city centre future access study section 1

1

Section 1 City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS)

City Centre Future Access Study

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT

The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.



Sinclair Knight Merz PO Box 9806 Newmarket 1023 Auckland New Zealand Tel: +64 9 928 5500 Fax: +64 9 928 5501 Web: www.globalskm.com COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Sinclair Knight Merz Limited. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Sinclair Knight Merz constitutes an infringement of copyright.

LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Sinclair Knight Merz Limited’s Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between Sinclair Knight Merz and its Client. Sinclair Knight Merz accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE i

Contents 1. Executive summary 7

1.1. Introduction 8 1.2. Strategic context 9 1.3. Long list assessment 14 1.4. Short list option assessment 15 1.5. Multimodal programme and sequencing 16

2. Introduction 22 2.1. Study inception 22 2.2. The case for change 22 2.3. Study vision 22

3. Background 25 3.1. Comparison of the CCFAS and the APB&B Study 28 3.2. Regional growth and integrated land use 31 3.3. Supporting regional growth through greenfield development 35 3.4. The City Centre and its growth 39 3.4.1. City Centre growth 39 3.4.2. City Centre employment and access 40 3.4.3. Education 42 3.4.4. Regional hub for critical components of the Auckland economy 43 3.5. The nature of Auckland’s transport challenge 43 3.5.1. Overview 43 3.5.2. Current City Centre access 45 3.5.3. Rail and Bus Catchments 46 3.6. Strategic challenges looking ahead 51

4. Defining the case for change 52 4.1. Deficiency Analysis framework 53 4.2. Initial Reference Case definition 53 4.3. Deficiency Analysis findings 54 4.4. Rail constraints at Britomart 70 4.5. Bus network capacity 71

5. Short list option development 73 5.1.1. Underground rail infrastructure headline 74 5.1.2. Surface bus infrastructure headline 74 5.1.3. Underground bus infrastructure headline 79 5.1.4. Regional approach treatments for bus options 80 5.1.5. Other infrastructure options headline 81


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE ii

5.1.6. Long list option summary 83 5.3. Long list option evaluation 86 5.3.1. Surface bus infrastructure headline 87 5.3.2. Underground bus infrastructure headline 87 5.3.3. Other infrastructure options headline 88

6. Short list option assessment 90 6.1. Short list multimodal option development 91 6.1.1. Balanced Reference Case 91 6.1.2. Underground rail (CRL) 94 6.1.3. Surface bus (SB1) 100 6.1.4. Surface bus with regional approach corridors (SB2) 111 6.1.5. Regional approach corridors 111 6.1.6. Underground bus (UB1) 116 6.1.7. Option UB1 and UB2 bus stations / marshalling areas 121 6.1.8. Underground bus with regional approach corridors (UB2) 121 6.2. Bus operations 122 6.2.1. Additional options to improve bus capacity 132 6.3. Short list option performance summary 135 6.3.1. Demand and capacity 138 6.4. Short list evaluation 143 6.4.1. Short list evaluation framework 143 6.4.2. City Centre access 144 6.4.3. Regional movement 149 6.4.4. Economic performance 152 6.4.5. Environment and amenity impacts 156 6.4.6. Implementation 158 6.4.7. Health and safety 160 6.5. Costs 162 6.5.1. City Rail Link 163 6.5.2. Short listed bus options 163 6.5.3. Surface bus option 1 (SB1) 164 6.5.4. Underground bus option 1 (UB1) 164 6.5.5. Surface bus option 2 (SB2) 164 6.5.6. Underground bus option 2 (UB2) 165 6.5.7. Cost estimate format and summary 165 6.5.8. Operating costs 165

7. Economic evaluation 167 7.1.1. Traditional transport user benefits 170 7.1.2. Wider Economic Benefits 175 7.1.3. Economic evaluation summary 183


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE iii

8. Multimodal programme 187 8.1. Headline improvements based on a single mode? 188 8.2. Multimodal programme and sequencing 196 8.3. Strategic fit with other projects 198

9. Summary 200 Appendix A CCFAS / APB&B differences 202 Appendix B Inputs assumptions working paper 203 Appendix C Deficiency analysis working paper 204 Appendix D Long list options development working paper 205 Appendix E Long list options evaluation working paper 206 Appendix F Short list options working paper 207 Appendix G Evaluation framework 208 Appendix H Cost estimate 209 Appendix I CCFAS economic analysis working paper 210


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE iv

Document history and status Revision Date issued Reviewed by Approved by Date approved Revision type

A 09/11/12 DRAFT

B 14/11/12 DRAFT

C 15/11/12 DRAFT

D 05/12/12 R Hancy R Hancy 05/12/12 DRAFT

0 10/12/12 R Hancy R Hancy 10/12/12 Final

Distribution of copies Revision Copy no Quantity Issued to

Final 0 AT (electronic)

Printed: 10 December 2012

Last saved: 10 December 2012 01:17 PM

File name: I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Reports\Study Technical Report\Study Technical Report Final 0 v1.docx

Author: Andrew Bell / Jarrod Darlington

Project manager: Jarrod Darlington

Name of organisation: Auckland Transport

Name of project: City Centre Future Access Study

Name of document: Study Technical Report

Document version: Final 0

Project number: ZB01280

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Executive summary

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5

Glossary

Term Abbreviation

AECOM, Parsons Brinckerhoff & Beca APB&B Additional Waitematā Harbour Crossing AWHC Auckland Growth Model Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative Auckland Regional Transport Authority Auckland Council

AGM AMETI ARTA AC

Auckland Harbour Bridge AHB Auckland Passenger Transport Model APT Auckland Plan Auckland Regional Transport model Auckland Strategic Planning model Auckland Transport Benefit Cost Ratio Bus Rapid Transit

AP ART3 ASP3 AT BCR BRT

Census Area Unit Central Business District Central Motorway Junction City Centre Future Access Study City Centre Master Plan City Rail Link Comparative Benefit Cost Ratio Economic Evaluation Manual Effective Density Equivalent Full Time Students Frequent Transit Network Gross Domestic Product Inner West Interchange Imperfect Competition Kilometres per hour KiwiRail Group Labour Force Participation Land Use Transport Integration Mode Specific Constant Move to More Productive Jobs Metropolitan Urban Limits McCormick Rankin Cagney Ministry of Transport NZ Transport Agency Passenger Transport Network Plan Project Review Group Personalised Rapid Transport Public Transport Public Transport Operating Model

CAU CBD CMJ CCFAS CCMP CRL CBCR EEM ED EFTS FTN GDP INWI IC kph KRG LFP LUTI MSC M2MPJ MUL MRC MoT NZTA PTNP PRG PRT PT PTOM

PricewaterhouseCoopers Project Working Group

PWC PWG



Term Abbreviation Rapid Transit Network Regional Land Transport Programme Roads of National Significance Rural Urban Boundary Simulation and Assignment of Traffic to Urban Road Networks Sinclair Knight Merz Surface Bus 1 Surface Bus 2 Trains Per Hour Transport Demand Management Transport Planning Senior Officials Group Transport Research Bureau Underground Bus 1 Underground Bus 2 Vehicle Operating Cost Volume to Capacity Ratio Wider Economic Benefits

RTN RLTP RONS RUB SATURN SKM SB1 SB2 tph TDM TPSOG TRB UB1 UB2 VOC VCR WEBs



1. Executive summary The Auckland City Centre will face significant access issues across all entry points from as early as 2021.

This constrained access will limit Auckland’s potential growth through: • Increasing travel times for commuters trying to access employment in the City Centre • Reducing the efficiency for freight and commercial road users who need to access the port,

move around the City Centre, or just pass through using the Central Motorway junction. • Pushing employment to locations other than the City Centre which will reduce productivity

and lead to a less competitive economy. By 2041, constrained City Centre access to the south, west and east will:

• Fail to deliver 15,200 employees and students who would otherwise have come into the City Centre. This is the equivalent of removing all the employment presently catered for on the Terrace, Molesworth Street and Hawkestone Street in Wellington.

• Increase car commuting times for those that do go to the City Centre by 30-50% • Reduce speeds in the City Centre for commuter, freight and commercial vehicles by 75%

The City Centre Future Access Study investigates how these future access problems can be addressed. Three options are considered in detail. Each has a “headline option” of a single mode of public transport supported by additional, but less significant investments in other public transport modes: Underground Rail, connecting to the existing rail network. This headline option delivers the highest number of people, involves the smallest land take and has the most beneficial impact on car commuters and freight. It is the only headline option with any capacity after 2041. It is also the most expensive capital cost option at $2.4 billion.

Surface Bus, with and without improved access outside the City Centre. This option delivers some capacity, but reaches its limits between 2025- 2030 and costs up to $1.13 billion. Including approaches also entails significant land take in suburban Auckland. It is the best of the bus options.

Underground Bus, with and without improved surface access outside the City Centre. This option delivers some additional capacity, but reaches its limits between 2025-2030 and costs up to $ 2.34 billion. Including approaches also entails significant land take in suburban Auckland. It is not considered a viable option.

None of the headline options tested fully addresses City Centre access. However, taking an Integrated option of the Underground Rail option and filling in gaps with the best operational aspects of the surface bus option will effectively address City Centre Access for the next 30 years and beyond from the south, east and west as well as the central and southern isthmus.



1.1. Introduction

The City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS or Study) was commissioned to develop a robust and achievable multimodal programme for transport into the Auckland City Centre which considers a thorough analysis of alternatives and identifies the optimal mix of modes to meet future demand. This included consideration of the prioritisation and sequencing of projects.

The Study has focussed on a number of multimodal transport options based around a series of “headline” public transport modes. In particular, these are:

Underground rail infrastructure

Surface bus infrastructure

Underground bus infrastructure

Each one of these headline modes has been developed with a suite of other multimodal measures including private vehicles. The key objectives in developing each option have been to design a programme that:

Provides for future City Centre growth and employment, recognising that the City Centre is a critical part of the Auckland and New Zealand economy

Supports regional growth objectives by providing access for targeted residential growth areas

Delivers not just benefits for public transport users, but benefits for all transport users including private motor vehicles, commercial vehicles and freight

The CCFAS sits as part of a network-wide work programme investigating the need for a City Centre transport solution for Auckland. Improved access to, and within, the City Centre has been an issue for Auckland’s growth and productivity for a number of decades. Modelling indicates that this will become a more significant issue in the future.

It follows work undertaken on route protection and analysis of the costs and benefits of a City Rail Link (CRL) between 2009 and 2011. The CCFAS builds on this work, by taking a network-wide, multimodal view of City Centre access. As such, much of the analysis in the CCFAS is different to the previous work undertaken.

The Study has been undertaken using best practice transport study methodology, with the accepted NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) approach to transport economic evaluation currently used in New Zealand. Key assumptions have been agreed across local and central government and modelled using Auckland Transport (AT) and Auckland Council (AC) models.



1.2. Strategic context

Auckland as New Zealand’s largest city and largest employment centre plays a pivotal role in the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of New Zealand.

Residential growth

Auckland is projected to grow by nearly 700,000 new residents to 2.16 million by 2041, using a medium growth scenario. The Auckland Plan (AP) caters for up to an additional 400,000 dwellings by 2041 including:

Up to 280,000 (70%) of the additional dwellings located within the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL).

Up to 160,000 dwellings planned for outside of the MUL.

Employment and the City Centre

The City Centre plays a critical role in the region’s economy. It accounts for 17% of Auckland’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By 2041 it is estimated to account for 25% of Auckland’s GDP at a time when Auckland’s GDP is growing at 2.4%pa. It is a residential location, employment hub, education hub and the most important tourism and cultural destination in the region. The employment numbers and the residential population of both the City Centre and City Fringe are projected to almost double between 2011 and 2041. Employment growth is shown in Figure 1-1. Added to this are a further 15,000 (on top of the current 50,000 Equivalent Full Time Students (EFTS)) students planned for as the tertiary institutions.



Figure 1-1 Auckland employment by area

Source: Auckland Transport

Regional transport challenges

While the AP and the forecast growth discussed above support greater intensification, the fundamentals of the Auckland region require a transport system that services dispersed travel patterns and residential locations as well as the City Centre.

The Auckland City Centre is not only the most important destination in the city, but is also the most important transit route. Many commuters, freight and commercial trips have origins and destinations outside of the City Centre and pass through the City Centre and City Fringe. In improving access to the City Centre, particularly via public transport, those who pass through the City Centre (including those using the Central Motorway Junction) also benefit. Freight in particular is advantaged by removing private vehicles from the network.

While current and committed transport investment leaves Auckland with a more balanced network that is likely to deliver acceptable levels of service for the next 5-10 years, the ongoing challenge is to cost-effectively address medium to long term issues. This challenge has a number of economic, social and environmental components.

At a high level, the challenge is threefold:



Ensure future region-wide growth is accommodated.

Deliver a network that supports targeted growth areas.

Deliver a network that allows economic growth and focuses on high economic returns in the future.

A Deficiency Analysis was undertaken to identify future constraints on access to the City Centre.

This Deficiency Analysis concluded that there are significant and pressing access issues to the City Centre.

By 2021:

o Most bus networks approaching the City Centre, as well as within the City Centre itself are at capacity and some are over capacity in terms of what can physically be provided for within the existing road corridor (i.e. it is not just a matter of providing additional buses on existing roads).

o Private commuter, freight and commercial vehicle speeds in the City Centre are more than halved from 16 kph in the morning peak (2010) to just over 7 kph.

o The rail network has reached the maximum number of services possible due to the Britomart constraint of a maximum of 20 trains/hour/direction. Some patronage capacity remains by building up the remaining peak mainline train services (southern, eastern and western lines) to 6-car Electric Multiple Units (EMUs), assuming that has not already been done by 2021.

Figure 1-2 below highlights the public transport network and indicates the volume to capacity ratio (VCR) on the key links in the morning peak hour in 2021.1

1 A VCR of 1 indicates that the corridor is at capacity



Figure 1-2 Morning peak hour public transport VCR plot (2021)

Source: CCFAS Deficiency Analysis

By 2041:

o The bus network is significantly over capacity.

o Private vehicle, freight and commercial vehicle journey times to the City Centre have increased by 30-50% since 2021 from the west and south, with an extra 30 minutes each way from the Southern Growth Area2. The addition of the AWHC improves overall journey times from the north. Journey times from the isthmus are forecast to increase by 20-30% over the same period.

o Average vehicle speeds in the City Centre drop to 5 kph in the morning peak – the equivalent of walking pace.

o While there is spare patronage capacity on the rail network coming into Britomart, there are capacity issues on rail outside the City Centre, with volumes exceeding capacity on the Western Line and approaching Puhinui, Penrose and Newmarket Stations on the Southern Line.

2 The Southern Growth Area is an area of greenfield growth in the Franklin area identified in the Auckland Plan



Figure 1-3 below highlights the public transport network and indicates the VCR on the key links in the morning peak hour in 2041.

Figure 1-3 Morning peak hour public transport VCR plot (2041)


The impact of the City Centre in terms of general traffic speeds is summarised in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 City Centre summary3,4

Reference Case 2010 2021 2041

Auckland population 1,462,000 1,722,000 (+18%) 2,161,000 (+48%) Number of vehicle trips in CMJ cordon, morning peak hour

26,600 37,900 (+42%) 41,800 (+57%)

Average speed (kph), morning peak hour

3 Note that these speeds are modelled based on best estimates. The absolute speeds may have some variability but the relativities are more important to consider. 4 Average traffic speed in central London, with the congestion charging scheme in operation, was below 15 km/h in 2006. Prior to the congestion charging scheme, average traffic speed in central London was below 13 km/h.

5 7 16



Source: City Centre SATURN model, CBD cordon statistics, morning peak hour

Modelling Assumptions

The Study modelling is premised on a medium population growth scenario, with 60% of that growth inside the MUL and 40% outside. The modelling also includes all major projects outside of the study area included in the Auckland Plan (for example, the Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing (AWHC) is included and providing significant capacity and improved journey times to the City Centre from the north). As such, it is an analysis at the more optimistic end of the scale in terms of the ability of the City Centre to accommodate demand.

Higher and lower growth scenarios were also modelled. These included:

• High population growth with a 70:30 split

• High population growth with a 60:40 split

• Low population growth with a 60:40 split

The results of these sensitivity tests are discussed in detail in Section 7.1.3 but the key conclusion is that the relative differences between the options remained the same which ensured robustness of the conclusions of this Study.

1.3. Long list assessment

A long list of potential options was identified within a number of parameters:

Mode: Including bus, rail, light rail and personal rapid transit (PRT).

Scope: With options ranging from optimisation of existing assets through to additional infrastructure.

Location: Overlaying these modes, underground, surface and above ground variations were considered. Critically, the long list also included consideration of approaches outside of the City Centre and City Fringe.

The long list and the evaluation criteria were developed in consultation with Auckland Transport and Auckland Council and central government in a series of workshops. The method used to consider the long list was a multicriteria analysis. This approach is consistent with international best practice for transport projects. It is also consistent with NZ Treasury guidance for long list option development contained in their Better Business Cases toolkit.

46 options were identified for the long list. Through the two long list option evaluation workshops and revising the evaluation approach to incorporate both quantitative and qualitative assessments, the options to take forward to the short list for more detailed modelling and assessment were agreed by all stakeholders:



1.4. Short list option assessment

A multimodal package was developed for each of the broad short list “headline” options. To enable the relative economic performance of the options to be compared, a Comparative Benefit Cost Ratio (CBCR) has been produced. This is not be compared to a standard or traditional funding BCR as its sole purpose is for comparison between the options and it is the relativity of the CBCRs which is important. During a Detailed Business Case process a funding BCR would be produced which would compare the full benefits and costs of any option using parameters in line with the NZTA EEM.

Balanced Reference Case

The Balanced Reference Case was developed following the Deficiency Analysis and subsequent discussions with central government in an attempt to provide a more “realistic” reference point than the initial reference case, based on bus volumes that could be provided without the need for large scale infrastructure within the City Centre. It contains significantly greater improvements to the regional transport network than would normally be included in a traditional “base case” (eg. It includes the AWHC). When comparing the short listed options against the Balanced Reference Case, their benefits would likely to be lower than if compared against a traditional base case.

Underground Rail (CRL)

The CRL comprises a proposed 3.4km rail tunnel from Britomart to Mt Eden at an estimated capital cost of $2.86 billion (when fully inflated to the year of spend, or $2.4 billion in $2012). The CRL will connect Britomart to the existing Western Line with three new underground City Centre stations in the Aotea Square, Karangahape Road and Newton areas. The CRL is required as the existing terminus at Britomart limits line capacity to 20 trains per hour, and significantly constrains the rail network’s potential in servicing planned growth in the Auckland region.

Overall the CRL option produced the highest benefits but also has the highest costs. In particular it provides the greatest multimodal capacity to get people into the City Centre, has the highest road network speeds within the City Centre and is the longest-lasting solution in terms of capacity. It does little to improve access from the North Shore or central and southern Isthmus which are primarily serviced by bus. This option also had the highest cost. Its Comparative Benefit Cost Ratio (CBCR) is as follows:

CBCR CRL

NZTA Economic Evaluation Manual without Wider Economic Benefits 0.4

NZTA EEM including WEBs 0.9 Surface Bus (SB1) (SB2)

The surface bus options aim to provide a high quality bus based access strategy for the City Centre by providing bus priority at the expense of general traffic and increasing capacity at identified



bottlenecks. As investment is focused on improving bus performance, the rail network is not developed further following electrification.

SB2 adds regional approach corridors and bus priority measures outside the City Centre.

The surface bus options are the lowest cost options and provide improvements in the short term. The options best meet the needs of those travelling from the North Shore. They also improve access from the central and southern Isthmus. However, the options reach capacity very quickly. In most cases, the infrastructure investment buys only three to five years of extra capacity after the currently funded bus network improvements with most services at capacity by 2025 and nearly all by 2030. By requiring road space used by general traffic, the surface bus options also significantly degrade vehicle speeds for private motor vehicles, freight and commercial vehicles in the City Centre, making them worse than the Balanced Reference Case (i.e.it is worse for private vehicles compared to doing nothing). A significant amount of additional residential and commercial property is also required to provide the regional approach corridors for SB2 and the bus marshalling / staging areas within the City Centre.

CBCR SB1 CBCR SB2

NZTA Economic Evaluation Manual without Wider Economic Benefits -0.1 0.0

NZTA EEM including WEBs 0.4 0.3 Underground Bus (UB1) (UB2)

The underground bus option is based on a high level of bus priority in the City Centre, by providing a dedicated bus tunnel along the Wellesley Street alignment with associated at grade infrastructure and service improvements.

UB2 adds to this by improving the regional approaches identical to SB2.

These options provide for marginally more public transport capacity than the surface bus options, and improve amenity within the City Centre relative to the surface bus options. They also require less land in the City Centre and do not reallocate as much of the City Centre road space to buses. Therefore their impact on congestion in the City Centre will be less. They are, however, significantly more expensive than the surface bus options with little long-term capacity improvement.

CBCR UB1 CBCR UB2

NZTA Economic Evaluation Manual without Wider Economic Benefits 0.1 0.1

NZTA EEM including WEBs 0.2 0.2 1.5. Multimodal programme and sequencing

Each of the options developed and taken through to the short list are multimodal and are premised on a 2021 implementation time.



Analysis suggests that a multimodal programme combining the CRL and surface bus “headline” (the Integrated option) would best meet City Centre access needs in a sustainable manner. This option would include the CRL improvements but would also involve incremental bus improvements. The Integrated option is the only one that meets the total demand for public transport travel into the City Centre. If the CRL and improvements to bus facilities on Wellesley and Symonds Streets are in place by 2021, vehicle speeds in the City Centre can be maintained at a similar level to the Balanced Reference Case, while providing access for significantly more people by public transport.

The CBCR of the Integrated option would be similar to the CRL option which performed the best of any of the individual short list options.

CBCR Integrated option


NZTA EEM including WEBs 0.9

In terms of considering later implementation dates than 2021, it is clear that the transport demand impacts are significant very early in the analysis period and delaying addressing these would impose increasing costs on access to the City Centre. The effect of this will be to: displace employment, restrict growth, forgo benefits of agglomeration.

City Centre access also sits within a wider suite of transport projects and other headline projects which are already committed or are outlined in the AP, the CCMP and the Integrated Transport Plan. In the following timeline, projects of significant scale and those that involve large tunnel construction have been highlighted.



The construction of a City Centre access solution in the early part of the 2020’s has the strongest strategic fit with other key initiatives in Auckland both in terms of transport and in a wider context. It is unlikely that multiple large construction projects involving tunnels could sustainably be run or funded in parallel. This indicates that an optimal timing for CRL construction would see opening in the early 2020s.



Table 1-2 Summary of short list option evaluation, 2021 inbound morning 2 hour period

2011 Balanced Reference Case CRL Surface Bus Underground Bus Integrated (CRL +

Surface Bus)

City Centre speeds5 (kph)

Total motorised City Centre commuters6

71,800 95,400 98,800 98,500 97,600 100,900

7 39,100 (55%) 44,000 (46%) 42,400 (43%) 42,500 (43%) 42,900 (44%) 40,700 (40%)

8

Included in above figure 3,200 (3%) 3,200 (3%) 3,200 (3%) 3,200 (3%) 3,200 (3%)

5,600 (8%) 12,100 (13%) 19,300 (20%) 11,200 (11%) 11,500 (12%) 18,100 (18%)

23,400 (33%) 32,500 (34%) 30,400 (31%) 38,500 (39%) 36,700 (38%) 36,000 (36%)

3,700 (5%) 3,600 (4%) 3,500 (4%) 3,100 (3%) 3,300 (3%) 2,900 (3%)

5 Within City Centre cordon (excluding motorway) – morning peak hour (City Centre SATURN model). The speed for 2011 is actually from the model base year of 2010. 6 Excludes those commuters who originate within the City Centre, as the figures below relate to those commuters crossing the City Centre screenline (both for observed (2011) and modelled). This may slightly underestimate car and PT commuters in the future years due to zone/screenline correspondence. 7 Private vehicle passengers. 2011 figure is from screenline counts, modelled figures are the number of vehicles multiplies by 1.3 (persons per vehicle) 8 For 2011, HCV’s are included in the car passengers, as the screenline survey does not differentiate by type of vehicle. Modelled HCVs are not impacted by the options at this level of strategic modelling.

6 6 5 8 7 16




Surface Bus)

Capital cost ($m 2012) - - 2,400

477 (SB1) 1,135 (SB2)

1,677 (UB1) 2,336 (UB2)

2,877

Comparative Benefit Cost Ratio - - 0.9

0.4 (SB1) 0.3 (SB2)

0.2 (UB1) 0.2 (UB2)

0.9



Surface Bus)


Total motorised City Centre

commuters10 71,800 116,500 123,300 121,000 119,800 126,200

11 39,100 (55%) 49,400 (42%) 46,200 (37%) 47,200 (39%) 47,800 (40%) 43,300 (34%)

12

Included in above figure 3,900 (3%) 3,900 (3%) 3,900 (3%) 3,900 (3%) 3,900 (3%)

5,600 (8%) 18,200 (16%) 31,200 (25%) 17,400 (14%) 17,500 (15%) 29,900 (24%)

9 Within City Centre cordon (excluding motorway) – morning peak hour (City Centre SATURN model). The speed for 2011 is actually from the model base year of 2010. 10 Excludes those commuters who originate within the City Centre, as the figures below relate to those commuters crossing the City Centre screenline (both for observed (2011) and modelled). This may slightly underestimate car and PT commuters in the future years due to zone/screenline correspondence. 11 Private vehicle passengers. 2011 figure is from screenline counts, modelled figures are the number of vehicles multiplies by 1.3 (persons per vehicle) 12 For 2011, HCV’s are included in the car passengers, as the screenline survey does not differentiate by type of vehicle. Modelled HCVs are not impacted by the options at this level of strategic modelling.

5 6 5 8 5 16




Surface Bus)

23,400 (33%) 40,300 (35%) 37,400 (30%) 48,300 (40%) 46,300 (39%) 45,000 (36%)

3,700 (5%) 4,700 (4%) 4,600 (4%) 4,200 (3%) 4,300 (4%) 4,100 (3%)

Capital cost ($m 2012) - - 2,400

477 (SB1) 1,135 (SB2)

1,677 (UB1) 2,336 (UB2)

2,877

Comparative Benefit Cost Ratio - - 0.9

0.4 (SB1) 0.3 (SB2)

0.2 (UB1) 0.2 (UB2)

0.9

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Introduction


2. Introduction 2.1. Study inception

In July 2011, the then Minister of Transport wrote to the Mayor of Auckland noting that before undertaking a further Business Case, the development of a ‘robust and achievable multimodal programme for transport into the Auckland City Centre which considers a thorough analysis of alternatives and identifies the optimal mix of modes to meet future demand’ would be required that included ‘consideration of the prioritisation and sequencing of projects’.

In March 2012, AT commissioned Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) to undertake the City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS or Study) to address the Minister’s request.

2.2. The case for change

Auckland is the dominant city in NZ and the role of the City Centre in its on-going success is vital. A strong Central Auckland underpins regional and national economic growth. Significant residential and employment growth is forecast in the City Centre area and is supported by the AP, City Centre Masterplan (CCMP), and Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP). Capacity constraints on the road and bus networks and at the Britomart terminus station mean that access to the City Centre will become more difficult in the future and will constrain the city’s ability to absorb the expected growth and compromise its economic competitiveness.

An effective and efficient transport network is a key factor in driving economic growth and delivering a prosperous and productive city. This is because people need access to employment and businesses need access to workers. Similarly people need to be able to access, recreation and entertainment. Productive time lost as a result of congestion and travel delay has a direct impact on a city’s economic performance.

Following on from work undertaken by Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA), Kiwi Rail group (KRG) and central government in 2010 and 2011 (refer to Section 3), AT required a wide mix of options for improving access to the City Centre be explored. The development of a robust and achievable multimodal programme that considers a thorough analysis of alternatives and identifies the optimal mix of modes to meet demand should ensure that any investment from Auckland Council (AC), AT or central government is as efficient and effective as possible in providing capacity for City Centre growth in the next 30 years.

2.3. Study vision

In 2011, AT agreed with central government to undertake a study to address a number of outstanding issues in relation to the Auckland City Centre. The broad context was that with the adoption of the AP, there was a need to assess transport options to support the implementation of



the planned City Centre growth in a holistic multimodal way. The Study incorporated a number of key stakeholders:

Auckland Transport

Auckland Council

Ministry of Transport

New Zealand Transport Agency

Treasury

It was recognised that investment in the transport network to reduce congestion, improve efficient movement liveability, amenity, and cater for increased travel demand from City Centre activities, particularly employment growth, will be essential if Auckland is to maintain a thriving regional economy and increase international competitiveness. The target is for City Centre access to improve progressively across modes over the next 20 years.

The transport objectives and benefits for the multimodal programme were expected to include:

Increased peak time multimodal network capacity to cater for City Centre employment growth to 2041.

Increased multimodal network reliability.

Reduced travel times.

Each one of the headline modes has been developed with a suite of other multimodal measures including private vehicles. The key objectives in developing each option have been to design a scheme that:

Provides for future City Centre growth and employment, recognising that the City Centre is a critical part of the Auckland and New Zealand economy

Supports regional growth objectives by providing access for targeted residential growth areas

Delivers not just benefits for public transport users, but benefits for all transport users including private motor vehicles, commercial vehicles and freight

Following one on one stakeholder interviews, a “visioning” workshop was held on 23 March 2012 with all key stakeholders. At the workshop, the vision for the study was discussed and confirmed as:

‘Development of a robust and achievable multimodal programme for transport to the city centre to enable and sustain growth in the CBD to 2041 that will increase multimodal network reliability and reduce travel times”



Specific objectives to meet this vision were developed with key stakeholders and reflected in an agreed evaluation framework as described in Section 5.2.

The Study has focussed on a number of multimodal transport options based around a series of “headline” transport modes. In particular, these are:

Underground rail infrastructure.

Surface bus infrastructure.

Underground bus infrastructure.

The headline mode is the lead large infrastructure investment around which a suite of multimodal improvements were developed. For example the underground bus option also includes significant additional investment in bus services to both feed the rail line and to cater for areas which are not served by rail.

The Study assessment period has been aligned to match with the AP. The AP outlines a planned vision to the year 2041.

The assessment undertaken in this Study has drawn heavily upon the data and analytical outputs that supported the development and adoption of the AP to ensure consistency in regards to input assumptions.

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background


3. Background The CCFAS is a critical part of a wider work programme investigating the need for a City Centre transport solution for Auckland. Improved access to, and movement around, the City Centre has been an issue for city planners for a number of decades.

This study follows on from the significant local and central government investment over the last 10 years into improving public transport and private motor vehicle access into and around the City Centre. Table 3-1 summarises the major completed projects in Auckland.

Table 3-1 Major completed projects

Project Description Results/ Impacts Cost Year Organisation Responsible

STATE HIGHWAYS

Grafton Gully upgrade – Extended North Western Motorway to Stanley Street. Eliminated dog leg at Stanley Street/ The Strand/ Parnell Rise intersection

Improved access to the port, especially for heavy commercial vehicles; improved road access to eastern side of City Centre

$70m 2003 NZTA

Central Motorway Junction (CMJ) upgrade – Additional southbound lane Hobson Street to Newmarket Viaduct; completed motorway to motorway connections

New motorway links reduced traffic on City Centre streets. Part 1 of Harbour Bridge/ Southern Motorway capacity balancing

$226m 2006 NZTA

Harbour Bridge upgrade – To extend the life of the Harbour Bridge clip-on lanes

Improved route security and resilience on key roading lifeline

$85m 2011 NZTA

Western Ring Route – Upper Harbour Motorway, Mt Roskill Extension, Manukau Extension, Manukau Harbour Crossing

Provides alternative route to main north south motorway network

$810m 2011 NZTA

Newmarket Viaduct replacement –Replaced earthquake risk viaduct and added 4th southbound lane as far as Greenlane

Part 2 of Harbour Bridge/ Southern Motorway capacity balancing

$230m 2012 NZTA

Victoria Park Tunnel – New northbound tunnel allowing all four lanes of the viaduct to be used by southbound traffic. Widened motorway through St Marys Bay to 10 lanes and citybound bus lane

Final stage of Harbour Bridge/ Southern Motorway capacity balancing

$350m 2012 NZTA

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Auckland Bus Priority Programme – Conversion of kerbside parking lanes into peak period bus lanes on major City Centre-focused Isthmus arterials

Significant speed improvements to bus services on key approach routes to the City Centre, leading to gains in bus patronage

$11m 1998 ACC/AT




Britomart Transport Centre – New downtown bus/rail interchange in City Centre returning rail to the City Centre after an absence of 73 years

Catalyst for the revitalisation of Auckland’s rail network. Four-fold increase in rail patronage in eight-years

$209m 2003 ACC ($20m from central government)

Joint Traffic Operations Centre –Projects include: Regional Route Optimisation, Incident Response Capability, Additional CCTV coverage, Real-time Travel Information (CBD to Airport route)

Substantially made journeys easier by coordinating the management and operation of local roads and state highways

2003 NZTA/AT

Rail service improvements – progressive increase in rail service from basic daytime Monday to Saturday service to closer to a frequent every day service

Each service improvement was met with a corresponding growth in patronage from underlying latent demand

OPEX 2003-

2012

ARTA/AT

New ferry services from Half Moon Bay, Bayswater, Birkenhead, Northcote Point, Gulf Harbour, Pine Harbour, West Harbour

New and improved ferry services resulted in growth in ferry patronage

OPEX 2003-

2012

ARTA/AT

Northern Busway – 6.2 km of bi-directional, and 2.5km of uni-directional busway; five busway stations; two park-and-rides; plus associated bus priority measures on both sides of the harbour

Resulted in a significant increase in people accessing the City Centre by public transport

$294m 2008 NZTA/NSCC/ACC/ARTA13

North Shore bus service review -2008

40% increase in peak bus service in conjunction with opening of Northern Busway

OPEX 2008 ARTA

Botany/Howick service improvements

Ongoing improvements to bus service culminating in a maximum headway of 15 minutes at any time between Pakuranga and Britomart

OPEX 2008-

2012

ARTA/AT

Central Connector – Upgrade of route from Britomart to Newmarket via Grafton to 24-hour bus lanes (Grafton Bridge 7am-7pm weekdays). Upgrade of Grafton Bridge. Bus stop, pedestrian and urban amenity improvements

Significantly reduced peak bus travel times from south/east to City Centre and much improved bus service to Auckland Hospital and university health sciences campus

$42.7m 2009 ACC14

Project DART (core network upgrade) – Double-tracking Western Line; reopen Onehunga Line; Manukau Line and Newmarket Junction upgrade

Built the core rail network infrastructure to make best use of Britomart investment; led to significant rail patronage growth

$600m 2010 KiwiRail

13 NSCC refers to the former North Shore City Council; ARTA refers to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority 14 ACC refers to the former Auckland City Council




Interim rolling stock – Upgrade of ex-Perth DMUs + 24 3-6 push-pull loco hauled trains made up of ex British Mark II carriages

Provides rolling stock to meet growing demand for passenger rail between Britomart opening and the electric train fleet entering operation

$171m 2010 ARTA

Downtown Ferry Terminal upgrade –Upgrade of Downtown Ferry Terminal to improve customer amenity and to cater for the increasing role of ferries

Allowed for additional ferry services to be introduced, e.g. West Harbour, Pine Harbour, Gulf Harbour

$10m 2010 ARTA/AT

Ferry terminal upgrades – Upgrade of Northcote Point, Birkenhead, Matiatia, and Bayswater ferry terminals

Provided quality infrastructure to match upgrades in ferry service frequency and capacity

$9m 2010 AT

Central Flagship Project Simplification of City Centre bus routes based on three link bus routes and supporting services. Led to significant patronage growth

OPEX 2011 ARTA/AT

WALKING AND CYCLING

Increase the pedestrian level of service in key locations in the City Centre, such as Queen Street. This has included streetscape upgrades, changes to traffic signal phasing (for example Barnes Dance), the removal of left turn slip lanes, low speed zones and the new shared spaces. Other more recent pedestrian improvements along Queen Street include the double-phase pedestrian crossings and reduced speed environment.

Pedestrian numbers along Queen Street increased by an impressive 25 per cent during the weekday period15

$40m 2007 ACC

In 2008, following an application by Westfield for permission to construct a high rise building including an underground car park directly to the East of the Britomart Transport Centre, the then Minister of Finance, Dr Michael Cullen wrote to KiwiRail stating “it is in the long term public interest to secure and protect the CBD tunnel route even though construction may not take place for many years”. Central government sought assurance on route viability resulting in KRG and ARTA commissioning the APB&B Study16 (completed November 2010).

The APB&B study was subject to both local authority and central government review over late 2010 and the first half of 2011. The conclusion from those reviews was that there was sufficient comfort to proceed with route protection activities (i.e. the original purpose of the work), but that more work

15 Figures are between 2007 and 2008, CCMP 16 Aecom, Parsons Brinkerhoff and Beca,



was required for a robust case to improve City Centre access, and a more comprehensive investigation into access options across all modes was desirable to ensure the right investment (or mix of investments) was identified.

The CCFAS is the study by which the case for change and options analysis is undertaken. It has a number of important features that differentiate it from the previous work undertaken by APB&B and the subsequent analysis by both local and central government:

The study is multimodal. Its scope requires explicit consideration of bus and rail options and their integration taking into account growth.

The study fully considers multimodal movement both into and around the City Centre. The APB&B Study had a more narrow scope based more on movement around the City Centre, and did not consider in detail the issues associated with access prior to reaching the City Centre.

All key assumptions have been jointly agreed between local and central government prior to modelling being undertaken.

As a result of both a different study scope and different assumptions being used, it was acknowledged at the outset of the CCFAS that the results may be significantly different to previous work undertaken by local or central government on the issues of City Centre access and the City Rail Link. The economic results are not directly comparable with the APB&B Study or the central government review.

3.1. Comparison of the CCFAS and the APB&B Study

The key differences between the APB&B Study and the CCFAS are summarised below. Appendix A provides a more detailed comparison.

Planning context

The Auckland Plan provides a common future planning framework for Auckland and central government to work towards. The Regional Passenger Transport Plan now being consulted brings all modes together to provide for an integrated PT system. The new PT operating plan mans that bus and rail are planned to complement each other and maximise access to PT. The CCFAS relies these documents. For the APB&B Study the Regional Growth Strategy set out an agreed Auckland planning framework. There was no common planning framework for Auckland agreed with central government.

Demographics

Population

CCFAS projections derived from the 2012 Statistics New Zealand projections and informed by the Auckland Plan.



2041

High Population Projection = 2.47m

Med Population Projection = 2.16m

Low Population Projection = 1.8m

Auckland reaches 2 million people in 2034 based on medium projection.

APB&B Study projections were derived from the previous Auckland Regional Council‘s (ARC) modelling of land use for the Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010.

2041

Medium Population Projection = 2.1m

Auckland reaches 2 million people in 2035 based on medium projection.

Regional and City Centre employment

CCFAS projections for regional and City Centre employment totals are derived from the Auckland Transport Model and informed by the Auckland Plan.

2041 Region

High = 1,040,100 employees

Med = 957,659 employees

Low = 870,300 employees

2041 City Centre

147,000 employees

Using the medium scenario regional employment is now expected to be significantly higher in 2041 with 40,000 more jobs forecast.

The APB&B Study projections were derived for regional and City Centre employment totals were derived from Auckland Regional Council (ARC) modelling of land use for the Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010.

2041 Region

918,000 employees

2041 City Centre

162,000 employees

Transport Modelling



The CCFAS modelling is based on outputs from: ART, APT and SATURN models.

Since the APB& B study the following improvements have been made to the models used:

The refinement and expansion of the SATURN model which models the impacts of congestion within the City Centre. This model addresses a major gap identified by APB&B. For the APB&B Study modelling was based on ART, APT outputs and forecasts of the number of cars and buses entering the CBD in the 2041 morning peak to estimate the expected delays. The Study noted that “a more detailed model using a package such as SATURN would be ideal (to show the impact of congestion on cars) but such a model with the correct geographical coverage does not currently exist.”

Crowding function in model: The CCFAS transport modelling includes a newly developed crowding function to limit PT patronage to capacity. In the APB&B Study the transport modelling did not include a crowding function on public transport.

Assumptions for modelling

The modelling undertaken for CCFAS is based on a comprehensive set of assumptions jointly agreed with central government. These include:

Land use based on Statistics NZ’s medium population projections

The 60/40 split of development within and outside the MUL

City centre parking charge of $11 per day applied to 30% of car commuter trips in 2011, rising to $21 per day by 2041 applying to 50% of car commuter trips

A Jointly agreed set of options and collaborative process to short list these for comparison in the CCFAS.

For the APB&B Study the modelling was based on a set of assumptions jointly agreed between ARTA and KRG:

The maximum CBD parking charge in 2041 was taken as $30 for commuters applying to 50% of commuters, to reflect the scarcity of parking in an intensely developed CBD.

A single land use was assumed, consistent with NZTA methodology.

Comparison for economic modelling and multi-criteria analysis

The performance of the CCFAS options was assessed against a Balanced Reference Case option. In the APB&B Study short listed options were assessed against a Do Minimum option which although similar, is not the same as the CCFAS Balanced reference Case. The use of a different



comparator in the economic modelling means that the economic results from the CCFAS are not directly comparable with the results of the APB&B Study.

3.2. Regional growth and integrated land use

Auckland faces a considerable challenge in providing services to a population that is growing at a faster rate than elsewhere in New Zealand.

Auckland is projected to grow by nearly 700,000 new residents to 2.16 million by 2041, using a medium growth scenario. The AP caters for up to an additional 400,000 dwellings by 2041 including:

Up to 280,000 (70%) of the additional dwellings could be located within the 2010 metropolitan urban limit (MUL).

Up to 160,000 dwellings are planned for outside of the MUL.

In many respects, this allowance reflects a historical trend towards higher density development in Auckland where more intensive types of housing are making up a progressively higher proportion of the housing stock.

The AP strikes a balance between intensification within the existing urban area and opening up greenfield areas, including providing cheaper land to facilitate affordable housing development – a clearly signalled priority for central government.17 Supporting regional growth through intensification and integrated land use

17 http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7865553/Affordable-housing-must-become-priority-English



Figure 3-1 Recent development density

Source: Auckland Council, PWC analysis

Importantly, there is a clear trend outside of the City Centre towards a greater level of intensity in the areas with high transport accessibility. The continuation of this trend will be critical to delivering integration between infrastructure and land use in areas closer to the City Centre.



Figure 3-2 Rail and non-rail census area units18

Source: Auckland Council

18 Note that this map show a smaller catchment than the actual rail market that is shown later. It is simply the Census Area Units around the rail lines



Figure 3-3 Recent development density by rail line19


Data from the previous Auckland City Council demonstrates that the areas with higher transport accessibility also attract a more intensive type of development than areas with lower accessibility as shown in Figure 3-4.

19 Note that the largest of the geographic area CAUs have been eliminated as these tend to be rural and less dense, for example – Waitakere Ranges, Hauraki Gulf CAUs, Hunua Ranges.



Figure 3-4 Auckland City Council consents issued 2006-2011 by property type


3.3. Supporting regional growth through greenfield development

Up to 160,000 dwellings are planned for outside of the MUL. This growth is a mixture of organic growth in areas such as Pukekohe, plus an explicit growth strategy over and above organic growth targeting greenfield development. These greenfield growth areas play a critical role not just in relieving supply and price pressure within the MUL, but they are also key to Auckland’s ability to deliver on a jointly shared goal with central government, namely the provision of affordable housing. Figure 3-5 indicates the growth areas identified in the AP.



Figure 3-5 Auckland Plan growth areas

Source: Auckland Plan

The largest area of greenfield growth is the southern growth area. This area makes up 65% of the greenfield dwelling growth outside the MUL and is the highest priority for release. The additional



greenfield dwelling growth alone is approximately equivalent to the size of Hamilton. The growth in the southern region in total (e.g. the old Franklin District) will see a region with a population the size of Lower Hutt, Upper Hutt and Porirua Cities combined (at 2011 levels).

A critical part of the development strategy in the AP will be to ensure that these land use changes are integrated with infrastructure that supports accessibility to a disparate range of employment hubs within Auckland. The majority of these employment hubs are north of the Southern Initiative.

The southern growth area is the highest priority for greenfield release and will be implemented between 2020 and 2028. Providing appropriate infrastructure to service the needs of this area is a critical challenge for Auckland. Figure 3-6 shows the extent of greenfield area in the Southern Growth Area that is marked for development.



Figure 3-6 Southern growth area

Source: Auckland Plan Committee agenda, Auckland Council, 6 November 2012, page 27.

Greenfield growth areas to the north and west are scheduled for release 2029 to 2040 and account for around 40,000 additional dwellings.



3.4. The City Centre and its growth

While Auckland is a geographically dispersed city in terms of employment and residential location, the City Centre plays a critical role as a residential location, employment hub, and education hub. The City Centre is one of the two big initiatives in the AP (City Centre Initiative) and the long-term strategy for the City Centre is captured in the City Centre Masterplan (CCMP).

The vision as outlined in the CCMP is:

“By 2032 Auckland’s City Centre will be highly regarded internationally as a centre for business and learning, innovation, entertainment, culture and urban living”

3.4.1. City Centre growth

The residential population of both the City Centre and City Fringe are projected to almost double between 2011 and 2041. The City Centre is projected to grow by 96% and the City Fringe by 99%. These areas are shown in Figure 3-7.

Figure 3-7 Auckland City Centre definition

Source: CCMP, page 19

Given that the population of the region as a whole is expected to increase by 45 per cent over this period, both the City Centre and City Fringe are growing significantly faster than the average rate of population growth within the region.



3.4.2. City Centre employment and access

The City Centre is already a key employment destination for the region. Over the next 30 years, the employment numbers are projected to almost double in the City Centre and City Fringe as shown in Figure 3-8. The City Centre itself is projected to increase by approximately 80% with almost half this growth forecast by 2021. Only the Waitakere North area will grow at a faster rate and this is a key area earmarked for greenfields growth from a residential perspective (i.e. employment growth is starting from a low base).

Figure 3-8 Projected employment growth


One of the critical reasons for this growth is that the structure of the Auckland economy is changing. Just over one-third of Auckland’s employment is currently in the production and distribution sectors; around one-quarter in each of the commercial sectors and retail, hospitality and recreation sectors; with the remaining employees in the education and health sector.

Consistent with the observed trends in Auckland and other developed cities, Auckland is expected to become increasingly specialised into commercial, office-based activity over time. Growth in the commercial sector will increase the demand for land and premises suitable for office-based activity. These sectors tend to co-locate in City Centres. Meanwhile, growth will occur in the production and distribution sectors, maintaining the demand for land to accommodate these sectors. A continuation of the transformation of centres and corridors with high levels of accessibility for



workers, into areas of commercial, office-based activity combined with the relocation and growth of production and distribution sector activities around the more peripheral greenfield sites is consistent with existing observed patterns of growth in Auckland and is most likely to continue.

Table 3-2 Forecast employment growth by sector and change in employment structure in Auckland, 2007-2041

Growth 2007‐2041 Share of Auckland employment

Industry sector Net change Annual average growth rate

Share of growth

2007 2041

Production and distribution 89,250 1.0% 27% 35% 32%

Retail, hospitality and recreation

37,969 0.7% 12% 23% 19%

Commercial 129,411 1.7% 39% 26% 30%

Education and health 72,496 1.6% 22% 16% 18%

Total industry 329,126 1.2% 100% 100% 100% Source: Auckland Council 2012, Auckland Growth Model.

The City Centre plays a critical role in the region’s economy. It accounts for 17% of Auckland’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By 2041 it is estimated to account for 25% of Auckland’s GDP at a time when Auckland’s GDP is growing at 2.4%pa.

The City Centre plays a critical role as the structure of the economy changes. While growth in businesses will come partly from start-ups, still more growth will come from firms that get larger either through organic growth, or mergers and acquisitions. Business location in Auckland is already dynamic and influenced by a large number of factors. Critical to many relocation decisions is the ability to not only cost-effectively service clients but also locate in an area that maximises advantages to staff, or minimises the impact of the relocation on their commute times.

The qualitative research done by Gravitas20 on the Britomart Precinct neatly summarises the challenge of many business relocation decisions in Auckland: “The CBD is seen as ….being a central location that doesn’t necessarily favour staff coming from any particular direction over another. It is an equitable solution in this respect.”

A number of the businesses that participated in the Gravitas research had surveyed staff prior to their move to identify residential locations and current/preferred mode of travel to and from work. In all cases, the diverse range of residential locations acted as a strong catalyst to locate in central Auckland:

20 Drivers of Business Location in the Auckland CBD, Gravitas 2012



“People come from north, south, east, west. The moment you take a building to any of those other points of the compass, you advantage a few people who live there and everybody else has massive transport hurdles. We ended up with some very strong property solutions down at Sylvia Park, up north of Albany, out at Henderson, which would have saved us a truckload of rent. But moving to any non-central location would have undermined our core principles of getting people out of their cars, getting our people on to public transport, being near to our customers, being near to our suppliers and providing all the support amenities that people lean on during their day.”

“Just in my team for example I’ve got people coming from west Auckland and the North Shore and other people as far out as Beachlands and Papakura. So being in the CBD, being close to the central point of focus I think is pretty imperative.””21

3.4.3. Education

The University of Auckland (UoA) and Auckland University of Technology (AUT) City Centre campuses alone currently account for over 50,000 full time equivalent students (EFTS). Student numbers across these two institutions, combined with general employee numbers in the City Centre and City Fringe total over 170,000 (i.e. tertiary education adds around 45% to the non-education employee count of over 100,000).

The UoA’s strategic plan is to increase this by 1% year on year and AUT has similar goals. Auckland is already seeing these strategic plans put into action via such initiatives as the development of the UoA’s Newmarket campus. These plans would yield over 5,000 additional students across these two institutions within the next 8 years and if taken out to 2040, would deliver around 15,000 additional students.

In addition to the public tertiary institutions, there are a large number of private training facilities within the City Centre and City Fringe which service domestic students, and a significant number of international students.

The international education industry is worth $2.6 billion to the NZ economy and is the 5th largest foreign exchange earner22 aside from tourism (our number two foreign exchange earner); no other services-based industry is in the top 12 foreign exchange earners. The City Centre through the Universities and private training institutions is probably the most significant international education destination in New Zealand and the quality of the City Centre is a factor23 in student decisions to come to New Zealand.

21 Drivers of Business Location in the Auckland CBD, Gravitas 2012, P9-10 22 Statistics NZ, 2008 23 Clearly quality of teaching and cost competitiveness are critical factors as well, however,

research by Education New Zealand points to location decisions seldom being based on quality and cost alone.



3.4.4. Regional hub for critical components of the Auckland economy

In addition to the key residential, employment and education features of the City Centre, there are a number of other considerations when looking at the City Centre in the Auckland strategic context:

The City Centre is critical to the operation of the freight network due to the location of the port

The largest concentration of hotels, motels and backpacker accommodation is within the City Centre, which means, with the exception of Auckland International Airport precinct, it is the most significant economic contributor to tourism in the Auckland region

As discussed in the next section, the City Centre and City Fringe is the fulcrum on which the transport network operates. It is not only a critical destination, but also a major transit point for commuters and freight whose origins and destinations are not the City Centre.

The City Centre has the greatest concentration of cultural and sporting facilities in the region.

3.5. The nature of Auckland’s transport challenge

3.5.1. Overview

Auckland is a geographically dispersed city with multiple employment hubs and a large, low density residential area. While the AP and the dwelling growth discussed above support greater intensification, the fundamentals of the Auckland region require a transport system that serves dispersed travel patterns as well as the City Centre.

Auckland’s transport system is supported by multimodal networks which together enable people to travel by different modes, at different times of the day and to access different activities and places across the Auckland region. These networks supply infrastructure and services to enable the travel choices and movements of residents, businesses, visitors and other users to, from and within Auckland. The networks include:

Inter-regional freight services National and regional state highways – cars, trucks and commercial vehicles, coach

services and cyclists

Arterial and local roads – cars, trucks and commercial vehicles, and cyclists

Public transport – train, bus, taxi and ferry services

Parking – on-street and off-street

Local active modes – cycling and walking facilities.



Up until, and including the 1980’s the Auckland transport system had sufficient capacity to handle travel demands in an acceptable way24, but this significantly degraded through to the early 2000’s with increasing congestion and competition for roadspace.

There has been substantial investment in the transport system over recent years. This has included: construction of the Northern Busway; double tracking the Western Line; modern stations beginning with Britomart; new rail links to Manukau and Onehunga; developing the Western Ring Road; the motorway connection through Grafton Gully and the removal of bottlenecks through the Central Motorway Junction.

Completion of motorway projects has positively impacted on reliability of travel times, which are particularly unreliable during the evening peak. In 2012, travel times are varying from evening to evening by an average of 25 per cent, as opposed to 35 per cent in 201125.

Figure 3-9 Morning trips to the City Centre (2001-2012)

Source: Auckland Transport analysis

Further substantial projects are underway and will be completed over the next few years. These include introducing integrated ticketing and rail electrification, and completion of the remaining Western Ring Route section of SH20 at Waterview.

Significant work is also being undertaken to optimise and improve efficiencies for the public transport network. In particular, work recently completed by McCormick Rankin Cagney (MRC) has identified opportunities to rationalise the bus network to drive greater capacity and efficiency through the improvement of feeder services connecting to the rapid transit network (rail and the Northern Busway) and the removal of competing routes.

Once these planned projects are completed by 2020, the system’s strengths will include:

24 2012 Integrated Transport Plan 25 2012 Integrated Transport Plan



A motorway network that will provide high-speed, safe road connections for moving people and freight across Auckland

A safer and more reliable local road network

Improved network management through the new Joint Traffic Operations Centre, including real-time user information systems

Much improved bus services, which have benefited from the Northern Busway, heavy investment in new bus fleets and a comprehensive restructure of services

Improved inter-regional connections to Northland and Waikato as a result of the construction of the Northern Toll Road and the development of the Waikato expressway

A rail freight network that connects Auckland to the North and South as well as providing internal rail freight connections to the Ports of Auckland and the Wiri inland port.

3.5.2. Current City Centre access

The Auckland City Centre is the most important destination in the city and also the most important transit route. Many people who have origins and destinations outside of the City Centre pass through the City Centre and City Fringe.

Access into and around the City Centre is multimodal with car, bus, train, ferry, walking and cycling each having a critical part to play. Morning peak (2 hours) numbers for 2011 are shown in Table 3-1026:

Table 3-10 2011 morning peak commuters (motorised)

Total delivered City Centre commuters27 71,800

28 39,100 (55%)

5,600 (8%)

23,400 (33%)

3,700 (5%)

Source: 2011 Auckland Transport screenline surveys

26 AT City Centre screenline surveys 27 Incorporates people crossing the City Centre screenline; it does not include those commuting from within the City Centre 28 This is person trips, not vehicles



3.5.3. Rail and Bus Catchments

The City Centre is serviced by a rail network encompassing 4 lines to the south, the east and the west. Rail is the main provider of capacity in the Auckland Rapid Transit Network (RTN). A frequent transit network (FTN) will connect frequent bus services to the rail network providing a network effect.

Figure 3-11 Frequent Transit Networks


The FTN comprises PT services which offer a 15 minute or less headway all day during weekdays. The current FTN (on the left in Figure 3-1) shows the rail lines and some key radial bus routes as being the only services to offer this level of service. There are no frequent cross-town services, so only small parts of Auckland are being served, and then this is only for travel to the City Centre. In the proposed FTN (on the right in Figure 3-), there is a significant increase in frequent services, particularly cross-town, allowing many more transport choices due to the much improved level of service offered. The balance of the RTN services is provided via the Northern Busway. The rail catchment is shown in Figure 3- with red highlighting the walking catchment (1500m) where significant numbers of people access rail by foot. This is the area where more development



intensity is focused (as shown in Figure 3-2). The blue highlights the bus feeder and park and ride catchment, based on the design of the new bus network with feeder buses heading towards the city centre intercepting rail generally within 20 minutes of on-bus travel time. There is also significant park and ride activity from this catchment. The yellow is the park and ride catchment as identified in the furthest 2006 census meshblocks from rail which generated significant numbers of rail trips to work.



Figure 3-12 Auckland rail catchment




The 2006 journey to work data provided evidence of where people were catching public transport from and this map shows the potential walking, bus feeder and park n ride catchments based on actual behaviour. The walking catchment shown is 1.5 km (or approximately 15 minutes walk) from stations. While this is beyond the 50th percentile for walk distance, it still reflects the area where walking is a significant access mode to rail.

The bus catchment was determined by access to direct bus services to rail, generally with no more than 20 minutes on-bus travel time which intercepted rail in the direction of travel towards the City Centre. Areas that required backtracking to intercept rail were specifically excluded.

The park and ride catchment was calculated by the furthest census meshblock where there were significant numbers of people travelled for whom rail was the main mode for their journey to work in the 2006 Census. Since then, rail patronage has more than doubled in Auckland.

The bus network as implemented under the McCormick Rankin Cagney (MRC) work will complement the RTN, but also provide a range of other services including the FTN and local and connector services. Figure 3-10 shows the 2016 integration of the public transport network following the implementation of the revised bus network and rail electrification.



Figure 3-10 Bus – rail integration plan




3.6. Strategic challenges looking ahead

While current and committed investment leaves Auckland with a more balanced network that is delivering acceptable levels of service for the next 5-10 years, the on-going challenge is to cost-effectively address medium to long term issues. This challenge has a number of economic, social and environmental components.

The Auckland Plan was a legal requirement of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act 2010. At a high level, the challenge is threefold:

Ensure future region-wide growth is accommodated: At the simplest level, this means delivering a transport network that can at least move people around the region.

Deliver a network that supports targeted growth areas: Delivering the land use provided for in the AP is critical to delivering a sustainable, economically robust and affordable city. The levels of service and accessibility delivered by the transport network will be critical to getting development in the right areas.

Accessibility at the right time into the greenfield growth areas to multiple employment destinations, as well as continuing to service an intensifying isthmus are critical challenges.

Deliver a network that minimises economic loss and focuses on high economic returns in the future: While the City Centre is already a critical part of the Auckland economy the forecasts show it will progressively become more important and more dominant.

Maintaining accessibility to the City Centre and City Fringe is critical to maintaining the competitiveness and attractiveness of Auckland.

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change


4. Defining the case for change In order to better understand the likely future issues for transport in supporting the development of the City Centre and contributing to the efficiency of the regional transport network, a deficiency analysis was undertaken.

This analysis concluded that there are significant and pressing access issues to the Auckland City Centre.

• By 2021:

o Most bus networks approaching the City Centre, as well as the City Centre itself are at capacity and some are over capacity in terms of what can physically be provided for within the existing road corridor (i.e. it is not just a matter of providing additional busses on existing roads).

o Private motor vehicle speeds in the City Centre are halved from 16 kph in the morning peak to 8 kph

o The rail network has reached the maximum number of services possible, but some patronage capacity remains.

• By 2041:

o The bus network to the City Centre is significantly over capacity.

o Car journey times to the city centre are increasing by 30-50% from the west and south, with an extra 30 minutes from the targeted Southern Growth Area. The addition of the AWHC improves overall journey times from the north. Journey times from the isthmus are forecast to increase by 20-30% over the same period.

o Average car speeds in the City Centre drop to 5 kph in the morning peak – the equivalent of walking pace.

o While there appears to be spare patronage capacity on the rail network coming into Britomart, there are capacity issues on rail outside the City Centre, with volumes exceeding capacity on links approaching Puhinui, Penrose and Newmarket stations.

It is important to note that the modelling is premised on a medium population growth scenario and includes all major projects outside of the study area (for example, the Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing is included and providing significant capacity and improved journey times to the City Centre from the North). As such, it is an analysis at the more optimistic end of the scale in terms of the ability of the City Centre to accommodate demand.



4.1. Deficiency Analysis framework

In order to better understand the likely future issues for transport in Auckland in supporting the development of the City Centre, a Deficiency Analysis was undertaken. A Deficiency Analysis is essentially a study to identify the location, nature, and scale of deficiencies in a system, measured against defined thresholds in terms of system performance.

In this particular instance, it refers specifically to shortfalls in transport network capacity when compared to demand for the network. In terms of public transport, those shortfalls are expressed in terms of excess passenger demand above the carrying capacity of public transport services (based on service frequency and reliability, and vehicle capacity), while for roads, the relationship is between vehicles volumes and road capacity (related to road widths and arrangements at intersections).

The Deficiency Analysis undertaken as part of the Study focused on the extent to which planned transport infrastructure developments in terms of both changes to public transport services and highway capacity, would cater for planned future land use growth (specifically the AP) with the aim of identifying any particular issues or opportunities that the options assessed within the CCFAS would be expected to address.

The full working paper is included in Appendix C, and summarised below are two key aspects being the definition of the Initial Reference Case , and key findings from the Deficiency Analysis, with the latter based on an assessment of the former. Reference Case model outputs were used as the basis of this Deficiency Analysis as they represented the best current forecast for the state of public transport and highway networks in Auckland in the selected future years, not taking into account any proposed options put forward as a result of the CCFAS. Further details are provided in the section below.

In order to guide the Study development, this analysis was undertaken at an early stage using outputs from the ART3 model which did not include crowding effects. This assisted in identifying trends and indicative future network performance. The Deficiency Analysis identified both the location and scale of the problems that the future transport network is facing.

4.2. Initial Reference Case definition

The Reference Case scenarios were developed based on a range of assumptions (refer to Appendix B) regarding land-use and committed changes to public transport service provision and road transport network capacity. Originally, a do minimum was envisaged to be used for the CCFAS using only those projects that had committed funding. However, it was agreed by the PWG that this was unrealistic as through the years a number of projects would be required for Auckland to keep functioning. Given the purposes of the CCFAS, where the importance was placed on comparison, a common reference was required which led to agreement on the Reference Case



which is discussed below. Future years of 2021 and 2041 were adopted as this aligned with the regional transport models.

Details of the projects included in the Reference Case are included in Appendix B and are consistent with those identified in the Auckland Plan. The committed transport schemes included in the Reference Case 2021 include:

Rail electrification;

AMETI (Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative) early stages (including South Eastern Busway– A new busway from Panmure Station to Botany, including major upgrade to Panmure bus/rail interchange);

Waterview connection;

Integrated ticketing and fares;

New bus network implementation with Passenger Transport Operating Model (PTOM);

Puhoi to Wellsford- Road of National Significance (RoNS);

AT has recently developed an integrated bus network approach described in the Auckland Passenger Transport Network Plan (PTNP) based on work undertaken by MRC.

In addition, by 2041 a number of other schemes that are currently not funded were also included, as follows:

Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing (in 2041 only) (also included in the City Centre SATURN model);

AMETI later stages;

Multi Modal East West Link

State highway upgrades and removal of bottlenecks, including widening on SH1, SH16, SH18 and SH20 and improvements at SH1 Takanini interchange, SH16 St Lukes interchange.

As a result, the Reference Case scenarios used as the basis of the Deficiency Analysis included a large amount of road-based transport infrastructure investment outside the City Centre. This therefore presented a ‘best case’ for the regional transport network in both 2021 and 2041.

4.3. Deficiency Analysis findings

The Deficiency Analysis clearly identified that demand for public transport services would exceed assumed capacity by a significant degree in both the 2021 and 2041 Reference Case years. Figure 4-1 shows average AM peak-hour Volume-to-Capacity ratios (VCRs) on public transport links in the 2021 Reference Case. This indicates that demand for the network is forecast to be in excess of capacity on most corridors into the City Centre by this time.



In this instance, a VCR of 1 means that all the public transport services on a particular route are full. A VCR of 2 means that the cumulative passenger demand forecast for all public transport services on a particular road or rail link from the ART3 model is double the cumulative carrying capacity of services on that link during the stated time period. Forecast demand for services in the model is based on forecast land-use (expressed in terms of population and employment) and the generalised cost of different travel options, and is unconstrained by the capacity of public transport services in ART3.

Figure 4-1 Average morning peak hour public transport volume capacity ratio by link (2021 Reference Case)


By 2041, the situation on the public transport network has worsened noticeably when compared with 2021, as shown in Figure 4-2. In particular, the following key corridors did not have sufficient capacity to meet demand for the service in the modelled years:

Great South Road – VCR >2 in both 2021 and 2041;

Khyber Pass Road – VCR >2 in both 2021 and 2041;

Great North Road – VCR >1.5 in 2021 and >2 in 2041;

Mt Eden Road – VCR >1.5 in 2021 and >2 in 2041;

Great North Rd

Manukau Rd

Mt Eden Rd

Dominion Rd

Great South Rd

Khyber Pass Rd



Dominion Road/Manukau Road – VCR >1.5 in 2041.

Figure 4-2 Average morning peak hour public transport volume capacity ratio by link (2041 Reference Case)


The analysis of public transport VCRs also served to highlight issues in the City Centre, with buses on all approach roads except Quay Street, forecast to be over capacity in the 2021 Reference Case, as shown in Figure 4-3.

Great North Rd

Manukau Rd

Mt Eden Rd

Dominion Rd

Great South Rd

Khyber Pass Rd



Figure 4-3 Average morning peak hour public transport volume capacity ratio by link in City Centre (2021 Reference case)


By 2041, demand for bus services on all approach roads into the City Centre including Quay Street is forecast to be in excess of capacity, as shown in Figure 4-4. The following locations were highlighted as issues in the modelled years:

Grafton Road – VCR >2 in both 2021 and 2041;

Grafton Bridge – VCR >1.5 in 2021, >2 in 2041;

Albert Street – VCR >2 in 2041;

Symonds Street / Karangahape Road – VCR >1.5 in 2041.

Albert St

Fanshawe St

Symonds St

Karangahape Rd Grafton Bridge

Grafton Rd



Figure 4-4 Average morning peak hour public transport volume capacity ratio by link in City Centre (2041 Reference Case)


The Deficiency Analysis also clearly identified that increasing the frequency of bus services to meet forecast demand in the modelled Reference Case years would lead to significant operational issues on high-frequency corridors. Research indicates that bus network performance deteriorates significantly when frequency exceeds 100 buses per hour29 using a single bus lane without indented bus stops. This threshold can vary due to the nature of the specific site. Factors such as intersection delays, interactions with pedestrians and bus stop operation can reduce the threshold further. For example, 100 buses per hour is a bus every 36 seconds on average. Therefore, at the point where a single bus stops for longer than 36 seconds, it delays buses behind it, and the effect then cascades back along the route. As the frequency increases, the impact of such delays is more pronounced. Table 4-1 below indicates the volumes of buses per hour and the corresponding description of the flow for arterial and downtown streets.

29 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, TRB

Albert St

Fanshawe St

Symonds St

Karangahape Rd Grafton Bridge

Grafton Rd



Table 4-1 Transport Research Board bus flows

Source: Transportation Research Board, & Kittelson and Associates, Incorporated. (2003).Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100. published by Transportation Research Board.

The validity of this threshold is evident on the current bus network in Auckland. The highest flow is on Symonds Street south of its junction with Grafton Bridge, with approximately 125 buses per hour using this link in a single direction during the AM peak-hour. Observation of bus activity on this link in August 2012 indicated evidence of poor service reliability during this time period, with frequent bunching of vehicles, delays at stops and junctions, and bus-passing activity at stops. Such activity impacts service reliability by disrupting the interval at which buses operating a particular route arrive at stops, which means that the actual average wait time of passengers using the route increases above the expected wait time (usually estimated as half the frequency of the route in question i.e. 1 bus every 10 minutes = average passenger wait time of 5 minutes). The photos in Figure 4-5 illustrate buses queuing at stops and junctions during the AM peak-hour on Symonds Street.

Figure 4-5 Symonds Street (0800-0900, Thursday 16th August 2012)



Source: CCFAS Deficiency Analysis – SKM site visit, Thursday 16 August 2012

Many other bus corridors in Auckland are already operating at the 80 -100 buses per hour which results in the unstable flow and queuing seen on the inner city streets. The City Centre streets of Fanshawe, Customs, Wellesley, Albert and Symonds Streets are operating at the 80 to 100 bus level and the unstable flow is already apparent. Platooning or bunching of buses is common on high frequency routes like Dominion Road and Pakuranga Highway.

Increasing service frequency on such corridors to meet demand will further reduce network performance, and higher forecast demand for services will also lead to increasing dwell times at stops as a result of more boarding and alighting activity, exacerbating the issue. Due to additional boarding in the PM peak this issue is expected to be worse in that peak.

In addition, forecast increases in general traffic will also increase delays and limit options for bus priority improvements – this is discussed in more detail later on in this chapter.

Oxford Street in London provides evidence of the extent to which network performance can be affected by increasing service frequencies. A 2010 report for the London Assembly indicated that with peak flows in each direction of up to 160 buses per hour, average daytime speeds had reduced to between 3.7 and 9.5mph, and buses were scheduled to take 22 minutes to travel 1.5 miles along the street. In addition, police records indicated a high level of accidents involving buses and air quality indicators for the street were very poor with levels of NO2 at 4.5 times the designated European Union safe levels. The report resulted in the Mayor asking Transport for London to reduce the number of buses using the street by 20% by the end of 2010. The photo in Figure 4-6 illustrates bus network conditions on Oxford Street in 2009.



Figure 4-6 Oxford Street in 2009

Source: London Assembly Transport Committee (2009): ‘Streets ahead – relieving congestion on Oxford Street, Regent Street and Bond Street’.

Further examples of bus congestion from Sydney are shown Figure 4-7 where the road layout is more consistent with the Auckland City Centre.



Figure 4-7 Sydney bus congestion examples


Figure 4-8 shows the cumulative service frequencies required to meet demand on public transport links in Auckland in the 2021 Reference Case. The map indicates a requirement for approximately 150 buses per hour on Fanshawe Street and Wellesley Street, and approximately 200 buses per hour on Symonds Street.



Figure 4-8 Required City Centre morning peak hour service frequency to meet demand (2021 Reference Case)


By 2041, increasing demand for services leads to a requirement for even higher frequencies, as shown in Figure 4-9. By this time, the majority of approaches into the City Centre require over 100 buses per hour, with requirements on Fanshawe Street and Wellesley Street at approximately 190 buses per hour and on Symonds Street at over 250 buses per hour.



Figure 4-9 Required City Centre morning peak hour service frequency (2041 Reference Case)


In summary, the Deficiency Analysis demonstrates that operating these required frequencies is not practical for the following reasons:

Operational constraints relating to service reliability and delays associated with operating high frequencies on key corridors;

Physical road capacity and junction priority issues (both for bus and general traffic);

Impacts on environmental and streetscape amenity and road safety created by high frequency bus corridors;

Limited opportunities for route optimisation as a result of the limited number of bus access corridors to the City Centre.

The Deficiency Analysis also indicated that increasing the frequency of the bus network to meet demand is unlikely to be a feasible option in future even if the bus fleet in Auckland is upgraded to



high capacity buses30. This is assumed to be double decker buses, as they have the same operational space requirements as standard buses (other than height and overhang restrictions). Articulated buses can have higher passenger capacities but introduce a number of operational constraints mainly to the turning circle and tracking curves that they require to operate.

Figure 4-10 indicates that by 2021, frequencies of 125 buses per hour would still be required on Wellesley Street and 150 buses per hour on Fanshawe Street and Symonds Street even if the bus fleet was fully upgraded to high-capacity vehicles.

Figure 4-10 Required morning peak hour service frequency (high-capacity buses – 2021 Reference Case)


By 2041, required frequencies with high-capacity vehicles are around 100 buses per hour on the majority of approaches to the City Centre, with 150 buses per hour required on Fanshawe Street and Wellesley Street and almost 200 buses per hour required on Symonds Street. These requirements are shown on the map in Figure 4-11.

30 AT specified buses with capacity of 68 passengers.



Figure 4-11 Required morning peak hour service frequency (high-capacity buses – 2041 Reference Case)


In addition, upgrading the entire bus fleet in Auckland to high-capacity vehicles presents a number of significant challenges, including:

The age of the current bus fleet, which is relatively new, means that only 5% of the fleet would be replaced naturally every year, which in turn means that only 45% of the current fleet would be replaced naturally by 2021. This is based on the assumed lifespan of 20-years per vehicle and that replacement would occur progressively over time rather than replacing all the buses at once;

Operator cost issues related to the operation of high-capacity buses during off-peak periods when demand for services is much lower;

The potential impact on delays and journey time reliability of increased boarding and alighting times due to the increased capacity of buses;

The physical network changes required to operate high-capacity vehicles, particularly articulated buses which require larger turning areas and tracking paths when turning. This can introduce the need to expand or heavily modify intersections. There are also issues with double decker buses due to their height and camber of the road. As has been experienced on



the Dominion Road project, verandas and overhangs from buildings over the footpath are often in the way if double decker buses are running in the bus lanes and these need to be modified before these buses can be put into service.

The assessment of road network VCRs and car journey times also indicates that traffic congestion is likely to be widespread across the network in future years, leading to deterioration in network conditions. This is shown by analysing the forecast changes in car journey times to the City Centre from 2021 to 2041. This change is summarised on the map in Figure 4-12.

Figure 4-12 Change in morning peak car journey time to City Centre (mins), 2021 – 2041 Reference Case


The map indicates that journey times are forecast to increase to the City Centre from every part of the city with the exception of the North Shore, which benefits from the inclusion of the Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing (AWHC) in the 2041 Reference Case model assumptions. It is worth noting that despite its inclusion in the 2041 Reference Case, the AWHC is currently unfunded.

The increase in congestion is forecast to occur alongside the increase in demand for public transport services, which suggests that without additional capacity into the City Centre, the



opportunities for optimising the bus network through the provision of more dedicated lanes and priority at signal junctions will become more and more limited in future.

In the ART3 modelling the forecast number of AM peak car trips to the City Centre in 2041 is broadly similar to the forecast for 2021, suggesting that road network capacity constraints in the City Centre results in suppressed demand31 and some mode shift to public transport by 2041 (with total public transport trips to the City Centre forecast to increase by 31% between the 2021 and 2041). In contrast, car trips outside the City Centre are forecast to increase between 2021 and 2041, increasing congestion on many links and journey times to the City Centre as a result.

Following the initial deficiency analysis, more detailed traffic modelling was undertaken using the CBD SATURN model to understand the changes in levels of congestion within the City Centre.

By 2041 the number of vehicle trips within the City Centre cordon will have increased to 41,800 in the morning peak (57% increase over 2010 and 10% increase over 2021) and vehicle speeds have dropped to 5 kph (decrease in average speed of 68% compared to 2010 and 28% since 2021). This indicates that congestion within the City Centre is going to increase significantly making private and commercial vehicle access much more difficult.

Table 4-2 City Centre SATURN model summary

Reference Case 2011 2021 2041


26,60032 37,900 (+42%) 41,800 (+57%)


Public transport patronage to the City Centre (morning 2 hours)33

32,600 52,700 (+62%) 67,600 (+107%)

Source: City Centre SATURN model, CBD cordon statistics, morning peak hour Note: Vehicle trips are within the cordon and include trips that begin and end in the City Centre as well as trips that are internal to the City Centre.

31 This is demand that wants to travel, but is unable to due to capacity constraints, in this case within the City Centre. This demand is therefore suppressed and can be thought of as undelivered demand. 32 2010 City Centre SATURN model 33 Patronage data for 2011 is from Passenger Transport Patronage Surveys, 2011 and only captures those people crossing the City Centre screenline. 2021 and 2041 data is taken from the Balanced Reference Case (with crowding), APT evaluation data 1.01 and includes all PT journeys with the City Centre as the destination, with some originating in the City Centre.

5 7 16



The findings also indicated that while there appears to be spare capacity on the rail network coming into Britomart, there are capacity issues on rail outside the City Centre, with volumes exceeding assumed capacity on the western line and links approaching Puhinui, Penrose and Newmarket stations from the south by 2041. A high level of alighting activity at Newmarket and Parnell stations subsequently reduces demand into Britomart itself. A more detailed review of the current rail network constraints is included in Section 4.4 below.

It is clear when looking at absolute demand for public transport in both Reference Case years that there are four key corridors that warrant higher-level intervention as follows:

Harbour Bridge from North Shore

Great South Road corridor

Great North Road corridor

Dominion Road/Mt Eden Road corridor

Figure 4-13 shows absolute demand for public transport in the 2021 Reference Case, indicating that AM peak hour flows are forecast to exceed 5,000 people on the Harbour Bridge, and 2,000 on the Great North Road and Great South Road corridors.

Figure 4-13 Total morning peak hour bus and rail demand by link (2021 Reference Case)




By 2041, forecast demand exceeds 3,000 trips per hour on the Great North Road and the Great South Road corridors, and exceeds 2,000 trips per hour on Dominion Road alone, with demand above 1,000 trips per hour on neighbouring corridors such as Mt Eden Road. This is illustrated on the map in Figure 4-14.

Figure 4-14 Total morning peak hour bus and rail demand by link (2041 Reference Case)


The Deficiency Analysis supports the conclusions that forecast demand in 2021 and 2041 is too high to be adequately addressed by adjusting service frequencies and vehicle capacities on the existing transport network, and that additional intervention is required to increase capacity to the City Centre

4.4. Rail constraints at Britomart

On the rail network, the Britomart terminus and Quay Park junction, which is very close to Britomart limit the number of train paths into and out of the City Centre. Further out, Newmarket constrains the frequency of trains that can be operated from the western and southern lines. The electrification peak period electric train timetable, planned for implementation in 2015, consists of 20 trains per hour (tph) in and out of Britomart during peak periods, comprised of 6 tph on each of the Southern, Western and Eastern routes, together with 2 tph from Onehunga. At Newmarket, 6 tph will reverse going west and 6 tph reverse coming into the city as well as 8 tph in each direction



as through trains to and from the Southern and Onehunga lines. The combination of the Newmarket constraint with Quay Park/Britomart effectively means that by 2015, all of the useable peak train paths into and out of Newmarket and Britomart will be in use, providing no room to add additional services in the future. CRL relieves Newmarket, Quay Park and Britomart by bringing western line trains into the City Centre without the need to go through Newmarket and Quay Park and serving Britomart from the other direction.

Post electrification, demand does not exceed rail capacity in 2021 with the majority of the network able to operate within the seated capacity. This is because demand is constrained by the current network and frequencies which will operate following electrification. The Western Line rail capacity will be exceeded sometime around 2030 if the post-electrification network and timetable is operated. Seated capacity at the key load point on the Western Line will be reached prior to 2021.

Demand is however constrained by the frequency of services that can be operated post electrification. If higher frequency services could be operated, demand would exceed capacity on the Western Line for services prior to Kingsland by 2021. On this basis the latent demand exceeds capacity on the rail in 2021. In 2041 demand exceeds capacity on the Western line for services coming into Newmarket

4.5. Bus network capacity

Further analysis of bus capacity has been undertaken to identify key services and corridors that reach their capacity, and when this is likely to occur assuming increased frequencies within the physical capacities of the current bus network. Figure 4-15 below shows the routes which serve the City Centre and that have a forecast patronage in excess of 250 people per AM peak hour. A peak hour factor of 0.6 has been used to estimate peak hour demand from the 2 hour modelled period demand and a factor of 85% of maximum capacity has used to give an indication of optimal capacity for buses.



Figure 4-15 Balanced Reference Case bus volume capacity by service

Source: SKM analysis of APT model outputs

The majority of services from the isthmus, north and east reach their capacity by 2021 while services from the west reach 80% of their capacity in the 2030s. This indicates that by 2021, the bus network will largely be at capacity by 2021. There would be some limited opportunity to optimise further, however this is unlikely to change the overall picture.

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option development


5. Short list option development A long list of potential options were identified within a number of parameters:

• Mode: Including bus, rail, light rail and personal rapid transit.

• Scope: With options ranging from optimisation of existing assets through to additional infrastructure

• Location: Overlaying these modes, underground, surface and above ground variations were considered. Critically, the long list also included consideration of approaches outside of the City Centre and City Centre fringe.

The long list and the evaluation criteria was developed in consultation with local government and central government in a series of workshops. The approach to considering the long list was a multicriteria analysis. This approach is consistent with international best practice for transport projects. It is also consistent with NZ Treasury guidance for long list option development contained in their Better Business Cases toolkit.

46 options were identified for the long list. Through the two long list option evaluation workshops and revising the evaluation approach to incorporate both quantitative and qualitative assessments, the options to take forward to the short list for more detailed modelling and assessment were agreed by all stakeholders:

Underground rail: The CRL option developed by AT.

Surface bus: Enhanced bus priority on Wellesley Street, Symonds Street (between Wellesley Street and Grafton Bridge) and Albert / Vincent Streets. This option would be assessed both with and without improvements to the regional approach corridors.

Underground bus: Underground bus tunnel along the Wellesley Street alignment with enhanced bus priority on Symonds Street between Wellesley Street and Grafton Bridge along with surface improvements on Albert / Vincent Streets. This option would be assessed both with and without improvements to the regional approach corridors.

Other option: No ‘other’ option would warrant further investigation in the context of the CCFAS.

5.1. Long list option development

A workshop was held with the PWG on 11 May 2012 to discuss the long list of options developed by the project team. The options presented at the workshop were not an exhaustive list and the workshop was used to consider other options raised by the attendees and ensure that all realistic options were considered. This section details the agreed list of options taken forward to the long list assessment.



The terms of reference for this study (as agreed with the key stakeholders) was clear that the long list assessment did not need to come up with a short list of the best performing options overall, but rather the best performing sub-option under four specific headline options:

Underground rail infrastructure; Surface bus infrastructure; Underground bus infrastructure; and Other.

Therefore, the focus of the long list development was to develop options under these broad headings to choose the option to take forward to the short list assessment.

The full working paper detailing the long list options development is included at Appendix D.

5.1.1. Underground rail infrastructure headline

As a significant amount of work has been undertaken identifying the optimal CRL option, no additional consideration of underground rail options was required at the long list stage. Instead it was assumed that the option taken forward to the short list evaluation would be AT’s preferred CRL option including the supporting bus networks developed by MRC. This option is considered to be the optimal option due to the extensive analysis regarding potential alternative alignments already undertaken between 2009 and 2012.

5.1.2. Surface bus infrastructure headline

Surface bus covers a wide range of potential options from simple bus priority right through to full Bus Rapid Transit with fully segregated right of way. Therefore, to ensure that all appropriate options were considered and the best performing of those taken forward, this headline was broken down further into the flowing categories:

Best use of existing infrastructure;

Enhanced bus operation; and

Bus Rapid Transit

Category 1 – Best use of existing infrastructure

These options rely on existing road space, and provide some new sections of bus lanes to cope with an increase in volumes of buses entering the City Centre. The routes are split out when they reach the City Centre and are distributed across all major corridors so that the additional buses can be accommodated. The buses are made to ‘fit’ the City Centre as much as possible and virtually all major corridors in the City Centre become part of a bus route.

The Balanced Reference Case (Section 6.1.1) used in the short list assessment effectively subsumes this option. It increases bus services as much as possible given the existing network



capacity constraints without significant infrastructure investment. This option was therefore excluded from the long list evaluation and incorporated into the Balanced Reference Case.

Category 2 – Enhanced bus operation

This group of options are based on changes to bus operation and the introduction of supporting infrastructure to provide additional bus priority through the City Centre. Where additional space is required for buses, it is largely delivered at the expense of general traffic capacity, by removing general traffic lanes or closing sections of road to general traffic completely.

The use of double bus lanes (potentially in the peak periods only) and indented or off-line bus stops sees the capacity on the identified bus corridors increase significantly while the general traffic capacity decreases. Bus priority at signalised intersections would be implemented to improve the flow of buses through the City Centre. Examples of the bus priority and infrastructure envisaged as part of these options include:

Bus lanes through intersections

Bus pre-emption at signals to reduce delays to buses

Fixed signal timings to allow buses to travel on a ‘green wave’

Bus only signals

Dedicated bus only streets

More efficient boarding and alighting with off bus ticketing and improved bus stops

Skip stop operation

Bus stop rationalisation

In total, six different enhanced bus operation options have been developed which fall into two groups:

Three options involve on street solutions with high bus priority on routes through the city Three options use a form of ‘bus loop circulation’ around the city in their operation

On street solutions

There are some common components to all the enhanced bus operation on street options. Queen Street requires at least a single bus lane along its length and Wellesley Street becomes the major east-west route, requiring double bus lanes in both directions from Symonds Street to Nelson Street. The variations include the use of Hobson Street.

Buses from the North Shore enter the City Centre via Fanshawe Street, with some routing through Britomart before proceeding to the University or Parnell. Others use Albert or Hobson Street before connecting to eastern / southern routes and some return to the North Shore. Buses from the east link through the City Centre to north and west services.



Buses from the west and south enter the City Centre at the southern fringe of the City Centre and connect to northern or eastern services or return to the west or south on similar routes, consistent with the routing plans developed as part of the MRC work.

Bus loop circulation

The three options developed here use a one or two way circulation of all buses through the City Centre largely focused on the Symonds Street and Albert Street corridors. Double bus lanes would be provided along the route to allow sufficient capacity and stations would be incorporated along the loop to allow passengers to board and alight.

Diagrammatic summaries of all the enhanced bus operation options are shown in Figure 5-1.



Figure 5-1 Enhanced bus operation option summary

Source: SKM



Category 3 – Bus Rapid Transit

More significant bus priority and dedicated right of way is provided by the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) options.

The aim of a BRT system is to provide a north-south and an east-west corridor in the City Centre. There would a major bus interchange / station where the two corridors intersect which could be grade separated. As part of any BRT option, Fanshawe Street requires dedicated bus lanes from the motorway off ramp to the point at which the BRT system begins within the City Centre.

In order to not completely sever other transport links across the BRT corridor within the City Centre, the intersections that the buses cross would be bypassed with tunnel underpasses for the buses. This allows consistency in travel times and therefore an improved level of service whilst maintaining overall connectivity for general traffic and pedestrians within the City Centre. The potential corridors for BRT are shown in Figure 5-2. Each option would include one north-south and one east-west corridor.

Figure 5-2 Potential BRT corridors

Source: SKM



5.1.3. Underground bus infrastructure headline

Whilst taking the buses underground significantly reduces the impacts on the surface roads, it presents challenges in both construction and operation. To obtain the maximum benefit of the underground options, some treatment is needed on the regional approaches to the tunnel(s). As with the BRT options, the tunnel options will be assessed both with and without the regional approaches.

An underground bus option would have either a north-south or east-west tunnel, or possibly both with an interchange where they intersect. The tunnel itself would be two lanes wide (one in each direction) with a station at near Aotea and a station near each end of the tunnel. At the station, platforms would be provided so that stopping buses are removed from the carriageway, thereby not impeding other buses that are not stopping or accessing adjacent platforms.

Building a bus tunnel does not remove all buses from the surface. It caters for certain routes, but many surface buses are still required in order to provide high levels of service. The same overall structure defined by the MRC study will be incorporated, with key corridors feeding into the tunnel(s). The possible bus tunnel alignments developed at the long list stage are shown in Figure 5-3.



Figure 5-3 Possible bus tunnel alignments

Source: SKM

5.1.4. Regional approach treatments for bus options

Along with the City Centre improvements identified in the options, the Deficiency Analysis identified four key regional corridors with significant public transport (bus) demand that would be likely to warrant a higher level of public transport provision. These were:

Great North Road (from Pt Chevalier) where the majority of West and Norwest Auckland buses join together and travel to the City Centre through Grey Lynn

Ellerslie Panmure Highway / Great South Road (from Panmure) where large demand from East Auckland (Pakuranga, Botany, Howick) travels towards the City Centre

Dominion Road / Mt Eden Road corridor through the centre of the Auckland isthmus Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB) for bus travel from the North Shore

The bus based options have the potential to be constrained to within the City Centre itself, providing fast efficient movement across the City Centre at the end of the journey. However, to be



most effective, they would include the approaches to the City Centre as well as the City Centre itself.

With the introduction of the AWHC in the Reference Case in approximately 2031, the AHB is forecast to have a dedicated bus facility, which will essentially extend the Northern Busway to the City Centre and cater for the bulk of the forecast demand. As such, nothing additional was proposed as part of the options for the CCFAS.

Along the other three corridors, some form of significantly enhanced bus priority measure is likely to be warranted based on the forecast levels of demand. Figure 5-4 shows the corridors where regional approach treatments could be included.

Figure 5-4 Regional approach corridors

Source: SKM

5.1.5. Other infrastructure options headline

A range of other options were considered as alternatives to bus or rail options. The majority are considered to be complementary to any major bus or rail option. Three other types of options were identified that could be considered possible alternatives:

Light rail – three options were identified, two being shuttle services and the third being a wider light rail network that would tie into the shuttle alignment in the City Centre

Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)



Elevated rail

Diagrammatic summaries of these options are shown in Figure 5-5.

Figure 5-5 Other options summary

Light rail shuttle PRT

Light rail network

Elevated rail

Source: SKM



5.1.6. Long list option summary

In total there are 46 different options or combinations of options that were developed and evaluated at the long list stage made up of the following:

1 underground rail option (CRL)

32 different surface bus options

8 different underground bus options

5 ‘other’ options

5.2. Evaluation framework

The evaluation framework was developed through an interactive process with stakeholders. The project objectives set out in Section 2.3 were used as a starting point and an initial round of individual interviews and workshops were used to identify the key objectives for evaluating the options. A draft evaluation framework was developed, workshopped with the key stakeholders and reviewed by the internal study challenge team. Taking on-board feedback from the stakeholders, the evaluation framework was updated and agreed for the short list assessment.

The key objectives against which the options would be assessed were agreed to be:

Under each objective a set of criteria were also agreed with stakeholders to enable a range of aspects under each objective to be considered. The purpose of the criteria is to allow a large number of options to be assessed in a systematic way without the need for detailed modelling and quantitative assessment.

Criteria for City Centre access were developed to differentiate between how the options performed in providing improved access to employment, recreation and residences within the City Centre:



Criteria for regional movement were developed to differentiate between how the options performed in relation to their impacts on regional travel patterns and effects:

Criteria for economic performance were developed to differentiate between how the options performed in relation transport economic impacts as well as their impacts on the regional and national economy:



Criteria for environment and amenity impacts were developed to differentiate between how the options performed in relation to environmental and urban quality impacts:

Criteria for implementation were developed to differentiate between how the options performed in relation to the construction impacts and difficulty in consenting and building the options:

Criteria for health and safety were developed to differentiate between how the options performed in relation to public health and safety of people within the City Centre:



5.3. Long list option evaluation

The first long list evaluation workshop was held on 22 June 2012 in Auckland. The aim of the workshop was to evaluate the agreed options using the agreed evaluation framework above. The focus was on the differentiation between the options. The way the options would be expected to perform under each criteria in the framework was assessed qualitatively. Qualitative assessment was used to allow a large number of options to be assessed in a systematic way without the need for detailed modelling.

A five point evaluation scale (++ to --) was used score the performance of the options against each criteria. The sub-options under each of the Options 1 – 5 described above were assessed using one of the sub-options within the category as the benchmark or “0” scored option against which each of the other sub-options was compared. In the tables that follow the +s and-s were summed with a + worth 1 and a – worth -1 and so on.

As part of the workshop, it was identified that additional more quantitative information would assist in informing the evaluation. It was agreed that while it was not necessary to model each of the options, developing numeric measures of the performance of the options would help to quantify the scale of differences between the options. As a result, the Reference Case was modelled in ART3 and a number of the outputs from the modelling were used to develop relative quantitative measures for each option. Both the qualitative evaluations in the evaluation framework and the quantitative measures developed were then used to evaluate the long list.

The process used was to first consider the quantitative analysis to identify clear differentiators. Where the performance of sub-options could not easily be differentiated the qualitative analysis was used to choose between the options. The evaluation of each option group is discussed in the following sections. The full assessment is included in Appendix E.

The measures and analysis were worked through collaboratively with AT, AC, Ministry of Transport (MoT), and NZTA, before being presented and discussed at a full PWG workshop on 29 August 2012 where the evaluation and the preferred options taken forward to the short list was agreed.



5.3.1. Surface bus infrastructure headline

Best use of existing infrastructure

The Balanced Reference Case (Section 6.1.1) used in the short list assessment effectively subsumes this option. It increases bus services as much as possible given the existing network capacity constraints without significant infrastructure investment. This option was therefore excluded from the long list evaluation and incorporated into the Balanced Reference Case.

Enhanced bus operation

The quantitative assessment quickly identified the poor performance of the ‘bus loop’ options (options 2d, 2e and 2f). They had significant adverse effects on general traffic by taking up road space throughout the City Centre and would not adequately cater for the volumes of buses required to service the forecast demands. In addition the circuitous routing of buses increased journey times for many bus passengers.

Of the three remaining options (options 2a, 2b and 2c), Hobson Street was excluded due to the high impact on general traffic (motorway access) and relative poor performance. At the high level at which the quantitative measures were developed, it was considered that there was a relatively minor difference between having the focus on Albert Street or Queen Street.

The use of Queen Street in Option 2c as a dedicated bus corridor detracted significantly from both a City Centre economic and amenity perspective, resulting in it having a slightly negative score. This option was contrary to the objectives of the AP and CCMP and would both sever the City Centre and dramatically reduce the amenity of the heart of the city.

For the above reasons, Option 2a was selected as being the preferred option from the Option 2 alternatives.

Bus Rapid Transit

Combining a potential north-south and an east-west corridor into a single option led to 12 different combinations for this category.

The outcome of the assessment was that Option 3by (Albert and Wellesley) would be the preferred option for BRT in the City Centre. However, in further development and assessment of the BRT options, a number of physical constraints were identified and assessed. The assessment of the physical requirements and constraints of trying to achieve this type of BRT operation in a challenging City Centre environment led to the conclusion that grade separated BRT options are fatally flawed. Therefore none of the BRT options were taken forward.

5.3.2. Underground bus infrastructure headline

Four potential tunnel alignments were developed for the long list:



Victoria Park to Grafton – similar to the alignment identified in the APB&B Study A north-south tunnel running on the proposed CRL alignment An east-west tunnel running under Wellesley Street and including some surface improvement

on Symonds Street Both the north-south and east-west tunnels

The tunnel using the CRL alignment clearly performed the worst through its high cost and relatively low level of benefit. The high cost is due to the length of the tunnel. The low level of benefits results from the limited number of buses that would actually be able to use the tunnel on this alignment. For example the large number of buses coming across Grafton Bridge from the south and east would not be able to access the tunnel portal.

The longer tunnel from Victoria Park to Grafton and the twin tunnels perform similarly and both have significant cost. The Wellesley Street tunnel is likely to be significantly cheaper due to its shorter length and performs slightly better as it is accessible by more buses. Because all these options performed similarly, the qualitative assessment was used to differentiate between them.

The qualitative assessment reinforced the quantitative assessment and identified the Wellesley Street tunnel as being the best alignment. The two tunnels option performed well, but the additional benefits that would be generated by them are offset by the high costs.

5.3.3. Other infrastructure options headline

The other options to address City Centre access consisted of:

Light rail shuttle using Albert Street or Queen Street from Mt Eden train station Light rail network within the isthmus Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) to the City Centre from Mt Eden train station Elevated rail from Britomart through the CMJ to Mt Eden station

The quantitative assessment indicates that the potential benefits from elevated rail, PRT, or a light rail shuttle option (Mt Eden Station – Britomart) would be relatively modest. Greater benefits are likely from a more comprehensive light rail network, but this also has significantly higher cost. The travel time benefit / cost indicator is low for all options, with the light rail network scoring best and would therefore be the preferred other option based on the quantitative assessment. However the differences are not large and a qualitative assessment was used to help differentiate between the options.

The elevated rail was assessed to have some benefit with regards to City Centre access and is much cheaper than a light rail network. However, it is the worst performing option overall with significant implementation, environmental and amenity dis-benefits.



The Albert Street and Queen Street shuttles perform similarly, but as with the earlier options, the use of Queen Street as a major transport corridor has a negative impact on amenity in the City Centre.

The light rail network and PRT perform the best in the qualitative assessment. However, PRT is in effect a mobility option, rather than one focused on access to the City Centre. Implementing PRT as a means of access to the City Centre from a rail station introduces many problems. Primarily this is related to the large delays and poor level of service in transferring up to 700 people from a train to 4 person PRT pods which could potentially take up to 30 mins per train. The reality of trying to facilitate this enforced transfer would be unfeasible.

As a result, the light rail network was the preferred ‘other’ option. However, as with PRT, there are some constraints with introducing a new mode which were discussed at the workshop. These included the following and resulted in a decision not to take any “other” option forward:

It forces a high number of bus to light rail interchanges This interchange is not a capacity problem as it is with PRT Brings another mode of travel into the City Centre Takes significant dedicated road space displacing buses or private vehicles Requires a high level of demand to justify, as a frequent service is required to make it an

attractive option which is not forecast until much closer to 2041. The last point was the critical consideration in the decision not to progress with the light rail network as an option. It would achieve the overall aim, but it would be extremely difficult to justify and implement in the short to medium term. It was agreed that no ‘other’ option would warrant further investigation in the context of the CCFAS, but a move to light rail in certain corridors could be beneficial at some stage in the more distant future.

5.4. Preferred short list option summary

The PWG agreed to take the following long list options forward to the short list evaluation:

Underground rail: The CRL option developed by AT.

Surface bus: Enhanced bus priority on Wellesley Street, Symonds Street (between Wellesley Street and Grafton Bridge) and Albert / Vincent Streets. This option would be assessed both with and without improvements to the regional approach corridors.

Underground bus: Underground bus tunnel along the Wellesley Street alignment with enhanced bus priority on Symonds Street between Wellesley Street and Grafton Bridge along with surface improvements on Albert / Vincent Streets. This option would be assessed both with and without improvements to the regional approach corridors.

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment


6. Short list option assessment A multimodal package was developed for each of the broad short list “headline” options.


The Balance Reference Case was developed following the deficiency analysis and subsequent discussions with central government in an attempt to provide a more “realistic” reference point based on link bus volumes that could be provided without the need for large scale infrastructure within the city centre.

Underground Rail (CRL)

The CRL converts Britomart Station from a terminating station into a through station thereby allowing rail service to the City Centre to more than double from 20 to 48 trains per hour by having trains run in both directions through the city centre.

Overall the CRL option produced the highest benefits across both monetisable and non-monetisable criteria. The CRL in particular provides for the greatest multimodal capacity to get people into the City Centre and also provides for the highest network speeds within the City Centre and is the only solution to deliver increased capacity to serve City Centre growth beyond 2030. This option also had the greatest cost.

Surface Bus (SB1) (SB2)

The surface bus option aims to provide a high quality bus based access strategy for the City Centre by providing bus priority at the expense of private vehicles and increasing capacity at identified bottlenecks. As investment is focused on improving bus performance, the rail network is not developed further following electrification.

Option SB2 adds approach corridors and bus priority measures outside of the City Centre.

The surface bus options provided the cheapest options and provide improvements in the short term. The option best meets the needs of those travelling from the Central and Southern Isthmus. However, the options reach capacity very quickly in the analysis period, in most cases the infrastructure investment only buys 3-5 years of extra capacity with most services at capacity by 2030 and many at capacity before that. The surface bus options also significantly degrade vehicle speeds for private motor vehicles, making them worse than the Balanced Reference Case (i.e.it is worse for car drivers compared to doing nothing) in the City Centre due to the reallocation of road space. A significant amount of additional residential and commercial property is also required to provide the access treatments for Option SB2 and the priority measures/stabling within the City Centre.

Underground Bus (UB1) (UB2)



The underground bus option is based on a high level of bus priority in the city centre, by providing a dedicated bus tunnel along the defined bus corridors with associated at grade infrastructure and service improvements.

Option UB2 adds to this by improving the regional approach corridors identical to those in Option SB2.

These options provide for marginally more capacity than the surface bus options, and improve amenity within the City Centre relative to them. They also require less land take in the City Centre. They are, however, significantly more expensive than the surface bus options with little long-term capacity improvements due to bottlenecks on the approaches to the tunnel.

6.1. Short list multimodal option development

A multimodal package was developed for each of the broad short list “headline” options. The details of each option are set out in Appendix F. The options were modelled progressively and refined as much as possible to meet forecast demand in each corridor within identified capacity constraints. All of the options were compared to the Balanced Reference Case which is discussed below. The long list identified two surface bus options which were clearly the best of the many surface bus options investigated. It is highly unlikely that another surface bus option would have performed better than the two chosen to be assessed under the short list option.

6.1.1. Balanced Reference Case

The Balance Reference Case was developed following the Deficiency Analysis and subsequent discussions with central government in an attempt to provide a more “realistic” reference point based on bus volumes that could be provided on City Centre streets without the need for large scale infrastructure within the City Centre. This analysis did not however take into account the operational constraints.

Whilst the balance reference case was assessed on the AM peak bus operation, a similar number of buses would need to be provided in the opposite direction during the PM peak and be accommodated during the off peak. PM peak buses require additional time to board passengers when compared to alighting in the AM peak. This requires significant kerb space and stop rationalisation34 and skip stop operation35 will be required to enable bus operations to work effectively. As a result, loading and marshalling space will be required throughout the City Centre for buses.

34 This involves an overall reduction in the number of bus stops and/or the relocation of bus stops to sites where they are convenient for passenger boarding and alighting. This results in an improvement in reliability and reduction in the overall journey time along the route. 35 Skip stop operation is a stopping pattern where buses do not stop at every block or every stop. It reduces travel time and increases the number of buses that the route is able to accommodate.



The Balanced Reference Case is quite different from the “Do minimum” assumed in the APB&B study. The Do minimum used in that evaluation was more in line with what would be expected for a formal Business Case evaluation of economic benefits. It did not include the significant bus improvements assumed in the Balanced Reference case nor did it assume the large number of Auckland Plan envisaged but unfunded improvements on the wider transport network.

The Balanced Reference Case has 359 buses entering the City Centre in the AM peak hour in 2021 and 392 in 2041. The bus volumes per hour on City Centre streets in 2021 and 2041 are shown in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2.

Figure 6-1 Balanced Reference Case City Centre bus volumes - 2021

Source: SKM CCFAS option development



Figure 6-2 Balanced Reference Case City Centre bus volumes - 2041


Table 6-1 summaries the PT operation in terms of services and patronage for the Balanced Reference Case.

Table 6-1 Balanced Reference Case PT summary

Balanced Reference Case 2021 2041

Train services in the morning 2 hour peak 40 40

Train patronage in the morning 2 hour peak36 12,100 18,200

Bus services in the morning 2 hour peak 718 784

36 Rail passengers crossing the City Centre screenline



Balanced Reference Case 2021 2041

Bus patronage in the morning 2 hour peak37 31,400 39,000

Ferry services in the morning 2 hour peak 51 51

Ferry patronage in the morning 2 hour peak 3,600 4,700

6.1.2. Underground rail (CRL)

Table 6-2 summaries the PT operation in terms of services and patronage for the CRL option compared to the Balanced Reference Case.

Table 6-2 CRL PT summary

CRL 2021 2041

Additional train services in the morning 2 hour peak +36 +36

Additional train patronage in the morning 2 hour peak38 +7,200 (+59%) +13,000 (+72%)

Additional bus services in the morning 2 hour peak -35 -29

Additional bus patronage in the morning 2 hour peak39 -2,000 (-6%) -2,900 (-7%)

Additional ferry services in the morning 2 hour peak 0 0

Additional ferry patronage in the morning 2 hour peak -100 (-3%) -100 (-1%)

The City Rail Link (CRL) is designed, amongst other things, to address the constraint presented by Britomart Station and the associated junction at Quay Park Junction whereby the terminating station track layout and twin-track throat tunnel limits its operational capacity to 20 trains/hour/direction and at Newmarket where all western line trains have to reverse. This capacity will be exhausted with the new electric train timetable, planned for full implementation in 2015. Beyond that, no rail frequency improvements are possible to serve the City Centre (except where trains bypass Britomart) and future rail network expansion cannot take place as there are no available slots at Britomart for additional train services.

The CRL converts Britomart into a through station allowing rail service to the City Centre to more than double by having trains run in both directions through the City Centre.

37 Bus passengers crossing the City Centre screenline, excluding school bus 38 Rail passengers crossing the City Centre screenline 39 Bus passengers crossing the City Centre screenline, excluding school bus



It is made up of two 3.5km long, twin tunnels up to 45m in diameter which will extend the existing rail line underground through Britomart, to Albert, Vincent and Pitt Streets, then cross beneath Karangahape Road and the Central Motorway Junction and over to Symonds Street before rising to join the western line at Eden Terrace (see Figure 6-3) at the Inner West Interchange (INWI). It provides for three additional City Centre stations at Aotea, Karangahape Road and Newton, which would put the entire city centre within approximately 10 minutes’ walk of rail.

A conceptual schematic layout of CRL is shown in Figure 6-3.



Figure 6-3 CRL layout




The CRL is fully integrated with the bus network which will be progressively redesigned over the next three years to deliver improved modal integration in conjunction with the development of new bus/ rail interchanges at Otahuhu, Panmure and Manukau and is supported by an expanded park and ride programme.

For the purposes of the City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS), CRL has been modelled with the following assumptions:

Electrification is extended to Pukekohe allowing through train service to the City Centre.

Train frequencies have been increased at the tail end of the study period on the western line where there the planned train frequencies were not able to meet the modelled demand.

The modelled peak CRL rail operation is shown in the train plan in Figure 6-4.

Figure 6-4 2041 peak train service pattern


It comprises train frequencies at 2041 (these frequencies are built up over time as demand grows) as shown in Table 6-3.



Table 6-3 Modelled CRL train operation (peak)

Route Trains per hour

Manukau to INWI via Eastern Line and CRL 6 Manukau to INWI via Southern Lineand CRL 4 Papakura to INWI via Eastern Line and CRL 4 Pukekohe to INWI via Southern Line and CRL 6 Swanson to Britomart via CRL 14 Swanson to Newmarket (not via CRL) 4 Onehunga to INWI via Southern Line and CRL 4

Source: AT

Key characteristics of the 2041 peak service pattern are:

The Western and Eastern lines are linked, providing through service via the CRL tunnel.

Services from Onehunga, Manukau, Papakura and Pukekohe run to Britomart and then via the CRL tunnel to INWI (with Eastern Line services continuing further west).

Pukekohe has 6 services per hour to meet the demand from substantial greenfields growth in the south. All services operate via the Southern Line.

Papakura – Homai: 10 services per hour, 6 via the Southern Line and 4 via the Eastern Line.

Puhinui - Westfield: 20 services per hour, evenly split between the Southern and Eastern lines.

The Western Line has 18 trains per hour, made up of 14 services via the CRL and 4 services per hour to Newmarket.

The Eastern Line has 10 services per hour.

The Onehunga Line has 4 trains per hour.

Penrose to Britomart has 14 trains per hour.

It is noted that there are other service patterns which will continue to be examined which will increase patronage.

The CRL option is supported by an integrated bus network and expanded park and ride options. This significantly expands the reach of rail beyond the walkable catchment as is shown in Figure 3-.

The supporting bus networks are those developed by MRC for the Passenger Transport Network Plan (PTNP) 2012 which are designed specifically to operate with the CRL in place with frequencies increased to meet demand where possible. The number of resulting morning peak hour bus volumes on City Centre streets are shown for 2021 and 2041 in Figure 6-5 and Figure 6-6.



Figure 6-5 CRL City Centre bus volumes - 2021




Figure 6-6 CRL City Centre bus volumes - 2041


6.1.3. Surface bus (SB1)

Table 6-4 summaries the PT operation in terms of services and patronage for the surface bus options compared to the Balanced Reference Case.

Table 6-4 Surface bus (SB1 and SB2) PT summary

Surface Bus 2021 2041

Additional train services in the morning 2 hour peak 0 0

Additional train patronage in the morning 2 hour peak40 -900 (-7%) -800 (-4%)

40 Rail passengers crossing the City Centre screenline



Surface Bus 2021 2041

Additional bus services in the morning 2 hour peak +145 +163

Additional bus patronage in the morning 2 hour peak41 +6,100 (+19%) +8,000 (+20%)



The surface bus option aims to provide a high quality bus based access strategy for the City Centre by providing bus priority at the expense of private vehicles and increasing capacity at identified bottlenecks. As investment is focused on improving bus performance, the rail network is not developed further following electrification and therefore the rail network for SB1 is the same as assumed in the Balanced Reference Case.

A high level of bus priority in the City Centre is delivered through reallocation of road space from private vehicles to buses, and some minor road widening. Wellesley Street becomes a bus only corridor from Kitchener Street to Victoria Street at Victoria Park and Vincent and Albert Streets become a bus only corridor along their length. Fanshawe Street is maintained as it currently operates with some minor changes to bus stop lengths and bus operations and Customs Street is also generally maintained as it currently operates, though bus movements are improved through the introduction of kerbside bus lanes.

New bus marshalling areas at Fanshawe and near the University precinct are assumed to be constructed and an improved Britomart interchange / marshalling area provided adjacent to the existing rail station as described in Section 6.1.3.1.

Marshaling areas use a considerable amount of space as can be seen in Figure 6-7. This shows 60 buses at the Halsey Street depot in Wynyard Quarter. The surface bus options introduce an additional 80 buses compared to the Balanced Reference Case which must be marshaled within the City Centre.

41 Bus passengers crossing the City Centre screenline, excluding school bus



Figure 6-7 60 buses at Halsey Street depot

Source: Transpressnz; http://transpressnz.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/auckland-bus-depot.html

In addition the following generic measures are provided throughout the City Centre:

Dedicated bus lanes along the defined bus corridors

Off-line bus stops (either indented or in a second bus lane)

Three bus bays provided at each stop location (approximately 60-75m required when in lane or 90-105m required when indented)

Skip stop operation in the City Centre

Dependent bus stop operation at each stop location

Fixed timings at signalised intersections to allow buses to travel through on a ‘green wave’

Improved service frequency over the Balanced Reference Case to better cater for forecast demand

Use of high capacity (double-decker or articulated) buses42 on key services43

Off board ticketing in the peak hours

Integrated ticketing and fares

42 It is understood that a number of high capacity buses are to be trialled in 2013 on the Northern Express with a capacity of approximately 90 passengers. For the purposes of the CCFAS, a similar bus is envisaged to be implemented on the corridors above; this may be double-decker buses or articulated buses. 43 From PTNP 2012 this is the following services: Manukau Rd, Mt Eden Rd, Dominion Rd, Great South Road and the Northern Express



Option SB1 provides high levels of bus priority through the City Centre. The corridors within the City Centre that are optimised for bus traffic are:

southern Symonds Street (Grafton Bridge to Wellesley Street) Wellesley Street Vincent and Albert Streets Fanshawe Street (current bus stops require lengthening)

An indication of what the Wellesley Street corridor might look like in the vicinity of the Civic Theatre is shown in Figure 6-8.

Figure 6-8 Artist impression of Wellesley Street

Source: SKM

Symonds Street, from Grafton Bridge to Wellesley Street is upgraded from existing to provide a dedicated bus lane with off line or indented stops in both directions to cater for the high bus demands that access Wellesley Street. The stops on Symonds Street are also rationalised to allow skip stop operation for buses on different routes. Wellesley Street becomes the major east-west route, requiring double bus lanes in both directions from Symonds Street to Hobson Street.

Vincent Street and Albert Street becomes the main north-south bus route with double bus lanes along the entire length in both directions. Local access is maintained to service the properties on these streets. A single bus lane runs the length of Queen Street in both directions to cater for the city link services. This would allow general traffic to still use Queen Street.



The bus routes developed as part of the 2016 version of the PTNP 2012 generally fit well with Option SB1 and SB2 and no routes have been identified that would benefit significantly from re-routing.

Figure 6-9 indicates the surface bus operation and improvement in the City Centre for the AM period where the focus is on the inbound services and Figure 6-10 diagrammatically shows the surface bus option in the City Centre.

Figure 6-9 Surface bus option (indicating inbound services)

Source: SKM

Plus indented bus stops



Figure 6-10 Surface bus option

Source: SKM

Skip stop operation

In order to cater for the high volumes of buses, skip stop operation is required along the Symonds Street / Wellesley Street corridor. The buses have been identified according to whether they enter via Grafton Bridge or Symonds Street and their corresponding stops along the corridor are shown in Figure 6-11.



Figure 6-11 Skip stop operation for inbound Symonds St / Wellesley St buses

Source: SKM

Whilst it is preferable to have bus stops located after signalised intersections, due to the close spacing of intersections within the City Centre, some of the bus stops are situated before the intersections. Given the available block lengths and length of kerbside space required for the bus stops, this is unfortunately unavoidable. The signal pre-emption to allow swift bus progression through the corridor should mean that significant operational delays can be avoided or minimised.

Wellesley Street / Symonds Street intersection

The intersection of Wellesley Street and Symonds Street requires significant works to reconfigure it to cater for the high bus volumes as well as general traffic to and from the motorway on Wellesley Street which passes under Symonds Street.

Figure 6-12 shows the indicative arrangement of vehicle flows at and near the intersection.

Stops for Symonds Street buses

Stops for Grafton Bridge buses



Figure 6-12 Reconfiguration of Symonds Street / Wellesley Street

Source: SKM

A single lane in each direction on Wellesley Street is maintained for general traffic with the following restrictions:

No access to Princes Street from Wellesley Street for general traffic As is currently the case, all general traffic on Wellesley Street from Grafton Gully (passing

under Symonds Street) must turn into Mayoral Drive or Kitchener St (single lane for each destination)

No access from Princes Street to Wellesley Street in either direction for general traffic Ramp from Wellesley Street to Symonds Street is widened and made two way for buses Gated bus signals at the intersection of Wellesley / Mayoral / Kitchener are installed to

maintain turning movements and provide safe and efficient movement for buses

The existing ramp up from Wellesley Street to Symonds Street is widened, and made two way for buses only. The intersection at the top is reconfigured to allow all movements and general traffic access to and from Princes Street is removed. Revisions to the signals at Wellesley / Mayoral / Kitchener are installed to allow for the bus only movements through the intersection, which allow the inbound buses to shift to the correct side of Wellesley Street.

General traffic (from Grafton / Motorway)

General traffic (to Grafton / Motorway)

Bus inbound

Revised intersection operation Inbound buses on new structure

(retained ramp) Realign general traffic No access for general traffic to/from

Princes Street



Heading away from the City Centre, a general traffic lane from Mayoral Drive is maintained in the centre of the road to allow vehicles to access the motorway ramps in Grafton Gully. A dedicated kerbside bus lane is provided which allows buses to turn up Princes Street or carry on up to Symonds Street by reconstructing the kerbs and traffic islands in this area.

Figure 6-13 shows the intended layout for operation under Option SB1 and SB2 with general traffic indicated by the yellow arrows and bus traffic indicated by the red arrows. Wellesley Street is approximately 21m wide, so can accommodate the 5-6 required lanes with minimal works required in this area other than re-marking.

Figure 6-13 Revised Wellesley Street

Source: SKM

The resulting numbers of buses on City Centre streets under Options SB1 and SB2 (discussed in the following section) are shown in Figure 6-14 and Figure 6-15 for 2021 and 2041 respectively. Note that the 80 inbound buses all travel straight through on Symonds Street, whilst the 70 crossing Grafton Bridge split, with a small number travelling straight onto Karangahape Road. This leads to the sum of those two routes (150) not equalling the downstream flow on Symonds Street (140). This is the case in all years and options.

General traffic

Bus traffic



Figure 6-14 Buses on city streets - Option SB1/SB2 - 2021






6.1.3.1. Option SB1 and SB2 bus stations / marshalling areas

The CCFAS looked at total volumes of buses entering the City Centre in the morning peak period under the different options. The results are shown in Table 6-5 below.

Table 6-5 City Centre bus volumes (morning peak two hours)

Option 2012 (actual) 2021 2041

Balanced Reference Case 784 718 784 CRL 784 683 755 Surface/Underground bus 784 863/869 947

This shows that with the CRL, bus volumes in the City Centre are still below 2012 levels in 2041 while the Balanced Reference Case has the same number of buses in 2041 as the observed data showed for 2012. The surface bus options are 20% higher than both current and the 2041



Balanced Reference Case numbers. The current Britomart bus precinct is struggling to cope with the existing level of buses. All available space is in use either as bus stop or bus lay-up area (at least at peak times when bus lay-up demands are highest). The blocks east of Commerce Street cannot be used for bus services due to narrow lanes, narrow footpaths, and inadequate turning radii on corners. As a result, it is clear that a higher level of intervention is needed to cope with the 20% increase in bus numbers at Britomart in the surface bus option. The only identified option to cope with this increase is for an underground facility owing to the absence of workable option for enhanced surface bus operation in the Britomart area.

As indicated in Figure 6-10 there are a total of three bus stations / marshalling areas included within Option SB1 (and Option SB2). Allowance has been made for the provision of an underground bus station at Britomart to replace the current surface operation, and provide for a marshalling area to avoid buses parked on surrounding local roads. In addition, surface marshalling areas have been assumed to be provided at Fanshawe Street (in the vicinity of the current Caltex service station) and the University (assumed to be in the vicinity of the Grafton Road interchange).

6.1.4. Surface bus with regional approach corridors (SB2)

This variant to the surface bus option takes Option SB1 and adds the regional approach corridor treatments as described below.

6.1.5. Regional approach corridors

Three key approaches to the City Centre for buses have been identified in the Deficiency Analysis and are shown in Figure 6-16. They are:

Great North Road (from Pt Chevalier) Dominion Road (from SH20 at Mt Roskill) Ellerslie-Panmure Highway and Great South Road (from Panmure)

By improving the provision of bus priority on these corridors, where there are concentrated volumes of buses and corresponding high levels of public transport demand, improvements in bus service can be achieved. This will improve journey time reliability and provide a higher level of service. On Great North Road in particular where there are the highest numbers of buses, the indentation of bus stops will allow through buses to travel through the corridor without being delayed by those buses stopping to pick up or drop off passengers.



Figure 6-16 Identified approach corridors for improvements

Source: SKM

A 4.5m wide bus lane is added in both directions on these sections with indented (off-line) bus stops to allow through buses to pass stopped buses without having to enter congested general traffic lanes. In addition, at signalised intersections, bus lanes are continued through the intersection to provide an improved level of service. Left turning vehicles will be permitted to enter the bus lane 50m from the intersection, in line with current operation so that turning movements for general traffic are maintained.

6.1.5.1. Dominion Road

Dominion Road was previously identified in the Deficiency Analysis as being a key corridor warranting some form of upgrade. However through discussions with the AT Dominion Road project team, an extensive upgrade was proven to be unrealistic. For CCFAS, it has been assumed that the only upgrades will be undertaken as part of the currently programmed Dominion Road works contained within AT’s capital works programme as described below.

The current Dominion Road project is forecast to cost $47m. Dominion Road’s current piecemeal sections of bus lanes will be joined up to create continuous lanes in peak hours between State Highway 20 and View Rd. Between View Rd and Newton no bus lanes are budgeted for. The bus lanes will also extend through intersections, which they do not at present. A review of the project allowed Auckland Transport to reduce the potential cost of the project by about $50m. This will be achieved by keeping the bus lane widths at 3m north of Mt Albert Rd, meaning expensive service



relocations are not necessary. Between SH20 and Mt Albert Rd, which requires widening to create new bus lanes, they will be 4.5m.

6.1.5.2. East and west approach corridors

As Dominion Road has not been considered further as part of CCFAS, only eastern and western corridors leading to the City Centre have been considered to improve the levels of service for the surface and underground bus options. Upgrades to the approach corridors are the same for both surface and underground bus options. Within the option assessment, inclusion of these corridors for the respective City Centre bus options are referred to as Surface Bus 2 (SB2) - SB1 with approach treatments) and Underground Bus (UB2) - UB1 with approach treatments. These corridors are shown diagrammatically below in Figure 6-17.

Figure 6-17 Approach corridors

Source: SKM

6.1.5.3. Eastern approach - Ellerslie-Panmure Highway/ Great South Road

Figure 6-18 shows the assumed cross section for the Ellerslie-Panmure Highway section of the eastern approach. This section commences at the intersection with Mt Wellington Highway and extends to the intersection with Main Highway.

Regional approach corridors for Options SB2 and UB2



Figure 6-18 Indicative cross section on Ellerslie-Panmure Highway

Source: SKM

This provides a shared bus / cycle lane of 4.5m width, two 3.5m wide traffic lanes in each direction and a 2.5m flush median.

Figure 6-19 Indicative cross section at bus stops on Ellerslie Panmure Highway

Source: SKM

Figure 6-19 shows the cross section along Ellerslie-Panmure Highway where bus stops are located, and provides a 3.5m wide bus stop, a 3.5m shared bus / cycle lane, two 3.5m wide traffic lanes in each direction and 2.5m wide footpaths to incorporate the bus shelters. No flush median has been assumed at bus stop locations within the cross section.

The assumed corridor cross section along Main Highway is shown below in Figure 6-20. This provides a shared bus / cycle lane of 4.5m width, 3.5m wide traffic lanes, and a 2.5m flush median. The cross section extends to the intersection with Great South Road and includes allowance for the duplication of the Main Highway bridge over the Southern Motorway. Through the Ellerslie town centre no road widening has been assumed and lane widths may be reduced.



Figure 6-20 Indicative cross section on Eastern approach from Main Highway

Source: SKM

The corridor extending from Great South Road, Broadway, Khyber Pass Road, Park Road and Grafton Bridge through to where it joins the City Centre options at Symonds Street is assumed to be provided within the existing road extents and maintains the cross section shown above in Figure 6-20.

Through Newmarket two stations have been assumed to be provided requiring additional land purchase. These are assumed to be located on Broadway in the vicinity of the Newmarket Viaduct, and on Khyber Pass Road in the vicinity of Crowhurst and Melrose Streets. In addition, a car park has been allowed for within the cost estimate to account for the removal of on street car parking along Broadway as a result of the revised corridor treatment.

The bus lanes along the corridor would be envisaged to operate from 7am – 10pm, with those through the town centres at Ellerslie and Market Road being peak operation only (inbound approximately 7am-9am, outbound approximately 4pm-6pm) to allow kerbside parking within the town centre.

6.1.5.4. Western approach - Great North Road

The Great North Road corridor has been assumed to be wide enough to provide for the cross section shown in Figure 6-20 above within the existing road reserve. At stops along the length of the corridor (assumed to be at 800m spacings) property purchase has been allowed for in order to accommodate the cross section shown below in Figure 6-21. The corridor extends from the intersection with Carrington Road to Karangahape Road and Pitt Street where it joins the City Centre bus options.



Figure 6-21 Indicative cross section at bus stops on Great North Road

Source: SKM

The bus lanes in the Great North Road corridor are envisaged to operate from 7am-10pm.

6.1.6. Underground bus (UB1)

Table 6-6 summaries the PT operation in terms of services and patronage for the underground bus options compared to the Balanced Reference Case.

Table 6-6 Underground bus (UB1 and UB2) PT summary

Underground Bus 2021 2041


Additional train patronage in the morning 2 hour peak44 -700 (-5%) -700 (-4%)





The underground bus option is based on a high level of bus priority in the City Centre, by providing the following:

Dedicated bus tunnel along the defined bus corridors Off-line platforms for bus stations in the tunnel Three bus bays provided at each station location (approximately 90-105m required)

44 Rail passengers crossing the City Centre screenline 45 Bus passengers crossing the City Centre screenline, excluding school bus



Skip stop operation on Symonds Street between Grafton Bridge and the tunnel portal on Wellesley Street

Dependant bus stop operation at each stop location Buses using the tunnel no longer interact with signalised intersections Improved service frequency over the Reference Case to better cater for forecast demand Use of high capacity (double-decker or articulated) buses on key services46 Optional approach corridor treatments Off board ticketing in the peak hours Integrated ticketing and fares

Note that the bus tunnel does not remove all the bus services from Wellesley Street, as some are still required to use the surface streets due to the capacity constraint within the tunnel itself.

The bus routes developed as part of the 2016 version of the PTNP 2012 generally fit well with Option UB1 and UB2 and no routes have been identified that would benefit significantly from re-routing.

Figure 6-22 and Figure 6-23 show the indicative layout of the Wellesley Street Tunnel.

46 From PTNP 2012 this is the following services: Manukau Rd, Mt Eden Rd, Dominion Rd, Great South Road and the Northern Express



Figure 6-22 Option UB1 – Wellesley Street tunnel

Source: SKM

Bus tunnel station:

High quality interchange:

Tunnel

Single bus lane



Figure 6-23 Wellesley Street Tunnel

Source: SKM

There would be stations at Aotea (near the intersection of Elliot and Wellesley Streets) catering for high quality interchanges, on the western side of the City Centre near Sale Street and also one near Wynyard Quarter between Daldy and Halsey Streets. A further station would link in with the education precinct near the top of Wellesley Street providing access to the universities. The station indicated in Grafton Gully is a marshalling area and is described in Section 6.1.7.

Symonds Street maintains a dedicated bus lane in each direction between Grafton Bridge and Wellesley Street to allow buses right of way to the tunnel. The skip stop operation proposed for Options SB1 and SB2 also applies to this section of the City Centre. At the Fanshawe Street end, buses enter and exit the tunnel to the north of Fanshawe Street between Beaumont and Halsey Streets.

The tunnel is a single lane in each direction, expanding at the stations to allow buses to stop at the platform while the ‘through’ lane can still be used for buses travelling through. This makes the stations effectively two lanes in each direction. At the Aotea (Albert St) interchange there is the facility for buses to turn around, allowing them to leave via the way that they have entered.

The treatment on Vincent Street and Albert Street is the same as in Options SB1 and SB2 as it still retains the function of the main north-south bus route through the City Centre.



In 2021, there are approximately 116 buses / hour using the tunnel and this volume increases to 131 buses / hour in 2041. The buses on city streets and in the tunnel are shown in Figure 6-24 and Figure 6-25.

Figure 6-24 Buses on city streets - Option UB1/UB2 - 2021






6.1.7. Option UB1 and UB2 bus stations / marshalling areas

Allowance has been made for stations at Aotea (near the intersection of Elliot and Wellesley Streets) catering for high quality interchanges, on the western side of the City Centre near Sale Street and also one near Wynyard Quarter between Daldy and Halsey Streets. A further station would link in with the education precinct near the top of Wellesley Street providing access to the Universities. Consistent with Option SB1, a marshalling area within the University precinct in the vicinity of Grafton Road has been allowed for, as well as provision of an underground bus station at Britomart to replace the current surface operation, and provide for a marshalling area to avoid buses parked on surrounding local roads.

6.1.8. Underground bus with regional approach corridors (UB2)

This variant to the underground bus option takes Option UB1 and adds the approach treatments on the regional corridors previously discussed in Section 6.1.5.



6.2. Bus operations

A high level review of the potential bus operational performance of the bus based options (SB1, SB2, UB1 and UB2) has been undertaken to understand the need for additional infrastructure to support the efficient operation of bus services within the city centre given the additional number of buses required for each option.

It should be noted that there are already a large number of buses in the City Centre which currently present significant operational challenges. All of these challenges will be perpetuated or, in some cases, exacerbated through the surface bus options presented in this report. Some of these challenges are discussed in more detail below. It should also be noted that the CRL option does not remove these problems entirely, but it does reduce the impact of some of them when compared to the Balanced Reference Case due to the ability to remove some of the buses from certain corridors. As the CCFAS is focused on the comparison to the Balanced Reference Case, the CRL does not perform worse than the Balanced Reference Case with regard to any of the issues discussed in this section.

Pedestrian conflicts

There are a number of areas where the need to respond to increasing pedestrian movements impacts negatively on the operation of bus services. For example, the double-phasing of the Queen Street pedestrian crossings caused significant delay to bus services to the point that the main bus services were re-routed away from Queen Street. The remaining bus services are heavily delayed, averaging 7 kph between Britomart and Karangahape Road in the peak. This impacts heavily on the operation of the Airbus Express which can spend up to half of its journey time from the City Centre to the Airport travelling the length of Queen Street. The increasing pedestrian volumes from growth in employment, student, residential and visitor numbers will exacerbate this conflict in the future as additional space and priority will be required for pedestrians. Shared space projects such as Federal Street are increasingly squeezing buses in the city centre and reducing the range of available options for turning around buses for their next service trip.

Finding appropriate depot and layover locations

There is a shortage of available short and long term layover for buses in the City Centre and City Fringe areas. These requirements for layover increase as journey time reliability becomes more and more variable. Buses require space in the City Centre to pause before commencing their next service trips. Providing long term layover in or around the City Centre saves on operating costs - otherwise buses would have to return to their remote depot sites. Currently buses are left in strategic places for several hours in the City Centre and City Fringe and drivers return on a ‘driver bus’ to their depots for breaks. Examples are the north side of Quay Street, the west side of Nelson Street and the eastern side of Beaumont Street.



Reliability & punctuality

It is very hard to plan for the variability in bus reliability in the City Centre. The fact that the City Centre street network is at or beyond capacity at peak times means that there is significant day-to-day variation in bus operating speeds in the City Centre. For example, North Shore buses between Victoria Street and the Harbour Bridge can vary by 6-8 minutes in peak times. There are direct operational costs associated, as decreases in reliability increases costs due to the need to provide for the worse case scenarios. Even where significant bus priority exists, such as on Albert Street, northbound, PM peak bus operation is very slow due to the sheer volume of buses, the short block lengths and the left turning vehicles giving way to high volumes of parallel crossing pedestrians impeding bus progression on kerbside bus lanes.

Bus turning circles

The City Centre is very tight for bus turning with the consequence of a large number of low speed incidents, particularly related to road design and tail swing issues related to location of existing infrastructure. This is exacerbated by the variance of the Auckland bus fleet - with buses ranging from 10m – 18m. 13.5m vehicles are a particular problem with tracking around corners. Bus stops generally only cater for up to 12.6m vehicles, while Britomart bus turning circles are only designed for 12.6 metre vehicles. Longer vehicles are a response to the need to increase capacity on vehicles, particular to cater for peak and high demand corridor flows. The need for higher capacity vehicles will only increase over time.

Special event closures and bus stop relocations

There are major problems with the regular occurrence of special events in the City Centre as there are no good options to relocate services to a regular temporary location without significant impact to the City Centre and bus customers. While people are encouraged to use PT to attend special events in the City Centre, the disruptions to bus service caused by these same events makes this difficult even for existing regular bus users.

Specific problem locations

Customs Street / Albert Street

Signalised intersection timings at peak cause significant delays to PT;

Conflict of bus versus bus and bus versus car and bus versus pedestrian;

Insufficient space (with no realistic options to resolve this) for bus set-down and lay-up on the north side of Customs Street between Lower Albert and Queen Streets;

Bus facilities for passengers very poor.

Customs Street in general - Customs Street is a gap in the central connector project where there is no bus priority in the part of the corridor with the highest volume of buses.

Britomart

Entry and egress is very slow;



Constrained environment;

Pedestrian conflicts – e.g. high volumes of pedestrians crossing Galway and Tyler streets at Queen Street where there are very high pedestrian flows and high volumes of buses;

Poor infrastructure placement.

Wellesley Street/Queen Street intersection

Delays due to short block lengths and double-phased pedestrian signals;

Conflicting requirements;

Conflicting bus movements.

Fanshawe Street

Poor infrastructure – no bus priority westbound between Albert Street and Halsey Street;

Delays in the PM peak due to this lack of bus priority provision on what is part of the rapid network. Outbound busway reliability in the PM peak is significantly lower than inbound in the AM peak due to limited bus priority in the City Centre;

Bus stop availability and length drives the capacity of Fanshawe Street creating issues in both peak directions.

Driver facilities

There are poor facilities in the City Centre for bus drivers and no easy option for drivers to leave buses to take a toilet break without leaving the bus on an in-service bus stop – in many instances creating operational issues for in-service buses. There is a legal requirement for bus drivers to have mandatory breaks. It is not cost effective to ask bus operators to always schedule the driver back to the depot for a regulatory break as this adds operational cost, reduces vehicle utilisation and further increases the number of buses circulating out of service in the City Centre.

Bus stops

Currently the City Centre stop network is oversubscribed by buses in certain locations:

Britomart at peak times – there are many conflicts between buses and other buses, private vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.

Albert Street at peak times

Symonds Street at peak times

These issues will slightly reduce in near future with the implementation of the proposed future bus service network, but will then grow again over time as more frequency is required (as well as more capacity through the introduction of larger vehicles) to cater for growing demand.



PM peak delays (dwell time)

There is more dwell (delay) time in the PM peak from passengers getting tickets compared to the AM peak where passengers are alighting. For example, loading a peak bus at Britomart where that is the only City Centre boarding stop (e.g. Tamaki Drive services) can take up to 7 minutes. Even with integrated ticketing, a single cash-paying customer can block the flow of all other passengers, even if all of them have a smart card, but overall boarding will improve somewhat with integrated ticketing. Increasing patronage numbers will increase loads and, even with high proportions of passengers using AT HOP cards, loading times are likely to increase.

Long-distance bus facilities spread out

The coach terminus in Hobson Street only caters for Intercity Coaches. All other coach lines operate in the Quay Street area. There is an aspiration to merge all coach movements and integrate better with urban services and rail which is also being driven by Sky City’s desire to move the InterCity buses out of its site as part of its plans for the National Convention Centre. A consolidated long-distance bus terminal is being considered in the Britomart area so that all local and long-distance bus, train and ferry services can be bought together in one area. Whilst potentially a positive step for long distance travel and integration with local services, this would exacerbate already difficult bus operational issues in the Britomart precinct.

City centre stakeholder competing aspirations

There are competing demands for City Centre road space from groups representing business and community interests.

Auckland Transport is under considerable pressure currently to reduce the amount of space required at Britomart for bus interchange and marshalling. Significant optimisation of the interchange has been required to make it operate acceptably with the number of buses currently using it. There is little scope to accommodate additional buses without the need for significant additional space. This space requirement is in conflict with the CCMP objectives to link the city with the waterfront. Buses already use entire blocks to queue to enter Britomart and as layover areas.

The following images illustrate some of the range of current issues that bus operations face in and around the City Centre.



Figure 6-26 Buses queue on Customs Street West

Source: Auckland Transport October 2012

Quay Street delays to travel south - if Quay Street were to be significantly “down-tuned” for general traffic, this runs the risk that the already existing bus issues in the Britomart Precinct will be further exacerbated and concentrated on the Customs Street corridor which is also a major east-west route for general traffic.

There are a large number of buses on Customs Street and these compete with the high volumes of general traffic. This leads to significant congestion and delay to buses and general traffic.

Figure 6-27 Buses queue on Customs Street East to enter Commerce Street




Grafton Bridge is narrow and restricted to buses pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and

emergency vehicles only. There are lowered speed limits for safety. Cyclists will pass queuing buses on the wrong side of the road due to narrow lanes. The narrow entrance also causes the turning circle to overlap requiring a large setback from the traffic signals – this impacts the number of buses per green phase.

Figure 6-28 Grafton Bridge queue


Figure 6-29 Grafton Bridge turning circle setback




Buses turning from Grafton Bridge are entering Symonds Street which already has a high number of buses. There are 10 buses queued on Symonds Street in the photo below which demonstrates the existing issues with bus operation with 125 buses per hour in the AM peak period. Symonds Street is a busy pedestrian street due to the Auckland University campus locations on both sides of the street.

Figure 6-30 Symonds Street bus congestion


Wellesley Street West has 5 pedestrian crossings in 350 metres (Figure 6-31). The Queen Street / Wellesley Street crossing is double-phased for pedestrians. Buses and pedestrians delay each other on and across this route. Similar issues occur on Victoria Street with closely spaced signalised intersections and mid-block pedestrian signals. This also affects the amount of kerbside space available for bus stops.



Figure 6-31 Wellesley Street West pedestrian crossings


Fanshawe Street largely runs acceptably in the morning peak with 110 buses per peak hour but bus throughput is driven by bus stop capacity and dwell time for alighting passengers. In the PM peak, the absence of bus priority westbound between Lower Albert and Halsey Streets means that buses (on the Rapid Transit Network) are operating in mixed traffic with a Level of Service E and F, causing heavy delays to buses and unreliable operation.

Some of the issues outlined above can be ameliorated through provision of additional infrastructure while others will remain and become worse under the bus based options.

Current bus operational plans developed as part of the MRC review of the future bus networks envisages utilising bus marshalling areas adjacent to Fanshawe Street (within the Wynyard Quarter street network) and the existing facilities at Britomart. At these facilities space needs to be provided for buses which arrive from their stabling areas at the start of their route sufficiently in advance of the scheduled departure time to ensure that they start on time and delays getting to the start of their routes do not effect timetabled operations. Stabling is currently provided between operations either at operator’s depots or buses utilise street space such as on Quay Street east of Tangihua Street.

Figure 6-32 and Figure 6-33 below shows the number of buses on key links on the network in the AM peak hour under each option in 2021 and 2041.



Figure 6-32 Buses per hour at key network locations – 2021

Source: Short list option development, SKM



Figure 6-33 Buses per hour at key network locations – 2041

Source: Short list option development, SKM

The flows on some of these roads (Dominion Road, Fanshawe Street and Symonds Street) are below their current levels for two reasons. The first is that a number of the services are assumed to be using double decker (or high capacity) buses, reducing the number of buses required to provide the same level of capacity. The second is that on Symonds Street in particular there are currently problems with the level of buses on that corridor, as highlighted earlier. For these reasons the numbers of buses travelling on these corridors may be lower than is currently provided.

A similar number of buses will need to be provided in the opposite direction during the PM peak. As discussed above, PM peak buses require additional time to board passengers when compared to alighting in the AM peak. This requires significant kerb space and stop rationalisation and skip stop operation will be required to enable bus operations to work effectively. As a result, loading and marshalling space will be required throughout the city centre for buses and is likely to take up all the parking, loading and taxi space within the bus corridors under the bus based options.

With the additional buses envisaged, there is a need to alter the bus arrangements in the city centre. Through routing will be required to far side bus terminals to reduce the space required at Britomart. This will likely involve the construction of marshalling facilities at the route origin / termination points at Fanshawe Street and adjacent to the University in Grafton Gully. Sites have



yet to be identified or considered in detail but given the significant bus volumes, it is expected that platforms and marshalling for an additional 15-20 buses at a time will be required in each location. This will require significant land area.

Even with the move to multiple City Centre ‘terminals’, Britomart will continue to have a very significant role as a regional hub for bus services as it is the point of intermodal connection between buses, trains and ferries. It is expected that bus stopping spaces and marshalling area will need to be provided for at least 40 buses at a time. Given the current space constraints and the desire of the CCMP to provide additional pedestrian amenity, it is likely that underground bus facilities will be required. Ramps reducing conflicts with traffic would likely be constructed to bypass delays on the western section of Quay Street and Lower Hobson Street. Similarly a ramp would be constructed to provide relief on Customs Street.

Due to through routing of services, the number of buses on Customs Street and Wellesley Street between Britomart and the marshalling facility will increase significantly. Additional operational costs will result from dead running of services through the City Centre. This is likely to be significant given the congested nature of these routes.

As noted above, Customs Street is currently under significant pressure as a result of mixed bus and general traffic. As a result of proposed CCMP changes such as the Victoria Street linear park and reclaiming of Quay Street for pedestrian use, significant additional general traffic will likely utilise Customs Street as well. As a result, performance of this part of the network will degrade significantly over time and would be further affected by additional bus through routing.

Similarly, as a result of the increased volume of buses to the Fanshawe Street marshalling area, additional operational cost will be incurred. By the very nature of through-running, additional buses will be running more distance from one side of the City Centre to the other, compared with a central terminal such as Britomart where buses come in from one side and terminate in the centre of the city.

It is clear that under any of the bus based options (SB1 – UB2) significant additional marshalling and interchange facilities would be required. Even with improvements at Britomart, the dead running of buses through the city centre will result in increased operational cost and disruption to traffic. The exact scope of mitigation measures is yet to be developed in detail. However, for the purposed of the CCFAS, additional costs associated with providing the marshalling and interchange facilities have been allowed for, and when assessing the bus options some degradation of performance of both the bus and road network is assumed.

6.2.1. Additional options to improve bus capacity

The capacity of the bus based options has been constrained in part by the physical number of buses which can operate on some links. The key constraint identified is the Symonds Street corridor from the Karangahape Road intersection where Grafton Bridge and Upper Symonds Street buses combine together. Under the bus options, approximately 150 buses per hour are forecast to



use this section of road. As described in the short list options paper (refer Appendix F), this is at or very near the limit of the number buses that could be catered for in this corridor. Significant improvements are required to facilitate this number of buses as set out in Section 6.1.3 above.

A number of alternatives to release this constraint were considered when developing the options. These options provide significant engineering and practical challenges in terms of grades, property impacts and tunnel portal locations:

1) Demolish one side of Symonds St and use it for a BRT route or trench with more than 2 lanes of buses in each direction. This option would have significant property issues, essentially demolishing high value multi-storey office, hotel, residential, education and commercial buildings. Under this alternative the large number of lanes would require multiple central station platforms and would provide a barrier to pedestrian movements and access to the platforms.

2) Continuing Wellesley Street tunnel up to Symonds Street further south (nearer Karangahape Road for example) would have gradients of 10-12% for in excess of 1km. Daylighting the portal would use up a large proportion of the available road space, reducing the effectiveness of the capacity improvement it was designed to deliver. Symonds Street is also the over dimension route from the Port and disruptions to this corridor on-line (for example – a tunnel portal) remove the ability to carry heavy / over dimension or over weight items from the Port.

3) Moving the portal even further south, requires passing under the CMJ and surfacing in Newton or Mt Eden which removes large origins and destinations of patronage (University area) and introduces access problems in sending buses to the tunnel to begin with. Grafton buses for example would have to travel back to Mt Eden to access the tunnel.

4) A tunnel through to Grafton from Wellesley Street to separate southern / eastern buses and central buses on Symonds Street. This would involve a new structure over Grafton Gully and connection into Grafton Road.

With further detailed investigation, land take and significant cost, these or similar options may be able to relieve the immediate capacity constraint on Symonds Street. However, this link capacity is not the only constraint on the number of buses that could be accommodated within the City Centre. It is considered that the bus options developed provide a realistic maximum number of buses that could operate in the City Centre. There are currently in the order of 375 buses which arrive in the AM peak hour. In 2041, this rises to some 392 in the Balanced Reference Case (a 5% increase) and under the bus based options this number of buses rises to approximately 475 buses per hour – a 27% increase.

Even if the Symonds Street capacity constraint was overcome in some way, it is difficult to see how additional buses could be accommodated or operated efficiently on the City Centre streets even with the infrastructure improvements described in Section 6.2. The bus network would be under significant pressure under the bus options as they are currently envisaged. Under these options, Wellesley, Symonds, Customs and Fanshawe Streets will be carrying in excess of 100 buses per hour. To meet the forecast level of bus demand it is likely that 50 – 60 additional high capacity



buses would be required in the peak hour on top of the 475 buses assumed under the bus based options or 160 (43%) buses over existing.

Section 6.2 describes a number of key operational issues which effect bus operations in the City Centre. These issues and others are further explored below in relation to the effect of additional buses over and above that assumed in the bus based options:

1) Increased boarding times in the PM peak require significant kerbside space for bus loadings. The bus options would already remove virtually all parking, loading, taxi space on bus corridors. If an additional 50-60 buses had to be catered for approximately 800m-1km of additional space would be taken up by these buses alone.

2) Operational constraints (marshalling, service termination) within the City Centre will actually determine the capacity of the system – mid-block capacity will not actually govern. Even with the Fanshawe, University and Britomart marshalling facilities, it is difficult to see how more buses could be catered for.

3) Additional pressure on Customs Street and Fanshawe Street would increase the significant issues identified above under the bus options. Extremely high bus volumes would be experienced on these roads and congestion would be exacerbated as a result of through running buses competing with general traffic. As noted above, general traffic volumes on these routes are expected to increase significantly as a result of changes to Victoria and Quay Streets though CCMP interventions.

4) As bus movements increase and pedestrian volumes rise with a growing City Centre, conflict with pedestrians on high pedestrian corridors will increase and this will limit the ability of high numbers of buses to traverse the City Centre.

5) Upstream capacity constraints may begin to govern. For example, increasing the number of buses through Newmarket would have effects that would be very difficult to mitigate. The Newmarket capacity constraint (Broadway, Khyber Pass) would require further assessment; however no real opportunity exists for widening through that corridor without the demolition of key shopping areas so other methods of dealing with high bus volumes would need to be investigated.

On this basis, the bus options developed through the long list assessment and short list development process are considered to be sufficiently representative of the likely bus options available for access to the City Centre. While it may be possible to find engineering solutions to deliver more buses into the City Centre, the actual bus capacity of the City Centre is limited to the order identified in the bus options by operational constraints. Even under the bus options developed, the bus and street network will be under significant stress with average speeds for general traffic reducing significantly (refer to Section 4.3).



6.3. Short list option performance summary

Table 6-7 and Table 6-8 provide a summary of the short list option performance with regard to a number of key transport statistics.


2011 Balanced Reference Case CRL Surface Bus Underground Bus


Total motorised City Centre commuters48 71,800 95,400 98,800 98,500 97,600

49 39,100 (55%) 44,000 (46%) 42,400 (43%) 42,500 (43%) 42,900 (44%)

50

Included in the above figure 3,200 (3%) 3,200 (3%) 3,200 (3%) 3,200 (3%)

5,600 (8%) 12,100 (13%) 19,300 (20%) 11,200 (11%) 11,500 (12%)

23,400 (33%) 32,500 (34%) 30,400 (31%) 38,500 (39%) 36,700 (38%)

47 Within City Centre cordon (excluding the motorway) – morning peak hour (City Centre SATURN model). The speed for 2011 is actually from the model base year of 2010. 48 Excludes those commuters who originate within the City Centre, as the figures below relate to those commuters crossing the City Centre screenline (both for observed (2011) and modelled). This may slightly underestimate car and PT commuters in the future years due to zone/screenline correspondence. 49 Private vehicle passengers. 2011 figure is from screenline counts, modelled figures are the number of vehicles multiplies by 1.3 (persons per vehicle) 50 For 2011, HCV’s are included in the car passengers, as the screenline survey does not differentiate by type of vehicle. Modelled HCVs are not impacted by the options

6 5 8 7 16




3,700 (5%) 3,600 (4%) 3,500 (4%) 3,100 (3%) 3,300 (3%)




Total motorised City Centre commuters52 71,800 116,500 123,300 121,000 119,800

53 39,100 (55%) 49,400 (42%) 46,200 (37%) 47,200 (39%) 47,800 (40%)

54

Included in the above figure 3,900 (3%) 3,900 (3%) 3,900 (3%) 3,900 (3%)

5,600 (8%) 18,200 (16%) 31,200 (25%) 17,400 (14%) 17,500 (15%)

23,400 (33%) 40,300 (35%) 37,400 (30%) 48,300 (40%) 46,300 (39%)

51 Within City Centre cordon (excluding the motorway) – morning peak hour (City Centre SATURN model). The speed for 2011 is actually from the model base year of 2010. 52 Excludes those commuters who originate within the City Centre, as the figures below relate to those commuters crossing the City Centre screenline (both for observed (2011) and modelled). This may slightly underestimate car and PT commuters in the future years due to zone/screenline correspondence. 53 Private vehicle passengers. 2011 figure is from screenline counts, modelled figures are the number of vehicles multiplies by 1.3 (persons per vehicle) 54 For 2011, HCV’s are included in the car passengers, as the screenline survey does not differentiate by type of vehicle. Modelled HCVs are not impacted by the options

6 5 8 5 16




3,700 (5%) 4,700 (4%) 4,600 (4%) 4,200 (3%) 4,300 (4%)



6.3.1. Demand and capacity

Some analysis has been undertaken to compare the level of patronage that can be provided by each of the options to the demand from the Balanced Reference Case without the crowding model. This has been used as a gauge of how well each option is performing in relation to potential demand.

Figure 6-34 below shows the actual demand forecast compared to the uncrowded demand from the Balanced Reference Case. As can be seen, none of the options developed provide for the Balanced Reference Case level of demand in either 2021 or 2041. CRL performs the best providing only 1,060 (2%) less people in 2021 and 5,200 (6%) less people in 2041 than this demand while the bus on street option also fails to meet the demand by some 1,490 (3%) people in 2021 and 8,120 (10%) less people in 2041 people.

Figure 6-34 Option performance against demand

Source: SKM analysis of APT outputs

Rail Capacity Constraints

As described in Section 4.4, the current 20 trains per hour capacity constraint imposed by Britomart terminal means that rail service frequency cannot be improved beyond that level of service provision. This limits not only the capacity of rail to provide access to the City Centre but limits



patronage growth because more attractive, higher frequency services cannot be provided on the wider network.

Figure 6-35 and Figure 6-36 below shows the planning and seated capacity of the rail network following electrification with and without CRL. It also shows the forecast patronage on key sections of the network when modelled without a crowding constraint55.

Figure 6-35 Rail demand and capacity in 2021


55 If the crowded demands were shown, the capacity would not be exceeded because the crowding model would essentially crowd people off the services.





As can be seen, under the Balanced Reference Case, rail capacity is not met in 2021 with the majority of the network able to operate within the seated capacity. This is because demand is constrained by the current network and frequencies which will operate following electrification. Interpolating between the 2021 and 2041 rail demands indicates that the Western Line rail capacity will be exceeded sometime around 2030 if the post-electrification network and timetable is operated. Seated capacity at the key load point on the Western Line will be reached prior to 2021.

The CRL option generates significantly higher demand and this demand would exceed the Balanced Reference Case capacity on the Western Line for services prior to Kingsland by 2021. On this basis the potential demand exceeds capacity on the rail in 2021. In 2041 demand both with and without CRL exceeds the Balanced Reference Case capacity on the Western line for services coming into Newmarket. The ability for rail to generate and cater for additional demand is constrained by the 20 trains per hour constraint at Britomart.

Bus capacity constraints

Analysis of bus capacity has been undertaken to identify key services and corridors that reach their capacity, and when this is likely to occur under the Balanced Reference Case. Figure 6-37 below shows the routes which serve the City Centre and that have a forecast patronage in excess of 250



people per morning peak hour. A peak hour factor of 0.6 has been used to estimate peak hour demand from the 2 hour modelled period demand and a factor of 85% of maximum capacity has used to give an indication of ‘optimal’ capacity for buses. Table 6-9 summarises the passenger capacity numbers assumed in this analysis. Note that the seated capacity of the buses is approximately equal to 80% of the ‘optimal’ capacity.

Table 6-9 Passengers per vehicle in bus analysis

Vehicle Max capacity

Max ‘Optimal’ Capacity

80% of ‘optimal’ capacity

Standard bus 57 49 39 Double decker bus (proxy for high capacity bus) 90 77 61

Figure 6-37 Balanced Reference Case bus volume capacity by service


The majority of services from the isthmus, north and east reach their capacity by 2021 while services from the west reach 80% of their capacity in the 2030s. This indicates that by 2021, the bus network will largely be at capacity by 2021 under the Balanced Reference Case. There would be some limited opportunity to optimise further, however this is unlikely to change the overall picture.



Figure 6-38 and Figure 6-39 show the same analysis for the CRL and surface bus options. Note that underground bus performs very similarly to the surface bus as the bus volumes are broadly consistent.

Figure 6-38 CRL bus volume capacity by service


Under CRL, the east is at capacity and the isthmus is largely at capacity by 2021. CRL provides some additional capacity for buses from the north due to space within the City Centre created by a reduction in buses from the west, but many northern services are still at capacity in 2021. Other services have capacity out to around 2030. In reality the capacity from the north may be shared more evenly but all services would likely be at capacity in the early 2020s. Services from the west reach 80% of their capacity slightly earlier under the CRL option around 2030. It should be noted that these services from the west are not from rail served areas.



Figure 6-39 Surface bus volume capacity by service


Under the surface bus options, the pattern is similar to CRL with slightly more capacity across the board.

The key routes servicing the isthmus are forecast to exceed capacity by 2021 under any of the scenarios. This area is predominantly served by bus and this indicates that additional capacity to this part of the city is constrained irrespective of the City Centre access solution chosen. It is likely that a higher capacity mode solution will be required for this area to enable the growth aspirations to be met without overloading the City Centre with buses. This is therefore likely to be rail based.

Under all the scenarios considered, buses servicing the central isthmus and the east will be overloaded by 2021 and almost all the bus services are forecast to run out of capacity by 2030. At the same time the rail network is constrained such that it cannot cater for desired demand on the Western Line by 2021. This indicates that some capacity improvements need to be in place by 2021.

6.4. Short list evaluation

6.4.1. Short list evaluation framework

The short list was evaluated using the same basic framework as the long list evaluation. The options had been developed in more detail and more quantitative measures were able to be



assessed following the more detailed modelling approach undertaken. Measures were used to provide an indication of performance against each criteria under each objective. The measures used, assessment of performance against them, and the resulting completed evaluation framework is included in Appendix G.

The evaluation framework is a form of multi criteria analysis56 that is commonly used in transport planning assessments of strategic interventions. The evaluation framework was completed in a series of workshops with the key stakeholders where the agreed performance measures were reviewed and the relative performance of the options discussed and agreed.

In addition to the evaluation framework, costs for each of the options have been developed at a high level to enable the options to be compared and a traditional transport user benefits economic evaluation of each option has been undertaken in accordance with the NZTA Economic Evaluation Manual (EEM). An assessment of the Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs) has been completed and is detailed in section 7.

The following sections describe the performance of each of the options against the objectives in the evaluation framework using the agreed measure. There is always an element of double counting between criteria and measures when using an evaluation framework like this in conjunction with an economic appraisal using the NZTA EEM procedures. Established economic procedures such as those set out in the EEM will address many of the measures being examined. However, those procedures tend to aggregate effects and many of the differences in the options cannot easily be identified or explained using a purely monetised approach. The importance of the evaluation framework is to understand which options perform better or worse compared to each objective.

Each objective will have different significance depending on people’s point of view. Some people will values environmental sustainability higher than economic impacts. It is therefore important to see this as comparative process which informs us about how and why the options are different in their effects. The + and - scores in the appendix should not be added or aggregated (at either the objective level or as a total), rather they are simply a tool which has been used to help differentiate between options.

Some measures may be used multiple times as a measure of different effects.

6.4.2. City Centre access

Providing City Centre access is a key function of the multimodal packages being considered. A number of key criteria and measures were considered through the evaluation framework.

As can be seen from Figure 6-40 below, the CRL option performs the best in respect of public transport access allowing approximately 9,100 (13%) additional people to access the City Centre

56 Treasury, in their Better Business Cases Toolkit, outlines that multi criteria analysis is an appropriate analysis tool, especially when combined with benefit cost analysis



compared with the Balanced Reference Case. The next best performing options are the surface bus options which provide in the order of 6,200 (9%) additional patronage with the underground bus options performing only marginally better than the Balanced Reference Case.

Figure 6-40 PT patronage to the City Centre

Source: SKM ART3/APT evaluation data

Related to the increase in PT patronage to the City Centre, is the reduction in private vehicle travel to the City Centre which is shown in Figure 6-41. In 2021 The CRL and surface bus options perform similarly with a reduction of 1,200 (3%) private vehicles travelling to the City Centre. The underground bus options see a reduction of 800 (2%) private vehicles. In 2041, CRL has the largest reduction in private vehicle trips, with 2,500 (5%) less private vehicles coming to the City Centre. The surface and underground bus options have reductions in private vehicle trips to the City Centre of 1,700 (3.5%) and 1,200 (2.5%) respectively.



Figure 6-41 Car travel to the City Centre


All of the options reduce travel times by public transport into the city significantly; however the CRL option is slightly less positive in this respect for travel from the north as the bus options have more bus capacity in the City Centre allowing an increase in frequency for those routes and a subsequent overall reduction in travel time from the North Shore.

The bus options which have regional approach treatments have improved journey time reliability for public transport because the approach treatments reduce the number of buses interfering with each other by providing improved stops and passing opportunities. In the City Centre, similar improvements to facilities are provided by surface bus improvements (e.g. Wellesley, Albert, Symonds Streets) or by the underground bus tunnel (only for those services using it) but are to some extent offset by the larger number of buses using the City Centre. The majority of the options have no effect on rail reliability as services are the same as the Balanced Reference Case. CRL significantly improves journey time reliability for rail services by removing the need to turn trains around at Britomart or reverse services into Newmarket station.

The surface bus options remove a considerable amount of road capacity (e.g. Wellesley, Albert, Symonds Streets) in order to provide the bus facilities required to maintain bus performance and accommodate the additional number of buses required in the City Centre. This has the effect of increasing congestion as vehicles have to reroute on an already congested network. Figure 6-42



shows the road speeds within the City Centre which are forecast to reduce significantly by 35% for the surface bus options compared to the Balanced Reference Case. At the same time, speeds are forecast to improve slightly in the CRL option. This is due the lower level of vehicle demand as a higher proportion of the transport task is being accommodated by rail and the existing road space is maintained for general traffic. The underground bus options performs slightly worse than the Balanced Reference Case because some road space is required (for example on Symonds Street and Albert Street). However it does not perform as poorly as the surface bus options because road space is not taken away from Wellesley Street.

Figure 6-42 Average general traffic speed

Source: AT City Centre SATURN model statistics

The CRL option provides the most capacity for freight, private vehicles and public transport into the City Centre allowing for future growth and also has the ability to enable additional schemes such as a rail line to the North shore and a rail extension to the Airport. However, this capacity is only provided to those areas already serviced by rail. This additional capacity does mean that rail crowding is eliminated in the CRL option with only a small number of passengers unable to be seated. Under all the options the capacity of the bus served catchments is essentially all taken up with approximately 30% of all passenger kilometres taking place on buses over their planning capacities as shown in Figure 6-43.



Figure 6-43 Bus passenger km and capacities


By providing the capacity to the west and south, CRL contributes the best to the AP objective of a “well connected and accessible Auckland” and is consistent with enabling other projects identified in the AP. The bus based options are not as positive but provide improvements to accessibility over the Balanced Reference Case. All options have constraints to the north, southeast and central isthmus in terms of the level of bus provision that is possible to serve these catchments which are not served by rail.

Options that allow higher numbers of people to access the City Centre via public transport, and which result in lower levels of congestion on the road network (allowing better private and commercial vehicle access) are considered to perform the best against the objective of improving access to the City Centre.

On balance CRL is considered to perform best in patronage terms, providing an approximately 50% larger improvement over the bus options. Congestion in the City Centre is also reduced compared to the Balanced Reference Case in the CRL option. CRL is therefore considered to have the most significant positive impact on City Centre access.



6.4.3. Regional movement

The transport system operates as a network and changes on part of the network can influence the whole network performance, particularly when those changes are to City Centre access.

CRL has the largest influence on the total patronage enabled across the region. It increases patronage by 12,500 (10%) compared to the Balanced Reference Case in 2041. The bus based options increase patronage by between 5,800 (5%) and 7,700 (6%) in 2041 as shown in Figure 6-44.

Figure 6-44 Total network PT patronage


As shown in Figure 6-45, CRL increases rail passenger km by 216,000km (45%) in 2041 and has the same level of bus passenger km (970,000km) when compared to the Balanced Reference Case. The bus options increase bus passenger km by between 90,000km (10%) and 115,000km (12%) when compared to the Balanced Reference Case and maintain approximately the same level of rail passenger kms travelled (485,000km). This indicates that demands catered for by either option are largely uncompeting. There may be low levels of demand that is served by both bus and rail. As this demand shifts mode due to the implementation of either option, the spare capacity that shift creates is filled by excess demand that was previously uncatered for.



Figure 6-45 Total PT passenger-km travelled


The CRL offers a reduction in congestion (refer to Figure 6-46) on the wider network while the bus options only reduces. Vehicle-kilometres travelled on the network in congested conditions (V/C>80%) reduce by approximately 7% under CRL, while reductions for the other options are less significant at a modest 3%. This reduction is because public transport is taking a higher proportion of the transport task in the better performing options, resulting in lower private vehicle volumes; and therefore lower congestion.



Figure 6-46 Network wide congested VKT


The CRL option integrates better “with the overall transport network planning and delivery beyond the City Centre” because it utilises the existing investment in the rail network. Bus resources are redeployed as feeder buses to rail allowing more frequent shorter bus trips servicing both rail stations and their adjacent town centres improving public transport service overall. It also enables additional expansion and further future rail upgrades (future proofing) through its ability to cater for additional schemes such as a North Shore Rail and a rail extension to the Airport as set out in the AP.

As well as facilitating City Centre employment it enables the rail system to serve entertainment and leisure destinations around Aotea and Karangahape Road and connects the creative employment sectors which are mainly in the Newton and Newmarket arc with the city centre.

The rail system is the major component for carrying people from big events at, for example, Eden Park, Mount Smart stadium and Vector Arena. By relieving the operational constraints at Newmarket, Quay Park and Britomart, the CRL facilities higher frequency services which are particularly important for the intense period after events. When people are going to events, many like to congregate in the City Centre first, particularly when there are high numbers of people from out of Auckland. The additional city centre stations will distribute the load so that not every



passenger will want to travel from Britomart, making the crowds easier to handle, and the environment for them better.

The bus options with the regional approach treatments perform better than those without because they improve travel reliability and service outside the City Centre

Options that cater for higher numbers of people on public transport, and which result in lower levels of congestion on the road network (allowing better private and commercial vehicle access) are considered to perform the best against the objective to improve regional access.

All options perform somewhat positively compared to the Balanced Reference Case. On balance CRL is considered to perform best in patronage terms, providing an additional 5000 region wide trips over the bus options and is therefore considered to have the highest positive impact of all the options. Reductions in congestion provided by the surface bus and CRL options mean that surface bus options perform the next best but not in the City Centre. Underground bus options have some positive effects on patronage but limited effects on congestion and are therefore not considered to perform as well.

6.4.4. Economic performance

Economic performance was considered from a number of different perspectives. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the different options is described in this section. A monetised economic evaluation is described in Section 7. Inevitably there is some double counting between these approaches, this section informs the differential performance of the options under the economic objective.

The ability for options to encourage job relocation in the City Centre (with the attendant productivity benefits) and to contribute to the AP objective of contributing to “an Auckland of prosperity and opportunity” and “increasing development value within the City Centre” emphasise different outcomes. However, they have similar drivers as discussed below:

Increased accessibility

Increasing accessibility leads to higher land values and attractiveness for development. All options increase accessibility as shown in Section 5.3 above. CRL performs the best providing an approximately 50% (9,000 additional passengers) larger improvement over the bus options which all perform similarly (4,500 – 6,000 additional passengers).

Again, as shown in Section 6.4.2, all of the options improve accessibility by increasing capacity for travel and reducing travel times by public transport into the city; however the CRL option is slightly less positive in this respect for travel from the north as the bus options have more bus capacity in the City Centre allowing an increase in frequency for those routes.

City Centre development potential and value



Evidence from cities overseas and Auckland show that improvements in accessibility have led to increases in property values; there is a higher chance for property values to increase around railway stations. Stations provide reliable services and frequencies; defined, dedicated routes that are easily understood and legible interchange facilities. Railway stations are permanent and provide virtually guaranteed accessibility for the built environment in their vicinity. Railway networks have the capability of moving significant volumes of people compared to other modes, thus providing passengers greater confidence of getting on board compared to buses or other modes.

Limited amenity impacts such as noise especially when using an electric network provides developers with higher confidence to invest in development. In most cases development codes also provide for standards to ensure amenity impacts are mitigated.

Master planning around stations, precincts and railway corridors is being undertaken in cities around the world to leverage off railway investment and to achieve high quality environmentally sustainable development. Overseas examples of residential and or commercial development integrated with rail stations include the Subiaco development in Perth, the Equinox in Toronto, Collingwood village in Vancouver, the Milton Apartments Brisbane, and Maritime Square Residential‐Retail Development at Tsing Yi Station Hong Kong.

Master planning enables the development of a coordinated and orderly framework to inform statutory controls which provide certainty for developers, and the community. Station planning ensures that station design including interchanges is integrated with adjoining public domain and land uses. This provides for well-planned mixed use development and in most cases with higher densities, greater housing choice and affordability around public transport nodes. In many cases land used for temporary construction sites and workstations in and around railway stations can be used for redevelopment.

There are many examples of renewal and regeneration around railway station sites which have added economic, social and environmental value. Renewal around Britomart provides evidence of renewal around the railway station as part of the transport hub (bus and ferry also contribute) in the Auckland context. Britomart is the highest density employment cluster within central Auckland, and much of the renewal and development has occurred after the opening of Britomart station. A Colliers International Case Study of Britomart’s office market57 found that Britomart had 18,700m2 of space in 2003 prior to the opening of the Britomart Transport Centre, which had increased to 65,000m2 by 2012. This suggests that Britomart rail station was a catalyst in trebling the amount of office space in the area within an eight year period, with an associated increase in employment, of around additional 3,000-4,000 jobs.

Other Auckland development examples include Newmarket station, Sylvia Park is a station integrated into a new shopping mall and paid for by a developer. New Lynn station and trench has enabled the regeneration of that area, including the expansion of Lynnmall and a new three-storey

57 Colliers International (May 2012), Britomart’s Office Market Before and After – A Case Study



medical centre and car park is under construction at the former New Lynn bus interchange, to be completed in December 2012. This includes 3,350m2 of ground floor retail and 3,640m2 of upper level medical facilities. There is a residential development planned at Orakei station.

There is also strong evidence indicating development and density around rail census area units being greater than in non-rail census units in Auckland. This trend is backed up with evidence showing increased property values and prices in rail Census Area Units (CAUs).

Figure 6-47 Auckland (City) Council consents issued 2006-2011

Source: Auckland Council analysis58

The AP and CCMP outline the development potential around the proposed new stations at Aotea, Newton and Karangahape Rd. The AP has identified significant capacity within the city centre and along the rail corridors. An analysis of both the city centre and the rail corridors has found:

Within the city centre rail catchments of Aotea, Karangahape Road and Newton, an additional 41,000 employees can be accommodated.

58 399 Census Area Units (CAUs) in Auckland, 78 CAUs were identified as being adjacent to, or near, the rail corridor. This equates to 20 per cent of the total CAUs. The table below shows the relationship between rail and non-rail CAUs.

Rail CAUs Non-rail CAUs Total CAUs

78 321 399

20% 80% 100%



The greatest capacity is in Newton, which has capacity to increase by almost 300 per cent

Both Aotea and Karangahape Road have the capacity to increase by around 50 per cent

Along the rail corridors outside the city centre, the Auckland Growth Model (AGM) has assessed a capacity within walkable catchments for an additional 120,000 residents, an increase of 72 per cent.

Table 6-10 City Centre CRL stations development potential (,000m2)

Station Residential Commercial Civic/Arts Total Floor Space Dwellings

Aotea 73 249 18 340 912

Karangahape Rd 77 46 3 126 962

Newton 750 320 - 1,070 9,375 Source: CCMP

AC is committed to undertaking master planning in CRL station precincts to maximise the greatest benefits from investment. Master planning will inform the most appropriate and compatible land uses to maximise rail investment. This would include provision for quality urban design and public domain, activity, safety and sustainable development. This will stimulate economic development and subsequent job location in rail served precincts.

In a similar way, bus infrastructure such as the underground tunnel and associated stations will attract development and perform positively compared to the Balanced Reference Case in encouraging strategic reinvestment in the City Centre. The underground bus options which have a tunnel and associated stations will provide some of the permanence of rail, however the volume of passengers travelling through the bus tunnel will be lower and bus infrastructure has shown itself to be less effective than rail in encouraging development and increasing development value. There are relatively less examples of renewal and redevelopment around bus interchanges and stops than at railway stations. Overall bus tunnels do not provide similar opportunities or amenity to create ‘places’ for communities as do railway station precincts. This because they are usually located on major roads shared by other vehicles and do not have the physical attributes to enable physical integration that railway stations afford.

Prior to 2003, Auckland City Centre developed largely based on bus and private vehicle dependence. Under the surface bus options, there will still be significant investment in bus related infrastructure. This would include streetscape improvements, reallocation of road space, comprehensive replacement of stop facilities and improvements to roadside amenity to accommodate bus infrastructure. However, bus stops are less permanent than railway stations and integrated rail/bus interchanges. They provide less of a focus for development and in most cases are on shared roadways, in more confined areas. While there would be some positive effects from this investment, it is unlikely that this change would result in significant added redevelopment value compared to the Balanced Reference Case.



Wider network development opportunities

By increasing patronage on the rail network as a whole, the CRL option will encourage intensification around existing stations on the wider network.

However, the bus options with regional approaches to the city could seriously impinge on town centre activities by removing whole shop frontages to allow for corridor widening. For example, at Ellerslie, resulting plot structures would not likely be big enough to allow for redevelopment on existing sites. It could also mean that plots behind these shops frontages may need to be bought to allow for comprehensive redevelopment. It is also possible that the same levels of amenity would not be able to be restored as a result of the barrier effect of a wide bus corridor through a town centre.

Bus options without the regional connections are unlikely to have any significant impact on development potential outside the City Centre.

Taken all together, CRL supports job relocation to the City Centre and high value, high quality development of the City Centre (including the areas identified in the CCMP for redevelopment) significantly more than the Balanced Reference Case. This will lead to improved economic performance. Underground bus provides some improvement over the Balanced Reference Case but not to the same extent as CRL due to lower passenger volumes at the stations and their particular locations within the City Centre. The performance of the bus on-street options will be slightly better than the Balanced Reference Case but significantly below that provided by the other options. CRL provides the opportunity for economic development around existing regional approaches while the bus options with regional approaches have a negative impact because they affect some town centres.

6.4.5. Environment and amenity impacts

The discussion in Section 6.4.4 above around the development potential of the different options also provides a measure of the options’ ability support to high quality mixed use developments. CRL performs best with both it and the underground bus (to a more limited extent) having potential to change uses through leveraging station development for comprehensive master-planning of precincts. This will lead to high quality mixed use development.

CRL and the underground bus options provides the opportunity to contribute to urban image, street quality and vitality by facilitating public realm, pedestrian route, and pedestrian connectivity around proposed stations and through comprehensively redeveloped precincts. Increased numbers of pedestrians under all options will enhance vibrancy. The CRL option also allows higher footfalls within the City Centre without the need for higher numbers of vehicles.

Options which have more buses at street level (visual and noise intrusion) and more congested traffic conditions are considered to perform worse in terms of urban quality. The CRL option has a



similar number of buses to the Balanced Reference Case on all City Centre roads and has similar levels of vehicle congestion in the City Centre.

When bus numbers and flows increase on City Centre streets it results generate a range of unpleasant conflicts and events. Auckland appears to be close to reaching that tipping point at present, judged by the observations of the 2008 assessment of the quality of life in the Auckland City Centre conducted by Jan Gehl, a world leading expert in urban design.59

Gehl’s report notes that Auckland enjoys a well-developed network of bus routes, but this is creating a number of negative amenity impacts, including:

Many streets used for bus transport are producing a negative impact on the street environment with noise and pollution;

Bus stops that create a feeling of congestion on the footpath in many locations;

A bus layover parking system in the City Centre resulting in severely downgraded streetscapes and creating unsafe situations for pedestrians;60

An unacceptable level of bus dominance in the City Centre requiring a need for more options and more environmentally sustainable surface system to accommodate the demands of a quality 21st century public transport system.

As Ottawa’s busways converge on the centre, they give way to bus lanes which are also shared with turning general traffic (as in Auckland). As bus usage has increased, approximately 100 buses per hour during peak periods are required to share the same stops along the corridor as other traffic. Consequently, lengthy queuing of buses occur creating “a virtual wall of buses along city streets.” 61 The concern over the deterioration of amenity values – they have reached a tipping point – has prompted the city to recommend building a light rail tunnel through the down town. As an Ottawa transport report puts it, “heavy bus operation on downtown streets are seen as detriment to good urban life.”62

In London “the wall of slow moving metal running along Oxford Street tarnishes what should be a world-class shopping experience.”63 As a comparison for the City Centre, two of the main bus corridors proposed are Symonds and Fanshawe Streets which are currently not high amenity areas, so for most of their length this may not present a critical problem. However, for Fanshawe Street, as it reaches Downtown, and the Wellesley Street corridor, this ‘wall of slow moving metal’ would likely act to sever Queen Street (at Wellesley Street) and the lower Queen Street area from the waterfront (at Fanshawe Street / Customs Street).

59 See Parsons Brinkerhoff, op cit., p.50-51 60 Recommendations included finding a new layover terminus outside the city centre to avoid bus layovers in the centre. 61 Parsons Brinkerhoff, op. cit., p.65. 62 OC Transpo, City of Ottawa Report, by Alain Mercier, Director of Transit Services, 2007, p.26. 63 Victoria Borwick, London Assembly, on BBC news



The underground bus option will have similar numbers of buses on Wellesley St to the Balanced Reference Case. All the bus options will increase the number of peak buses significantly on the eastern section of Wellesley, Symonds and Albert Streets during the peak periods but outside these periods the number of buses will be similar to the Balanced Reference Case. The number of additional peak buses on upper Wellesley and Symonds Streets will provide a barrier to permeability within the educational areas. The surface bus option increases congested conditions within the City Centre as described in Section 6.4.2 above while there is a smaller increase in congestion for the underground bus options.

The bus options with regional approaches are likely to have a significant detrimental impact on town centres along the routes, with reduced vitality, and urban quality due to the implementation of the high volume bus corridors which also remove parking and increase separation between the two sides. The introduction of a bus corridor could potentially provide a significant barrier effect in between each side of the town centre. This would be the case even if they could be comprehensively redeveloped without losing the established businesses. Lower numbers of buses outside peak times would reduce the effect somewhat.

All the options require more land take than the Balanced Reference Case. CRL requires a significant number of properties to be acquired (approx. 250).

The bus options require limited land take in the City Centre to provide for marshalling at University, Fanshawe St but there would be more significant land take to provide for the underground facilities at Britomart. Those bus options with regional approaches require significant land take (approx. 260). The underground bus option would largely be constructed within the road reserve but there would be more land take required than the surface bus options.

6.4.6. Implementation

The assessment under the implementation objective has been undertaken by considering the relative performance of the options to the Balanced Reference Case in terms of: construction timeframes, constructability and consenting challenges, impacts on the road and public transport network during construction and the potential for the option to be staged.

Construction of the 3.4 km CRL project was assumed to take 5 years to construct, based upon indicative construction timelines provided by AT. The CRL was considered to take the longest to construct of all the short listed options. The surface bus improvements in the City Centre were generally considered to drive the overall construction timeframes for those options, and given the tight working room available, a construction duration of 18-24 months was assumed, with the majority of this time being required to construct the marshalling areas. For the underground bus options, an overall construction period of three years was assumed, being governed by traffic management, construction staging and construction areas within the confined road space and City Centre area.



The bus options which include regional approach treatments were generally assessed to be able to be constructed within a similar timeframe to the City Centre improvements required for the options with approaches included. The approach treatments could largely be built in parallel with the City Centre works, without affecting the overall construction duration, with the Wellesley Street / Symonds Street works or the bus tunnel construction still governing the overall construction timeframes. However, construction of the Ellerslie-Panmure Highway section requires significant construction of new facilities on that approach corridor. Timeframes for the construction of the adjacent section of the busway for the AMETI project indicate that this section would likely take a number of years.

With a mix of construction techniques including cut and cover and TBM construction (requiring specialist equipment) for sections of the rail tunnel, and deep excavations for the rail stations, the CRL option was considered to have a high degree of difficulty to construct. The on-street bus option was considered to be much easier to construct but still requires significant physical works on the connection between Symonds Street and Wellesley Street. The existing connection between Princes Street and Symonds Street is widened to allow for provision of a two lane, two way dedicated bus facility extending from Symonds Street to the intersection of Wellesley Street / Mayoral Drive / Kitchener Street. To facilitate this widening, a new retaining wall is required to be constructed, utilising the space currently occupied on Wellesley Street by a raised planted island. The underground bus tunnel was assumed to be constructed by a mix of mined and cut and cover tunnelling techniques, with stations excavated in a similar manner to those for CRL. Construction complexity was considered to be broadly equivalent to the CRL option. Construction complexity of the bus options with approach treatments was not considered to increase significantly with the addition of the approach treatment when compared to the options without the approaches.

For the surface bus options, significant traffic management was considered to impact on network operations, but effects were considered to be more locally focussed than that for the CRL option. Construction of the underground bus option was assessed to have significant network effects through the City Centre, caused by cut and cover construction in confined road corridors along Wellesley Street, Victoria Street, Halsey Street and Fanshawe Street. The bus options which included regional approaches were considered to perform the worst in terms of network effects, with significant City Centre effects combined with localised effects on both the eastern and western approach corridors.

Requiring predominantly surface works within the road reserve beyond the works at Symonds Street and Wellesley Street, the on-street bus option was considered to be readily staged with benefits accruing to those sections as they are completed. While the entire underground bus tunnel needs to be completed for this section of the option to become operational, there are other areas (predominantly surface works) that can be constructed and begin to deliver benefits that are independent of the bus tunnel component. From a staging perspective, the approach treatment options performed well. Approach corridors are not a prerequisite for the City Centre works could be constructed independently of City Centre works, delivering localised benefits.



Consenting

Both the CRL and the underground bus options would have tunnel portals and impacts within the City Centre. Auckland Transport as the requiring authority responsible for these works could use its designation powers. The designation would authorise the works without the need for a land use consent from the Council. The designation doesn’t override the provisions of the regional plans. Regional consents would likely be required for dewatering, stormwater, remediation of contaminated land, and air discharges. Securing the necessary designation and associated regional consents would involve significant challenges in design, to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects the proposals may have on the environment, as well as the associated processing time and cost delays.

All bus options would require consents to develop the marshalling facilities at University and Fanshawe Street. The consents required to develop the underground marshalling / interchange at Britomart would be similar to those required for a large underground car park area or the existing Britomart station. The bus on-street options would largely utilise the existing road space, having minimal impacts outside the road reserve. While there would be opposition from affected locals and businesses, no significant consenting issues are anticipated.

To provide the necessary surety for the bus options with regional approaches, these routes would be designated. These proposals involve significant land take and would have significant impacts on the existing town centres, many of which are characterised by heritage buildings, some of which are scheduled for protection. Past experience with the introduction of bus priority measures in these areas would indicate that securing the necessary approvals for the full bus option treatments will likely encounter considerable community resistance. Even a recent attempt to extend the operation of the existing Dominion Road bus lanes by half an hour were not achieved due to opposition from local businesses. This is a key risk for the bus options with regional approaches.

Overall, those options which had the least impact during construction and were likely to be able to be consented and constructed are considered to perform best against the objective of implementation. Those options with approach treatments are likely to have significant difficultly obtaining consent and will disrupt not only the City Centre but also the wider network and are considered to perform the worst. The options which involve tunnels in the City Centre, generally take the longest and cause the most disruption within the City Centre for the longest period of time and are also considered to perform poorly. These options also have significant challenges in terms of gaining consents but it is considered that with appropriate design and mitigation they could be consented.

6.4.7. Health and safety

Positive health impacts occur when more walking and cycling is taking place. All options would be constructed in an environment where walking and cycling improvements to improve accessibility and promote active mode share were progressed in line with the aspirations of the Auckland Pan and the CCMP. There are often active mode components of trips at both the origin and destination



of public transport trips. Therefore the largest impact that the proposed options will have on active modes is in increasing the number of people using public transport. All options increase public transport as shown in Sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.3 above. CRL has the largest influence on the total patronage enabled across the region. It increases patronage by 12,000 (10%) compared to the Balanced Reference Case in 2041. The bus based options increase patronage between 5,800 (5%) and 7,700 (6%) in 2041.

The largest impact that the options will have on the number and seriousness of crashes will be changes in the number of conflicts between public transport vehicles and pedestrians.

Under all options the number of pedestrians in the City Centre will increase as a result of increased public transport patronage as described above.

A 2010 report on bus accidents in Auckland prepared by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) indicated that pedestrians, cyclists and the other vulnerable road users certainly make up a significant part of the injury victims in bus crashes accounting for 106 injuries or 27 percent of all injuries. However, further work is required to determine what proportion of accidents occurred in the City Centre. However, the map shown in Figure 6-48 confirms that while the injury rate is low, there are a significant number of minor and/or non-injury events at present.



Figure 6-48 Location of bus accidents in Auckland City Centre: 2005 - 2009

Source: NZTA report

6.5. Costs

Cost estimates for the short listed options defined in Section 6.1 have been developed in conjunction with Construction Consulting Group Ltd (CCG Ltd). CCG Ltd are the Industry Expert/Parallel Estimator for NZTA’s Waterview Connection Project ($1.4b), SH16 Causeway ($270m) and Auckland Transport’s CRL. CCG Ltd have an extensive data base of construction costs for major infrastructure projects in Australia and New Zealand. Estimates for the short list bus options are “high level” and are based on benchmark costs developed for the CRL NoR design and recent infrastructure projects in Auckland.



6.5.1. City Rail Link The estimate for the CRL is the 2010 APB&B Study estimate updated to 2012 dollars using the BERL local government cost index. A cost review was undertaken by Jacob’s Associates and Bond Construction Management in April 2012 and further costs have been developed, August 2012, by Construction Consulting Group Ltd and WT Partnership to support Auckland Transport Notice of Requirement in August 2012.

6.5.2. Short listed bus options For the short listed bus options, high level comparative cost estimates have been prepared. These estimates have not been based on the same level of detail as available for the CRL option on the basis that the CRL design is more advanced. The following overall assumptions have been made in developing the cost estimates for the short listed bus options:

6.5.2.1. Property

For the purposes of the estimates Net Project Property Costs have been assumed to be $1.0m for an urban/residential property that would be typical in the location between Panmure (from the AMETI project) and Greenlane. Property required for at grade bus stations within the city centre and Newmarket areas are based on $10.0m each. It is assumed that underground stations will be constructed within the road reserve; however allowance has been made for property required aspects such as entrances and plant rooms. An allowance of $7.5m has been made per station location.

6.5.2.2. Contingency

No specific risk assessment has been undertaken. The calculation for the contingency is based on the experience of SKM and CCG Ltd for similar projects at this stage of development. The P50 and P95 values have been split into confidence levels based on the expected scope of works and estimate certainty. Values assumed for the P50 calculation are as follows:

22.5% has been used where there is reasonable confidence in scope of works and the estimate has been based on benchmark rates such as those developed for the CRL NoR design

40% has been applied where the scope of works and estimate is less certain, and 33.5% has been used for property.

The corresponding values for the P95 are 40%, 72.5%, and 60% respectively.

6.5.2.3. Estimates

The Investigation and Reporting amount is calculated at 3% of the construction cost total. Design and Project Documentation is calculated at 4% of the construction cost total.

The construction total includes the following items as a proportion of the direct costs:



Management Surveillance and Quality Assurance - 2.5% Contractors design - 8.5% Contractors overheads - 26.5% Contractors margin – 13.5%.

6.5.3. Surface bus option 1 (SB1) The scope of works for the surface bus option includes 60,000m2 of city centre road surfacing works, upgrading 17 intersections, 2 at grade bus stations and 1 underground terminus/marshalling yard. Rates are based on typical resurfacing, line marking, signage and traffic management costs. There is an allowance for upgrading some of the existing infrastructure and road architecture however there could be a wide variation in the extent of works and the costs involved. This uncertainty has been reflected in the contingency description above, however the contingency allowances have not been subject to a specific risk assessment.

6.5.4. Underground bus option 1 (UB1) The scope of works for the underground bus option includes 480m of mined tunnel, 850m of cut and cover structures, 4 underground stations and 1 underground terminus/marshalling yard. Tunnelling has been assumed to be a sequential excavation method in East Coast Bays formation. Rates for tunnelling are based on the specimen design for the Waterview Connection project. Cut and cover tunnels are based on the concept design developed for similar CRL structures (Albert St, North Auckland Line). The underground station and marshalling yards are based on an open box/diaphragm wall design similar to the concept developed for CRL Aotea Station.

Option UB1 also includes city centre road works as described for Option SB1.

6.5.5. Surface bus option 2 (SB2) This option is as per Option SB1 with the addition of the Eastern and Western approaches as summarised in Section 6.1.5.

The Eastern approach includes 4.5km of road widening along the Ellerslie Panmure Highway and Main Highway from the interface of the AMETI project at the intersection with the Mt Wellington Highway to the intersection with Great South Road at Greenlane. A substantial portion of the cost of the approach treatments is the land requirement to facilitate the road widening. The estimate allows for 176 properties in this section. The section of the Eastern approach from Greenlane to Grafton Bridge (approximately 5.4km), is assumed to be constructed within the existing road reserve. Allowance has been made for an additional 2 stations (at grade) in Newmarket.

The Western approach includes revised lane configuration to 5.4km of Great North Road constructed within the existing road reserve. Bus stops are assumed to be constructed outside the existing road reserve (indented) and would require the purchase of property to facilitate localised widening. The estimate allows for 2 properties for each bus stop at approximately 800m centres.



Allowance has been made for 56 properties within this corridor (based on 14 stops, 2 properties per direction).

The extent of works and property take for the road widening section such as for earthworks, environmental mitigation, retaining structures, service re-locations, pavement, traffic management and landscaping could have significant variance from the costs allowed.

6.5.6. Underground bus option 2 (UB2) This option is as per Option UB1 with the addition of the Eastern and Western approaches as detailed above.

6.5.7. Cost estimate format and summary The cost estimates have been presented in a format consistent with the NZTA’s Cost Estimation Manual, SM014. This has been done to allow comparison to the cost estimate developed for the CRL. A summary of the cost estimates is shown in Table 6-11.

Table 6-11 Cost estimate summary

Option ($m)

Total Description CRL SB1 UB1 SB2 UB2

A Net Property 95 30 55 282 307 B I&R - 9 35.8 17 43.8 C D&PD - 12 47.7 22.7 58.3 D Construction 1,764.2 299.4 1,191.8 566.3 1,458.7 E Base Estimate 1,859.2 350.3 1,330.3 887.9 1,867.8 G P50 Estimate 2,141 429.1 1,629.6 1,087.7 2,288.1 I P95 Estimate 2,522 521.3 1,901.9 1,407.9 2,788.5 J Rolling Stock 259 48 48 48 48 G+J 2,400 477.1 1,677.6 1,135.7 2,336.1 I+J 2,781 569.3 1,949.9 1,455.9 2,836.5 Refer to Appendix H for the breakdown of the cost estimates.

6.5.8. Operating costs

CRL

The annual operating costs for the CRL option have been assumed from the central government review of the APB&B Study. These are:

$18.1 million per year from 2021 to 2030

$36.8 million per year from 2030 onwards due to the additional rolling stock which are assumed to be running from 2030

An additional $190 million has been allowed in 2029 to purchase that additional rolling stock.



In addition to the above figures, allowance has also been made for wage escalation, assumed to be 2% per annum. This has been applied to approximately 30% of the annual operating costs being the general proportion of operator costs for rail.

Bus options

Bus operating costs have been calculated relative to the Balanced Reference Case based on the following assumptions:

$4 per km travelled64

$100 per hour of operation65

4 peak operation hours per day (morning and afternoon)

250 operation days when peak operation occurs (50 weeks of 5 days)

The bus options have approximately 80 additional buses compared to the Balanced Reference Case and the operating costs calculated are related to operating those additional buses.

The distance travelled by each service and number of services allows the total distance travelled to be calculated from the modelled bus services.

In addition to the above figures, allowance has also been made for wage escalation, assumed to be 2% per annum. This has been applied to approximately 50% of the annual operating costs being the general proportion of operator costs for bus.

Bus rolling stock renewal is assumed to occur incrementally over a 10 year period, with the useful life of a bus assumed to be 20 years.

Additional resurfacing allowances every 7 years have been included for the additional pavement areas attributable to the bus options. This is a small amount in the context of the operating costs.

Annual tunnel maintenance for the underground bus options has also been allowed for at $7 million per year.

Table 6-12 summarises the total operating costs assumed in the economic evaluation.

Table 6-12 Operating cost summary

CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2

30 year assessment ($NPV)($m)

$180 $136 $134 $176 $176

Source: CCFAS economic evaluation

64 Provided by AT 65 Provided by AT

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation


7. Economic evaluation The overall standard NZTA EEM economic evaluation summary is shown below using a 30 year evaluation period and 8% discount rate.

Due to the longevity of the options with large civil infrastructure, such as tunnels, a longer evaluation period of 60 years is considered appropriate. Using a discount rate in line with Auckland Council’s cost of capital of 5.7%, the Comparative Benefit Cost Ratios (CBCRs) are as follows:

CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2

CBCR 1.7 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.5

A standard EEM approach has been applied for evaluation of the options in the CCFAS. This includes the use of the following:



30 year evaluation period

8% discount rate

Value of time adjustment factor of 1.3366 is applied to EEM values of time

The evaluation incorporates the following:

Calculation of traditional transport benefits including:

Travel time benefits to existing PT users

Travel time benefits to new PT users (incorporating the rule of a half)

Decongestion benefits to road users

Emissions reductions benefits

Accident reduction benefits have not been assessed as they were considered to be minimal given the options in the context of the Study and any attempt to develop a methodology to evaluate them would have been based on a large number of assumptions. For example, the bus options introduce more buses to City Centre, but introduce a level of separation from general traffic which will reduce the potential for this type of conflict whilst potentially increasing the likelihood of conflict with pedestrians.

Calculation of Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs) including:

Agglomeration benefits

Imperfect competition

Labour force participation

Move to more productive jobs

Each of these is discussed in the following sections.

Annualisation factors

The annualisation factors derived in the APB&B Study and confirmed by the central government review have been used as the starting point for the CCFAS for turning morning period (2 hour) values / outputs into annual values. These are:

1100 for PT user benefits

950 for other benefit streams

The different modelling system used in the CCFAS has meant that these annualisation factors have been revised for the different models and benefit streams as discussed below.

Annualisation factors – PT user benefits

66 EEM, Travel time cost savings, draft 2011 update factors, page 2.



Due to the introduction of the crowding model, the calculation for annualising the PT user benefits has been changed to account for the lower levels of crowding that would be present in the inter peak period. This means that the benefit over the inter peak period would come mainly from a reduction in travel time and improved service reliability, rather than a reduction in crowding on PT. To incorporate this effect, a proportion of the benefits calculated from APT with the crowding module in place are used as well as a proportion of the benefits calculated from APT without the crowding module in place. The assumption that the AM and PM periods have a similar level of crowding, leads to a proportion of 500 / 1100 (45%) of the crowded model benefits, with the remaining proportion of 600 / 1100 (55%) being taken from the uncrowded model benefits. To summarise:

Morning 2 hour period (with crowding)

Multiplied by 2 (morning and evening peaks), multiplied by 250 (applicable days per year) = multiplied by 500 total

Morning 2 hour period (without crowding)

Multiplied by 600 (1100 – 500) to represent the benefits outside the ‘crowded’ peak periods

These figures are added together to obtain the annual PT user benefits

Annualisation factors – ART3 decongestion

For decongestion calculated from the ART3 outputs, the annualisation factor of 950 as determined in the APB&B Study has been maintained as this model does not incorporate crowding and represents a similar approach to that used in the APB&B Study.

Annualisation factors - SATURN

The use of the City Centre SATURN model introduces an additional level of complexity due to the impacts of the different options being modelled at a more detailed level compared to using ART3. Through the CCFAS evaluation process, the impact on congestion in the City Centre of the different options was highlighted, particularly for the surface bus options as they remove general road capacity. For this reason, a two step process was developed which varies for each of the options. This involves using the AM peak hour model, a peak hour factor and a daily factor to obtain an estimate of the daily benefits of each option, and then an annualisation factor to turn the daily benefits into annual benefits. The peak hour factor of 1.7 has been used to convert peak hour to 2 hour morning period values. This factor is based on the peak hour being approximately 0.6 of the 2 hour period (based on existing patterns). The annualisation factor is 250 which is consistent with the working days per year referred to in the PT benefits annualisation above.

To determine the daily factors, as with the PT user benefits, the benefits in the morning period are applied to the evening period as the level of congestion is assumed to be similar. This leads to a base daily factor of 2. To understand and estimate the effects within the inter peak period, indicative 2021 inter peak SATURN models were built using inter peak matrices from ART3 and



distribution patterns of base AM and PM SATURN models for the Balanced Reference Case, CRL and surface bus options. Due to time constraints it was not possible to complete this process for all the options. It is important to note that these inter peak models have been built for indicative purposes only.

The inter peak models showed similar levels of congestion in the Balanced Reference Case and CRL option models, indicating that as the road network is the same, there is negligible difference outside the morning and evening peak periods when congestion levels are lower. With no difference in the inter peak period, the daily factor for CRL remained at 2.

As the surface bus option removes significant road capacity, some effect in the inter peak period was expected. Assessing the impacts relative to the Balanced Reference Case, it was determined that a factor of 1.4 could be applied to the morning peak benefits to estimate the inter peak benefits. This led to a daily factor of 3.4 (base factor of 2, plus 1.4). The same daily factor is assumed for the underground bus options also on the basis that the reduction in general road capacity is similar.

As a comparison, the APB&B Study annualisation factor of 950 equates to a daily factor of approximately 3.8 using the 250 applicable days. The daily and annualisaiton factors for the options from the morning benefits using the City Centre SATURN model are summarised in Table 7-1

Table 7-1 SATURN factor summary

Option Daily factor

Annual factor

Effective annualisation factor from morning peak model

CRL 2 250 500 Surface Bus 3.4 250 850 Underground Bus 3.4 250 850

Intermediate years

As the modelled years were 2021 and 2041, linear interpolation has been used to determine the yearly benefits / costs as required.

7.1.1. Traditional transport user benefits

PT travel time benefits

Benefits to existing and new PT users were extracted from the APT model using the following assumptions:

Total generalised cost is used including the crowded time used in the APT pivot model. As the ‘in vehicle’ time does not actually increase, this perceived increase in cost in crowded



conditions is captured through the use of crowded value of time (rather than using actual (non crowded) time with an increased value of time.

The rule of a half67 is used to account for changes in benefits due to changes in the numbers of passengers.

The value of time in the APT macro is $10.76 per hour. Outputs have been factored by 0.71, an equivalent of $7.63 per hour in 2011 dollars, consistent with the NZTA EEM.

With the exception of the value of time alteration, these calculations are consistent with previous CRL assessments by central government.

This produces the benefit relative to the Balanced Reference Case for the 2 hour morning peak which is then annualised and discounted across the assessment period and a summary of these benefits are shown in Table 7-2.

Table 7-2 PT travel time benefits summary

CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2

2021 AM 2 hour period $49,700 $29,000 $30,300 $15,500 $16,900

2041 AM 2 hour period $86,500 $44,600 $47,600 $24,500 $27,400


$386 $224 $233 $117 $129


Decongestion benefits

The decongestion benefits (benefits to road users) have been calculated from two sources.

City Centre decongestion benefits – City Centre SATURN

As the options have the most significant effect within the City Centre, the City Centre SATURN model has been used to capture congestion within the City Centre in more detail than ART3 is able to. The surface bus options have the potential to significantly impact on congestion due to the road space that they reallocate away from general traffic. Capturing this in the evaluation was considered important to understand the impacts on general traffic.

One of the limitations of the SATURN model is its inability to respond to the influence of things like high levels of congestion. For example, it cannot account for modal shift that might occur. It uses fixed inputs and the model outputs are based on those.

67 ‘The rule of a half’ – economics theory suggests that when consumers change their travel in response to a financial incentive, the net consumer surplus averages half of their price change (the rule of a half). Essentially it means that new users receive half the benefit that an existing user would experience.



Each of the options was modelled in SATURN and time and demand skims68 were produced to determine the number of trips between each origin and destination zone and also the time that it was taking to complete the trip.

The rule of a half was used to account for differences in demand and the value of time for the morning commuter peak ($15.13 / hour – 2002 dollars) is used to calculate the change in cost between each origin and destination zone between the option and the Balanced Reference Case.

As the SATURN model only includes the City Centre, the impacts of the regional approach corridors in Options SB2 and UB2 are not considered, and as such are not modelled explicitly. The assumption is that within the City Centre, the effects would be virtually identical for Option SB1 and SB2 and similarly for Options UB1 and UB2.

As the SATURN model is a peak hour model only, a factor of 1.7 has been used to convert peak hour to 2 hour morning period values. This factor is based on the peak hour being approximately 0.6 of the 2 hour period (based on existing patterns) as mentioned above in the annualisation factor discussion.

Table 7-3 SATURN decongestion benefits

CRL SB1 or SB2 UB1 or UB2

2021 AM 2 hour peak $69,300 -$96,000 -$37,800 2041 AM 2 hour peak $171,400 -$50,000 $3,700 30 year assessment

($NPV)($m) $297 -$378 -$103


In an initial analysis, only outputs from the AM peak City Centre SATURN model were used, with annualisation factors used from the APB&B Study (developed from count information). Testing was undertaken both on capping of absolute travel times in the Balanced Reference Case and options and capping of the benefits for each OD pair. This was done to ensure that the modelled delays were a realistic representation of what would be tolerated in the AM peak period so that when results were annualised the travel times profiles would be broadly consistent with the daily volume profiles.

In this updated analysis, as noted above in the SATURN annualisation factor discussion, inter peak SATURN model runs have been made available for the 2021 Balanced reference, surface bus and CRL options. When using this inter peak information in conjunction with the AM peak data used already, it is important to capture the cost borne by travellers in the AM peak who are delayed significantly enough that they may travel outside of the AM peak hour (or shift mode or not travel altogether). To capture this additional cost, the capping in the AM peak has been removed from the analysis. It is important to note that the significant delays in the AM peak in part reflect the

68 A process used in modelling to extract modelled data. In this case, the skim outputs demand and travel time between each model zone.



actual delays which would likely occur in the AM peak, and in part reflect the “inconvenience cost” of not being able to travel by the preferred mode at the preferred time.

Wider network decongestion benefits – ART3

The decongestion benefits from ART3 were also evaluated to capture the wider network impacts of the options. There would likely be some benefits on the wider networks as more people can travel on PT, thereby reducing congestion on the wider network as a certain level of vehicles are removed. As ART3 is not sensitive to changes in congestion at a local level it does not accurately reflect the performance of intersections within congested conditions such as the City Centre. To avoid double counting, benefits from trips with an origin or destination within the City Centre were removed from the analysis on the premise that the benefits to these trips are being captured in the SATURN modelling analysis. Table 7-4 summarises the wider network decongestion benefits calculated from ART3.

Table 7-4 ART3 decongestion benefits

CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2

2021 AM 2 hour period $7,700 $11,800 $11,600 $9,000 $7,300

2041 AM 2 hour period $40,700 $31,000 $31,900 $28,600 $29,400


$106 $108 $107 $88 $85


There is little difference for general traffic movements between Options SB1 and SB2 as the regional approaches do not take road space away. The same is true for Options UB1 and UB2.

Decongestion benefits summary

It is acknowledged that the complex interactions between congestion and mode choice that this analysis is trying to replicate through the modelling are very complex. While further refinement may be possible during a Detailed Business Case, it is unrealistic to expect that a study of this nature will be able to utilise a fully consistent equilibrium modelling approach which accurately reflects all aspects of behaviour. As a result we must interpret the information we have appropriately and form a judgement about the relative performance of the options.

Removal of some trips from the road network as a result of public transport improvements will have a positive impact on road congestion. This improvement is achieved without the need to take road space with the CRL option. Similarly the bus options reduce the number of vehicle trips69.

69 The reduction in congestion is not proportional to the increase in the number of buses routed through the City Centre. It is not appropriate to say in Wellesley St for example we are adding x



However, by increasing the bus accessibility in the bus options, we are adding a large number of buses into the City Centre that need to be provided with facilities to ensure reliable journey times. The effect of removing trips from the City Centre is captured in both the SATURN and ART3 models. By its nature, the SATURN model is much better at representing the effect of this within the City Centre and is a more appropriate tool to understand the effects of this type of change.

Clearly the removal of key road links within the City Centre will result in increased congestion within the City Centre. As noted above, ART3 does not represent the effects of traffic congestion very well in this sort of environment and therefore the SATURN model is the appropriate tool for understanding the effect of these changes.

Road speeds are forecast to reduce significantly by the SATURN models in some cases down to walking speeds inside the City Centre cordon. It is possible that these sorts of road speeds would not be acceptable to people, however given the fixed land use assumptions agreed for this study there are limited options. Some may choose active modes for short tips but this effect is unlikely to be significant. As detailed in Section 6.3, bus networks are largely at capacity so opportunities to utilise bus will be difficult, particularly as there is significant crowding forecast already. Replication of the effects of lower road speeds in the City Centre within ART3 and APT to understand the effects on mode choice better may be possible during a more Detailed Business Case evaluation of options. However, for the purposes of this study, it is considered that the SATURN results provide a good comparative representation of the option performance.

Only mode choice changes would be assessed through use of the ART3 model. Land use effects are more likely to result if modal shift is difficult. People could choose to live in the City Centre. However, the residential growth assumed for the City Centre is already very large. More likely the growth would take place in the areas where there is available PT capacity. These will likely be served by the rail catchments.

The overall decongestion benefits incorporating both the City Centre SATURN and ART3 analyses are shown in Table 7-5.

Table 7-5 Decongestion benefits

CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2


$402 -$270 -$268 -$15 -$19


bus therefore we are taking x time 40 cars off the road link. This is because the buses within the CBD have already dropped off patronage and are not full. You cannot remove buses from the CBD as they need to continue through to their destination and so still need to be catered for physically.



Emission reduction benefits

CO2 benefits are assumed to be 4% of vehicle operating cost (VOC) benefits in line with approximations set out in the EEM. The VOCs are calculated from ART3 outputs on a region wide basis.

As shown in Table 7-6, the emissions benefits from any option are very low in the context of the overall benefits and indicate that there are no substantial differences between the different options.

Table 7-6 Emissions benefits

CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2

30 year assessment ($NPV)($k)

$220 $280 $250 $320 $310


Accident benefits

Accident benefits have not been assessed as part of the economic evaluation. They have been assessed qualitatively in the evaluation framework as discussed in Section 6.4.7. 7.1.2. Wider Economic Benefits

Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs) are now captured in standard cost-benefit analysis. The formal incorporation of wider impacts of transport projects into economic appraisals began with agglomeration, linking the ability of transport to enable clustering of businesses and the links between employment density and productivity. Subsequent research has broadened WEBs to include effects relating to returns of scale, densification of labour markets, and company and household behavioural adaptations to changes in transport infrastructure and related cost structures.

There is established guidance on estimating WEBs in the UK, and similar guidance also exists in New Zealand. Research in this area identifies four WEBs of transport.

There are two WEBs concerned with employment density or agglomeration. The difference between them relates to whether the standard transport appraisal assumption of fixed population and employment is maintained. The “agglomeration” benefit assumes a fixed distribution of employment and calculates an agglomeration gain based on the extent to which the transport project improves effective density (ED). ED is a gravity-model style measure of job-to-job accessibility calculated using the generalised cost of travel from one zone to all others, weighted by the number of jobs in each zone. Reductions in transport generalised costs brings businesses closer together, improving ED.

The second is the “Move to More Productive Jobs” (M2MPJ). This measures the productivity gains (and losses) from changes in the absolute density of employment when the transport project in



question is expected to change the future distribution of employment. The clearest example is to think about an absolute transport capacity constraint on a City Centre which is overcome by provision of additional capacity. There is an external productivity gain to the existing businesses within the City Centre if additional employment growth is enabled within the City Centre rather than elsewhere.

The other two WEBs relate to Imperfect Competition and Labour Force Participation.

The Labour Force Participation (LFP) impact derives from the link between improvements to commuter journey times and labour force participation. The rationale is that if transport costs (of which journey time is a factor) fall then more people are encouraged to enter the labour market. Individuals make that decision on the basis of their post-tax earnings, but the WEB results because government captures the tax take on the increase in output produced by the increase in labour supply (often referred to as the “tax wedge”). Quantification of LFP relies on two key issues: the “return to work” elasticity i.e. how many people are likely to re-enter the labour market as a result of reductions in commuting costs, and the tax take on the marginal increase in output created by the increase in LFP.

Research70 on the NZTA website suggests that the LFP benefit should be based on the value of commuting time savings weighted by a number of factors including average earnings, the average tax rate on labour and the tax take on increased labour supply. In the review71 of the 2010 APB&B Study this was translated into a LFP benefit equivalent to “4.8 percent of conventional transport benefits”.

The Imperfect Competition (IC) impact exists because there are significant price cost margins in all economies, i.e. the perfect competition assumption of all firms pricing at marginal costs is untrue. Boulhol (2005)72 found average price cost margins of 12% across 20 countries.

Reductions in transport costs for businesses will result in them reducing costs, cutting prices and increasing output. As price is above marginal costs and faced by a downward sloping demand curve, the increase in output will reduce the “deadweight loss” from imperfect competition. The deadweight loss is found to be proportional to the value of business time savings, with the proportion depending on the scale of the price cost margin and the aggregate price elasticity of demand. The UK guidance values the IC impact at 10% of the value of business travel time savings based on an aggregate demand elasticity of -0.5 and a price cost margin of 20%. NZTA guidance is that the imperfect competition benefit should be valued at 11.7% of business user benefits. In the review of the 2010 APB&B Study it is taken to be equivalent to 2.5% of conventional benefits. The IC impact is entirely additional to the value of the business time savings

70 Kernohan, D. & Rognlien, L. (2011), Wider economic impacts of transport investments in New Zealand, NZTA research report 448 71 Ministry of Transport, Treasury and NZTA (May 2011), Auckland City Centre Rail Link Business Case Review 72 Boulhol (2005), Why haven’t price cost margins decreased with globalisation?



In summary, the WEBs extend traditional transport economic appraisal by including benefits arising from:

Positive externalities – the link between employment density and productivity;

Market Imperfections – in particular the impacts of tax rates and imperfect competition; and

Appraisal assumptions – relaxing the assumption that population and employment distributions are fixed irrespective of transport infrastructure.

7.1.2.1. Agglomeration, LFP and IC

Agglomeration benefits have been calculated using the methodology set out in Section A11.12 of the EEM. This incorporates the approximation of the GDP per ART zone and the change in productivity through differences in effective density between the reference case and each option.

Refer to Section 4 of Appendix I for a more detailed description of the agglomeration methodology.

To calculate the LFP and IC components of the WEBs, the percentages derived in the APB&B Study were used.

LFP – 4.8% of conventional benefits

IC – 2.5% of conventional benefits or 10.7% of the business user benefits

Comparing the two methods for calculating the IC benefits showed that using 10.7% of business user benefits results in approximately $10 million less benefits across the assessment period of the option. For the purposes of economics evaluation for the CCFAS, the IC benefits are based on using 2.5% of the conventional benefits due to the more straight forward calculations that are involved. As shown, the difference is considered to be small relative to the magnitude of the overall benefits and does not affect the relativity of the options that are being compared.

7.1.2.2. Move to More Productive Jobs

The above WEBs are all based on fixed population and employment for Balanced Reference Case and option scenarios. The final element of WEBs is about whether the alternative transport scenarios will change the level of employment in the City Centre and what the implications of that might be. In an ideal scenario a Land Use and Transport Integration (LUTI) model would be used to forecast the change but in this case that is not possible:

Although there is a LUTI model there is no response to public transport crowding or a capacity constraint.

It has therefore proved unresponsive and previously forecast only approximately 40 additional jobs in the City Centre as a result of large scale access improvements in early testing.



In the absence of an appropriate LUTI model it still seems sensible to try and understand the scale of the potential benefits that could arise from the different transport scenarios, in particular to understand any differences that might exist between the bus and rail options. These are discussed under three headings: Capacity, Development and Quality.

Capacity

The two bus options (SB and UB) add approximately 7,000 and 8,000 additional public transport capacity to the Balanced Reference Case. The CRL options adds 23,000 to public transport capacity and does not remove road capacity from other traffic as would be required by the SB option. CRL clearly adds much more capacity than the bus based scenarios.

The CRL capacity within the City Centre is focussed on the stations, Britomart, Newton and Karangahape Road. CRL therefore delivers significant transport capacity to a small number of defined points. The bus options distribute their capacity more widely across the city centre and suburbs.

Looking at the bus passenger numbers in more detail Table 7-7 summarises the bus supply and demand under the four main scenarios: Balanced Reference Case, surface bus, underground bus and CRL. These figures are measured inbound across the City Centre cordon for the morning peak period.

Table 7-7 Bus supply and demand73

M2MPJ Summary Balanced Reference

Case CRL Surface Bus Underground

Bus

Bus Supply 2021 21,800 18,300 28,800 29,000 Passengers > Caacity (uncrowded) 8,200 5,500 4,700 3,400 Passengers > Capacity (crowded) 1,300 600 100 400 Bus Supply 2041 20,000 20,400 31,400 31,400 Passengers > Caacity (uncrowded) 15,000 10,600 10,700 8,500 Passengers > Capacity (crowded) 4,600 1,700 900 900

Source: SKM

There are a number of impacts captured in this table:

1) The change in bus supply between the scenarios for 2021 is shown on the top row. This shows the very significant increase provided by the UB and SB scenarios and that in the CRL scenario bus volumes are reduced, even compared to the Balanced Reference Case as some people who were previously catching buses are now shifted to train.

73 This information is created from the City Centre screenline PT flows from APT, summarised by transit line



2) The second row shows that in the model run without crowding on the buses, buses are very significantly over capacity. Thus in 2021 there are over 8,000 passengers in the Balanced Reference Case in excess of standard bus capacity. There are also significant numbers of passengers over capacity all three option scenarios.

3) The third row shows the impact of incorporating crowding costs into the public transport assignment. This results in a significant shift of passengers from bus onto car and rail modes, largely eliminating passengers over capacity. The key impact of that is a large increase in car journey times, as demonstrated in the transport economic appraisal of the bus-based options.

4) CRL does not eliminate passengers over capacity on the bus network, because it doesn’t serve all corridors and because it actually has lower bus flows, even than the Reference Case. It would be possible to eliminate the majority of bus flows over capacity in the CRL scenario by some selective increases in bus services and the impacts on car journey times are much lower for CRL than for the bus-based options.

The impact of the transport capacity constraint on development of central Auckland is effectively shown by the combination of:

The numbers of passengers entering the city centre on buses which are over capacity; and, The dramatic reduction in car speeds in and to the City Centre under all of the bus options. In

reality employees would be unlikely to subject themselves to car journeys at 4.5 kph and equilibrium would be reached with lower employment in the city centre;

The other likely change would be that city centre commuters would tend to cluster around the CRL stations, simply because those locations provide better quality commuting journeys.

It is not possible to produce a firm estimate of the different transport constraints on city centre employment growth arising from the different transport options. The models are not really appropriate for that task. Despite this, the extent of the reduction in traffic speeds arising from the bus based options strongly suggests that those won’t work and will constrain city centre growth;

The additional capacity provided by CRL does though provide a significant degree of resilience to the network that otherwise is operating right on the limit. That resilience is useful when things go wrong, but more importantly useful if reality turns out higher than the planning forecasts.

Development

Property developers, especially in city centres like to develop close to rail stations. Those stations provide good accessibility, they are permanent and hence virtually guaranteed for the life of the building and they provide very high capacity to each station. Thus large office blocks and particularly clusters of office blocks tend to be very close to stations, they need both high capacity and permanence.



There is already evidence of that in the Auckland City Centre in the context of Britomart station. Britomart is clearly the highest density employment cluster within central Auckland, and much of that seems to have followed the opening of Britomart station. A paper74 on Britomart’s office market suggests that Britomart had 18,700m2 of space in 2003 prior to the opening of the Britomart Transport Centre in July of that year, which had increased to 65,000m2 by 2012. This suggests that Britomart station played at least some role in trebling the amount of office space in the area within an eight year period, with an associated increase in employment, perhaps an additional 3-4,000 jobs.

It is difficult to prove whether that growth is additional to the City Centre or whether it would have occurred elsewhere within the City Centre without Britomart, and it might be worth undertaking further research – for instance, interviewing developers and property owners around Britomart to see why they chose to develop there and what they would have done without the station. Nonetheless, it does not seem credible to argue that all of the growth would have occurred without the rail improvements; it is far more plausible that the station played a role in attracting new jobs in to the City Centre.

On that basis, it can also be expected that CRL would attract further development in the City Centre, leading to a further increase in City Centre employment. If, for instance, CRL adds a further 4,000 jobs at Britomart on top of the recent growth, as well as 4,000 jobs at Aotea, then that would equate to an additional 8,000 City Centre jobs as a result of CRL. It might be that under the bus scenarios Auckland city centre would struggle to attract the large scale property investment required to enable the forecast growth in central employment.

Quality

Rail is attractive not just for reasons of speed and capacity, but also quality. In narrow terms that can be through better transport reliability and comfort both of which are captured within the transport economic appraisal. Rail also plays a key role in the quality of a city centre. It does that by providing capacity without requiring road space. That opens up a range of policy options for decision makers as to whether to increase available capacity (there is a mode shift from bus and car to CRL which provides that increased available capacity) or whether they use it to create a more attractive City Centre for business, retail and entertainment, through public realm, pedestrianisation, cycle priority etc. There is increasing evidence that “Quality of Place” plays a role in determining locational decisions of both businesses and mobile employees and hence impacts on local economic growth. A successful city centre combines high levels of both accessibility and amenity.

The reasons outlined above help to explain why CRL would be likely to lead to an increase in the number of City Centre jobs. It is however not possible to reach a conclusive answer as to how

74 Colliers International (May 2012), Britomart’s Office Market Before and After – A Case Study



many jobs would result from the rail or bus scenarios. The existing models are not detailed or comprehensive enough to produce those forecasts.

7.1.2.3. Move to More Productive jobs – method and results

As outlined in the previous section, there is a strong likelihood that the CRL option will lead to higher employment within the City Centre. Given the transport models available, it is, difficult to use them to prove a particular scale of change.

The central government review of the APB&B Study concluded that the level of additional employment in the City Centre as a result of CRL would be likely to be around 5,000, roughly in line with the modelled increase in morning peak public transport demand arising from CRL. A higher sensitivity test of 20,000 jobs was run, but that appeared high for a scheme which adds 23,000 capacity in the morning peak so 12,000 has been adopted as a more realistic high test, where roughly half of the additional capacity provided by CRL is eventually filled by additional city centre employment. Those are the tests which have been valued using the M2MPJ approach.

In order to value this M2MPJ impact, the process is as follows:

Determine the likely number of additional City Centre jobs as a result of the scheme

Determine the likely length of time that it will take for that potential number of additional jobs to be reached – the effect may take several years to reach its full potential, rather than all being immediate

Determine the productivity differential between the City Centre and jobs elsewhere

Multiply the number of additional City Centre jobs by the productivity differential – this gives a value for the total additional output produced

Estimate the ‘tax wedge’ element of that increase in output – this gives a value for the M2MPJ welfare benefit which could be added to the conventional appraisal results

In order to value the M2MPJ benefit, it has been assumed that the number of additional City Centre jobs will be 5,000 as per the findings of the review. We have also tested adding 12,000 City Centre jobs.

With regards to a ‘ramp-up’ of benefits, it has been assumed that there is a gradual increase in the number of additional City Centre jobs over time, with all the additional City Centre jobs located there five years after the CRL has opened.

The productivity differential is based on analysis that was undertaken as part of the APB&B Study review. This, using data from a paper by Maré75 indicated that the productivity differential for the Auckland City Centre relative to the rest of New Zealand was $20,107. The differential for the Auckland region, outside of the City Centre and Isthmus, was estimated as $7,091. As a result the

75 Maré, D.C. (June 2008), Labour productivity in Auckland firms, Motu Working Paper 08-12, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research



net productivity differential between the City Centre and Auckland region area was taken to be $13,016.

That figure appears to be expressed in 2006 prices and values. It has therefore been increased to 2012 prices and values by applying an 18% uplift to account for changes to the Consumer Price Index between 2006 and 2012, and a real productivity growth rate of 1.5% a year (matching the conservative assumption that was used in the review). This gives a productivity differential in 2012 of $16,818, expressed in 2012 prices.

Applying that productivity differential, with real growth added year-on-year, to the additional number of City Centre jobs enables the value of additional output produced to be estimated. Applying a discount rate of 8%, the Present Value of the benefit over a 30 year appraisal period is $584m.

The welfare benefit associated with that increased output is equal to the ‘tax wedge’ element. A tax rate of 32% has been applied, also in line with the review. The M2MPJ welfare benefit is therefore $187m as a Present Value. This is very similar to the result of $148m that was obtained in the review of the APB&B Study, albeit slightly higher as it is expressed in 2012 prices and values.

However, it is worth noting that the results outlined above are based on an assumption of fixed total employment within the Auckland region. In other words, any additional City Centre employment is assumed to have relocated from other parts of the Auckland region.

That assumption does not necessarily hold. It could be the case that jobs also relocate from other parts of New Zealand or indeed from other countries. The scale and consistency of Auckland’s growth strongly supports this view. The CRL will add to Auckland’s appeal as a city to live and work in. Already one third of Auckland residents were foreign born and 24% of Auckland employees work for foreign owned companies. If additional employment growth takes place within the City Centre it will increase numbers of foreign workers.

The table below shows the assumption that has been used for each scenario in terms of the proportion of additional City Centre jobs that come from:

The rest of Auckland;

The rest of New Zealand (apart from Auckland); and

Other countries.

Table 7-8 Proportion of new Auckland City Centre jobs by area that they redistribute from

Scenario Auckland Rest of NZ Rest of world

Low 100% 0% 0% Medium 50% 50% 0%

High 50% 25% 25%



The ‘low’ scenario is the same as the one that is described above, since it assumes that all City Centre jobs have relocated from within the Auckland region. It is a low scenario because the productivity gain is higher if workers relocate from the rest of New Zealand (since average productivity is lower in the rest of NZ compared with Auckland). In the case of workers relocating from outside of New Zealand, the whole of their output can be taken as a benefit rather than applying the tax wedge, since all output that they produce is a net benefit to New Zealand.

The three scenarios outlined above have been applied to two alternative assumptions in terms of the number of additional City Centre jobs – the 5,000 jobs that were recommended in the APB&B Study review, and the 12,000 additional jobs that have been taken to represent a high level of City Centre jobs growth here.

The table below shows the results for all scenarios, with the value of additional output and the value of the M2MPJ welfare benefit both presented.

Table 7-9 M2MPJ results

Scenario Additional City Centre jobs

Total additional output ($M, PV, 2012 dollars)

Total M2MPJ benefit ($M, PV, 2012 dollars)

Low 5,000 $584 $187 Medium 5,000 $744 $238

High 5,000 $1,718 $1,365

Low 12,000 $1,403 $449 Medium 12,000 $1,785 $571

High 12,000 $4,122 $3,277

There is a reasonable amount of variety between the scenarios, particularly the ‘High’ scenario. This is because the high scenario assumes that 25% of new City Centre workers come from outside of New Zealand, and hence all of the additional output that they produce can be included within the M2MPJ benefit – not just the tax wedge element. The high scenario therefore has a much higher M2MPJ benefit as a proportion of additional output produced than the other scenarios.

If the combination of the high scenario and 12,000 additional City Centre jobs is excluded, this indicates that a realistic range for the M2MPJ benefit is $200m - $1,400m as a Present Value over 30 years, on the basis of the other results shown in the table above.

7.1.3. Economic evaluation summary

A summary of the economic evaluation of the CCFAS options is shown below in Table 7-10. Note that the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) shown is a Comparative BCR (CBCR), as it with regard to the



Balanced Reference Case rather than a Do Minimum which would be required for a standard or traditional funding BCR.

Table 7-10 Economic evaluation summary


Sensitivity tests

Three additional sensitivity tests were undertaken to assess the impact of differing population assumptions. High and low population projections were used as well as a test using the high projection and the 70/30 land use split.

The high population tests resulted in approximately 5-6% increases in PT patronage, both regionally and to the City Centre.

The low population test resulted in approximately 4-5% decreases in PT patronage, both regionally and to the City Centre.



These changes were across all options and it indicates that the assessment is unlikely to change, particularly with regard to the relative performance of the options. It is more likely to have an impact on timing and when the options may be required, but given the scale of the changes in PT patronage, this impact is likely to be small.

The CRL tunnel and civil infrastructure will have a design life of 100 years and to appraise it over the same 30 year time period as the bus options does not provide a fair comparison. The big, expensive infrastructure of CRL will provide benefits over a much longer time period. A sensitivity test of increasing the assessment period to 60 years results in the following indicative CBCRs shown in

Table 7-11 60 year assessment period CBCR results

CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2

CBCR 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 Source: CCFAS economic evaluation

Further sensitivity tests of the discount rate and evaluation period are summarised below in Table 7-12.

Table 7-12 Evaluation period and discount rate sensitivity tests

Evaluation period and discount rate

CBCR

CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2

30 year, 8% DR 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 30 year, 6% DR 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 30 year, 4% DR 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 60 year, 8% DR 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 60 year, 6% DR 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 60 year, 4% DR 2.4 1.8 1.2 0.8 0.7


Another sensitivity test has been carried out where the discount rate has been changed to be consistent with the discount rate associated with Auckland Council’s cost of capital76 of 5.7%. The impacts on the CBCRs are shown in Table 7-13.

Table 7-13 AC Cost of Capital (5.67%) sensitivity test

CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2


As can be seen, this sensitivity test does not change the relative performance of the options.

76 Provided by Auckland Council, 5.67%.



Using the assumptions in this sensitivity test and applying a 60 year evaluation period results in the CBCRs shown in Table 7-14.

Table 7-14 AC Cost of Capital (5.67%) sensitivity test, 60 year evaluation

CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2


Another sensitivity test around the traditional WEBs has been carried out with the benefits to the bus options adjusted pro-rata to their overall transport user benefits compared to CRL with the rationale being that by increasing congestion within the City Centre, the agglomeration benefits in particular would be difficult to realise. The results are shown in Table 7-15.

Table 7-15 Traditional WEBs adjusted pro-rata to transport benefits

CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2

CBCR 0.9 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Source: CCFAS economic evaluation

One of the difficulties with assessing the impacts on buses of changes in the City Centre is the ability of models to take account of bus to bus interaction and delays associated with interactions with general traffic, for example when turning at intersections. To provide an indication of the possible underestimation of benefits attributable to improvements to bus operation in the City Centre, a sensitivity test has been carried out which increases the PT user benefits by 20% for the bus based options. This is a proxy for an increase in average bus travel speed of up to10 kph over the length of journey. It is noted that the PT user benefits also include a proportion of benefit attributable to a reduction in crowding which would not be affected by improved bus operation. The results of the sensitivity test are shown in Table 7-16.

Table 7-16 PT user benefits +20% sensitivity test

CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2


As can be seen, this sensitivity test does not change the relative performance of the options.

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Multimodal programme


8. Multimodal programme Each of the options developed and taken through to the short list are multimodal and are premised on a 2021 implementation time.

Analysis suggests that a multimodal programme combining the CRL and surface bus “headline” (the Integrated option) would best meet City Centre access needs in a sustainable manner. This option would include the CRL improvements but would also involve incremental bus improvements. The Integrated option is the only one that meets the total demand for public transport travel into the City Centre. If the CRL and improvements to bus facilities on Wellesley and Symonds Streets are in place by 2021, vehicle speeds in the City Centre can be maintained at a similar level to the Balanced Reference Case, while providing access for significantly more people by public transport.

The CBCR of the Integrated option would be similar to the CRL option which performed the best of any of the individual short list options.

CBCR Integrated option


NZTA EEM including WEBs 0.9

In terms of considering later implementation dates than 2021, it is clear that the transport demand impacts are significant very early in the analysis period and delaying addressing these would impose increasing costs on access to the City Centre. The effect of this will be: to displace employment, restrict growth, forgo benefits of agglomeration.

City centre access also sits within a wider suite of transport projects and other headline projects which are already committed or are outlined in the AP, the CCMP and the Integrated Transport Plan. In the following timeline projects of significant scale and that involve large tunnel construction have been highlighted.

The construction of a City Centre access solution in the early part of the 2020’s has the strongest

Major Project 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040

City Rail LinkBus enhancements Waterview

AMETIAWHCSMART Phase 1SMART Phase 2Nothern Busway ExtensionPuhoi to Wellsford

East West Connection

Auckland PlanOther Critical Issues MRC bus network at capacity Northern Busway at capacity

* Assuming a sensible sequencing to optimise construction industry spend profile

Southern Greenfields Northern Greenfields



strategic fit with other key initiatives in Auckland both in terms of transport and in a wider context. It is unlikely that multiple large construction projects involving tunnels could sustainable be run or funded in parallel. This indicates that an optimal timing for CRL construction would see opening in the early 2020s.

Each of the options developed and taken through to the short list are multimodal and are premised on a 2021 implementation time. This section challenges at a strategic level:

Whether the “headline with other improvements” approach is appropriate given the deficiency analysis and issues identified

Whether implementation dates other than 2021 would lead to improved outcomes.

It then sets out an optimal sequenced multimodal programme of improvements that can be developed further as part of a full Business Case process.

8.1. Headline improvements based on a single mode?

The City Centre road network is under significant pressure currently and this is forecast to become significantly worse in the future. This is highlighted by the SATURN modelling results in Section 4.3 which indicate that the average speed in the City Centre will reduce from 16 kph in 2010 to 7 kph and 5 kph in 2021 and 2041 respectively under the Balanced Reference Case. This will have a significant adverse impact on private and commercial vehicle access to the City Centre. At the same time, public transport is forecast to be capacity constrained. Therefore, to enable the forecast growth in employment, residential and education in the City Centre, public transport needs to contribute as much as possible to the transport task of providing access to the City Centre.

The CRL option clearly performs the best of the short list packages against almost every criterion, and is especially good with regard to impacts on City Centre private and commercial traffic. This is important because impacts on business travel have a strong influence on economic performance. The bus options perform poorly for other modes given they take capacity away from general and commercial traffic. Surface bus options would have significant adverse impacts on the City Centre environment and impact on pedestrians as they have done in Brisbane along some corridors. However, because rail only serves a defined catchment, yet growth is forecast across the region, large sections of the city will continue to rely on buses for access to the City Centre under all scenarios and this demand needs to be catered for as well.

This study was developed on the basis that City Centre access required a multimodal programme, but that programme would be headlined by a particular modal solution. However, the analysis undertaken indicates that to cater for the forecast demand to the City Centre, the package needs to include significant increases in capacity and improvements in level of service for both bus AND rail. Therefore, the question becomes not one of which of the headline options is the right one, but



which combination of headline solutions is required and when. This investment is critical across all modes of transport in the City Centre to accommodate growth under the assumptions used.

As seen in Section 6.3 above, none of the options caters for the level of uncrowded public transport demand forecast for the Balanced Reference Case. CRL performs the best but still fails to meet the forecast demand by 1,060 (2%) people in 2021 and 5,200 (6%) people in 2041.

A further scenario test was undertaken to see if this level of demand could be provided for at all. This scenario combined the improvements envisaged under the CRL option and the surface bus option. These were the two options that performed best. This combined scenario is able to meet the Balanced Reference Case demand77. Interestingly, combining the patronage increase for the surface bus option over the Balanced Reference Case and the patronage increase for the CRL option over the Balanced Reference Case leads to only slightly more patronage that the combined scenario. This is because the options are generally not competing for patronage. The bus options provide improved service to the bus served catchments while the CRL option provides improved service to the rail catchments and the PTNP 2012 largely removes any competing services to begin with.

77 The level of uncrowded demand for the CRL+SB1 option would higher than the Balanced Reference Case demand because the scenario includes additional frequency and network improvements that would induce demand. The Balanced Reference Case demand has simply been used to provide an indication of performance.



Figure 8-1 Option performance against demand

Source: SKM analysis of APT outputs

The table below sets out some of the key performance statistics for the Integrated option.

Table 8-1 Integrated option SATURN model results summary78

Integrated option 2011 2021 2041


26,60079 35,500 (+33%) 37,800 (+42%)


Public transport patronage to the City Centre (morning 2 hours)80

32,600 60,500 (+86%) 81,700 (+151%)

78 Patronage data for 2010 is from Passenger Transport Patronage Surveys, 2011. 2021 and 2041 data is taken from the integrated option (with crowding). 79 2010 City Centre SATURN model 80 Patronage data for 2011 is from Passenger Transport Patronage Surveys, 2011 and only captures those people crossing the City Centre screenline. 2021 and 2041 data is taken from the

5 6 16



Source: City Centre SATURN model, CBD cordon statistics, morning peak hour (except PT patronage – see footnote)

An integrated CRL and surface bus option has the benefit of being able to leverage the positives of both options and to eliminate some of the negative impacts. As discussed above, the multimodal programme would cater for significantly more patronage than an individual option. It would also allow better use of the Central City road space. Because some demand for buses from the west is catered for by the CRL component of the programme, fewer buses need to use the Albert Street corridor. Bus numbers on this route would be comparable with that assumed in the Balance Reference case (and potentially lower) and would mean that road space would not have to be removed from general traffic on Albert Street. This improves the performance of the road network compared with the surface bus options. The average speeds in the City Centre would still reduce from 2010 to a level between the Balanced Reference Case and surface bus options due to the reallocation of road space away from private and commercial traffic.

Table 8-2 summaries the PT operation in terms of services and patronage for the Integrated option compared to the Balanced Reference Case.

Table 8-2 Integrated option PT summary

Integrated option 2021 2041


Additional train patronage in the morning 2 hour peak81 +6,000 (+49%) +11,700 (+65%)





Economic evaluation

The economic performance of the Integrated option is also strong.

Table 8-3 to Table 8-6 summarise the benefits for the Integrated option of the CRL and surface bus improvements. The other options are also shown for ease of comparison. They have been calculated in the same way as discussed earlier in Section 7 for the other options.

Integrated option (with crowding), APT evaluation data 1.01 and includes all PT journeys with the City Centre as the destination, with some originating in the City Centre. 81 Rail passengers crossing the City Centre screenline 82 Bus passengers crossing the City Centre screenline, excluding school bus



The daily factor for the SATURN model decongestion benefits has been calculated from assessing the effects of the combined option of CRL and SB in the morning peak. The likely effect is somewhere in the middle of the two individual options, so the daily factor that has been applied is the average of the two options’ daily factors. The daily factor for the combined options has been assumed as 2.7.

Table 8-3 PT travel time benefits summary

CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2 Integrated (CRL+SB1)

2021 AM 2 hour period $49,700 $29,000 $30,300 $15,500 $16,900 $72,000

2041 AM 2 hour period $86,500 $44,600 $47,600 $24,500 $27,400 $123,100

30 year assessment ($NPV)($M)

$386 $224 $233 $117 $129 $553


The improved provision of PT in the Integrated option is shown by the much higher value of the benefit to PT users.

Table 8-4 SATURN decongestion benefits

CRL SB1 & SB2 UB1 & UB2 Integrated (CRL+SB1)

2021 AM 2 hour peak $69,300 -$96,000 -$37,800 $10,000

2041 AM 2 hour peak $171,400 -$50,000 $3,700 $61,900


$297 -$378 -$103 $110


As with the surface bus option, the Integrated option removes general road capacity and therefore the decongestion benefits offered by CRL on its own are significantly reduced within the City Centre. On the wider network, the Integrated option has the largest positive decongestion benefit from the large number of trips it removes from the network.

Table 8-5 ART3 decongestion benefits


2021 AM 2 hour period $7,700 $11,800 $11,600 $9,000 $7,300 $17,700

2041 AM 2 hour period $40,700 $31,000 $31,900 $28,600 $29,400 $68,900

30 year assessment

$106 $108 $107 $88 $85 $194




($NPV)($M) Source: CCFAS economic evaluation

Table 8-6 Decongestion benefits summary



$402 -$270 -$268 -$15 -$19 $304


Overall, the Integrated option has significantly higher costs than the individual options but this is offset by the higher benefits as shown in Table 8-7..

Table 8-7 Economic evaluation summary




As can be seen, the CBCR is similar to that of CRL (which performed the best of any of the short listed options) at 0.9.

Section 6.3 details the capacity constraints on bus and rail for each of the scenarios. It shows that under any of the options (be they bus or rail focussed), that bus networks are largely at capacity in the early 2020s. With an integrated CRL and surface bus option bus services are still under significant pressure but have more capacity than the other options. As can be seen in Figure 8-2, bus capacity on key routes is extended out to around 2034/35 in most cases. However, capacity issues on the highest demand routes from all areas remain.

Figure 8-2 Integrated option bus volume capacity by service


Rail demand and capacity with the Integrated option is shown in the figures below for the morning peak period. As can be seen, the Integrated option provides the service levels to meet the demand in the rail catchments. The demand in 2021 is below the seated capacity of rail with CRL included but by 2041 the seated capacity is exceeded in a number of locations. This is because improvements in rail provide significant increases in capacity and are not able to be implemented incrementally as would be possible for a bus option. The capacity assessments undertaken have assumed 6 car EMU units for all services. In reality, the number of train carriages for each service could be optimised to bring capacity closer to demand in 2021. The number of carriages could then be increased as required as demand rises up to 2041. This optimisation would have the effect of



improving the economic performance of CRL component of the programme because operational costs could be reduced while still providing a similar level of service.







To come close to meeting the demand for public transport travel into the City Centre and to take as much pressure off the road network as possible, it is concluded that a multi-headline modal solution which involves both the CRL and significant bus improvements are required.

8.2. Multimodal programme and sequencing

If a multi-headline modal solution delivers greater benefit the next question is whether different sequencing of headlines would deliver a different cost and benefit profile. A detailed analysis would be required during a Detailed Business Case process to fully optimise the sequencing and leverage the full synergies. However this section sets out a realistic indicative implementation plan.

Each of the options developed and taken through to the short list was assumed to be operational by 2021. Pushing out the opening year of any of the options would increase the economic performance, but this is just an artefact of assumed discounting. At a high level, the analysis points to a rapid degradation of access across all modes in the early 2020s and indicates that significant improvements across both road and rail need to be in place by then to avoid severe congestion and crowding.



The CRL component of the programme has the benefit of maintaining City Centre speeds for private motor vehicle users as well as providing the greatest uplift in capacity. It removes the need for some bus services from the west, providing some headroom to bus capacity while also providing the opportunity for staged development early in the rail catchments where there is spare capacity to get people to the Central City. Bus improvements have the benefit that they can be implemented incrementally and staged over time. Because of these factors, the most sensible approach is to increase bus services incrementally to meet demand over time while implementing CRL. This proactively manages the network as a whole by increasing patronage on both bus and rail and removing private vehicle trips from the network without letting either the road or bus network fail before implementing improvements.

CRL would be progressed through the design and consenting with opening in the early 2020s with bus improvements taking place in parallel. This will involve a regular monitoring programme to identify required bus improvements as operational performance degrades. As services are increased, capacity constraints on different parts of the network will become critical. It is envisaged that bus operations on Symonds and Wellesley Streets would deteriorate first requiring additional bus facilities there. Similarly as demand from the north increases, improvements would be required to improve the operation of Fanshawe Street and interchange and marshalling at Britomart. Wellesley Street improvements would be made incrementally with stop lengths and operational changes. Ideally, the full treatment removing all traffic lanes would be held off as long as possible and undertaken following opening of CRL. This would allow for additional demand to be taken off the road network reducing disruption to vehicle access to the City Centre. As shown in Table 8-1, if the CRL and the surface bus treatments on Wellesley and Symonds Streets are in place by 2021, vehicle speeds in the City Centre can be maintained at a similar level to the Balanced Reference Case, while providing access for significantly more people by public transport.

Construction of the CRL at Britomart also provides the opportunity to incorporate bus interchange and marshalling facilities as part of the project and including this component early in the CRL programme would allow bus benefits to be realised earlier as additional buses can be accommodated in the facility.

If however, there were to be a significant gap in the progression of each headline option the SATURN modelling results suggest that progressing the CRL first would maintain City Centre speeds for private motor vehicle users as well as providing the greatest uplift in capacity. As noted above, this additional capacity could be rationalised by running smaller trains (3 car EMUs instead of 6 car EMUs) to improve the capacity utilisation.

Leading with the surface bus headline, while cheaper, brings fewer people in, involves a much greater residential and commercial property take (both in the City Centre and suburbs for the approach corridors) and significantly degrades City Centre network speeds.

In short, an integrated multimodal package implemented in parallel would provide the best outcome. However, if a single headline were to be progressed without the other or delayed, a CRL



led solution advantages more people and defers the most negative impacts. It also offers the greatest benefits to private vehicles, freight and commercial trips to and within the City Centre.

8.3. Strategic fit with other projects

Multimodal improvements are already programmed or underway which influence access to the City Centre and include:

Rail electrification and new rolling stock

MRC bus networks

Completion of the motorway network

Ongoing pedestrian and cycling improvements

Streetscape and public realm improvements (e.g. Quay St Stage1)

City Centre access also sits within a wider suite of transport projects and other headline projects which are already committed or are outlined in the AP, the CCMP and the Integrated Transport Plan. In the following timeline projects of significant scale and that involve large tunnel construction have been highlighted.

The construction of a City Centre access solution in the early part of the 2020’s has the strongest strategic fit with other key initiatives in Auckland both in terms of transport and in a wider context.

The Waterview Tunnel is scheduled for completion around 2016. While these projects do not have confirmed funding or opening dates, current proposals are for construction of the Auckland Waitemata Harbour Crossing and the SMART projects to begin in the early 2020s. Given the scale of these projects (some of which involve large tunnelling exercises) and spend profiles, the sustainability of the construction industry in New Zealand needs consideration. It is unlikely that these large projects could sustainably be run or funded in parallel. This indicates that an optimal timing for CRL construction would see opening in the early 2020s.



A number of CCMP projects in the City Centre are proposed by Auckland Council including pedestrian and shared space schemes that would involve reallocation of road space. Consideration of such schemes was specifically excluded from the CCFAS. The integration and effects of these schemes are policy issues which may form part of considerations as part of a Detailed Business Case process but have not been considered as part of this Study.

As part of this Study, no detailed assessment of funding or private sector financing and the effect on implementation or staging has been undertaken. It was agreed that this would be considered further at the Business Case phase.

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Summary


9. Summary Auckland as New Zealand’s largest city and largest employment centre plays a pivotal role in the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of New Zealand.

Residential growth

Auckland is projected to grow by nearly 700,000 new residents to 2.16 million by 2041, using a medium growth scenario. The AP caters for up to an additional 400,000 dwellings by 2041 including:

• Up to 280,000 (70 per cent) of the additional dwellings could be located within the 2010 metropolitan urban limit (MUL).

• Up to 160,000 dwellings are planned for outside of the MUL.

Employment and the City Centre

The City Centre plays a critical role as a residential location, employment hub, and education hub. Both employment numbers and the residential population of both the City Centre and City Fringe are projected to almost double between 2011 and 2041. Added to this are a further 15,000 (on top of the current 50,000 EFTS) students planned for as the tertiary institutions expand.

Regional transport challenges

While the AP and the dwelling growth discussed above support greater intensification, the fundamentals of the Auckland region require a transport system that services dispersed travel patterns as well as the city centre.

The Auckland City Centre is not only one of the most important destinations in the city, but is also the most important transit route. Many people who have origins and destinations outside of the City Centre pass through the City Centre and city fringe.

While current and committed investment leaves Auckland with a more balanced network that is delivering acceptable levels of service for the next 5-10 years, the ongoing challenge is to cost-effectively address medium to long term issues. This challenge has a number of economic, social and environmental components.

At a high level, the challenge is threefold:

Ensure future region-wide growth is accommodated

Deliver a network that supports targeted growth areas

Deliver a network that minimises economic loss and focuses on high economic returns in the future

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Summary


The AP sets out a range of challenges and goals and is focussed around a development strategy with four key elements:

Key shapers and enablers – including historical, physical, social, economic and environmental influences, their impact and Auckland’s response to future opportunities. A particular focus of this part of the development strategy is integrated land use and infrastructure.

The two big initiatives – that will deliver the greatest positive outcomes for Aucklanders and New Zealand, namely the Southern Initiative and the City Centre. Moving to a quality, compact Auckland – to accommodate high population and economic growth. The AP acknowledges that delivering accessibility to support intensification as well as greenfield development is critical to this part of the strategy.

Working and delivering with others – a collaborative, coordinated approach to achieve Auckland’s vision. A particular emphasis of this part of the strategy is ensuring that investment timing is well-aligned with growth objectives.

The CCFAS has critical links to all four of the key elements for the development strategy in that:

Auckland’s regional transport network is a fundamental component of the ability to deliver people around the region for work, education and social goals. The sustainability of the current transport network and any potential option to improve City Centre access has critical links to the ability to effectively integrate with Auckland’s current future land use.

The CCFAS explicitly addresses accessibility for the two key initiatives in the AP. The City Centre is the primary focus of the CCFAS, and a critical part of the assessment within the CCFAS is the ability to access the City Centre from key areas of growth, including the Southern Initiative.

The ability of the transport network to facilitate quality compact development as well as greenfield development is also a key consideration.

Finally, part of the scope of the CCFAS is to consider a multimodal programme over time. This critically links with the development strategy goal of ensuring investment is aligned with growth objectives.

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Appendices


Appendix A CCFAS / APB&B differences

CCFAS – APB&B Differences Element CCFAS (Nov 2012) APB&B (May 2011)Purpose The CCFAS develops a robust and achievable multi‐

modal programme for transport into the Auckland City Centre.

The APB&B study was commissioned to determine the case for route protection for the CRL.

Context The CCFAS is a response to the review of the APB&B Study by central government. The review identified that; “the development of a robust and achievable multi‐modal programme for transport into the Auckland City Centre, which considers a thorough analysis of alternatives and identifies the optimal mix of modes to meet demand” would improve confidence in considering outcomes expected from the CRL.

The Study responded to a request in 2008 from the then Minister of Finance to KiwiRail to “secure and protect the CBD tunnel route even though construction may not take place for many years/.”

Evidence Base The government review of the APB&B Study invited Auckland Transport (AT) to provide significant supporting evidence to further help improve confidence levels. This qualitative and quantitative information has been used within the CCFAS to assist in better understanding the benefits of the CRL. Many of the claims made around the benefits of the CRL are now able to be quantified.

Collaborative Approach (Participants)

The CCFAS is an independent study undertaken by SKM. The Study was commissioned by AT and has been overseen by has been overseen by the Transport Planning Senior Officials Group (TPSOG) This group includes representation from the Ministry of Transport, Treasury, the New Zealand Transport Agency, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport. Workshops were held throughout the study with all those parties. Key decision points required agreement from all parties to proceed to the next stage of the Study

The study was commissioned by KiwiRail and the previous Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA). Other Government agencies reviewed the finished study and made recommendations based on their review.

Planning Context The Auckland Plan provides a common future planning framework for Auckland and central government to work towards. The Regional Passenger Transport Plan currently being consulted brings all modes together to provide for an integrated PT system. The new PT operating plan mans that bus and rail are planned to compliment each other and maximise access to PT.

The Regional Growth Strategy set out an agreed Auckland planning framework. There was no common planning framework for Auckland agreed with central government.

Demographics Population Derived from the 2012 Statistics New Zealand

projections and informed by the Auckland Plan. 2041 High Population Projection = 2.47m Med Population Projection = 2.16m Low Population Projection = 1.8m 2051 High Population Projection = 2.77m Med Population Projection = 2.36m Low Population Projection = 1.9m Auckland reaches 2 million people in approximately 2034 based on medium projection

Derived from Auckland Regional Council (ARC) modeling of land use for the Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010. 2041 Medium Population Projection = 2.1m (Same assumption also used in MOT review and AC/AT Policy Case) 2051 Medium Population Projection = 2.3m Auckland reaches 2 million people in approximately 2035 based on medium projection

Employment Regional employment totals are derived from the Auckland Transport Model and informed by the Auckland Plan. 2041 High = 1,040,100 Med = 957,659 Low = 870,300 2051 High = 1,158,000 Med = 1,051,442 Low = 930,400 Using the medium scenario regional employment is now expected to be significantly higher in 2041 with 40,000 more jobs forecast.

Regional employment totals were derived from Auckland Regional Council (ARC) modeling of land use for the Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010. 2041 ‐ 918,000 employees 2051 ‐ 976,000 employees

By 2051 over 75,000 more jobs are forecast, compared to the modeling used in the APB&B Study.

City Centre Employment

145,000 employees by 2041 162,000 employees by 2041

Transport Outcomes PT Patronage ‐ Total Regional PT Trips (2041 morning 2hr Peak)

Rail 49,350 Bus 78,830 (excl school bus) Ferry 4,830 Total PT 133,010 (based on CRL option)

Rail 47,620 Bus 120,420 Ferry 6,190 Total PT 174,620

PT Patronage to City Centre (2041 morning 2hr Peak)

Rail 31,170 Bus 37,450 Ferry 4,620 Total PT 73,840 (based on CRL option)

Rail 21,600 Bus 44,730 Ferry 4,070 Total PT 70,410

Modelling and Economics Transport Modelling

Based on outputs from: ART, APT and SATURN model of city centre SATURN Model: The major difference between the CCFAS and APB &B Study is the use in the CCFAS of the City Centre SATURN model which models the impacts of congestion within the City Centre. This model addresses a major gap identified by APB&B.

Based on ART, APT outputs and forecasts of the number of cars and buses entering the CBD in the 2041 am peak to estimate the expected delays. The Study noted that “a more detailed model using a package such as SATURN would be ideal (to show the impact of congestion on cars) but such a model with the correct geographical coverage does not currently exist.”

Crowding on PT Crowding function in model: The transport modelling Includes a newly developed crowding function to limit PT patronage to capacity.

No crowding function in model: The transport modelling did not include a crowding function to limit PT patronage to capacity.

Assumptions for modelling

The modelling is based on a comprehensive set of assumptions jointly agreed with central government. These include:

• Land use based on Statistics NZ’s medium population projections

• The 60/40 split of development within and outside the MUL .

• City centre parking charge of $11 per day applied to 50% of commuters

• Park and ride at a number of key rail stations Jointly agreed set of options and collaborative process to shortlist these for comparison in the CCFAS. A single land use was assumed, consistent with NZTA methodology.

The modelling was based on a set of assumptions jointlyagreed between ARTA and KRG:

• The maximum CBD parking charge in 2041 was taken as $30 for commuters, to reflect the scarcity of parking in an intensely developed CBD.

• A single land use was assumed, consistent with NZTA methodology.

• Park and ride at rail, bus and ferry stations based on designated park and ride provision.

Comparison for economic modelling

The use of a different comparator in the economic modelling means that the results from the CCFAS are not directly comparable with the results of the APB&B Study. In the CCFAS shortlisted options were assessed against a Balanced Reference Case which comprised: In 2021:

• Rail electrification; • AMETI (Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport

Initiative) early stages (including South Eastern Busway– A new busway from Panmure Station to Botany, including major upgrade to Panmure bus/rail interchange);

• Waterview connection; • Integrated ticketing and fares; • New bus network implementation with

Passenger Transport Operating Model (PTOM); • Puhoi to Wellsford‐ Road of National

Significance (RoNS). • AT has recently developed an integrated bus

network approach described in the Auckland Passenger Transport Network Plan (PTNP) based on work undertaken by MRC. Details of this service pattern which is assumed in the Reference Case is detailed in Section x

In addition, by 2041 a number of other schemes that are currently not funded were also included, as follows:

• Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing (in 2041 only);

• AMETI later stages; • Multi Modal East West Link • State highway upgrades and removal of

bottlenecks, including widening on SH1, SH16, SH18 and SH20 and improvements at SH1 Takanini interchange, SH16 St Lukes

In the APB&B Study shortlisted options were assessed against a Do Minimum option which comprised: The 2010 Regional Land Transport Strategy. The “end state” from the Auckland Rail Development Plan, including:

• 10 minute peak headways on the three main routes (Southern, Eastern and Western);

• Electric traction, with a fleet comprising largely new EMUs;

• Improvements at many stations; and • Reopening of Onehunga Branch and opening of the

Manukau Rail Link by 2013/14. • Britomart capacity limited to more than about 21 trains

per hour entering and leaving.

interchange.

Transport Costs and Benefits Baseline option for comparison

Compares options against a Balanced Reference Case to determine incremental costs and benefits of the options. This is different to the Do Minimum that would be used in the development of a benefit‐cost ratio for funding purposes. The CCFAS Balanced Reference Case includes a large number of projects which require a high level of funding that is not currently committed. Outside the City Centre, all projects identified in the Auckland Plan are included. It also includes an increased level of PT service than might be available under a true Do Minimum.

APB&B used a fully developed do minimum option to act as the base comparator against which the incremental benefits of the CRL were then assessed.

BCR Transport plus Agglomeration

0.8 1.1

BCR Transport plus all WEBs

0.9 3.5

Transport Benefits (NPV) Total Transport Benefits

$877m $1,319 m

Decongestion benefit City Centre

Saturn Model used to determine City Centre network performance. $421m

Captured in regional total via estimation and adjustment of ART model output. No actual modelling of City Centre network performance.

Decongestion benefit Total Region

ART Model used to estimate de‐congestion on regional network. $171m

$673m benefit to road users from reduced congestion

Existing PT Users (APT Model) $319m $409m (APT Model)New PT Users (APT Model) $137m $237m (APT Model)Emissions Wider Economic Benefits (NPV) Agglomeration (ART Model) $445m $185m (ART Model)Labour Market Impacts

$42m Not estimated

Imperfect Competition

$22 Not estimated

Move to More Productive Jobs

$187m : Based on the assumption that 5,000 additional jobs would be attracted to the city centre

CBD Increased Productivity

$3,333m. Estimated by analysing case studies plus Auckland situation. Based on an assumption of 22,000 additional jobs being attracted to the city centre due to CRL.

Purpose The CCFAS develops a robust and achievable multi‐modal programme for transport into the Auckland City Centre. The APB&B study was commissioned to determine the case for route protection for the CRL. Context The CCFAS is a response to the review of the APB&B Study by central government. The review identified that; “the development of a robust and achievable multi‐modal programme for transport into the Auckland City Centre, which considers a thorough analysis of alternatives and identifies the optimal mix of modes to meet demand” would improve confidence in considering outcomes expected from the CRL. The APB&B Study responded to a request in 2008 from the then Minister of Finance to KiwiRail to “secure and protect the CBD tunnel route even though construction may not take place for many years.” Collaborative Approach (Participants)The CCFAS is an independent study undertaken by SKM. The Study was commissioned by AT and has been overseen by has been overseen by the Transport Planning Senior Officials Group (TPSOG). This group includes representation from the Ministry of Transport, Treasury, the New Zealand Transport Agency, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport. The APB&B Study was commissioned by KiwiRail and the previous Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA).Other Government agencies reviewed the finished study and made recommendations based on their review.



Appendix B Inputs assumptions working paper

Working Paper

Date 5 July 2012

Project No ZB01280

Subject Revised Input Assumptions Summary

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Input Assumptions WP v5.docx PAGE 1

1. Introduction Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) has been appointed by Auckland Transport (AT) to undertake the City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS). This working paper details the assumptions that will be used for carrying out the study and in particular the modelling of any options that are to be assessed. It also defines the reference case against which the options will be assessed.

2. Input assumptions workshop A workshop was held on 1 May 2012 at the SKM offices in Auckland. The aim of the workshop was to discuss the range of assumptions that need to be made for the study and the modelling that will occur.

Representatives from the following organisations attended the workshop:

Auckland Transport


Treasury

Auckland Council

NZTA

SKM

The workshop is not intended to ‘lock down’ the assumptions; rather it serves as an initial discussion of the assumptions that need to be made.

Where action is required, this is noted in bold along with the responsible party.

Since the workshop, feedback and discussion has occurred on the transport networks, land use and modelling assumptions. This working paper has been updated to reflect those discussions and provides an updated view on these matters for the CCFAS.

3. Reference case The reference case developed for the CCFAS will be used to inform a ‘deficiency analysis’ in the future and also be used in the assessment of the short listed options. The short listed options will be compared against this reference case in the assessment process.

Input Assumptions Workshop Summary 4 July 2012



3.1 Reference case transport network 3.1.1 Transport projects Following discussions with central government, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport, the reference case transport network has been revised from what was previously determined. This was to be the current list of projects that has committed funding in the Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP).

The revised reference case transport network will now be broken into two distinct areas; inside and outside the study area. Outside the study area, the projects listed in the Auckland Plan will be included with the following exceptions. These projects are outside the study area and listed in the Auckland Plan, but are dependent on the outcomes of the CCFAS, so therefore will not be included:

Stage 3 of SWAMMCP. This is the rail component of SWAMMCP which consists of the Onehunga – Airport rail link.

Avondale to Southdown rail. Note that there had been discussion around North Shore rail, however this is not part of the Auckland Plan and is therefore not part of the study.

Within the study area, the list of projects to include will be based on the funded RLTP with some minor additions from the Auckland Plan as follows:

The updated Passenger Transport Network Plan (PTNP) – this is the 2012 version as per the McCormick Rankin Cagney (MRC) study. The 2016 patterns and frequencies will be used for the reference case.

Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing (AWHC). These projects are either essentially funded or considered appropriate to include in the case of the AWHC. They will be implemented in line with their forecast opening years in the spreadsheet attached to this working paper which details all the projects and allows a detailed analysis by the key stakeholder groups. Part of the overall Quay Street project (within the study area) is funded, however as it does not remove physical road capacity, it is considered necessary for it to be incorporated into the modelling.

3.1.2 Bus lanes Auckland Transport are currently in the process of aligning the future bus lanes to be consistent with the McCormick Rankin Cagney (MRC) PTNP study. These will inform the reference case modelling in ART3 by allowing the bus lanes currently coded in ART3 to be checked for consistency.

Auckland Transport to provide the 2012 MRC PTNP bus lane data when complete for comparisons with the bus lanes currently coded in ART3.




3.1.3 Reference case train frequency In the reference case, the train frequencies adopted will be those defined by the pre-CRL train plan, titled “Auckland Region 2021 Base Case Train Plan”. A copy is attached with this note. This outlines the following frequencies:

Western line: 6 trains per hour Eastern line: 6 trains per hour (3 starting/terminating at Manukau, 3 starting/terminating at

Papakura) Southern line: 6 trains per hour (3 starting/terminating at Manukau, 3 starting/terminating

at Pukekohe) Onehunga line: 2 trains per hour

4. ART3 Assumptions A list of ART3 assumptions has recently been agreed for use in assessing a number of large projects in the Auckland region (Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing, South Western Airport Multi Modal Project). In the assumptions list, these projects are referred to as the ‘NZTA projects’. This list has more recently been revised for the Auckland Plan modelling.

The list is attached to this paper with the assumptions used in both sets of modelling. An additional column has been added which captures the assumption that will are proposed to be used for the CCFAS following discussion at the workshop. Note that the land use inputs and road network are captured later in this paper.

4.1 Central government comments Responses on the following modelling assumptions were received from central government and they are discussed in the following sections.

Value of time Parking charges TDM assumptions

4.1.1 Value of time The central government response on the ART3 modelling assumptions notes support for the way that the value of time is used in the demand modelling, but highlights that any economic evaluation should be carried out using a constant value of time, in line with the EEM. This approach will be adopted for any economic evaluation.

4.1.2 Parking charges Additional information on the derivation of the proportion of people paying the parking charge has been requested by central government. It has also been requested that some analysis of the sensitivity of travel demand to the assumptions relating to the growth in parking charges and uniform application o that parking charge be undertaken.




Auckland Council / Auckland Transport to provide a note on how the factors relating to parking have been derived.

4.1.3 TDM assumptions Central government have requested that sensitivity testing is carried out on the various TDM initiatives as outlined in the TDM assumptions review carried out by Flow Transportation Specialists in 2011.

4.2 Policy assumptions Development density

The reference case scenario will allow dense development around outer stations in line with the Auckland plan, but it will not be expressly encouraged.

Car parking

Auckland Transport is preparing a City Centre Parking Management Plan. Auckland Transport to circulate the draft CCPMP.

The model doesn’t constrain parking in terms of total numbers; rather the cost of parking is a proxy to infer a constraint.

New car parking in the CBD can be controlled through development regulations in practice.

Road pricing

Road pricing will not be included in the reference case scenario. A simple concept will be defined that can be applied to all short listed options if required as a sensitivity test. Mode specific constants Auckland Transport is currently reviewing the mode specific constants that are used in the modelling.

MoT would like further detail around them to develop a more robust understanding.

Auckland Transport to confirm the mode specific constants that have been used in the Auckland Plan modelling in APT.

Park and ride

The question of ‘park and ride’ assumptions was raised, with Auckland Council / Auckland Transport noting that current modelling assumptions will be provided for review.

Auckland Council / Auckland Transport to confirm the ‘park and ride’ assumptions that have been used in the Auckland Plan modelling.




5. Land Use Following discussions with Stats NZ, central government, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council, it has now been agreed to use the medium growth scenario as the ‘base scenario’ for the modelling, with low and high growth scenarios being modelled to provide additional information to the assessment. These additional tests will help inform the seriousness, urgency and sensitivity of the options to changes in population growth.

The 60/40 (where 60% of permitted additional residential development occurs within the 2010 MUL and 40% occurs outside the 2010 MUL) is agreed to be used in the base scenario for the study. This assumption defines the capacity for development and does not necessarily mean the up take will be in the same proportions.

A single land use will be used for the reference case and options, as the aim of the CCFAS is to identify the best option, not justify it. This will enable clear comparisons to be drawn between the options, effectively ‘comparing apples with apples’.

The land use / population inputs for the modelling for the reference case will be those used in the recent ‘Scenario I’ modelling in ART3.

6. Sensitive assumptions No additional assumptions were raised during the workshop that had not been discussed earlier. Following the review of this working paper, the key stakeholders may advise on which assumptions are considered to be particularly sensitive and will require further investigation.

7. Other workshop notes The Auckland Plan target is the high growth scenario with the 70/30 split. This means

70% of permitted additional residential development can occur within the 2010 MUL; 30% outside the 2010 MUL. However, as described above, the modelling will use the 60/40 split with the medium growth scenario as the ‘base scenario’.

How crowding (capacity constraints) is dealt with is important and this is currently still being worked through in ongoing modelling discussions.

There is a need a collaboration approach to allow for feedback approach to progress

8. Next steps The next steps in the study are:

Confirmation of assumptions following review of this paper and attachments;

Confirmation of the modelling approach;

Long list option development; and

Long list option assessment.

Draft Auckland Plan Alignment of Transport Projects with Development Strategy Oct 2011As checked with Kevin Wright 7Oct11, then with DD, JV and EH

Modelling Year Lead Agency

TOTAL COST (2011

$M) from July 2012

Source

Est Value NOT in Draft 2012 RLTP that

needs to be added

Activity Type Area Project (This list is adapted from Scenario B of the scenarios modelled as inputs to the draft Auckland Plan) Assume HIGH GROWTH scenario

Included in CCFAS Do Min CCFAS Comments

1 2006 2006 ART3 validated network

26 2016 AT n/a n/a Road Pricing implemented from here N

41 2016 AT $10 City Centre Masterplan - Mayor's 10-year plan $10 PT Infra - rail central Extend Wynyard tram to Britomart via Tepid Baths, lower Hobson, Quay to

Queen St N City Centre - only what is funded

69 2016 AT $5 Unit rate $5m $5 PT Infra - rail south New rail station at Drury Y

71 2021 NZTA-HNO $1,100 S Loyd 2Nov11 (2019 construction) $1,100 New Infra SH north SH1 6 laning Constellation Rd to Orewa (not programmed) Y

72 2021 AT $87unit rate

825km*$150k/km (cf RLTS estimate)

$87 W&C Infra all Completition of 70% of Regional Cycle Network Y

2031 AT $37 $37 W&C Infra all Completition of 100% of Regional Cycle Network Y

75 2021 AT/KIWIRAIL $560 ARTA (CH) $560 PT Infra - rail allAdditional rolling stock(to cater for increased service frequencies down to 5 minutes on main lines and additional services for CBD loop and Airport link north, 2020-2029

N Part of CRL option

76 2021 AT ARTA - RARP'09 ($2,579M) $2,524 New Infra Local Rds all RARP Priority 1 Y

2021 AT $23 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Broadway: Khyber Pass Road to Manukau Road Y

2021 AT $120 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Church Street: Neilson Street Great South Road Y

2021 AT $50 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Customs Street East: Customs Street West to Anzac Avenue N City Centre - only what is funded

2021 AT $85 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds east Ellerslie Panmure Highway: Great South Road to Lunn Avenue Y

2021 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $23m New Infra Local Rds east Ellerslie Panmure Highway: Lunn Avenue to Panmure Roundabout Y

2021 AT $35 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Great North Road: Blockhouse Bay Road to SH16 Y

2021 AT $440 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Great South Road: Church Street to Portage Road Y

2021 AT $240 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Great South Road: Atkinson Avenue to TLA Boundary (Tamaki River) Y

2021 AT $13 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Karangahape Road: Pitt Street to Great North Road N City Centre - only what is funded

2021 AT $23 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Khyber Pass Road: Symonds Street to Broadway Y

2021 AT $50 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Manukau Road: Greenlane to Mt Albert Road Y

2021 AT $50 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Manukau Road: Broadway to Greenlane Y

2021 AT $60 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Neilson Street: SH20 interchange Onehunga Mall Y

2021 Proj 57 ? ARTA - RARP'09 $30m New Infra Local Rds west Wolverton Street: TLA Boundary to Blockhouse Bay Road Y

2021 AT $21 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds east East Tamaki Drive: Preston Road to SH1 Y

2021 AT $1 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Great South Road: TLA Boundary to Shirley Road Y

2021 AT $140 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Great South Road: Te Irirangi Drive to Redoubt Road Y

2021 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $28m New Infra Local Rds east Pakuranga Drive : TLA Boundary to Ti Rakau Drive Y

2021 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $19m New Infra Local Rds east South Eastern Highway/Pakuranga Motorway: Waipuna Road to Ti Rakau Drive Y



TOTAL COST (2011

$M) from July 2012

Source


needs to be added



2021 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $80m New Infra Local Rds east Ti Rakau Drive: Pakuranga Road to Pakuranga Motorway Y

2021 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $320m New Infra Local Rds east Ti Rakau Drive: Pakuranga Motorway to Gossamer Drive Y

2021 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $240m New Infra Local Rds east Ti Rakau Drive: Gossamer Drive to Harris Road Y

2021 AT $48 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north SH17: Oteha Valley Road to SH1 Greville Interchange Y

2021 AT $460 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Albany Highway: Upper Harbour Highway to Glenfield Road Y

2021 AT $15 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Anzac Street: Fred Thomas Drive to Auburn Street Y

2021 AT $22 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north East Coast Road: Constellation Drive to Forrest Hill Road Y

2021 AT $100 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Wairau Road: Target Road to Tristram Avenue Y

2021 Proj 33? ARTA - RARP'09 $55m New Infra Local Rds north SH1 Hibiscus Coast Highway: SH1 Silverdale to Whangaparaoa Y

2021 Proj 56 ? ARTA - RARP'09 $260m New Infra Local Rds west Lincoln Road: Te Pai Place to SH16 Y

2021 AT $9 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds west Te Atatu Road: Edmonton Road to SH16 Y

2021 AT $28 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Balmoral Road: Dominion Road to Manukau Road Y

2021 Proj 49 ? ARTA - RARP'09 <$1m New Infra Local Rds central Dominion Road: SH20 to Mt Albert Road Y

2021 AT $33 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Gillies Avenue: Khyber Pass Road to Owens Road Y

2021 AT $30 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Kohimarama Road: Kepa Road to St Heliers Bay Road Y

2021 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $33m New Infra Local Rds central Lagoon Drive: Panmure Roundabout to TLA Boundary (Tamaki River) Y

2021 AT $23 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Lower Albert Street/Albert Street: Quay Street to Wellesley Street N City Centre - only what is funded

2021 AT $23 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds west Maioro Street: New Windsor Road to Sh20 Interchange Y

2021 AT $0 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Mayoral Drive: Wellesley Street to Cook Street N City Centre - only what is funded

2021 AT $30 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Pah Road: Mt Albert Road to SH20 Interchange Y

2021 AT ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Princes Street: Atkinson Avenue to SH1 Interchange Y

2021 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $13m New Infra Local Rds central South Eastern Highway: Carbine Road to Waipuna Road Y

2021 AT $85 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central St Johns Road: College Road to Greenlane Y

2013 Proj 57 ? ARTA - RARP'09 - $28m New Infra Local Rds west Tiverton Road/New Windsor Road: Wolverton Road to Maioro Street Y

2021 AT $100 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Albany Highway: Oteha Valley Road to Upper Harbour Highway Y

2021 AT $0 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Glenfield Road: Bentley Avenue to Downing Street Y

2021 AT $120 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Lake Road: Esmonde Road to Calliope Road Y

2021 AT $43 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Oteha Valley Road: SH1 to North Cross intersection Y

2021 AT $9 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Wairau Road: Forest Hill Road to Northcote Road Y

78 2021 AT $0 New Infra Local Rds north Protect option to put bridge (no ramps) over SH18 linking to Hobsonville Road at Marina View Drive intersection Y

79 2021 NZTA-HNO $820S Loyd 2Nov11

(estimated in business case)

$820 New Infra SH north SH 1 Puhoi-Warkworth motorway extension Y



TOTAL COST (2011

$M) from July 2012

Source


needs to be added



81 2021 NZTA-HNO $80 RLTP'12 (NLTP'09 - $203m) $0 New Infra Local Rds north Penlink - Toll Road, East coast Rd realignment, widening (Arklow to Ladies

Mile), Redvale Interchange Y

84 2021 AT/KIWIRAIL $2,505RLTP 2012 (AT

Business case 2011 $2.4b in 2010 dollars)

$2,505 Rail line central City Centre Rail Link N Part of CRL option

85 2021 AT $100 $100 PT Infra - rail New Park and Ride facilities to be developed in association with opening of CRL . N Part of CRL option

86 N

87 2021 AT City Centre Masterplan - Mayor's 10-year plan PT Infra - rail central Extend Wynyard tram to Britomart via Tepid Baths, lower Hobson, Quay to

Queen St N

88 2021 AT n/a City Centre Masterplan n/a PT Serv central Bus services arranged for optimal operation during main CRL construction. N Part of CRL option

89 2021 AT $0 City Centre Masterplan $0 W&C Infra central Upper Queen Street remove 1 lane over CMJ, Wellington Street 1 lane only N City Centre - only what is funded

90 2021 KIWIRAIL/AT $0 Included in CRL costing (DD) $0 Rail line central Onehunga rail duplication & 6 trains per hour. N Part of CRL option

91 2021 KIWIRAIL/AT $400 ARTA unit cost of $20m/km for20km $160 Rail line central Third Rail Line Westfield to Papakura, first stage is committed (Westfield to

Middlemore) other stages Middlemore - Wiri; Wiri - Papakura Y Unrelated to CRL

92 2021 NZTA-HNO $113 Unit Rate 2.5km*$45m/km $113 New Infra SH west SH16 widening Lincoln to Royal Road 6L Y

94 2021 NZTA-HNO $39 Unit rate 7km*$45m/km $39 New Infra SH south SH1 widening Hill Road to Hingaia Road (Phase 2) Y

95 2021 NZTA-HNO $235 $235 New Infra SH south SH20 A widening Y

96 2021 AT $50 Unit rate 4km*$13m/km $50 New Infra Local Rds south Redoubt Rd 4-laning SH1-Mill Rd Y

97 2021 AT $50 Unit rate 4km*$13m/km $50 New Infra Local Rds south Pukekohe Eastern Corridor by-pass Y

99 2026 AT $20 ART model - Unit rate $5m/rail station $20 PT Infra - rail all New Rail Stations - Mangere Bridge, Mangere TC, Ascot Park, Airport (2020-

29) (Airport) Y

100 2026 AT n/a n/a PT Serv - rail all Rail changed to 7.5 minute frequencies rather than 10 (all services) Y

101 2026 AT n/a n/a Road operations all More active management of road network N N/A

102 2026 NZTA-HNO $300 S Loyd 2Nov11 $300 New Infra SH - pt north Northern Busway Stage 3 Albany to Silverdale (RTN) Y

103 2026 NZTA-HNO $110 NZTA 2011 75-150m $110 New Infra SH north SH1 Greville Road Interchange Y

77 2026 NZTA-HNO $500 S Loyd 2Nov11 $500 New Infra SH north SH1-SH18 Motorway to Motorway ramps Y

105 2026 AT $250 $250 PT Infra central Bus tunnels at Cook or Wellesley under Nelson and Hobson (dedicated bus capacity) and Midtown bus terminal /interchange station N City Centre - only what is funded

106 2026 NZTA-HNO $200 estimate from S Loyd 2Nov11 $200 New Infra SH central SH16 Port Link, include Grafton Gully S3 N City Centre - only what is funded

107 2026 NZTA-HNO $30 NZTA 2011 <$50m $30 New Infra SH central SH16 St Lukes Interchange (With St Lukes Rd) Y108 2026 NZTA-HNO $400 Draft Auck Plan $400 New Infra SH central SH20 to East Tamaki Corridor stage 2 (SH20 to SH1) Y109 2026 AT n/a n/a PT Serv west Henderson-Westgate-Albany bus (QTN) Y

2026 NZTA-HNO $110 S Loyd 2Nov11 $110 New Infra SH west SH16 Kumeu 4 lane arterial standard Brigham Ck to Waimauku assume speed under 80kph Y

110 2026 AT $160 project split by KW et al 27Sep11 $160 New Infra Local Rds east AMETI Packages 5&6 Reeves Rd Flyover Y

111 2026 AT n/a n/a PT Serv - rail south Extension of RTN rail services to Pukekohe Y

112 2026 AT $141Unit rate $7m/km* 18km + $ 3m/3car

EMU's *5$141 PT Infra - rail south Extension of RTN network (electrification) to Pukekohoe and additional rolling

stock Y

113 2026 NZTA-HNO $75 NZTA 2011 $50-100m $75 New Infra SH south SH1 Takanini Interchange Y

114 2026 KIWIRAIL/AT $471 Becca - RTC in SW Region Study 2008 $602 Rail line south AIA rail link to Manukau (Stage 1) Eastern Link (Puhunui to Airport) Y



TOTAL COST (2011

$M) from July 2012

Source


needs to be added



115 2026 NZTA-HNO $235unit rate

10km*$45m/lane km + $20 for Pukeke Bridge

$235 New Infra SH south SH20 B widening Y

116 2031 AT ARTA - RARP'09 ($484m) $484 New Infra Local Rds all RARP Priority 2 Y

2031 AT $50 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Customs Street West: Fanshawe Street to Britomart Place N City Centre - only what is funded

2031 Proj 49 ? ARTA - RARP'09 $1m New Infra Local Rds central Dominion Road: Mt Albert Road to Balmoral Road Y

2031 Proj 49 ? ARTA - RARP'09 $55m New Infra Local Rds central Dominion Road: Balmoral Road to New North Road Y

2031 AT $0 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Great North Road: Ash Street to Blockhouse Bay Road Y2031 AT $24 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds east Great South Road: Ellerslie Panmure Highway to Church Street Y

2031 AT $30 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Mount Albert Road: Dominion Road to Pah Road Y

2031 AT $17 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Mount Smart Road: Royal Oak Roundabout to Mays Road Y

2031 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $160m New Infra Local Rds east Mt Wellington Highway: Ellerslie Panmure Highway to Waipuna Road Y

2031 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $220m New Infra Local Rds east Mt Wellington Highway: Waipuna Road to SH1 Interchange Y

2031 AT $0 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central St Johns Road: Kohimarama Road to College Road Y

2031 AT $76 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Karaka Road (SH22): SH1 to Glenbrook Y

2031 AT $1 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Cavendish Drive: SH1 Interchange to SH20 Interchange Y2031 AT $0 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds east East Tamaki Drive: SH1 to Great South Road Y2031 AT $0 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Great South Road: Shirley Road to Tui Road Y2031 AT $1 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Great South Road: Tui Road to Te Irirangi Drive Y

2031 AT $45 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Great South Road: Browns Road to Alfriston Road Y

2031 AT $58 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds west Massey Road: TLA Boundary to SH20 interchange Y

2031 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $35m New Infra Local Rds east Pakuranga Drive : Ti Rakau Drive to Glenmore Road Y

2031 AT $0 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds east Pakuranga Drive : Glenmore Road to Fortunes Road Y2031 AT $0 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds east Pakuranga Drive: Fortunes Road to Bucklands Beach Road Y

2031 AT $22 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds east Springs Road/East Tamaki Road: Smales Road to Preston Road Y

2031 AT $160 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Tristram Avenue: Forrest Hill to Wairau Road Y

117 2031 N

118 2031 AT $350 ARC 2010 estimate $350 New Infra Local Rds allGrade seperations at key intersections with rail network, model: Manuroa Rd, Normanby Rd, Morningside Drive, St Jude Rd, Woodward Rd, Glenview Rd, Bruce McLaren Rd

Y

119 2031 NZTA-HNO $30 NZTA 2011 <$50m $30 New Infra SH north SH18 Greenhithe Road to Albany (Additional 3rd lane eastbound) Y

120 2031 NZTA-HNO $450S Loyd 2Nov11

(estimated in business case)

$450 New Infra SH north SH1 Warkworth-Wellsford motorway Y

121 2031 NZTA-HNO $5,800

NZTA, Alternative Harbour Crossing

Study, 2010. Average of road tunnel estimate

of $4.0-5.3B. (Road bridge is $3.0-3.9B.) NZTA estimate Dec

2011 $5800m

$5,800 New Infra SH north SH1 - Additional WHX (Road tunnel with future proof rail ) Y



TOTAL COST (2011

$M) from July 2012

Source


needs to be added



122 2031 NZTA-HNO $10 Unit rate 5km*$2m/km $10 New Infra SH - pt north Northern Busway Stage 4 - Onewa to CBD (Dedicated lane both directions on existing bridge) Y

123 2031 KIWIRAIL/AT $320 ARTA unit cost of $20m/km for 16km $320 Rail line central Third rail line on eastern line (passing bays) N Related to CRL - ?

124 2021 AT $200 guesstimate $200 New Infra Local Rds central City centre transport improvements (As defined by City Centre Masterplan) N City Centre - only what is funded

125 2031 NZTA-HNO $600 Draft Auck Plan $600 New Infra SH central SH20 to East Tamaki Corridor stage 3 (SH1 to Allens Rd) Y

126 2031 AT n/a n/a PT Serv west Bus service frequency from Kumeu improved. QW1 change to 4 services per hour. Y

127 2031 AT n/a n/a PT Serv west Bus service frequency on SH18 increased – QW120 and QW130 both changed to 4 services per hour both directions. Y

128 2031 NZTA-HNO $30 NZTA 2011 <$50m $30 New Infra SH west SH18 Buckley Ave to Tauhinu Drive (Additional 3rd lane eastbound excluding the bridge) Y

129 2031 NZTA-HNO $180 unit rate 4km*$45m/lane km $180 New Infra SH south SH20 Mangere to Puhinui 6 laning Y

130 2031 AT $100 One Plan Inventory Database $100 New Infra Local Rds south Mill Rd Corridor2 (Papakura to Drury SH1) Y

131 2031 AT $90 unit rate 9km*$10m/km $90 PT Infra south Botany to Flat Bush to Manukau busway extension (RTN), bus lanes Y

132 2031 KIWIRAIL/AT $707 Becca - RTC in SW Region Study 2008 $491 Rail line south AIA rail link (Stage 2) Northern link (Onehunga, Mangere to airport) 15 minute

frequency Y

133 2036 N

134 2036 AT/KIWIRAIL $210 ARTA (CH) $210 PT Infra - rail all Additional rolling stock(to cater for additional services for Avondale-Southdown link and Airport East Link, 2030-2039) N Related to CRL

135 2036 KIWIRAIL/AT $1,000 Becca - RTC in SW Region Study 2008 $1,000 Rail line central Avondale to Onehunga/Southdown Rail Line Extension N Related to CRL

136 2036 AT $104Unit Rate $100m for

bridge and $12.5m/km*0.3km

$104 New Infra Local Rds west Extension of local roading network (Westgate), incl Oriel bridge Y

137 2036 AT $108Unit Rate $100m for

bridge and $12.5m/km*0.6km

$108 New Infra Local Rds west New bridge over SH18 from Hobsonville Road to enable Whenuapai development NORSGA 2 Y

138 2036 NZTA $60 Unit rate $200m/km*.3 $60 New Infra SH west SH18 upgrade to accommodate NorSGA Stg 2, including capacity upgrade and interchange at Northside Drive (not in NZTA programme) Y

139 2036 AT $600AMETI Investigation - AT (Sheila Smart) -

28/12/10$600 New Infra Local Rds east AMETI Packages 5&6 (Pakaranga Bridge duplication/SEART upgrade) Y

140 2036 AT $2 Draft RLTP 2012 $0 PT Infra south New rail station at Paerata Y

141 2036 AT $400 Unit rate $25m/km *16km $400 New Infra Local Rds south New arterial Papakura to Pukekohe (need to confirm greenfield release date

and scale) Assume an arterial from Ramarama / SH1 Y

2036 AT $400 Unit rate $25m/km *8km $400 New Infra Local Rds west New arterial to service Westgate/Riverhead/Kumeu greenfield growth centre N As per comment, not in DAP

2036 AT $200 Unit rate $25m/km *8km $200 New Infra Local Rds north New arterial to service Orewa/Silverdale greenfield growth centre N As per comment, not in DAP

2036 AT $200 Unit rate $25m/km *8km $200 New Infra Local Rds east New arterial to service Beachlands/Maraetai greenfield growth centre N As per comment, not in DAP

2036 AT $1,800 Unit Rate 40km*$45m/km $1,800 New Infra SH all SH improvements to service greenfield growth centres N As per comment, not in DAP

2037 AT $400 Guesstimate $400 PT Infra all Extension of pt infrastructure to service greenfield growth centres N As per comment, not in DAP



Appendix C Deficiency analysis working paper


REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS 1.0 27 September 2012

The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.


REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS 1.0 27 September 2012

Sinclair Knight Merz PO Box 9806 Newmarket 1023 Auckland New Zealand Tel: +64 9 928 5500 Fax: +64 9 928 5501 Web: www.globalskm.com

COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Sinclair Knight Merz Limited. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Sinclair Knight Merz constitutes an infringement of copyright.

LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Sinclair Knight Merz Limited’s Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between Sinclair Knight Merz and its Client. Sinclair Knight Merz accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.

REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE i

Contents 1. Introduction 1

1.1. Background 1 1.2. Scope of work 1 1.3. Report structure 4

2. Assessment parameters 5

2.1. Introduction 5 2.2. Reference case assumptions 5 2.3. Model outputs and assumptions 6 2.4. Demand and operational thresholds 7 2.5. Current bus service provision 7

3. Demand analysis 9

3.1. Introduction 9 3.2. Reference case service 9 3.3. PT demand 10 3.4. Volume-to-capacity ratios (VCRs) 16 3.5. Required frequency to meet PT demand 19 3.6. Car demand 25

4. Journey time analysis 29

4.1. Introduction 29 4.2. Car 29 4.3. Public Transport 30 4.4. Implications for growth/development areas 32

5. Summary 35

5.1. Conclusions 35 5.2. Recommendations and next steps 36

Appendix A – bus lane capacity 37


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE ii

Document history and status Revision Date issued Reviewed by Approved by Date approved Revision type

1 28/09/12 Jarrod Darlington Andrew Bell 30/09/12 Draft

Distribution of copies Revision Copy no Quantity Issued to

1

Printed: 15 November 2012

Last saved: 15 November 2012 10:16 AM

File name: I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx

Author: Jon Hale

Project manager: Jarrod Darlington

Name of organisation: Auckland Transport

Name of project: City Centre Future Access Study

Name of document: Reference case deficiency analysis

Document version: 1.0

Project number: ZB01280


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 1

1. Introduction 1.1. Background

1.1.1. This report details the work undertaken by SKM in July and August 2012 to assess future transport network deficiencies in Auckland. The work was undertaken as part of the wider Auckland City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS) commissioned by Auckland Transport. The deficiency analysis detailed in this report was requested by Central Government following the initial long list option evaluation.

1.1.2. To assist with the CCFAS, Auckland Transport developed a range of ‘reference case’ scenarios for future years using ART3, a strategic multi-modal EMME2 model of the wider Auckland area.

1.1.3. SKM assessed reference case model outputs from both 2021 and 2041. The key aims of this piece of work were as follows:

to determine the location and scale of any forecast transport problems in the city centre in the future-year reference case scenarios; and

to confirm the suitability of the long-list transport options proposed during the development of the CCFAS.

1.2. Scope of work

1.2.1. The ART3 model network is shown in Figure 1-1 below. The core area extends from Albany/Browns Bay in the north to Papakura in the south and Ranui in the west to Botany Downs in the east, with a small number of external zones defined to account for trips in and out of the wider Auckland area.

1.2.2. In many cases, model outputs were analysed for the entire model network, but the focus of the deficiency analysis was primarily on access to the city centre. The analysis undertaken focussed on three types of model outputs as follows:

Forecast demand on the Public Transport (PT) network, compared with assumed reference case capacity – PT in this instance included Rail and Bus, with Ferry excluded from the analysis;

Forecast journey times to the city centre;

Forecast traffic volumes on the road network.



Figure 1-1: Core ART3 model network (2041 reference case)

1.2.3. In the case of the journey-time assessment, analysis was generally undertaken from all zones to the city centre but in a number of instances, times were assessed from 11 reference zones outside the city fringe, which are shown in Figure 1-2. The reference zones were selected to cover journey times via all the main corridors into the city centre.



Figure 1-2: ART3 journey time reference zones

1.2.4. It should be noted that the assessment summarised in this report represents a static analysis of demand v capacity and journey times in the ART3 reference case model runs for 2021 and 2041. It was not possible within the scope of this study to assess how passenger behaviour and consequently demand for services would be impacted by crowding on bus and rail services, or by potential changes to PT service frequencies.

1.2.5. Nor was it possible to determine quantitatively how bus operations would be impacted in terms of network performance by changing service frequencies to meet forecast demand – such impacts would be dependent on a range of factors including traffic flows, capacity at individual junctions, and dwell times at bus stops. As a result, further modelling would be required to better understand these impacts quantitatively.



1.2.6. In addition, it was not within the scope of this piece of work to assess the suitability of any proposed transport schemes, although the results of the analysis have been used to determine whether the long-list of options developed as part of the CCFAS is likely to address the key deficiencies identified. The option development and appraisal process is detailed in separate working papers.

1.3. Report structure

1.3.1. The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

Section 2 summarises the parameters used to assess reference case deficiencies, highlights key assumptions made, and justifies various operational and demand-related thresholds used to identify the key issues;

Section 3 summarises the results of the demand analysis undertaken, including the calculation of volume-to-capacity ratios (VCRs) and required service frequencies to meet demand on the PT network in future years;

Section 4 summarises the results of the journey time analysis undertaken for both car and PT, and highlights key differences between the reference case years;

Section 5 concludes the findings of this piece of work, provides recommendations and identifies next steps.



2. Assessment parameters 2.1. Introduction

2.1.1. This section provides the context for the analysis summarised in subsequent sections of this report, and includes the following:

A summary of the transport schemes included in the reference case model runs for 2021 and 2041; and

The key assumptions made by SKM to convert model outputs into an assessment of deficiencies, including:

o Assumptions related to AM peak hour (AMPH) demand and service capacities;

o Thresholds applied to the model outputs to identify the nature and scale of deficiencies in the reference cases.

2.2. Reference case assumptions

2.2.1. The reference case scenarios for ART3 were developed based on a range of assumptions regarding land-use and committed changes to PT service provision and transport network capacity outlined in the input assumptions working paper.

2.2.2. The following committed transport schemes were included:

Rail electrification;

AMETI early stages (including SE Busway);

Waterview connection;

Integrated ticketing and fares;

New bus network implementation with PTOM;

Puhoi to Wellsford RoNS.

2.2.3. In addition, a number of other schemes that are currently not funded were also included, as follows:

Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing (in 2041 only);

AMETI later stages;

East-West link;

State highway upgrades and removal of bottlenecks.



2.2.4. Further details on the assumptions used in the reference case modelling can be found in the input assumptions working paper.

2.2.5. As a result, the reference case scenarios used as the basis of this deficiency analysis included a large amount of road-based transport infrastructure investment outside the city centre. This therefore presents a ‘best case’ for the wider network in both 2021 and 2041 as there is currently no guarantee that some of the schemes listed above will be funded.

2.3. Model outputs and assumptions

2.3.1. All outputs from ART3 were for a 2-hour AM peak period, and PT demand in the model was allocated to links and services on the basis of a generalised cost assessment taking into account factors such as walk time from interchanges to origins and destinations, wait time at interchanges (based on service frequencies), transfer requirements, and in-vehicle journey times.

2.3.2. However, PT demand is unconstrained by service capacities in the model and effectively represents the forecast passenger volumes wishing to use services across the network based on the parameters described above. This allows an assessment of the extent to which assumed reference case capacity meets demand in each of the modelled years.

2.3.3. For the purposes of this deficiency analysis, a number of key assumptions were made when assessing model outputs, as follows:

62% of the 2-hour AM peak demand (for both car and PT) was assumed to be on the network during the AM peak hour (AMPH), in line with surveys of current AM peak period trips in Auckland;

Reference case bus service frequencies were assumed to peak in a similar way, with 62% of all services across the 2-hour peak (calculated from average headways in the reference case models) assumed to be operating during the AMPH;

Reference case rail service frequencies were not assumed to peak, and so the 2-hour headways defined in the reference case scenarios were used to calculate AMPH service frequency;

The following vehicle planning capacities were assumed, as prescribed by Auckland Transport:

o Standard bus = 46 passengers;

o High-capacity bus = 68 passengers;

o Rail 6-car EMUs = 764 passengers;

o Rail 3-car EMUs = 382 passengers.



2.3.4. When assessing the reference case outputs, standard buses were assumed to operate on all routes with the exception of the express routes from the North Shore (F18 and S47) in both 2021 and 2041. All rail services were assumed to operate with 6-car EMUs in both years with the exception of the Onehunga branch line, which was assumed to operate 3-car EMUs.

2.3.5. A sensitivity test was also undertaken where all bus routes were assumed to be upgraded to high-capacity vehicles in both reference case years. More details are provided in Section 3 of this report.

2.4. Demand and operational thresholds

2.4.1. Much of the deficiency analysis that follows is focussed on the viability of catering for reference case demand on the bus network, either through increasing vehicle capacity or service frequency.

2.4.2. As a result, a key threshold that underpins this analysis relates to the operational capacity of a bus lane. Background research has indicated that 100 buses per hour is a reasonable threshold capacity for a single lane with no indented stops, and that the capacity can be increased to a degree with the provision of indented stops but space requirements at the stops themselves and the delays experienced by buses at junctions limits the effectiveness of increasing service capacity in this way. More information underpinning this assumption can be found in Appendix A – bus lane capacityof this report.

2.4.3. It should be noted that in the context of this analysis, such a threshold should be regarded as an upper-limit for the desirable efficient operation of a bus service rather than an absolute limit. There are many examples of bus corridors around the world operating with a combined frequency of more than 100 buses per hour, but as shown in Appendix A – bus lane capacity, there is also much evidence to suggest that once this threshold is exceeded, the performance of the network in terms of delays and journey-time reliability begins to deteriorate.

2.4.4. Since service reliability is often identified as the most critical indicator in passengers’ perception of the quality of service, and consequently the demand for that service, there is a strong case to be made that such thresholds should be seriously considered in the planning of any bus network.

2.5. Current bus service provision

2.5.1. At present, peak bus flows on the network in Auckland can be found on Symonds Street north of its junction with Grafton Bridge. Timetables indicate that 125 buses serve this corridor one-way inbound in the AMPH, with 100 buses inbound on Fanshawe Street during the same period.

2.5.2. Observation of the performance of the network during this time period in August 2012 indicated that the service currently does suffer from some reliability issues, particularly on Symonds Street. Evidence of frequent platooning of vehicles (typically around 4 or 5 at a time) and subsequent delays at stops and junctions



was noted on-site, despite relatively low dwell times of typically less than 30 seconds, which suggests that delays may be more significant in the PM peak when boarding activity is more prevalent than alighting in the city centre. Passengers typically take longer to board a bus than alight from one.

2.5.3. There was also evidence of bus-passing activity at stops, suggesting that there is a requirement for more than one-lane operation on this section of street – typical bus arrival patterns at the junction with Grafton Bridge and the stop to the north of this junction are shown in Figure 2-1 below.

2.5.4. While no quantitative data is currently available on the scale of journey time delays and reliability issues experienced by passengers using the service on the highest-frequency corridors, the observations provide some validation of the threshold of 100 buses per hour as a tolerable maximum for operation of a single bus lane with no indented stops, which is the level of priority currently provided on Symonds Street.

Figure 2-1: AM peak-hour (0800-0900) conditions on Symonds Street (August 2012)



3. Demand analysis 3.1. Introduction

3.1.1. This section of the report focuses on forecast demand on the network in ART3 in both the 2021 and 2041 reference case years, and with regard to PT, compares that demand with assumed reference case service frequencies to identify the scale and location of capacity shortfalls on the network based on the operational assumptions and thresholds summarised in the previous section.

3.2. Reference case service

3.2.1. The bus network modelled in the 2021 and 2041 reference cases was based on the latest Public Transport Network Plan (PTNP) excluding the Central Rail Link (the network incorporating the CRL included significant changes to service patterns to provide better links to railway stations).

3.2.2. Service frequencies in the PTNP have been optimised based on a recent study undertaken by MRC. During this process, some under-utilised routes were rationalised on key corridors to allow more road space for more highly-utilised routes. The cumulative frequencies provided per link in the city centre in the PTNP are shown on the plan in Figure 3-1 below. The numbers indicate that on Symonds Street, overall peak frequency has been reduced from 125 buses per hour currently to 110 in future years. In contrast, frequencies have been increased on Fanshawe Street to take advantage of the provision of indented bus stops on this corridor.



Figure 3-1: Cumulative AMPH reference case service frequency by link (2021/41)

3.2.3. As described in Section 2.3, in the case of the bus network the AMPH reference case frequencies were estimated by taking the assumed route headways in ART3 and increasing them by 24%. This effectively means that 62% of all services across the 2-hour modelled AM peak period operate in the AMPH, in line with how demand currently peaks across the network in Auckland.

3.3. PT demand

3.3.1. The assumed reference case service frequencies described above generated the unconstrained demand for PT services illustrated in Figure 3-2 in the 2021 reference case and Figure 3-3 in 2041.

3.3.2. Figure 3-2 indicates that outside the city centre, the key bus corridors in terms of demand in 2021 are as follows:

Harbour Bridge – AMPH passengers flows of approx. 5,300;

Great North Road – flows of over 2,000 passengers in the far west of the isthmus, increasing to over 3,000 as routes pass through the city fringe area;



Great South Road – flows of over 2,000 in the far east of the isthmus, increasing to over 3,000 in the city fringe area, and increasing to over 5,000 as routes on this corridor merge with those approaching from the south along Manukau Road.

Figure 3-2: AMPH PT demand by link (2021 ref case)

3.3.3. AMPH bus passenger flows are also above 1,000 on New North Road, Dominion Road, Mount Eden Road, Manukau Road, and Tamaki Drive approaching the city centre in 2021.

3.3.4. AMPH rail passenger flows are relatively low in 2021, with the busiest corridor being the southern link from Papakura and Manukau. Demand on this corridor exceeds 2,000 passengers on services approaching Newmarket station, increasing to over 3,000 passengers on the link into Parnell including demand on the western line.

3.3.5. By 2041, AMPH demand for PT services has increased noticeably in the reference case, with a broadly similar distribution across the network to that evident in the 2021 data. This is illustrated in Figure 3-3 below.



Figure 3-3: AMPH PT demand by link (2041 ref case)

3.3.6. Passenger flows on the Harbour Bridge are similar to the 2021 figures, peaking at around 5,300 in the AMPH. In contrast, flows along the Great North Road corridor increase to above 3,000 in the far west of the isthmus and to above 5,000 as services approach the city centre, with similar numbers on services on the Great South Road corridor – demand on this corridor peaks at over 7,000 when merging with flows on Manukau Road. Flows on Dominion Road also exceed 2,000 south of its junction with Balmoral Road by 2041.

3.3.7. Demand for rail services also increases noticeably between the two modelled years during the AMPH. Outside the city centre, flows of over 5,000 are evident on services passing through Westfield station (before the splitting-off of the Glen Innes branch line) and on services approaching Newmarket station from the south.

3.3.8. The PT demand on the network summarised in the plans above does indicate that on a number of key corridors approaching the city centre, higher-capacity PT services may be feasible. Table 3-1 below indicates approximate corridor capacities for different types of PT intervention based on an assumed vehicle planning capacity and a headway of 5 minutes (12 services per hour).



Table 3-1 Assumed peak-hour planning capacities for PT services, assuming operation of a 5 minute headway

Mode Vehicle planning capacity

Approx. Peak hour capacity (5 min

headway)

Standard bus 46 500 High capacity bus 68 800

BRT 100 1,200 Light Rail 200 2,400

Train 764 9,200

3.3.9. Comparing the corridor capacities in the table above with PT demand on the network in 2021 and 2041 suggests that flows on the Harbour Bridge, Great North Road, Great South Road, and Dominion Road/Mt Eden Road (by 2041) would support the provision of higher-capacity forms of PT in terms of patronage.

3.3.10. Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 below illustrate demand for PT services along links in the city centre area in the 2021 and 2041 reference cases respectively.

Figure 3-4: AMPH PT demand by link in the city centre (2021 ref case)



3.3.11. The plans indicate that the highest AMPH passenger flows in the city centre are along Symonds Street north of its junction with Grafton Bridge in both years, increasing from around 7,800 in 2021 to 10,700 by 2041.

3.3.12. The other key links in the city centre in terms of AMPH passenger flows are Grafton Bridge (4,100 in 2021 increasing to 5,600 in 2041), K-Road (3,700 increasing to 5,100) and Fanshawe Street (4,600 increasing to 4,800). AMPH demand exceeds 1,000 passengers on all bus links into the city centre in both years with the exception of Beach Road.

3.3.13. It should be noted that the city centre zone system used in ART3 is relatively coarse. The area within the motorways is split into 9 zones, and this means that demand does not gradually dissipate from the network as buses pass through the area, but is removed in large numbers at a number of key nodes. As a result, demand on some links in the central area is likely to underestimate reality. This is particularly evident on Wellesley Street, where demand is relatively low due to the large number of bus passengers terminating their trip at the junction with Symonds Street in the model due to the coding of the university zone connector at this location.

3.3.14. Modelled passenger demand is however likely to be more accurate on links approaching the city centre across the motorways, as the vast majority of passenger destinations are in central areas.



Figure 3-5: AMPH PT demand by link in the city centre (2041 ref case)

3.3.15. Table 3-2 below indicates the increase in PT demand to the city centre and across the model network in general between the two years. Total PT trips to the city centre increase by 30.5% from 2021 to 2041.

Table 3-2 Model network PT trips (2021 and 2041 reference cases)

AM peak (2 hr) 2021

2041

Increase (%)

Total PT trips to city centre

40,431 52,764 +12,333 (+30.5%)

Total PT trips on whole model network

93,000 129,700 +36,700 (+39%)

Total PT distance travelled on whole

model network (km)

1,162,200 1,712,800 +550,600 (+47%)



3.4. Volume-to-capacity ratios (VCRs)

3.4.1. The forecast demand for PT services described above was compared with assumed reference case service frequencies in both years to calculate average Volume-to-Capacity Ratios (VCRs) on each link. Since PT demand is unconstrained by capacity, this calculation allowed an assessment of the extent to which forecast demand exceeds assumed capacity on different parts of the network in both future years.

3.4.2. In order to calculate AMPH service capacity, the frequencies described in Section 3.3 were multiplied by the assumed vehicle planning capacities provided in Section 2.3.

3.4.3. Figure 3-6 below illustrates the calculated VCRs across the network in the 2021 reference case. The plan indicates that PT services are above planning capacity (VCR > 1) on the majority of corridors approaching the city centre. In particular, routes on the Great South Road consistently have a VCR of above 2 throughout the isthmus extending as far east as Botany Downs. Demand also exceeds capacity by a ratio of more than 1.5 on sections of the Great North Road as far west as Avondale, on Mount Eden Road, and on Parnell Road approaching the city centre from the east.

Figure 3-6: Average AMPH PT VCR by link (2021 ref case)



3.4.4. Figure 3-7 below indicates that by 2041, VCRs exceed 2 on the Great North Road at the far west of the isthmus and beyond, on the entire length of the Great South Road within the isthmus, on Mount Eden Road south of its junction with Balmoral Road, and on sections of Remuera Road. VCRs of above 1.5 are also evident on Dominion Road, Manukau Road, New North Road, and sections of Tamaki Drive.

Figure 3-7: Average AMPH PT VCR by link (2041 ref case)

3.4.5. Rail demand also exceeds capacity on a number of key links outside the city centre by 2041, with VCRs of over 1 evident on a number of links from the south approaching Puhinui, Penrose and Newmarket stations. This is due to a relatively high level of boarding activity at stations such as Drury and Papakura to the south, and Papatoetoe, Middlemore and Otahuhu approaching the isthmus.

3.4.6. Figure 3-8 below illustrates PT VCRs in the city centre in the 2021 reference case. The plan indicates that every bus access point into the centre is over-capacity with the exception of Quay Street, although average VCR here is above 0.8. In particular, services on Grafton Street have an average VCR of over 2 while services on Grafton Bridge are above 1.5.



Figure 3-8: Average AMPH PT VCR by link in the city centre (2021 ref case)

3.4.7. Figure 3-9 below indicates that by 2041, all bus corridors into the city centre are over capacity, including Quay Street. Services on Grafton Road and Grafton Bridge have a VCR of over 2, while service on Symonds Street and K-Road are over 1.5.



Figure 3-9: Average AMPH PT VCR by link in the city centre (2041 ref case)

3.4.8. It should be noted that the VCRs described above are based on the total passenger demand on each link in the AMPH. Taking into account variations in demand for different services means that VCRs on the busiest routes on each link will be higher than the figures provided, while some routes will be relatively under-utilised and will therefore have lower VCRs.

3.4.9. It should also be noted that the variability of demand and service headway across the AMPH will also result in higher VCRs at certain times during the AMPH.

3.5. Required frequency to meet PT demand

3.5.1. The analysis of VCRs described above highlights the extent to which PT network demand exceeds reference case capacity in each of the modelled years. However, because assumed service frequency varies by link, the level of demand required to generate a high VCR can be quite low. Grafton Road is a case in point – in the 2041 reference case, an overall VCR of 2.2 was generated by an AMPH flow of 1,100 passengers using 11 buses in the peak hour (i.e. a capacity of approximately 500 based on an average vehicle planning capacity of 46 passengers per bus across the AMPH).



3.5.2. To understand the impact of forecast AMPH PT demand in terms of service operations, the assumed vehicle planning capacities indicated in Section 2.2 were used to estimate service frequencies required to meet demand.

3.5.3. In order to do this, the peak link demand was identified for each route in the model network, and the relevant vehicle planning capacity was then used to calculate a peak required service frequency for each route, based on the flow on the peak link. This service frequency was then applied to all links used by the route in question within the city centre area, as vehicles would still be required to operate on these links even if demand reduces in certain areas as alighting takes place.

3.5.4. It should be noted that this calculation was not applied to links outside the city centre/fringe area since it would likely represent an over-estimate of the required frequency – in reality, some buses could be turned around before route-end points in order to provide a higher frequency along sections of the route with the highest levels of demand.

3.5.5. However, opportunities for decreasing service frequencies in this way would be limited within the city centre/fringe area since demand tends to peak on routes as they approach the motorway through the city fringe, and most passengers terminate their journeys within the city centre area.

3.5.6. Figure 3-10 indicates the AMPH service frequency that would be required to meet PT demand on links in the city centre in the 2021 reference case, using the methodology described above.

3.5.7. The plan indicates that the highest requirement would be on Symonds Street, with just under 200 buses per hour operating north of the junction with Grafton Bridge. Other high frequency corridors include Fanshawe Street (168), Wellesley Street (150), Grafton Bridge (107), and K-Road (98).



Figure 3-10: Required frequency to meet AMPH demand in city centre (2021 ref case)

3.5.8. Figure 3-11 below indicates that by 2041, AMPH service frequency requirements would reach over 260 buses per hour on Symonds Street and just under 200 buses per hour on Fanshawe Street and Wellesley Street. High frequencies would also be required on Beach Road (162), Grafton Bridge (143), K-Road (128), and Victoria Street (79).

3.5.9. Relating these frequencies to the desirable bus lane operational threshold of 100 buses per hour in a lane with no off-lane stops indicated in Section 2.4 of this report suggests that the bus network would suffer severe delays and reliability issues with the frequency of service required to meet demand in 2021, and particularly in 2041, based on the vehicle planning capacities described in Section 2.3.



Figure 3-11: Required frequency to meet AMPH demand in city centre (2041 ref case)

3.5.10. The frequency of service required on multiple accesses to the city centre also suggests that there is limited scope for re-routing services along different corridors in order to better balance service frequencies on corridors to meet demand.

3.5.11. Table 3-3 below indicates the required frequencies on all 8 bus access points to the city centre, which indicates that by 2021, an average of over 92 buses per hour would be needed on all accesses to the city centre assuming demand can be completely balanced, increasing to 116 by 2041. Within the city centre itself, a significant number of routes would need to be re-routed from Symonds Street to alternative north-south corridors (the most obvious being Queen Street) in order to achieve desirable frequencies here.

3.5.12. In reality, the extent to which services can be re-routed to balance demand across all the access points would be limited due to impacts on route lengths and journey times, and the differing capacity of different links would make it undesirable to do so in any case. As a result, many accesses would still be required to carry well over 100 buses per hour.



Table 3-3 Required AMPH frequencies on bus access links to city centre

City centre bus access Required AMPH frequency to meet demand

2021 reference case 2041 reference case

Fanshawe Street 168 193 Victoria Street 64 79

K-Road 98 128 Symonds Street 122 161 Grafton Bridge 107 143 Grafton Road 25 29 Beach Road 127 162 Quay Street 29 36

TOTAL 740 931 Average 92.5 116.4

Sensitivity test – high capacity buses

3.5.13. The analysis described above indicates that just increasing service frequency to meet demand is likely to be unviable from an operational point of view. Journey time delays and reliability issues would be severe and there would also be significant impacts on environmental and streetscape amenity on many roads.

3.5.14. An alternative solution would be to use higher-capacity vehicles on bus routes to reduce the required service frequencies needed to meet demand. As a result, a sensitivity test was carried out where all bus routes were assumed to operate with vehicles with an average AMPH planning capacity of 68 passengers. In the analysis described above, all routes were assumed to have an average capacity of 46 passengers with the exception of the Northern Express services, as indicated in Section 2.3.

3.5.15. It should be noted that there are a number of issues with upgrading the bus fleet to high-capacity buses that should be taken into account when considering the outputs below, as follows:

The bus fleet in Auckland is relatively new, and since the average lifespan of a vehicle is approximately 20 years, it is likely to take a significant length of time to upgrade the fleet through natural replacement of vehicles;

Operators may be reluctant to run high-capacity services on many routes due to the cost issues associated with operating such vehicles in off-peak periods;

Boarding and alighting times at stops are likely to increase to some degree as a result of using high-capacity vehicles, particularly during the PM peak when boarding numbers are high – this has the potential to increase delays at bus stops and reduce the effective capacity of bus lanes;



Physical network changes would be required in some areas, particularly to accommodate high-capacity articulated vehicles – this includes junction alignments and space requirements for the provision of off-lane bus stops.

3.5.16. Figure 3-12 indicates the service frequencies required to meet 2021 reference case demand on city centre links assuming that all bus routes were operated by high-capacity vehicles.

Figure 3-12: Required frequency to meet AMPH demand in city centre (2021 ref case – sensitivity test with high capacity buses)

3.5.17. The plan indicates that peak requirements would still rise to well above 100 buses per hour on many links in the city centre area. The requirement on Fanshawe Street is for just under 160 buses per hour, with close to 150 buses required on Symonds Street and 125 on Wellesley Street.

3.5.18. By 2041, Figure 3-13 below indicates the impact of increasing demand on required frequencies, with a peak requirement of close to 200 buses per hour on Symonds Street and 170 on Fanshawe Street.



Figure 3-13: Required frequency to meet AMPH demand in city centre (2041 ref case – sensitivity test with high capacity buses)

3.5.19. The results above suggest that even if the bus fleet in Auckland was upgraded to high-capacity vehicles, required service frequencies on key corridors in the city centre would still reach unsustainable levels in terms of desired network operation, particularly by 2041.

3.6. Car demand

3.6.1. The extent to which bus services can be optimised (either through re-routing to balance demand or through the provision of increased levels of bus priority on links and at junctions) depends partly on traffic flows and congestion in and around the city centre. As traffic congestion increases, so do the limitations on allocating additional road space or signal priority to buses.

3.6.2. In addition to PT demand, ART3 also includes forecasts of vehicle movements (measured in Passenger Car Units – PCUs) on links in the model network, and analysis of these flows provided some indication of the extent to which traffic congestion would impact on bus services in the reference case years.

3.6.3. It should be noted that the road network VCRs detailed in this section differ from those calculated for PT in that re-assignment will occur as traffic congestion



reduces car journey times, and demand flows are also constrained by capacity on specific links. As a result, once road network VCRs increase above 1, trips will be suppressed in the model outputs if opportunities for re-assignment become limited. Also, as with the analysis of PT demand, caution should be exercised when looking at road network VCRs on links within the city centre in ART3 due to the coarseness of the zone system in this area.

3.6.4. Figure 3-14 below illustrates the calculated road network VCRs for links in the 2021 reference case, while Figure 3-15 shows the comparable 2041 VCRs.

Figure 3-14: Am peak VCR for road (2021 ref case)

3.6.5. The plan above indicates that many links on the key road routes into the city centre are close to saturation point in 2041, with orange links representing VCRs of between 0.8 and 1.0 – this includes many links on the motorway approaches across the Harbour Bridge and from the west and south-east.

3.6.6. In addition, many routes coming into the city centre from the south, including Sandringham Road, Mt Eden Road and Manukau Road, also have links with VCRs above 0.8, while there are also pinch-points on routes from the west (Great North Road and Williamson Avenue) and east (Ayr Street/Shore Road).



Figure 3-15: Am peak VCR for road (2041 ref case)

3.6.7. By 2041, the situation on the road network has noticeably deteriorated. The majority of links on the main motorway accesses are close to saturation point (including the new harbour crossing) and VCRs exceed 1 at various points on many routes into the city centre from the south and east.

3.6.8. It is worth noting that total AM peak car demand to the city centre is fairly constant in both years, as shown in Table 3-4 below, but that the total number of car trips on the model network as a whole increases noticeably between the two years.

3.6.9. Given employment projections in the two years, this would suggest that there is a capacity constraint on car access to the city centre in the reference case, and that there is some mode shift to PT as a result of car demand being suppressed. The analysis of PT demand on the network discussed earlier in this report certainly supports this, as total PT demand to city centre zones increases by 30.5% between the two years.



Table 3-4 Model network car trips (2021 and 2041 reference cases)

AM peak (2 hr) 2021 2041 Increase (%)

Total car trips to city centre 40,540 40,656 +116 (+0.3%)

Total car trips on whole model network 531,900 618,600 +86,700 (+16%)

Total car distance travelled on whole model network (km)

5,182,400 5,851,000 +668,600 (+13%)

3.6.10. The plans above do indicate that traffic congestion will be a widespread issue on

the network by 2021 and certainly by 2041, even without taking into account the extent to which road trips are suppressed in model outputs, and these traffic flows are forecast alongside the predicted increase in demand for PT services discussed earlier in this report. It should also be noted that the forecast VCRs take into account a significant amount of investment in the road network assumed in the reference case modelling, as described in Section 2.2 of this report.

3.6.11. Therefore, unless additional capacity is provided coming into the city centre, it would appear that any significant attempts to improve bus network performance, through the provision of additional road space or increased priority at signals, will exacerbate the traffic congestion issues suggested by the ART3 model road network outputs illustrated above.



4. Journey time analysis 4.1. Introduction

4.1.1. This section of the report summarises the results of the journey time assessment undertaken as part of this study. In particular, journey times by both car and PT were compared in the 2021 and 2041 reference cases.

4.2. Car

4.2.1. Figure 4-1 below illustrates the change in car journey times to the city centre in the model from 2021 to 2041. The plan indicates the impact of increasing congestion on the network between the two years, as car journey times from all zones to the west, south and east of the city centre experience increases in journey times to the city centre to varying degrees. The only area where journey times reduce is the North Shore, which benefits from the presence of the additional harbour crossing in the 2041 reference case.

Figure 4-1: Change in total car journey time to city centre zones (2021 v 2041 ref cases)

4.2.2. The findings illustrated above are supported by journey time analysis from each of the reference zones (summarised in Section 1.2 of this report) to the city centre, indicated in Figure 4-2 below.



Figure 4-2: Total car journey times to city centre from reference zones (2021 and 2041 ref cases)

4.2.3. The plans above highlight the reduction in car journey times from the North Shore. From Takapuna to the city takes 25 minutes in 2021 but reduces to 18 minutes in 2041 as a result of the new harbour crossing.

4.2.4. However, journey times by car increase from all other selected refence case zones – the most significant increase being from Western Springs. Car journey time to the city centre from this zone increases by 35% between the two years, from 11.5 minutes in 2021 to 15.5 minutes in 2041. Differences in car journey times are typically around 3.5 minutes from reference zones on the isthmus to the city centre between the two years.

4.3. Public Transport

4.3.1. Figure 4-3 below illustrates the change in total PT journey time to the city centre between 2021 and 2041. The plan indicates that from many zones, the change is within +2 or -2 minutes, which has been considered as no change in this assessment. The most noticeable changes in PT journey times occur in areas to the north and north-west of the city centre, and also to a lesser extent in areas to the east of the isthmus. It is worth noting that where changes are occur, they are virtually all negative indicating a deterioration in service between the two years.



Figure 4-3: Change in total PT journey time to city centre zones (2021 v 2041 ref cases)

4.3.2. Figure 4-4 below supports the results indicated above. Total PT journey time increases noticeably from Takapuna in the North Shore, from 40.5 minutes to 50.9 minutes, while increases from within the isthmus are less significant. In the case of the latter, the most significant changes are an increase from 41 minutes in 2021 to 44.2 minutes in 2041 between Point Chevalier and the city centre (an increase of 7.8%) and an increase from 32.6 minutes to 35 minutes (7.4%) from Remuera to the city centre. Journey time increases from within the isthmus are typically around 1.5 minutes between the two years.



Figure 4-4: Total PT journey times to city centre from reference zones (2021 and 2041 ref cases)

4.3.3. A couple of key points should be considered when assessing the differences in PT journey times between the two years:

Journey times are based on assumed reference case frequencies, and so do not take into account the delays that would be incurred as a result of increasing service frequencies to meet demand, either through increased dwell times at stops as a result of increased boarding/alighting activity, or through increased queuing at junctions and stops;

In ART3, bus lanes are modelled with fixed speeds, and so do not take into account any potential reductions in speed as a result of high frequencies operating on key corridors in the model.

4.4. Implications for growth/development areas

4.4.1. The journey time analysis described above illustrates deteriorating conditions on the transport network in terms of accessing the city centre between 2021 and 2041, with the notable exception of car travel from the North Shore.

4.4.2. Figure 4-5 below is an extract from the Auckland Plan illustrating identified urban growth areas. Comparing this plan with the plans provided above indicate that with the exception of the North Shore, development is planned in Auckland in areas where the ART3 model is indicating a deteriorating level of accessibility to the city centre between 2021 and 2041.



Figure 4-5: Auckland Urban Core Development Strategy

4.4.3. Comparing the plans does suggest that in a lot of areas, the transport schemes included in the reference cases for 2021 and 2041 are not sufficient to support



planned growth, leading to increasing congestion and a reduction in network performance.



5. Summary 5.1. Conclusions

5.1.1. It is clear from the analysis summarised in the previous sections that demand for PT services will exceed assumed capacity by a significant degree in both the 2021 and 2041 reference case years.

5.1.2. The analysis also indicates that increasing the frequency of the bus network to meet this demand is unlikely to be a feasible option in future even if the bus fleet in Auckland is upgraded to high capacity vehicles, for a variety of reasons:

Operational constraints relating to service reliability and delays associated with operating high frequencies on key corridors;

Physical road capacity and junction priority issues (both for bus and general traffic);

Impacts on environmental and streetscape amenity and road safety created by high frequency bus corridors;

Limited opportunities for route optimisation as a result of the limited number of bus access corridors to the city centre.

5.1.3. The assessment of road network VCRs and car journey times also indicates that traffic congestion is likely to be widespread across the network in future years, leading to a deterioration in network conditions. This increase in congestion is forecast to occur alongside the increase in demand for PT services, which suggests that without additional capacity into the city centre, the opportunities for optimising the bus network through the provision of more dedicated lanes and priority at signal junctions will become more and more limited in future.

5.1.4. The forecast number of AM peak car trips to the city centre in 2041 is broadly similar to the forecast for 2021, suggesting that road network capacity constraints in the city centre result in suppressed demand and some mode shift to PT by 2041 (with total PT trips to the city centre forecast to increase by 30.5% between the two years). In contrast, car trips outside the city centre are forecast to increase between the two years, increasing congestion on many links and journey times to the city centre as a result.

5.1.5. The findings also indicate that while there appears to be spare capacity on the rail network coming into Britomart, there are capacity issues on rail outside the city centre, with volumes exceeding assumed capacity on links approaching Puhinui, Penrose and Newmarket stations from the south by 2041. A high level of alighting activity at Newmarket and Parnell stations subsequently reduces demand into Britomart itself.



5.1.6. It is also clear that when looking at absolute demand for PT in both reference case years, there are four key corridors that warrant higher-level PT intervention as follows:

Harbour Bridge from North Shore

Great South Road corridor

Great North Road corridor

Dominion Road/Mt Eden Road corridor

5.2. Recommendations and next steps

5.2.1. The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the nature and scale of transport network deficiencies in the 2021 and 2041 reference cases, and to ensure the suitability of the long-list of proposed schemes developed as part of the CCFAS.

5.2.2. The deficiency analysis has indicated that forecast demand in 2021 and 2041 is too high to be adequately addressed by adjusting service frequencies and vehicle capacities on the existing transport network, and that additional intervention is required to increase capacity to the city centre via recommendations put forward as part of the CCFAS.

5.2.3. In particular, the analysis summarised above has demonstrated issues on two specific corridors, the Great North Road and the Great South Road, that were not high priorities in the initial scheme development stage.

5.2.4. As a result, the long-list will be adjusted to incorporate schemes that will address identified capacity issues on these corridors prior to the commencement of the appraisal process.



Appendix A – bus lane capacity

Source: Transportation Research Board, & Kittelson and Associates, Incorporated. (2003).Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100. published by Transportation Research Board.



Appendix D Long list options development working paper

Working Paper

Date 19 June 2012

Project No ZB01280

Subject Long List Options Development


I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 1

1. Introduction Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) has been appointed by Auckland Transport (AT) to undertake the City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS). This working paper details the development of the options that will be assessed at the long list stage.

2. Long list option development workshop A workshop was held on 11 May 2012 at the SKM offices in Auckland. The aim of the workshop was to discuss the range of options that have been developed as part of the long list of options that are to be assessed.

Representatives from the following organisations attended the workshop:

Auckland Transport


Treasury

Auckland Council

NZTA

SKM

The options presented at the workshop were not intended to be an exhaustive list; rather the beginning of the list to be discussed at the workshop, expanded upon and taken forward to the long list assessment stage.

Where action is required, this is noted in bold along with the responsible party.

3. Long list options The following sections detail the long list options that have been developed under the headline transport initiatives of:

Underground rail; Surface bus; Underground bus; and Other.

Long List Options Working Paper 31 May 2012



4. Underground rail The intention for the underground rail option is to use the Central Rail Link (CRL) option and supporting bus networks developed by MRC once complete. This option is considered to be the optimal option due to the significant work done by others to develop it. Other alignments have not been considered as part of this study as these have been assessed in the past with the current alignment being the preferred.

The CRL is currently undergoing further development through a value engineering process which is focused on providing an optimal solution. This also includes potential changes to station arrangements previously reported in the APB&B Business Case. The timeframe for when this will be complete is currently uncertain.

The intention is that the revised CRL option will be included at the short list assessment stage. Should timeframes not permit this; the CRL option identified in the previous Business Case will be adopted for the assessment. The accompanying bus network that will be used in the CRL option will be that which has been defined by the MRC work. Further detail on the accompanying bus operations will be provided in the full description of the CRL option at the short list stage.

Auckland Transport to provide the expected timeframes for the value engineering phase of the CRL development and confirm the preferred option to be taken forward as part of the CCFAS.

5. Surface bus The surface bus options have been developed out of three broad surface bus options:

Best use of existing infrastructure; Enhanced bus operation; and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

The 2010 AWHC Network Plan highlighted a bus lane capacity of approximately 100 buses an hour (with an ultimate capacity of 130 buses an hour in ‘perfect’ conditions). We have confirmed this capacity as being appropriate and it has been used in developing the options. This capacity is largely influenced by the fact that when buses stop for passengers to board and alight, this stops all buses using the lane. When double bus lanes, or indented bus stops are used, the capacity of the bus lane increases dramatically by a factor of 2 to 3 times.

The 2041 bus forecasts from the 2010 Network Plan have been assessed to provide an indication of the numbers of buses which are expected to be entering the CBD in 2041. We understand that there is some concern over these numbers and at certain locations the numbers of buses forecast are considered to be too high along some routes (Symonds St, Albert St).

Figure 5-1 shows the approximate peak hour bus volumes in 2041 entering the CBD. The numbers in the coloured arrows are from the 2010 Network Plan. The numbers in the white text boxes are those taken from the Business Case Review, which is based on the 2010 RLTS modelling in APT. There are some significant differences in numbers coming from the central




isthmus entering at Symonds Street and those coming from the west at Vincent Street. Overall, the numbers of buses that might be expected to enter the CBD in the peak hour is significant and additional capacity needs to be provided.

Figure 5-1 2041 AM peak hour bus volumes

The current work being undertaken by McCormick Rankin Cagney (MRC) on the revised bus network operation will be incorporated into all the bus options.

At the long list stage it is not important to have detailed bus numbers, just an indication so that the scale of the impacts / operational performance can be assessed. At the short list stage, a more detailed assessment and quantification will be used.

Following a review of the MRC report, the numbers on Fanshawe Street from the North Shore are likely to be much lower due to the splitting of those services to use both Shelley Beach Road and Cook Street. This spreads the load of the North Shore buses across many corridors




and numbers suggest that a single bus lane on Fanshawe Street may continue to be adequate for entering the city on Fanshawe Street.

The use of higher capacity buses (double-decker / articulated) on certain dedicated corridors has been a discussion point as part of the CCFAS. Following discussions with Auckland Transport, these vehicles are likely to be introduced when required to meet demand on routes on which they would be feasible. This includes the Northern Busway, further reducing the number of buses entering the CBD along Fanshawe Street. Other likely corridors include Dominion Road and possibly some services using Mt Eden Road, New North Road and Great South Road to enter the CBD. Until a detailed analysis of the revised modelling is carried out, it is difficult to establish a reduction in the number of buses that could be expected following the introduction of higher capacity buses, where a double-decker bus might be able to accommodate approximately 70-80 passengers, compared with 40-50 on a standard bus. Given that not all routes using those corridors would warrant the higher capacity buses, the reduction could potentially be in the order of 10-20%.

5.1 Option 1 – “Best use of existing infrastructure” These options rely on existing road space, using existing bus lanes and providing some new bus lanes to cope with the expected volumes of buses entering the CBD. The routes are split out when they reach the CBD to more of the CBD streets so that the indicative numbers of buses can be accommodated. Figure 5-2 indicates the likely roads that would require bus services to run on them under these two sub options.

5.1.1 Option 1a: Heavy reliance on Queen St Buses from the North Shore are split between Fanshawe Street and Cook Street with some having been potentially rerouted through Shelly Beach Road and College Hill.

Buses from the east will enter the CBD via Tamaki Drive and The Strand. As the numbers are forecast to be low (in the order of 50 buses per hour), these can be readily accommodated.

From the west, the main entrance point to the CBD is Vincent Street onto Albert Street. Additional capacity would be needed, so some buses would be routed to Nelson Street and Queen Street.

Buses coming from Grafton Bridge and upper Symonds Street (approximately 300 buses per hour) would need to be rerouted significantly. Certain services that would be using Grafton Bridge would be rerouted to enter the CBD via Parnell with some express services being routed onto the motorway and entering on SH16 before travelling through to Britomart. Once at the Symonds Street / Grafton Bridge intersection, buses would split between Symonds Street and Queen Street.

5.1.2 Option 1b: Heavy reliance on Symonds St This option varies slightly from Option 1a, as it removes the reliance on Queen Street by providing indented bus stops on Symonds Street, which increases the capacity for buses significantly as the stopping buses do not impede the following buses if they are not stopping. It is this characteristic which effectively limits the capacity of the bus lane.




Figure 5-2 Options 1a and 1b

5.2 Option 2 – “Enhanced Bus Operation” Building on the options above, the Option 2 sub options provide additional bus priority through the CBD. The use of double bus lanes (potentially peak only) sees the capacity on the identified bus corridors increase significantly while the general traffic capacity decreases. Bus priority at signalised intersections would be implemented to improve the flow of buses through the CBD. Under all the sub options, Queen Street requires at least a single bus lane and Wellesley Street becomes the major east-west route, requiring double bus lanes in both directions from Symonds Street to Nelson Street.

Buses from the North Shore enter the CBD via Fanshawe Street, with some routing through Britomart before proceeding to the University or Parnell. Others use Albert or Hobson Street before connecting to eastern / southern routes and some return to the North Shore.

Buses from the east link through the CBD to north and west services.




Buses from the west and south enter the CBD at the southern fringe of the CBD and connect to northern or eastern services or return to the west or south on similar routes, consistent with the routing plans developed as part of the MRC work.

5.2.1 Option 2a: Albert Street In Option 2a, Vincent Street and Albert Street becomes the main north-south bus route with double bus lanes along the entire length in both directions. Local access could be maintained via service lanes (if space permitted), or special permits. As part of this option, Hobson Street and Nelson Street require bus lanes to feed buses back to the North Shore in the morning period, and from the North Shore in the afternoon peak. A single bus lane runs the length of Queen Street in both directions. This would allow general traffic to still use Queen Street.

Symonds Street (south of Wellesley Street) requires double bus lanes in both directions to cater for the high bus demands that access Wellesley Street, which becomes bus only. This is consistent across all of the Option 2 sub options.

Figure 5-3 Option 2a





5.2.2 Option 2b: Double bus lane Hobson Street Option 2b is very similar to Option 2a, but Hobson Street becomes the north-south bus route. This would severely limit its capacity for general traffic. This is a major change, as Hobson Street would be required to become two-way for buses to achieve this. It does however mean that Albert Street retains general traffic access.

Figure 5-4 Option 2b





5.2.3 Option 2c: Bus only Queen Street In Option 2c, Queen Street takes the role of the north-south bus corridor through the CBD. Western buses still use Vincent Street to enter the CBD, before using Wellesley and subsequently Queen Street. Under this option, Queen Street would have double bus lanes in both directions, making it bus only from Britomart to Karangahape Road. As noted for Option 2a, local accesses on the bus only streets could be maintained through the use of special permits. There would be insufficient space on Queen Street to operate service lanes, but service vehicles such as couriers could be exempt from the bus only restrictions.

Figure 5-5 Option 2c


5.2.4 Option 2d: One way bus circulation This option would use Vincent Street, Albert Street, Symonds Street and a short section of Karangahape Road and Customs Street to provide a one way circulation for buses in the CBD as shown in Figure 5-6. This option concentrates the majority of buses onto a single route




through the city. This has the potential to be in excess of 600 buses an hour trying to circulate on the loop. At this level of bus traffic, a double bus lane would be required with kerbside stops being defined by route (skip-stop operation). The second bus lane therefore operates as a bus only traffic lane. By rationalising the locations where different routes stop, the dedicated circulating lane allows buses to adequately pass stopped buses and make their way to the required stops.

It could operate in either a clockwise or anti clockwise direction. Buses from the different areas of Auckland enter at separate locations, complete a full loop and can then return on their route away from the CBD or leave the loop to route onto other services at the appropriate location. General traffic could either be accommodated in a reduced two-way capacity (for example, one lane in each direction along the loop), or in a one-way circulation regime (either with or against the bus direction of travel). Local access would still be possible from the car side, with service lanes, or controlled access through the bus lanes providing access to that side of the road or by placing the bus lanes in the centre of the road with a traffic lane on the outside. Careful control at intersections would be required where general traffic needs to cross the bus lanes. This could be achieved through the use of ‘bus only’ phases at the signals.




Figure 5-6 Option 2d

or

or

5.2.5 Option 2e: Two way bus circulation Similar to Option 2d (one way bus circulation), this option would use the same loop, but operate in both directions. This would mean that double bus lanes could be provided in each direction, which would make the majority of the route bus only, having a large impact on general traffic access to the CBD. Again, local access would need to be achieved through the use of special permits and some service lanes where road width constraints allow.

Careful control at intersections would be required where general traffic needs to cross the bus lanes. This could be achieved through the use of ‘bus only’ phasing at the signals.




Figure 5-7 Option 2e

5.2.6 Option 2f: Dedicated CBD bus loop (interchanges at perimeter) A further variant to surface bus options is a dedicated bus loop around and through the CBD. This option is very similar in operation to that of Option 2e. Figure 5-8 shows the proposed loop that would operate in a ‘figure 8’ to allow penetration into the heart of the CBD, rather than a perimeter only service. It is envisaged to operate in one direction, to reduce the effect on general traffic in the CBD. The bus loop would operate using the entering bus services. Dedicated double bus lanes would be provided along the entire length of the loops with bus priority at signalised intersections to improve overall performance for the buses.

It provides a longer loop than Option 2e and also requires Wellesley Street to be bus only from Symonds St through to Hobson Street. The longer loop does lengthen the time required to circulate, but it increases the catchment of the loop. Major stations located on the loop would encourage development, particularly in the midtown area where Wellesley Street has buses




running on the loop in both directions. The location of the perimeter stations could be adjusted to suit requirements if the option was to be developed further.

Figure 5-8 Option 2f

5.3 Option 3 – “Bus Rapid Transit” Developing further into dominant bus priority are the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) options. These options have a high level of bus priority, with intersection separation in the form of tunnel underpasses and some bus only roads. It has the potential to be constrained to within the CBD itself, providing fast efficient movement across the CBD at the end of the journey. However, to be most effective, it would include the approaches to the CBD as well as the CBD itself. The APB&B Business Case identified the corridors shown in blue in Figure 5-9 as the approach corridors to the CBD where BRT treatment would provide the most benefit. These are:

New North Road which picks up Sandringham Road and Dominion Road services on the approach to the CBD;




Great South Road, Broadway and Khyber Pass Road which would then likely extend past the Auckland Hospital and over Grafton Bridge. This differs slightly from the connection at the top of Khyber Pass Road as shown in Figure 5-9.

These routes would come together at Symonds Street where they would join together and progress down a dedicated bus lane with bus priority at the signalised intersections before joining the dedicated BRT corridors through the CBD.

The BRT treatment on these corridors would be in the form of a dedicated busway (similar to that in use on the North Shore Busway). The exception would be through the shopping precinct of Newmarket, where such infrastructure would be extremely difficult to implement. Through this part of the network, dedicated bus lanes and bus pre-emption at signals would be provided to improve the bus service on this section of the route.

In carrying out the long list assessment, we propose to assess the Option 3 sub options with and without the BRT approaches described above.

Figure 5-9 BRT approach corridors

The aim of a BRT system would be to provide a north-south and an east-west corridor in the CBD as detailed in the following sections. There would a major bus interchange / station where the two corridors intersect which could be grade separated. As part of any BRT option, Fanshawe Street requires dedicated bus lanes from the motorway off ramp to the point at which the BRT system begins within the CBD.

In order to not completely sever other transport links across the BRT corridor within the CBD, the intersections that the buses cross would be bypassed with tunnel underpasses for the buses. This allows the buses consistency in travel times and therefore an improved level of service whilst maintaining overall connectivity for general traffic and pedestrians within the CBD. The approaches to these underpasses may require some smaller side roads to be closed to general traffic.




5.3.1 North-south BRT There are four potential north-south BRT corridors in the CBD. These are shown in Figure 5-10.

Hobson Street (Option a) Passing under Cook Street, Wellesley Street, Victoria Street, Wyndham

Street Vincent Street / Albert Street (Option b)

Passing under Cook Street, Wellesley Street, Victoria Street, Wyndham Street, Swanston Street

Queen Street (Option c) Passing under Scotia Place, Mayoral Drive, Wellesley Street, Victoria Street,

Wyndham Street Symonds Street (Option d)

Passing under Wakefield Street, Grafton Road, Waterloo Quadrant

5.3.2 East-west BRT There are three potential east-west BRT corridors in the CBD. These are shown in Figure 5-10.

Fanshawe Street (Option z) Passing under Halsey Street, Nelson Street, Albert Street, Queen Street,

Commerce Street, Gore Street Victoria Street (Option x)

Passing under Halsey Street, Hardinge Street, Nelson Street, Hobson Street, Federal Street, Albert Street, Queen Street, High Street, Kitchener Street, Princes Street

Wellesley Street (Option y) Passing under Halsey Street, Victoria Street, Nelson Street, Hobson Street,

Federal Street, Queen Street, Kitchener Street




Figure 5-10 BRT options

z

y

ax

b

c d

5.3.3 BRT Options There are 12 difference combinations for the BRT options. These are defined by combining the letter for a north-south option with the letter for an east-west option. Each option described below will be assessed with and without the BRT treatment on the approach corridors.

1) Option 3az: Hobson / Fanshawe 2) Option 3ax: Hobson / Victoria 3) Option 3ay: Hobson / Wellesley 4) Option 3bz: Albert / Fanshawe 5) Option 3bx: Albert / Victoria 6) Option 3by: Albert / Wellesley 7) Option 3cz: Queen / Fanshawe




8) Option 3cx: Queen / Victoria 9) Option 3cy: Queen / Wellesley 10) Option 3dz: Symonds / Fanshawe 11) Option 3dx: Symonds / Victoria 12) Option 3dy: Symonds / Wellesley 5.3.4 Elevated busway Another variation of the BRT options is an elevated version, incorporating the approach corridors and continuing down Symonds Street and onto Wellesley Street. Rather than assess every different combination of the CBD BRT options, this combination of routes was chosen as it naturally progresses into the CBD and fits best with the PTNP of having Wellesley Street as the main bus corridor in the CBD. If through the assessment, it is established that one of the other BRT corridor combinations in the CBD proves to have significant benefits, and the elevated busway has merit, it can be modified to include the ‘best’ combination. The elevated busway is indicatively shown in Figure 5-11.

Figure 5-11 Option 3e: Elevated busway

6. Underground bus Taking the buses underground significantly reduces the impacts on the surface roads, but it presents challenges in both construction and operation. The basis for the underground bus options come from the BRT options. To obtain the maximum benefit of the underground




options, some BRT treatment is needed on the approaches to the tunnel(s). As with the BRT options, the tunnel options will be assessed both with and without the BRT treatment on the approaches.

An underground bus option would have either a north-south or east-west tunnel, or possibly both with an interchange where they intersect. The tunnel itself would be two lanes wide (one in each direction) with a station at mid town and a station near each end of the tunnel. At the station, platforms would be provided so that stopping buses are removed from the carriageway, thereby not impeding other buses that are not stopping or accessing adjacent platforms.

Building a bus tunnel does not remove all buses from the surface. It caters for certain routes, but many surface buses are still required in order to provide high levels of service. The same overall structure defined by the MRC study will be incorporated, with key corridors feeding into the tunnel(s).

6.1 Option 4a: Vic Park to Grafton Option 4a is a north-south tunnel along a similar alignment to that identified in the previous Business Case. It would head underground near Victoria Park at the northern end and near Grafton (Khyber Pass Road / Symonds Street) at the southern end. It is indicatively shown in Figure 6-1.




Figure 6-1 Option 4a

As part of this option, Symonds Street would still retain an important bus function. There would be a station around midtown and also at either end of the tunnel.

6.2 Option 4b: CRL Alignment Option 4b is a north-south tunnel along a similar alignment to the proposed CRL option. It would head underground near the Fanshawe Street / Albert Street intersection at the northern end and return to the surface in Newton, around Upper Queen Street.




Figure 6-2 Option 4b

As part of this option, Symonds Street would still retain an important bus function, providing access to the eastern CBD. There would be a station around midtown and also at either end of the tunnel.

6.3 Option 4c: East – West tunnel Option 4c is an east – west tunnel running under the Wellesley Street alignment. It would head underground near Victoria Park at the western end and near Symonds Street at the eastern end. The southern part of Symonds Street would require substantial bus priority to enable the tunnel to operate effectively.




Figure 6-3 Option 4c

As part of this option, Symonds Street and Albert Street would still retain an important bus function, providing north–south access through the CBD. There would be a station around midtown and also one near the western end. A further station would link in with the education precinct near the top of Wellesley Street providing access to the universities.

6.4 Option 4d: Two tunnels Option 4d combines Options 4b and 4c, with a north-south tunnel along a similar alignment to the proposed CRL and an east-west tunnel along the Wellesley Street alignment.




Figure 6-4 Option 4d

A major station would be located at midtown, where the two tunnels intersect. This option would remove the majority of buses from the surface road network as it provides connections to all quadrants of the CBD.

7. Other options A range of other options were considered as alternatives to headline bus or rail options and these are discussed below. The majority of them are considered to be complimentary to any major bus or rail option. A light rail / tram option is considered to be the only realistic true alternative to a headline bus or rail option

7.1 Ferry based solution Ferry options are not considered to represent a true alternative for providing access to the CBD. Revised and improved ferry services will be assumed to form part of any option as they are complimentary to rail and bus, rather than an alternative. At the long list stage, any ferry




option will not prove to be a point of differentiation between any options, so details around potential future ferry operation have not been considered.

No headline ferry option needs to be considered; any improved ferry service would be consistent across all options and therefore not provide any point of differentiation.

7.2 Increasing car capacity Increasing the capacity for private vehicle access to the CBD is not considered to be realistic, given that significant additional road and parking space would be required. This would be detrimental to public transport capacity and reduce the number of people that could access the CBD, which is counter to the objectives of this study.

No headline car based option needs to be considered.

7.3 Above ground heavy/commuter rail We are currently awaiting detail from the APB&B concept work relating to an above ground route and why this was discounted. We believe it was due to gradient issues in the southern part of the CBD, but this will need to be confirmed upon reviewing the earlier concept work.

7.4 Light rail A light rail option has been considered as an ‘other’ option. There are two possibilities for light rail. One would see it act as a ‘shuttle’ type mode providing access to the CBD by linking with either the western train line, or a common point on a large number of bus services. Given the fact that the buses enter from a variety of places, the sensible solution is to intersect such a service with the western train line. The nearest stations are either Grafton or Mt Eden, with Mt Eden considered to be the most efficient location due to the distance required to travel.

Without demolishing large blocks of the CBD, there are two reasonable alignments from Mt Eden, as shown in Figure 7-1. One would follow the approximate CRL alignment, running down Vincent Street / Albert Street (Option 5a, shown in black), with the other running down Queen Street (Option 5b, shown in red). Under either option, general traffic capacity would be significantly reduced on the route that is chosen.

Both Britomart and Mt Eden Stations would require significant upgrades to function as the interchange points. Likely major stops along the way would be Karangahape Road and midtown (near Wellesley Street).




Figure 7-1 Options 5a and 5b: Light rail ‘shuttle’

Option 5a: Albert St

Option 5b: Queen St

Stations

Another light rail option is to develop a wider network, complimentary to the existing rail corridors so that their catchments have minimal overlap. This would allow a significant reduction in the number of buses required to cater for demand along key corridors. The central isthmus segment between New North Road and Great South Road is served poorly by rail and has four main arterial corridors heading towards the CBD. These are Sandringham Road, Dominion Road, Mt Eden Road and Manukau Road. Three of these corridors have the potential to carry light rail as they all come together on the outskirts of the CBD in Eden Terrace. Manukau Road has no readily available connection through to make this connection,




though a tunnel under Mt Eden could be a future possibility. With the Newmarket rail station being at the end of Manukau Road, there is a reduced benefit from providing another mode of transport for this corridor, as the recent Business Case and review showed that the southern line has spare rail capacity. A further consideration has been included to the north of the North Western Motorway, using the Great North Road corridor from Pt Chevalier. Queen Street has been chosen for this option as the point where the light rail lines join and operate down to Britomart, providing the central connections to the CBD. On the light rail corridors, the existing bus lanes would be converted to light rail, so road capacity would be largely unaffected.

Option 5c is shown in Figure 7-2 and Figure 7-3 below.

Figure 7-2 Option 5c: Light rail network - outer




Figure 7-3 Option 5c: Light rail network - CBD

Capacity of light rail depends heavily on the rolling stock that is implemented. Smaller light rail vehicles can accommodate in the order of 80-100 passengers, with longer light rail vehicles now being produced to accommodate in excess of 200 passengers. Given that the routes defined above are largely straight, with few tight turns, a capacity of 130 passengers per vehicle will be assumed in assessing these options. This is consistent with the

Light rail could potentially replace a ‘bus loop’ option (Option 2d / 2e / 2f). To achieve the same function as would be achieved with buses, significant interchanges would be required for all bus passengers to transfer to light rail at the perimeter of the loop, creating both large




increases in cost and inconvenience for passengers, buses are considered to represent the preferred mode for this type of operation.

7.5 Personal rapid transit Personal rapid transit (PRT) is not considered to represent a realistic solution for providing access to the CBD. Rather it has the potential to provide rapid transit across or around a dedicated network, such as within the CBD. It could provide a similar function to the light rail option above by connecting the CBD to a nearby transport hub, such as train station or major bus stop / interchange. It makes sense to use a similar connection to the light rail options, with an interchange with the western train line at Mt Eden station. With its close proximity (~500m) to the Dominion Road and New North Road, it also lends itself to possible future extensions to connect with buses in these corridors. With additional guideways, improved distribution over the light rail option could be achieved around the CBD. The PRT option is shown below in Figure 7-2. It is envisaged to operate most efficiently in a network of guideways. On a single guideway (2m wide), the capacity would be approximately 4,000 people per hour.




Figure 7-4 Option 5d: PRT

PRT interchange

7.6 Elevated Rail Another option for rail is to raise it above street level on a dedicated structure. An option has recently been publicised by the Greenways Project group which would see rail run on an elevated structure around the western perimeter of the CBD between Mt Eden station and Britomart as shown in Figure 7-5. Travelling along Fanshawe Street, it would then climb up onto the Victoria Park flyover structure, travel through the central motorway junction and




connect into the Mt Eden rail station. This option removes the need for a transfer at Mt Eden station, as the same rolling stock are assumed to carry on travelling on this new link. The reported cost has been stated as being approximately $1.7 billion and this has been used for the purpose of the evaluation. This option would operate similarly to the CRL, without the intermediate stations due to being elevated above the motorway network.

Figure 7-5 Option 5e: Elevated rail




7.7 Travel demand management Any large scale travel demand management (TDM) options are not considered to represent a true alternative for providing access to the CBD. Improved TDM measures are accounted for in the modelling of any options and are considered to be consistent across any of the alternatives.

No headline TDM option needs to be considered.

7.8 Walking / cycling focus Major walking and/or cycling options are not considered to represent a true alternative for providing access to the CBD. Given the sprawled nature of Auckland, distances that need to be covered are too long to be realistically serviced by active mode. Improvements for pedestrians and cyclists in and around the CBD are envisaged to form part of any option and will not be a key differentiator between the sub options at the long list stage.

No headline walking or cycling option needs to be considered; any improvements to walking and cycling would be consistent across all options and therefore not provide any point of differentiation.

7.9 Intelligent transport systems and other incremental improvements Intelligent transport systems (ITS) have a part to play in any option in the refinement stage of option development. ITS itself is not deemed to be an alternative method of access to the CBD; rather it is an incremental improvement that would be complimentary to any improved passenger transport solution. Such technology that informs travellers of their real time options would improve service, but needs to work in conjunction with transport infrastructure. An example of this is the ‘tram tracker’ smart phone app that is used in Melbourne.

Buses with large passenger capacity (up to 250 people) could only run on dedicated routes due to the operating space required. Therefore, this only makes them appropriate for use on a BRT route and would form part of an optimised BRT scheme not as an outright alternative option.

Similarly, buses with improved configurations for boarding and alighting make an incremental improvement to service and are not considered to be enough of a ‘step change’ to be considered as a true alternative for access to the CBD. This type of improvement would be consistent across all bus options and would not differentiate between bus options.

These items are considered to be incremental improvements that would be consistent across the sub options and not act as a differentiator so do not need to be included in the long list options to inform this stage of the evaluation. Higher capacity buses for BRT options have been discussed earlier in the development of those options.

8. Other workshop considerations The possibility of including south–west train services as part of any bus option was raised. This would provide additional capacity on the western line, allowing more passengers to come from Western line stations. In turn, this would allow more passengers from this line to reach Britomart. Currently there are large number of passengers on the Western line alighting in Grafton and Newmarket, meaning that Western Line trains arrive at Britomart well under




capacity. By providing South – West (and vice versa) train services, passengers heading not heading for the CBD could use these trains, freeing up space on the Britomart bound trains.

While the inclusion of these services does not increase the number of trains that can use Britomart, it has the potential to allow the Western line trains to operate more effectively and allow more passengers to access Britomart and hence enter the CBD.

This is an interesting operational change and whilst it may require more rolling stock, no significant infrastructure would be required. Given that they are constrained to the rail network, these services could be included in all the bus options and as such are not a differentiator at the long list stage. They will however be included in the short listed bus options for the short list assessment if they are deemed feasible.

MoT to report whether this operation is feasible on the current rail network following confirmation from KiwiRail.

9. Options summary Underground rail:

Option CRL: Use the CRL option currently being confirmed by AT.

Surface bus:

Best use of existing infrastructure

Option 1a – services split throughout the CBD

Option 1b – increase demand on Symonds Street, less on Queen Street

Enhanced bus operation

Option 2a – dedicated bus on Albert Street

Option 2b – dedicated bus on Hobson Street

Option 2c – dedicated bus on Queen Street

Option 2d – one way bus circulation (Albert – Customs – Symonds – K Rd)

Option 2e – two way bus circulation (Albert – Customs – Symonds – K Rd)

Option 2f – dedicated CBD bus loop using a ‘figure 8’ operation

Bus rapid transit (BRT) – with and without BRT approaches

Option 3az: Hobson / Fanshawe

Option 3ax: Hobson / Victoria




Option 3ay: Hobson / Wellesley

Option 3bz: Albert / Fanshawe

Option 3bx: Albert / Victoria

Option 3by: Albert / Wellesley

Option 3cz: Queen / Fanshawe

Option 3cx: Queen / Victoria

Option 3cy: Queen / Wellesley

Option 3dz: Symonds / Fanshawe

Option 3dx: Symonds / Victoria

Option 3dy: Symonds / Wellesley

Elevated BRT

Option 3e – Elevated BRT

Underground bus: (with and without BRT approaches)

Option 4a – Victoria Park to Grafton

Option 4b – CRL alignment

Option 4c – Wellesley Street

Option 4d – CRL alignment and Wellesley Street

Other options:

Light rail

Option 5a – Albert Street / Vincent Street

Option 5b – Queen Street

Option 5c – Light rail network

PRT

Option 5d – PRT

Elevated rail

Option 5e – Elevated rail




10. High level cost estimates To inform the assessment of the long list options, some very high level cost estimates have been developed for the options using existing information and indicative rates for costing.

In preparing these cost estimates, five main sources have been used:

Auckland Plan projects list APB&B Business Case cost estimate Bus tunnelling advice from within SKM Australia Light rail costs from Australia, based on recent projects. However, light rail costs vary

significantly as evidence by literature and case studies detailed on the internet. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 118 – Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s

Guide, 2007, Transportation Research Board. (TCRPR 118)

The Auckland Plan projects list gives the indicative costs for a busway at $45M / km and $10M / km for dedicated bus lanes. TCRRP 118 gives an indicative estimate of an elevated busway structure of approximately $70M / km when the values in the report are converted to NZD and updated from 2007.

The APB&B Business Case has been used to determine an indicative cost for an underground station at approximately $150M. The Business Case estimate was also used to populate preliminary and general costs (22% of capital cost), overheads and profit (15% of physical works), design, planning, client and management costs (15.4%), contingency (17% of base estimate) and funding risk (20% of expected estimate).

BRT station costs were developed from the Northern Busway, though to a smaller scale and without large park and ride facilities, an indicative cost of $10M has been used.

Indicative costs for driven bus tunnels less than 2km long are taken to be $200M / km. This assumes two lanes and an escape path and that good ground conditions present and jet fans are used for ventilation. For driven tunnels longer than 2km, additional ventilation treatment is required and this can be in the order of an additional 10-15%; $260M / km has been assumed. For cut and cover tunnels, the indicative cost of $150M / km has been assumed. This is the way in which the BRT intersection underpasses have been estimated, with an assumed length of 150m (accounting for both approaches to lower the elevation and the actual distance under the intersection).

Light rail costs were identified as varying considerably from $20 - $200M / km. Some recent projects in Australia have been used as a basis and these indicate that AUD$35-$40M/km could be used to provide an indicative cost. A NZD$50M / km rate has been used to provide an estimate at the long list stage.

PRT costs have been initially estimated at 2/3 that of the indicative cost of light rail. We are currently awaiting additional information to provide confidence in this high level estimate.




For minor works (new signals, upgraded paint markings etc), an arbitrary value of $1M per intersection has been used to indicate that some cost would be incurred, but not requiring major infrastructure.

A summary of the indicative costs used to develop the high level cost estimates is provided in Table 10-3

Table 10-1 Indicative cost summary

Item Unit cost ($M) Source

Busway $45 /km Auckland Plan projects Dedicated bus lanes $10M / km Auckland Plan projects Elevated busway $70M / km TCRRP 118 Underground stations $150M / station APB&B Business Case BRT stations $10M / station Northern busway (reduced) Driven tunnel (<2km) $200M / km SKM Australia Driven tunnel (>2km) $260M / km SKM Australia Cut and cover tunnel $150M / km SKM Australia Light rail $50M / km Recent Australian projects PRT $30M / km Awaiting additional information Minor intersection works $1 M / intersection Assumed Preliminary and general costs 22% of physical works APB&B Business Case Overheads and profit 15% of physical works (incl

P+G) APB&B Business Case

Design, planning, client and management costs

15.4% of physical works (incl P+G, O+P)

APB&B Business Case

Contingency 17% of base estimate APB&B Business Case Funding risk 20% of expected estimate APB&B Business Case

Note that these indicative costs have been developed using very approximate costings to provide an indication of the likely scale of cost, rather than an absolute estimate. For example, weather an option more likely to be $10M or $100M. As such, they have not been reviewed in detail and should be viewed an indicator only.

The costs for each sub group of options are shown in the following sections.

10.1 Surface bus options Table 10-2 Surface bus option cost estimates (without BRT approaches)

Option (without BRT approach treatment) High level cost estimate ($M)

Option 1a: services split throughout the CBD <$10M Option 1b: increase demand on Symonds Street, less on Queen Street <$10M

Option 2a: dedicated bus on Albert Street $200M





Option 2b: dedicated bus on Hobson Street $200M Option 2c: dedicated bus on Queen Street $150M Option 2d: one way bus circulation (Albert – Customs – Symonds – Karangahape) $150M

Option 2e: two way bus circulation (Albert – Customs – Symonds – Karangahape) $300M

Option 2f: dedicated CBD bus loop using a ‘figure 8’ operation $200M

Option 3az: Hobson / Fanshawe $1,100M Option 3ax: Hobson / Victoria $1,300M Option 3ay: Hobson / Wellesley $1,100M Option 3bz: Albert / Fanshawe $1,200M Option 3bx: Albert / Victoria $1,400M Option 3by: Albert / Wellesley $1,200M Option 3cz: Queen / Fanshawe $1,200M Option 3cx: Queen / Victoria $1,400M Option 3cy: Queen / Wellesley $1,200M Option 3dz: Symonds / Fanshawe $1,050M Option 3dx: Symonds / Victoria $1,250M Option 3dy: Symonds / Wellesley $1,050M

Table 10-3 Surface bus options (with BRT approaches)

Option (with BRT approach treatment) High level cost estimate ($M)

Option 3az: Hobson / Fanshawe $2,600M Option 3ax: Hobson / Victoria $2,750M Option 3ay: Hobson / Wellesley $2,550M Option 3bz: Albert / Fanshawe $2,600M Option 3bx: Albert / Victoria $2,800M Option 3by: Albert / Wellesley $2,600M Option 3cz: Queen / Fanshawe $2,600M Option 3cx: Queen / Victoria $2,800M Option 3cy: Queen / Wellesley $2,650M Option 3dz: Symonds / Fanshawe $2,500M Option 3dx: Symonds / Victoria $2,700M Option 3dy: Symonds / Wellesley $2,500M Option 3e: Elevated BRT $2,800M




10.2 Underground bus options Table 10-4 Underground bus cost estimates (without BRT approaches)


Option 4a: Victoria Park to Grafton $2,550M Option 4b: CRL alignment $2,250M Option 4c: Wellesley St $1,850M Option 4d: CRL alignment and Wellesley St $3,500M

Table 10-5 Underground bus cost estimates (with BRT approaches)

Option (with BRT approach treatment) High level cost estimate ($M)

Option 4a: Victoria Park to Grafton $3,700M Option 4b: CRL alignment $3,400M Option 4c: Wellesley St $2,950M Option 4d: CRL alignment and Wellesley St $4,600M

10.3 Other options Table 10-6 Other option cost estimates

Option High level cost estimate ($M)

Option 5a: Light rail shuttle - Albert / Vincent $700M Option 5b: Light rail shuttle - Queen $700M Option 5c: Light rail network $3,050M Option 5d: PRT $750M Option 5e: Elevated Rail $1,800M

11. Next steps The next steps in the study are:

Confirmation of assumptions (currently awaiting feedback);

Confirmation of the modelling approach;

Finalise the long list options, providing detail as required; and

Long list option assessment.



Appendix E Long list options evaluation working paper

Working Paper

Date 30 August 2012

Project No ZB01280

Subject Long List Options Evaluation


I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Evaluation WPv1.docx PAGE 1

1. Introduction Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) has been appointed by Auckland Transport (AT) to undertake the City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS). This working paper details the evaluation of the options that have been assessed at the long list stage.

2. Long list option evaluation workshops The first long list evaluation workshop was held on 22 June 2012 at the SKM offices in Auckland. The aim of the workshop was to evaluate the options using the agreed evaluation framework with the focus being on the differentiation between the options using qualitative measures. As part of the workshop, additional information that would assist in informing the overall evaluation was identified as being extremely beneficial before progressing the evaluation any further. This related to developing quantifiable measures which would revise the evaluation approach to include both quantitative and qualitative assessments.

During the following 8 weeks, the reference case was modelled in ART3 and a number of the outputs from the modelling were used in developing the measures that would assist in informing the evaluation of the long list options. These measures were worked through collaboratively with AT, Ministry of Transport (MoT) and NZTA before being presented and discussed at a workshop on 29 August 2012 with the wider stakeholder group.

Representatives from the following organisations attended the workshops:

Auckland Transport


Treasury

Auckland Council

NZTA

SKM

The outcomes of the final workshop are discussed later in this working paper.

3. Evaluation measures The 2041 reference case AM peak from ART3 was used to prepare the measures that were used in the long list evaluation. The metrics used to inform the measures consisted of the following and were split by mode, being bus, train and private vehicle:

Travel time Travel distance

Long List Evaluation Working Paper 28 August 2012



Demand 3.1 Time and distance In vehicle travel time and distance by mode were extracted on the key corridors to the city centre shown in Figure 3-1. This enabled average speed to be calculated along those routes.

Figure 3-1 Key corridors to the CBD

To the CBD from: Takapuna, over the AHB (zone 108) Pt Chevalier via Herne Bay (zone 240) Pt Chevalier (from Mt Albert Rd) via Great North Road (zone 241) Mt Albert (from Mt Albert Rd) via New North Road (zone 249) Sandringham (from Mt Albert Rd) via Sandringham Road then New North Road (zone

269) Mt Roskill (from Mt Albert Rd) via Dominion Road (zone 273) Three Kings (from Mt Albert Rd) via Mt Eden Road (zone 282)




Royal Oak via Manukau Road then Newmarket (zone 286) Ellerslie / Penrose via Great South Road then Newmarket (zone 298) Remuera via Remuera Road then Newmarket (zone 237) Mission Bay via Tamaki Drive (zone 309) The three train lines (West from Kingsland, South from Greenlane, East from

Meadowbank)

3.2 Demands Demands, by mode, were extracted from key zones to the city centre (as noted above), but specifically at the points identified in Figure 3-2. The city centre screenline used in ART3 is indicated by the red line and demands (by mode) crossing this were also extracted to determine total demand for travel to the city centre.

Figure 3-2 Key demand points

Key ‘outer’ points




3.3 Aggregated outputs Aggregated demands and travel time by mode from different sectors of Auckland to sectors of the city were also gathered. Four wider Auckland sectors were used, as shown in Figure 3-3, in line with the previous TLAs:

North (North Shore and Rodney) South (Manukau, Papakura and Franklin) West (Waitakere) Central (Auckland City)

Figure 3-3 Auckland sectors

In order to better understand the travel demands by destination, the city centre was split into the relevant ART3 zones, as shown in Figure 3-4. Note that the Port, Zone 194, was excluded from the analysis.

West

North

South

Central




Figure 3-4 City centre ART3 zones

4. Revised evaluation process 4.1 Preparing quantitative assessment For each of the 46 options, the potential impacts on travel time and patronage were estimated using the measures extracted from the ART3 reference case described above. This involved making a large number of assumptions which are listed below. The different operation of the options meant that certain assumptions were applicable to certain options and not all had an impact or were incorporated into the evaluation of a particular option.

Assumptions for quantifying the impacts of each option included:

Travel speeds (with and without the option); Average signalised intersection delay;




Mode split from areas where mode choice is viable based on existing data; Portion of routes from the common origin (identified in Section 3.3) that would use the

option; Portion of the option route over which passengers would realise benefit. For example,

along the Wellesley Street corridor, buses would be largely empty beyond Aotea; Number of intersections that would be affected through removal, separation or avoidance; Travel distance changes caused by implementing the option; and Impacts on demand through travel improvements, using an elasticity for public transport

travel demand and travel time (0.3 from WebTag, UK). For the quantitative assessment, the effect on both public transport and general traffic users were incorporated. A constant level of demand, as generated by the ART3 reference case, was used for simplicity and was considered appropriate for the level of assessment that was undertaken.

Once the assessment case for each option had been developed, a simplified matrix approach was adopted to determine an indication of the monetised effect of each option. An example of the matrix approach used is shown in Figure 4-1.

Figure 4-1 Matrix calculation example

The difference in the total travel time for each option compared to the reference case was used with an EEM value of time to obtain a dollar value. This was annualised using the annualisation factors from the previous business to get an annual value for the indicative benefits of each option.




With each option now having an annual benefit based on travel time alone, it could be compared to the high level cost estimate for each option to provide an indication of the relative performance of each option.

4.2 Option assessment The 46 options were grouped into five sub categories being:

Option 1: Best use of existing infrastructure (surface bus options); Option 2: Enhanced bus operation (surface bus options); Option 3: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) (surface bus options); Option 4: Underground bus; and Option 5: Other options.

Through feedback from the initial workshop, it was agreed that it was extremely difficult to assess the options against each other comprehensively against the reference case due to the limited granularity offered by the five point evaluation scale (++ to --) and the vastly different nature of the options.

The revised approach saw each sub category assessed individually using one of the options within the category as the benchmark. This meant that better granularity would be achieved as both ++’s and --‘s would be more applicable.

The evaluation of each category is discussed in the following sections.

4.2.1 Option 1: Best use of existing infrastructure Through the work carried out in preparing the deficiency analysis, it was shown that was not a true or feasible option for addressing city centre access problems. The quantitative assessment showed it would achieve almost no benefit over the reference case.

The recommendation was that this group of options were not considered any further.

4.2.2 Option 2: Enhanced bus operation Six different options existed in this category, further categorised into two groups:

Three options involving on street solutions with high bus priority Three options using a form of ‘bus loop circulation’ in their operation

The quantitative assessment quickly identified the poor performance of the ‘bus loop’ options (options 2d, 2e and 2f). They had significant implications for general traffic and would not adequately cater for the volumes of buses required to service forecast demands. The quantitative summary table for this category is shown in Table 4-1.




Table 4-1 Option 2 quantitative summary

Of the three remaining options (options 2a, 2b and 2c), Hobson Street was excluded due to the high impact on general traffic (motorway access) and relative poor performance. At the high level at which the quantitative measures were developed, it was considered that there was a relatively minor difference between having the focus on Albert Street or Queen Street.

For the qualitative assessment, Option 2a was used as the benchmark and the critical differentiator was identified within economic performance and environmental and amenity impacts. The use of Queen Street in Option 2c as a dedicated bus corridor detracted significantly from both a city centre economic and amenity perspective, resulting in it having a slightly negative score. This option also went against the objectives of the Auckland Plan and CCMP and would both sever the city centre and dramatically reduce the amenity of the heart of the city. A summary of the qualitative comparison is shown in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2 Option 2 qualitative summary

For the above reasons, Option 2a was selected as being the preferred option from the Option 2 sub category.

4.2.3 Option 3: BRT For the BRT options through the city centre, both a north-south and east-west corridor were identified as being required which led to 12 different combinations for this sub category. Intersections along each corridor would be grade separated allowing buses to have unimpeded travel through the city centre via the network of bus lanes and off lane bus stops.




The quantitative summary of the Option 3 assessment is shown in Table 4-3.


Those corridors using Hobson and Fanshawe Streets perform much worse than others, largely due to the impacts on general traffic on these vital corridors. For the remaining six options, there is relatively little meaningful difference that can be established from the high level quantitative assessment, though Wellesley Street appears more favourable than Victoria Street, mainly due to the lower cost and easier construction through that corridor.

Moving to the qualitative assessment, the combination of Symonds and Victoria Streets as the north-south and east-west corridors respectively were the benchmark for the comparison. The summary of the qualitative assessment is shown in Table 4-4.


Building on the quantitative indication, Wellesley Street is clearly preferable to Victoria Street for the east-west route. As was identified in the Option 2 assessment, Queen Street is the least preferred north-south corridor due mainly to the amenity impacts and objectives of the Auckland Plan and CCMP. There appears to be little to separate Albert Street or Symonds Streets as the north-south corridor from either form of assessment, though it is the indicative higher cost of Albert Street which brings Symonds Street back into contention.




The deficiency analysis highlighted that the southern part of Symonds St would require some form of improvement under any scenario and this section would be improved under the Wellesley Street corridor. Albert Street fits better strategically with forecast bus operations and maintains the ability to keep multiple access points for buses to the city centre rather than focussing virtually all buses onto Symonds Street which would introduce significant operational issues.

The outcome of the assessment of Option3 is that Option 3by (Albert and Wellesley) is the preferred sub-option for BRT in the city centre.

However, in further development and assessment of the BRT options, a number of physical constraints were identified and assessed:

City centre block length: 200-250m maximum Max grade for bus ramps to the underpass: 5% Vertical change required for clearance: 6m minimum Horizontal length required: 120m Transition length required (each end): 27m Total length required: 174m

This assessment of the physical requirements to achieve the grade separation of the intersections meant that most of the block length is required to transition from street level to below street level. This meant that there is insufficient distance to return to the surface for passengers to board or alight the bus. In order to still maintain the high level of movement intended by this option, a trench along the entire corridor would be required. This would represent significant safety, access, service, pedestrian and passenger problems, many of which would be impossible to mitigate.

The assessment of the physical requirements and constraints of trying to achieve this type of BRT operation in a challenging city centre environment led to the conclusion that these would be fatal flaws for this option and therefore any of the Option 3 options should not be considered further.

4.2.4 Option 4: Underground bus Four potential tunnel alignments were developed for the long list:

Victoria Park to Grafton – similar to the alignment identified in the APB&B business case A north-south tunnel running on the proposed CRL alignment An east-west tunnel running under Wellesley Street and including some surface

improvement on Symonds Street Both the north-south and east-west tunnels






The tunnel using the CRL alignment clearly performs the worst through its high cost and relatively low level of benefit which is due to the number of buses that would actually be able to use the tunnel on this alignment.

The performance of the longer arcing tunnel from Victoria Park to Grafton and the twin tunnels is indicated as being similar and both have significant cost. The Wellesley Street tunnel is likely to be significantly cheaper due to its shorter length and performs slightly better.

Moving to the qualitative assessment, the Victoria Park to Grafton tunnel was the benchmark for the comparison. The summary of the qualitative assessment is shown in Table 4-6


The qualitative assessment reinforces the quantitative assessment and identifies the Wellesley Street tunnel as being the best alignment. Two tunnels performs well, but the high cost associated with it is unlikely to be offset by the additional benefits that it would generate.

4.2.5 Option 5: Other options For the other options to address city centre access, five potential options were identified. They consisted of:

Light rail shuttle using Albert Street or Queen Street from Mt Eden train station Light rail network within the isthmus Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) to the city centre from Mt Eden train station Elevated rail from Britomart through CMJ to Mt Eden station






The quantitative assessment indicates that the potential benefits from elevated rail, PRT, or a light rail shuttle option (Mt Eden Station – Britomart) would be relatively modest. Greater benefits are likely from a more comprehensive light rail network, but this also has significantly higher cost. The benefit / cost indicator is low for all options, with the light rail network scoring best and would therefore be the preferred other option based on the quantitative assessment

Moving to the qualitative assessment, the Albert Street light rail shuttle was the benchmark for the comparison. The summary of the qualitative assessment is shown in Table 4-8.


The assessment of elevated rail is consistent with the quantitative assessment and it is the worst performing option overall. It does however have some benefit with regards to city centre access and is much cheaper than a light rail network. The Albert Street and Queen Street shuttles performs similarly, but as with the earlier options, the use of Queen Street as a major transport corridor has a negative impact on amenity in the city centre.

The light rail network and PRT come out similar in the qualitative assessment. However, PRT really represents a mobility option, rather than one focused on access to the city centre. Implementing PRT as a means of access to the city centre from a rail station introduces many problems. Primarily this is related to the large delays and poor level of service in transferring up to 700 people from a train to 4 person PRT pods which could potentially take up to 30 mins per train. The reality of trying to facilitate this enforced transfer would be unfeasible.




This meant that a light rail network was the preferred ‘other’ option that could be developed further for the short list. However, as with PRT, there are some constraints with introducing a new mode which were discussed at the workshop. These included:

Bus to light rail interchange is required This interchange is not a capacity problem as it is with PRT Brings another mode of travel into the city centre Takes significant dedicated road space Requires a high level of demand to justify, as a frequent service is required to make it an

attractive option which is not forecast until much closer to 2041. The last point was the critical consideration in the decision to progress with a light rail network as an option. It would achieve the overall aim, but it would be extremely difficult to justify and implement in the short to medium term which is the focus of the CCFAS. It was agreed that no ‘other’ option would warrant further investigation in the context of the CCFAS, but a move to light rail in certain corridors could be beneficial at some stage in the more distant future.

4.2.6 Regional approaches Along with the city centre improvements identified in the options that will form the short list, the deficiency analysis identified four key regional corridors with significant public transport (bus) demand. These were:

Great North Road (from Pt Chevalier) where the majority of West and Norwest Auckland buses join together and travel to the city centre through Grey Lynn

Ellerslie Panmure Highway / Great South Road (from Panmure) where large demand from East Auckland (Pakuranga, Botany, Howick) travels towards the city centre

Dominion Road / Mt Eden Road corridor through the centre of the Auckland isthmus Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB) for bus travel from the North Shore

With the introduction of the Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing in the reference case in approximately 2031, the AHB is forecast to have a dedicated bus facility, which will essentially extend the Northern Busway to the city centre and cater for the bulk of the forecast demand. As such, nothing additional was proposed as part of the options for the CCFAS.

Along the other three corridors, some form of bus priority measure would be warranted assuming the levels of demand that are forecast.

Implementing a full segregated facility is largely impractical through the intensely urban and residential corridors identified above, but some provision of dedicated bus lanes and off lane stops to cater for these volumes would be envisaged to allow efficient access to the city centre. This would still come at significant cost which is largely attributable to the requirement to acquire a high number of properties along the corridor.

These approach corridor treatments would be combined with a surface or underground bus option to make better use of the improvements proposed in the city centre. Since the CCFAS




relates to city centre access, these improvements wider out should be considered and in particular with regard to providing a robust comparison with CRL.

Through additional discussion at the long list workshop, it was agreed to take forward the surface and underground bus options both with and without these regional approach corridor treatments.

4.3 Short list option summary Through the two long list option evaluation workshops and revising the evaluation approach to incorporate both quantitative and qualitative assessments, the options to take forward to the short list for more detailed modelling and assessment were agreed by all stakeholders.

4.4 Underground rail It was agreed that the CRL option being developed by AT will be the underground rail option that is assessed as part of the short list.

4.5 Surface bus option It was agreed that Option 2b, which introduces enhanced bus priority on Wellesley Street, Symonds Street (between Wellesley Street and Grafton Bridge) and Albert / Vincent Streets would be developed further as the preferred surface bus option for the short list.

A version of this option that includes the regional approach corridors was also agreed to be incorporated at the short list stage of the study.

4.6 Underground bus option It was agreed that the underground bus tunnel along the Wellesley Street alignment with enhanced bus priority on Symonds Street between Wellesley Street and Grafton Bridge along with surface improvements on Albert / Vincent Streets would be developed further as the preferred underground bus option for the short list.

A version of this option that includes the regional approach corridors was also agreed to be incorporated at the short list stage of the study.

4.7 Other option It was agreed that no ‘other’ option would warrant further investigation in the context of the CCFAS, but could beneficial at some stage in the more distant future.



Appendix F Short list options working paper

Working Paper

Date 4 October 2012

Project No ZB01280

Subject Short List Options


I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 1

1. Introduction Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) has been appointed by Auckland Transport (AT) to undertake the City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS). This working paper details the refinement of the options that will be assessed at the short list stage.

2. Short list options Through the long list evaluation procedure to identify the options to take forward to the short list, options under the following headline transport initiatives have been developed:

Underground rail; Surface bus; and Underground bus.

No other option was deemed suitable to take forward to the short list stage.

Each of these options is detailed in the following sections.

3. Underground rail The intention for the underground rail option is to use the City Rail Link (CRL) option and supporting bus networks developed by MRC (PTNP 2012). This option is considered to be the optimal option due to the significant work done by others to develop it. This includes the 2022 version of the PTNP 2012 bus operations when CRL is operational. Auckland Transport has confirmed that ‘Train Plan 1 (modified October 2012)’ is the correct version of the CRL to be modelled. The rail network with CRL in place is shown below in Figure 3-1.

Short List Options Working Paper 4 October 2012



Figure 3-1 CRL train network

4. Surface bus The surface bus option is based on a high level of bus priority in the city centre, by providing the following:

Dedicated bus lane along the defined bus corridors Off-line bus stops (either indented or in a second bus lane) Three bus bays provided at each stop location (approximately 60-75m required when in

lane or 90-105m required when indented) Skip stop operation in the city centre Dependent bus stop operation at each stop location Fixed timings at signalised intersections to allow buses to travel through on a ‘green

wave’ Improved service frequency over the reference case to better cater for forecast demand Use of high capacity (double-decker or articulated) buses on key services

This has limitations due to longer boarding and alighting times, longer stop lengths, infrastructure costs – particularly for articulated buses and height issues (verandas, overhangs) for double decker buses. Hence large capacity buses are not a solution, but use on some routes may be warranted at a cost.

Optional approach corridor treatments Off board ticketing in the peak hours Integrated ticketing and fares




For the purposes of this paper and going forward, the surface bus option which includes treatment within the city centre only will be referred to as Option SB1. The surface bus option that treats the city centre and the identified approach corridors will be referred to as Option SB2.

4.1 Option SB1 Option SB1 provides high levels of bus priority through the city centre. The corridors within the city centre that are optimised for bus traffic are:

southern Symonds Street (Grafton Bridge to Wellesley Street) Wellesley Street Albert Street Fanshawe Street (current bus stops require lengthening)

The use of full time bus lanes with indented bus stops or double bus lanes sees the capacity for buses on the identified bus corridors increase significantly while the general traffic capacity decreases. Bus priority and pre-emption at signalised intersections would be implemented to improve the flow of buses through the city centre. Traffic signal phasing will be on fixed signal timings for all approaches with the timing determined by the combination of bus travel and average stop dwell time so that buses in normal operation should get close to a “green wave” through signalised intersections. Within the city centre, this will have negative impacts on general traffic particularly on the main general traffic routes of Nelson and Hobson Streets where they cross the Wellesley Street bus corridor.

Symonds Street, from Grafton Bridge to Wellesley Street is upgraded from existing to provide a dedicated bus lane with off line or indented stops in both directions to cater for the high bus demands that access Wellesley Street. The stops on Symonds Street are also rationalised to allow skip stop operation for buses on different routes. Wellesley Street becomes the major east-west route, requiring double bus lanes in both directions from Symonds Street to Hobson Street.

Vincent Street and Albert Street becomes the main north-south bus route with double bus lanes along the entire length in both directions. Local access is maintained to service the properties on these streets. A single bus lane runs the length of Queen Street in both directions to cater for the city link services. This would allow general traffic to still use Queen Street.

The bus routes developed as part of the 2016 version of the PTNP 2012 generally fit well with Option SB1 and SB2 and no routes have been identified that would benefit significantly from re-routing. Certain routes have been identified as warranting the use of high capacity (double decker or articulated) buses as follows:

F7 – Onehunga to Takapuna F8 – Mt Eden Road F9A – Dominion Road (from New Lynn) F9B – Dominion Road (from Lynfield)




F12 – from Pakuranga F18 – Northern Express

It is understood that a number of high capacity buses are to be trialled in 2013 on the Northern Express with a capacity of approximately 90 passengers. For the purposes of the CCFAS, a similar bus is envisaged to be implemented on the corridors above; this may be double-decker buses or articulated buses. The type of bus lane and speeds on them are assumed to be similar to those in use for the central connector, typically 4.5m ; higher quality than the narrower types on Dominion Road for example. Where the bus lanes pass a stop, they narrow to 3.5m to reduce the overall required road space.

Figure 4-1 indicates the surface bus operation and improvement in the city centre for the AM period where the focus is on the inbound services.

Figure 4-1 Surface bus option (indicating inbound services)





The heaviest bus flows are on the portion of Symonds Street between Grafton Bridge and Wellesley Street, where the services from Symonds Street and Grafton Bridge come together.

4.1.1 Skip stop operation In order to cater for these high bus volumes, skip stop operation is required along the Symonds Street / Wellesley Street corridor. The buses have been identified according to whether they enter via Grafton Bridge or Symonds Street and their corresponding stops along the corridor are shown in Figure 4-2.

Figure 4-2 Skip stop operation for inbound Symonds St / Wellesley St buses

Whilst it is preferable to have bus stops located after signalised intersections, due to the close spacing of intersections within the city centre, some of the bus stops are situated before the intersections. Given the available block lengths and length of kerbside space required for the bus stops, this is unfortunately unavoidable. The signal pre-emption to allow swift bus

Stops for Symonds Street buses

Stops for Grafton Bridge buses




progression through the corridor should mean that significant operational delays can be avoided or minimized.

4.1.2 Wellesley Street / Symonds Street intersection The intersection of Wellesley Street and Symonds Street also requires significant works to reconfigure it to cater for the high bus volumes as well as general traffic to and from the motorway on Wellesley Street which passes under Symonds Street.

Figure 4-3 shows the indicative arrangement of vehicle flows at and near the intersection.

Figure 4-3 Reconfiguration of Symonds Street / Wellesley Street

A single lane in each direction on Wellesley Street is maintained for general traffic with the following restrictions:

No access to Princes Street from Wellesley Street for general traffic As is currently the case, all general traffic on Wellesley Street from Grafton Gully

(passing under Symonds Street) must turn into Mayoral Drive or Kitchener St (single lane for each destination)

No access from Princes Street to Wellesley Street in either direction for general traffic Ramp from Wellesley Street to Symonds Street is widened and made two way for buses

General traffic (from Grafton / M’way)

General traffic (to Grafton / M’way)

Bus inbound

Bus outbound

Revised intersection operation Inbound buses on new structure (retained

ramp) Realign general traffic No access for general traffic to/from

Princes Street




Gated bus signals at the intersection of Wellesley / Mayoral / Kitchener are installed to maintain turning movements and provide safe and efficient movement for buses

The existing ramp up from Wellesley Street to Symonds Street is widened, and made two way for buses. The intersection at the top is reconfigured to allow all movements and general traffic access to and from Princes Street is removed. Revisions to the signals at Wellesley / Mayoral / Kitchener are installed to allow for the bus only movements through the intersection, which allow the inbound buses to shift to the correct side of Wellesley Street.

Heading away from the city centre, a general traffic lane from Mayoral Drive is maintained in the centre of the road to allow vehicles to access the motorway ramps in Grafton Gully. A dedicated kerbside bus lane is provided which allows buses to turn up Princes Street or carry on up to Symonds Street by reconstructing the kerbs and traffic islands in this area.

Figure 4-4 shows the intended layout for operation under Option SB1 and SB2 with general traffic indicated by the yellow arrows and bus traffic indicated by the red arrows. Wellesley Street is approximately 21m wide, so can accommodate the 5-6 required lanes with minimal works required in this area other than re-marking.

Figure 4-4 Revised Wellesley Street

General traffic

Bus traffic




4.1.3 Service frequency revisions Through the work carried out in the deficiency analysis for CCFAS, the majority of the bus service frequencies were found to be insufficient to cater for the demand on them. This resulted in most services having unrealistically high patronage.

Through the introduction of the crowding function within APT, the patronage levels are ‘capped’ at the available capacity on each service which presents a more realistic level of patronage on the buses.

There is scope to increase the reference case frequencies to higher levels to provide more capacity and hence allow more of that demand onto the services.

However, the critical component to defining the level of service provision is the ability of the surface streets to cope with the numbers of buses that are provided.

The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (2nd Edition) (TCQSM), published by the Transportation Research Board, USA has been used to inform the upper limit of buses that could be catered on the city centre streets. Option SB1 and SB2 in the city centre relate to Type 3 bus stops, where a dedicated overtaking lane for buses is provided at bus stops (either indented bus stops, or two bus lanes).

A number of assumptions have been made in order to calculate the theoretical number of buses that could be catered for in the city centre:

Three loading areas have been assumed at each stop giving an effective loading area of 2.65 loading areas (80% efficiency)

Off-line loading areas are provided at all stops; being either indented which requires a longer length of kerbside space (90m) or in a separate lane which requires a shorter kerbside length (60m)

Default of 60% for the coefficient of variation in dwell time Default of 10% acceptable failure rate Skip stop impedance factor, fk , = 0.88 (using typical arrivals for Type 3 bus lanes) Average dwell time of 30 seconds. With double decker buses assumed on some routes,

certain buses will likely dwell longer, but others will dwell for shorter times. Signalised intersection g/C = 0.45 (default) Default clearance time of 10 seconds

Using Equation 4-6 from the TCQSM, this give a capacity of 35 buses / hour per loading area. Multiplying this by the effective loading areas (2.65), and skip stop impedance factor (0.88) it gives a capacity of 82 buses per hour per stop. By operating an alternating skip stop every 2nd stop pattern, this gives an approximate capacity of 164 buses / hour / direction.




As identified earlier, the busiest point on the city centre streets is Symonds Street between Grafton Bridge and Wellesley Street, meaning this section of the network will be constrained to approximately 160 buses / hour / direction.

In order to calculate the service frequencies for Option SB1 and SB2, demands from the unconstrained reference case (no crowding function) in APT have been used along with the route plans for the PTNP 2012. This has allowed us to calculate the buses that travel along various sections of the city centre road network and subsequently define the frequencies for each individual service that can therefore be accommodated.

The service frequencies and corresponding headways for each service are included in the attached spreadsheet “Option SB and UB Headways.xlsx”. The resulting numbers of buses on city streets are shown in Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6.


Note that the 80 inbound buses all travel straight through on Symonds Street, whilst the 70 crossing Grafton Bridge split, with a small number travelling straight onto Karangahape Road. This leads to the sum of those two routes (150) not equalling the downstream flow on Symonds Street (140). This is the case in all years and options.





4.2 Option SB2 Building on Option SB1, Option SB2 includes treatment to three key approaches to the city centre as shown in Figure 4-7. They are:

Great North Road (from Pt Chevalier) Dominion Road (from SH20 at Mt Roskill) Ellerslie-Panmure Highway and Great South Road (from Panmure)




Figure 4-7 Identified approach corridors for improvements

A 4.5m wide bus lane is added in both directions on these sections with indented (off-line) bus stops to allow through buses to pass stopped buses without having to enter congested general traffic lanes. In addition, at signalised intersections, bus lanes are continued through the intersection to provide an improved level of service. Left turning vehicles will be permitted to enter the bus lane 50m from the intersection, in line with current operation so that turning movements for general traffic are maintained.

Significant widening and property purchase is required along these three corridors to achieve a high level of bus service, frequency and reliability.

Figure 4-8 to Figure 4-10 highlight the concept on Ellerslie-Panmure Highway with an indication of the land take required along a short stretch as well as concept cross sections on the route. This corridor would then carry on through Ellerslie town centre and over the motorway on a duplicate / new over bridge. From there, Main Highway would be widened significantly before the route turns onto Great South Road, where localised widening at bus stop locations would be required.

Through Ellerslie town centre, heritage and consent issues may mean that a lower provision of service may be all that is possible. This may limit the ability to provide indented bus stops along this section without demolishing one side of the road. On line bus stops may prove to the only feasible solution for this section of the corridor. The same issue occurs at the Market Road shops, though there are more options for widening and redevelopment at this location as it is not a traditional town centre and the buildings are not of a heritage nature.




Two lanes for general traffic are maintained on Ellerslie-Panmure Highway with a single lane for general traffic on Main Highway.

On Great South Road from Harp of Erin to Greenlane Road, two general traffic lanes are maintained. From Greenlane Road to Broadway, a single general traffic lane is maintained as currently exists.

An approximate total of 160 properties are required along this corridor.

The bus lanes along the corridor would be envisaged to operate from 7am – 10pm, with those through the town centre at Ellerslie being peak operation only (inbound 7am-9am, outbound 4pm-6pm) to allow kerbside parking within the town centre.

Figure 4-8 Indicative land impacts (Ellerslie-Panmure Highway)

Existing corridor width, approx 16m

Required corridor width, approx 28-33m




Figure 4-9 Indicative cross section on EPH

This provides a shared bus / cycle lane of 4.5m width, 3.5m wide traffic lanes, a 2.5m flush median for turning vehicles and allows for a footpath width of 1.5m which is the minimum width that could be acceptable.

Figure 4-10 Indicative cross section at bus stops on EPH

This cross section provides a 3.5m wide bus stop, a 3.5m shared bus / cycle lane to allow non stopping buses to pass stopped buses, 3.5m wide traffic lanes and 2.5m wide footpaths to incorporate the bus shelters. No flush median is provided in the cross section to reduce the corridor width. This would mean that any turning vehicles in the vicinity of the bus stops will block the traffic lanes.

Figure 4-11 to Figure 4-13 highlight the concept on Dominion Road with an indication of the land take required along a short stretch as well as concept cross sections on the route. This corridor would then carry on through all the local town centres (Mt Roskill, Balmoral and Valley Road) where heritage and consent issues may mean that a lower provision of service is all that could be provided, similar to Ellerslie town centre. From there, the route switches to View Road and then Mt Eden Road, where localised widening at bus stop locations would be required along with some property purchase and the removal of on street car parking.

Through the town centres at Mt Roskill, Balmoral and Valley Road, indented bus stops are unlikely to be able to be provided due to constraints on the available road corridor width, without demolishing one side of the road. In these areas, bus stop locations may be shifted to wider sections of road. However, in some cases this will not be possible and on line bus stops may be the only feasible solution.




A single lane for general traffic is maintained along the Dominion Road / View Road / Mt Eden Road route.

An approximate total of 240 properties are required along this corridor.

Bus lanes are envisaged to operate 24 hours to provide a dedicated public transport option on this congested corridor.

Figure 4-11 Indicative land impacts (Dominion Road)

Existing corridor width, approx 18m

Required corridor width, approx 22-26m




Figure 4-12 Indicative cross section on Dominion Road

This provides a shared bus / cycle lane of 4.5m width, 3.5m wide traffic lanes, a 2.5m flush median for turning vehicles and allows for a footpath width of 1.5m which is the minimum width that could be acceptable.

Figure 4-13 Indicative cross section at bus stops on Dominion Road

This cross section provides a 3.5m wide bus stop, a 3.5m shared bus / cycle lane to allow non stopping buses to pass stopped buses, 3.5m wide traffic lanes and 2.5m wide footpaths to incorporate the bus shelters. No flush median is provided in the cross section to reduce the corridor width. This would mean that any turning vehicles in the vicinity of the bus stops will block the traffic lanes.

The Great North Road corridor is generally wide enough to accommodate this high level of bus treatment within the existing road reserve. There may be some localised widening identified during a detailed design phase that is required along the route. Through the removal of general traffic lanes and on street car parking, the approach treatment can generally be accommodated without extensive property purchase.

A single general traffic lane is maintained in each direction along the route, with some small areas of localised widening including widening and reconfiguring slightly the intersection with St Lukes Road. Once Karangahape Road is reached, a bus lane is provided with a single general traffic lane.

The bus lanes in the Great North Road corridor are envisaged to operate from 7am-10pm.




5. Underground bus The underground bus option is based on a high level of bus priority in the city centre, by providing the following:

Dedicated bus tunnel along the defined bus corridors Off-line platforms for bus stations in the tunnel Three bus bays provided at each station location (approximately 90-105m required) Skip stop operation on Symonds Street between Grafton Bridge and the tunnel portal on

Wellesley Street Dependant bus stop operation at each stop location Buses using the tunnel no longer interact with signalised intersections Improved service frequency over the reference case to better cater for forecast demand Use of high capacity (double-decker or articulated) buses on key services Optional approach corridor treatments Off board ticketing in the peak hours Integrated ticketing and fares

For the purposes of this paper and going forward, the underground bus option which includes treatment within the city centre only will be referred to as Option UB1. The underground bus option that treats the city centre and the identified approach corridors will be referred to as Option UB2.

Note that the bus tunnel does not remove all the bus services from Wellesley Street, as some are still required to use the surface streets due to the capacity constraint within the tunnel itself.

5.1 Option UB1 As with Options SB1 and SB2, Symonds Street, from Grafton Bridge to Wellesley Street is upgraded to a dedicated bus lane with off line or indented stops in both directions to cater for the high bus demands that access Wellesley Street. Wellesley Street becomes the major east-west route, requiring double bus lanes in both directions from Symonds Street to Hobson Street.

The treatment on Vincent Street and Albert Street is the same as in Options SB1 and SB2 as it still retains the function of the main north-south bus route through the city centre.

The bus routes developed as part of the 2016 version of the PTNP 2012 generally fit well with Option UB1 and UB2 and no routes have been identified that would benefit significantly from re-routing. Certain routes have been identified as warranting the use of high capacity (double decker or articulated) buses as follows:

F7 – Onehunge to Takapuna F8 – Mt Eden Road F9A – Dominion Road (from New Lynn) F9B – Dominion Road (from Lynfield)




F12 – from Pakuranga F18 – Northern Express

It is understood that high capacity buses are to be trialled in 2013 on the Northern Express with a capacity of approximately 90 passengers. For the purposes of the CCFAS, a similar bus is envisaged to be implemented on the corridors above. Figure 5-1 shows the indicative layout of the Wellesley Street tunnel.

Figure 5-1 Option 4f – Wellesley Street tunnel

There would be stations at Aotea (near the intersection of Elliot and Wellesley Streets) catering for high quality interchanges, on the western side of the city centre near Sale Street and also one near Wynyard Quarter between Daldy and Halsey Streets. A further station would link in with the education precinct near the top of Wellesley Street providing access to the universities.

Bus tunnel station:

High quality interchange:

Tunnel

Single bus lane




Symonds Street maintains a dedicated bus lane in each direction between Grafton Bridge and Wellesley Street to allow buses right of way to the tunnel. The skip stop operation proposed for Options SB1 and SB2 also applies to this section of the city centre. At the Fanshawe Street end, buses enter and exit the tunnel to the north of Fanshawe Street between Beaumont and Halsey Streets.

The tunnel is a single lane in each direction, expanding at the stations to allow buses to stop at the platform while the ‘through’ lane can still be used for buses travelling through. This makes the stations effectively two lanes in each direction. At the Aotea (Albert St) interchange there is the facility for buses to turn around, allowing them to leave via the way that they have entered.

The services from the 2016 version of the PTNP 2012 that would use the bus tunnel are shown in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1 Bus services using the tunnel

Bus routes in using the tunnel

P10 P11 P16 P28 P32 F9 F9A F9B F10 F10A

F11

5.1.1 Service frequency revisions Through the work carried out in the deficiency analysis for CCFAS, the majority of the bus service frequencies were found to be insufficient to cater for the demand on them. This resulted in most services having unrealistically high patronage.

In order to calculate the service frequencies for Option SB1 and SB2, demands from the unconstrained reference case (no crowding function) in APT have been used along with the route plans for the PTNP 2012. This has allowed us to calculate the buses that travel along various sections of the city centre road network and subsequently define the frequencies for each individual service that can therefore be accommodated.

The service frequencies and corresponding headways for each service are included in the attached spreadsheet “Option SB and UB Headways.xlsx”. In 2021, there are approximately 116 buses / hour using the tunnel and this volume increases to 131 buses / hour in 2041.

The buses on city streets and in the tunnel are shown in Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3.





5.1.2 Bus tunnel operational characteristics (Options UB1 and UB2) An average speed of 50kph can be assumed for the buses in the tunnel, due to the lack of interaction with other vehicles, side friction and intersections.

With the buses underground for up to approximately 1800m, ventilation of the tunnel will be critical, adding to the cost of this option. This mitigates the requirement for large number of electric or hybrid buses.

5.2 Option UB2 This variant to the underground bus option take Option UB1 and adds the approach treatments on the regional corridors previously defined for Option SB2.




6. Options summary Underground rail:

Option CRL: Use the CRL option currently confirmed by AT which includes the October 2012 revision to ‘Train Plan 1’.

Surface bus:

Enhanced bus operation in the city centre

Option SB1 – dedicated bus on Albert and Wellesley Streets

Enhanced bus operation in the city centre with approach corridor treatments

Option SB2 – dedicated bus on Albert and Wellesley Streets with approach corridor treatments

Underground bus:

City centre bus tunnel only

Option UB1 – Wellesley Street tunnel only

City centre bus tunnel with approach corridor treatments

Option UB2 – Wellesley Street tunnel with approach corridor treatments

7. Next steps The next steps in the process are:

Model the expanded shortlist in ART3 and APT for evaluation



Appendix G Evaluation framework

CCFAS Evaluation Feedback

Objective Description

CBD Access Increasing the overall level of access to the CBD, while also taking into acount wider network effects

Regional Movement Allowing the wider effects of any transport option to be assessed

Economic Performance

Improving the overall economic performance of the Auckland CBD and improving the potential for economic development

Environment and Amenity Impacts

Reducing environmental impacts, greenhouse gases, energy use, impacts on amenity

Implementation Assessing the construction, costs and overall implementation of a particular transport option

Health and Safety Reducing the number of crashes, injuries, exposure to harmful emisisons and exposure to harm

Objective Reference Criteria Measure Source Comment

1.01The extent to which the option increases PT patronage to/from the CBD

PT patronage for trips to/from CBD in the AM/IP/PM period

Transport model

1.02The extent to which the option reduces private vehicles to/from the CBD

Private vehicle km for trips to/from CBD in the AM/IP/PM period

Transport model

1.03 The extent to which the option reduces congestion within the CBDCongested VKT within the CBD cordon in the AM/IP/PM period

Transport model

1.04 The extent to which the option affects PT travel times to/from the CBDTravel times on key PT routes to/from the CBD in the AM/IP/PM period

Transport model

1.05The extent to which the option affects private vehicle travel times to/from the CBD

Travel times on key routes to/from the CBD in the AM/IP/PM period

Transport model

1.06 The extent to which the option reduces bus congestion on key routesBus km travelled on congested routes in the AM/IP/PM period

Transport model

1.07 The extent to which the option reduces in‐vehicle bus crowding Peak period demand and capacity (bus) Transport model Crowding to be incorporated into model

1.08 The extent to which the option reduces in‐vehicle rail crowding Peak period demand and capacity (rail) Transport model Crowding to be incorporated into model

1.09 The extent to which the option adds useful additional capacityVolume/capacity at key screenlines for PT passengers and private vehicles

Transport model

1.10The extent to which the option contributes to a well connected and accessible Auckland (Auckland Plan Objective)

Qaulitative assessment, further input needed from Auckland Council

Transport model

2.01The extent to which the option increases PT patronage on the overall network

Total PT patronage in the AM/IP/PM period Transport model

2.02The extent to which the option reduces private vehicles on the overall network

Network wide private vehicle km in the AM/IP/PM period

Transport model

2.03 The extent to which the option reduces congestion on the networkCongested VKT on the network in the AM/IP/PM period

Transport model

2.04The extent to which the option integrates with the overall transport network planning and delivery beyond the CBD

Qualitative assessment

2.05The extent to which the option improves the resilience of the transport network (eg to natural disasters, changing trends)


3.01The extent to which the option supports national productivity growth by encouraging job location in the CBD

Qualitative assessment (how the option links job growth areas in/around the CBD)

3.02The extent to which the option allows efficient access to employment with the CBD

Travel time to/from key residential areas to/from the CBD

Transport model

3.03The extent to which the option contributes to an Auckland of prosperity and opportunity (Auckland Plan Objective)

Qualitative assessment, further input needed from Auckland Council

3.04The extent to which the option increases development value within the CBD (consistent with Auckland Plan objectives for the City Centre)

Qualitative assessment (potential for increased plot density)

3.05The extent to which the option reduces travel times on the strategic freight network

Travel times on defined strategic freight network

Transport model

4.01The extent to which the option removes traffic (thereby improving local amenity) of key CBD areas

Number of vehicles on these key roads in CBD Transport model

4.02The extent to which the option takes up physical space (affecting local amenity) in the CBD

Qualitative assessment of physical impacts of the option

4.03The extent to which the option supports high quality residential development in the CBD


4.04The extent to which the option contributes to urban image, street quality and vitality


4.05 The extent to which the option reduces greenhouse gas emissions Emitting vehicle VKT on the network Transport model

4.06 The extent to which the option requires land take Qualitative mapping assessment GIS5.01 The length of time required to construct the option Qualitative assessment5.02 The difficulty of construction of the option Qualitative assessment

5.03The degree of ease with which the option could be consented (planning requirements)


5.04 The impact of construction on network operations Qualitative assessment5.05 The ability of the option to be constructed in stages Qualitative assessment

5.06 The ongoing maintenacne and operational costs of the optionQuantitative assessment of the costs at long list stage largely based on existing information

6.01 The extent to which the option supports active modes in the CBDPT patronage to/from CBD and private vehicle VKT reduction within the CBD cordon

Transport model

6.02 The extent to which the option improves personal safety in the CBDRoad vehicle VKT in the CBD cordon (ie bus and private vehicles on non segregated facilities (busway)) (exposure to harm)

Transport model

6.03 The extent to which the option reduces harmful emissions in the CBD Emitting vehicle VKT in the CBD cordon Transport model

Cost 7.01 The capital cost of the optionQuantitative assessment of the costs at long list stage largely based on existing information



Health and Safety

Regional Movement

CBD Access

Implementation

Objective Reference Criteria

Measure

1.01The extent to which the option increases PT patronage to the CBD

PT patronage for trips to CBD in the AM period

02011 (obs): 35,000

2021: 52,7002041: 67,600

++

2021: + 4,600 ( + 9%)2041: + 9,100 (+13%)

Largest ability to cope with growth into the future

+2021: + 4,200 (+8%)2041: + 6,100 (+9%)

Copes well to 2021, then increase is limited+

2021: + 4,200 (+8%)2041: + 6,200 (+9%)


2021: + 2,900 (+6%)2041: + 4,600 (+7%)

Lower increases compared to SB1, due to coverage within city centre

+2021: + 3,000 (+6%)2041: + 4,700 (+7%)

Marginally better than UB1, but not significant

1.02The extent to which the option reduces private vehicle trips to the CBD

Private vehicle trips to CBD in the AM period

0 2021: 43,5002041: 47,800 +

2021: ‐ 1,200 (‐3%)2041: ‐ 2,500 (‐5%)

Largest ability to remove private vehicle trips into the future

+

2021: ‐ 1,100 (‐3%)2041: ‐ 1,700 (‐3%)

Good reduction in private vehicle trips in both years

+

2021: ‐ 1,200 (‐3%)2041: ‐ 1,700 (‐4%)

Good reduction in private vehicle trips in both years

+

2021: ‐ 800 (‐2%)2041: ‐ 1,200 (‐3%)

Modest reduction in private vehicle trips in both years

+

2021: ‐ 800 (‐2%)2041: ‐ 1,200 (‐3%)

Modest reduction in private vehicle trips in both years

1.03The extent to which the option reduces congestion within the CBD

Congested VKT (LOS E & F) within the CBD cordon in the AM period

0

2021: 41.2% cong. VKT, 13kph, 5,000hrs q

2041: 44.4% cong. VKT, 11kph, 8,100hrs q +

2021: 40.6% cong. VKT, 15kph, 3,300hrs q2041: 43.7% cong. VKT, 13kph, 3,500hrs qNo change in cong. VKT, increase speed,

reduction in queuing

‐‐

2021: 43.4% cong. VKT, 11kph, 7,200hrs q2041: 48.1% cong. VKT, 10kph, 9,100hrs qIncr in congestion, reduction in speed and

increased queuing

‐‐

2021: 43.4% cong. VKT, 11kph, 7,200hrs q2041: 48.1% cong. VKT, 10kph, 9,100hrs qIncr in congestion, reduction in speed and

increased queuing

‐

2021: 38.2%2041: 49.3%

Sligth reduction 2021, large increase in congested VKT in 2041

‐

2021: 40.2%2041: 48.4%

Sligth reduction 2021, large increase in congested VKT in 2041

1.04The extent to which the option affects PT travel times to the CBD

Weighted PT travel times from sectors to the CBD in the AM period

0 +

North: No effectWest: 7min reduction (12%)

Isthmus: 1‐2min reduction (up to 10%)South/East: 9min reduction (13%)

++

North: 9min reduction (20%)West: 5min reduction (8%)

Isthmus: 3‐4min reduction (10%)South/East: 3‐4min reduction (5%)

++

North: 9min reduction (20%)West: 5min reduction (8%)


++

North: 9min reduction (20%)West: 2‐3min reduction (5%)


++

North: 9min reduction (20%)West: 2‐3min reduction (5%)


1.05The extent to which the option affects private vehicle travel times to the CBD

Weighted private vehicle travel times from sectors to the CBD in the AM period

0 0

ART3 is largely insensitive, by 2041, 2‐5min reductions from most origins (up to 10%). No

effect from North.SATURN shows slight improvement in speed within City Centre ‐ ie no effect on gen. traffic

‐‐

ART3 is largely insensitive, by 2041, 3‐4min reductions from North (10‐15%), no effect on

other origins.SATURN shows large reduction in speed within

City Centre ‐ gen. Traffic performance is degraded severely through road reallocation.

‐‐ As for SB1. Approaches have no general traffic effect. ‐

ART3 is largely insensitive, by 2041, 3‐4min reductions from North (10‐15%), no effect on

other origins.SATURN shows reduction in speed within City Centre ‐ gen. Traffic performance is degraded through road reallocation, but Wellesley St

remains open. Not as bad as SB1.

‐ As for UB1. Approaches have no general traffic effect.

1.06The extent to which the option improves journey time reliability on public transport

Qualitative assessment 0

Significant improvements to rail from present due to electrification and other network improvements. Bus reliability to reduce because of additional buses without supporting

infrastructure

++

Significantly improves rail reliability by removing the need to trun trains at Britomart or

reverse trains at Newmarket.Reduces the number of buses on key routes particularly through the CBD where they

interract

+

Improved bus facilities on Wellersley and Albert Streets means that buses can pass each other reducing conflicts in bus lanes. However, there

is a higher number of buses in the CBD.

++As for SB1 however regioal approach

treatments provide for passing opportunites and better level of service

+ Separates Wellersley St buses in bus tunnel. ++As for SB2 however regioal approach

treatments provide for passing opportunites and better level od service

1.07The extent to which the option reduces in‐vehicle bus crowding

Bus passenger kilometres travelled on services <80% capacity, 80 – 100% capacity and >100% capacity.

02021: 61% / 17% / 21%2041: 55% / 13% / 32% +

2021: 68% / 11% / 21%2041: 54% / 16% / 30%

Shift to less congested travel in 2021, by 2041, similar to ref case

+

2021: 66% / 11% / 22%2041: 55% / 14% / 32%


+

2021: 66% / 12% / 22%2041: 54% / 15% / 32%


+

2021: 67% / 14% / 19%2041: 57% / 11% / 31%


+

2021: 67% / 14% / 19%2041: 57% / 12% / 31%


1.08The extent to which the option reduces in‐vehicle rail crowding

Rail passenger kilometres travelled on services <80% capacity, 80 – 100% capacity, 100 – 120% capacity and >120% capacity.

0 2021, no rail is > 80%2041, 6% of rail is > 80% + All rail travel is < 80% v/c in both years 0 Negligible difference in 2041 to the ref case 0 Negligible difference in 2041 to the ref case 0 Negligible difference in 2041 to the ref case 0 Negligible difference in 2041 to the ref case

1.09The extent to which the option adds useful additional capacity

Volume/capacity at CBD screenline for PT and private vehicles

0 ++

Private veh: slight reduction in 2041.PT: signif additional rail capacity, 50% incr in rail demand (v/c reduces). Bus reduction in volume and capacity, marginal reduction in bus v/c.Enables significant expansion as required in

future

+

Private veh: slight reduction in 2041.PT: signif redcution in v/c from North Shore. On other routes, some slight reduciton in v/c ratio due to additonal service. Some routes, no

change.Capacity max's out with limited ability to

expand further

+ As for SB1 +

Private veh: slight reduction in 2041.PT: signif redcution in v/c from North Shore. On other routes, some slight reduciton in v/c ratio due to additonal service. Some routes, no

change.Capacity max's out with limited ability to

expand further due to constraints on approach to tunnel

+ As for UB1

1.10

The extent to which the option contributes to a well connected and accessible Auckland (Auckland Plan Objective)

Qaulitative assessment 0 +CRL improves access from W and S, small

improvement from Isthmus. Problem remains from N, E

+ SB improves access from N, small improvement from Isthmus. Problem remains from W, S, E + SB improves access from N, small improvement

from Isthmus. Problem remains from W, S, E + UB improves access from N, small improvement from Isthmus. Problem remains from W, S, E + UB improves access from N, small improvement

from Isthmus. Problem remains from W, S, E

2.01The extent to which the option increases PT patronage on the overall network

Total PT patronage in the AM period and passenger‐km (000's)

0

2021: 90,4002041: 120,600

2021: 311 (rail), 738 (bus), 38 (ferry)2041: 485 (rail), 971 (bus), 49 (ferry)

++

2021: + 6,600 (+7%)2041: + 12,400 (+10%)

Largest ability to cope with growth in PT trips into the future on the wider network. Large increase in additional trips over ref case.

2021: 416 (+34% R), 732 (‐1% B), 36 (‐5% F)2021: 702 (+45% R), 964 (‐1% B), 48 (‐2% F)

Large incr in rail‐pass‐km, small impact on other modes

+

2021: + 5,100 (+6%)2041: + 7,600 (+6%)

Noticeable network wide increases in PT trips. Modest increase from 2021 to 2041.

2021: 301 (‐3% R), 823 (+12% B), 34 (‐10% F)2021: 480 (‐1% R), 1083 (+11% B), 45 (‐8% F)Approx 12% incr in bus‐pass‐km, small impact

on other modes

+

2021: + 5,200 (+6%)2041: + 7,700 (+6%)

Noticeable network wide increases in PT trips. Modest increase from 2021 to 2041.

2021: 300(‐3% R), 825 (+12% B), 34 (‐11% F)2021: 479 (‐1% R), 1086 (+12% B), 45 (‐8% F)Approx 12% incr in bus‐pass‐km, small impact

on other modes

+

2021: + 3,700 (+4%)2041: + 5,800 (+4%)

Modest network wide increases in PT trips

2021: 304 (‐2% R), 804 (+9% B), 35 (‐9% F)2021: 482 (0% R), 1061 (+9% B), 46 (‐6% F)

Approx 9% incr in bus‐pass‐km, small impact on other modes

+

2021: + 3,800 (+4%)2041: + 6,000 (+5%)

Modest network wide increases in PT trips

2021: 303 (‐2% R), 806 (+9% B), 35 (‐9% F)2021: 481 (‐1% R), 1063 (+10% B), 46 (‐7% F)Approx 10% incr in bus‐pass‐km, small impact

on other modes

Surface Bus Underground BusUnderground RailBalanced Reference Case

B‐Ref CRL SB1 SB2

Short List Options

CBD Access

UB1 UB2

City Rail Link Surface Bus, city centre treatment onlySurface Bus, city centre and regional

approach treatmentsUnderground Bus, city centre treatment

onlyUnderground Bus, city centre and regional approach treatments



Measure


B‐Ref CRL SB1 SB2

Short List Options

UB1 UB2





2.02The extent to which the option reduces private vehicle travel on the overall network

Network wide private vehicle km in the AM period

02021: 5.5M km travelled2041: 6.7M km travelled +

2021: 25,000 km reduction (0.5%)2041: 60,000 km reduction (0.9%)

Largest reduction in 2041 across the network as CRL still has capacity to attract passengers from

car

+2021: 26,000 km reduction (0.5%)2041: 37,000 km reduction (0.6%) +

2021: 26,000 km reduction (0.5%)2041: 38,000 km reduction (0.6%) +

2021: 23,000 km reduction (0.4%)2041: 30,000 km reduction (0.4%) +

2021: 22,000 km reduction (0.4%)2041: 31,000 km reduction (0.5%)

2.03The extent to which the option reduces congestion on the network

Congested VKT (LOS E & F) on the network in the AM period

0 2021: 14%2041: 21% + Approx 7% reduction in congested VKT by 2041 ‐

congested VKT is 19% + Approx 3% reduction in congested VKT by 2041 ‐congested VKT is 20% + Approx 3% reduction in congested VKT by 2041 ‐

congested VKT is 20% + Approx 3% reduction in congested VKT by 2041 ‐congested VKT is 20% + Approx 3% reduction in congested VKT by 2041 ‐

congested VKT is 20%

2.04

The extent to which the option integrates with the overall transport network planning and delivery beyond the CBD

Qualitative assessment 0 ++

Improves travel flexibility and use of feeder buses allows shorter bus trips that are more

frequent improving service overall.Enables additional expansion and further upgrades into the future (future proofing).

0 No real difference to ref case outside city centre + Approach treatments improve travel reliability and service outside the city centre 0 No real difference to ref case outside city centre + Approach treatments improve travel reliability

and service outside the city centre

2.05

The extent to which the option improves the resilience of the transport network (eg to natural disasters, changing trends, adjusting to significant change)

Qualitative assessment 0 To be removed.? +Allows flexibility and significant capacity

improvements to be realised. Builds resilience. 2 ways to get into the city centre on rail.

0 No real difference to ref case, limited to improvements that can be made 0

No real difference to ref case, limited to improvements that can be made, aids approach

travel0

No real difference to ref case, improves city centre movement, but constrained by approach

capacity and bottlenecks0

No real difference to ref case, improves city centre movement, but constrained by approach

capacity and bottlenecks

3.01

The extent to which the option supports national productivity growth by encouraging job location in the CBD

Qualitative assessment (how the option links job growth areas in/around the CBD)

0 ++

CRL provides the highest level of access to the CBD. It also provides the ability to undertake master planning to allow development and regeneration to occur in a cohesive manner. Property developers like to develop near rail

station due to the permanence of the infrastructure. Aotea, K Rd and Newton regeneration would be catalysed by the

introduction of permanent rail infrastructure.

0

Less permanent infrastrucutre (tunnels, stations) associated with a surface bus option does not materially differ from the reference case with regards to both the desire and ability to regenerate and develop in a comprehensive manner. Whilst the additional access that the buses offer is going to increase access over the

reference case, this alone is unlikely to encourage significant job growth and location in

the CBD, Any increase is most likely to be modest when compared to the benefits

associated with CRL or UB.

0 As for SB1 +

Underground bus tunnel provides some additional capacity and through the associated planning and development that would occur as a result of implementing this infrastructure, a certain level of cohesion could be achieved to

stimulate economic development and subsequent job location, but unlikely to be to the extent offered by CRL and the multiple station locations associated with that.

+ As for UB1

3.02The extent to which the option allows efficient access to employment with the CBD

Combination of 1.01 and 1.02

0 + + + + +

3.03

The extent to which the option contributes to an Auckland of prosperity and opportunity (Auckland Plan Objective)

Qualitative assessment, further input needed from Auckland Council

0 ++

As for 3.01 and by increasing patronage on the rail network as a whole, the CRL option will encourage intensification and TOD style

development around existing stations on the wider network.

0 As for 3.01 ‐

As for SB1, and regional approaches to the city could seriously impinge on town centre

activitives, removing whole shop frontages to allow for corridor widenings. For example, at Ellerslie, where plot structures will not be big enough to allow for redevelopment on existing

sites. It is unlikely the same scale of development would be able to be provided in all locations where this occurs due to available land parcels and attractiveness of being located

on a bus corridor. Comprehensive TOD redevelopment plans would be required in

affected town centres to enable redevelopment, although it is possible that the same levels of amenity won't be able to be provided due to the barrier effect from

incorporating a wide bus corridor through a town centre.

+ As for 3.01 0

As for UB1, and regional approaches to the city could seriously impinge on town centre

activitives, removing whole shop frontages to allow for corridor widenings. For example, at Ellerslie, where plot structures will not be big enough to allow for redevelopment on existing

sites. It is unlikely the same scale of development would be able to be provided in all locations where this occurs due to available land parcels and attractiveness of being located

on a bus corridor. Comprehensive TOD redevelopment plans would be required in

affected town centres to enable redevelopment, although it is possible that the same levels of amenity won't be able to be provided due to the barrier effect from

incorporating a wide bus corridor through a town centre.

3.04

The extent to which the option increases development value within the CBD (consistent with Auckland Plan objectives for the City Centre)

Qualitative assessment (potential for increased plot density)

0 ++

As for 3.01 above.Increases in accessibility will increase land and development values will increase as more businesses are attracted to the city centre,

particularly around rail stations. Higher values can be leveraged further to provide high quality

mixed use development through comprehensive masterplanning.

Development focused around areas identified in the Auckland Plan for concentrated growth

and development.

0

increased access will increase land values, but less/no redevelopment opportunities provided without interchanges/nodes provided in the

CBD to encourage strategic reinvestment in the CBD comapred to CRL or UB. This option offers marginal impacts on development value when

compared to the reference case.

0 As for SB1 + As for 3.01 + As for UB1

Regional Movement



Measure


B‐Ref CRL SB1 SB2

Short List Options

UB1 UB2





3.05The extent to which the option reduces travel times on the strategic freight network

Average travel times on the defined strategic freight network into the CBD in the AM peak

0 0 No material difference from the reference case 0 No material difference from the reference case 0 No material difference from the reference case 0 No material difference from the reference case 0 No material difference from the reference case

4.02

The extent to which the option takes up physical space (affecting local amenity) in the CBD

Qualitative assessment of physical impacts of the option

0 0

No additional space required for infrastructure other than underground for station locations. Land surrounding proposed station locations provide the opportunity for intensification of

activities and improved amenity. Masterplanning and redevelopments of K Rd, Newton and Aotea provides the opportunity to

incorporate additional public realm improvements.

0

Generally within the road reserve, so taking up space is more of a reallocation. Double bus lanes are provided along the full length

Wellesley Street. Symonds Street will have some road space reallocated and additional space taken up by ramps leading to Wellesley Street. Large stop at the Grafton Bridge /

Symonds St intersection will require removal of some buildings. Additional space will be taken up by stop furniture and requirements for additional kerb space to operate skip stop operation. This will include the removal of loading, parking and taxi ranks. Additional

footway space will be required to accommodate passenger waiting as a result of the larger number of buses. There will be some reduction in space required at Britomart as a

result of underground interchange / marshalling facility which will return some surface space. Additional space will be required at Fanshawe St and University

Marshalling areas.

0 As for SB1 0

Land surrounding proposed station locations provide the opportunity for intensification of

activities and improved amenity. Masterplanning of station precincts provides

the opportunity to incorporate additional public realm improvements. Symonds Street will have road space reallocated and additional space taken up by ramps leading to Wellesley Street. Large stop at the Grafton Bridge / Symonds St intersection will require removal of some

buildings. Additional space will be taken up by stop furniture and requirements for additional kerb space to operate skip stop operation. This will include the removal of loading, parking and taxi ranks. Additional footway space will be

required to accommodate passenger waiting as a result of the larger number of buses. There will be some reduction in space required at

Britomart as a result of underground interchange / marshalling facility which will return some surface space. Additional space will be required at Fanshawe St and University

Marshalling areas.

0 As for UB1

4.03

The extent to which the option supports high quality mixed use development in the

CBD.

Qualitative assessment 0 ++

Land surrounding proposed station locations provide the opportunity for intensification of

activities and improved amenity.Intensification of development will encourage a

proportion of additional residential use, alongside CBD uses.

It also provides the ability to undertake master planning to allow development and

regeneration to occur in a cohesive manner. Aotea, K Rd and Newton regeneration would be catalysed by the introduction of permanent rail

infrastructure.

0

Less/no redevelopment opportunities provided without interchanges/nodes provided in the

CBD to encourage strategic reinvestment in the CBD. The lack of permanent infrastrucutre

associated with a surface bus option reduces both the desire and ability to regenerate and develop in a comprehensive manner. No significant different to the reference case.

0 As for SB1 +

Underground bus tunnel provides the permanent inrastructure and through the associated planning and development that would occur as a result of implementing this

infrastructure, a certain level of cohesion could be achieved in developing the surrounding

areas, but unlikely to be to the extent offered by CRL and the multiple station locations

associated with that.

+ As for UB1

4.04

The extent to which the option contributes to urban image, street quality and vitality

Qualitative assessment 0 +

In addition to benefits identified above, underground rail option provides the

opportunity to improve pedestrian routes, connectivity and travel times around proposed stations from increased footfall. However,

buses will still be required to complement this option, in most cases to a similar level as the

reference case. Rail allows increased footfall in CBD without additional vehicles on street with potentially

improved streets.

‐

See comments at 4.02Increased footfall means additional buses on the street (congestion), but in an organised improved layout compared to Ref Case.

Increase in pedestrian conflict.

Large effect during the peak times, but in IP times, there's essentially no difference between

any of the options.

‐‐

Town centres along the approach corridors will be greatly affected, with reduced vitality, and urban quality due to the implementation of the

high volume bus corridors which remove parking and increase seperation between the two sides. This could be somewhat limited to peak times only to partially mitigate this effect.[Previous proposals that involved removal of buildings in existing centres failed. Resulted in designation of dedicated loops behind the main

commercial centres. Designations were uplifted. In relation to Ellerslie Panmure

Highway ‐ is this an extension of that covered by the AMETI designation?]

+

In addition to benefits identified above, underground bus option provides the

opportunity to improve pedestrian routes and connectivity around proposed stations from increased footfall. However, it doesn't remove all surface buses and these will still be required to complement those in the tunnel, which in many cases are similar to the reference case

outside the Wellesley St corridor.

‐‐ As for SB2

4.05The extent to which the option reduces greenhouse gas emissions

CO2 emmissions from vehicles on the network

0 2021: 18,120 kg2041: 13,060 kg 0 Slight reduction (90‐120kg) in both modelled

years. No material difference. 0 Slight increase (60‐150kg) in both modelled years. No material difference. 0 Slight increase (50‐60kg) in 2021. Negligible

reduction in 2041. No material difference. 0 Slight reduction (90‐100kg) in 2021, but slight increase (30kg) in 2041. No material difference. 0 Slight reduction (90kg) in 2021. Negligible

reduction in 2041. No material difference.

4.06The extent to which the option requires land take

Qualitative mapping assessment 0 No land required ‐

Land required initially (210 properties), mainly redeveloped ‐

Within the CBD, uses road reserve, but bus marshalling areas required at Fanshawe and University and improvements at Britomart.

‐‐As for SB1 and major land requirements (170

properties, on EP Highway, Ellerslie, Great North Rd).

‐ As for SB1 ‐‐ As for SB2



Measure


B‐Ref CRL SB1 SB2

Short List Options

UB1 UB2





5.01The length of time required to construct the option

Qualitative assessment 0 No construction reqd ‐‐5 year overall construction period (taken from CRL timeline to 2020 construction) for 3.3kms ‐

Ramp widening / retaining wall works focussed at Symonds / Wellesley. Traffic management, construction staging and construction areas will dictate timing. Short duration construction (12‐

18 months). Remainder of surface works require simple construction. Undergrounding Britomart longer than surface works, but not in

the order of 5 years.

‐

Approach treatments can be undertaken in parallel with CBD works.

Approach treatment construction period will be substantially longer than works in the CBD.

‐‐

1.7km bus tunnel construction, assumed total 3 year construction period for entire works.

Traffic management, construction staging and construction areas will govern timeframe.

‐‐Approach treatments can be undertaken in

parallel with CBD works.

5.02The difficulty of construction of the option

Qualitative assessment 0 No construction reqd ‐‐

Mix of cut and cover and TBM for rail tunnel. Stations excavated to significant depth (42m for Newton). TBM sourcing (specialist equipment),

property owner interaction (settlement & vibration monitoring), traffic management significant for stations & cut and cover.

‐

Significant traffic management and construction staging, with limited construction areas for retaining structure at Symonds /

Wellesley.

‐As per SB1, with typical road widneing works with associated services relations / protection ‐‐

Tunnelling is road header and cut/cover combination with excavated stations. Similar

complexity to CRL.‐‐

As per UB1, with typical road widneing works with associated services relations / protection

5.03

The degree of ease with which the option could be consented (planning requirements)

Qualitative assessment 0 No construction reqd ‐‐

Tunnel portals and impacts within city centre. Notice of requirement to protect the route and

provide for construction and operation. Regional consents likely required dewatering,

stormwater, possible remediation of contaminated land, air discharges.

0 Exisitng road space is used, minimal impacts outside road reserve ‐‐

Significant land take, heritage buildings, town centre impacts ‐ full treatment likley

unconsentable‐

Tunnel portals, ventilation within city centre. Regional consents likely required dewatering,

stormwater, possible remediation of contaminated land, air discharges.

‐‐

Significant land take, heritage buildings, town centre impacts ‐ full treatment likley

unconsentable. Regional consents likely required dewatering, stormwater, possible remediation of contaminated land, air

discharges.

5.04The impact of construction on network operations

Qualitative assessment 0 No construction reqd ‐‐Network operations likely to be mostly affected by cut and cover along lower portion of Albert

Street, along with station construction.‐ Significant network disruption but confined to

around the Symonds / Wellesley area. ‐‐

As per SB1 with significant localised network operation effects around town centre widening ‐

potential for temporary diversion of bus services, bus stop locations, scheduling etc

‐‐Major network effects in city centre with cut and cover construction affecting Wellesley /

Victoria / Halsey & Fanshawe.‐‐

Major network effects in city centreas per UB1 with significant localised town centre effects as

per SB2

5.05The ability of the option to be constructed in stages

Qualitative assessment 0 No construction reqd ‐‐Entire tunnel needs to be completed for option

to be operable 0Option not reliant on other sections to be

completed +Appraoches could be staged and used as each secton is complete. Not a prerequisite for CBD

works.‐‐

Entire tunnel needs to be completed for option to be operable. ‐

Appraoches could be staged and used as each secton is complete. Not a prerequisite for CBD

works.

5.06The ongoing maintenacne and operational costs of the option

Quantitative assessment of the costs at long list stage largely based on existing information

0 ‐‐ NPV $180m ‐ NPV $136m ‐ NPV $134m ‐ NPV $145m ‐ NPV $145m

6.01The extent to which the option supports active modes in the CBD

PT patronage to CBD 02011 (obs): 35,000

2021: 52,7002041: 67,600

++

2021: + 4,600 ( + 9%)2041: + 9,100 (+13%)

Largest ability to cope with growth into the future

+2021: + 4,200 (+8%)2041: + 6,100 (+9%)


2021: + 4,200 (+8%)2041: + 6,200 (+9%)


2021: + 2,900 (+6%)2041: + 4,600 (+7%)

Lower increases compared to SB1, due to coverage within city centre

+2021: + 3,000 (+6%)2041: + 4,700 (+7%)

Marginally better than UB1, but not significant

6.02The extent to which the option reduces crash exposure

Qualitative Assessment 0 0 Similar level of buses to B‐ref in city centre, trains segregated fully ‐

Segregation of private vehicles and buses, but no physical segregation for buses and pedestrians. More buses than B‐Ref

‐Segregation of private vehicles and buses, but

no physical segregation for buses and pedestrians. More buses than B‐Ref

+

Certain segregation due to tunnel, but more buses on approaches, trenches deisgned with saftey. Overall benefit from reduciton on

surface

+

Certain segregation due to tunnel, but more buses on approaches, trenches deisgned with saftey. Overall benefit from reduciton on

surface

6.03The extent to which the option reduces harmful emissions in the CBD

Volume of harmful air quality emiossions in the CBD. Qualitative assessment on PT

0 0No modelled difference.

More electric trains, similar number of buses in the city centre

‐No modelled difference.

More buses in the city centre, additional emissions

‐No modelled difference.

More buses in the city centre, additional emissions

‐

No modelled difference.Steep gradients on tunnel approach, open trench section, higher emissions on these

sections

‐

No modelled difference.Steep gradients on tunnel approach, open trench section, higher emissions on these

sections

Health and Safety

Implementation



Appendix H Cost estimate

Auckland Transport: City Center Future Access Study

Item Description City Rail Link

Unit Rate Qty Amount Qty Amount Qty Amount Qty Amount

Total A NETT PROJECT PROPERTY COSTS $ 95,000,000 $ 55,000,000 $ 287,000,000 $ 30,000,000 $ 262,000,000

A1 CBD Station at Grade No. 10,000,000 - - - 2 20,000,000 2 20,000,000

A2 CBD Station Underground No. 7,500,000 4 30,000,000 4 30,000,000 - - -

A3 CBD Terminus/Depot at Grade No. 15,000,000 1 15,000,000 1 15,000,000 - - -

A4 CBD Terminus/Depot Underground No. 10,000,000 1 10,000,000 1 10,000,000 1 10,000,000 1 10,000,000

A5 Road Construction Property Take No. 1,000,000 - 232 232,000,000 - 232 232,000,000

Total B INVESTIGATION AND REPORTING $ - % 3.0 $ 35,754,734 $ 42,819,646 $ 8,980,676 $ 16,045,588

Total C DESIGN AND PROJECT DOCUMENTATION $ - % 4.0 $ 47,672,979 $ 57,092,861 $ 11,974,235 $ 21,394,117

Total D CONSTRUCTION $ 1,764,226,553 $ 1,191,824,463 $ 1,427,321,520 $ 299,355,874 $ 534,852,931

D1 MSQA (AT Managed Costs) % 2.5 29,068,889 34,812,720 7,301,363 13,045,193

D2 Tunnel (Mined) m 150,000 480 72,000,000 480 72,000,000 - -

D3 Cut and Cover Tunnel m 175,000 850 148,750,000 850 148,750,000 - - -

D4 Road Construction (Widening) m2 1,500 - 40,500 60,750,000 - 40,500 60,750,000

D5 Road Re-Surfacing Type-1 m2 250 61,420 15,355,000 61,420 15,355,000 61,420 15,355,000 61,420 15,355,000

D6 Road Re-Surfacing Type-2 m2 150 - 262,800 39,420,000 - 262,800 39,420,000

D7 Major Road Intersection No. 250,000 17 4,250,000 37 9,250,000 17 4,250,000 37 9,250,000

D8 Bridge Construction m2 4,000 250 1,000,000 1,250 5,000,000 250 1,000,000 1,250 5,000,000

D9 Station at Grade No. 10,000,000 - - - 2 20,000,000 2 20,000,000

D10 Terminus/Depot at Grade No. 17,500,000 1 17,500,000 1 17,500,000 - - -

D11 Station Underground No. 85,000,000 4 340,000,000 4 340,000,000 - - -

D12 Terminus/Depot Underground No. 140,000,000 1 140,000,000 1 140,000,000 1 140,000,000 1 140,000,000

D13 Bus Stop Type-1 No. 225,000 - 23 5,175,000 - 23 5,175,000

D14 Bus Stop Type-2 No. 400,000 - 14 5,600,000 - 14 5,600,000

D15 Extra Ordinary Construction Costs L.S. 1 20,000,000 50,000,000 1 10,000,000 40,000,000

D16 Design % 8.5 64,502,675 77,248,000 16,201,425 28,946,750

D17 Overheads (P&G) % 26.5 201,096,575 240,832,000 50,510,325 90,245,750

D18 Margin % 13.5 138,301,324 165,628,800 34,737,761 62,065,238

Total E PROJECT BASE ESTIMATE $ 1,859,226,553 $ 1,330,252,176 $ 1,814,234,026 $ 350,310,785 $ 834,292,636

Bus Options Surface Bus Option (SB2) Underground Bus Option (UB1) Underground Bus Option (UB2) Surface Bus Option (SB1)

5/11/2012Page 1 of 2

issu

ed fo

r rev

iew

5/1

1/20

12 re

v3

Auckland Transport: City Center Future Access Study

Item Description City Rail Link

Unit Rate Qty Amount Qty Amount Qty Amount Qty Amount

Bus Options Surface Bus Option (SB2) Underground Bus Option (UB1) Underground Bus Option (UB2) Surface Bus Option (SB1)

F1 Confidence Level-1 Construction + Fees (CRL=P50) 281,773,447 % 22.5 1,187,361,757 267,156,395 1,212,534,748 272,820,318 243,764,969 54,847,118 268,937,960 60,511,041

F2 Confidence Level-2 Construction % 40.0 87,890,419 19,775,344 314,699,279 70,807,338 76,545,816 17,222,809 303,354,676 68,254,802

F3 Confidence Level-3 Property % 33.5 55,000,000 12,375,000 287,000,000 64,575,000 30,000,000 6,750,000 262,000,000 58,950,000

Total F $ 281,773,447 $ 299,306,739 $ 408,202,656 $ 78,819,927 $ 187,715,843

Total G CONTINGENCY P50 $ 2,141,000,000 $ 1,629,558,915 $ 2,222,436,682 $ 429,130,712 $ 1,022,008,479

H1 Confidence Level-1 Construction + Fees (CRL=P95) 662,775,701 % 40.0 1,187,361,757 474,944,703 1,212,534,748 485,013,899 243,764,969 97,505,988 268,937,960 107,575,184

H2 Confidence Level-2 Construction % 72.5 87,890,419 63,720,553 314,699,279 228,156,977 76,545,816 55,495,717 303,354,676 219,932,140

H3 Confidence Level-3 Property % 60.0 55,000,000 33,000,000 287,000,000 172,200,000 30,000,000 18,000,000 262,000,000 157,200,000

Total H $ 662,775,701 $ 571,665,256 $ 885,370,876 $ 171,001,704 $ 484,707,324

Total I CONTINGENCY P95 (Funding Risk) $ 2,522,002,254 $ 1,901,917,432 $ 2,699,604,902 $ 521,312,489 $ 1,318,999,960

Total J ROLLING STOCK (CAPEX) $ 259,000,000 $ 48,000,000 $ 48,000,000 $ 48,000,000 $ 48,000,000

J1 Trains 259,000,000

J2 Buses No. 600,000 80 48,000,000 80 48,000,000 80 48,000,000 80 48,000,000

Total LOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (30 Years at 4% Discount) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

L1 Operations

L2 Infrastructure Maintainance

TOTAL P50 $ 2,400,000,000 $ 1,677,558,915 $ 2,270,436,682 $ 477,130,712 $ 1,070,008,479

TOTAL P95 $ 2,781,002,254 $ 1,949,917,432 $ 2,747,604,902 $ 569,312,489 $ 1,366,999,960

5/11/2012Page 2 of 2

issu

ed fo

r rev

iew

5/1

1/20

12 re

v3



Appendix I CCFAS economic analysis working paper

File Note

Economics Chapter v02.docx SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 1

Date 30 October 2012

Project No ZB01280

Subject CCFAS Economic Analysis

1. CCFAS Benefits The following benefit streams are captured using model outputs from ART and APT:

“Traditional” PT user benefits “Traditional” Private vehicle benefits (travel time, vehicle operating cost and CO2) Agglomeration benefits Imperfect competition and Labour Force Participation benefits

These benefit streams are discussed in the following sections.

2. PT user benefits APT macros held by Auckland Council (AC) have been used to extract benefits to existing and new PT users utilising the following assumptions:

Total generalised cost is used utilising the crowded time used in the APT pivot model. Note that since the in vehicle time does not actually increase, this perceived increase in cost in crowded conditions is captured through the use of crowded value of time (rather than using actual (non crowded) time with an increased value of time.

The rule of a half is used to account for changes in benefits due to changes in the numbers of passengers.

The value of time in the APT macro is $10.76. Outputs have been factored by 0.71, an equivalent of $7.63 in 2011 dollars, consistent with the NZTA EEM.

With the exception of the value of time alteration, these calculations are consistent with previous CRL assessments.

3. Private vehicle benefits Previous assessments have incorporated the likely impacts of the decongestion of the road network due to mode shift to PT assuming a proportion of the benefits to PT users.

The CCFAS assessment utilises outputs from the ART model in terms of time and distance costs in each scenario. Whilst a reference demand scenario has been fully run in ART, the mode proportions in the ART models used incorporate trips that are diverted from PT according to the APT pivot model incorporating a crowding function. These ART models have not included a full model run, simply an assignment of the diverted trips. Trip purposes for these diverted trips have been inferred from existing trip purpose proportions in the non-diverted ART trips.

Outputs from the ART model for the AM peak period in 2021 and 2041 are as follows:

Travel time benefits in generalised minutes for HBW (commuting), EB (employers business), other and HCV person trips. As with the PT benefits, these use the rule of a half to establish benefits to new as well as existing users. These are converted to 2011 dollars using values of time set out in the EEM.

A travel time resource cost correction term in generalised minutes for HBW and other trips to account for the changes in resource costs (as opposed to the perceived cost changes captured in the travel time benefits term above).

File Note


The resource cost correction term in section A11.12 of the EEM can be rearranged as follows:

1 11.15

This uses the fact that the user cost is 1.15 times the resource cost (Table A11.1 in the EEM). The travel time resource cost correction in generalised minutes is therefore converted into 2011 dollars by multiplying by the user cost 1 1

1.15

As with the travel time benefits, ART outputs in km are converted to 2011 dollars using vehicle operating (perceived) costs as set out in the EEM.

The vehicle operating resource cost correction in km is converted into 2011 dollars by multiplying by the user cost 1 1

1.2 in line with Table A11.1 of the EEM

These four benefits streams are summed for the 2021 and 2041 two hour AM peak periods in line with the ART model periods.

CO2 benefits are assumed to be 4% of VOC benefits in line with approximations set out in the EEM.

4. Agglomeration benefits Agglomeration benefits have been calculated using the methodology set out in Section A11.12 of the EEM. This incorporates the approximation of the GDP per ART zone and the change in productivity through differences in effective density between the reference case and each option. These are discussed in turn below.

4.1 GDP per ART zone There are a number of estimates of the GDP per ART zone for 20111. Data provided by AC has been used for both GDP and employment. It is of note that the 2011 employment data provided by AC does not match the 2011 data from the ART model. Two calculation methods of GDP per employee were generated to develop forecasts of GDP per employee and consequently per ART zone:

1) Using AC employment and GDP data 2) Using ART employment data and AC GDP data

It was decided to use method 1 to generate GDP per employee data, with GDP per ART zone then calculated using employment forecasts from ART. Reasons for this decision are provided below.

The AC data by ANZSIC category was aggregated to ART employment category assuming the correspondence as shown in Table 4-1.

1 GDP_EC_2011.xlsx

File Note


Table 4-1 ANZSIC to ART employment category correspondence

This provided GDP, employment and GDP per employee data as shown in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2 AC data by ART employment category

Due to quite significant differences in ART employment data for the industrial and business services categories in particular, applying AC GDP data to ART employment data resulted in GDPs per employee that we considered unrealistic ($178k per Category 1 (industrial) employee and $35 per Category 5 (government, defence etc) employee. The final calculated agglomeration benefits vary by of the order of 5-10% based on how the GDP per employee is calculated so use of both the AC employment and GDP data is considered appropriate.

The employment data for each ART zone was then used to generate GDP per ART zone, factored such that the total GDP for Auckland remains consistent with the AC GDP totals for 2011.

ANZSIC Industry ART categoryA Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing EMP6B Mining EMP1C Manufacturing EMP1D Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services EMP1E Construction EMP1F Wholesale Trade EMP3G Retail Trade EMP4H Accommodation and Food Services EMP2I Transport, Postal and Warehousing EMP1J Information Media and Telecommunications EMP2K Financial and Insurance Services EMP2L Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services EMP2M Professional, Scientific and Technical Services EMP5N Administrative and Support Services EMP2O Public Administration and Safety EMP2P Education and Training EMP2Q Health Care and Social Assistance EMP2R Arts and Recreation Services EMP6S Other Services EMP6T UnallocatedZ Total Industry

ART Categories1 Industrial EMP12 Business Services EMP23 Wholesale Trade EMP34 Retail Trade EMP45 Govt, Defence, Medical, Education EMP56 Agricultural, Utilities, Other EMP6

ART Categories GDP YE Sep 11 EmploymentGDP per employee

Industrial EMP1 12,226$ 140,450 87,049$ Business Services EMP2 23,254$ 274,020 84,861$ Wholesale Trade EMP3 3,851$ 52,140 73,861$ Retail Trade EMP4 2,537$ 60,460 41,965$ Govt, Defence, Medical, Education EMP5 3,948$ 62,430 63,232$ Agricultural, Utilities, Other EMP6 1,936$ 37,610 51,481$ Total 47,752$ 627,110 76,145$

File Note


Future year GDP per employee has been assumed to rise in line with real wage increases based on data from the last 10 years, approximately 1.0% per year.

This data accounts for differences in employment make up within each ART zone. For example, ART zones with the same number of employees a higher proportion of industrial employees would have a higher GDP those with a higher proportion of retail employees. This data does not however account for current differences in productivity due to location. The 2008 Mare report2 identifies differences in productivity in Auckland (ex) TAs compared to the rest of NZ, isolating these differences from employment mix. Data provided in the Mare report is shown in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3 Mare productivity data

With Auckland region found to be 25% more productive per employee than the rest of NZ, the productivity in each TA within Auckland has been normalised against the Auckland region. The data in Table 4-3 shows that Auckland City is 12% more productive than Auckland Region, Manukau’s productivity is consistent with the region, with Waitakere being 76% as productive as Auckland (comparable with NZ as a whole).

These productivity factors have been applied to ART zones within each TA which results in an unchanged total GDP for the Auckland Region, but with more of the GDP being focussed in the productive areas (Auckland City).

The GDP per ART zone which has been used to apply productivity changes as a result of agglomeration therefore incorporates:

GDP per employee based on data provided by AC Employment forecasts from ART Productivity growth in line with historic real increases in wages Existing productivity differentials within the Auckland Region

4.2 Productivity gains Agglomeration productivity gains are assumed to result from changes in effective density in line with Section A10.4 of the EEM. An elasticity has been calculated for each ART zone based on the mix of employment within each ART zone (by ANZSIC)3. This results in

2 “Labour productivity in Auckland firms”, David C Maré, Motu Working Paper 08-12, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, June 2008

3 AC spreadsheet, GDP.xlsx

TA productivity

Compared to AKL region

Mare report, compared to NZ

Auckland 112% 140%External 0% 0%Franklin 88% 110%Manukau 100% 125%North Shore 88% 110%Papakura 88% 110%Rodney 76% 95%Waitakere 76% 95%

File Note


elasticities approximately 25% higher in Auckland City compared to the rest of NZ (or 10% higher than Auckland as a whole).

The changes in effective density use the following outputs from the ART and APT models.

ART

Person demands by purpose (commuting, employer’s business, other and HCV) Time cost (in minutes) Distance in km Toll costs ($) Commuting parking cost ($) Other parking cost ($)

APT

Person demands Total crowded cost (in generalised minutes)4

These outputs are converted to generalised costs by purpose by applying values of time and distance to convert all output costs into generalised minutes. These are then demand weighted to get a representative generalised cost for each origin destination pair accounting for both purpose and mode mix.

In line with Step D in the EEM Section A10.4, the effective density for each origin is then calculated by summing employment over generalised cost for each destination. As a sensitivity test, the effective density for each destination has also been calculated.

The ratio of effective densities is then raised to the power of the zone specific elasticity to generate a relative change in productivity which is then multiplied by the GDP for that origin (or destination in the case of the sensitivity test).

Darren Fidler NZ Modelling Leader Phone: 0210318707

E-mail: [email protected]

4 The “crowded cost” incorporates factors to reflect increased perceived cost incurred by passengers travelling in crowded conditions.

city centre future access study section 1

Documents