Congestion Free Network (CFN) - 2020 Rough Order Costs

Today I'm going to get into some of the details for the Congestion Free Network (CFN) in the year 2020. With 2014 coming to a close we have 5-6 years to get this all built based on the plans.

CONGESTIONFREE.CO.NZ - 2014

In the 2020 map we have a number of new inclusions to the existing Rapid Transit Network (RTN) as follows:

1. Northwestern Busway from Britomart to Westgate
2. Upper Harbour Busway from Henderson to Constelation
3. Central City Busway from Britomart to Newmarket via the University & Hospital
4. Eastern Busway from Ellerslie to Puhinui via Botany
5. Mt Roskell Branch line

With the exception of the Mt Roskill Rail line all of the above are grade separated busways similar to that of the Northern Busway. Note that it is assumed that the Northern busway has been extended from Akoranga to Britomart as a grade separated busway at some stage. The cost of this would likely be in the range of $1-2 billion however I wont include that at this stage.

WIKIMEDIA.ORG - 2014

Based on the CFN website the costs for these 5 projects are as follows:

1. $250 million (17km)
2. $200 million (19km)
3. Free (5km)
4. $700 million (20km)
5. $150 million

So all up the cost of all this work is $1.3 billion which feels somewhat low.

For a quick comparison: The northern busway is just over 6km in length and cost $300 million to build in 2005 dollars. This work included a range of road upgrades at the same time which is likely to be required when converting existing roads to busways anywhere else in the city. If we choose to ignore any works at all on the disrupted roads we can say the busway cost $200 million which equates to roughly $35m per km including stations. If we use this value for the 61km of busway that is proposed to be built in the first phase of the CFN we are looking at a cost of $2.1b.

One big difference between the northern busway and the majority of these busways is that the northern busway was built on land that was already owned by NZTA & NSCC and therefore there was a rather massive saving. With the exception of about 10km of the Upper Harbour busway all of these busways require the purchase of all of the properties one side of the road from which they are to be built.

As a rough test on property cost it can be assumed that for every 100m of busway you will need to buy 5 properties, we will assume that 40km of the busway required property purchase and the remainder fits onto local roads or goes through parks that the council will handle over for free. Based on a $0.5 million per property we get a net property cost for these busways of $1b.

The above estimates are probably not too bad for most of Auckland city however there is one part we have missed and that is the CBD. Based on the 2020 CFN we have 3 busways feeding into the CBD which are grade separated all the way down to Britomart. We can certainly close off a few roads and reroute traffic however this is going to be no easy task and it certainly will cost a significant amount of money. As part of the CRL business case a bus tunnel was investigated that would generally provide for what would be needed here and it was priced in at $2.4b. That price does seem a little on the high side and I suspect we could get a similar result spending half that, however without further investigation I will use that value for now.

In summary, the busway portion of the works are expected to cost:

• 61km of busway = $2.1b
• Reinstatment of local roads = $1b
• Property purchase = $1b
• CBD busway works = $2.4b

Total cost = $6.5b.

So that's $5.2b more than the CFN estimate of $1.3b, given the total cost of the CFN is meant to come in under $10b there is some cause for concern here.

One thing I haven't taken into account yet is the Mt Roskill Branch line. This line is in luck in that NZTA has already spent a large amount of the money required and so we only have some 3-4km of track and two stations to build. The $150 million in the CFN budget isn't too far off the mark with 2 exceptions:

1. The connection with the western line may need to be grade separated in order to provide for the 5min frequencies on the western line to avoid causing flow breakdown which will cascade into the CRL and therefore the rest of the network.
2. The connection will require the purchase of the Pak'n Save supermarket which would add to the cost significantly potentially requiring a tunnel as mitigation.

If we are to add in the cost of the Mt Roskill Line along with extending the northern busway through to Britomart we are looking at a total cost of some $7-8 billion to bring the CFN to its 2020 vision. It seems in the case of the CFN we are sold a grade separated "Congestion Free" route when in reality what is priced for is really bus lanes on the side of existing roads which ultimately would be little different to that of existing in most cases.

streetsblog.org - 2014

Based on these numbers I've created the following image that shows what could be built if we limit ourselves to the $1.3b budget as per the CFN. There are two risks here however, putting the busway through the westgate shopping centre could add another $0.5 million (approx)  and making the eastern busway fully grade separated may push the budget a little to far in order to get it all the way to Botany. Also note that I've added in the CRL which is another $2.4b.

2020 CFN - as priced

This has been a quick look at the cost of the 2020 CFN layout and is based on per km rates. Each of these routes will have specific issues and constraints that will need to be addressed with detailed design work and as such this has only been a rough order costing.

In future posts I'll look into some of these routes in more detail, such as the northwestern busway.

Congestion Free Network

Today I'm going to start a series where I look into the Congestion Free Network (CFN).

The CFN is a $10 Billion (approx) suite of projects that creates an additional layer on the transport system that is exclusively for the purpose of Public Transport (PT) built over a 17 year period. This system is to be highly integrated with itself and existing PT services creating a viable transport option over the majority of Auckland.

There are two key aspects to the CFN:

• It is grade separated meaning that it is completely separate from the existing transport network and therefore is unable to be impacted by congestion or other disruptions.
• It is high frequency with services being run at 5-10min intervals. It is assumed that the 5min frequency will be used during peak and shoulder peak periods with 10min frequencies off-peak or something similar.

Below is an image of a the Northern Busway which is an example of a grade separated PT link. Typically Rapid Transit Network (RTN) have greatly increased station separation reducing the amount of time spent waiting for other passengers.

TEARA.GOVT.NZ - 2014

Background:

Firstly, the CFN is a joint effort between 3 related lobby groups.

• Transportblog
• Generation Zero
• Campaign for Better Transport

However the actual basis for the CFN is the Auckland Regional Public Transport Plan (ARPTP) which was created by Auckland Transport (AT) a year previously. Sadly AT and the various consultants that put many years of work into developing this plan don't get any recognition but rather ridicule for their work.

"Auckland's current plan is contained in the Integrated Transport Programme. This is both expensive and ineffectual - a road-heavy 'build everything' transport scheme that is currently unfunded."

No reasons are given as to why it is ineffectual but the bias against road transport is made apparent in the first sentence.

The two following images show the similarities between the two plans.

ARPTP - 2013

CFN - 2014

Comparing the two images 2 things are clear, the CNF is based off the ARPTP and the CFN doesn't include any of the frequent service network which is why it appears to be smaller.

Goals and Benefits:

The CFN is said to achieve the following outcomes:

• Higher quality and better functioning city.
• Cheaper and more effective then Integrated Transport Plan (ITP)
• Improved air quality
• Reduced carbon emissions
• Reduced oil dependency
• Improved urban form
• Better public health outcomes
• Maximizes value from existing infrastructure
• Fit into efficient operating models
• Unlock hidden capacity
• Improve quality of place
• Reduce road congestion

From the above list it sounds like an infomercial and one could expect the CFN to cut through boots, clean stains and make nutrient rich super smoothies. In reality most of these benefits are completely unsubstantiated and are simply generic sales terms to make the CFN sound like it's doing more than it is and to differentiate it from the ARPTP from which it was copied. There is no doubt that both the CFN, and therefore the ARPTP, have some great benefits but lets look at the list we have been given first.

Higher quality better functioning city:

This statement could very well be true however the issue is we have no context; what are we comparing things to? what makes the city higher quality, why is the city functioning better? what is the CFN being compared against?

In a way this is like claiming that blue is better than red, why? because it just is.

Cheaper and more effective than the ITP:

Half of this statement is true; the CFN is definitely cheaper than the ITP because it only builds a small fraction of it, however it's not clear as to why it would be more effective. The ITP was not developed because AT had a surplus of cash they wanted to dispose of but rather the city has a range of transport issues that need addressing. It's not possible to remove a series of critical transport projects from the ITP and arrive at a more effective outcome.

Improved air quality, reduced carbon emissions and reduce oil dependency:

The obvious rational behind this is that by having more people use PT will result in fewer cars and therefore fewer emissions and hence improved air quality. Unfortunately, many of the CFN projects will result in additional congestion along the routes which it is built by reducing capacity and rerouting trips along longer paths. By removing various projects from the ITP congestion in the city congestion will only be made worse and journey lengths increased, the CFN will makes things worse in some regards.

We also face the fact that modern cars are now very efficient and clean burning with electric and hydrogen vehicles making their way onto the market, come 2030 you will be able to by 20 year old electric vehicles and the majority of the fleet is likely to have zero emissions.

Improved urban form and improved quality of space:

This benefit really has no basis what so ever, the CFN will do nothing in any way shape or form in terms of creating improved urban form and improved quality of space and in some cases will make it worse, such as along Dominion Road were various communities stand in its way. What governs this is city planning and not the mode of transport. Neither a motorway or a busy railway line are the sort of things you want to sit next to and enjoy a quiet cup of coffee, however both of them can be used to provide access to a lake side or some other idyllic location.

NZETC.VICTORIA.AC.NZ - 2014

A common claim is that Bitromart precinct is a shinning example of what happens when you build a train station, however the reality is Britomart precinct would be little different be the train station located under it or located 800m down the road at the old train station. The old train station itself is a good example of this; it spent 70 years there including the time when 60% of Aucklanders traveled by PT,with the railway land around it being returned for redevelopment yet it never became a trendy location like Ponsonby.

Better public health outcomes:

This is another baseless benefit, active modes of transport such as walking and cycling are known to provide for health benefits but few would believe sitting on a bus or train is healthier than sitting in a car. You could argue that the improved air quality would aid in public health, however as noted above this is not likely to be much of an issue in the future vehicles will have few or zero emissions. The other potential area is that you are required to walk to or from the train stations, but the this is similar to when you drive that you need to walk to and from your car park.

Maximises Value of existing infrastructure:

This benefit is true in respect to the existing rail however in general the CFN does the reverse. For example, rather than keeping the busway it gets closed down and converted to a light rail line. For the existing road network, roads like Dominion Road and Te Irirangi Drive get downsized with their intersection capacities being reduced.

Fit into efficient operating models:

This is a straight sales slogan with no basis or detail to even comment on.

Unlock hidden capacity:

The CFN does increase PT capacity, there is no doubting this. However the term 'unlock hidden capacity' implies that something is being done for free, almost as if we have an entire rail network sitting waiting to go that just needs its power plug connected to a socket. In reality we are adding capacity with the CFN and paying for the privilege of doing so.

Reduce Congestion:

This claim is put in here for one specific reason, and that is to get road users to pay for the PT network, rather than the PT users. This is a common thing in that we all want everything for free, however if the CFN were built and required to fund itself in the same way that roads are you would likely be paying $20 rather than $5 a trip.

In reality the CFN will do nothing to improve congestion and in many cases make it worse, however it is claimed that there will be reduced road congestion and therefore the road users should pay for the CFN through the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF). If the CFN were so successful that it reduced congestion it would negate the need for it to be on its own network as both networks would be congestion free.

With reference to the image below, even with the busway in operation the northern motorway remains congested at peak times. This is great for the bus users but little different to the road users, the CFN will simply replicate this in other locations.

AT.GOVT.NZ - 2014

It may not be expected that the NLTF will pay for 100% of the CFN, however typically local projects such as PT systems are paid for with a 50/50 split, capital expenditure of the CFN's magnitude is well outside of the councils fiscal constraints and so its assumed a 90/10 split or similar is proposed with road users paying the 90% portion.

Summary:

So in conclusion what are the benefits of the CFN, well from my point of view we get the following:

• an improved PT network
• an isolated PT network that operates independently of the road network avoiding delays brought on by congestion and random events such as accidents.
• an integrated PT network that has less reliance on going through the CBD
• increased PT capacity

The net result of the above is that we obtain a greater range of choice in the way we travel to different parts of the city which reduces our reliance on the private car.

Based on the CFN website the grand cost of this whole new grade separated system is $10 Billion, this sounds like a bargain price if ever there was one however how close is it to reality.

For future posts I'll look into a few of the key elements and compare the estimates with the current build price of similar works to see how close to the mark the $10 Billion tag is.

Auckland Traffic Chaos

Yesterday, Saturday December 6th 2014, we had a little crash on the Auckland Harbour Bridge which resulted in 3 of the northbound traffic lanes being closed. This being being at around mid-day in the build-up to Christmas and the harbour bridge being one of the main pieces of transport infrastructure in Auckland resulted in a complete grid-lock for large parts of the central city and the motorway network.

NZHerald - 2014

So of course the question comes up, "Does Auckland need a better road network?"

Well it just so happens that this is one of the critical points on the Auckland motorway network that NZTA has known about for some time and hence they have been developing alternative plans for.

The first thing that NZTA has been doing is building the Western Ring Route (WRR) which is a complete alternative to SH1 through Auckland. If yesterdays crash happened in an Auckland where the WRR was complete we would have seen far less people being disrupted. We still would have seen congestion in much of the inner parts of Auckland as the WRR really does only provide for those going through Auckland or are living on the outer edges of the city.

The other project NZTA has in the works which is more directly related to this would have been the Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing (AWHC). This project looks to replace the existing harbour bridges function as SH1 through auckland and leave the existing bridge to provide for local movements between the northshore and the city.

If we look closer at the AWHC it would have helped in 2 ways. Firstly the AWHC would be designed to a much higher standard in terms of road geometry and therefore it would be much less likely that the crash would have occurred at all. Secondly, had the crash occurred, either on the bridge or in the new tunnel, it would have left the other connection open and at full capacity.

Neither of the above 2 projects would result in there being zero impact, obviously when you loose 3 of the 4 northbound lanes on the only connection between the Northshore and the city you will get disruption. However, if these two projects were complete and we had this crash most of the city would not have even known or cared.

Moments like these we tend to get the various armchair experts coming out and expressing their opinion on what would fix the issue with one obvious call for better public transport. So one call we get is that if we had the Congestion Free Network (CFN) people would have been able to simply leave their cars at home and take the bus or the train to where they wanted to be. This of course misses the point, creating another isolated system doesn't create any redundancy or resilience but rather creates another layer where the same issue can happen again.

We actually see this currently with the existing motorway and rail networks.
When we have an issue on the motorway the motorway suffers and the rail network is fine.
When we have an issue on the rail network the rail network suffers and the motorway is fine.
In effect, the more layers you apply the greater the chance of having a failure, however the cost of that failure would be less as your usage would be more diverse.

So if we look at the rail side of things, one of the down sides of the Central Rail Link (CRL) is that we make our entire rail network dependant on the CRL being operational, all we will need is one breakdown or signal fault in the CRL and the entire rail network will need to stop, we have a similar issue with the electrification of the network.

So in terms of yesterdays event what would have it been like had we had the CFN? Well unfortunately with this being a weekend the likely result would have been very similar to what we saw, large amounts of congestion. The simple reason for this is that the types of trips people make in the weekend just aren't suited for public transport, of course some of them are however the majority aren't and this is why we see PT volumes taking a dive in the weekend whereas road volumes tend to carry on similar to that of a week day.