ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- Auckland had planned to build an extensive new light rail network with multiple lines, including one to the city's airport! The project was ambitious, but almost a decade later, where is it?
Support me on KoFi! ko-fi.com/city...
Like many other cities, Auckland used to have a substantial tram network - but that was ripped up decades ago in favour of car centric infrastructure like highways. But the city had plans to bring it back!
The new network could have provided a substantial boost to the city's public transport, complementing the existing bus and train systems. But, almost as soon as the project started, things started to go wrong - so in this video I investigate how it all fell apart and try see what we can learn for future transport projects in New Zealand and abroad.
RM Transit on light rail in tunnels: • Why You Shouldn't Put ...
I was nodding in approval at the Puhinui pronunciation, but then you go to "1-Hunga" 😂😂😂
fr
"O Knee Hunga!"
Who cares, more important things being discussed in this video
@@Ocy345Vidz I left two comments on this video. One long message discussing the issues and topics covered in this video and one short brainless comment about the guy's pronunciation.
The brainless comment currently has 28 likes and 3 replies, while the sensible on-topic comment was completely ignored by everyone. So does that answer your question?
ONE HUNGA HRJEJWHWGEHWHAYSG I CANT
The project scope changed so often over the years. What was its purpose? Suburban light rail? An airport link? It could never be both successfully. Too many fingers in the pie, which IMHO was a hallmark of the previous govt's desire to please everyone at the same time. Fatal.
It became a political football. The original problem was to ease bus congestion in the city. Its scope increased to become a housing-density project... then to change it from surface to tunnel since ALR didn't have the balls to go against Dominion road businesses. Having a price tag like that was an easy decision to cancel in a cost of living crisis.
It was both, and also a city Centre shuttle too. That’s where transit works best, when it can serve many different trip types at the same time. That’s how you get a lot of usage and a lot of people sharing the vehicles. A single purpose airport train would fail in Auckland, there’s nowhere near enough air passengers to make a dedicated airport line work.
@@MrNicoR No transit does not work best when it tries to fulfil different requirements. What you end up with is something that cannot satisfy any of them.
If someone is on a long distance train; they do not want to have to have their time wasted by having to slowly potter along and stop at every station. They want to get to where they want to be as quickly as possible.
This is why services between Papakura and Auckland are not so popular; because you make the poor passengers have to stop at every single station instead of offering any express service.
Likewise; you don’t want to have to make short hop travellers have to crowd in and stand and share the train with long distance travellers who took up all the seating (and who are now mad at having to endure every stop).
If you read Mike Lee’s blog; you’ll see that the idea of combining two projects into one actually began with the last National government back in 2016, before Labour got in. Although Goff was mayor of Auckland and apparently got influenced.
Although that doesn’t excuse Labour for also falling for this idiocy and dogmatically sticking with it.
@MrNicoR Los Angeles decided to build a automated people mover that only serves the airport but will connect to the greater Metro system via a shared station.
As a person who lives in auckland and uses public transport, Auckland Council and the New Zealand Government will need to work really hard to get the following lines going within the next 15 years.
Heavy Rail:
- Onehunga Line extension to Manukau via Auckland Airport
- Britomart to Albany Line (second harbour crossing will need to be built (likely a tunnel) (converting Northern Busway to Heavy Rail)
Light Rail:
- CBD to Westgate via SH16 Motorway
- CBD to Mt Roskill via Dominion Road (loops around Mt Roskill)
- Panmure to Manukau via Botany (converting Eastern Busway to light rail)
- Auckland Zoo to Greenlane via Balmoral Road
- Point Chevallier to Pakuranga (joins onto Panmure to Manukau line) via Mount Albert Road and South Eastern Highway
- Akoranga to Devenport via Takapuna
- Akoranga to Albany via SH1 South, Birkenhead and Glenfield
Investigate (Light Rail):
- Manukau to Karaka via Wiri, Manurewa, Takanini and Papakura
- Westgate to Albany via SH18
- Manurewa to Botany via Brookby and Clevedon (unlikely but possible in about 30 years when area develops)
- Wynyard Quarter to St Heliers Beach via Mission Bay
Investigate (Heavy Rail):
- Western Line Extension from Swanson to Waimakau via Waitakere, Taoupaki, Kumeu and Huapai (existing heavy rail infrastructure)
- Northern Line Extension from Albany to Orewa via Silverdale
- Southern Line extension from Pukekohe to Pokeno via Tuakau (existing heavy rail infrastructure)
If this is done + most of the lines labelled investigate are started upon completion of the ones listed to finish within 15 years then by 2040, Auckland could very well have a great public transport system. Heavy Rail is still needed in Auckland but Light Rail will be a game changer for Auckland if all parties can agree to a plan like this. Will also cost tens of billions of $ to build but once half of the plan is complete, Auckland can start tolling to use the motorway with extra fees for peak time usage to incentivise public transport usage.
Interesting ideas. I definitely agree with investigating services further out on the NAL, probably as far as Swanson. I also have long thought that there should be express commuter services to Mercer, stopping at Pokeno, Tuakau, Buckland, Pukekohe and a reinstated station at Drury, then stopping only at Papakura, Puhinui, Penrose, Newmarket and then terminating at the spare platform at Britomart. Unfortunately when the super city came along; All of that Franklin area between Pukekohe and Mercer got transferred to the Waikato region, and that makes it tricky.
But FYI: As I understand it; the Northern Busway, the Eastern Busway and the future north-western busway are all designed to be upgraded to light rail in the future with little extra works required.
And I don’t see the point of upgrading the Northern Busway to mainline standards as you have advocated. It’s not going to directly connect with the mainline, let alone be used for any freight runs, and the same outcomes of passenger transit could be achieved with light rail and at far less cost. In fact; probably better outcomes with light rail. The mainline standards require a large loading gauge, high platform heights,and have restrictions on minimum chord radii and maximum gradients that light rail can avoid. A light rail system can be customised to give optimal performance for the corridor.
these projects will not happen in a hundred years, let alone 15… Auckland Transport might be one of the worst transport agencies in the world. They probably make too much money from parking tickets to care about providing feasible transport alternatives.
@@closeben I agree that this list of projects could not all be done in a timeframe of merely 15 years. For one; there would be no feasible way to simultaneously fund all of them.
However the eastern busway has already well begun and is unlikely to not be continued, even with the new government and their anti public transport dogma. And I’ve heard that the north-western busway has also already begun.
At some stage; the northern busway will be reaching capacity. And then it will need to be further upgraded, and that logical next upgrade is to a light rail system. This will most likely tie in with the future second harbour crossing, and that will most likely and most sensibly be a two parallel large bore tunnels under the harbour for both light rail and three lanes of automobile traffic. I expect that the light rail will then continue tunnelled under the cbd until it interchanges with the underground Aotea station. This of course will be a multi billion project, possibly the biggest civil engineering project in the history of New Zealand, and will take at the very least 5 years to construct.
There will very probably at some stage in the future be the need to grade-separate the western line. And a need to increase platform lengths to allow for 9 car train sets. These will be slow and ongoing projects that will require continuous investment. And at some stage a 4th main line will be required. I expect that at some stage the Onehunga Branch will be double-tracked, grade separated, and extended across a bridge and into Mangere. I don’t think it will necessarily then extend to the airport, it may well then just loop along to the Manukau branch.
One can only dream
I spent years hearing Kiwis, even ones very pro-transit, talking about how this project was a disaster. Thus, I'm not surprised to see it cancelled. We should really place a moratorium on light rail in tunnels unless it's 1) for short distances, and 2) there is a very specific and urgent reason for it.
Yes it was a good move to cancel it. Canceling the project has put light rail back 10 years in NZ. Building it would have put Public transport development in NZ back 20 years.
Light rail in tunnels does work in Germany (see also: Stadtbahns). But yeah those are usually for a few stations in the city centre, in small cities
Yes, but there some tunnels in Germany which should never have been built. underused and a magnet for anti social behaviour. tunnels are generally built when street track is a capacity.
@@andrewsurgenor1294 You're probably right there Andrew. Cancelling it was the less poor outcome.
@@andrewsurgenor1294 To not set back light rail at all would it be a better move for national to use its prowess to get light rail built cheaply and on time? it would literally get auckland back on track
Probably the government's biggest failure in my opinion, in trying to please everyone they ended up pleasing no one. Would love to see more investigations into linking the airport to the Puhunui Station (Southern Line) or across the bridge onto the Onehunga line.
Completely!
The link from Puhinui to the airport has been the A plan for decades. It’s probably not happening anytime soon because… …it’s not really needed yet.
It was also long a plan to upgrade the Onehunga branch and extend it into Mangere (though not necessarily to the airport after that). The “new”Mangere bridge even has space for a railway corridor built under the road.
Both of these long plans went out of favour with the last government, influenced by this very shady consultancy firm from Melbourne called MRCagney, in favour of this dopey light rail. However now the government has changed, and the ministers connected to MRCagney gone (Phil Twyford & Michael Wood): I expect that the old plans are returning.
The Puhinui to Airport spur has already been explored. While it does make sense to just cover a short distance, it compromises on decreasing the overall capacity and number of trains on the main trunk.
@@migumigumigoo Nope not true.
The network is only congested at peak times and this will soon be alleviated with the upcoming completion of the third main.
@@migumigumigooExactly. Not to mention that the Airport-Manukau-Botany corridor would seem like a better purpose for the Airport-Puhinui corridor; and a light rail/busway option is better suited to that. There's no real need for such a route to use the heavy rail network, and it's not possible to extend the Manukau spur any further east anyway (unfortunately due to poor design, but getting across the motorway and tunnelling/trenching under Te Irirangi Dr would have been hefty technical and cost challenges too)
High frequency service and easy transfers at well-built stations >>> single-seat journeys everywhere but at low frequencies.
Really cool to see you branching out to cover our neighbours in New Zealand. It does seem like our transport planning has really influenced theirs, although Auckland did seem to lean into motorways much more than our cities. The motorways around Auckland are much more developed than what you’d find in a comparable Australian city.
Auckland is a bit more like Perth when it comes to motorways.
@@timor64 Auckland for its size has more motorway infrastructure than any Australian city.
I’d say that NZ transport planning and Australian transport planning were both unfortunately influenced by the US west coast.
@@timor64 Perth doesn't have many motorways - far more investment has been put into expanding rail there. Cities like Brisbane, which isn't much bigger than Perth, has way more road infrastructure whilst Perth's rail network carries as many people as Brisbane's and Adelaide's do combined :)
@@tdb7992 looking at a map, Perth doesn't appear to have many freeways. But Reid, Roe and Tonkin Highways, which form a ring road around Perth's east, are all largely of freeway standard now, and the final sets of traffic lights are slowly being upgraded to overpasses. So, I'd say that Auckland and Perth are very similar.
The price tag was absolutely ridiculous - literally double the cost of Toronto's Eglington Crosstown Disaster, but with even more problematic tramway to make the project more completely infeasible. As this is an issue plaguing transit systems across the English speaking world, let me put this in bold so everyone understands in as perfect terms as possible: *Low-floor LRVs are a worse solution for region-scale transit routes than buses, and should only be used for highly dense urban connector routes well-under 20km.* Low-floor LRVs are not nearly as fast, reliable, or maneuverable as high-floor trains, and only make sense on smaller tram routes. The fact that the North America is using them for region-scale transit because "they're less expensive" (they're actually not) is no endorsement of the technology, because most North American cities are completely braindead when it comes to transit.
Please Auckland, you have a really decent regional rail system - improve it, modernize it, and create an extension to the airport. If you really want a metro line to connect your densest areas with a more frequent local service, use super-frequent, fully grade separated (because partial grade separation makes no sense outside of a high-floor Stadt-Bahn designed to grade separate overtime) automated light metro technology with smaller trains so that stations end up costing $50 million instead of $150 million. You'll be able to have Tokyo-level frequencies without having to pay a large fleet of drivers to operate the system, so it works perfectly for smaller systems. If you want a tramway, use it to connect your densest suburbs with regional rail stations. If you want great suburban transit, work on your bus network. But please, for the love of god, if you want to use Toronto's Line 5 as an example of anything, use it as an example of how not to plan a transit project. If you want a good example of a Canadian transit project gone right, look at Vancouver's Canada Line, and embrace automated metro.
I mean Canada line did get built cheap and on time with the cut and cover method of building and having a shorter dimension of platform that limits its expansion of capacity
@@TheRandCrews well tbh trains usually run every 2-3 minutes and Vancouver isn’t the largest city in the world so it wouldn’t really be an issue anyways
@@TheRandCrews It's cheaper to expand stations than it is to grade separate a light rail and then overhaul its signaling and operation for automated, high frequency operation. To expand the Canada Line to 3-car trains with double the frequency, it would likely cost $500m - $1b but offer a 2.5x capacity boost without having to completely overhaul design of the system. It would be roughly the same capacity boost a light rail would receive from an automated metro conversion, but at a fraction of the price. If Translink wants to completely future proof the Canada Line, they can increase it to six cars by completely overhauling the stations, which would likely cost at least $50m per station, which combined with the new rolling stock and OMC to also support double the frequency would all together cost probably $3b. This would be a 600%, future proofed capacity increase, for what is likely the same amount of money it costs to grade separate and automate a Light Rail.
Low floor light rail might be better than low floor buses but high floor is even better, with more capacity for a given vehicle length, more flexible door arrangement and a more flexible interior layout. There is also more flexibility in the wheel arragement.
The funny thing is even the airport expansions it ties into can’t seem to finish either, all the graphics of the airport in the video are for things not finished, and some cases not even started yet. The second runway has been under construction on and off for decades, and the terminal expansion simply hasn’t even started yet, despite it being shown as the default stage in the graphics.
The Los Angeles airport has had similar issues but they've persevered and are improving and expanding it. It's a $30 billion improvement project that starred years ago and will be completed in time for the 2028 Olympics.
One of the appendices for the 2016 study into airport rail (the one that led to light rail being picked over heavy rail) makes it quite clear that the airport did not sufficiently plan for an easy rail corridor into the Airport. Heavy rail from the north would have had to tunnel under that still-unbuilt second runway all the way to the terminal station, and because of ground conditions and the sheer number of existing buildings on Airport property it couldn't be cut & cover and would need to be deep bored in waterlogged soft soil.
Spent some time earlier this month exploring the Auckland rail system. The money that was going to be spent, would cover upgrading the main south rail line to include express tracks. Then expanding the line either from Onehunga or Puhinui stations would be a viable option.
Yes it is all very obvious.
The benefit of light rail wasn't just getting to the airport though. It would also enable building dense housing along the Dominion Road corridor where the light rail was initially planning to run down before they changed to the tunneled plan.
@@jackb9045 They don’t need any light rail to redevelop the housing along Dominion road with more density.
And there is still the existing mainline corridors along which they could redevelop before looking at Dominion road.
@@danieleyre8913the bus routes serving Dominion Rd and Mt Eden Rd have suffered from overcrowding and congestion, even with running buses every 2 minutes at peak. All the isthmus bus routes feed into Upper Symonds St and this is a hugely congested bottleneck that affects bus reliability for a lot of inner suburb routes.
While constructing the Avondale-Southdown/Onehunga link would serve catchment in Wesley and Mt Roskill, , it would not serve the suburbs furtherest away from the rail lines - St Lukes, Balmoral, and Epsom - where higher density development is enabled. If the buses aren't coping now they certainly won't cope with more apartments and terraced housing being built. There is a very solid argument that light rail, or some other form of higher-capacity transit is needed on the routes where trams once ran in Auckland.
@@danieleyre8913 The video literally starts by stating that Dominion Road among others are bus corridors that are running out of capacity, LR could at least double if not triple the capacity of the corridor.
You hit the nail on the head with this one, over and over. That original AT proposal with surface running light rail down Dominion Road was feasible, affordable and necessary; the subsequent tunnelled boondoggle was none of the above. And calling any transport project an "airport link" is surely a poisoned chalice that will ensure it will never happen, with the exception of Perth.
Lol Sydney has trains to both its international airports
@@Secretlyanothername actually only to the one airport, and it is not light rail. Neither will be the future one to the western airport.
And Sydney airport is considerably larger and more busy than Auckland’s.
@@danieleyre8913 cope harder kiwis. You had your opportunity and you threw it away.
@@Secretlyanothername LOL okay you’re very inadequate…
@@danieleyre8913 I thought that you actually deserve a serious reply, so here you are:
Underbudgeting, leading to use of the wrong technology (should have been a heavy rail project, but Auckland's heavy rail needs another 20 years of investment).
Political interference, because actual large projects are so rare. In Australia the planners put the report in front of the minister and then it starts.
Lack of value capture. This is a problem for both countries, but NZ isn't great at it.
Auckland will remain provincial, it's the mindset.
As much as I'm a big fan of light rail, this was the wrong project for Auckland and I think that cancelling it was overall the right thing to do. The project on the table was trying to solve too many different types of transport problems with one route - Auckland CBD to Airport is a strategic high volume route, which needs a more rapid connection with selective stops, whereas CBD to its outlying suburbs requires a series of more localised / shorter distance connections.
Exactly.
Perfect timing I’m about to leave Auckland to return to Melbourne wow
Hey bro for a new channel with not many views the quality of your content is great and topics are interesting. Keep it up and you'll find your audience quickly👍
The same thing happened in Perth. Today buses still run through the said corridor 15 years after and nobody dared to mention it again. Light rail coming to Auckland is now saying the same as there will be high speed rail in Australia, period.
oh yeah, there's a small idea that instead of creating an entirely new light rail network, we should instead double track and expand the Onehunga line south, down the derelict Onehunga wharf corrridor (where an old railway used to run), and then bridged over the estuary through Mangere and to the airport, via the motorway (much like the light rail).
there is also an option of diverting somewhere along the Western line railway to link up with the motorway corridor, and have suburban trains run down the motorway. to westgate (which will work well with the extra capacity from the city rail link project.
no expensive tunneling projects, not much elevated track, and no need to demolish a ton of houses as your running along existing corridors.
that way you have a fully fledged railway to the airport, not just a half - ass'd and ridiculously expensive attempt.
100% agree. Just extend the Onehunga line to the airport and it will also service Mangere as well.
Could elevate it through Mangere if tunnelling is too expensive.
Could also then extend from airport to Manukau in the future.
I never understood why the Onehunga to airport line isn't the obvious solution...
The NZTA screwed it up by only paying lip service to 'futureproofing' the second Mangere bridge and Southwestern Motorway widening. Elevated track would be required since there's not adequate space to accommodate track at ground level alongside the motorway, as well as a very long tunnel through waterlogged reclaimed land to get under the future second runway at Auckland Airport.
Also you'd need to upgrade the Onehunga line, which is only 1 track and has too many level crossings.
All up the costs would very likely approach or exceed $10 billion. The original at-grade light rail design was projected to cost $3-4 billion.
Whenever I go back to Auckland, I’m always disappointed.
Light rail needs to start small in Auckland. Up Sandringham road and Mt Eden. Also Start out in Henderson to Te Atatu Peninsular. A loop around Manukau, Flatbush, East Tamiki and back - then later work out to get to Howick. Forget the airport - needs rail not light rail.
I think the Northern Busway should eventually be upgraded to a light rail system. I would favour splashing out on a light metro (itself future-proofed to be upgraded to a proper metro ~50 years in the future), tunnelled under the harbour and then interchanging underground with Aotea station.. Same with the eastern busway and the future western busway.
@@danieleyre8913 In that case, would you flavour an Albertan style light rail with high platforms?
@@Myrtone If you’re talking about the Edmonton ETS; then yeah something along the same lines.
I’d want it to be grade separated, with a lot in tunnels or elevated viaducts, so it wouldn’t matter if it isn’t low floor. Much if the busways are to be grade separated anyway, so.
@@danieleyre8913 I am also referring to Calgary's C-Train. High floor offers more flexibility with door arrangement, wheel arrangement and interior layout.
EDIT: Is there any scope for the light rail tunnel to be shared by more than one route?
That is a way to give a high enough frequency that a tunnel is viable.
@@Myrtone Well the tunnel under the harbour would be the lower level of two large bored road tunnels, wide enough for three lanes.
Because the clip-on’s on the Auckland harbour bridge will need to come off at some stage.
But the tunnel under the central business district would only be used by the one line in this hypothetical light metro.
You’re not quite right on the Airport to Botany crosstown line. It was never proposed as light rail, but as BRT. And it is still progressing, it hasn’t been cancelled. In fact the first stage is already opened between the airport, Puhinui and Manukau. It’s called the AirportLink.
I believe the empty reservation on Ti Irirangi Dr is part of this
Your pronunciation of Puhinui was pretty close, maybe slightly less emphasis on the "hi". Onehunga is a Maori word too, it's more like "Oh knee huung aaa". Great vid. Part of my reasoning to live in sydney over my hometown of auckland is the PT. It's so frustrating that auckland just cant escape the car mentailty.
Sydney’s public transport isn’t very good either. It’s not exactly that much better than Auckland’s.
@@danieleyre8913having lived in Auckland for 4 years and visiting Sydney for 2 days, I was floored with how good Sydney’s system was. I hear there are plenty of issues with it but it was utterly life changing for me as a tourist. And I now live in Melbourne and I still wish we had some of what Sydney has.
@@closeben Melbourne's public transport is actually better than Sydney's.
I can only guess that you didn't venture much beyond the CBD in those 2 days. Try living in Sydney for even a month and see if you still feel this way. Unreliable services, inconvenient bus routes, double decker trains taking too long to alight at platforms, poor punctuality, crowding, poor network coverage, etc.
@@danieleyre8913
The difference is in auckland the only place to live and work without a car is the cbd, whereas in Sydney there's a whole swath of suburbs viable for non-car living. Maybe if you live/work out in far west/north suburbia, sydney's PT is comparable. But sydney people just have no idea imo.
I'm 2 stops from central, week days I never wait more than 12 minutes for a train, and I get to work in 15 minutes. On weekends I can train to national parks, the blue mountains, the hunter valley, kiama, wollongong, or train/bus to the eastern beaches, which I do and love doing. Even the sydney "nimby central" northern beaches have a bus that runs more frequently on the weekends than auckland buses do during weekday rush hour.
In auckland the best I could hope for a train/bus that gets me to work and home on time, with better than 1/2 hour frequency,. Nothing that takes me to places on the weekend,. I've waited at takanini station for an hour because I missed a train on a weekend morning. There used to be a bus to piha that ran a few times a day, but afaik it was cancelled years ago. I could bus to mission bay, st heliers, (inner city suburbs with beaches) etc, but that's about it.
Go live in auckland without a car, experience it's PT.
@@danieleyre8913 This is just highlighting the worst of Sydney's PT system when It's still plenty better than Melbourne's. Syd rail has more circumferential routes, a better ticketing system, an airport rail, significantly higher PT patronage, driverless metro, higher frequencies, ferry services etc. Even the bus system is better. And I live forty minutes west. Once the SRL is completed, and Melb upgrade their card system + airport rail link + operate at a higher frequency, then you would probably be right. Their tram system is great.
the problem is that the seemingly obvious "extend heavy rail from Onehunga" option has several major flaws
1. The NZTA said that the duplicated Mangere Bridge would accomodate rail... but as it turns out, only makes provisions for a 25km/h single track attachment to the piers, not a full-speed double track commuter rail line.
2. While the widening of State Highway 20 was supposed to accomodate a rail corridor, the NZTA only did the bare minimum for this. So when more detailed design work for the Airport Line started to happen, it turned out the whole section of line from Mangere Bridge to the Airport Industrial block would need to be elevated over the motorway rather than at-grade beside it.
3. This would also mean fewer stations, and less catchment. Stations at Favona and the Airport Industrial block, present in the light rail designs, were not possible in the heavy rail design presented in 2016.
4. The future second runway at Auckland Airport apparently necessitates a deep tunnel, and the ground conditions at Auckland Airport, largely reclaimed, are not suited for easy and cheap tunnelling.
5. The existing Onehunga branch line would need to be closed, double-tracked, and grade-separated, in order to run trains at least every 10 minutes onto the Airport. Penrose junction and station would also need to be rebuilt to allow these higher frequencies safer.
And while in a best case scenario the heavy rail option would have a 35 minute travel time from Central Auckland to the airport... Auckland's electric trains do not operate as fast as is possible, and there would have been significantly less advantage over surface light rail in that metric.
So, in an ideal world (where the NZTA didn't practically sabotage it) the Onehunga-Airport heavy rail extension could have been built for somewhere between $2 billion and $3.5 billion... but if it was actually built today according to NZTA costings per km, it would cost somewhere in the range of $6 to 9 billion.
Light rail is for local trips, not regional trips; regional trips are what suburban rail and light metro are for. The light rail should've stayed as a local transit option that runs on streets, not a discount metro or suburban rail system.
As someone who's lived in Auckland for a while now, hearing the prospect of long light rail lines stretching deep into the suburbs with large station spacing on routes more suited to suburban rail has been exceptionally frustrating. The council and government have chosen a mode of transport and tried to force-fit it onto corridors that should be light metro or suburban rail. At 4:24, the orange line shown really should be a suburban rail line (plus it will help to balance the CRL to get more capacity out of it) and the fact that it was proposed as a light rail line shows that the council and government really don't care or are uninformed about how transit works. The most recent proposal for "tunnelled light rail" is an absolute joke and it should've either stayed as a surface-only light rail or fully grade-separated into a light metro. Light rail is not a discount metro system so stop treating it as such. The airport link should be suburban rail as well as that would be more suited to the type of journey being made. And as a North Shore resident, the fully tunneled light rail extensions make me want to scream. The proposal uses routes that are for metro trains yet there will be low floor trams running in a metro environment. Light rail is a poor choice here as the tunnels are more suited to metro trains.
My proposal: light rail in the Mt Eden area to relieve capacity off the buses, a suburban rail extension from Onehunga across to the airport serving Mangere, and a light metro through Mt Eden, Onehunga, Otahuhu and Mangere East to the airport which provides a less direct but higher coverage route than the suburban rail. This would provide local and express travel options in Mt Eden, especially since light metro averages higher speeds than even cars on a normal road which would create a much larger modal shift and more development, multiple travel options for the residents of Mangere, multiple travel options for airport passengers and set Auckland up for North shore extensions.
Depends on the light rail.
Street-running tramways are of course for short trips, pretty much like an urban bus.
Segregated light rail does the same job that suburban trains on the mainline do.
The problem is that this dopey project tried to be both of those things.
@@danieleyre8913 Segregated low-floor light rail does not do the same thing that suburban trains on the main line do. For one, low floor light rail trains are designed for low speeds of 70km/h while it's standard for suburban trains to go 100-160km/h. Low floor trams board at a low level which reduces interior space and results in awkwardly placed seats. The low floor design also means worse suspension which at high speeds reduces passenger comfort even more. The seats themselves aren't particularly comfortable compared to suburban trains which makes them suitable for short distances only. Trams just aren't designed for long distances, wide station spacing, high top speeds.
If you're building a light rail with high floor trams (Calgary CTrain, Edmonton ETS or LA Metro Light Rail) then you have a system that shares more similarities to a light metro than a suburban rail system. And if you're going to completely grade-separate your light rail line, you may as well build a metro
@@williamhuang8309 Okay.
I’m trying not to be rude here. But you seem a tad confused about what light rail is. Light rail is a system that does not conform to mainline standards (which in North America is often called “heavy rail”). The “light” part refers to the regulations, standards and protocols which are a lot more concise than those of the mainline.
Trams are a form of light rail (that run along regular streets), but light rail encompasses much more than merely trams.
Now what you have said about trams is very correct (low floor or not). And low flor trams usually don't even have steerable bogies, and if they do; you are correct in that their ride quality at higher speeds is usually poor either way. But lo-floor trams are usually only ever trams; light rail in its own segregated corridor usually have slightly rotating bogies with full suspension, because they serve regular stations with platforms and don't need low floors.
Other forms of Light rail systems can do the exact same job that suburban trains that use mainlines do. They just do it to their own customised networks and standards.
Please research the many Stadtbahn systems across western Germany, which do exactly the same job as the S-Bahn does, it just doesn’t use mainline infrastructure (nor infrastructure built to mainline standard). They can deliver the same numbers of passengers and at the same range of running speeds.
And light metro systems are usually considered a form of light rail. They lack the passenger capacity, frequency, level of infrastructure to be bonafide metros, as that level of capacity and the costs associated with building and maintaining a full metro is not needed for that situation. But they are entirely grade separated.
Stadtbahn run in their own corridors and not along streets. But they are not entirely grade separated and usually most of the network has level crossings.
Light rail in theory can do anything a mainline railway can. They can even do long distance commuter or even intercity services. It’s just that there has been no pragmatic point in building any light rail to do either of those (yet). But there are some light rail systems out there which go beyond a civic centre and to satellite towns. An example that comes to my mind is the Albtalbahn that connects the German city of Karlsruhe to satellite towns and villages to the south.
@@danieleyre8913 It looks like you're trying to apply European definitions onto a video that's primarily focused on New Zealand and Australia.
In New Zealand and Australia (and some parts of North America), "light rail" takes on a much narrower meaning than "railways not built to mainline standard", rather it is commonly used to refer to what Europeans would call a tram that operates on street or on a dedicated tramway. The Sydney Light Rail is a tram. The sections of Melbourne's suburban rail network that were converted for use by trams are called the "light rail". Gold Coast's light rail is also a tram. In the context of this video, "light rail" refers to trams. If you ask a kiwi or an aussie what a "light rail" is, they will usually tell you it's a tram. The term "light rail" as commonly used in NZ and Australia isn't used to refer to anything other than trams.
Regarding light metros: The term "light metro" as used in much of Canada, Australia and NZ refers to system such as the Vancouver Skytrain and Montreal REM. These systems share the same operational characteristics as metros, use metro trains, run on metro corridors, use metro signalling systems and operate at metro frequencies (or higher), but they use shorter 2 or 4 car trains compared to 6 or 8 more commonly seen on normal metros. They offer the same level of service as a regular metro but with lower capacity. Your definition of "light metro" appears to describe systems like the Chaleroi metro tram rather than the Vancouver Skytrain. Again this is probably a regional difference.
Since your definition of "light rail" as used in many European countries is so broad, of course it can do anything you want. But then saying that "light rail can do ____" is meaningless as you may as well say "trains can do ____" since the term "light rail" does not refer to a specific type of service but is rather a broad categorisation of all the different types of railway that just don't conform to mainline standards. This just isn't the definition that's commonly used down under.
@@williamhuang8309 Erm no you’re wrong. The definitions are universal.
And no I meant systems like the Vancouver skytrain, East London DLR, etc when I talked about light metro. They’re not designed nor built for the type of 2-3 minute frequencies and being able to handle thousands of people within minutes that proper metro systems have.
Charleroi in Belgium has a pre-metro like a German U-Stadtbahn, not a light metro.
Labour/NZ First should have completed the Avondale to Onehunga line planned in 1949. But extended it with tunnel from Onehunga to Mangere Bridge to Mangere Centre to the airport to Middlemore.
Funny, the present government canned this and is now looking at a mega road tunnel in Wellington at mega cost ! The light rail was also going to connect suburbs like mt roskill which has has massive development in the past two years. The present government is very road centric and is now introducing congestion tolls when there is no real alternative to driving. Auckland motorways are jam packed and getting worse and strangling the city . Auckland has one third the total population of the country but is woefully underfunded in transport infrastructure.
good video (pronunciation of Onehunga aside) but a couple of further issues worth mentioning.
Much of the cost escalation was driven around unwillingness to reallocate road space from parking and general traffic lanes, to a surface light rail system. this in turn drove up land acquisition costs and leading to the tunneling stupidity.
Some very strange things came up with costing of another light rail proposal in Wellington, whereby the figure given was not the cost to build but also had 30 years of opex rolled into the figure put forward. I believe something similar was done in Auckland but I'm not sure how much that ultimately inflated the price.
Edit another thing worth mentioning is that the head of the project was a certain Tommy Parker, who's history is mostly in motorway projects and who's track record of PT projects is very poor.
Instead of trying to scapegoat Tommy Parker; you could try facing the reality to at this was just a fundamentally stupid idea.
One of the early delays was one of the coalition government parties wanted heavy rail. The party lost all its seats in the next election. The North Shore busway is designed to be replaced with light rail if a direct connection to the CBD is created
If you’re saying that NZ first wanted “heavy rail” (AKA mainline) for this route; then that is fiction.
They did however put through funding to revamp the mainline north Auckland line to Tauranga.
Wasn't the Onehunga heavy rail line originally put in as a phase 1 of a heavy rail line to the airport?
NZ is 10 years behind while other countries are 10 years ahead?? Kiwis return home and see that everything is still the same and nothing has changed?? We need to upgrade everything !!!
Antwerp has trans in tunnels, but done well. They're short, they are shallow (so quick to get to the platforms), and they are under the city centre / market square thus protecting heritage and avoiding notoriously narrow streets.
This project was so New Zealand
Why do you say that?
Most projects in NZ are complete successes, this was an unusual utterly bumbled failure. The last time there was anything like this sort of failure was 20 years ago.
As a New Zealander, it's not New Zealand that chose to start and to stop this project; it's the Labour government that chose to start it (2017 - 2023) and the National government that chose to scrap it (2023+)
national started it in the first place in 2015
Even more disappointing National has no alternative plan. Traffic congestion in Auckland and its suburbs are getting worse. Even Sydney now has better transit with Light Rail and heavy rail/Metro. If they are concerned about grade separation and speed of a street level Light Rail, and if Labour wanted a middle ground, they should have just opted for a Light Metro instead, similar to Seoul's Gimpo Gold Line and Ui LRT, Incheon's Line 2, Manila's Line 1, Jakarta's LRT, Ankara's Light Metro and Montreal's REM. That is the "other" middle ground solution, but they went for the worse middle ground which is tunneled Light Rail with no increase in capacity and future-proofing.
Oh the Nat’s have an alternative plan:
Tax cuts!!!!!!
That will solve everything, just like how they did back in the 1990s.
@@danieleyre8913at least they still going forward with northwest rapid transit and airport to botany. They might actually get something done as the proposed the light rail and started the CRL back in 2015
@@odzergaming Generally NZ has a good track record of getting infrastructure built.
This was just an anomaly because it was a really, really dumb project from its inception to its inevitably inept attempt at execution. Has they stuck to the original tram for Auckland CBD plan of 2015, and the moronic idea of extension to the airport hadn’t entered the very limited head of a certain consultant called Reid; the first stage of that probably would be finished and up & running by now.
But yeah I expect that the north-western busway, eastern busway, and airport to Botany bus route will continue. Of course these are projects begun by Labour (albeit they dragged their feet), but they won’t be remembered and credited for it, thanks to them going along with the dopey light rail to the Airport.
They will probably also be remembered for the money-leaking te Huia train between Auckland and Hamilton that is certain to be canned come June. Will Labour learn the lesson to never listen to creepy consultant from MRCagney called Reid?
O-ne-hung-a. I've read it wrong too lol dont worry
Excellent video!
At this point with nothing built and inflation rates very high, it's unlikely that this project could get built at this time even if they rolled it back to the original street running proposal. Better to put this on hold for a few years and wait for the economy to get to a better place.
Better idea: Scrap this Mickey Mouse idea completely and go back to the better ideas that were around prior.
I think for an airport rail link, they should just build a branch line to Puhinui Station.
Yup. That was the long term plan. The other option being upgrading & extending the Onehunga Branch under the bridge and into Mangere & then on to the airport.
Unfortunately this kind of failure to see through major public infrastructure projects has been a hallmark of all NZ governments of the last few decades. The Auckland city rail link is only happening because Auckland Council started work on it without waiting for agreement from government and effectively forced the issue. The NZ government itself seems incapable of delivering any kind of public works any more, plagued by blinkered short term thinking, a 3 year election cycle and ideology over practicality.
I read an article recently where a proposal is being put forward for trackless trams which follow magnetic nails in the road surface. While most of it does seem feasible, the fact that it would be driverless is of serious concern.
And now the Airport Company sees fit to build an outlet shopping mall out by the airport causing huge traffic congestion for people trying to get to the Airport. Not much thought gone in their and the public transport options are woeful at best.
Great informative video, I really like the points regarding the delay and other political parties want to have their way and delaying the sending the project reconsidering and planning projects . But one thing you didn’t mention was the the labour government right wing coalition partner NZ first was the Major Contributing to the delay and the light rail/rail line to the airport being sent back to the planning and Reconsider stage which delayed and expanded the cost, which they were in the right wing National government finally cancelled. And I agree with you that they delay it so they could run up the cost and so could cancel it
Part of the challenge is simply from the name of the scheme, resulting from its early origins - and what people therefore think this scheme should be. In reality the later scheme iterations with significant tunnelling weren’t really light rail, they were more like light metro (think Copenhagen, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Vancouver). I’m not sure I’ve ever heard it suggested that those systems shouldn’t be in tunnels, or that it would have been better if they’d been build as light rail tram systems running at half the speed? Vision is key, especially for a city of Auckland’s (relatively) large size.
Well the people in charge of the project should know that the scheme should be.
Kiwis hate change. Even if it improves things. We can't help it.
We freaking LOVE cars. I mean passionately. Horribly. Beyond reason. We just do.
More importantly, we love FREEDOM. And yes, that includes the freedom to sit in stalled traffic on a woefully inadequate motorway system! And so for Kiwis, cars are quite literally petrol-powered Freedom Machines. And yeah, it might only be the freedom to go to Countdown to save a little on groceries, and to the pharmacy for your meds - BUT, in theory you could just go to another city. Any time you like!
And we've got a lot of crap we have to carry with us at all times, and so a bus or a bike just won't do. You know: important stuff like two umbrellas, and a sun hat, and a raincoat, and a spare pair of shoes and socks, and spare sunglasses, and binoculars, and a chilli bin, and a picnic rug, and some togs and a towel, and a bike carrier, and some frisbees (one very dog-chewed), and a dog's watering bowl, and an ancient map of the city with half the suburbs missing, and a big flashlight, and a head-torch, and an emergency reflective triangle, and an emergency road-flare, and two different fire extinguishers...
On top of this, we get uppity when the government decide for us, to spend lots of money on things we won't use, or (supposedly) don't care about - even though that is the exact and precise reason we voted them in: to stop us having to decide about anything except our own stuff.
And, when there IS government mandated change, every single person who is ever associated with the project must change it in some way, in order to leave their mark on it. A bit like pissing all over your front lawn, even though it kills the grass.
On top of this, everyone underbids for government contracts, safe in the knowledge they'll be able to screw double out of the public down the track.
Just about the only good thing about projects in NZ, is because of the total lack of corruption, there's nothing which gets in the way of producing absolutely first class infrastructure... about 15 years after it was needed.
At the moment you have to take a bus from the airport to Puhinui and the a train to Britomart. I was surprised that there is not even a roof over the footpath from the international terminal to the bus station. I was lucky that it was not raining, but walking the last 50 metres or so through the rain is a problem that could be solved for very little money.
I don't think there needs to be a new train connection from the airport to the city center. Just connect those tow terminals to Puhinui or another nearby train station with a nonstop train that does never sit in a traffic jam like the buses sometimes do.
The positive thing about the current airport connection is that the fare price is extremely low. I hate it if trains to the airport cost something like $20 or more. A cheap and fast train line to the city center should be a part of the service of a good airport.
Maybe a better option for Auckland is to look at what Brisbane is doing with its brand new metro. It will be much cheaper and quicker to get it into operation and will better ease congestion off the bus system. There should be 2 lines, one serving the northern Suburbs to Albany from the CBD and another from the CBD to Airport via the Eastern and Southeastern Suburbs. I think Auckland should have a better name than Metro. Perhaps, the ART
Brisbane isn’t building a metro.
It’s just building another underground railway tunnel.
@@danieleyre8913 no i am talking about the battery powered rubber tyred Tram bus that is misleadingly called Metro. Despite its misleading name, its actually pretty cool. Its like a tram but without all the annoying rails and wiring and it can be driven by regular bus drivers with only minimal training. It could use the exsisting bus lanes in Auckland. We could have 2 services, Route 1 running between the City and Airport, serving the Inner East and Southeastern suburbs with upgrades to bus lanes along Dominion Road and a new busway to the airport. We can also have route 2 linking the CBD to Albany serving the growing northern suburbs by using & upgrading the existing busway. We could have it up and running within 5 years if done right. Auckland probably won't call it Metro though. Instead I think Auckland should call it the ART (Auckland Rapid Transit)
@@electro_sykes What trackless trams?
Those are the suckiest things of all. Brisbane are dumber than I thought if they are falling for that gimmick. Wait until they start rutting the road surfaces and their suspensions start giving out. Chinese con-job,
@@danieleyre8913 actually the swiss are building ours.
@@electro_sykesthat’s not a metro its just a tram looking BRT
Elevated light metro is the way to go
Here is the problem with light rail in a tunnel and elevated. You're building all of this infrastructure.. for a tram. Metro level infrastructure for something significantly slower and holds less people. If you are going to build all this metro infrastructure, run a metro through it.
0.40 I didnt know they were going to put light rail down Dominion road lol They had ther trams running that route in the 1950s
Light rail, ie trams, are not the sort of thing that you run down freeway medians. Public transport hierarchy is bus < light rail / tram < heavy rail. They need to be close to the travellers' destinations with more frequent stops than heavy rail.
Corrected hierarchy: minivan < bus < tram < segregated light rail < light metro < metro.
As for “heavy rail” (the mainline); if it’s there and you can use it, then use it.
Good video. I'm afraid I disagree with your suggestion that the initial plan was worth proceeding with. The challenge was building public transport that encouraged a modal shift from cars. A 45-minute connection to the Airport from the city centre would never deliver this; while some benefits would have come, they would not have covered the payback for the actual $12B cost.
Auckland should have just added a loop to its existing rail lines to the airport. Over time, this could have become an additional complete and separate line as the city could afford to fund this. Light rail has its place, but start from the small town, look to Britomart, then the university, and extend from there. The biggest failure was how the government in 2018 decided on a transport vision with little understanding of the problem it was trying to solve and little engagement with the public and the transport experts on how these problems should be solved. The final solution never shared with the public was an automated metro system that could have worked, but engagement had never been adequately done.
As I understand it; the original plan was a Tramway only as far as Potters park in Mount Eden.
But yes the very concept of a light rail serving the airport and potting down Dominion road was always utterly idiotic.
I personally can’t see how Auckland airport is near busy enough to justify a dedicated train service. Sure it could instead be a stop on a loop from extending the Onehunga branch. But as I understand it; that would now be a lot more expensive due to the interchange between George Bolt Memorial drive and Kirkbride road.
Personally: I think that the Onehunga branch should be double-tracked, grade separated, extended into Mangere, and then looped to the Manukau branch more or less following the south-western motorway with a station at Mangere Bridge, another adjacent to the Mangere town centre and another to Aorere park. The airport bus could then interchange at the Mangere town centre station instead of Puhinui. In my opinion; this would open up transit into both Manukau and the Auckland CBD for south east Auckland, one of the most income deprived parts of the country.
If they need a train to the airport; have a dedicated express the branches off at Puhinui and uses the third main, skips most stations and terminates at the spare platform at Britomart. This could in the future also be used by express trains to the airport to/from Hamilton and Tauranga.
i would like to see them expand the current rail system to include a loop out to the airport linking into onehunga and puhinui , i would also look at a loop from Puhinui to Manukau to Botany to Panmure , and exppand otahuhu to onehunga to somewhere imbrtween new lynn , avondale and mt albert
Apart of scope creep, it was also a case of wrong application of transit modes.
To the airport you would like a fast train with just a few stops (say 5 km distance between stops). Metro for the innercity with the least amount of tunnel and elevated railway and medium amount of stops (say 1 km distance between stops) and light rail (=streetcar or tram) to the suburbs (say 500 meter between stops) and buses with even more stops. All those transit modes partly overlapping and feeding each other.
If budget is a bottleneck I wouldn't go to the airport for now, till there is money for a train. And built just the two original tram routes. No grade separation because I think (could be wrong) that the city centre has enough room for trams (because it has for the current bus system).
Although I would like an express service beside the local service for the 18 km line.
Auckland airport is nowhere near busy enough to justify a dedicated train service (yet),
The destruction of public transport in favour of the worst mode of transport in the world is one of the tragedies of the 20th century. When 1.3 million people die every year because of cars, it becomes clear that it is a worldwide catastrophe and a humanitarian issue.
The biggest problems with all major public transit problems is exactly this. Mission creep is inevitable, once various politicians see a big pot of money that they can glom onto.
I don’t mean to be rude; but that really not true at all.
This is the only major public transport system I am aware of in New Zealand where the requirements increased over time.
Usually the opposite happens in New Zealand, and around the world too, that they start cutting back and purging features.
As an outsider looking in, I believe Auckland definitely does need light rail at street level. But the scope needs to be drastically enlarged. So, starting from two points in the northern suburbs, joining at the harbour bridge, passing thru the city, then dividing again SW and SE, then re-joining again at or near the airport. No underground, no overheads. And who says an airport transit needs to be fast. My suggestion satisfies both the need for an airport service as well as serving the transit needs of the suburbs.
WHUT?! If a dedicated airport transit isn't fast, then whats the bloody point of taking it?! You want to get to your flight or from the airport and to your hotel/meeting/whatever ASAP. You may as well just take a taxi instead.
I mostly agree with you except with the categorical rejection of subterranean light rail construction.
.
You give LA as an example of, arguably the most car centric city in the world, building a lot of transit rail infrastructure. And that has been true for three decades and will continue for another two decades and possibly more.
That being said, LA Metro's light rail lines have subterranean and aerial segments and stations. Between the A, E, and K light rail lines, there are around 10 subterranean stations. These stations tend to be located in areas where there was no room to build at grade, and the community didn't want aerial guidways either.
The light rail lines all run on dedicated ROWs and are at least partially grade separated. They are also high floor trains with a top speed of 55 mph and corresponding 3 car platforns
The main reason LA Metro has decided on this hybrid system is due to cost and the surface size of LA County which is 4800 square miles. LA Metro is responsible for providing Metro rail service for the entire County not just the city. That is why a hybrid Metro rail system is the best compromise between miles of rrack and cost. Only using subway lines would be too expensive, and going with traditional light rail would not be practical and less efficient.
However, LA Metro is also expanding subway lines where it nakes sense. The existing D subway line is currently being extended to the Westside, and the proposed Sepulveda line will be heavy rail as well with some subterranean sections and stations. Both types of lines have two stations where they connect with each other so you can readily transfer between the two. New light rail lines have already been approved and existing ones are getting expanded.
The ridership grew every month in 2023 so this hybrid light rail, and subway system seem to increasingly be working well for the LA County region.
I was in disagreement with the tram in a tunnel idea and the proposed north shore tram tunnel was completely ridiculous.
As Auckland is largely low quality low density suburbs, i always have thought longer distance transit in Auckland should be elevated not tunneled to reduce costs and reduce travel times.
Screw the light rail, they should've just extend the onehunga line across the old mangere bridge and to the airport. I think they wanted to do that 15 or 20 years ago (dont quote me on that). But they demolished the old bridge and built a pedestrian bridge in its place now. Light rail will cost too much and will go massively over budget and years behind schedule like everything else they build in this city. And I don't like the idea of rail and and cars sharing the same space, we have too many idiots on the road. Id rather just have bus lanes or T2 lanes down the roads, it should be a lot cheaper, all you have to do is paint the road green and add some markings and signs as compared to all the stuff you have to do for light rail. Only thing is to make sure there is enough busses during rush hour, They are almost empty any other time of the day.
Segregated busways end up reaching capacity, and trams increase capacity.
@@danieleyre8913 we dont need the trams
Busses are never full in auckland most of the day. Maybe during rush hour, in that case put more busses
@@Gulag_Express_Racing According to AT; the buses down Dominion road in rush hour are close to capacity,
@@danieleyre8913 I mean I don't trust AT, but if true add in them stretchy busses idk, we not getting trams, that's fantasy
@@Gulag_Express_Racing I don’t trust them either.
But if they decide that Auckland needs trams, and they get them; there’s not much that you’d be able to do about it.
9:23 but they are continuing with the Westgate line
Wish I had Elon Musk money, instead of spending $49 Billion USD on a shitty media app I would of built long-term rail infastructure where both labour and national had, and have been far too incompetent and inept to do so for well over the past 50 years.
Your pronounciation of Puhinui was pretty much spot on! Ugh...This project got too bogged down with the stupid tunnel idea and as someone mentioned before, trying to please everyone that it pleased no one, and of course naturally stupid politics. How the hell do you spend millions of dollars in 10 years (and thats both sides of politics) and literally achieve nothing?
Nailed Puhinui, but a complete fail on Onehunga.
@@shindigbĀe! True that. 1 out of 2 ain't bad!
@@georger6707still much better than many other non-kiwi youtubers!
How to spend millions of dollars in 10 years and do nothing? Just watch Utopia.
He doesn’t come from New Zealand so of course his pronunciation of Maori words will be off!
Why is that even worth noting?
It should of been built as a light, automatic, fast metro with platform screen doors
I think changing the focus to dedicated busways is a great idea that doesn't require nearly as much planning and deliberation. The Northern Busway is probably the most successful transport infrastructure in New Zealand (although it's still not perfect).
Nimbys [Rich Liddites of the Leafy Lanes]. Win Again.
Man why does Anglophone countries make transit building so expensive.
8:05 UP Express underperformed due to several reasons including the end of the Pan-American games, it’s pretty much is quick into increase ridership and already overcrowded at times not helping it stops at some suburban stations with one having a subway connection + one more in the future. Most of the actual criticism is not electrifying it and not having it be compatible with the GO Trains it serves along the same corridor. Also, it’s not light rail. Not much fair comparison.
First of all, a transit agency should have the research already done to be able to quickly respond to "suggestions" for changes and to be able to factually justify the plan it chose.
While I believe that airport rapid transit links are good, they should only be considered after the city's critical transit needs are already met. Furthermore, when an airport link is part of an initial proposal, I'm suspicious that it is largely a political trophy project and not a critical transit project. Airport transit links work best when they are part of an extensive rapid transit network such as in the large cities of Europe and Asia.
Auckland's proposed airport had only one rapid transit link at Onehunga, which is a line that also only goes downtown from that station. That isn't much of a robust regional transit shed for the airport line. If it connected to the South and East commuter rail lines at Puhinui, and perhaps continued east toward Botany, that would have greatly increased its regional reach and utility. As it stood, it was too much for too little from an agency that let itself be wagged from its tail.
There is no rapid transit in New Zealand.
It used to be amusing, but has gone beyond the sick-of stage, how people in Auckland, especially people involved in the Auckland council and the last labour government, keep calling mere Public transport/mass transit; “rapid transit”.
Rapid transit is another term for a metro system: A railway system designed and built specifically for rapidly moving people into and around a metropolis and metropolitan area. It’s always segregated from the mainline system, and is completely grade separated from all other transport networks (either elevated or tunnelled underground or just in its own corridor). And it’s designed for high speeds and high frequencies and high capacity.
And yes there is also “bus rapid transit”, which is a fancy busway with infrastructure that imitates a metro.
There is no rapid transit in New Zealand.
You misunderstand what grade-separated "light rail" was proposed to be. It ran in the tunnel/elevated and was essentially what other countries would call the "Metro" or "Subway." CDPQ built one in Montreal with 67 km of track and 26 stations for almost 8B Canadian. I don't know why the Auckland line would have been more expensive.
Putting aside the price tag, the metro light rail would be more future-proofed. They could have added a couple more stations, but it would have had an average of 1.3km between stations, which is not the end of the world.
If you look at the original streetcar/tram light rail proposal, they show people walking all over the track. And in some segments, the trams would share the street with cars. That would make it slower than the bus it replaced. Take a look at the Sydney light rail likes. Safety concerns about the stopping of LRT vehicles where there are a lot of pedestrians caused them to run the trams slower than the bus it replaced. Stuff like this is a disaster for the attractiveness of transit.
We have had the same thing happen here in Toronto when some of our streetcars got upgraded from buses. The ride is more comfortable and can carry more people. But the trip is slower.
Hopefully, the current Government does have some kind of plan for public transportation in Auckland and the other major centres in NZ that are also in desperate need of a real first-world public transportation system.
I think the rail network is way underdeveloped. The Botany to Airport should be the focus for now, then the airport to Mangere phase and then Mangere to Onehunga. Onehunga also needs to get that connection through to Avondale done and dusted so there is a complete loop that will create residential and commercial growth opportunities and decongest the western suburbs.
Great to have the motorways and highways the current Government is focusing on but if you don't have modern and reliable public transport available for people to move about the city, the motorways will just remain congested and then spill out onto suburban streets which is the current case. Please help us, Simeon Brown, you're our only hope.
You can forget that. Luxon is all for automobile dependency and more detached housing suburbs and hates apartments and public transport. He's actualy overridden the previous plans of the Nat' party.
You'll have to wait until he's gone from power (which might well be before the next scheduled election in 2026).
You must be desperate if you think the new government have any interest in public transport.
Winston and NZ first maybe. But not the Nat’s & ACT.
@@danieleyre8913 Yup! Desperate for someone to do better for Auckland and NZ 😢
@@rlb3339 They won’t. Accept it.
The current RW govt has no plan for Auckland public transport. They are focused on cars and motorways. Stuck in a 50s mindset re transport.
"Puhinui... I hope I'm pronouncing that right"
Sure, not bad!
"One-hunga"
Oh no.
Your analysis was spot on, though. I would have liked to see some rail expansion. But not like this.
- Never should have become so focused on the airport rather than all the suburban residents it could help and the load it could take off the busses.
- Never should have forgotten the Northwest, which is _supposed_ to be the new and dense part of the city, but somehow they completely forgot to put in any rapid transit.
- Never should have proposed to tunnel the whole thing, especially if they're still planning to offer only light rail service rather than metro service.
Scope creep until it becomes completely unfeasible was a common issue with that government - reeks of the same stink as the harbour bike bridge. (Of course, the new government would have canned this even if it was the best project ever presented, because they're ideologically opposed.)
For what it's worth, the Airport to Botany link you mentioned is still planned to go ahead eventually, just as a busway called A2B, to link into the Eastern Busway already partially built.
their pulling the plug on the Waitemata harbour underground rail and planning a bridge, another bridge, countries progress while we a regress.
You aced Puhinui and then completely bollocksed up Onehunga
Maybe they should have visited Los Angeles to get a better idea of how to successfully build a hybrid light rail system thst runs at grade, aerial, and underground.
Are you having a laugh?
The last city Auckland should ever try and copy (again) is Los Angeles.
los angeles is a example of worst urban planning
Surely a rail spur from Puhinui to the Airport is the answer; about 5Kms, some tunneling, but mostly overground? Estimated cost $400 MIllion USD. IF Tunneled and elevated from Otahuhu, several stations would benefit local suburbs such as Mangere East and West, as well as the airport, projected cost $750 Million USD.
Unfortunately the rail system further north (towards the city centre) from Puhinui has no spare capacity, so any service to an airport spur from Puhinui would cause a 1:1 reduction in service on the existing lines. As it stands there is a short BRT line between the airport and Puhinui which provides a decent single transfer transit option between the airport and city.
@@TERMINAT0R150 That’s not true at all.
Kiwirail is already well advanced in building the third main line that will offer far more network capacity.
@@danieleyre8913 The third main is being built between Wiri and Westfield. That doesn't help unless you're suggesting the airport line should end at Westfield. To be able to add an airport spur without affecting capacity on existing lines the third main would need to go all the way into the city and through the CRL which is never going to happen.
@@TERMINAT0R150 The third main doesn’t need to go further than Westfield because that’s where most of the freight traffic that’s causing the congestion ceases.
Beyond that; the two tracks on two seperate lines have ample capacity to fit in an AirPort Express service.
It's crazy that they have so little capacity. Seriously underinvested during the Labor Government @@TERMINAT0R150
I did those 3D renders back in the day.
You must be supremely disappointed that all it ever will be, is a render
@@kingoftech Couldn't give a rat's shrivelled chode - I ditched Auckland years ago
Sad that this is just typical. the vision for public transport is initially supported by Governments. Rather than getting on with it. Scope creep and weak knees
Loss of momentum overcomes it. And so the longer you delay the project the harder it is to Build .
The solution for the next government is to Scrap it .But NEVER address the issues that drove the vision .
Canberra Light rail. likely to go the way of Auckland.
By the tone in your voice it seems you are from the UK. Your pronunciation of Puhinui was spot on. Not even some kiwi's say it right. The best way is from that station. Short & quicker route but now we have National in power & they hate public transport I doubt it will ever be built. Well not in my life time. Kapai
So just like USA.. Thank God I thought we were alone!
This is the only transport infrastructure project that been a useless time waster. The same city Auckland has in the last 20 years, double tracked one of its lines, brought back a branch spur, constructed a heavily-used other branch spur, electrified the network, procured new EMU’s, and is now build a connecting tunnel under the central business district.
And another city Wellington has had a generally successful 80+ years of running electric trains.
It’s only the last 5 years that it’s all gone downhill. And it’s due to the bad influence of this total waste of space called Nicholas Reid, who is one of those inadequate idiots who likes to think his dingbat ideas are always the best, who has somehow managed to get some influence in the people who were running both Auckland and some Labour Party MP’s, and how has managed to get long-respected people who know what they’re talking about ignored and people who questioned him alienated.
Hopefully we’ll never have him throwing any more spanners around again.
Why is the light rail service the airport which carries 200 passengers where the smaller jets have around same capacity but more often then the light rail between 6 to 15 minutes
Because the guy behind it (Nicholas Reid from MRCagney) is an utter nincompoop is why.
Whats the most unfortunate is that the government built a crazy transport hubs that wouldve been the ends of the line. The airport station now acts as a giant drop off zone and the other is Puhinui station which now has an empty platform that Im guessing would have been the airport line. What truly bugs me however, is the expectation that people with luggage to sit on a tram of all transport vehicles, but it would have still been better than nothing
Onehunga to Puhiniui via the airport heavy rail link. Joins up the existing railways but not the fastest to the CBD
As I understand it; The interchange with George Bolt memorial drive and Kirkbride rd has made any rail connection between the airport and Mangere a lot more expensive.
I’m all in favour of extending the Onehunga line into Mangere though, and then continuing to the Manukau. That would open up a lot of public transport options for South West Auckland.
@@danieleyre8913 then it’s not a goer as too costly. What about Puhininiui to the Airport?
@@michaelclement1337 Yeah that's still the long term plan as I understand it.
It always seemed logical to me. The third main will be long finished before they even look into a rail link to the airport. The 4th main may even be done and dusted by then. So they could run an express service, which is what people who use those sorts of services want.
@@danieleyre8913 sorry its been quite a while since I lived in Auckland, I see they are working on a city loop that looks quite good. What is 'third main' and 4th main'?
@@michaelclement1337 They're adding a third set of tracks to the rail corridor was far as Westfield to increase network capacity.
At some stage in the future; they're going to be adding a 4th set of tracks, but that will require considerably more works & demolitions as it will also require the widening of the corridor and trench.
Onehunga is OH Nee Hunga
I've always felt the best way to do it would be to build from Manukau to the airport . That way people south of the bombays can get to the airport too a lot easier and quicker .
4:43 wtf is one hunga
Hi I like your video
The question was, who's responsible for wasting 200m without building anything
Light rail in the tunnel is a half of the problem. But what about a bus in the tunnel / elevated track / dedicated all the way? This is Northern busway and a couple more proposed projects. 5bn NZ dollars for a bus line is estimated. Whatever it takes to not disturb the cars flowing)
Buses aren't a silver bullet replacement for rail transit. Rubber wheels create particulate pollution, and increases the temperature in tunnels. Buses also have low capacity, no more than 150 passengers per bus, to match a train or metro line a busway would need 4 lanes and to run buses closer than every 30 seconds - and all the bus rapid transit networks that do try that come into big operational problems.
A surface light rail line from the city to airport should have cost no more than $4 billion NZD, by overseas cost-per-km estimates. That's cheaper than the bus line option you're citing.
Hope you're being sarcastic about "not disturbing the cars flowing" - because yes, for the sake of the environment and moving people through cities more efficiently, it IS necessary to take back the space that cars and car-minded politicians have selfishly hogged up
@@mattbear4802 thanks for the comment! I am not a pro-BRT here either. My comment refers to the idea that putting light rail underground is a bad idea cost wise. And hence BRT with heaps of overground passes and tunnels is even worse. But that is what we partially have and some of the projects proposals for the future
@@nittygrittytalks5999ah gotcha, sorry for the misunderstanding!
100% agree, Auckland is backed into a corner by cost and past infrastructure mistakes when it comes to Isthmus/Mangere/Auckland mass transit which is really unfortunate; now we're stuck with either super-expensive options like a light metro tunnel or something economical but slower and less future-proofed.
Part of Auckland's problem is it's shape. Most cities are somewhat spherical or hemispherical if coastal. The centre is in the mid point of the land mass. Auckland has two harbours that intersect it giving it a roughly hourglass shape. The transport logistics in the centre are multiplied. It is not possible to have a ring road. Everything must pass through the 1.5 km centre strip. It's dire.
I think we should take to the water but using new very quick vehicles. The current ferry system is ponderous.
The initial plan to have the route down dominion road was influenced by Labour government wanted it to travel down the most congested road in Auckland, thinking that it would displace the car traffic. The Existing Bus route takes over an hour to get from the Auckland Airport to Britomart, but the proposed plans would have seen both the cars and light rail using the same lanes, negating any benefit that having a light rail system. Christchurch Trams are unique where most of the lines travel along a pedestrian only corridor throughout most of the inner city, and where the tram does travel along the roadways, it travels often in the same lane as cars.
Problems arose from the Labour Government wanting to add more value to very project and trying to tie new Kainga Ora (Housing NZ) projects into it. One developer tried suing the government as they altered the planned route to bypass his development when it was discovered he had gotten resource consent for the development on the assumption that the development would be near one of the proposed routes. But after they changed the route, it was discovered that it was not going anywhere near the proposed development, it wasn't viable anymore.
While i am pro-rail, the Whangarei Highway was canned while it was just starting to be constructed, as the new government needed money to fund the light rail project, and when it was re-started only after several large storms effectively isolated an entire region, as many of the secondary routes are not designed to deal with the heavy frieght traffic.
One hunga eh lol it pronounced oh knee hung ah but say it fast and fluidly
1 hunger 😔✊ ≠ onehunga
one-hunger lol -> oh-ney-hun-ga
Few of these foreign commentators understand how de-centralised Auck is: the CBD is not the shiz like say in London or New York. They also don't appreciate how low-density Auckland is. So to say $6 billion "is easily worth the money" without looking at potential ridership is crazy. $6 billion in a city of 1.7 million? And the airport isn't THAT busy by world standards.
not the pronunciations!! Onehunga = oh- nee- hunga
I stopped watching at "one hunger" 😂
Was stupid idea. Running on the roads. What is needed is extending the current rail line to the airport.
1 hunga 🦾
Auckland Transport is so inept. Mfs make truckloads from overpriced PT and on street parking, and bus lane tickets ($150 for driving 50m in a bus lane). Yet the system they run is so unreliable, with migrant bus drivers making jack all for providing a service that struggles to maintain during peak hours. It’s no wonder the light rail didn’t take off. Fuck AT.
The God Coast in Queensland is home to the most amount of Maoris outside NZ, they mostly work in construction, Light rail cost was $250 million AU per km😅. And it's too expensive to ride for locals
as an aucklander I died inside when you pronounced onehunga as "one hunga".
we’ve had onehunga, yes, but what about tuhunga?
Well what do you expect?
Besides plenty of Kiwis have atrocious Te Reo pronunciation anyway. Along with poor pronunciation of the English language…
Yes should make light rail as it better than high speed train that will even cost more than light rail 😂
It was always an idiotic idea, it was NEVER a good idea! _Maybe_ a light rail from Queen Street down Dominion road as far as Potter's park in Mount Eden may have been a goer. But the idea of running it any further let alone to the airport was utterly moronic.
It was this shabby consultancy firm from Melbourne Australia called MRCagney behind it, in particular this total poisonous sleazeball called Nicholas Reid. And he probably had backing from Spanish rolling stock manufacturer CAF behind him.
Auckland airport doesn't need a railway link yet. When it looks like needing one; they can just spur from the mainline just past Puhinui. There is a case for providing suburban rail to Mangere, but the mainline ends just across the bridge at Onehunga! Why build a light rail when the mainline is right there? They would just need to grade separate & double-track the Onehunga branch and then run it in the corridor built under the bridge. Plus between the end of Dominion Road & Onehunga; the light rail was going to use a corridor that's been safeguarded for a mainline freight link that's going to be badly needed in the future!
It's not easy to build a street running light rail (tram) in NZ these days within the current regulatory environment. That's the *real* reason why this never happened, and why it ended up being up into a tunnel! They kept suddenly discovering that they would have to do many major works to make it fit the road code.
Maybe one day revive a tramway as far as Potters Park in Mount Eden. But otherwise consign this mickey mouse dodgy nonsense to the rubbish bin forever.
@@MrNicoR You're a creep Nick. And no your inevitable failure upsets nobody.
I guess being a sociopath; you're actually not giving up, you don't know how to, and will continue to try and push your half-baked little ideas and agenda's that only ever compromised the improvement of public transport in Auckland, not just from throwing spanners in the works and sowing discord with Kiwirail, etc. But I don't expect that you will be taken very seriously anymore. Although Auckland certainly has shortage of gullible saps who aren't capable of seeing through you and sadly some of them get positions of power.
wtf would the use of a light rail from Queen st to Potters park? The original plan was a street running line to Mt Roskill to ease the 25 bus routes which are congested even with double deckers running at 5 minute frequencies. There was everything needed for the original line in 2015 but then the people voted the idiot Arden (later Hopkins) in and labour got caught in some transit fantasy which delayed the project by years
@@odzergaming Erm not according to Mike Lee. Go and read his blog; the original plan was just to Potters park. And the idea of then running that to the airport was picked up and pushed by the NZTA while National was still in power (albeit endorsed by Phil Goff).
Labour just picked it up and went for it. Especially Phil Twyford (who was one of the people also behind putting up Ardern as leader).