains as well as widening existing roads where possible.

Another challenge facing Auckland's transport network is its lack of reliable public transport options. Buses can be unreliable and overcrowded, while trains can be too expensive for some people to use regularly. To address this issue, Auckland Transport is focusing on improving existing services by increasing frequency and reliability as well as making them more affordable for lower-income residents. They're also looking into alternatives such as ride-hailing services and bike shares to provide more travel options for people who don't have access to a car or public transportation.

It's clear that there are some serious issues with Auckland's current transport network but thankfully there are solutions being proposed that could help alleviate these problems in the future. By investing in better infrastructure and providing more affordable public transportation options, we could see a significant improvement in how people get around the city - something we can all benefit from!

Congestion And Traffic Issues

In Auckland, congestion and traffic issues create a major strain on the transport network. Everyday, thousands of commuters battle the overcrowded roads and public transportation systems. As a result, it can be difficult to get from point A to point B in a timely fashion.

Moreover, this congestion is exacerbated by limited road capacity and inadequate funding for infrastructure projects, leading to delays and frustration for those navigating around the city. This lack of sufficient infrastructure has resulted in an inefficient transport network which doesn't meet the needs of Aucklanders.

It's clear that immediate action needs to be taken to address Auckland's traffic woes. Solutions such as increasing public transportation options, building new roads, or implementing dynamic pricing will all help to improve the system. Without these measures, Auckland's transport network will continue to lag behind other cities in terms of effectiveness and efficiency.

Lack Of Public Transport Infrastructure

The lack of public transport infrastructure in Auckland is a major problem that needs to be addressed. Auckland's public transport network is inadequate compared to other cities, and the current system doesn't provide enough options for commuters. Bus routes are limited, and there are few options outside peak hours, making it difficult for people to get around. Without better access to public transport, the city's traffic problems will continue to worsen.

This issue could be resolved with increased investment in the public transport system. More buses, trains and ferries need to be added to make up for the current shortage of services. Upgrades should also be made to existing infrastructure such as train stations and bus stops so they can accommodate more passengers at once. Furthermore, late night and weekend services need to be improved in order to meet the needs of shift workers.

These changes would go a long way towards improving Auckland's transportation network. Not only would it reduce congestion on the roads but it would also give people more options when travelling from one place to another. Investing in Auckland's public transport infrastructure is essential for creating an efficient and sustainable transportation system that meets the needs of everyone who lives or works in the city.

Increasing Demand For Transport Services

Increasing demand for transport services is an issue that needs to be addressed in order to solve Auckland's transport network problems. With the population continuing to grow, more people are travelling to and from the city every day. This requires more efficient, reliable and cost-effective solutions for commuters.

Public transport is one solution that can meet this demand. Improving existing infrastructure such as buses, trains and ferries can help reduce congestion on roads and in turn, improve air quality. Additionally, creating new transport links between suburbs and the city will provide more options for those who need to get around quickly.

Investing in local initiatives such as carpooling or bike lanes will also benefit those who wish to use sustainable methods of travel. By providing these alternatives, it will encourage commuters to leave their cars at home and help alleviate congestion on Auckland's highways. Moreover, it will ensure everyone has access to fast and affordable public transportation whenever they need it.

Financial Challenges And Funding Options

The financial challenges posed by Auckland's transport network problems are considerable. These difficulties can be summed up in two areas - limited revenue and high costs. With limited revenue, the government and other stakeholders have to look for alternative sources of funding for transport initiatives. At the same time, the cost of implementing solutions is high, as it involves major capital investments such as new roads or public transport infrastructure.

To address this issue, the government has introduced several funding strategies. One example is the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF). This fund draws on taxes from fuel and road user charges to finance land transport projects throughout New Zealand. The government also provides subsidies to local authorities and public transport operators in order to encourage investment in public transport services.

These initiatives have helped to increase investment in public transport services, but they are not enough to address all of Auckland's transportation needs. It is clear that additional sources of funding must be explored if Auckland's transport network problems are to be successfully addressed. This may involve increased taxation or private-public partnerships that leverage private sector resources for public benefit. Ultimately, finding sustainable solutions will require a combination of both financial and non-financial measures.

Enhancing Road Networks

Auckland's transport network needs to be improved in order to address its current problems. Enhancing the roads is one of the key strategies that can help achieve this. Firstly, this could involve improving existing road networks by upgrading highways and increasing the capacity of existing roads. It could also include constructing new roads where there are gaps in the current infrastructure, such as creating new connections between suburbs and cities. Secondly, it would involve making sure that traffic flows more efficiently on these roads, either through better traffic management systems or modifying road layouts in order to reduce congestion. Finally, effective maintenance should be carried out on a regular basis to make sure that any repairs are done promptly and that the road surfaces remain safe for use.

These solutions will help create a smoother and more efficient journey for Auckland commuters and improve their overall experience when travelling around the city. It will also benefit businesses who rely on timely deliveries or transportation of goods as well as local residents who may need access to public services located further away from their homes. Investing in Auckland's transport network is important for its long-term sustainability and growth potential, which makes enhancing its road networks a priority moving forward.

In order to successfully implement these solutions, an integrated approach must be taken with both local and national governments allocating sufficient resources to this project while ensuring transparency throughout the process. This combined effort can then result in tangible improvements that will benefit Aucklanders now and into the future.

Developing Public Transport Solutions

Developing public transport solutions is an integral part of addressing Auckland's transport network problems. Public transport networks are a great way to reduce congestion on the roads and promote sustainability. There are a variety of different options available, depending on the city's needs.

One solution is to expand existing public transportation systems, such as buses and trains, to meet the growing demand. This could include adding additional routes or increasing the frequency of existing routes. This type of solution is cost-effective and can be implemented relatively quickly. It also has the potential to reduce traffic congestion in the short term while more long-term solutions are developed.

Another option is to introduce new forms of public transportation, such as light rail or trams. This could provide commuters with more efficient ways to travel around the city, which could lead to fewer vehicles on the road and improved air quality. Additionally, it could be used as an opportunity for economic development, creating jobs and stimulating investment in surrounding neighborhoods.

Investing in public transportation solutions can have numerous benefits for Aucklanders and help address many of its transport network issues. It will take careful planning and consideration to determine which types of solutions are best suited for meeting their needs, but doing so can significantly improve mobility within their city and beyond.

Improving Cycling And Walking Infrastructure

Improving cycling and walking infrastructure is essential for creating a more efficient transport network in Auckland. This is because it offers people the option to get around without relying on public transport, reducing congestion on roads and buses. Additionally, it encourages people to be more active and helps reduce emissions from cars.

To achieve this, Auckland's local government needs to invest in better cycling lanes and paths. This includes widening existing paths, as well as building new ones that connect residential areas with key destinations like schools and shopping centres. Furthermore, improvements should be made to road safety measures such as pedestrian crossings and bike lanes with clear signage.

In addition to investing in infrastructure, local authorities can also promote cycling and walking by organising events such as bike rides or 'walk-to-work' days. Through these initiatives, they can show people the benefits of using non-motorised transport while also raising awareness of safety concerns. By taking these steps, Auckland's transport network problems can be addressed effectively.

Integrating Different Modes Of Transport

Integrating different modes of transport is an important part of solving Auckland's transport network problems. It means connecting existing public transportation options, such as buses and trains, with alternative modes like cycling and walking. This can help people access more areas, reduce congestion on roads, and make the city more accessible for everyone.

The integration of these multiple modes of transport can be done in a number of ways. For example, bike-sharing schemes can be created to allow people to rent bicycles from convenient locations around the city. In addition, dedicated cycle lanes and pedestrian walkways should be established to give cyclists and pedestrians their own safe space away from traffic. Finally, public transportation services should be connected with one another so that commuters have easy access between them.

By integrating different modes of transport, Auckland's transport network will become more efficient and reliable. People will have the freedom to choose how they move around the city while also benefiting from improved safety conditions. Ultimately this could result in less traffic congestion on Auckland's roads meaning faster journey times for all.

Utilising Technology To Solve Network Issues

Technology has revolutionised how we travel and the way we look at transport solutions. Mobility as a Service (MaaS) provides an opportunity to create smarter, more efficient systems. MaaS combines different forms of transport into one simple package, making it easy for users to plan their trips. This could be a great solution for Auckland's transport network problems.

The use of technology in this field can help to improve safety and efficiency as well as reduce congestion and pollution levels. Smart traffic management systems can provide accurate data about road usage, allowing for better decisions when it comes to planning routes and services. Technology can also help with streamlining ticketing systems, creating digital payment solutions and developing applications that make it easier for people to find their way around the city.

In addition to improving existing transport methods, technology can also be used to create new ways of travelling. Autonomous vehicles are already being tested in cities around the world, while drones are being used in some locations to deliver goods or even passengers across short distances quickly and safely. These types of solutions may offer an effective way forward in addressing Auckland's transport network issues in the future.

Enhancing Regional Connectivity

Enhancing regional connectivity is an increasingly important part of Auckland's transport network. Through increased collaboration between stakeholders, new infrastructure and better use of existing infrastructure, it is possible to create better interconnectivity between the regions. This will not only benefit those living in Auckland but also those travelling to and from the city.

By investing in public transport throughout the region, commuters can get around faster and more reliably. It could involve expanding train services or increasing the number of bus routes, as well as introducing bike share programs and carpooling initiatives. Additionally, creating pathways for pedestrians and cyclists would reduce travel times and make commuting less stressful.

The development of a comprehensive regional transport strategy would ensure that all areas are connected with each other through efficient transport links. Furthermore, this could include measures such as incentivising public transport use or developing an integrated ticketing system to make it easier for commuters to move around the region.

By taking these steps, Auckland can create a network that is not only effective but also environmentally friendly and cost-effective for everyone involved.

Implementing Sustainable Transport Strategies

Implementing sustainable transport strategies is a key component in solving Auckland's transport network problems. Such strategies focus on reducing emissions and increasing efficiency while also providing reliable and convenient services. This involves transitioning away from traditional modes of transportation such as cars, buses, and trains and instead investing in greener options like electric vehicles, cycling, and walking.

To achieve these objectives, local governments must work together with the community to develop initiatives which appeal to the needs of both stakeholders. This includes developing incentives to encourage people to switch to more sustainable forms of transport, such as offering monetary rewards or free transit passes for those who use public transport or walk or bike to their destination. It also means investing in infrastructure and creating dedicated lanes for cyclists and pedestrians to ensure safe and easy travel for everyone.

These steps will help move Auckland towards a more efficient, sustainable, and cost-effective transportation system that meets the needs of all its citizens. With careful planning and collaboration between the government, businesses, and citizens alike, Auckland can become a leader in green transportation solutions that benefit everyone.

Exploring New Transport Solutions

Exploring new transport solutions is an important step towards solving the issues with Auckland's transport network. As the population continues to grow, so does the need for efficient and sustainable transport options. This means that it's essential to look at different ways of getting around, such as public transport, cycling, walking and carpooling.

There are a number of potential solutions that could be explored, such as expanding existing public transport networks or introducing new ones. Additionally, increasing investment in cycling infrastructure could provide more opportunities for commuters to get around without having to rely on cars and other motorised vehicles. Finally, incentivising people to carpool by providing them with discounts and other rewards could also help reduce traffic congestion in the city.

These are some of the potential solutions that can be used to tackle Auckland's transport network problems and make the city a more livable place for everyone. By looking at these alternatives and exploring new ideas we can find ways to create a more environmentally friendly transport system that meets the needs of all who live there.

Benefits Of Improved Network Infrastructure

When it comes to addressing Auckland's transport network problems, improved infrastructure is essential. Investing in up-to-date transport solutions can bring numerous benefits for the people of Auckland. From reducing commute times to creating more job opportunities, these improvements can make a real difference.

One of the biggest advantages of upgraded infrastructure is a decrease in travel time for commuters. With more efficient public transportation options, Aucklanders can get from one place to another faster and more conveniently. Additionally, better roads and highways will help reduce traffic congestion, further shortening journey times.

Moreover, investing in new transport solutions also has economic benefits for the city of Auckland. Constructing new railway lines or extending existing ones could create numerous jobs in the area and stimulate investment into businesses located near those routes. This could lead to long-term economic growth and help revitalize certain parts of the city that have been neglected in recent years.

In summary, improving Auckland's transport network infrastructure brings many positive outcomes that should not be ignored - from quicker commutes to greater economic prosperity. It is clear that such investment would be beneficial for all those living in this vibrant metropolitan area.

Prioritising Long-Term Solutions For Auckland's Transport Network

Auckland's transport network is in dire need of improvement, yet it can be hard to determine which solutions should take priority. Long-term solutions are essential for creating a sustainable and efficient transportation system for the city. So, prioritising these solutions is key to solving Auckland's transport network problems.

The most successful long-term fix would be to invest in public transport infrastructure. This means investing in improved roads and highways, as well as rail lines and buses that can easily access key areas of the city. Additionally, improving bike lanes and walkways will make it easier for people to get around town without relying on cars or other forms of transportation.

Investing in technology is another way to create a more efficient transportation system in Auckland. Smart traffic lights and sensors that detect congestion can help reduce traffic jams, while digital ticketing systems can make commuting simpler and more convenient for everyone.

These long-term solutions will not only help make Auckland's transport network more efficient but also improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's clear these changes must be made if we want to create an effective, sustainable transportation system for the city's future.

Conclusion

Auckland's transport network is facing a number of challenges in the near future, but with the right strategies, these can be addressed. By focusing on long-term solutions that invest in sustainable transport infrastructure and explore new technologies, Auckland can ensure its residents have access to efficient and reliable transport services. Prioritising public transport and taking steps to reduce congestion are also important to guarantee that everyone has access to safe, affordable travel options. With the right investment and commitment from all levels of government, Auckland's transport network can become a model for cities around the world. Ultimately, it is up to us to make sure that Auckland's future is one of accessible mobility for all.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Transport Blog | Auckland's Public Transport | Problems and Solutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All about Auckland's public transport. Read about the possible solutions to the worsening traffic and congestion in Auckland.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Auckland traffic has always been a hot topic in NZ. There are regular news articles about the woes of Auckland drivers as they face increasingly congested motorways, and it's always a popular election issue.

Have you ever wondered what the traffic would be like if you leave now, or in another 30 minutes? For those of us driving to work, misjudging traffic flow and journey times can mean we're late for that important meeting or miss those early bird car park deals.

Most of the time we can guess the traffic by previous experience e.g. if you are travelling to the city centre, it is fair enough to assume that it would be jammed in the morning and in the afternoon, as the majority of us start work between 7 and 9am and leave between 4 and 6pm.

This blog post is not about how bad the traffic is, or how we can solve it. It's a fun experiment we set up out of curiosity to see if there was anything behind our assumptions. This isn't a full blown modelling/simulation of Auckland traffic. If anything, we hope it shows how easy it can be to extract simple insights from publicly available data sources, using those insights to help with everyday decisions.

What we did

Google Directions API is a great tool to get estimates on how long it's expected to take to reach a destination. We set up six Google Sheets spreadsheets with a simple script to make calls every minute to the API to retrieve travel duration estimates to/from three cardinal directions (north, west and south) to/from the CBD. As expected, there was a noticeable morning and evening rush.

Observations from Auckland commuter traffic

The southern motorway seems to have very stable morning and evening traffic

People living in the south seem to travel earlier than everyone else

The northern motorway is the most chaotic in the morning (The Auckland Harbour Bridge will contribute to those higher travel times) and quietest in the evening

It is worse to travel to the city between 7am and 8.30am. It is also worse to leave the city centre between 4pm and 6pm.

More interesting observations can be made if we break down the day-to-day travel times for each direction. Below are the plots representing weekday travel duration estimates:
North West South
From the plots above, we can make some observations:

In most cases, getting to work on Mondays and Fridays has a similar pattern. We could assume the later Monday start could be because it's more challenging to get out of bed the first day after the weekend. People may start later on Fridays or have the day off or work from home.

We stay later at work at the beginning of the week and leave work earlier closer to the end of the week

All three directions exhibit the same behavioural trend: we seem to be really eager to leave earlier and earlier as the week goes on.

As we leave work earlier, travel times increase as well. So, leaving early might not be the best option.

If we look back at the overall travel duration times for three directions, we notice something else. Regardless of the direction you are going, if you are getting into the city in the morning or you are leaving the city in the afternoon, every half an hour you are late, you add a further 10 minutes to your total travel time.

This might sound like we are suggesting to leave early. Actually, we are saying the opposite. Leave later because travel times decrease faster after peak hours.

There is a linear relationship between the time you want to leave and how busy the traffic will be at the time

e.g. If you normally leave your house at 7am and you are planning to leave at 7.30am, this will add another 10 minutes to your total travel time. So, every half an hour is equivalent to 10 minutes additional travel time when getting into the city in the morning hours, and leaving the city in the afternoon.

Tips for Auckland commuters based on this data

Don't travel at peak hours if you can avoid it. These are: 6.30am - 8.30am if you are getting into the city, and 4.30pm - 5.30pm if you are leaving the city.

We are causing the traffic jams on the southern highway by leaving way too early on Fridays, which defeats the purpose of leaving early

Getting in at 6am and leaving at 3pm will give you nine working hours with the shortest travel times if you are travelling into the city in the morning and out in the afternoon

If you have any questions or would like to discuss how data science could solve problems and provide insights for your business, then please get in touch.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Data Driven Tips for Auckland Commuters | Sandfield

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Data-driven decision making is vital across business and daily life. For commuters, misjudging traffic and journey times can mean we're late for work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Traffic Index ranking | TomTom Traffic Index

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TomTom traffic index

Covering 390 cities across 56 countries on 6 continents, the TomTom Traffic Index measures cities around the world by their travel time, fuel costs and CO ₂ emissions, providing free access to city-by-city information. You, along with drivers, city planners, automakers and policy makers, can use the index to help tackle traffic-related challenges.

Calling all city planners, automakers and policy makers - let's change the way the world moves.

Copyright © 2023 TomTom International BV. All rights reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Traffic Index ranking | TomTom Traffic Index

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Ranking travel times across 390 cities worldwide. Check out the most congested cities in the world."

# data[].attributes.body
Have a look at the maps on p16,17

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Steven Joyce: Light rail - Labour's Dom Perignon tastes on a carrot juice budget

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OPINION: The sooner we bin this unrealistic obsession with trams the better.