path: root/project/templates/aucklandrail.xhtml

{%- extends "base_plain.xhtml" -%}



{%- block title -%}Auckland Rail Maps{%- endblock -%}



{%- block footer -%}{{ plain_footer ("aucklandrail.xhtml") }}{%- endblock -%}



{%- block style %}
    <link href="/css/aucklandrail.css" rel="stylesheet" />
{% endblock -%}



{%- block content %}
<h4>Auckland Rail Maps</h4>

<p>Git repository: <a href="/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/rail-maps">Link</a></p>

<h5>14/10/2024</h5>


<h5>Overview</h5>

<p>Auckland, New Zealand has notoriously <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/aucklands-transport-crisis-how-it-was-made-and-why-it-will-only-get-worse/ZQJIDROB7CXKMAKFFVDNF7IN3I/"
class="external">terrible transport</a>. It was bad enough in 2017 that it was estimated to be
costing the city almost <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/336352/auckland-traffic-congestion-costs-city-almost-2b-a-year"
class="external">$2 billion per year</a> in lost productivity and this number has no doubt become
worse since then. You could build a lot of useful infrastructure with that sort of money.</p>

<p>While a heavy rail loop underneath the CBD is <a href="https://www.cityraillink.co.nz/"
class="external">under construction</a> it is questionable whether this will add enough capacity to
ease the problem. Aside from that the New Zealand government has inexplicably been mostly
interested in applying light rail to the issue, both as part of a
<a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/second-auckland-harbour-crossing-five-combinations-of-tunnels-and-bridges-revealed-construction-begins-2029/PMT66B7P3FESXKRMIG4ARHLMFA/"
class="external">second harbour crossing</a> and an <a href="https://www.lightrail.co.nz/the-route/"
class="external">Auckland airport connection</a>. These strangely circuitous projects have since
been cancelled, and as they were only light rail and generally still included a focus on more direct
car routes they were unlikely to have been effective at reducing congestion anyway. Overall, the
situation remains dire.</p>

<p>But let's suppose there is a sudden outbreak of common sense, priorities are reworked to be more
sane, and enough political will becomes available to make Auckland's rail network functional. What
could that look like?</p>

<div class="figure">
    <a href="/img/auckland_rail_map_full.png">
        <img src="/img/auckland_rail_map_preview.png"
             alt="Hypothetical Auckland rail map"
             height="680"
             width="560" />
    </a>
    <div class="figcaption">A hypothetical Auckland heavy rail and ferry map</div>
</div>

<p>The above map was constructed as a 2240x2720 SVG and has been exported as a PNG here. Click to
open a full scale version. Similar styling was used to the current Auckland rapid transit network
map, and since that map has ferries as well, why not have them here too?</p>


<h5>Line Differences and Notes</h5>

<p>While there are really only four rail lines on this map, each of them branches once it leaves the
centre of the city. This strikes a reasonable balance between service frequency and coverage vs
population density. In addition, two extended services out to Helensville and Waiuku occupy a
nebulous area that goes outside of the Auckland urban boundary but doesn't really qualify as
intercity. Nevertheless, those rail corridors are already there so using them to provide effective
transport makes sense.</p>

<p><i>Metro lines</i>:</p>

<ul>
    <li><i>Northern:</i> This is the main addition. The corridor from Akoranga to Rosedale covers
    what is currently the Northern Busway. Running alongside a motorway is not ideal for a metro
    line, but we will come back to that. The branches from the new Mount Eden station to New Lynn
    and Auckland Airport approximately cover the same area the light rail airport proposal would
    have covered except much more direct and hence likely to be used. Finally, the section up
    through Browns Bay is a matter of ensuring decent coverage and allowing for a connection to
    Whangaparāoa and beyond.</li>
    <li><i>Eastern:</i> Rail from Ōtāhuhu to the airport replaces the current AirportLink bus. The
    branch through Botany to join up to the existing stub at Manukau covers a lot of the same area
    the <a href="https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/projects/southwest-gateway/Southwest-Gateway-Airport-to-Botany-rapid-transit-poster.pdf"
    class="external">Southwest Gateway</a> bus rapid transit would cover. A missing station at Saint
    Johns is added. The Strand becomes a regular metro station connected in with the rest of the
    network.</li>
    <li><i>Southern:</i> Not a whole lot of change here. The Onehunga line is now just a branch of
    this line, trains now go around the loop formed by the City Rail Link, and the line extends to
    Drury.</li>
    <li><i>Western:</i> Also not a whole lot of change here. Trains also go around the loop formed
    by the City Rail Link, and a new branch is added out to Westgate. Trains on this line no longer
    go to Newmarket.</li>
</ul>

<p><i>Extended services</i>:</p>

<ul>
    <li><i>Waiuku:</i> Makes use of the old Waiuku branch railway and incorporates the new stations
    at Ngākōroa and Paerātā. Notably this does not involve trains to Pukekohe at all, as those are
    left for intercity services.</li>
    <li><i>Helensville:</i> Makes use of the old alignment heading north. Trains actually going
    towards Whangārei would use a brand new alignment via Hibiscus Coast, but this section remains
    useful for freight and the few small settlements that exist. Woodhill station is to allow for
    people to travel to and from the mountain bike park there without needing a car.</li>
</ul>

<p>Two stations have been conspicuously renamed. Parnell station is now Auckland station because
that is the only suitable location with enough space for a proper intercity rail terminus that
connects reasonably well with the rest of the network. Maungawhau station is now Eden Terrace
because the <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/britomart-to-be-renamed-as-seven-auckland-railway-stations-receive-new-names/5VG2VNAC75C4LEWOQJJZH3OX6E/"
class="external">recent renaming</a> from Mount Eden to a Maori word for mountain and trees was
pointless since the meaning is the same. Further, doing so while claiming it to be from drawing on
intergenerational wisdom shows it to be obvious political nonsense. The station itself ends up
being barely in bounds of the suburb of Eden Terrace after being restructured from the City Rail
Link, so it gets the suburb name. The new Mount Eden station on the map is further south down near
the Mount Eden shops.</p>

<p>A new ferry line to Te Atatū Peninsula has been added. This would require around a kilometre of
dredging, but otherwise stands out as the only potential expansion for ferry services with minimal
impact to the harbour.</p>


<h5>Unmapped Features</h5>

<p>Each line has its own dedicated track. This generally means a track pair, except in the city
centre where the Western and Southern lines each operate in a one way loop and so use a single track
each. In total this means Te Waihorotiu and Karanga-a-Hape stations end up with six tracks each,
with Waitematā having four.</p>

<p>Having dedicated track isn't just for isolating each line into its own sector to improve service
reliability. It's outright necessary for capacity. On the map it is noted that each line gets a
minimum of 4 trains per hour. That's on each branch, so towards the centre of the system that
becomes 8 trains per hour. But during peak times it's expected for those numbers to double. At the
busiest stations mentioned above that ends up being 48 trains per hour which a fair bit more than
could fit if lines were sharing.</p>

<p>Yes, this does mean the City Rail Link project is woefully lacking for the task.</p>

<p>The extended services out to Waiuku run express between Papakura and Newmarket. Similarly, the
extended services to Helensville run express between Henderson and Eden Terrace.</p>

<p>Actual intercity services have been left off the map completely. Figuring those out will be an
entirely separate project. Likely included out of Auckland would be train services south to
Hamilton, Tauranga, and Rotorua, train services north to Hibiscus Coast and Whangārei, ferry
services to Gulf Harbour, Tryphena, and Coromandel, and a long distance train to Wellington. The
train services would all operate from Auckland station and share track with the metro lines.
Auckland station itself would have an extra six terminating platforms to accommodate this.</p>

<p>Passing loops would be needed for maintaining high capacity while running the extended services
and intercity trains express on their way into and out of the city as well as allowing for
freight. Eventually quadruplicating track on significant portions of the Western, Northern, and
Southern lines will become necessary.</p>

<p>The proposed Avondale-Southdown line makes no appearance because, while useful and necessary, it
is a freight rail connection.</p>


<h5>Points of Contention and Comparison</h5>

<p>Let us address a few questions and objections that may come up.</p>

<p><i>Is the capacity of heavy rail really needed?</i></p>

<p>Comparing the passenger capacity of different modes of mass transport to decide what will work is
often a messy subject. As bus rapid transit systems have proven, it is possible to add dedicated
right-of-ways, fare payments before boarding, more doors per vehicle, more platforms per station,
and other optimisations to just about anything. Those things will never apply much to something that
has to contend with mixed traffic on public roads, but let us assume they do. What difference is
left? Only the number of passengers per vehicle.</p>

<table>
    <tr>
        <th>&nbsp;</th>
        <th>Bus</th>
        <th>Bendy Bus</th>
        <th>Light Rail</th>
        <th>Heavy Rail<br />(6 car)</th>
        <th>Heavy Rail<br />(9 car)</th>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <th>Vehicle<br />Capacity</th>
        <td>90</td>
        <td>150</td>
        <td>340</td>
        <td>750</td>
        <td>1125</td>
    </tr>
</table>

<p>Figures are approximate and assume an articulated bus of 18m length, a tram of 45m length similar
to an Alstom Citadis 405, and trains similar to a New Zealand AM class, all operating at maximum
nominal seating and standing capacity. All other things being equal, building light rail lines to
replace buses would get a 2-4x increase. Even if this successfully addressed the traffic problems in
Auckland today it would leave little to no headroom for future growth as higher density housing is
built to solve New Zealand's housing shortage. Transport infrastructure has to last decades. This
detail has already <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-city-rail-link-to-be-bigger-and-more-expensive/WOXHL3N3BEYWQIBNBHVZLICKNY/"
class="external">caught the City Rail Link out</a> requiring some reworking before completion. The
capacity from heavy rail is really the only sensible option for future proofing. Note also that the
heavy rail numbers given here are somewhat lower than what they could be due to the need to operate
on the steep alignment of said City Rail Link.</p>

<p><i>What about the cost?</i></p>

<p>The <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/second-auckland-harbour-crossing-governments-mega-plans-revealed/TB3WTGHGR5BYFH6S4XXKWWZNMI/"
class="external">projected cost</a> of the 2023 second harbour crossing proposal was $35-45
billion NZD. This was outrageous on several levels, such as how the plan involved adding further
inefficient car capacity which would have been pure waste. But most importantly, that price tag.
Fortunately such ridiculous prices are not inevitable.</p>

<p>There are tricks to keeping the costs of building a subway or other metro system down, as
<a href="https://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/blog/what-is-the-cost-of-building-a-subway"
class="external">multiple</a> <a href="https://conversableeconomist.com/2021/11/24/holding-down-costs-of-megaprojects-the-madrid-subway-example/"
class="external">people</a> have written at length about. Doing some back of the envelope
calculations with numbers from the <a href="https://transitcosts.com/" class="external">Transit
Costs Project</a> adjusted for inflation and with further margin added, it is likely that if New
Zealand were to do things similarly to
<a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/need-for-speed-drives-madrid-miracle/article1327078/"
class="external">how things are done</a> in places like Madrid, Spain, then everything on the map
proposed here could become a reality for less money than that 2023 amount. Good value, that.
Especially if viewed on a per passenger capacity basis.</p>

<p><i>Is a rail system this big really called for in a city like Auckland?</i></p>

<p>The city of Copenhagen in Denmark is surprisingly similar to Auckland in terms of size and
population. They both have around 1.4-1.5 million residents in their urban areas and they both have
an average urban density of around 2400-2500 people per square kilometre.</p>

<p>Both cities are located on islands called (New) Zealand too. That one is definitely a coincidence
however, since the etymology is unrelated.</p>

<p>The useful point of comparison here is that Copenhagen has extensive passenger heavy rail in the
form of their S-train system which has 170km of track. They also have light rail rapid transit in
the form of the mostly underground Copenhagen Metro with 43km of track. And regular surface light
rail under construction. It's all <a href="https://cphtransitmap.dk/en/" class="external">quite
extensive</a>. Meanwhile, Auckland currently only has around 105km of heavy rail. An approximate
doubling of passenger rail system length in Auckland is thus entirely in line with what is known to
be necessary in a city of comparable size. Especially when the high amount of bicycle usage in
Copenhagen is taken into account, something Auckland does not have to ease traffic pressure.</p>

<p><i>Will all of this actually fix the traffic congestion issues?</i></p>

<p>Now that is an interesting question. The truth of the matter is most people use whatever mode
of transport is convenient and that they are in the habit of using. If a city is designed to make
high capacity modes convenient then everything works well. If a city is designed to make low
capacity modes convenient then you get massive traffic problems.</p>

<p>To go back to the Copenhagen comparison again, if you look at that city on a map you may notice
something. There are no motorways that will take you into the city centre. Now I'm sure that is
partially down to historical reasons, but that's not important. In Copenhagen it is easy to take
heavy rail into the city and not so easy to drive. In Auckland it's currently the other way around.
Building out passenger heavy rail to have a functional network would help a great deal, but it
doesn't completely solve the problem. Those motorways leading right into the centre need to go.</p>

<div class="figure">
    <img src="/img/auckland_motorways_highlight.jpg"
         alt="Motorways leading into the centre of Auckland"
         height="490"
         width="445" />
    <div class="figcaption">The offending motorways highlighted</div>
</div>

<p>The corridors are still important to have, since proper roads for traffic that isn't constantly
stopping, starting, and turning unpredictably all the time is important from a safety and
practicality point of view. But at the moment those corridors are set up primarily to dump up to
7600 vehicles per hour into the middle of the city. All that traffic comes from somewhere, and this
is where. It's not even justified from a capacity viewpoint since nearly all cars at peak times only
have one occupant and four lanes of such bumper to bumper traffic is less than seven of those max
capacity 9-car trains mentioned earlier. Once the rail system is working properly, change these
eight lane wide motorways to four lane regular roads and the
<a href="https://cities-magazine.com/traffic-evaporation-impact-reallocating-road-space-from-cars/"
class="external">traffic will disappear</a> while people can still get to where they want to go.</p>

<p>Some of the space freed up by this redevelopment can be used for quadruplicating rail track where
applicable. A lot of it can be used to add fully separated arterial cycleways. In particular, the
harbour bridge can be reallocated to have four lanes for general car traffic, two lanes for buses
and trucks, one lane for mopeds and microcars, and one lane for bicycles and pedestrians. Ironically
all of this would actually increase its capacity. That is good though, since making it possible for
more people to be able to get around Auckland easier is the whole goal here anyway.</p>


<h5>Closing Remarks</h5>

<p>For quite a while I had no idea where to even begin with Auckland's rail system. It's just that
bad after decades upon decades of neglect. Then I saw the loop formed by the City Rail Link and
things just started falling into place. I could go even further, connecting up Puhinui to Auckland
Airport and reworking the map layout around New Lynn a bit, but I figured this was a good place to
stop. For now.</p>

<p>Overall though, after a deep dive into all of this I strongly suspect the New Zealand government
isn't really trying to solve this transport problem. No, I'm not talking about any sort of
conspiracy. That would actually be easier to deal with. There are just too many ongoing
institutional and ideological blindspots that prevent things being properly addressed. Most
politicians still buy into the swindle of thinking that adding more cars, the lowest capacity mode
of transport available, will somehow lead to anything but more traffic problems. Just as the most
obvious example.</p>

<p>Too bad for the people who have to live in that city, I guess.</p>

{% endblock -%}