1

Section 1
City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS)









City Centre Future Access Study
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT



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

City Centre Future Access Study
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT


Sinclair Knight Merz
PO Box 9806
Newmarket 1023
Auckland New Zealand
Tel: +64 9 928 5500
Fax: +64 9 928 5501
Web: www.globalskm.com

COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Sinclair
Knight Merz Limited. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written
permission of Sinclair Knight Merz constitutes an infringement of copyright.
LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Sinclair
Knight Merz Limited’s Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the
agreement between Sinclair Knight Merz and its Client. Sinclair Knight Merz accepts no liability or
responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third
party.

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE i
Contents
1.  Executive summary 7 
1.1.  Introduction 8 
1.2.  Strategic context 9 
1.3.  Long list assessment 14 
1.4.  Short list option assessment 15 
1.5.  Multimodal programme and sequencing 16 
2.  Introduction 22 
2.1.  Study inception 22 
2.2.  The case for change 22 
2.3.  Study vision 22 
3.  Background 25 
3.1.  Comparison of the CCFAS and the APB&B Study 28 
3.2.  Regional growth and integrated land use 31 
3.3.  Supporting regional growth through greenfield development 35 
3.4.  The City Centre and its growth 39 
3.4.1.  City Centre growth 39 
3.4.2.  City Centre employment and access 40 
3.4.3.  Education 42 
3.4.4.  Regional hub for critical components of the Auckland economy 43 
3.5.  The nature of Auckland’s transport challenge 43 
3.5.1.  Overview 43 
3.5.2.  Current City Centre access 45 
3.5.3.  Rail and Bus Catchments 46 
3.6.  Strategic challenges looking ahead 51 
4.  Defining the case for change 52 
4.1.  Deficiency Analysis framework 53 
4.2.  Initial Reference Case definition 53 
4.3.  Deficiency Analysis findings 54 
4.4.  Rail constraints at Britomart 70 
4.5.  Bus network capacity 71 
5.  Short list option development 73 
5.1.1.  Underground rail infrastructure headline 74 
5.1.2.  Surface bus infrastructure headline 74 
5.1.3.  Underground bus infrastructure headline 79 
5.1.4.  Regional approach treatments for bus options 80 
5.1.5.  Other infrastructure options headline 81 
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE ii
5.1.6.  Long list option summary 83 
5.3.  Long list option evaluation 86 
5.3.1.  Surface bus infrastructure headline 87 
5.3.2.  Underground bus infrastructure headline 87 
5.3.3.  Other infrastructure options headline 88 
6.  Short list option assessment 90 
6.1.  Short list multimodal option development 91 
6.1.1.  Balanced Reference Case 91 
6.1.2.  Underground rail (CRL) 94 
6.1.3.  Surface bus (SB1) 100 
6.1.4.  Surface bus with regional approach corridors (SB2) 111 
6.1.5.  Regional approach corridors 111 
6.1.6.  Underground bus (UB1) 116 
6.1.7.  Option UB1 and UB2 bus stations / marshalling areas 121 
6.1.8.  Underground bus with regional approach corridors (UB2) 121 
6.2.  Bus operations 122 
6.2.1.  Additional options to improve bus capacity 132 
6.3.  Short list option performance summary 135 
6.3.1.  Demand and capacity 138 
6.4.  Short list evaluation 143 
6.4.1.  Short list evaluation framework 143 
6.4.2.  City Centre access 144 
6.4.3.  Regional movement 149 
6.4.4.  Economic performance 152 
6.4.5.  Environment and amenity impacts 156 
6.4.6.  Implementation 158 
6.4.7.  Health and safety 160 
6.5.  Costs 162 
6.5.1.  City Rail Link 163 
6.5.2.  Short listed bus options 163 
6.5.3.  Surface bus option 1 (SB1) 164 
6.5.4.  Underground bus option 1 (UB1) 164 
6.5.5.  Surface bus option 2 (SB2) 164 
6.5.6.  Underground bus option 2 (UB2) 165 
6.5.7.  Cost estimate format and summary 165 
6.5.8.  Operating costs 165 
7.  Economic evaluation 167 
7.1.1.  Traditional transport user benefits 170 
7.1.2.  Wider Economic Benefits 175 
7.1.3.  Economic evaluation summary 183 
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE iii
8.  Multimodal programme 187 
8.1.  Headline improvements based on a single mode? 188 
8.2.  Multimodal programme and sequencing 196 
8.3.  Strategic fit with other projects 198 
9.  Summary 200 
Appendix A  CCFAS / APB&B differences 202 
Appendix B  Inputs assumptions working paper 203 
Appendix C  Deficiency analysis working paper 204 
Appendix D  Long list options development working paper 205 
Appendix E  Long list options evaluation working paper 206 
Appendix F  Short list options working paper 207 
Appendix G  Evaluation framework 208 
Appendix H  Cost estimate 209 
Appendix I  CCFAS economic analysis working paper 210 

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE iv
Document history and status
Revision Date issued Reviewed by Approved by Date approved Revision type
A 09/11/12 DRAFT
B 14/11/12 DRAFT
C 15/11/12 DRAFT
D 05/12/12 R Hancy R Hancy 05/12/12 DRAFT
0 10/12/12 R Hancy R Hancy 10/12/12 Final





Distribution of copies
Revision Copy no Quantity Issued to
Final 0 AT (electronic)









Printed: 10 December 2012
Last saved: 10 December 2012 01:17 PM
File name:
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Reports\Study Technical Report\Study
Technical Report Final 0 v1.docx
Author: Andrew Bell / Jarrod Darlington
Project manager: Jarrod Darlington
Name of organisation: Auckland Transport
Name of project: City Centre Future Access Study
Name of document: Study Technical Report
Document version: Final 0
Project number: ZB01280

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Executive summary


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 5
Glossary
Term Abbreviation
AECOM, Parsons Brinckerhoff & Beca APB&B
Additional Waitematā Harbour Crossing AWHC
Auckland Growth Model
Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative
Auckland Regional Transport Authority
Auckland Council
AGM
AMETI
ARTA
AC
Auckland Harbour Bridge AHB
Auckland Passenger Transport Model APT
Auckland Plan
Auckland Regional Transport model
Auckland Strategic Planning model
Auckland Transport
Benefit Cost Ratio
Bus Rapid Transit
AP
ART3
ASP3
AT
BCR
BRT
Census Area Unit
Central Business District
Central Motorway Junction
City Centre Future Access Study
City Centre Master Plan
City Rail Link
Comparative Benefit Cost Ratio
Economic Evaluation Manual
Effective Density
Equivalent Full Time Students
Frequent Transit Network
Gross Domestic Product
Inner West Interchange
Imperfect Competition
Kilometres per hour
KiwiRail Group
Labour Force Participation
Land Use Transport Integration
Mode Specific Constant
Move to More Productive Jobs
Metropolitan Urban Limits
McCormick Rankin Cagney
Ministry of Transport
NZ Transport Agency
Passenger Transport Network Plan
Project Review Group
Personalised Rapid Transport
Public Transport
Public Transport Operating Model
CAU
CBD
CMJ
CCFAS
CCMP
CRL
CBCR
EEM
ED
EFTS
FTN
GDP
INWI
IC
kph
KRG
LFP
LUTI
MSC
M2MPJ
MUL
MRC
MoT
NZTA
PTNP
PRG
PRT
PT
PTOM
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Project Working Group
PWC
PWG
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Executive summary

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 6
Term Abbreviation
Rapid Transit Network
Regional Land Transport Programme
Roads of National Significance
Rural Urban Boundary
Simulation and Assignment of Traffic to Urban Road Networks
Sinclair Knight Merz
Surface Bus 1
Surface Bus 2
Trains Per Hour
Transport Demand Management
Transport Planning Senior Officials Group
Transport Research Bureau
Underground Bus 1
Underground Bus 2
Vehicle Operating Cost
Volume to Capacity Ratio
Wider Economic Benefits

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





STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Executive summary

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 7
1. Executive summary
The Auckland City Centre will face significant access issues across all entry points from as early as
2021.
This constrained access will limit Auckland’s potential growth through:
• Increasing travel times for commuters trying to access employment in the City Centre
• Reducing the efficiency for freight and commercial road users who need to access the port,
move around the City Centre, or just pass through using the Central Motorway junction.
• Pushing employment to locations other than the City Centre which will reduce productivity
and lead to a less competitive economy.

By 2041, constrained City Centre access to the south, west and east will:
• Fail to deliver 15,200 employees and students who would otherwise have come into the
City Centre. This is the equivalent of removing all the employment presently catered for on
the Terrace, Molesworth Street and Hawkestone Street in Wellington.
• Increase car commuting times for those that do go to the City Centre by 30-50%
• Reduce speeds in the City Centre for commuter, freight and commercial vehicles by 75%

The City Centre Future Access Study investigates how these future access problems can be
addressed. Three options are considered in detail. Each has a “headline option” of a single mode
of public transport supported by additional, but less significant investments in other public transport
modes:

Underground Rail, connecting to the existing rail network. This headline option delivers the
highest number of people, involves the smallest land take and has the most beneficial impact on
car commuters and freight. It is the only headline option with any capacity after 2041. It is also the
most expensive capital cost option at $2.4 billion.
Surface Bus, with and without improved access outside the City Centre. This option delivers some
capacity, but reaches its limits between 2025- 2030 and costs up to $1.13 billion. Including
approaches also entails significant land take in suburban Auckland. It is the best of the bus options.
Underground Bus, with and without improved surface access outside the City Centre. This option
delivers some additional capacity, but reaches its limits between 2025-2030 and costs up to $ 2.34
billion. Including approaches also entails significant land take in suburban Auckland. It is not
considered a viable option.
None of the headline options tested fully addresses City Centre access. However, taking an
Integrated option of the Underground Rail option and filling in gaps with the best operational
aspects of the surface bus option will effectively address City Centre Access for the next 30 years
and beyond from the south, east and west as well as the central and southern isthmus.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Executive summary

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 8

1.1. Introduction
The City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS or Study) was commissioned to develop a robust
and achievable multimodal programme for transport into the Auckland City Centre which considers
a thorough analysis of alternatives and identifies the optimal mix of modes to meet future demand.
This included consideration of the prioritisation and sequencing of projects.
The Study has focussed on a number of multimodal transport options based around a series of
“headline” public transport modes. In particular, these are:
„ Underground rail infrastructure
„ Surface bus infrastructure
„ Underground bus infrastructure

Each one of these headline modes has been developed with a suite of other multimodal measures
including private vehicles. The key objectives in developing each option have been to design a
programme that:
„ Provides for future City Centre growth and employment, recognising that the City Centre is a
critical part of the Auckland and New Zealand economy
„ Supports regional growth objectives by providing access for targeted residential growth areas
„ Delivers not just benefits for public transport users, but benefits for all transport users including
private motor vehicles, commercial vehicles and freight

The CCFAS sits as part of a network-wide work programme investigating the need for a City
Centre transport solution for Auckland. Improved access to, and within, the City Centre has been
an issue for Auckland’s growth and productivity for a number of decades. Modelling indicates that
this will become a more significant issue in the future.
It follows work undertaken on route protection and analysis of the costs and benefits of a City Rail
Link (CRL) between 2009 and 2011. The CCFAS builds on this work, by taking a network-wide,
multimodal view of City Centre access. As such, much of the analysis in the CCFAS is different to
the previous work undertaken.
The Study has been undertaken using best practice transport study methodology, with the
accepted NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) approach to transport economic evaluation currently used
in New Zealand. Key assumptions have been agreed across local and central government and
modelled using Auckland Transport (AT) and Auckland Council (AC) models.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Executive summary

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 9
1.2. Strategic context
Auckland as New Zealand’s largest city and largest employment centre plays a pivotal role in the
social, economic and cultural wellbeing of New Zealand.
Residential growth
Auckland is projected to grow by nearly 700,000 new residents to 2.16 million by 2041, using a
medium growth scenario. The Auckland Plan (AP) caters for up to an additional 400,000 dwellings
by 2041 including:
„ Up to 280,000 (70%) of the additional dwellings located within the 2010 Metropolitan Urban
Limit (MUL).
„ Up to 160,000 dwellings planned for outside of the MUL.

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 10
„ Figure 1-1 Auckland employment by area

Source: Auckland Transport
Regional transport challenges
While the AP and the forecast growth discussed above support greater intensification, the
fundamentals of the Auckland region require a transport system that services dispersed travel
patterns and residential locations as well as the City Centre.
The Auckland City Centre is not only the most important destination in the city, but is also the most
important transit route. Many commuters, freight and commercial trips have origins and
destinations outside of the City Centre and pass through the City Centre and City Fringe. In
improving access to the City Centre, particularly via public transport, those who pass through the
City Centre (including those using the Central Motorway Junction) also benefit. Freight in particular
is advantaged by removing private vehicles from the network.
While current and committed transport investment leaves Auckland with a more balanced network
that is likely to deliver acceptable levels of service for the next 5-10 years, the ongoing challenge is
to cost-effectively address medium to long term issues. This challenge has a number of economic,
social and environmental components.
At a high level, the challenge is threefold:
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Executive summary

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 11
„ Ensure future region-wide growth is accommodated.
„ Deliver a network that supports targeted growth areas.
„ Deliver a network that allows economic growth and focuses on high economic returns in the
future.
A Deficiency Analysis was undertaken to identify future constraints on access to the City Centre.
This Deficiency Analysis concluded that there are significant and pressing access issues to the City
Centre.
„ By 2021:
o Most bus networks approaching the City Centre, as well as within the City Centre
itself are at capacity and some are over capacity in terms of what can physically be
provided for within the existing road corridor (i.e. it is not just a matter of providing
additional buses on existing roads).
o Private commuter, freight and commercial vehicle speeds in the City Centre are
more than halved from 16 kph in the morning peak (2010) to just over 7 kph.
o The rail network has reached the maximum number of services possible due to the
Britomart constraint of a maximum of 20 trains/hour/direction. Some patronage
capacity remains by building up the remaining peak mainline train services
(southern, eastern and western lines) to 6-car Electric Multiple Units (EMUs),
assuming that has not already been done by 2021.
Figure 1-2 below highlights the public transport network and indicates the volume to capacity ratio
(VCR) on the key links in the morning peak hour in 2021.
1


1
A VCR of 1 indicates that the corridor is at capacity
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Executive summary

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 12
„ Figure 1-2 Morning peak hour public transport VCR plot (2021)

Source: CCFAS Deficiency Analysis
„ By 2041:
o The bus network is significantly over capacity.
o Private vehicle, freight and commercial vehicle journey times to the City Centre
have increased by 30-50% since 2021 from the west and south, with an extra 30
minutes each way from the Southern Growth Area
2
. The addition of the AWHC
improves overall journey times from the north. Journey times from the isthmus are
forecast to increase by 20-30% over the same period.
o Average vehicle speeds in the City Centre drop to 5 kph in the morning peak – the
equivalent of walking pace.
o While there is spare patronage capacity on the rail network coming into Britomart,
there are capacity issues on rail outside the City Centre, with volumes exceeding
capacity on the Western Line and approaching Puhinui, Penrose and Newmarket
Stations on the Southern Line.

2
The Southern Growth Area is an area of greenfield growth in the Franklin area identified in the
Auckland Plan
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Executive summary

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 13
Figure 1-3 below highlights the public transport network and indicates the VCR on the key links in
the morning peak hour in 2041.
„ Figure 1-3 Morning peak hour public transport VCR plot (2041)

Source: CCFAS Deficiency Analysis
The impact of the City Centre in terms of general traffic speeds is summarised in Table 1-1.
„ Table 1-1 City Centre summary
3,4

Reference Case 2010 2021 2041
Auckland population 1,462,000 1,722,000 (+18%) 2,161,000 (+48%)
Number of vehicle trips
in CMJ cordon, morning
peak hour
26,600 37,900 (+42%) 41,800 (+57%)
Average speed (kph),
morning peak hour


3
Note that these speeds are modelled based on best estimates. The absolute speeds may have
some variability but the relativities are more important to consider.
4
Average traffic speed in central London, with the congestion charging scheme in operation, was
below 15 km/h in 2006. Prior to the congestion charging scheme, average traffic speed in central
London was below 13 km/h.
5 7 16
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Executive summary

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 14
Source: City Centre SATURN model, CBD cordon statistics, morning peak hour
Modelling Assumptions
The Study modelling is premised on a medium population growth scenario, with 60% of that growth
inside the MUL and 40% outside. The modelling also includes all major projects outside of the
study area included in the Auckland Plan (for example, the Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing
(AWHC) is included and providing significant capacity and improved journey times to the City
Centre from the north). As such, it is an analysis at the more optimistic end of the scale in terms of
the ability of the City Centre to accommodate demand.
Higher and lower growth scenarios were also modelled. These included:
• High population growth with a 70:30 split
• High population growth with a 60:40 split
• Low population growth with a 60:40 split


The results of these sensitivity tests are discussed in detail in Section 7.1.3 but the key conclusion
is that the relative differences between the options remained the same which ensured robustness
of the conclusions of this Study.
1.3. Long list assessment
A long list of potential options was identified within a number of parameters:
„ Mode: Including bus, rail, light rail and personal rapid transit (PRT).
„ Scope: With options ranging from optimisation of existing assets through to additional
infrastructure.
„ Location: Overlaying these modes, underground, surface and above ground variations were
considered. Critically, the long list also included consideration of approaches outside of the
City Centre and City Fringe.
The long list and the evaluation criteria were developed in consultation with Auckland Transport
and Auckland Council and central government in a series of workshops. The method used to
consider the long list was a multicriteria analysis. This approach is consistent with international best
practice for transport projects. It is also consistent with NZ Treasury guidance for long list option
development contained in their Better Business Cases toolkit.
46 options were identified for the long list. Through the two long list option evaluation workshops
and revising the evaluation approach to incorporate both quantitative and qualitative assessments,
the options to take forward to the short list for more detailed modelling and assessment were
agreed by all stakeholders:
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Executive summary

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 15
1.4. Short list option assessment
A multimodal package was developed for each of the broad short list “headline” options. To enable
the relative economic performance of the options to be compared, a Comparative Benefit Cost
Ratio (CBCR) has been produced. This is not be compared to a standard or traditional funding
BCR as its sole purpose is for comparison between the options and it is the relativity of the CBCRs
which is important. During a Detailed Business Case process a funding BCR would be produced
which would compare the full benefits and costs of any option using parameters in line with the
NZTA EEM.
Balanced Reference Case
The Balanced Reference Case was developed following the Deficiency Analysis and subsequent
discussions with central government in an attempt to provide a more “realistic” reference point than
the initial reference case, based on bus volumes that could be provided without the need for large
scale infrastructure within the City Centre. It contains significantly greater improvements to the
regional transport network than would normally be included in a traditional “base case” (eg. It
includes the AWHC). When comparing the short listed options against the Balanced Reference
Case, their benefits would likely to be lower than if compared against a traditional base case.
Underground Rail (CRL)
The CRL comprises a proposed 3.4km rail tunnel from Britomart to Mt Eden at an estimated capital
cost of $2.86 billion (when fully inflated to the year of spend, or $2.4 billion in $2012). The CRL will
connect Britomart to the existing Western Line with three new underground City Centre stations in
the Aotea Square, Karangahape Road and Newton areas. The CRL is required as the existing
terminus at Britomart limits line capacity to 20 trains per hour, and significantly constrains the rail
network’s potential in servicing planned growth in the Auckland region.
Overall the CRL option produced the highest benefits but also has the highest costs. In particular it
provides the greatest multimodal capacity to get people into the City Centre, has the highest road
network speeds within the City Centre and is the longest-lasting solution in terms of capacity. It
does little to improve access from the North Shore or central and southern Isthmus which are
primarily serviced by bus. This option also had the highest cost. Its Comparative Benefit Cost
Ratio (CBCR) is as follows:
CBCR CRL
NZTA Economic Evaluation Manual without Wider Economic Benefits 0.4
NZTA EEM including WEBs 0.9

Surface Bus (SB1) (SB2)
The surface bus options aim to provide a high quality bus based access strategy for the City Centre
by providing bus priority at the expense of general traffic and increasing capacity at identified
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Executive summary

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 16
bottlenecks. As investment is focused on improving bus performance, the rail network is not
developed further following electrification.
SB2 adds regional approach corridors and bus priority measures outside the City Centre.
The surface bus options are the lowest cost options and provide improvements in the short term.
The options best meet the needs of those travelling from the North Shore. They also improve
access from the central and southern Isthmus. However, the options reach capacity very quickly. In
most cases, the infrastructure investment buys only three to five years of extra capacity after the
currently funded bus network improvements with most services at capacity by 2025 and nearly all
by 2030. By requiring road space used by general traffic, the surface bus options also significantly
degrade vehicle speeds for private motor vehicles, freight and commercial vehicles in the City
Centre, making them worse than the Balanced Reference Case (i.e.it is worse for private vehicles
compared to doing nothing). A significant amount of additional residential and commercial property
is also required to provide the regional approach corridors for SB2 and the bus marshalling /
staging areas within the City Centre.
CBCR SB1 CBCR SB2
NZTA Economic Evaluation Manual without Wider Economic Benefits -0.1 0.0
NZTA EEM including WEBs 0.4 0.3

Underground Bus (UB1) (UB2)
The underground bus option is based on a high level of bus priority in the City Centre, by providing
a dedicated bus tunnel along the Wellesley Street alignment with associated at grade infrastructure
and service improvements.
UB2 adds to this by improving the regional approaches identical to SB2.
These options provide for marginally more public transport capacity than the surface bus options,
and improve amenity within the City Centre relative to the surface bus options. They also require
less land in the City Centre and do not reallocate as much of the City Centre road space to buses.
Therefore their impact on congestion in the City Centre will be less. They are, however,
significantly more expensive than the surface bus options with little long-term capacity
improvement.
CBCR UB1 CBCR UB2
NZTA Economic Evaluation Manual without Wider Economic Benefits 0.1 0.1
NZTA EEM including WEBs 0.2 0.2

1.5. Multimodal programme and sequencing
Each of the options developed and taken through to the short list are multimodal and are premised
on a 2021 implementation time.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Executive summary

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 17

Analysis suggests that a multimodal programme combining the CRL and surface bus “headline”
(the Integrated option) would best meet City Centre access needs in a sustainable manner. This
option would include the CRL improvements but would also involve incremental bus improvements.
The Integrated option is the only one that meets the total demand for public transport travel into the
City Centre. If the CRL and improvements to bus facilities on Wellesley and Symonds Streets are
in place by 2021, vehicle speeds in the City Centre can be maintained at a similar level to the
Balanced Reference Case, while providing access for significantly more people by public transport.
The CBCR of the Integrated option would be similar to the CRL option which performed the best of
any of the individual short list options.
CBCR Integrated option
NZTA Economic Evaluation Manual without Wider Economic Benefits 0.4
NZTA EEM including WEBs 0.9

In terms of considering later implementation dates than 2021, it is clear that the transport demand
impacts are significant very early in the analysis period and delaying addressing these would
impose increasing costs on access to the City Centre. The effect of this will be to: displace
employment, restrict growth, forgo benefits of agglomeration.
City Centre access also sits within a wider suite of transport projects and other headline projects
which are already committed or are outlined in the AP, the CCMP and the Integrated Transport
Plan. In the following timeline, projects of significant scale and those that involve large tunnel
construction have been highlighted.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Executive summary
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 18


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

PAGE 19

„ Table 1-2 Summary of short list option evaluation, 2021 inbound morning 2 hour period
2011
Balanced
Reference Case
CRL Surface Bus Underground Bus
Integrated (CRL +
Surface Bus)
City Centre
speeds
5
(kph)

Total motorised
City Centre
commuters
6

71,800 95,400 98,800 98,500 97,600 100,900
7

39,100 (55%) 44,000 (46%) 42,400 (43%) 42,500 (43%) 42,900 (44%) 40,700 (40%)
8

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

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

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

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

5
Within City Centre cordon (excluding motorway) – morning peak hour (City Centre SATURN model). The speed for 2011 is actually from the model base year of 2010.
6
Excludes those commuters who originate within the City Centre, as the figures below relate to those commuters crossing the City Centre screenline (both for observed
(2011) and modelled). This may slightly underestimate car and PT commuters in the future years due to zone/screenline correspondence.
7
Private vehicle passengers. 2011 figure is from screenline counts, modelled figures are the number of vehicles multiplies by 1.3 (persons per vehicle)
8
For 2011, HCV’s are included in the car passengers, as the screenline survey does not differentiate by type of vehicle. Modelled HCVs are not impacted by the options at
this level of strategic modelling.
6 6 5 8 7 16
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Executive summary
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 20
2011
Balanced
Reference Case
CRL Surface Bus Underground Bus
Integrated (CRL +
Surface Bus)
Capital cost ($m
2012)
- - 2,400
477 (SB1)
1,135 (SB2)
1,677 (UB1)
2,336 (UB2)
2,877
Comparative
Benefit Cost Ratio
- - 0.9
0.4 (SB1)
0.3 (SB2)
0.2 (UB1)
0.2 (UB2)
0.9

„ Table 1-3 Summary of short list option evaluation, 2041 inbound morning 2 hour period
2011
Balanced
Reference Case
CRL Surface Bus Underground Bus
Integrated (CRL +
Surface Bus)
City Centre
speeds
9
(kph)

Total motorised
City Centre
commuters
10

71,800 116,500 123,300 121,000 119,800 126,200
11

39,100 (55%) 49,400 (42%) 46,200 (37%) 47,200 (39%) 47,800 (40%) 43,300 (34%)
12

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

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

9
Within City Centre cordon (excluding motorway) – morning peak hour (City Centre SATURN model). The speed for 2011 is actually from the model base year of 2010.
10
Excludes those commuters who originate within the City Centre, as the figures below relate to those commuters crossing the City Centre screenline (both for observed
(2011) and modelled). This may slightly underestimate car and PT commuters in the future years due to zone/screenline correspondence.
11
Private vehicle passengers. 2011 figure is from screenline counts, modelled figures are the number of vehicles multiplies by 1.3 (persons per vehicle)
12
For 2011, HCV’s are included in the car passengers, as the screenline survey does not differentiate by type of vehicle. Modelled HCVs are not impacted by the options at
this level of strategic modelling.
5 6 5 8 5 16
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Executive summary
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 21
2011
Balanced
Reference Case
CRL Surface Bus Underground Bus
Integrated (CRL +
Surface Bus)

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

3,700 (5%) 4,700 (4%) 4,600 (4%) 4,200 (3%) 4,300 (4%) 4,100 (3%)
Capital cost ($m
2012)
- - 2,400
477 (SB1)
1,135 (SB2)
1,677 (UB1)
2,336 (UB2)
2,877
Comparative
Benefit Cost Ratio
- - 0.9
0.4 (SB1)
0.3 (SB2)
0.2 (UB1)
0.2 (UB2)
0.9

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Introduction


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 22

2. Introduction
2.1. Study inception
In July 2011, the then Minister of Transport wrote to the Mayor of Auckland noting that before
undertaking a further Business Case, the development of a ‘robust and achievable multimodal
programme for transport into the Auckland City Centre which considers a thorough analysis of
alternatives and identifies the optimal mix of modes to meet future demand’ would be required that
included ‘consideration of the prioritisation and sequencing of projects’.
In March 2012, AT commissioned Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) to undertake the City Centre Future
Access Study (CCFAS or Study) to address the Minister’s request.
2.2. The case for change
Auckland is the dominant city in NZ and the role of the City Centre in its on-going success is vital. A
strong Central Auckland underpins regional and national economic growth. Significant residential
and employment growth is forecast in the City Centre area and is supported by the AP, City Centre
Masterplan (CCMP), and Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP). Capacity constraints on
the road and bus networks and at the Britomart terminus station mean that access to the City
Centre will become more difficult in the future and will constrain the city’s ability to absorb the
expected growth and compromise its economic competitiveness.
An effective and efficient transport network is a key factor in driving economic growth and
delivering a prosperous and productive city. This is because people need access to employment
and businesses need access to workers. Similarly people need to be able to access, recreation
and entertainment. Productive time lost as a result of congestion and travel delay has a direct
impact on a city’s economic performance.
Following on from work undertaken by Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA), Kiwi Rail
group (KRG) and central government in 2010 and 2011 (refer to Section 3), AT required a wide mix
of options for improving access to the City Centre be explored. The development of a robust and
achievable multimodal programme that considers a thorough analysis of alternatives and identifies
the optimal mix of modes to meet demand should ensure that any investment from Auckland
Council (AC), AT or central government is as efficient and effective as possible in providing
capacity for City Centre growth in the next 30 years.
2.3. Study vision
In 2011, AT agreed with central government to undertake a study to address a number of
outstanding issues in relation to the Auckland City Centre. The broad context was that with the
adoption of the AP, there was a need to assess transport options to support the implementation of
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Introduction

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 23
the planned City Centre growth in a holistic multimodal way. The Study incorporated a number of
key stakeholders:
„ Auckland Transport
„ Auckland Council
„ Ministry of Transport
„ New Zealand Transport Agency
„ Treasury

It was recognised that investment in the transport network to reduce congestion, improve efficient
movement liveability, amenity, and cater for increased travel demand from City Centre activities,
particularly employment growth, will be essential if Auckland is to maintain a thriving regional
economy and increase international competitiveness. The target is for City Centre access to
improve progressively across modes over the next 20 years.
The transport objectives and benefits for the multimodal programme were expected to include:
„ Increased peak time multimodal network capacity to cater for City Centre employment growth
to 2041.
„ Increased multimodal network reliability.
„ Reduced travel times.

Each one of the headline modes has been developed with a suite of other multimodal measures
including private vehicles. The key objectives in developing each option have been to design a
scheme that:
„ Provides for future City Centre growth and employment, recognising that the City Centre is a
critical part of the Auckland and New Zealand economy
„ Supports regional growth objectives by providing access for targeted residential growth areas
„ Delivers not just benefits for public transport users, but benefits for all transport users including
private motor vehicles, commercial vehicles and freight

Following one on one stakeholder interviews, a “visioning” workshop was held on 23 March 2012
with all key stakeholders. At the workshop, the vision for the study was discussed and confirmed
as:
‘Development of a robust and achievable multimodal programme for transport to the city centre to
enable and sustain growth in the CBD to 2041 that will increase multimodal network reliability and
reduce travel times”
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Introduction

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 24
Specific objectives to meet this vision were developed with key stakeholders and reflected in an
agreed evaluation framework as described in Section 5.2.
The Study has focussed on a number of multimodal transport options based around a series of
“headline” transport modes. In particular, these are:
„ Underground rail infrastructure.
„ Surface bus infrastructure.
„ Underground bus infrastructure.

The headline mode is the lead large infrastructure investment around which a suite of multimodal
improvements were developed. For example the underground bus option also includes significant
additional investment in bus services to both feed the rail line and to cater for areas which are not
served by rail.
The Study assessment period has been aligned to match with the AP. The AP outlines a planned
vision to the year 2041.
The assessment undertaken in this Study has drawn heavily upon the data and analytical outputs
that supported the development and adoption of the AP to ensure consistency in regards to input
assumptions.

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 25
3. Background
The CCFAS is a critical part of a wider work programme investigating the need for a City Centre
transport solution for Auckland. Improved access to, and movement around, the City Centre has
been an issue for city planners for a number of decades.
This study follows on from the significant local and central government investment over the last 10
years into improving public transport and private motor vehicle access into and around the City
Centre. Table 3-1 summarises the major completed projects in Auckland.
„ Table 3-1 Major completed projects
Project Description Results/ Impacts Cost Year Organisation
Responsible
STATE HIGHWAYS

Grafton Gully upgrade – Extended
North Western Motorway to Stanley
Street. Eliminated dog leg at Stanley
Street/ The Strand/ Parnell Rise
intersection
Improved access to the
port, especially for heavy
commercial vehicles;
improved road access to
eastern side of City Centre
$70m 2003 NZTA
Central Motorway Junction (CMJ)
upgrade – Additional southbound lane
Hobson Street to Newmarket Viaduct;
completed motorway to motorway
connections
New motorway links
reduced traffic on City
Centre streets. Part 1 of
Harbour Bridge/ Southern
Motorway capacity
balancing
$226m 2006 NZTA
Harbour Bridge upgrade – To extend
the life of the Harbour Bridge clip-on
lanes
Improved route security
and resilience on key
roading lifeline
$85m 2011 NZTA
Western Ring Route – Upper Harbour
Motorway, Mt Roskill Extension,
Manukau Extension, Manukau Harbour
Crossing
Provides alternative route
to main north south
motorway network
$810m 2011 NZTA
Newmarket Viaduct replacement –
Replaced earthquake risk viaduct and
added 4th southbound lane as far as
Greenlane
Part 2 of Harbour Bridge/
Southern Motorway
capacity balancing
$230m 2012 NZTA
Victoria Park Tunnel – New
northbound tunnel allowing all four
lanes of the viaduct to be used by
southbound traffic. Widened motorway
through St Marys Bay to 10 lanes and
citybound bus lane
Final stage of Harbour
Bridge/ Southern Motorway
capacity balancing
$350m 2012 NZTA
PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Auckland Bus Priority Programme –
Conversion of kerbside parking lanes
into peak period bus lanes on major
City Centre-focused Isthmus arterials
Significant speed
improvements to bus
services on key approach
routes to the City Centre,
leading to gains in bus
patronage
$11m 1998 ACC/AT
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 26
Project Description Results/ Impacts Cost Year Organisation
Responsible
Britomart Transport Centre – New
downtown bus/rail interchange in City
Centre returning rail to the City Centre
after an absence of 73 years
Catalyst for the
revitalisation of Auckland’s
rail network. Four-fold
increase in rail patronage
in eight-years
$209m 2003 ACC ($20m
from central
government)
Joint Traffic Operations Centre –
Projects include: Regional Route
Optimisation, Incident Response
Capability, Additional CCTV coverage,
Real-time Travel Information (CBD to
Airport route)
Substantially made
journeys easier by
coordinating the
management and
operation of local roads
and state highways
2003 NZTA/AT
Rail service improvements –
progressive increase in rail service
from basic daytime Monday to
Saturday service to closer to a frequent
every day service
Each service improvement
was met with a
corresponding growth in
patronage from underlying
latent demand
OPEX 2003
-
2012
ARTA/AT
New ferry services from Half Moon
Bay, Bayswater, Birkenhead, Northcote
Point, Gulf Harbour, Pine Harbour,
West Harbour
New and improved ferry
services resulted in growth
in ferry patronage
OPEX 2003
-
2012
ARTA/AT
Northern Busway – 6.2 km of bi-
directional, and 2.5km of uni-directional
busway; five busway stations; two
park-and-rides; plus associated bus
priority measures on both sides of the
harbour
Resulted in a significant
increase in people
accessing the City Centre
by public transport
$294m 2008 NZTA/NSCC/A
CC/ARTA
13

North Shore bus service review -
2008
40% increase in peak bus
service in conjunction with
opening of Northern
Busway
OPEX 2008 ARTA
Botany/Howick service
improvements
Ongoing improvements to
bus service culminating in
a maximum headway of 15
minutes at any time
between Pakuranga and
Britomart
OPEX 2008
-
2012
ARTA/AT
Central Connector – Upgrade of route
from Britomart to Newmarket via
Grafton to 24-hour bus lanes (Grafton
Bridge 7am-7pm weekdays). Upgrade
of Grafton Bridge. Bus stop, pedestrian
and urban amenity improvements
Significantly reduced peak
bus travel times from
south/east to City Centre
and much improved bus
service to Auckland
Hospital and university
health sciences campus
$42.7m 2009 ACC
14

Project DART (core network
upgrade) – Double-tracking Western
Line; reopen Onehunga Line; Manukau
Line and Newmarket Junction upgrade
Built the core rail network
infrastructure to make best
use of Britomart
investment; led to
significant rail patronage
growth
$600m 2010 KiwiRail

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 27
Project Description Results/ Impacts Cost Year Organisation
Responsible
Interim rolling stock – Upgrade of ex-
Perth DMUs + 24 3-6 push-pull loco
hauled trains made up of ex British
Mark II carriages
Provides rolling stock to
meet growing demand for
passenger rail between
Britomart opening and the
electric train fleet entering
operation
$171m 2010 ARTA
Downtown Ferry Terminal upgrade –
Upgrade of Downtown Ferry Terminal
to improve customer amenity and to
cater for the increasing role of ferries
Allowed for additional ferry
services to be introduced,
e.g. West Harbour, Pine
Harbour, Gulf Harbour
$10m 2010 ARTA/AT
Ferry terminal upgrades – Upgrade of
Northcote Point, Birkenhead, Matiatia,
and Bayswater ferry terminals
Provided quality
infrastructure to match
upgrades in ferry service
frequency and capacity
$9m 2010 AT
Central Flagship Project Simplification of City
Centre bus routes based
on three link bus routes
and supporting services.
Led to significant
patronage growth
OPEX 2011 ARTA/AT
WALKING AND CYCLING

Increase the pedestrian level of
service in key locations in the City
Centre, such as Queen Street. This
has included streetscape upgrades,
changes to traffic signal phasing (for
example Barnes Dance), the removal
of left turn slip lanes, low speed zones
and the new shared spaces. Other
more recent pedestrian improvements
along Queen Street include the double-
phase pedestrian crossings and
reduced speed environment.
Pedestrian numbers along
Queen Street increased by
an impressive 25 per cent
during the weekday
period
15


$40m 2007 ACC

In 2008, following an application by Westfield for permission to construct a high rise building
including an underground car park directly to the East of the Britomart Transport Centre, the then
Minister of Finance, Dr Michael Cullen wrote to KiwiRail stating “it is in the long term public interest
to secure and protect the CBD tunnel route even though construction may not take place for many
years”. Central government sought assurance on route viability resulting in KRG and ARTA
commissioning the APB&B Study
16
(completed November 2010).
The APB&B study was subject to both local authority and central government review over late 2010
and the first half of 2011. The conclusion from those reviews was that there was sufficient comfort
to proceed with route protection activities (i.e. the original purpose of the work), but that more work

15
Figures are between 2007 and 2008, CCMP
16
Aecom, Parsons Brinkerhoff and Beca,  
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 28
was required for a robust case to improve City Centre access, and a more comprehensive
investigation into access options across all modes was desirable to ensure the right investment (or
mix of investments) was identified.
The CCFAS is the study by which the case for change and options analysis is undertaken. It has a
number of important features that differentiate it from the previous work undertaken by APB&B and
the subsequent analysis by both local and central government:
„ The study is multimodal. Its scope requires explicit consideration of bus and rail options and
their integration taking into account growth.
„ The study fully considers multimodal movement both into and around the City Centre. The
APB&B Study had a more narrow scope based more on movement around the City Centre,
and did not consider in detail the issues associated with access prior to reaching the City
Centre.
„ All key assumptions have been jointly agreed between local and central government prior to
modelling being undertaken.

As a result of both a different study scope and different assumptions being used, it was
acknowledged at the outset of the CCFAS that the results may be significantly different to previous
work undertaken by local or central government on the issues of City Centre access and the City
Rail Link. The economic results are not directly comparable with the APB&B Study or the central
government review.
3.1. Comparison of the CCFAS and the APB&B Study
The key differences between the APB&B Study and the CCFAS are summarised below. Appendix
A provides a more detailed comparison.
Planning context
The Auckland Plan provides a common future planning framework for Auckland and central
government to work towards. The Regional Passenger Transport Plan now being consulted brings
all modes together to provide for an integrated PT system. The new PT operating plan mans that
bus and rail are planned to complement each other and maximise access to PT. The CCFAS relies
these documents. For the APB&B Study the Regional Growth Strategy set out an agreed Auckland
planning framework. There was no common planning framework for Auckland agreed with central
government.
Demographics
Population
CCFAS projections derived from the 2012 Statistics New Zealand projections and informed by the
Auckland Plan.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 29
„ 2041
„ High Population Projection = 2.47m
„ Med Population Projection = 2.16m
„ Low Population Projection = 1.8m
„ Auckland reaches 2 million people in 2034 based on medium projection.
APB&B Study projections were derived from the previous Auckland Regional Council‘s (ARC)
modelling of land use for the Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010.
„ 2041
„ Medium Population Projection = 2.1m
„ Auckland reaches 2 million people in 2035 based on medium projection.

Regional and City Centre employment
CCFAS projections for regional and City Centre employment totals are derived from the Auckland
Transport Model and informed by the Auckland Plan.
„ 2041 Region
„ High = 1,040,100 employees
„ Med = 957,659 employees
„ Low = 870,300 employees

„ 2041 City Centre
„ 147,000 employees

Using the medium scenario regional employment is now expected to be significantly higher in 2041
with 40,000 more jobs forecast.
The APB&B Study projections were derived for regional and City Centre employment totals were
derived from Auckland Regional Council (ARC) modelling of land use for the Regional Land
Transport Strategy 2010.
„ 2041 Region
„ 918,000 employees
„ 2041 City Centre
„ 162,000 employees

Transport Modelling
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 30
The CCFAS modelling is based on outputs from: ART, APT and SATURN models.
Since the APB& B study the following improvements have been made to the models used:
„ The refinement and expansion of the SATURN model which models the impacts of congestion
within the City Centre. This model addresses a major gap identified by APB&B. For the
APB&B Study modelling was based on ART, APT outputs and forecasts of the number of cars
and buses entering the CBD in the 2041 morning peak to estimate the expected delays. The
Study noted that “a more detailed model using a package such as SATURN would be ideal (to
show the impact of congestion on cars) but such a model with the correct geographical
coverage does not currently exist.”
„ Crowding function in model: The CCFAS transport modelling includes a newly developed
crowding function to limit PT patronage to capacity. In the APB&B Study the transport
modelling did not include a crowding function on public transport.

Assumptions for modelling
The modelling undertaken for CCFAS is based on a comprehensive set of assumptions jointly
agreed with central government. These include:
„ Land use based on Statistics NZ’s medium population projections
„ The 60/40 split of development within and outside the MUL
„ City centre parking charge of $11 per day applied to 30% of car commuter trips in 2011, rising
to $21 per day by 2041 applying to 50% of car commuter trips
 
A Jointly agreed set of options and collaborative process to short list these for comparison in the
CCFAS.
For the APB&B Study the modelling was based on a set of assumptions jointly agreed between
ARTA and KRG:
„ The maximum CBD parking charge in 2041 was taken as $30 for commuters applying to 50%
of commuters, to reflect the scarcity of parking in an intensely developed CBD.
„ A single land use was assumed, consistent with NZTA methodology.

Comparison for economic modelling and multi-criteria analysis
The performance of the CCFAS options was assessed against a Balanced Reference Case option.
In the APB&B Study short listed options were assessed against a Do Minimum option which
although similar, is not the same as the CCFAS Balanced reference Case. The use of a different
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 31
comparator in the economic modelling means that the economic results from the CCFAS are not
directly comparable with the results of the APB&B Study.

3.2. Regional growth and integrated land use
Auckland faces a considerable challenge in providing services to a population that is growing at a
faster rate than elsewhere in New Zealand.
Auckland is projected to grow by nearly 700,000 new residents to 2.16 million by 2041, using a
medium growth scenario. The AP caters for up to an additional 400,000 dwellings by 2041
including:
„ Up to 280,000 (70%) of the additional dwellings could be located within the 2010 metropolitan
urban limit (MUL).
„ Up to 160,000 dwellings are planned for outside of the MUL.

In many respects, this allowance reflects a historical trend towards higher density development in
Auckland where more intensive types of housing are making up a progressively higher proportion
of the housing stock.
The AP strikes a balance between intensification within the existing urban area and opening up
greenfield areas, including providing cheaper land to facilitate affordable housing development – a
clearly signalled priority for central government.
17
Supporting regional growth through intensification
and integrated land use

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 32
„ Figure 3-1 Recent development density

Source: Auckland Council, PWC analysis
Importantly, there is a clear trend outside of the City Centre towards a greater level of intensity in
the areas with high transport accessibility. The continuation of this trend will be critical to delivering
integration between infrastructure and land use in areas closer to the City Centre.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 33
„ Figure 3-2 Rail and non-rail census area units
18


Source: Auckland Council

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 34
„ Figure 3-3 Recent development density by rail line
19


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

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 35
„ Figure 3-4 Auckland City Council consents issued 2006-2011 by property type

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 36
„ Figure 3-5 Auckland Plan growth areas 
 
Source: Auckland Plan
The largest area of greenfield growth is the southern growth area. This area makes up 65% of the
greenfield dwelling growth outside the MUL and is the highest priority for release. The additional
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 37
greenfield dwelling growth alone is approximately equivalent to the size of Hamilton. The growth in
the southern region in total (e.g. the old Franklin District) will see a region with a population the size
of Lower Hutt, Upper Hutt and Porirua Cities combined (at 2011 levels).
A critical part of the development strategy in the AP will be to ensure that these land use changes
are integrated with infrastructure that supports accessibility to a disparate range of employment
hubs within Auckland. The majority of these employment hubs are north of the Southern Initiative.
The southern growth area is the highest priority for greenfield release and will be implemented
between 2020 and 2028. Providing appropriate infrastructure to service the needs of this area is a
critical challenge for Auckland. Figure 3-6 shows the extent of greenfield area in the Southern
Growth Area that is marked for development.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 38
„ Figure 3-6 Southern growth area
 
Source: Auckland Plan Committee agenda, Auckland Council, 6 November 2012, page 27.
Greenfield growth areas to the north and west are scheduled for release 2029 to 2040 and account
for around 40,000 additional dwellings.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 39
3.4. The City Centre and its growth
While Auckland is a geographically dispersed city in terms of employment and residential location,
the City Centre plays a critical role as a residential location, employment hub, and education hub.
The City Centre is one of the two big initiatives in the AP (City Centre Initiative) and the long-term
strategy for the City Centre is captured in the City Centre Masterplan (CCMP).
The vision as outlined in the CCMP is:
“By 2032 Auckland’s City Centre will be highly regarded internationally as a centre for business and
learning, innovation, entertainment, culture and urban living”
3.4.1. City Centre growth
The residential population of both the City Centre and City Fringe are projected to almost double
between 2011 and 2041. The City Centre is projected to grow by 96% and the City Fringe by 99%.
These areas are shown in Figure 3-7.
„ Figure 3-7 Auckland City Centre definition

Source: CCMP, page 19
Given that the population of the region as a whole is expected to increase by 45 per cent over this
period, both the City Centre and City Fringe are growing significantly faster than the average rate of
population growth within the region.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 40
3.4.2. City Centre employment and access
The City Centre is already a key employment destination for the region. Over the next 30 years, the
employment numbers are projected to almost double in the City Centre and City Fringe as shown
in Figure 3-8. The City Centre itself is projected to increase by approximately 80% with almost half
this growth forecast by 2021. Only the Waitakere North area will grow at a faster rate and this is a
key area earmarked for greenfields growth from a residential perspective (i.e. employment growth
is starting from a low base).
„ Figure 3-8 Projected employment growth
 
Source: Auckland Transport
One of the critical reasons for this growth is that the structure of the Auckland economy is
changing. Just over one-third of Auckland’s employment is currently in the production and
distribution sectors; around one-quarter in each of the commercial sectors and retail, hospitality
and recreation sectors; with the remaining employees in the education and health sector.
Consistent with the observed trends in Auckland and other developed cities, Auckland is expected
to become increasingly specialised into commercial, office-based activity over time. Growth in the
commercial sector will increase the demand for land and premises suitable for office-based activity.
These sectors tend to co-locate in City Centres. Meanwhile, growth will occur in the production and
distribution sectors, maintaining the demand for land to accommodate these sectors. A
continuation of the transformation of centres and corridors with high levels of accessibility for
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 41
workers, into areas of commercial, office-based activity combined with the relocation and growth of
production and distribution sector activities around the more peripheral greenfield sites is
consistent with existing observed patterns of growth in Auckland and is most likely to continue.
„ Table 3-2 Forecast employment growth by sector and change in employment structure
in Auckland, 2007-2041
   Growth 2007‐2041  Share of Auckland 
employment 
Industry sector  Net change  Annual average 
growth rate 
Share of 
growth 
2007  2041 
Production and distribution  89,250  1.0%  27%  35%  32% 
Retail, hospitality and  
recreation 
37,969  0.7%  12%  23%  19% 
Commercial  129,411  1.7%  39%  26%  30% 
Education and health  72,496  1.6%  22%  16%  18% 
Total industry  329,126  1.2%  100%  100%  100% 
Source: Auckland Council 2012, Auckland Growth Model.
The City Centre plays a critical role in the region’s economy. It accounts for 17% of Auckland’s
Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By 2041 it is estimated to account for 25% of Auckland’s GDP at a
time when Auckland’s GDP is growing at 2.4%pa.
The City Centre plays a critical role as the structure of the economy changes. While growth in
businesses will come partly from start-ups, still more growth will come from firms that get larger
either through organic growth, or mergers and acquisitions. Business location in Auckland is
already dynamic and influenced by a large number of factors. Critical to many relocation decisions
is the ability to not only cost-effectively service clients but also locate in an area that maximises
advantages to staff, or minimises the impact of the relocation on their commute times.
The qualitative research done by Gravitas
20
on the Britomart Precinct neatly summarises the
challenge of many business relocation decisions in Auckland: “The CBD is seen as ….being a
central location that doesn’t necessarily favour staff coming from any particular direction over
another. It is an equitable solution in this respect.”
A number of the businesses that participated in the Gravitas research had surveyed staff prior to
their move to identify residential locations and current/preferred mode of travel to and from work.
In all cases, the diverse range of residential locations acted as a strong catalyst to locate in central
Auckland:

20
Drivers of Business Location in the Auckland CBD, Gravitas 2012
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 42
“People come from north, south, east, west. The moment you take a building to any of those other
points of the compass, you advantage a few people who live there and everybody else has
massive transport hurdles. We ended up with some very strong property solutions down at Sylvia
Park, up north of Albany, out at Henderson, which would have saved us a truckload of rent. But
moving to any non-central location would have undermined our core principles of getting people out
of their cars, getting our people on to public transport, being near to our customers, being near to
our suppliers and providing all the support amenities that people lean on during their day.”
“Just in my team for example I’ve got people coming from west Auckland and the North Shore and
other people as far out as Beachlands and Papakura. So being in the CBD, being close to the
central point of focus I think is pretty imperative.””
21

3.4.3. Education
The University of Auckland (UoA) and Auckland University of Technology (AUT) City Centre
campuses alone currently account for over 50,000 full time equivalent students (EFTS). Student
numbers across these two institutions, combined with general employee numbers in the City
Centre and City Fringe total over 170,000 (i.e. tertiary education adds around 45% to the non-
education employee count of over 100,000).
The UoA’s strategic plan is to increase this by 1% year on year and AUT has similar goals.
Auckland is already seeing these strategic plans put into action via such initiatives as the
development of the UoA’s Newmarket campus. These plans would yield over 5,000 additional
students across these two institutions within the next 8 years and if taken out to 2040, would deliver
around 15,000 additional students.
In addition to the public tertiary institutions, there are a large number of private training facilities
within the City Centre and City Fringe which service domestic students, and a significant number of
international students.
The international education industry is worth $2.6 billion to the NZ economy and is the 5
th
largest
foreign exchange earner
22
aside from tourism (our number two foreign exchange earner); no other
services-based industry is in the top 12 foreign exchange earners. The City Centre through the
Universities and private training institutions is probably the most significant international education
destination in New Zealand and the quality of the City Centre is a factor
23
in student decisions to
come to New Zealand.

21
Drivers of Business Location in the Auckland CBD, Gravitas 2012, P9-10
22
Statistics NZ, 2008
23
Clearly quality of teaching and cost competitiveness are critical factors as well, however,
research by Education New Zealand points to location decisions seldom being based on quality
and cost alone.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 43
3.4.4. Regional hub for critical components of the Auckland economy
In addition to the key residential, employment and education features of the City Centre, there are
a number of other considerations when looking at the City Centre in the Auckland strategic context:
„ The City Centre is critical to the operation of the freight network due to the location of the port
„ The largest concentration of hotels, motels and backpacker accommodation is within the City
Centre, which means, with the exception of Auckland International Airport precinct, it is the
most significant economic contributor to tourism in the Auckland region
„ As discussed in the next section, the City Centre and City Fringe is the fulcrum on which the
transport network operates. It is not only a critical destination, but also a major transit point for
commuters and freight whose origins and destinations are not the City Centre.
„ The City Centre has the greatest concentration of cultural and sporting facilities in the region.

3.5. The nature of Auckland’s transport challenge
3.5.1. Overview
Auckland is a geographically dispersed city with multiple employment hubs and a large, low density
residential area. While the AP and the dwelling growth discussed above support greater
intensification, the fundamentals of the Auckland region require a transport system that serves
dispersed travel patterns as well as the City Centre.
Auckland’s transport system is supported by multimodal networks which together enable people to
travel by different modes, at different times of the day and to access different activities and places
across the Auckland region. These networks supply infrastructure and services to enable the travel
choices and movements of residents, businesses, visitors and other users to, from and within
Auckland. The networks include:
„ Inter-regional freight services
„ National and regional state highways – cars, trucks and commercial vehicles, coach
services and cyclists
„ Arterial and local roads – cars, trucks and commercial vehicles, and cyclists
„ Public transport – train, bus, taxi and ferry services
„ Parking – on-street and off-street
„ Local active modes – cycling and walking facilities.

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 44
Up until, and including the 1980’s the Auckland transport system had sufficient capacity to handle
travel demands in an acceptable way
24
, but this significantly degraded through to the early 2000’s
with increasing congestion and competition for roadspace.
There has been substantial investment in the transport system over recent years. This has
included: construction of the Northern Busway; double tracking the Western Line; modern stations
beginning with Britomart; new rail links to Manukau and Onehunga; developing the Western Ring
Road; the motorway connection through Grafton Gully and the removal of bottlenecks through the
Central Motorway Junction.
Completion of motorway projects has positively impacted on reliability of travel times, which are
particularly unreliable during the evening peak. In 2012, travel times are varying from evening to
evening by an average of 25 per cent, as opposed to 35 per cent in 2011
25
.
„ Figure 3-9 Morning trips to the City Centre (2001-2012)

Source: Auckland Transport analysis
Further substantial projects are underway and will be completed over the next few years. These
include introducing integrated ticketing and rail electrification, and completion of the remaining
Western Ring Route section of SH20 at Waterview.
Significant work is also being undertaken to optimise and improve efficiencies for the public
transport network. In particular, work recently completed by McCormick Rankin Cagney (MRC) has
identified opportunities to rationalise the bus network to drive greater capacity and efficiency
through the improvement of feeder services connecting to the rapid transit network (rail and the
Northern Busway) and the removal of competing routes.
Once these planned projects are completed by 2020, the system’s strengths will include:

24
2012 Integrated Transport Plan
25
2012 Integrated Transport Plan
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 45
„ A motorway network that will provide high-speed, safe road connections for moving people
and freight across Auckland
„ A safer and more reliable local road network
„ Improved network management through the new Joint Traffic Operations Centre, including
real-time user information systems
„ Much improved bus services, which have benefited from the Northern Busway, heavy
investment in new bus fleets and a comprehensive restructure of services
„ Improved inter-regional connections to Northland and Waikato as a result of the construction of
the Northern Toll Road and the development of the Waikato expressway
„ A rail freight network that connects Auckland to the North and South as well as providing
internal rail freight connections to the Ports of Auckland and the Wiri inland port.
 
3.5.2. Current City Centre access
The Auckland City Centre is the most important destination in the city and also the most important
transit route. Many people who have origins and destinations outside of the City Centre pass
through the City Centre and City Fringe.
Access into and around the City Centre is multimodal with car, bus, train, ferry, walking and cycling
each having a critical part to play. Morning peak (2 hours) numbers for 2011 are shown in Table
3-10
26
:
„ Table 3-10 2011 morning peak commuters (motorised)
Total delivered City Centre commuters
27
71,800
28

39,100 (55%)

5,600 (8%)

23,400 (33%)

3,700 (5%)
Source: 2011 Auckland Transport screenline surveys

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 46
3.5.3. Rail and Bus Catchments
The City Centre is serviced by a rail network encompassing 4 lines to the south, the east and the
west. Rail is the main provider of capacity in the Auckland Rapid Transit Network (RTN). A frequent
transit network (FTN) will connect frequent bus services to the rail network providing a network
effect.
„ Figure 3-11 Frequent Transit Networks

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 47
intensity is focused (as shown in Figure 3-2). The blue highlights the bus feeder and park and ride
catchment, based on the design of the new bus network with feeder buses heading towards the city
centre intercepting rail generally within 20 minutes of on-bus travel time. There is also significant
park and ride activity from this catchment. The yellow is the park and ride catchment as identified
in the furthest 2006 census meshblocks from rail which generated significant numbers of rail trips
to work.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 48
„ Figure 3-12 Auckland rail catchment

Source: Auckland Transport
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 49
The 2006 journey to work data provided evidence of where people were catching public transport
from and this map shows the potential walking, bus feeder and park n ride catchments based on
actual behaviour. The walking catchment shown is 1.5 km (or approximately 15 minutes walk) from
stations. While this is beyond the 50
th
percentile for walk distance, it still reflects the area where
walking is a significant access mode to rail.
The bus catchment was determined by access to direct bus services to rail, generally with no more
than 20 minutes on-bus travel time which intercepted rail in the direction of travel towards the City
Centre. Areas that required backtracking to intercept rail were specifically excluded.
The park and ride catchment was calculated by the furthest census meshblock where there were
significant numbers of people travelled for whom rail was the main mode for their journey to work in
the 2006 Census. Since then, rail patronage has more than doubled in Auckland.
The bus network as implemented under the McCormick Rankin Cagney (MRC) work will
complement the RTN, but also provide a range of other services including the FTN and local and
connector services. Figure 3-10 shows the 2016 integration of the public transport network
following the implementation of the revised bus network and rail electrification.

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 50
„ Figure 3-10 Bus – rail integration plan

Source: Auckland Transport
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Background

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 51
 
3.6. Strategic challenges looking ahead
While current and committed investment leaves Auckland with a more balanced network that is
delivering acceptable levels of service for the next 5-10 years, the on-going challenge is to cost-
effectively address medium to long term issues. This challenge has a number of economic, social
and environmental components.
The Auckland Plan was a legal requirement of the Local Government (Auckland Council)
Amendment Act 2010.
At a high level, the challenge is threefold:
„ Ensure future region-wide growth is accommodated: At the simplest level, this means
delivering a transport network that can at least move people around the region.
„ Deliver a network that supports targeted growth areas: Delivering the land use provided
for in the AP is critical to delivering a sustainable, economically robust and affordable city. The
levels of service and accessibility delivered by the transport network will be critical to getting
development in the right areas.
„ Accessibility at the right time into the greenfield growth areas to multiple employment
destinations, as well as continuing to service an intensifying isthmus are critical
challenges.
„ Deliver a network that minimises economic loss and focuses on high economic returns
in the future: While the City Centre is already a critical part of the Auckland economy the
forecasts show it will progressively become more important and more dominant.
„ Maintaining accessibility to the City Centre and City Fringe is critical to maintaining the
competitiveness and attractiveness of Auckland.



STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 52
4. Defining the case for change
In order to better understand the likely future issues for transport in supporting the development of
the City Centre and contributing to the efficiency of the regional transport network, a deficiency
analysis was undertaken.
This analysis concluded that there are significant and pressing access issues to the Auckland City
Centre.
• By 2021:
o Most bus networks approaching the City Centre, as well as the City Centre itself
are at capacity and some are over capacity in terms of what can physically be
provided for within the existing road corridor (i.e. it is not just a matter of providing
additional busses on existing roads).
o Private motor vehicle speeds in the City Centre are halved from 16 kph in the
morning peak to 8 kph
o The rail network has reached the maximum number of services possible, but some
patronage capacity remains.
• By 2041:
o The bus network to the City Centre is significantly over capacity.
o Car journey times to the city centre are increasing by 30-50% from the west and
south, with an extra 30 minutes from the targeted Southern Growth Area. The
addition of the AWHC improves overall journey times from the north. Journey times
from the isthmus are forecast to increase by 20-30% over the same period.
o Average car speeds in the City Centre drop to 5 kph in the morning peak – the
equivalent of walking pace.
o While there appears to be spare patronage capacity on the rail network coming
into Britomart, there are capacity issues on rail outside the City Centre, with
volumes exceeding capacity on links approaching Puhinui, Penrose and
Newmarket stations.
It is important to note that the modelling is premised on a medium population growth scenario and
includes all major projects outside of the study area (for example, the Additional Waitemata
Harbour Crossing is included and providing significant capacity and improved journey times to the
City Centre from the North). As such, it is an analysis at the more optimistic end of the scale in
terms of the ability of the City Centre to accommodate demand.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 53


4.1. Deficiency Analysis framework
In order to better understand the likely future issues for transport in Auckland in supporting the
development of the City Centre, a Deficiency Analysis was undertaken. A Deficiency Analysis is
essentially a study to identify the location, nature, and scale of deficiencies in a system, measured
against defined thresholds in terms of system performance.
In this particular instance, it refers specifically to shortfalls in transport network capacity when
compared to demand for the network. In terms of public transport, those shortfalls are expressed in
terms of excess passenger demand above the carrying capacity of public transport services (based
on service frequency and reliability, and vehicle capacity), while for roads, the relationship is
between vehicles volumes and road capacity (related to road widths and arrangements at
intersections).
The Deficiency Analysis undertaken as part of the Study focused on the extent to which planned
transport infrastructure developments in terms of both changes to public transport services and
highway capacity, would cater for planned future land use growth (specifically the AP) with the aim
of identifying any particular issues or opportunities that the options assessed within the CCFAS
would be expected to address.
The full working paper is included in Appendix C, and summarised below are two key aspects
being the definition of the Initial Reference Case , and key findings from the Deficiency Analysis,
with the latter based on an assessment of the former. Reference Case model outputs were used as
the basis of this Deficiency Analysis as they represented the best current forecast for the state of
public transport and highway networks in Auckland in the selected future years, not taking into
account any proposed options put forward as a result of the CCFAS. Further details are provided in
the section below.
In order to guide the Study development, this analysis was undertaken at an early stage using
outputs from the ART3 model which did not include crowding effects. This assisted in identifying
trends and indicative future network performance. The Deficiency Analysis identified both the
location and scale of the problems that the future transport network is facing.
4.2. Initial Reference Case definition
The Reference Case scenarios were developed based on a range of assumptions (refer to
Appendix B) regarding land-use and committed changes to public transport service provision and
road transport network capacity. Originally, a do minimum was envisaged to be used for the
CCFAS using only those projects that had committed funding. However, it was agreed by the PWG
that this was unrealistic as through the years a number of projects would be required for Auckland
to keep functioning. Given the purposes of the CCFAS, where the importance was placed on
comparison, a common reference was required which led to agreement on the Reference Case
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 54
which is discussed below. Future years of 2021 and 2041 were adopted as this aligned with the
regional transport models.
Details of the projects included in the Reference Case are included in Appendix B and are
consistent with those identified in the Auckland Plan. The committed transport schemes included in
the Reference Case 2021 include:
„ Rail electrification;
„ AMETI (Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative) early stages (including South Eastern
Busway– A new busway from Panmure Station to Botany, including major upgrade to Panmure bus/rail
interchange);
„ Waterview connection;
„ Integrated ticketing and fares;
„ New bus network implementation with Passenger Transport Operating Model (PTOM);
„ Puhoi to Wellsford- Road of National Significance (RoNS);
„ AT has recently developed an integrated bus network approach described in the Auckland
Passenger Transport Network Plan (PTNP) based on work undertaken by MRC.

In addition, by 2041 a number of other schemes that are currently not funded were also included,
as follows:
„ Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing (in 2041 only) (also included in the City Centre
SATURN model);
„ AMETI later stages;
„ Multi Modal East West Link
„ State highway upgrades and removal of bottlenecks, including widening on SH1, SH16, SH18
and SH20 and improvements at SH1 Takanini interchange, SH16 St Lukes interchange.

As a result, the Reference Case scenarios used as the basis of the Deficiency Analysis included a
large amount of road-based transport infrastructure investment outside the City Centre. This
therefore presented a ‘best case’ for the regional transport network in both 2021 and 2041.
4.3. Deficiency Analysis findings
The Deficiency Analysis clearly identified that demand for public transport services would exceed
assumed capacity by a significant degree in both the 2021 and 2041 Reference Case years. Figure
4-1 shows average AM peak-hour Volume-to-Capacity ratios (VCRs) on public transport links in the
2021 Reference Case. This indicates that demand for the network is forecast to be in excess of
capacity on most corridors into the City Centre by this time.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 55
In this instance, a VCR of 1 means that all the public transport services on a particular route are
full. A VCR of 2 means that the cumulative passenger demand forecast for all public transport
services on a particular road or rail link from the ART3 model is double the cumulative carrying
capacity of services on that link during the stated time period. Forecast demand for services in the
model is based on forecast land-use (expressed in terms of population and employment) and the
generalised cost of different travel options, and is unconstrained by the capacity of public transport
services in ART3.
„ Figure 4-1 Average morning peak hour public transport volume capacity ratio by link
(2021 Reference Case)

Source: CCFAS Deficiency Analysis
By 2041, the situation on the public transport network has worsened noticeably when compared
with 2021, as shown in Figure 4-2. In particular, the following key corridors did not have sufficient
capacity to meet demand for the service in the modelled years:
„ Great South Road – VCR >2 in both 2021 and 2041;
„ Khyber Pass Road – VCR >2 in both 2021 and 2041;
„ Great North Road – VCR >1.5 in 2021 and >2 in 2041;
„ Mt Eden Road – VCR >1.5 in 2021 and >2 in 2041;
Great North Rd
Manukau Rd
Mt Eden Rd
Dominion Rd
Great South Rd
Khyber Pass Rd
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 56
„ Dominion Road/Manukau Road – VCR >1.5 in 2041.

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

Source: CCFAS Deficiency Analysis
The analysis of public transport VCRs also served to highlight issues in the City Centre, with buses
on all approach roads except Quay Street, forecast to be over capacity in the 2021 Reference
Case, as shown in Figure 4-3.
Great North Rd
Manukau Rd
Mt Eden Rd
Dominion Rd
Great South Rd
Khyber Pass Rd
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 57
„ Figure 4-3 Average morning peak hour public transport volume capacity ratio by link in
City Centre (2021 Reference case)

Source: CCFAS Deficiency Analysis
By 2041, demand for bus services on all approach roads into the City Centre including Quay Street
is forecast to be in excess of capacity, as shown in Figure 4-4. The following locations were
highlighted as issues in the modelled years:
„ Grafton Road – VCR >2 in both 2021 and 2041;
„ Grafton Bridge – VCR >1.5 in 2021, >2 in 2041;
„ Albert Street – VCR >2 in 2041;
„ Symonds Street / Karangahape Road – VCR >1.5 in 2041.

Albert St
Fanshawe St
Symonds St
Karangahape Rd
Grafton Bridge
Grafton Rd
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 58
„ Figure 4-4 Average morning peak hour public transport volume capacity ratio by link in
City Centre (2041 Reference Case)

Source: CCFAS Deficiency Analysis
The Deficiency Analysis also clearly identified that increasing the frequency of bus services to meet
forecast demand in the modelled Reference Case years would lead to significant operational
issues on high-frequency corridors. Research indicates that bus network performance deteriorates
significantly when frequency exceeds 100 buses per hour
29
using a single bus lane without
indented bus stops. This threshold can vary due to the nature of the specific site. Factors such as
intersection delays, interactions with pedestrians and bus stop operation can reduce the threshold
further. For example, 100 buses per hour is a bus every 36 seconds on average. Therefore, at the
point where a single bus stops for longer than 36 seconds, it delays buses behind it, and the effect
then cascades back along the route. As the frequency increases, the impact of such delays is more
pronounced. Table 4-1 below indicates the volumes of buses per hour and the corresponding
description of the flow for arterial and downtown streets.

29
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, TRB
Albert St
Fanshawe St
Symonds St
Karangahape Rd
Grafton Bridge
Grafton Rd
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 59
„ Table 4-1 Transport Research Board bus flows

Source: Transportation Research Board, & Kittelson and Associates, Incorporated. (2003).Transit Capacity and Quality of
Service Manual, 2nd Edition. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100. published by Transportation
Research Board.
The validity of this threshold is evident on the current bus network in Auckland. The highest flow is
on Symonds Street south of its junction with Grafton Bridge, with approximately 125 buses per hour
using this link in a single direction during the AM peak-hour. Observation of bus activity on this link
in August 2012 indicated evidence of poor service reliability during this time period, with frequent
bunching of vehicles, delays at stops and junctions, and bus-passing activity at stops. Such activity
impacts service reliability by disrupting the interval at which buses operating a particular route
arrive at stops, which means that the actual average wait time of passengers using the route
increases above the expected wait time (usually estimated as half the frequency of the route in
question i.e. 1 bus every 10 minutes = average passenger wait time of 5 minutes). The photos in
Figure 4-5 illustrate buses queuing at stops and junctions during the AM peak-hour on Symonds
Street.
„ Figure 4-5 Symonds Street (0800-0900, Thursday 16th August 2012)

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 60

Source: CCFAS Deficiency Analysis – SKM site visit, Thursday 16 August 2012
Many other bus corridors in Auckland are already operating at the 80 -100 buses per hour which
results in the unstable flow and queuing seen on the inner city streets. The City Centre streets of
Fanshawe, Customs, Wellesley, Albert and Symonds Streets are operating at the 80 to 100 bus
level and the unstable flow is already apparent. Platooning or bunching of buses is common on
high frequency routes like Dominion Road and Pakuranga Highway.
Increasing service frequency on such corridors to meet demand will further reduce network
performance, and higher forecast demand for services will also lead to increasing dwell times at
stops as a result of more boarding and alighting activity, exacerbating the issue. Due to additional
boarding in the PM peak this issue is expected to be worse in that peak.
In addition, forecast increases in general traffic will also increase delays and limit options for bus
priority improvements – this is discussed in more detail later on in this chapter.
Oxford Street in London provides evidence of the extent to which network performance can be
affected by increasing service frequencies. A 2010 report for the London Assembly indicated that
with peak flows in each direction of up to 160 buses per hour, average daytime speeds had
reduced to between 3.7 and 9.5mph, and buses were scheduled to take 22 minutes to travel 1.5
miles along the street. In addition, police records indicated a high level of accidents involving buses
and air quality indicators for the street were very poor with levels of NO
2
at 4.5 times the
designated European Union safe levels. The report resulted in the Mayor asking Transport for
London to reduce the number of buses using the street by 20% by the end of 2010. The photo in
Figure 4-6 illustrates bus network conditions on Oxford Street in 2009.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 61
„ Figure 4-6 Oxford Street in 2009

Source: London Assembly Transport Committee (2009): ‘Streets ahead – relieving congestion on Oxford Street, Regent
Street and Bond Street’.
Further examples of bus congestion from Sydney are shown Figure 4-7 where the road layout is
more consistent with the Auckland City Centre.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 62
„ Figure 4-7 Sydney bus congestion examples

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 63
„ Figure 4-8 Required City Centre morning peak hour service frequency to meet demand
(2021 Reference Case)

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 64
„ Figure 4-9 Required City Centre morning peak hour service frequency (2041 Reference
Case)

Source: CCFAS Deficiency Analysis
In summary, the Deficiency Analysis demonstrates that operating these required frequencies is not
practical for the following reasons:
„ Operational constraints relating to service reliability and delays associated with operating high
frequencies on key corridors;
„ Physical road capacity and junction priority issues (both for bus and general traffic);
„ Impacts on environmental and streetscape amenity and road safety created by high frequency
bus corridors;
„ Limited opportunities for route optimisation as a result of the limited number of bus access
corridors to the City Centre.

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 65
high capacity buses
30
. This is assumed to be double decker buses, as they have the same
operational space requirements as standard buses (other than height and overhang restrictions).
Articulated buses can have higher passenger capacities but introduce a number of operational
constraints mainly to the turning circle and tracking curves that they require to operate.
Figure 4-10 indicates that by 2021, frequencies of 125 buses per hour would still be required on
Wellesley Street and 150 buses per hour on Fanshawe Street and Symonds Street even if the bus
fleet was fully upgraded to high-capacity vehicles.
„ Figure 4-10 Required morning peak hour service frequency (high-capacity buses – 2021
Reference Case)

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

30
AT specified buses with capacity of 68 passengers.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 66
„ Figure 4-11 Required morning peak hour service frequency (high-capacity buses – 2041
Reference Case)

Source: CCFAS Deficiency Analysis
In addition, upgrading the entire bus fleet in Auckland to high-capacity vehicles presents a number
of significant challenges, including:
„ The age of the current bus fleet, which is relatively new, means that only 5% of the fleet would
be replaced naturally every year, which in turn means that only 45% of the current fleet would
be replaced naturally by 2021. This is based on the assumed lifespan of 20-years per vehicle
and that replacement would occur progressively over time rather than replacing all the buses
at once;
„ Operator cost issues related to the operation of high-capacity buses during off-peak periods
when demand for services is much lower;
„ The potential impact on delays and journey time reliability of increased boarding and alighting
times due to the increased capacity of buses;
„ The physical network changes required to operate high-capacity vehicles, particularly
articulated buses which require larger turning areas and tracking paths when turning. This can
introduce the need to expand or heavily modify intersections. There are also issues with
double decker buses due to their height and camber of the road. As has been experienced on
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 67
the Dominion Road project, verandas and overhangs from buildings over the footpath are often
in the way if double decker buses are running in the bus lanes and these need to be modified
before these buses can be put into service.

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

Source: CCFAS Deficiency Analysis
The map indicates that journey times are forecast to increase to the City Centre from every part of
the city with the exception of the North Shore, which benefits from the inclusion of the Additional
Waitemata Harbour Crossing (AWHC) in the 2041 Reference Case model assumptions. It is worth
noting that despite its inclusion in the 2041 Reference Case, the AWHC is currently unfunded.
The increase in congestion is forecast to occur alongside the increase in demand for public
transport services, which suggests that without additional capacity into the City Centre, the
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 68
opportunities for optimising the bus network through the provision of more dedicated lanes and
priority at signal junctions will become more and more limited in future.
In the ART3 modelling the forecast number of AM peak car trips to the City Centre in 2041 is
broadly similar to the forecast for 2021, suggesting that road network capacity constraints in the
City Centre results in suppressed demand
31
and some mode shift to public transport by 2041 (with
total public transport trips to the City Centre forecast to increase by 31% between the 2021 and
2041). In contrast, car trips outside the City Centre are forecast to increase between 2021 and
2041, increasing congestion on many links and journey times to the City Centre as a result.
Following the initial deficiency analysis, more detailed traffic modelling was undertaken using the
CBD SATURN model to understand the changes in levels of congestion within the City Centre.
By 2041 the number of vehicle trips within the City Centre cordon will have increased to 41,800 in
the morning peak (57% increase over 2010 and 10% increase over 2021) and vehicle speeds have
dropped to 5 kph (decrease in average speed of 68% compared to 2010 and 28% since 2021).
This indicates that congestion within the City Centre is going to increase significantly making
private and commercial vehicle access much more difficult.
„ Table 4-2 City Centre SATURN model summary
Reference Case 2011 2021 2041
Auckland population 1,461,900 1,722,100 (+18%) 2,160,700 (+48%)
Number of vehicle trips
in CMJ cordon, morning
peak hour
26,600
32
37,900 (+42%) 41,800 (+57%)
Average speed (kph),
morning peak hour

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

32,600 52,700 (+62%) 67,600 (+107%)
Source: City Centre SATURN model, CBD cordon statistics, morning peak hour
Note: Vehicle trips are within the cordon and include trips that begin and end in the City Centre as well as trips that are
internal to the City Centre.

31
This is demand that wants to travel, but is unable to due to capacity constraints, in this case
within the City Centre. This demand is therefore suppressed and can be thought of as undelivered
demand.
32
2010 City Centre SATURN model
33
Patronage data for 2011 is from Passenger Transport Patronage Surveys, 2011 and only
captures those people crossing the City Centre screenline. 2021 and 2041 data is taken from the
Balanced Reference Case (with crowding), APT evaluation data 1.01 and includes all PT journeys
with the City Centre as the destination, with some originating in the City Centre.
5 7 16
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 69
The findings also indicated that while there appears to be spare capacity on the rail network
coming into Britomart, there are capacity issues on rail outside the City Centre, with volumes
exceeding assumed capacity on the western line and links approaching Puhinui, Penrose and
Newmarket stations from the south by 2041. A high level of alighting activity at Newmarket and
Parnell stations subsequently reduces demand into Britomart itself. A more detailed review of the
current rail network constraints is included in Section 4.4 below.
It is clear when looking at absolute demand for public transport in both Reference Case years that
there are four key corridors that warrant higher-level intervention as follows:
„ Harbour Bridge from North Shore
„ Great South Road corridor
„ Great North Road corridor
„ Dominion Road/Mt Eden Road corridor

Figure 4-13 shows absolute demand for public transport in the 2021 Reference Case, indicating
that AM peak hour flows are forecast to exceed 5,000 people on the Harbour Bridge, and 2,000 on
the Great North Road and Great South Road corridors.
„ Figure 4-13 Total morning peak hour bus and rail demand by link (2021 Reference Case)
Source: CCFAS Deficiency Analysis
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 70
By 2041, forecast demand exceeds 3,000 trips per hour on the Great North Road and the Great
South Road corridors, and exceeds 2,000 trips per hour on Dominion Road alone, with demand
above 1,000 trips per hour on neighbouring corridors such as Mt Eden Road. This is illustrated on
the map in Figure 4-14.
„ Figure 4-14 Total morning peak hour bus and rail demand by link (2041 Reference Case)
Source: CCFAS Deficiency Analysis
The Deficiency Analysis supports the conclusions that forecast demand in 2021 and 2041 is too
high to be adequately addressed by adjusting service frequencies and vehicle capacities on the
existing transport network, and that additional intervention is required to increase capacity to the
City Centre
4.4. Rail constraints at Britomart
On the rail network, the Britomart terminus and Quay Park junction, which is very close to Britomart
limit the number of train paths into and out of the City Centre. Further out, Newmarket constrains
the frequency of trains that can be operated from the western and southern lines. The
electrification peak period electric train timetable, planned for implementation in 2015, consists of
20 trains per hour (tph) in and out of Britomart during peak periods, comprised of 6 tph on each of
the Southern, Western and Eastern routes, together with 2 tph from Onehunga. At Newmarket, 6
tph will reverse going west and 6 tph reverse coming into the city as well as 8 tph in each direction
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 71
as through trains to and from the Southern and Onehunga lines. The combination of the
Newmarket constraint with Quay Park/Britomart effectively means that by 2015, all of the useable
peak train paths into and out of Newmarket and Britomart will be in use, providing no room to add
additional services in the future. CRL relieves Newmarket, Quay Park and Britomart by bringing
western line trains into the City Centre without the need to go through Newmarket and Quay Park
and serving Britomart from the other direction.
Post electrification, demand does not exceed rail capacity in 2021 with the majority of the network
able to operate within the seated capacity. This is because demand is constrained by the current
network and frequencies which will operate following electrification. The Western Line rail capacity
will be exceeded sometime around 2030 if the post-electrification network and timetable is
operated. Seated capacity at the key load point on the Western Line will be reached prior to 2021.
Demand is however constrained by the frequency of services that can be operated post
electrification. If higher frequency services could be operated, demand would exceed capacity on
the Western Line for services prior to Kingsland by 2021. On this basis the latent demand exceeds
capacity on the rail in 2021. In 2041 demand exceeds capacity on the Western line for services
coming into Newmarket
4.5. Bus network capacity
Further analysis of bus capacity has been undertaken to identify key services and corridors that
reach their capacity, and when this is likely to occur assuming increased frequencies within the
physical capacities of the current bus network. Figure 4-15 below shows the routes which serve the
City Centre and that have a forecast patronage in excess of 250 people per AM peak hour. A peak
hour factor of 0.6 has been used to estimate peak hour demand from the 2 hour modelled period
demand and a factor of 85% of maximum capacity has used to give an indication of optimal
capacity for buses.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Defining the case for change

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 72
„ Figure 4-15 Balanced Reference Case bus volume capacity by service

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

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 73
5. Short list option development
A long list of potential options were identified within a number of parameters:
• Mode: Including bus, rail, light rail and personal rapid transit.
• Scope: With options ranging from optimisation of existing assets through to additional
infrastructure
• Location: Overlaying these modes, underground, surface and above ground variations
were considered. Critically, the long list also included consideration of approaches outside
of the City Centre and City Centre fringe.
The long list and the evaluation criteria was developed in consultation with local government and
central government in a series of workshops. The approach to considering the long list was a
multicriteria analysis. This approach is consistent with international best practice for transport
projects. It is also consistent with NZ Treasury guidance for long list option development contained
in their Better Business Cases toolkit.
46 options were identified for the long list. Through the two long list option evaluation workshops
and revising the evaluation approach to incorporate both quantitative and qualitative assessments,
the options to take forward to the short list for more detailed modelling and assessment were
agreed by all stakeholders:
Underground rail: The CRL option developed by AT.
Surface bus: Enhanced bus priority on Wellesley Street, Symonds Street (between Wellesley
Street and Grafton Bridge) and Albert / Vincent Streets. This option would be assessed both with
and without improvements to the regional approach corridors.
Underground bus: Underground bus tunnel along the Wellesley Street alignment with enhanced
bus priority on Symonds Street between Wellesley Street and Grafton Bridge along with surface
improvements on Albert / Vincent Streets. This option would be assessed both with and without
improvements to the regional approach corridors.
Other option: No ‘other’ option would warrant further investigation in the context of the CCFAS.

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 74
The terms of reference for this study (as agreed with the key stakeholders) was clear that the long
list assessment did not need to come up with a short list of the best performing options overall, but
rather the best performing sub-option under four specific headline options:
„ Underground rail infrastructure;
„ Surface bus infrastructure;
„ Underground bus infrastructure; and
„ Other.

Therefore, the focus of the long list development was to develop options under these broad
headings to choose the option to take forward to the short list assessment.
The full working paper detailing the long list options development is included at Appendix D.
5.1.1. Underground rail infrastructure headline
As a significant amount of work has been undertaken identifying the optimal CRL option, no
additional consideration of underground rail options was required at the long list stage. Instead it
was assumed that the option taken forward to the short list evaluation would be AT’s preferred CRL
option including the supporting bus networks developed by MRC. This option is considered to be
the optimal option due to the extensive analysis regarding potential alternative alignments already
undertaken between 2009 and 2012.
5.1.2. Surface bus infrastructure headline
Surface bus covers a wide range of potential options from simple bus priority right through to full
Bus Rapid Transit with fully segregated right of way. Therefore, to ensure that all appropriate
options were considered and the best performing of those taken forward, this headline was broken
down further into the flowing categories:
„ Best use of existing infrastructure;
„ Enhanced bus operation; and
„ Bus Rapid Transit
Category 1 – Best use of existing infrastructure
These options rely on existing road space, and provide some new sections of bus lanes to cope
with an increase in volumes of buses entering the City Centre. The routes are split out when they
reach the City Centre and are distributed across all major corridors so that the additional buses can
be accommodated. The buses are made to ‘fit’ the City Centre as much as possible and virtually all
major corridors in the City Centre become part of a bus route.
The Balanced Reference Case (Section 6.1.1) used in the short list assessment effectively
subsumes this option. It increases bus services as much as possible given the existing network
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 75
capacity constraints without significant infrastructure investment. This option was therefore
excluded from the long list evaluation and incorporated into the Balanced Reference Case.
Category 2 – Enhanced bus operation
This group of options are based on changes to bus operation and the introduction of supporting
infrastructure to provide additional bus priority through the City Centre. Where additional space is
required for buses, it is largely delivered at the expense of general traffic capacity, by removing
general traffic lanes or closing sections of road to general traffic completely.
The use of double bus lanes (potentially in the peak periods only) and indented or off-line bus stops
sees the capacity on the identified bus corridors increase significantly while the general traffic
capacity decreases. Bus priority at signalised intersections would be implemented to improve the
flow of buses through the City Centre. Examples of the bus priority and infrastructure envisaged as
part of these options include:
„ Bus lanes through intersections
„ Bus pre-emption at signals to reduce delays to buses
„ Fixed signal timings to allow buses to travel on a ‘green wave’
„ Bus only signals
„ Dedicated bus only streets
„ More efficient boarding and alighting with off bus ticketing and improved bus stops
„ Skip stop operation
„ Bus stop rationalisation

In total, six different enhanced bus operation options have been developed which fall into two
groups:
„ Three options involve on street solutions with high bus priority on routes through the city
„ Three options use a form of ‘bus loop circulation’ around the city in their operation

On street solutions
There are some common components to all the enhanced bus operation on street options. Queen
Street requires at least a single bus lane along its length and Wellesley Street becomes the major
east-west route, requiring double bus lanes in both directions from Symonds Street to Nelson
Street. The variations include the use of Hobson Street.
Buses from the North Shore enter the City Centre via Fanshawe Street, with some routing through
Britomart before proceeding to the University or Parnell. Others use Albert or Hobson Street before
connecting to eastern / southern routes and some return to the North Shore. Buses from the east
link through the City Centre to north and west services.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 76
Buses from the west and south enter the City Centre at the southern fringe of the City Centre and
connect to northern or eastern services or return to the west or south on similar routes, consistent
with the routing plans developed as part of the MRC work.
Bus loop circulation
The three options developed here use a one or two way circulation of all buses through the City
Centre largely focused on the Symonds Street and Albert Street corridors. Double bus lanes would
be provided along the route to allow sufficient capacity and stations would be incorporated along
the loop to allow passengers to board and alight.
Diagrammatic summaries of all the enhanced bus operation options are shown in Figure 5-1.

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 77
„ Figure 5-1 Enhanced bus operation option summary





Source: SKM
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 78
Category 3 – Bus Rapid Transit
More significant bus priority and dedicated right of way is provided by the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
options.
The aim of a BRT system is to provide a north-south and an east-west corridor in the City Centre.
There would a major bus interchange / station where the two corridors intersect which could be
grade separated. As part of any BRT option, Fanshawe Street requires dedicated bus lanes from
the motorway off ramp to the point at which the BRT system begins within the City Centre.
In order to not completely sever other transport links across the BRT corridor within the City
Centre, the intersections that the buses cross would be bypassed with tunnel underpasses for the
buses. This allows consistency in travel times and therefore an improved level of service whilst
maintaining overall connectivity for general traffic and pedestrians within the City Centre. The
potential corridors for BRT are shown in Figure 5-2. Each option would include one north-south and
one east-west corridor.
„ Figure 5-2 Potential BRT corridors

Source: SKM

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 79
5.1.3. Underground bus infrastructure headline
Whilst taking the buses underground significantly reduces the impacts on the surface roads, it
presents challenges in both construction and operation. To obtain the maximum benefit of the
underground options, some treatment is needed on the regional approaches to the tunnel(s). As
with the BRT options, the tunnel options will be assessed both with and without the regional
approaches.
An underground bus option would have either a north-south or east-west tunnel, or possibly both
with an interchange where they intersect. The tunnel itself would be two lanes wide (one in each
direction) with a station at near Aotea and a station near each end of the tunnel. At the station,
platforms would be provided so that stopping buses are removed from the carriageway, thereby not
impeding other buses that are not stopping or accessing adjacent platforms.
Building a bus tunnel does not remove all buses from the surface. It caters for certain routes, but
many surface buses are still required in order to provide high levels of service. The same overall
structure defined by the MRC study will be incorporated, with key corridors feeding into the
tunnel(s). The possible bus tunnel alignments developed at the long list stage are shown in Figure
5-3.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 80
„ Figure 5-3 Possible bus tunnel alignments

Source: SKM

5.1.4. Regional approach treatments for bus options
Along with the City Centre improvements identified in the options, the Deficiency Analysis identified
four key regional corridors with significant public transport (bus) demand that would be likely to
warrant a higher level of public transport provision. These were:
„ Great North Road (from Pt Chevalier) where the majority of West and Norwest Auckland buses
join together and travel to the City Centre through Grey Lynn
„ Ellerslie Panmure Highway / Great South Road (from Panmure) where large demand from
East Auckland (Pakuranga, Botany, Howick) travels towards the City Centre
„ Dominion Road / Mt Eden Road corridor through the centre of the Auckland isthmus
„ Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB) for bus travel from the North Shore

The bus based options have the potential to be constrained to within the City Centre itself,
providing fast efficient movement across the City Centre at the end of the journey. However, to be
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 81
most effective, they would include the approaches to the City Centre as well as the City Centre
itself.
With the introduction of the AWHC in the Reference Case in approximately 2031, the AHB is
forecast to have a dedicated bus facility, which will essentially extend the Northern Busway to the
City Centre and cater for the bulk of the forecast demand. As such, nothing additional was
proposed as part of the options for the CCFAS.
Along the other three corridors, some form of significantly enhanced bus priority measure is likely
to be warranted based on the forecast levels of demand. Figure 5-4 shows the corridors where
regional approach treatments could be included.
„ Figure 5-4 Regional approach corridors

Source: SKM
5.1.5. Other infrastructure options headline
A range of other options were considered as alternatives to bus or rail options. The majority are
considered to be complementary to any major bus or rail option. Three other types of options were
identified that could be considered possible alternatives:
„ Light rail – three options were identified, two being shuttle services and the third being a wider
light rail network that would tie into the shuttle alignment in the City Centre
„ Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 82
„ Elevated rail
Diagrammatic summaries of these options are shown in Figure 5-5.
„ Figure 5-5 Other options summary
Light rail shuttle PRT
Light rail network

Elevated rail

Source: SKM

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 83
5.1.6. Long list option summary
In total there are 46 different options or combinations of options that were developed and evaluated
at the long list stage made up of the following:
„ 1 underground rail option (CRL)
„ 32 different surface bus options
„ 8 different underground bus options
„ 5 ‘other’ options

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

Under each objective a set of criteria were also agreed with stakeholders to enable a range of
aspects under each objective to be considered. The purpose of the criteria is to allow a large
number of options to be assessed in a systematic way without the need for detailed modelling and
quantitative assessment.
Criteria for City Centre access were developed to differentiate between how the options performed
in providing improved access to employment, recreation and residences within the City Centre:
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 84

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

Criteria for economic performance were developed to differentiate between how the options
performed in relation transport economic impacts as well as their impacts on the regional and
national economy:
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 85

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

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

Criteria for health and safety were developed to differentiate between how the options performed in
relation to public health and safety of people within the City Centre:
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 86

5.3. Long list option evaluation
The first long list evaluation workshop was held on 22 June 2012 in Auckland. The aim of the
workshop was to evaluate the agreed options using the agreed evaluation framework above. The
focus was on the differentiation between the options. The way the options would be expected to
perform under each criteria in the framework was assessed qualitatively. Qualitative assessment
was used to allow a large number of options to be assessed in a systematic way without the need
for detailed modelling.
A five point evaluation scale (++ to --) was used score the performance of the options against each
criteria. The sub-options under each of the Options 1 – 5 described above were assessed using
one of the sub-options within the category as the benchmark or “0” scored option against which
each of the other sub-options was compared. In the tables that follow the +s and-s were summed
with a + worth 1 and a – worth -1 and so on.
As part of the workshop, it was identified that additional more quantitative information would assist
in informing the evaluation. It was agreed that while it was not necessary to model each of the
options, developing numeric measures of the performance of the options would help to quantify the
scale of differences between the options. As a result, the Reference Case was modelled in ART3
and a number of the outputs from the modelling were used to develop relative quantitative
measures for each option. Both the qualitative evaluations in the evaluation framework and the
quantitative measures developed were then used to evaluate the long list.
The process used was to first consider the quantitative analysis to identify clear differentiators.
Where the performance of sub-options could not easily be differentiated the qualitative analysis
was used to choose between the options. The evaluation of each option group is discussed in the
following sections. The full assessment is included in Appendix E.
The measures and analysis were worked through collaboratively with AT, AC, Ministry of Transport
(MoT), and NZTA, before being presented and discussed at a full PWG workshop on 29 August
2012 where the evaluation and the preferred options taken forward to the short list was agreed.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 87
5.3.1. Surface bus infrastructure headline
Best use of existing infrastructure
The Balanced Reference Case (Section 6.1.1) used in the short list assessment effectively
subsumes this option. It increases bus services as much as possible given the existing network
capacity constraints without significant infrastructure investment. This option was therefore
excluded from the long list evaluation and incorporated into the Balanced Reference Case.
Enhanced bus operation
The quantitative assessment quickly identified the poor performance of the ‘bus loop’ options
(options 2d, 2e and 2f). They had significant adverse effects on general traffic by taking up road
space throughout the City Centre and would not adequately cater for the volumes of buses
required to service the forecast demands. In addition the circuitous routing of buses increased
journey times for many bus passengers.
Of the three remaining options (options 2a, 2b and 2c), Hobson Street was excluded due to the
high impact on general traffic (motorway access) and relative poor performance. At the high level at
which the quantitative measures were developed, it was considered that there was a relatively
minor difference between having the focus on Albert Street or Queen Street.
The use of Queen Street in Option 2c as a dedicated bus corridor detracted significantly from both
a City Centre economic and amenity perspective, resulting in it having a slightly negative score.
This option was contrary to the objectives of the AP and CCMP and would both sever the City
Centre and dramatically reduce the amenity of the heart of the city.
For the above reasons, Option 2a was selected as being the preferred option from the Option 2
alternatives.
Bus Rapid Transit
Combining a potential north-south and an east-west corridor into a single option led to 12 different
combinations for this category.
The outcome of the assessment was that Option 3by (Albert and Wellesley) would be the preferred
option for BRT in the City Centre. However, in further development and assessment of the BRT
options, a number of physical constraints were identified and assessed. The assessment of the
physical requirements and constraints of trying to achieve this type of BRT operation in a
challenging City Centre environment led to the conclusion that grade separated BRT options are
fatally flawed. Therefore none of the BRT options were taken forward.
5.3.2. Underground bus infrastructure headline
Four potential tunnel alignments were developed for the long list:
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 88
„ Victoria Park to Grafton – similar to the alignment identified in the APB&B Study
„ A north-south tunnel running on the proposed CRL alignment
„ An east-west tunnel running under Wellesley Street and including some surface improvement
on Symonds Street
„ Both the north-south and east-west tunnels

The tunnel using the CRL alignment clearly performed the worst through its high cost and relatively
low level of benefit. The high cost is due to the length of the tunnel. The low level of benefits
results from the limited number of buses that would actually be able to use the tunnel on this
alignment. For example the large number of buses coming across Grafton Bridge from the south
and east would not be able to access the tunnel portal.
The longer tunnel from Victoria Park to Grafton and the twin tunnels perform similarly and both
have significant cost. The Wellesley Street tunnel is likely to be significantly cheaper due to its
shorter length and performs slightly better as it is accessible by more buses. Because all these
options performed similarly, the qualitative assessment was used to differentiate between them.
The qualitative assessment reinforced the quantitative assessment and identified the Wellesley
Street tunnel as being the best alignment. The two tunnels option performed well, but the additional
benefits that would be generated by them are offset by the high costs.
5.3.3. Other infrastructure options headline
The other options to address City Centre access consisted of:
„ Light rail shuttle using Albert Street or Queen Street from Mt Eden train station
„ Light rail network within the isthmus
„ Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) to the City Centre from Mt Eden train station
„ Elevated rail from Britomart through the CMJ to Mt Eden station

The quantitative assessment indicates that the potential benefits from elevated rail, PRT, or a light
rail shuttle option (Mt Eden Station – Britomart) would be relatively modest. Greater benefits are
likely from a more comprehensive light rail network, but this also has significantly higher cost. The
travel time benefit / cost indicator is low for all options, with the light rail network scoring best and
would therefore be the preferred other option based on the quantitative assessment. However the
differences are not large and a qualitative assessment was used to help differentiate between the
options.
The elevated rail was assessed to have some benefit with regards to City Centre access and is
much cheaper than a light rail network. However, it is the worst performing option overall with
significant implementation, environmental and amenity dis-benefits.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 89
The Albert Street and Queen Street shuttles perform similarly, but as with the earlier options, the
use of Queen Street as a major transport corridor has a negative impact on amenity in the City
Centre.
The light rail network and PRT perform the best in the qualitative assessment. However, PRT is in
effect a mobility option, rather than one focused on access to the City Centre. Implementing PRT
as a means of access to the City Centre from a rail station introduces many problems. Primarily
this is related to the large delays and poor level of service in transferring up to 700 people from a
train to 4 person PRT pods which could potentially take up to 30 mins per train. The reality of trying
to facilitate this enforced transfer would be unfeasible.
As a result, the light rail network was the preferred ‘other’ option. However, as with PRT, there are
some constraints with introducing a new mode which were discussed at the workshop. These
included the following and resulted in a decision not to take any “other” option forward:
„ It forces a high number of bus to light rail interchanges
„ This interchange is not a capacity problem as it is with PRT
„ Brings another mode of travel into the City Centre
„ Takes significant dedicated road space displacing buses or private vehicles
„ Requires a high level of demand to justify, as a frequent service is required to make it an
attractive option which is not forecast until much closer to 2041.

The last point was the critical consideration in the decision not to progress with the light rail network
as an option. It would achieve the overall aim, but it would be extremely difficult to justify and
implement in the short to medium term. It was agreed that no ‘other’ option would warrant further
investigation in the context of the CCFAS, but a move to light rail in certain corridors could be
beneficial at some stage in the more distant future.
5.4. Preferred short list option summary
The PWG agreed to take the following long list options forward to the short list evaluation:
Underground rail: The CRL option developed by AT.
Surface bus: Enhanced bus priority on Wellesley Street, Symonds Street (between Wellesley
Street and Grafton Bridge) and Albert / Vincent Streets. This option would be assessed both with
and without improvements to the regional approach corridors.
Underground bus: Underground bus tunnel along the Wellesley Street alignment with enhanced
bus priority on Symonds Street between Wellesley Street and Grafton Bridge along with surface
improvements on Albert / Vincent Streets. This option would be assessed both with and without
improvements to the regional approach corridors.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 90
6. Short list option assessment
A multimodal package was developed for each of the broad short list “headline” options.
Balanced Reference Case
The Balance Reference Case was developed following the deficiency analysis and subsequent
discussions with central government in an attempt to provide a more “realistic” reference point
based on link bus volumes that could be provided without the need for large scale infrastructure
within the city centre.
Underground Rail (CRL)
The CRL converts Britomart Station from a terminating station into a through station thereby
allowing rail service to the City Centre to more than double from 20 to 48 trains per hour by having
trains run in both directions through the city centre.
Overall the CRL option produced the highest benefits across both monetisable and non-
monetisable criteria. The CRL in particular provides for the greatest multimodal capacity to get
people into the City Centre and also provides for the highest network speeds within the City Centre
and is the only solution to deliver increased capacity to serve City Centre growth beyond 2030.
This option also had the greatest cost.
Surface Bus (SB1) (SB2)
The surface bus option aims to provide a high quality bus based access strategy for the City Centre
by providing bus priority at the expense of private vehicles and increasing capacity at identified
bottlenecks. As investment is focused on improving bus performance, the rail network is not
developed further following electrification.
Option SB2 adds approach corridors and bus priority measures outside of the City Centre.
The surface bus options provided the cheapest options and provide improvements in the short
term. The option best meets the needs of those travelling from the Central and Southern Isthmus.
However, the options reach capacity very quickly in the analysis period, in most cases the
infrastructure investment only buys 3-5 years of extra capacity with most services at capacity by
2030 and many at capacity before that. The surface bus options also significantly degrade vehicle
speeds for private motor vehicles, making them worse than the Balanced Reference Case (i.e.it is
worse for car drivers compared to doing nothing) in the City Centre due to the reallocation of road
space. A significant amount of additional residential and commercial property is also required to
provide the access treatments for Option SB2 and the priority measures/stabling within the City
Centre.
Underground Bus (UB1) (UB2)
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 91
The underground bus option is based on a high level of bus priority in the city centre, by providing a
dedicated bus tunnel along the defined bus corridors with associated at grade infrastructure and
service improvements.
Option UB2 adds to this by improving the regional approach corridors identical to those in Option
SB2.
These options provide for marginally more capacity than the surface bus options, and improve
amenity within the City Centre relative to them. They also require less land take in the City Centre.
They are, however, significantly more expensive than the surface bus options with little long-term
capacity improvements due to bottlenecks on the approaches to the tunnel.

6.1. Short list multimodal option development
A multimodal package was developed for each of the broad short list “headline” options. The
details of each option are set out in Appendix F. The options were modelled progressively and
refined as much as possible to meet forecast demand in each corridor within identified capacity
constraints. All of the options were compared to the Balanced Reference Case which is discussed
below. The long list identified two surface bus options which were clearly the best of the many
surface bus options investigated. It is highly unlikely that another surface bus option would have
performed better than the two chosen to be assessed under the short list option.
6.1.1. Balanced Reference Case
The Balance Reference Case was developed following the Deficiency Analysis and subsequent
discussions with central government in an attempt to provide a more “realistic” reference point
based on bus volumes that could be provided on City Centre streets without the need for large
scale infrastructure within the City Centre. This analysis did not however take into account the
operational constraints.
Whilst the balance reference case was assessed on the AM peak bus operation, a similar number
of buses would need to be provided in the opposite direction during the PM peak and be
accommodated during the off peak. PM peak buses require additional time to board passengers
when compared to alighting in the AM peak. This requires significant kerb space and stop
rationalisation
34
and skip stop operation
35
will be required to enable bus operations to work
effectively. As a result, loading and marshalling space will be required throughout the City Centre
for buses.

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 92
The Balanced Reference Case is quite different from the “Do minimum” assumed in the APB&B
study. The Do minimum used in that evaluation was more in line with what would be expected for
a formal Business Case evaluation of economic benefits. It did not include the significant bus
improvements assumed in the Balanced Reference case nor did it assume the large number of
Auckland Plan envisaged but unfunded improvements on the wider transport network.
The Balanced Reference Case has 359 buses entering the City Centre in the AM peak hour in
2021 and 392 in 2041. The bus volumes per hour on City Centre streets in 2021 and 2041 are
shown in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2.
„ Figure 6-1 Balanced Reference Case City Centre bus volumes - 2021

Source: SKM CCFAS option development
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 93
„ Figure 6-2 Balanced Reference Case City Centre bus volumes - 2041

Source: SKM CCFAS option development
Table 6-1 summaries the PT operation in terms of services and patronage for the Balanced
Reference Case.
„ Table 6-1 Balanced Reference Case PT summary
Balanced Reference Case 2021 2041
Train services in the morning 2
hour peak
40 40
Train patronage in the morning 2
hour peak
36

12,100 18,200
Bus services in the morning 2
hour peak
718 784

36
Rail passengers crossing the City Centre screenline
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 94
Balanced Reference Case 2021 2041
Bus patronage in the morning 2
hour peak
37

31,400 39,000
Ferry services in the morning 2
hour peak
51 51
Ferry patronage in the morning 2
hour peak
3,600 4,700

6.1.2. Underground rail (CRL)
Table 6-2 summaries the PT operation in terms of services and patronage for the CRL option
compared to the Balanced Reference Case.
„ Table 6-2 CRL PT summary
CRL 2021 2041
Additional train services in the
morning 2 hour peak
+36 +36
Additional train patronage in the
morning 2 hour peak
38

+7,200 (+59%) +13,000 (+72%)
Additional bus services in the
morning 2 hour peak
-35 -29
Additional bus patronage in the
morning 2 hour peak
39

-2,000 (-6%) -2,900 (-7%)
Additional ferry services in the
morning 2 hour peak
0 0
Additional ferry patronage in the
morning 2 hour peak
-100 (-3%) -100 (-1%)

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

37
Bus passengers crossing the City Centre screenline, excluding school bus
38
Rail passengers crossing the City Centre screenline
39
Bus passengers crossing the City Centre screenline, excluding school bus
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 95
It is made up of two 3.5km long, twin tunnels up to 45m in diameter which will extend the existing
rail line underground through Britomart, to Albert, Vincent and Pitt Streets, then cross beneath
Karangahape Road and the Central Motorway Junction and over to Symonds Street before rising
to join the western line at Eden Terrace (see Figure 6-3) at the Inner West Interchange (INWI). It
provides for three additional City Centre stations at Aotea, Karangahape Road and Newton, which
would put the entire city centre within approximately 10 minutes’ walk of rail.
A conceptual schematic layout of CRL is shown in Figure 6-3.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 96
„ Figure 6-3 CRL layout

Source: Auckland Transport

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 97
The CRL is fully integrated with the bus network which will be progressively redesigned over the
next three years to deliver improved modal integration in conjunction with the development of new
bus/ rail interchanges at Otahuhu, Panmure and Manukau and is supported by an expanded park
and ride programme.
For the purposes of the City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS), CRL has been modelled with
the following assumptions:
„ Electrification is extended to Pukekohe allowing through train service to the City Centre.
„ Train frequencies have been increased at the tail end of the study period on the western line
where there the planned train frequencies were not able to meet the modelled demand.

The modelled peak CRL rail operation is shown in the train plan in Figure 6-4.
„ Figure 6-4 2041 peak train service pattern

Source: Auckland Transport
It comprises train frequencies at 2041 (these frequencies are built up over time as demand grows)
as shown in Table 6-3.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 98
„ Table 6-3 Modelled CRL train operation (peak)
Route Trains per hour
Manukau to INWI via Eastern Line and CRL 6
Manukau to INWI via Southern Lineand CRL 4
Papakura to INWI via Eastern Line and CRL 4
Pukekohe to INWI via Southern Line and CRL 6
Swanson to Britomart via CRL 14
Swanson to Newmarket (not via CRL) 4
Onehunga to INWI via Southern Line and CRL 4
Source: AT
Key characteristics of the 2041 peak service pattern are:
„ The Western and Eastern lines are linked, providing through service via the CRL tunnel.
„ Services from Onehunga, Manukau, Papakura and Pukekohe run to Britomart and then via the
CRL tunnel to INWI (with Eastern Line services continuing further west).
„ Pukekohe has 6 services per hour to meet the demand from substantial greenfields growth in
the south. All services operate via the Southern Line.
„ Papakura – Homai: 10 services per hour, 6 via the Southern Line and 4 via the Eastern Line.
„ Puhinui - Westfield: 20 services per hour, evenly split between the Southern and Eastern lines.
„ The Western Line has 18 trains per hour, made up of 14 services via the CRL and 4 services
per hour to Newmarket.
„ The Eastern Line has 10 services per hour.
„ The Onehunga Line has 4 trains per hour.
„ Penrose to Britomart has 14 trains per hour.
It is noted that there are other service patterns which will continue to be examined which will
increase patronage.
The CRL option is supported by an integrated bus network and expanded park and ride options.
This significantly expands the reach of rail beyond the walkable catchment as is shown in Figure
3-.
The supporting bus networks are those developed by MRC for the Passenger Transport Network
Plan (PTNP) 2012 which are designed specifically to operate with the CRL in place with
frequencies increased to meet demand where possible. The number of resulting morning peak
hour bus volumes on City Centre streets are shown for 2021 and 2041 in Figure 6-5 and Figure
6-6.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 99
„ Figure 6-5 CRL City Centre bus volumes - 2021

Source: SKM CCFAS option development

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 100
„ Figure 6-6 CRL City Centre bus volumes - 2041

Source: SKM CCFAS option development
6.1.3. Surface bus (SB1)
Table 6-4 summaries the PT operation in terms of services and patronage for the surface bus
options compared to the Balanced Reference Case.
„ Table 6-4 Surface bus (SB1 and SB2) PT summary
Surface Bus 2021 2041
Additional train services in the
morning 2 hour peak
0 0
Additional train patronage in the
morning 2 hour peak
40

-900 (-7%) -800 (-4%)

40
Rail passengers crossing the City Centre screenline
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 101
Surface Bus 2021 2041
Additional bus services in the
morning 2 hour peak
+145 +163
Additional bus patronage in the
morning 2 hour peak
41

+6,100 (+19%) +8,000 (+20%)
Additional ferry services in the
morning 2 hour peak
0 0
Additional ferry patronage in the
morning 2 hour peak
-400 (-12%) -400 (-9%)

The surface bus option aims to provide a high quality bus based access strategy for the City Centre
by providing bus priority at the expense of private vehicles and increasing capacity at identified
bottlenecks. As investment is focused on improving bus performance, the rail network is not
developed further following electrification and therefore the rail network for SB1 is the same as
assumed in the Balanced Reference Case.
A high level of bus priority in the City Centre is delivered through reallocation of road space from
private vehicles to buses, and some minor road widening. Wellesley Street becomes a bus only
corridor from Kitchener Street to Victoria Street at Victoria Park and Vincent and Albert Streets
become a bus only corridor along their length. Fanshawe Street is maintained as it currently
operates with some minor changes to bus stop lengths and bus operations and Customs Street is
also generally maintained as it currently operates, though bus movements are improved through
the introduction of kerbside bus lanes.
New bus marshalling areas at Fanshawe and near the University precinct are assumed to be
constructed and an improved Britomart interchange / marshalling area provided adjacent to the
existing rail station as described in Section 6.1.3.1.
Marshaling areas use a considerable amount of space as can be seen in Figure 6-7. This shows 60
buses at the Halsey Street depot in Wynyard Quarter. The surface bus options introduce an
additional 80 buses compared to the Balanced Reference Case which must be marshaled within
the City Centre.

41
Bus passengers crossing the City Centre screenline, excluding school bus
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 102
„ Figure 6-7 60 buses at Halsey Street depot

Source: Transpressnz; http://transpressnz.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/auckland-bus-depot.html
In addition the following generic measures are provided throughout the City Centre:
„ Dedicated bus lanes along the defined bus corridors
„ Off-line bus stops (either indented or in a second bus lane)
„ Three bus bays provided at each stop location (approximately 60-75m required when in lane
or 90-105m required when indented)
„ Skip stop operation in the City Centre
„ Dependent bus stop operation at each stop location
„ Fixed timings at signalised intersections to allow buses to travel through on a ‘green wave’
„ Improved service frequency over the Balanced Reference Case to better cater for forecast
demand
„ Use of high capacity (double-decker or articulated) buses
42
on key services
43

„ Off board ticketing in the peak hours
„ Integrated ticketing and fares

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 103

Option SB1 provides high levels of bus priority through the City Centre. The corridors within the
City Centre that are optimised for bus traffic are:
„ southern Symonds Street (Grafton Bridge to Wellesley Street)
„ Wellesley Street
„ Vincent and Albert Streets
„ Fanshawe Street (current bus stops require lengthening)

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

Source: SKM
Symonds Street, from Grafton Bridge to Wellesley Street is upgraded from existing to provide a
dedicated bus lane with off line or indented stops in both directions to cater for the high bus
demands that access Wellesley Street. The stops on Symonds Street are also rationalised to allow
skip stop operation for buses on different routes. Wellesley Street becomes the major east-west
route, requiring double bus lanes in both directions from Symonds Street to Hobson Street.
Vincent Street and Albert Street becomes the main north-south bus route with double bus lanes
along the entire length in both directions. Local access is maintained to service the properties on
these streets. A single bus lane runs the length of Queen Street in both directions to cater for the
city link services. This would allow general traffic to still use Queen Street.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 104
The bus routes developed as part of the 2016 version of the PTNP 2012 generally fit well with
Option SB1 and SB2 and no routes have been identified that would benefit significantly from re-
routing.
Figure 6-9 indicates the surface bus operation and improvement in the City Centre for the AM
period where the focus is on the inbound services and Figure 6-10 diagrammatically shows the
surface bus option in the City Centre.
„ Figure 6-9 Surface bus option (indicating inbound services)

Source: SKM
Plus indented bus stops
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 105
„ Figure 6-10 Surface bus option
Source: SKM
Skip stop operation
In order to cater for the high volumes of buses, skip stop operation is required along the Symonds
Street / Wellesley Street corridor. The buses have been identified according to whether they enter
via Grafton Bridge or Symonds Street and their corresponding stops along the corridor are shown
in Figure 6-11.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 106
„ Figure 6-11 Skip stop operation for inbound Symonds St / Wellesley St buses

Source: SKM
Whilst it is preferable to have bus stops located after signalised intersections, due to the close
spacing of intersections within the City Centre, some of the bus stops are situated before the
intersections. Given the available block lengths and length of kerbside space required for the bus
stops, this is unfortunately unavoidable. The signal pre-emption to allow swift bus progression
through the corridor should mean that significant operational delays can be avoided or minimised.
Wellesley Street / Symonds Street intersection
The intersection of Wellesley Street and Symonds Street requires significant works to reconfigure it
to cater for the high bus volumes as well as general traffic to and from the motorway on Wellesley
Street which passes under Symonds Street.
Figure 6-12 shows the indicative arrangement of vehicle flows at and near the intersection.
Stops for Symonds Street buses
Stops for Grafton Bridge buses
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 107
„ Figure 6-12 Reconfiguration of Symonds Street / Wellesley Street

Source: SKM
A single lane in each direction on Wellesley Street is maintained for general traffic with the
following restrictions:
„ No access to Princes Street from Wellesley Street for general traffic
„ As is currently the case, all general traffic on Wellesley Street from Grafton Gully (passing
under Symonds Street) must turn into Mayoral Drive or Kitchener St (single lane for each
destination)
„ No access from Princes Street to Wellesley Street in either direction for general traffic
„ Ramp from Wellesley Street to Symonds Street is widened and made two way for buses
„ Gated bus signals at the intersection of Wellesley / Mayoral / Kitchener are installed to
maintain turning movements and provide safe and efficient movement for buses

The existing ramp up from Wellesley Street to Symonds Street is widened, and made two way for
buses only. The intersection at the top is reconfigured to allow all movements and general traffic
access to and from Princes Street is removed. Revisions to the signals at Wellesley / Mayoral /
Kitchener are installed to allow for the bus only movements through the intersection, which allow
the inbound buses to shift to the correct side of Wellesley Street.
General traffic (from Grafton
/ Motorway)
General traffic (to Grafton /
Motorway)
Bus inbound
„ Revised intersection operation
„ Inbound buses on new structure
(retained ramp)
„ Realign general traffic
„ No access for general traffic to/from
Princes Street
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 108
Heading away from the City Centre, a general traffic lane from Mayoral Drive is maintained in the
centre of the road to allow vehicles to access the motorway ramps in Grafton Gully. A dedicated
kerbside bus lane is provided which allows buses to turn up Princes Street or carry on up to
Symonds Street by reconstructing the kerbs and traffic islands in this area.
Figure 6-13 shows the intended layout for operation under Option SB1 and SB2 with general traffic
indicated by the yellow arrows and bus traffic indicated by the red arrows. Wellesley Street is
approximately 21m wide, so can accommodate the 5-6 required lanes with minimal works required
in this area other than re-marking.
„ Figure 6-13 Revised Wellesley Street

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 109
„ Figure 6-14 Buses on city streets - Option SB1/SB2 - 2021

Source: SKM CCFAS option development

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 110
„ Figure 6-15 Buses on city streets - Option SB1/SB2 - 2041

Source: SKM CCFAS option development
6.1.3.1. Option SB1 and SB2 bus stations / marshalling areas
The CCFAS looked at total volumes of buses entering the City Centre in the morning peak period
under the different options. The results are shown in Table 6-5 below.
„ Table 6-5 City Centre bus volumes (morning peak two hours)
Option 2012 (actual) 2021 2041
Balanced Reference Case 784 718 784
CRL 784 683 755
Surface/Underground bus 784 863/869 947

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 111
Balanced Reference Case numbers. The current Britomart bus precinct is struggling to cope with
the existing level of buses. All available space is in use either as bus stop or bus lay-up area (at
least at peak times when bus lay-up demands are highest). The blocks east of Commerce Street
cannot be used for bus services due to narrow lanes, narrow footpaths, and inadequate turning
radii on corners. As a result, it is clear that a higher level of intervention is needed to cope with the
20% increase in bus numbers at Britomart in the surface bus option. The only identified option to
cope with this increase is for an underground facility owing to the absence of workable option for
enhanced surface bus operation in the Britomart area.
As indicated in Figure 6-10 there are a total of three bus stations / marshalling areas included
within Option SB1 (and Option SB2). Allowance has been made for the provision of an
underground bus station at Britomart to replace the current surface operation, and provide for a
marshalling area to avoid buses parked on surrounding local roads. In addition, surface
marshalling areas have been assumed to be provided at Fanshawe Street (in the vicinity of the
current Caltex service station) and the University (assumed to be in the vicinity of the Grafton Road
interchange).
6.1.4. Surface bus with regional approach corridors (SB2)
This variant to the surface bus option takes Option SB1 and adds the regional approach corridor
treatments as described below.
6.1.5. Regional approach corridors
Three key approaches to the City Centre for buses have been identified in the Deficiency Analysis
and are shown in Figure 6-16. They are:
„ Great North Road (from Pt Chevalier)
„ Dominion Road (from SH20 at Mt Roskill)
„ Ellerslie-Panmure Highway and Great South Road (from Panmure)

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 112
„ Figure 6-16 Identified approach corridors for improvements

Source: SKM
A 4.5m wide bus lane is added in both directions on these sections with indented (off-line) bus
stops to allow through buses to pass stopped buses without having to enter congested general
traffic lanes. In addition, at signalised intersections, bus lanes are continued through the
intersection to provide an improved level of service. Left turning vehicles will be permitted to enter
the bus lane 50m from the intersection, in line with current operation so that turning movements for
general traffic are maintained.
6.1.5.1. Dominion Road
Dominion Road was previously identified in the Deficiency Analysis as being a key corridor
warranting some form of upgrade. However through discussions with the AT Dominion Road
project team, an extensive upgrade was proven to be unrealistic. For CCFAS, it has been assumed
that the only upgrades will be undertaken as part of the currently programmed Dominion Road
works contained within AT’s capital works programme as described below.
The current Dominion Road project is forecast to cost $47m. Dominion Road’s current piecemeal
sections of bus lanes will be joined up to create continuous lanes in peak hours between State
Highway 20 and View Rd. Between View Rd and Newton no bus lanes are budgeted for. The bus
lanes will also extend through intersections, which they do not at present. A review of the project
allowed Auckland Transport to reduce the potential cost of the project by about $50m. This will be
achieved by keeping the bus lane widths at 3m north of Mt Albert Rd, meaning expensive service
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 113
relocations are not necessary. Between SH20 and Mt Albert Rd, which requires widening to create
new bus lanes, they will be 4.5m.
6.1.5.2. East and west approach corridors
As Dominion Road has not been considered further as part of CCFAS, only eastern and western
corridors leading to the City Centre have been considered to improve the levels of service for the
surface and underground bus options. Upgrades to the approach corridors are the same for both
surface and underground bus options. Within the option assessment, inclusion of these corridors
for the respective City Centre bus options are referred to as Surface Bus 2 (SB2) - SB1 with
approach treatments) and Underground Bus (UB2) - UB1 with approach treatments. These
corridors are shown diagrammatically below in Figure 6-17.
„ Figure 6-17 Approach corridors

Source: SKM
6.1.5.3. Eastern approach - Ellerslie-Panmure Highway/ Great South Road
Figure 6-18 shows the assumed cross section for the Ellerslie-Panmure Highway section of the
eastern approach. This section commences at the intersection with Mt Wellington Highway and
extends to the intersection with Main Highway.
Regional approach corridors
for Options SB2 and UB2
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 114
„ Figure 6-18 Indicative cross section on Ellerslie-Panmure Highway

Source: SKM
This provides a shared bus / cycle lane of 4.5m width, two 3.5m wide traffic lanes in each direction
and a 2.5m flush median.
„ Figure 6-19 Indicative cross section at bus stops on Ellerslie Panmure Highway

Source: SKM
Figure 6-19 shows the cross section along Ellerslie-Panmure Highway where bus stops are
located, and provides a 3.5m wide bus stop, a 3.5m shared bus / cycle lane, two 3.5m wide traffic
lanes in each direction and 2.5m wide footpaths to incorporate the bus shelters. No flush median
has been assumed at bus stop locations within the cross section.
The assumed corridor cross section along Main Highway is shown below in Figure 6-20. This
provides a shared bus / cycle lane of 4.5m width, 3.5m wide traffic lanes, and a 2.5m flush median.
The cross section extends to the intersection with Great South Road and includes allowance for the
duplication of the Main Highway bridge over the Southern Motorway. Through the Ellerslie town
centre no road widening has been assumed and lane widths may be reduced.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 115
„ Figure 6-20 Indicative cross section on Eastern approach from Main Highway

Source: SKM
The corridor extending from Great South Road, Broadway, Khyber Pass Road, Park Road and
Grafton Bridge through to where it joins the City Centre options at Symonds Street is assumed to
be provided within the existing road extents and maintains the cross section shown above in Figure
6-20.
Through Newmarket two stations have been assumed to be provided requiring additional land
purchase. These are assumed to be located on Broadway in the vicinity of the Newmarket Viaduct,
and on Khyber Pass Road in the vicinity of Crowhurst and Melrose Streets. In addition, a car park
has been allowed for within the cost estimate to account for the removal of on street car parking
along Broadway as a result of the revised corridor treatment.
The bus lanes along the corridor would be envisaged to operate from 7am – 10pm, with those
through the town centres at Ellerslie and Market Road being peak operation only (inbound
approximately 7am-9am, outbound approximately 4pm-6pm) to allow kerbside parking within the
town centre.
6.1.5.4. Western approach - Great North Road
The Great North Road corridor has been assumed to be wide enough to provide for the cross
section shown in Figure 6-20 above within the existing road reserve. At stops along the length of
the corridor (assumed to be at 800m spacings) property purchase has been allowed for in order to
accommodate the cross section shown below in Figure 6-21. The corridor extends from the
intersection with Carrington Road to Karangahape Road and Pitt Street where it joins the City
Centre bus options.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 116
„ Figure 6-21 Indicative cross section at bus stops on Great North Road

Source: SKM
The bus lanes in the Great North Road corridor are envisaged to operate from 7am-10pm.
6.1.6. Underground bus (UB1)
Table 6-6 summaries the PT operation in terms of services and patronage for the underground bus
options compared to the Balanced Reference Case.
„ Table 6-6 Underground bus (UB1 and UB2) PT summary
Underground Bus 2021 2041
Additional train services in the
morning 2 hour peak
0 0
Additional train patronage in the
morning 2 hour peak
44

-700 (-5%) -700 (-4%)
Additional bus services in the
morning 2 hour peak
+151 +163
Additional bus patronage in the
morning 2 hour peak
45

+4,200 (+13%) +6,000 (+15%)
Additional ferry services in the
morning 2 hour peak
0 0
Additional ferry patronage in the
morning 2 hour peak
-300 (-9%) -300 (-7%)

The underground bus option is based on a high level of bus priority in the City Centre, by providing
the following:
„ Dedicated bus tunnel along the defined bus corridors
„ Off-line platforms for bus stations in the tunnel
„ Three bus bays provided at each station location (approximately 90-105m required)

44
Rail passengers crossing the City Centre screenline
45
Bus passengers crossing the City Centre screenline, excluding school bus
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 117
„ Skip stop operation on Symonds Street between Grafton Bridge and the tunnel portal on
Wellesley Street
„ Dependant bus stop operation at each stop location
„ Buses using the tunnel no longer interact with signalised intersections
„ Improved service frequency over the Reference Case to better cater for forecast demand
„ Use of high capacity (double-decker or articulated) buses on key services
46

„ Optional approach corridor treatments
„ Off board ticketing in the peak hours
„ Integrated ticketing and fares

Note that the bus tunnel does not remove all the bus services from Wellesley Street, as some are
still required to use the surface streets due to the capacity constraint within the tunnel itself.
The bus routes developed as part of the 2016 version of the PTNP 2012 generally fit well with
Option UB1 and UB2 and no routes have been identified that would benefit significantly from re-
routing.
Figure 6-22 and Figure 6-23 show the indicative layout of the Wellesley Street Tunnel.

46
From PTNP 2012 this is the following services: Manukau Rd, Mt Eden Rd, Dominion Rd, Great
South Road and the Northern Express
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 118
„ Figure 6-22 Option UB1 – Wellesley Street tunnel

Source: SKM
Bus tunnel station:
High quality interchange:
Tunnel
Single bus lane
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 119
„ Figure 6-23 Wellesley Street Tunnel
Source: SKM
There would be stations at Aotea (near the intersection of Elliot and Wellesley Streets) catering for
high quality interchanges, on the western side of the City Centre near Sale Street and also one
near Wynyard Quarter between Daldy and Halsey Streets. A further station would link in with the
education precinct near the top of Wellesley Street providing access to the universities. The station
indicated in Grafton Gully is a marshalling area and is described in Section 6.1.7.
Symonds Street maintains a dedicated bus lane in each direction between Grafton Bridge and
Wellesley Street to allow buses right of way to the tunnel. The skip stop operation proposed for
Options SB1 and SB2 also applies to this section of the City Centre. At the Fanshawe Street end,
buses enter and exit the tunnel to the north of Fanshawe Street between Beaumont and Halsey
Streets.
The tunnel is a single lane in each direction, expanding at the stations to allow buses to stop at the
platform while the ‘through’ lane can still be used for buses travelling through. This makes the
stations effectively two lanes in each direction. At the Aotea (Albert St) interchange there is the
facility for buses to turn around, allowing them to leave via the way that they have entered.
The treatment on Vincent Street and Albert Street is the same as in Options SB1 and SB2 as it still
retains the function of the main north-south bus route through the City Centre.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 120
In 2021, there are approximately 116 buses / hour using the tunnel and this volume increases to
131 buses / hour in 2041. The buses on city streets and in the tunnel are shown in Figure 6-24 and
Figure 6-25.
„ Figure 6-24 Buses on city streets - Option UB1/UB2 - 2021

Source: SKM CCFAS option development


STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 121
„ Figure 6-25 Buses on city streets - Option UB1/UB2 - 2041
Source: SKM CCFAS option development
6.1.7. Option UB1 and UB2 bus stations / marshalling areas
Allowance has been made for stations at Aotea (near the intersection of Elliot and Wellesley
Streets) catering for high quality interchanges, on the western side of the City Centre near Sale
Street and also one near Wynyard Quarter between Daldy and Halsey Streets. A further station
would link in with the education precinct near the top of Wellesley Street providing access to the
Universities. Consistent with Option SB1, a marshalling area within the University precinct in the
vicinity of Grafton Road has been allowed for, as well as provision of an underground bus station at
Britomart to replace the current surface operation, and provide for a marshalling area to avoid
buses parked on surrounding local roads.
6.1.8. Underground bus with regional approach corridors (UB2)
This variant to the underground bus option takes Option UB1 and adds the approach treatments on
the regional corridors previously discussed in Section 6.1.5.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 122

6.2. Bus operations
A high level review of the potential bus operational performance of the bus based options (SB1,
SB2, UB1 and UB2) has been undertaken to understand the need for additional infrastructure to
support the efficient operation of bus services within the city centre given the additional number of
buses required for each option.
It should be noted that there are already a large number of buses in the City Centre which currently
present significant operational challenges. All of these challenges will be perpetuated or, in some
cases, exacerbated through the surface bus options presented in this report. Some of these
challenges are discussed in more detail below. It should also be noted that the CRL option does
not remove these problems entirely, but it does reduce the impact of some of them when compared
to the Balanced Reference Case due to the ability to remove some of the buses from certain
corridors. As the CCFAS is focused on the comparison to the Balanced Reference Case, the CRL
does not perform worse than the Balanced Reference Case with regard to any of the issues
discussed in this section.
Pedestrian conflicts
There are a number of areas where the need to respond to increasing pedestrian movements
impacts negatively on the operation of bus services. For example, the double-phasing of the
Queen Street pedestrian crossings caused significant delay to bus services to the point that the
main bus services were re-routed away from Queen Street. The remaining bus services are
heavily delayed, averaging 7 kph between Britomart and Karangahape Road in the peak. This
impacts heavily on the operation of the Airbus Express which can spend up to half of its journey
time from the City Centre to the Airport travelling the length of Queen Street. The increasing
pedestrian volumes from growth in employment, student, residential and visitor numbers will
exacerbate this conflict in the future as additional space and priority will be required for
pedestrians. Shared space projects such as Federal Street are increasingly squeezing buses in
the city centre and reducing the range of available options for turning around buses for their next
service trip.
Finding appropriate depot and layover locations
There is a shortage of available short and long term layover for buses in the City Centre and City
Fringe areas. These requirements for layover increase as journey time reliability becomes more
and more variable. Buses require space in the City Centre to pause before commencing their next
service trips. Providing long term layover in or around the City Centre saves on operating costs -
otherwise buses would have to return to their remote depot sites. Currently buses are left in
strategic places for several hours in the City Centre and City Fringe and drivers return on a ‘driver
bus’ to their depots for breaks. Examples are the north side of Quay Street, the west side of
Nelson Street and the eastern side of Beaumont Street.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 123
Reliability & punctuality
It is very hard to plan for the variability in bus reliability in the City Centre. The fact that the City
Centre street network is at or beyond capacity at peak times means that there is significant day-to-
day variation in bus operating speeds in the City Centre. For example, North Shore buses between
Victoria Street and the Harbour Bridge can vary by 6-8 minutes in peak times. There are direct
operational costs associated, as decreases in reliability increases costs due to the need to provide
for the worse case scenarios. Even where significant bus priority exists, such as on Albert Street,
northbound, PM peak bus operation is very slow due to the sheer volume of buses, the short block
lengths and the left turning vehicles giving way to high volumes of parallel crossing pedestrians
impeding bus progression on kerbside bus lanes.
Bus turning circles
The City Centre is very tight for bus turning with the consequence of a large number of low speed
incidents, particularly related to road design and tail swing issues related to location of existing
infrastructure. This is exacerbated by the variance of the Auckland bus fleet - with buses ranging
from 10m – 18m. 13.5m vehicles are a particular problem with tracking around corners. Bus stops
generally only cater for up to 12.6m vehicles, while Britomart bus turning circles are only designed
for 12.6 metre vehicles. Longer vehicles are a response to the need to increase capacity on
vehicles, particular to cater for peak and high demand corridor flows. The need for higher capacity
vehicles will only increase over time.
Special event closures and bus stop relocations
There are major problems with the regular occurrence of special events in the City Centre as there
are no good options to relocate services to a regular temporary location without significant impact
to the City Centre and bus customers. While people are encouraged to use PT to attend special
events in the City Centre, the disruptions to bus service caused by these same events makes this
difficult even for existing regular bus users.
Specific problem locations
„ Customs Street / Albert Street
„ Signalised intersection timings at peak cause significant delays to PT;
„ Conflict of bus versus bus and bus versus car and bus versus pedestrian;
„ Insufficient space (with no realistic options to resolve this) for bus set-down and lay-
up on the north side of Customs Street between Lower Albert and Queen Streets;
„ Bus facilities for passengers very poor.
„ Customs Street in general - Customs Street is a gap in the central connector project where
there is no bus priority in the part of the corridor with the highest volume of buses.
„ Britomart
„ Entry and egress is very slow;
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 124
„ Constrained environment;
„ Pedestrian conflicts – e.g. high volumes of pedestrians crossing Galway and Tyler
streets at Queen Street where there are very high pedestrian flows and high volumes
of buses;
„ Poor infrastructure placement.
„ Wellesley Street/Queen Street intersection
„ Delays due to short block lengths and double-phased pedestrian signals;
„ Conflicting requirements;
„ Conflicting bus movements.
„ Fanshawe Street
„ Poor infrastructure – no bus priority westbound between Albert Street and Halsey
Street;
„ Delays in the PM peak due to this lack of bus priority provision on what is part of the
rapid network. Outbound busway reliability in the PM peak is significantly lower than
inbound in the AM peak due to limited bus priority in the City Centre;
„ Bus stop availability and length drives the capacity of Fanshawe Street creating
issues in both peak directions.

Driver facilities
There are poor facilities in the City Centre for bus drivers and no easy option for drivers to leave
buses to take a toilet break without leaving the bus on an in-service bus stop – in many instances
creating operational issues for in-service buses. There is a legal requirement for bus drivers to
have mandatory breaks. It is not cost effective to ask bus operators to always schedule the driver
back to the depot for a regulatory break as this adds operational cost, reduces vehicle utilisation
and further increases the number of buses circulating out of service in the City Centre.
Bus stops
Currently the City Centre stop network is oversubscribed by buses in certain locations:
„ Britomart at peak times – there are many conflicts between buses and other buses, private
vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.
„ Albert Street at peak times
„ Symonds Street at peak times

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 125
PM peak delays (dwell time)
There is more dwell (delay) time in the PM peak from passengers getting tickets compared to the
AM peak where passengers are alighting. For example, loading a peak bus at Britomart where that
is the only City Centre boarding stop (e.g. Tamaki Drive services) can take up to 7 minutes. Even
with integrated ticketing, a single cash-paying customer can block the flow of all other passengers,
even if all of them have a smart card, but overall boarding will improve somewhat with integrated
ticketing. Increasing patronage numbers will increase loads and, even with high proportions of
passengers using AT HOP cards, loading times are likely to increase.
Long-distance bus facilities spread out
The coach terminus in Hobson Street only caters for Intercity Coaches. All other coach lines
operate in the Quay Street area. There is an aspiration to merge all coach movements and
integrate better with urban services and rail which is also being driven by Sky City’s desire to move
the InterCity buses out of its site as part of its plans for the National Convention Centre. A
consolidated long-distance bus terminal is being considered in the Britomart area so that all local
and long-distance bus, train and ferry services can be bought together in one area. Whilst
potentially a positive step for long distance travel and integration with local services, this would
exacerbate already difficult bus operational issues in the Britomart precinct.
City centre stakeholder competing aspirations
There are competing demands for City Centre road space from groups representing business and
community interests.
Auckland Transport is under considerable pressure currently to reduce the amount of space
required at Britomart for bus interchange and marshalling. Significant optimisation of the
interchange has been required to make it operate acceptably with the number of buses currently
using it. There is little scope to accommodate additional buses without the need for significant
additional space. This space requirement is in conflict with the CCMP objectives to link the city
with the waterfront. Buses already use entire blocks to queue to enter Britomart and as layover
areas.
The following images illustrate some of the range of current issues that bus operations face in and
around the City Centre.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 126
„ Figure 6-26 Buses queue on Customs Street West

Source: Auckland Transport October 2012
„ Quay Street delays to travel south - if Quay Street were to be significantly “down-tuned” for
general traffic, this runs the risk that the already existing bus issues in the Britomart Precinct
will be further exacerbated and concentrated on the Customs Street corridor which is also a
major east-west route for general traffic.
„ There are a large number of buses on Customs Street and these compete with the high
volumes of general traffic. This leads to significant congestion and delay to buses and general
traffic.

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

Source: Auckland Transport October 2012
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 127

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

„ Figure 6-28 Grafton Bridge queue
Source: Auckland Transport October 2012

„ Figure 6-29 Grafton Bridge turning circle setback

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 128
Source: Auckland Transport October 2012


„ Buses turning from Grafton Bridge are entering Symonds Street which already has a high
number of buses. There are 10 buses queued on Symonds Street in the photo below which
demonstrates the existing issues with bus operation with 125 buses per hour in the AM peak
period. Symonds Street is a busy pedestrian street due to the Auckland University campus
locations on both sides of the street.
„ Figure 6-30 Symonds Street bus congestion

Source: Auckland Transport October 2012

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

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 129
„ Figure 6-31 Wellesley Street West pedestrian crossings

Source: Auckland Transport October 2012


„ Fanshawe Street largely runs acceptably in the morning peak with 110 buses per peak hour
but bus throughput is driven by bus stop capacity and dwell time for alighting passengers. In
the PM peak, the absence of bus priority westbound between Lower Albert and Halsey Streets
means that buses (on the Rapid Transit Network) are operating in mixed traffic with a Level of
Service E and F, causing heavy delays to buses and unreliable operation.
Some of the issues outlined above can be ameliorated through provision of additional infrastructure
while others will remain and become worse under the bus based options.
Current bus operational plans developed as part of the MRC review of the future bus networks
envisages utilising bus marshalling areas adjacent to Fanshawe Street (within the Wynyard Quarter
street network) and the existing facilities at Britomart. At these facilities space needs to be provided
for buses which arrive from their stabling areas at the start of their route sufficiently in advance of
the scheduled departure time to ensure that they start on time and delays getting to the start of
their routes do not effect timetabled operations. Stabling is currently provided between operations
either at operator’s depots or buses utilise street space such as on Quay Street east of Tangihua
Street.
Figure 6-32 and Figure 6-33 below shows the number of buses on key links on the network in the
AM peak hour under each option in 2021 and 2041.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 130
„ Figure 6-32 Buses per hour at key network locations – 2021


Source: Short list option development, SKM
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 131
„ Figure 6-33 Buses per hour at key network locations – 2041


Source: Short list option development, SKM
The flows on some of these roads (Dominion Road, Fanshawe Street and Symonds Street) are
below their current levels for two reasons. The first is that a number of the services are assumed to
be using double decker (or high capacity) buses, reducing the number of buses required to provide
the same level of capacity. The second is that on Symonds Street in particular there are currently
problems with the level of buses on that corridor, as highlighted earlier. For these reasons the
numbers of buses travelling on these corridors may be lower than is currently provided.
A similar number of buses will need to be provided in the opposite direction during the PM peak.
As discussed above, PM peak buses require additional time to board passengers when compared
to alighting in the AM peak. This requires significant kerb space and stop rationalisation and skip
stop operation will be required to enable bus operations to work effectively. As a result, loading
and marshalling space will be required throughout the city centre for buses and is likely to take up
all the parking, loading and taxi space within the bus corridors under the bus based options.
With the additional buses envisaged, there is a need to alter the bus arrangements in the city
centre. Through routing will be required to far side bus terminals to reduce the space required at
Britomart. This will likely involve the construction of marshalling facilities at the route origin /
termination points at Fanshawe Street and adjacent to the University in Grafton Gully. Sites have
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 132
yet to be identified or considered in detail but given the significant bus volumes, it is expected that
platforms and marshalling for an additional 15-20 buses at a time will be required in each location.
This will require significant land area.
Even with the move to multiple City Centre ‘terminals’, Britomart will continue to have a very
significant role as a regional hub for bus services as it is the point of intermodal connection
between buses, trains and ferries. It is expected that bus stopping spaces and marshalling area will
need to be provided for at least 40 buses at a time. Given the current space constraints and the
desire of the CCMP to provide additional pedestrian amenity, it is likely that underground bus
facilities will be required. Ramps reducing conflicts with traffic would likely be constructed to
bypass delays on the western section of Quay Street and Lower Hobson Street. Similarly a ramp
would be constructed to provide relief on Customs Street.
Due to through routing of services, the number of buses on Customs Street and Wellesley Street
between Britomart and the marshalling facility will increase significantly. Additional operational
costs will result from dead running of services through the City Centre. This is likely to be
significant given the congested nature of these routes.
As noted above, Customs Street is currently under significant pressure as a result of mixed bus
and general traffic. As a result of proposed CCMP changes such as the Victoria Street linear park
and reclaiming of Quay Street for pedestrian use, significant additional general traffic will likely
utilise Customs Street as well. As a result, performance of this part of the network will degrade
significantly over time and would be further affected by additional bus through routing.
Similarly, as a result of the increased volume of buses to the Fanshawe Street marshalling area,
additional operational cost will be incurred. By the very nature of through-running, additional buses
will be running more distance from one side of the City Centre to the other, compared with a central
terminal such as Britomart where buses come in from one side and terminate in the centre of the
city.
It is clear that under any of the bus based options (SB1 – UB2) significant additional marshalling
and interchange facilities would be required. Even with improvements at Britomart, the dead
running of buses through the city centre will result in increased operational cost and disruption to
traffic. The exact scope of mitigation measures is yet to be developed in detail. However, for the
purposed of the CCFAS, additional costs associated with providing the marshalling and
interchange facilities have been allowed for, and when assessing the bus options some
degradation of performance of both the bus and road network is assumed.
6.2.1. Additional options to improve bus capacity
The capacity of the bus based options has been constrained in part by the physical number of
buses which can operate on some links. The key constraint identified is the Symonds Street
corridor from the Karangahape Road intersection where Grafton Bridge and Upper Symonds Street
buses combine together. Under the bus options, approximately 150 buses per hour are forecast to
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 133
use this section of road. As described in the short list options paper (refer Appendix F), this is at or
very near the limit of the number buses that could be catered for in this corridor. Significant
improvements are required to facilitate this number of buses as set out in Section 6.1.3 above.
A number of alternatives to release this constraint were considered when developing the options.
These options provide significant engineering and practical challenges in terms of grades, property
impacts and tunnel portal locations:
1) Demolish one side of Symonds St and use it for a BRT route or trench with more than 2 lanes
of buses in each direction. This option would have significant property issues, essentially
demolishing high value multi-storey office, hotel, residential, education and commercial
buildings. Under this alternative the large number of lanes would require multiple central
station platforms and would provide a barrier to pedestrian movements and access to the
platforms.
2) Continuing Wellesley Street tunnel up to Symonds Street further south (nearer Karangahape
Road for example) would have gradients of 10-12% for in excess of 1km. Daylighting the portal
would use up a large proportion of the available road space, reducing the effectiveness of the
capacity improvement it was designed to deliver. Symonds Street is also the over dimension
route from the Port and disruptions to this corridor on-line (for example – a tunnel portal)
remove the ability to carry heavy / over dimension or over weight items from the Port.
3) Moving the portal even further south, requires passing under the CMJ and surfacing in Newton
or Mt Eden which removes large origins and destinations of patronage (University area) and
introduces access problems in sending buses to the tunnel to begin with. Grafton buses for
example would have to travel back to Mt Eden to access the tunnel.
4) A tunnel through to Grafton from Wellesley Street to separate southern / eastern buses and
central buses on Symonds Street. This would involve a new structure over Grafton Gully and
connection into Grafton Road.
With further detailed investigation, land take and significant cost, these or similar options may be
able to relieve the immediate capacity constraint on Symonds Street. However, this link capacity is
not the only constraint on the number of buses that could be accommodated within the City Centre.
It is considered that the bus options developed provide a realistic maximum number of buses that
could operate in the City Centre. There are currently in the order of 375 buses which arrive in the
AM peak hour. In 2041, this rises to some 392 in the Balanced Reference Case (a 5% increase)
and under the bus based options this number of buses rises to approximately 475 buses per hour –
a 27% increase.
Even if the Symonds Street capacity constraint was overcome in some way, it is difficult to see how
additional buses could be accommodated or operated efficiently on the City Centre streets even
with the infrastructure improvements described in Section 6.2. The bus network would be under
significant pressure under the bus options as they are currently envisaged. Under these options,
Wellesley, Symonds, Customs and Fanshawe Streets will be carrying in excess of 100 buses per
hour. To meet the forecast level of bus demand it is likely that 50 – 60 additional high capacity
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 134
buses would be required in the peak hour on top of the 475 buses assumed under the bus based
options or 160 (43%) buses over existing.
Section 6.2 describes a number of key operational issues which effect bus operations in the City
Centre. These issues and others are further explored below in relation to the effect of additional
buses over and above that assumed in the bus based options:
1) Increased boarding times in the PM peak require significant kerbside space for bus loadings.
The bus options would already remove virtually all parking, loading, taxi space on bus
corridors. If an additional 50-60 buses had to be catered for approximately 800m-1km of
additional space would be taken up by these buses alone.
2) Operational constraints (marshalling, service termination) within the City Centre will actually
determine the capacity of the system – mid-block capacity will not actually govern. Even with
the Fanshawe, University and Britomart marshalling facilities, it is difficult to see how more
buses could be catered for.
3) Additional pressure on Customs Street and Fanshawe Street would increase the significant
issues identified above under the bus options. Extremely high bus volumes would be
experienced on these roads and congestion would be exacerbated as a result of through
running buses competing with general traffic. As noted above, general traffic volumes on
these routes are expected to increase significantly as a result of changes to Victoria and Quay
Streets though CCMP interventions.
4) As bus movements increase and pedestrian volumes rise with a growing City Centre, conflict
with pedestrians on high pedestrian corridors will increase and this will limit the ability of high
numbers of buses to traverse the City Centre.
5) Upstream capacity constraints may begin to govern. For example, increasing the number of
buses through Newmarket would have effects that would be very difficult to mitigate. The
Newmarket capacity constraint (Broadway, Khyber Pass) would require further assessment;
however no real opportunity exists for widening through that corridor without the demolition of
key shopping areas so other methods of dealing with high bus volumes would need to be
investigated.
On this basis, the bus options developed through the long list assessment and short list
development process are considered to be sufficiently representative of the likely bus options
available for access to the City Centre. While it may be possible to find engineering solutions to
deliver more buses into the City Centre, the actual bus capacity of the City Centre is limited to the
order identified in the bus options by operational constraints. Even under the bus options
developed, the bus and street network will be under significant stress with average speeds for
general traffic reducing significantly (refer to Section 4.3).
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 135

6.3. Short list option performance summary
Table 6-7 and Table 6-8 provide a summary of the short list option performance with regard to a number of key transport statistics.
„ Table 6-7 Summary of short list option evaluation, 2021 inbound morning 2 hour period
2011
Balanced Reference
Case
CRL Surface Bus Underground Bus
City Centre speeds
47

(kph)

Total motorised City
Centre commuters
48

71,800 95,400 98,800 98,500 97,600
49

39,100 (55%) 44,000 (46%) 42,400 (43%) 42,500 (43%) 42,900 (44%)
50

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

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

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

47
Within City Centre cordon (excluding the motorway) – morning peak hour (City Centre SATURN model). The speed for 2011 is actually from the model base year of 2010.
48
Excludes those commuters who originate within the City Centre, as the figures below relate to those commuters crossing the City Centre screenline (both for observed
(2011) and modelled). This may slightly underestimate car and PT commuters in the future years due to zone/screenline correspondence.
49
Private vehicle passengers. 2011 figure is from screenline counts, modelled figures are the number of vehicles multiplies by 1.3 (persons per vehicle)
50
For 2011, HCV’s are included in the car passengers, as the screenline survey does not differentiate by type of vehicle. Modelled HCVs are not impacted by the options
6 5 8 7 16
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 136
2011
Balanced Reference
Case
CRL Surface Bus Underground Bus

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

„ Table 6-8 Summary of short list option evaluation, 2041 inbound morning 2 hour period
2011
Balanced Reference
Case
CRL Surface Bus Underground Bus
City Centre speeds
51

(kph)

Total motorised City
Centre commuters
52

71,800 116,500 123,300 121,000 119,800
53

39,100 (55%) 49,400 (42%) 46,200 (37%) 47,200 (39%) 47,800 (40%)
54

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

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

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

51
Within City Centre cordon (excluding the motorway) – morning peak hour (City Centre SATURN model). The speed for 2011 is actually from the model base year of 2010.
52
Excludes those commuters who originate within the City Centre, as the figures below relate to those commuters crossing the City Centre screenline (both for observed
(2011) and modelled). This may slightly underestimate car and PT commuters in the future years due to zone/screenline correspondence.
53
Private vehicle passengers. 2011 figure is from screenline counts, modelled figures are the number of vehicles multiplies by 1.3 (persons per vehicle)
54
For 2011, HCV’s are included in the car passengers, as the screenline survey does not differentiate by type of vehicle. Modelled HCVs are not impacted by the options
6 5 8 5 16
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 137
2011
Balanced Reference
Case
CRL Surface Bus Underground Bus

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







STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 138

6.3.1. Demand and capacity
Some analysis has been undertaken to compare the level of patronage that can be provided by
each of the options to the demand from the Balanced Reference Case without the crowding model.
This has been used as a gauge of how well each option is performing in relation to potential
demand.
Figure 6-34 below shows the actual demand forecast compared to the uncrowded demand from
the Balanced Reference Case. As can be seen, none of the options developed provide for the
Balanced Reference Case level of demand in either 2021 or 2041. CRL performs the best
providing only 1,060 (2%) less people in 2021 and 5,200 (6%) less people in 2041 than this
demand while the bus on street option also fails to meet the demand by some 1,490 (3%) people in
2021 and 8,120 (10%) less people in 2041 people.
„ Figure 6-34 Option performance against demand
Source: SKM analysis of APT outputs
Rail Capacity Constraints
As described in Section 4.4, the current 20 trains per hour capacity constraint imposed by Britomart
terminal means that rail service frequency cannot be improved beyond that level of service
provision. This limits not only the capacity of rail to provide access to the City Centre but limits
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 139
patronage growth because more attractive, higher frequency services cannot be provided on the
wider network.
Figure 6-35 and Figure 6-36 below shows the planning and seated capacity of the rail network
following electrification with and without CRL. It also shows the forecast patronage on key sections
of the network when modelled without a crowding constraint
55
.
„ Figure 6-35 Rail demand and capacity in 2021

Source: SKM analysis of APT model outputs

55
If the crowded demands were shown, the capacity would not be exceeded because the crowding
model would essentially crowd people off the services.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 140
„ Figure 6-36 Rail demand and capacity in 2041

Source: SKM analysis of APT model outputs
As can be seen, under the Balanced Reference Case, rail capacity is not met in 2021 with the
majority of the network able to operate within the seated capacity. This is because demand is
constrained by the current network and frequencies which will operate following electrification.
Interpolating between the 2021 and 2041 rail demands indicates that the Western Line rail capacity
will be exceeded sometime around 2030 if the post-electrification network and timetable is
operated. Seated capacity at the key load point on the Western Line will be reached prior to 2021.
The CRL option generates significantly higher demand and this demand would exceed the
Balanced Reference Case capacity on the Western Line for services prior to Kingsland by 2021.
On this basis the potential demand exceeds capacity on the rail in 2021. In 2041 demand both
with and without CRL exceeds the Balanced Reference Case capacity on the Western line for
services coming into Newmarket. The ability for rail to generate and cater for additional demand is
constrained by the 20 trains per hour constraint at Britomart.
Bus capacity constraints
Analysis of bus capacity has been undertaken to identify key services and corridors that reach their
capacity, and when this is likely to occur under the Balanced Reference Case. Figure 6-37 below
shows the routes which serve the City Centre and that have a forecast patronage in excess of 250
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 141
people per morning peak hour. A peak hour factor of 0.6 has been used to estimate peak hour
demand from the 2 hour modelled period demand and a factor of 85% of maximum capacity has
used to give an indication of ‘optimal’ capacity for buses. Table 6-9 summarises the passenger
capacity numbers assumed in this analysis. Note that the seated capacity of the buses is
approximately equal to 80% of the ‘optimal’ capacity.
„ Table 6-9 Passengers per vehicle in bus analysis
Vehicle
Max
capacity
Max ‘Optimal’
Capacity
80% of ‘optimal’
capacity
Standard bus 57 49 39
Double decker bus
(proxy for high capacity bus)
90 77 61

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

Source: SKM analysis of APT model outputs
The majority of services from the isthmus, north and east reach their capacity by 2021 while
services from the west reach 80% of their capacity in the 2030s. This indicates that by 2021, the
bus network will largely be at capacity by 2021 under the Balanced Reference Case. There would
be some limited opportunity to optimise further, however this is unlikely to change the overall
picture.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 142
Figure 6-38 and Figure 6-39 show the same analysis for the CRL and surface bus options. Note
that underground bus performs very similarly to the surface bus as the bus volumes are broadly
consistent.
„ Figure 6-38 CRL bus volume capacity by service

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

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 143
„ Figure 6-39 Surface bus volume capacity by service

Source: SKM analysis of APT model outputs
Under the surface bus options, the pattern is similar to CRL with slightly more capacity across the
board.
The key routes servicing the isthmus are forecast to exceed capacity by 2021 under any of the
scenarios. This area is predominantly served by bus and this indicates that additional capacity to
this part of the city is constrained irrespective of the City Centre access solution chosen. It is likely
that a higher capacity mode solution will be required for this area to enable the growth aspirations
to be met without overloading the City Centre with buses. This is therefore likely to be rail based.
Under all the scenarios considered, buses servicing the central isthmus and the east will be
overloaded by 2021 and almost all the bus services are forecast to run out of capacity by 2030. At
the same time the rail network is constrained such that it cannot cater for desired demand on the
Western Line by 2021. This indicates that some capacity improvements need to be in place by
2021.
6.4. Short list evaluation
6.4.1. Short list evaluation framework
The short list was evaluated using the same basic framework as the long list evaluation. The
options had been developed in more detail and more quantitative measures were able to be
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 144
assessed following the more detailed modelling approach undertaken. Measures were used to
provide an indication of performance against each criteria under each objective. The measures
used, assessment of performance against them, and the resulting completed evaluation framework
is included in Appendix G.
The evaluation framework is a form of multi criteria analysis
56
that is commonly used in transport
planning assessments of strategic interventions. The evaluation framework was completed in a
series of workshops with the key stakeholders where the agreed performance measures were
reviewed and the relative performance of the options discussed and agreed.
In addition to the evaluation framework, costs for each of the options have been developed at a
high level to enable the options to be compared and a traditional transport user benefits economic
evaluation of each option has been undertaken in accordance with the NZTA Economic Evaluation
Manual (EEM). An assessment of the Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs) has been completed and
is detailed in section 7.
The following sections describe the performance of each of the options against the objectives in the
evaluation framework using the agreed measure. There is always an element of double counting
between criteria and measures when using an evaluation framework like this in conjunction with an
economic appraisal using the NZTA EEM procedures. Established economic procedures such as
those set out in the EEM will address many of the measures being examined. However, those
procedures tend to aggregate effects and many of the differences in the options cannot easily be
identified or explained using a purely monetised approach. The importance of the evaluation
framework is to understand which options perform better or worse compared to each objective.
Each objective will have different significance depending on people’s point of view. Some people
will values environmental sustainability higher than economic impacts. It is therefore important to
see this as comparative process which informs us about how and why the options are different in
their effects. The + and - scores in the appendix should not be added or aggregated (at either the
objective level or as a total), rather they are simply a tool which has been used to help differentiate
between options.
Some measures may be used multiple times as a measure of different effects.
6.4.2. City Centre access
Providing City Centre access is a key function of the multimodal packages being considered. A
number of key criteria and measures were considered through the evaluation framework.
As can be seen from Figure 6-40 below, the CRL option performs the best in respect of public
transport access allowing approximately 9,100 (13%) additional people to access the City Centre

56
Treasury, in their Better Business Cases Toolkit, outlines that multi criteria analysis is an
appropriate analysis tool, especially when combined with benefit cost analysis
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 145
compared with the Balanced Reference Case. The next best performing options are the surface
bus options which provide in the order of 6,200 (9%) additional patronage with the underground
bus options performing only marginally better than the Balanced Reference Case.
„ Figure 6-40 PT patronage to the City Centre

Source: SKM ART3/APT evaluation data
Related to the increase in PT patronage to the City Centre, is the reduction in private vehicle travel
to the City Centre which is shown in Figure 6-41. In 2021 The CRL and surface bus options
perform similarly with a reduction of 1,200 (3%) private vehicles travelling to the City Centre. The
underground bus options see a reduction of 800 (2%) private vehicles. In 2041, CRL has the
largest reduction in private vehicle trips, with 2,500 (5%) less private vehicles coming to the City
Centre. The surface and underground bus options have reductions in private vehicle trips to the
City Centre of 1,700 (3.5%) and 1,200 (2.5%) respectively.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 146
„ Figure 6-41 Car travel to the City Centre

Source: SKM ART3/APT evaluation data
All of the options reduce travel times by public transport into the city significantly; however the CRL
option is slightly less positive in this respect for travel from the north as the bus options have more
bus capacity in the City Centre allowing an increase in frequency for those routes and a
subsequent overall reduction in travel time from the North Shore.
The bus options which have regional approach treatments have improved journey time reliability for
public transport because the approach treatments reduce the number of buses interfering with
each other by providing improved stops and passing opportunities. In the City Centre, similar
improvements to facilities are provided by surface bus improvements (e.g. Wellesley, Albert,
Symonds Streets) or by the underground bus tunnel (only for those services using it) but are to
some extent offset by the larger number of buses using the City Centre. The majority of the
options have no effect on rail reliability as services are the same as the Balanced Reference Case.
CRL significantly improves journey time reliability for rail services by removing the need to turn
trains around at Britomart or reverse services into Newmarket station.
The surface bus options remove a considerable amount of road capacity (e.g. Wellesley, Albert,
Symonds Streets) in order to provide the bus facilities required to maintain bus performance and
accommodate the additional number of buses required in the City Centre. This has the effect of
increasing congestion as vehicles have to reroute on an already congested network. Figure 6-42
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 147
shows the road speeds within the City Centre which are forecast to reduce significantly by 35% for
the surface bus options compared to the Balanced Reference Case. At the same time, speeds are
forecast to improve slightly in the CRL option. This is due the lower level of vehicle demand as a
higher proportion of the transport task is being accommodated by rail and the existing road space
is maintained for general traffic. The underground bus options performs slightly worse than the
Balanced Reference Case because some road space is required (for example on Symonds Street
and Albert Street). However it does not perform as poorly as the surface bus options because road
space is not taken away from Wellesley Street.
„ Figure 6-42 Average general traffic speed

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 148
„ Figure 6-43 Bus passenger km and capacities

Source: SKM ART3/APT evaluation data
By providing the capacity to the west and south, CRL contributes the best to the AP objective of a
“well connected and accessible Auckland” and is consistent with enabling other projects identified
in the AP. The bus based options are not as positive but provide improvements to accessibility
over the Balanced Reference Case. All options have constraints to the north, southeast and central
isthmus in terms of the level of bus provision that is possible to serve these catchments which are
not served by rail.
Options that allow higher numbers of people to access the City Centre via public transport, and
which result in lower levels of congestion on the road network (allowing better private and
commercial vehicle access) are considered to perform the best against the objective of improving
access to the City Centre.
On balance CRL is considered to perform best in patronage terms, providing an approximately
50% larger improvement over the bus options. Congestion in the City Centre is also reduced
compared to the Balanced Reference Case in the CRL option. CRL is therefore considered to
have the most significant positive impact on City Centre access.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 149
6.4.3. Regional movement
The transport system operates as a network and changes on part of the network can influence the
whole network performance, particularly when those changes are to City Centre access.
CRL has the largest influence on the total patronage enabled across the region. It increases
patronage by 12,500 (10%) compared to the Balanced Reference Case in 2041. The bus based
options increase patronage by between 5,800 (5%) and 7,700 (6%) in 2041 as shown in Figure
6-44.
„ Figure 6-44 Total network PT patronage

Source: SKM ART3/APT evaluation data
As shown in Figure 6-45, CRL increases rail passenger km by 216,000km (45%) in 2041 and has
the same level of bus passenger km (970,000km) when compared to the Balanced Reference
Case. The bus options increase bus passenger km by between 90,000km (10%) and 115,000km
(12%) when compared to the Balanced Reference Case and maintain approximately the same
level of rail passenger kms travelled (485,000km). This indicates that demands catered for by
either option are largely uncompeting. There may be low levels of demand that is served by both
bus and rail. As this demand shifts mode due to the implementation of either option, the spare
capacity that shift creates is filled by excess demand that was previously uncatered for.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 150
„ Figure 6-45 Total PT passenger-km travelled

Source: SKM ART3/APT evaluation data
The CRL offers a reduction in congestion (refer to Figure 6-46) on the wider network while the bus
options only reduces. Vehicle-kilometres travelled on the network in congested conditions
(V/C>80%) reduce by approximately 7% under CRL, while reductions for the other options are less
significant at a modest 3%. This reduction is because public transport is taking a higher proportion
of the transport task in the better performing options, resulting in lower private vehicle volumes; and
therefore lower congestion.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 151
„ Figure 6-46 Network wide congested VKT

Source: SKM ART3/APT evaluation data
The CRL option integrates better “with the overall transport network planning and delivery beyond
the City Centre” because it utilises the existing investment in the rail network. Bus resources are
redeployed as feeder buses to rail allowing more frequent shorter bus trips servicing both rail
stations and their adjacent town centres improving public transport service overall. It also enables
additional expansion and further future rail upgrades (future proofing) through its ability to cater for
additional schemes such as a North Shore Rail and a rail extension to the Airport as set out in the
AP.
As well as facilitating City Centre employment it enables the rail system to serve entertainment and
leisure destinations around Aotea and Karangahape Road and connects the creative employment
sectors which are mainly in the Newton and Newmarket arc with the city centre.
The rail system is the major component for carrying people from big events at, for example, Eden
Park, Mount Smart stadium and Vector Arena. By relieving the operational constraints at
Newmarket, Quay Park and Britomart, the CRL facilities higher frequency services which are
particularly important for the intense period after events. When people are going to events, many
like to congregate in the City Centre first, particularly when there are high numbers of people from
out of Auckland. The additional city centre stations will distribute the load so that not every
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 152
passenger will want to travel from Britomart, making the crowds easier to handle, and the
environment for them better.
The bus options with the regional approach treatments perform better than those without because
they improve travel reliability and service outside the City Centre
Options that cater for higher numbers of people on public transport, and which result in lower levels
of congestion on the road network (allowing better private and commercial vehicle access) are
considered to perform the best against the objective to improve regional access.
All options perform somewhat positively compared to the Balanced Reference Case. On balance
CRL is considered to perform best in patronage terms, providing an additional 5000 region wide
trips over the bus options and is therefore considered to have the highest positive impact of all the
options. Reductions in congestion provided by the surface bus and CRL options mean that surface
bus options perform the next best but not in the City Centre. Underground bus options have some
positive effects on patronage but limited effects on congestion and are therefore not considered to
perform as well.
6.4.4. Economic performance
Economic performance was considered from a number of different perspectives. Qualitative and
quantitative assessment of the different options is described in this section. A monetised economic
evaluation is described in Section 7. Inevitably there is some double counting between these
approaches, this section informs the differential performance of the options under the economic
objective.
The ability for options to encourage job relocation in the City Centre (with the attendant productivity
benefits) and to contribute to the AP objective of contributing to “an Auckland of prosperity and
opportunity” and “increasing development value within the City Centre” emphasise different
outcomes. However, they have similar drivers as discussed below:
Increased accessibility
Increasing accessibility leads to higher land values and attractiveness for development. All options
increase accessibility as shown in Section 5.3 above. CRL performs the best providing an
approximately 50% (9,000 additional passengers) larger improvement over the bus options which
all perform similarly (4,500 – 6,000 additional passengers).
Again, as shown in Section 6.4.2, all of the options improve accessibility by increasing capacity for
travel and reducing travel times by public transport into the city; however the CRL option is slightly
less positive in this respect for travel from the north as the bus options have more bus capacity in
the City Centre allowing an increase in frequency for those routes.
City Centre development potential and value
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 153
Evidence from cities overseas and Auckland show that improvements in accessibility have led to
increases in property values; there is a higher chance for property values to increase around
railway stations. Stations provide reliable services and frequencies; defined, dedicated routes that
are easily understood and legible interchange facilities. Railway stations are permanent and
provide virtually guaranteed accessibility for the built environment in their vicinity. Railway networks
have the capability of moving significant volumes of people compared to other modes, thus
providing passengers greater confidence of getting on board compared to buses or other modes.
Limited amenity impacts such as noise especially when using an electric network provides
developers with higher confidence to invest in development. In most cases development codes
also provide for standards to ensure amenity impacts are mitigated.
Master planning around stations, precincts and railway corridors is being undertaken in cities
around the world to leverage off railway investment and to achieve high quality environmentally
sustainable development. Overseas examples of residential and or commercial development
integrated with rail stations include the Subiaco development in Perth, the Equinox in Toronto,
Collingwood village in Vancouver, the Milton Apartments Brisbane, and Maritime Square
Residential‐Retail Development at Tsing Yi Station Hong Kong.
Master planning enables the development of a coordinated and orderly framework to inform
statutory controls which provide certainty for developers, and the community. Station planning
ensures that station design including interchanges is integrated with adjoining public domain and
land uses. This provides for well-planned mixed use development and in most cases with higher
densities, greater housing choice and affordability around public transport nodes. In many cases
land used for temporary construction sites and workstations in and around railway stations can be
used for redevelopment.
There are many examples of renewal and regeneration around railway station sites which have
added economic, social and environmental value. Renewal around Britomart provides evidence of
renewal around the railway station as part of the transport hub (bus and ferry also contribute) in the
Auckland context. Britomart is the highest density employment cluster within central Auckland, and
much of the renewal and development has occurred after the opening of Britomart station. A
Colliers International Case Study of Britomart’s office market
57
found that Britomart had 18,700m
2

of space in 2003 prior to the opening of the Britomart Transport Centre, which had increased to
65,000m
2
by 2012. This suggests that Britomart rail station was a catalyst in trebling the amount of
office space in the area within an eight year period, with an associated increase in employment, of
around additional 3,000-4,000 jobs.
Other Auckland development examples include Newmarket station, Sylvia Park is a station
integrated into a new shopping mall and paid for by a developer. New Lynn station and trench has
enabled the regeneration of that area, including the expansion of Lynnmall and a new three-storey

57
Colliers International (May 2012), Britomart’s Office Market Before and After – A Case Study
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 154
medical centre and car park is under construction at the former New Lynn bus interchange, to be
completed in December 2012. This includes 3,350m
2
of ground floor retail and 3,640m
2
of upper
level medical facilities. There is a residential development planned at Orakei station.
There is also strong evidence indicating development and density around rail census area units
being greater than in non-rail census units in Auckland. This trend is backed up with evidence
showing increased property values and prices in rail Census Area Units (CAUs).
„ Figure 6-47 Auckland (City) Council consents issued 2006-2011

Source: Auckland Council analysis
58

The AP and CCMP outline the development potential around the proposed new stations at Aotea,
Newton and Karangahape Rd. The AP has identified significant capacity within the city centre and
along the rail corridors. An analysis of both the city centre and the rail corridors has found:
Within the city centre rail catchments of Aotea, Karangahape Road and Newton, an additional
41,000 employees can be accommodated.

58
399 Census Area Units (CAUs) in Auckland, 78 CAUs were identified as being adjacent to, or
near, the rail corridor. This equates to 20 per cent of the total CAUs. The table below shows the
relationship between rail and non-rail CAUs.
Rail CAUs Non-rail CAUs Total CAUs
78 321 399
20% 80% 100%

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 155
„ The greatest capacity is in Newton, which has capacity to increase by almost 300 per cent
„ Both Aotea and Karangahape Road have the capacity to increase by around 50 per cent
„ Along the rail corridors outside the city centre, the Auckland Growth Model (AGM) has
assessed a capacity within walkable catchments for an additional 120,000 residents, an
increase of 72 per cent.

„ Table 6-10 City Centre CRL stations development potential (,000m
2)

Station Residential Commercial Civic/Arts Total Floor Space Dwellings
Aotea 73 249 18 340 912
Karangahape Rd 77 46 3 126 962
Newton 750 320 - 1,070 9,375
Source: CCMP
AC is committed to undertaking master planning in CRL station precincts to maximise the greatest
benefits from investment. Master planning will inform the most appropriate and compatible land
uses to maximise rail investment. This would include provision for quality urban design and public
domain, activity, safety and sustainable development. This will stimulate economic development
and subsequent job location in rail served precincts.
In a similar way, bus infrastructure such as the underground tunnel and associated stations will
attract development and perform positively compared to the Balanced Reference Case in
encouraging strategic reinvestment in the City Centre. The underground bus options which have a
tunnel and associated stations will provide some of the permanence of rail, however the volume of
passengers travelling through the bus tunnel will be lower and bus infrastructure has shown itself to
be less effective than rail in encouraging development and increasing development value. There
are relatively less examples of renewal and redevelopment around bus interchanges and stops
than at railway stations. Overall bus tunnels do not provide similar opportunities or amenity to
create ‘places’ for communities as do railway station precincts. This because they are usually
located on major roads shared by other vehicles and do not have the physical attributes to enable
physical integration that railway stations afford.
Prior to 2003, Auckland City Centre developed largely based on bus and private vehicle
dependence. Under the surface bus options, there will still be significant investment in bus related
infrastructure. This would include streetscape improvements, reallocation of road space,
comprehensive replacement of stop facilities and improvements to roadside amenity to
accommodate bus infrastructure. However, bus stops are less permanent than railway stations
and integrated rail/bus interchanges. They provide less of a focus for development and in most
cases are on shared roadways, in more confined areas. While there would be some positive effects
from this investment, it is unlikely that this change would result in significant added redevelopment
value compared to the Balanced Reference Case.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 156
Wider network development opportunities
By increasing patronage on the rail network as a whole, the CRL option will encourage
intensification around existing stations on the wider network.
However, the bus options with regional approaches to the city could seriously impinge on town
centre activities by removing whole shop frontages to allow for corridor widening. For example, at
Ellerslie, resulting plot structures would not likely be big enough to allow for redevelopment on
existing sites. It could also mean that plots behind these shops frontages may need to be bought
to allow for comprehensive redevelopment. It is also possible that the same levels of amenity would
not be able to be restored as a result of the barrier effect of a wide bus corridor through a town
centre.
Bus options without the regional connections are unlikely to have any significant impact on
development potential outside the City Centre.
Taken all together, CRL supports job relocation to the City Centre and high value, high quality
development of the City Centre (including the areas identified in the CCMP for redevelopment)
significantly more than the Balanced Reference Case. This will lead to improved economic
performance. Underground bus provides some improvement over the Balanced Reference Case
but not to the same extent as CRL due to lower passenger volumes at the stations and their
particular locations within the City Centre. The performance of the bus on-street options will be
slightly better than the Balanced Reference Case but significantly below that provided by the other
options. CRL provides the opportunity for economic development around existing regional
approaches while the bus options with regional approaches have a negative impact because they
affect some town centres.
6.4.5. Environment and amenity impacts
The discussion in Section 6.4.4 above around the development potential of the different options
also provides a measure of the options’ ability support to high quality mixed use developments.
CRL performs best with both it and the underground bus (to a more limited extent) having potential
to change uses through leveraging station development for comprehensive master-planning of
precincts. This will lead to high quality mixed use development.
CRL and the underground bus options provides the opportunity to contribute to urban image, street
quality and vitality by facilitating public realm, pedestrian route, and pedestrian connectivity around
proposed stations and through comprehensively redeveloped precincts. Increased numbers of
pedestrians under all options will enhance vibrancy. The CRL option also allows higher footfalls
within the City Centre without the need for higher numbers of vehicles.
Options which have more buses at street level (visual and noise intrusion) and more congested
traffic conditions are considered to perform worse in terms of urban quality. The CRL option has a
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 157
similar number of buses to the Balanced Reference Case on all City Centre roads and has similar
levels of vehicle congestion in the City Centre.
When bus numbers and flows increase on City Centre streets it results generate a range of
unpleasant conflicts and events. Auckland appears to be close to reaching that tipping point at
present, judged by the observations of the 2008 assessment of the quality of life in the Auckland
City Centre conducted by Jan Gehl, a world leading expert in urban design.
59

Gehl’s report notes that Auckland enjoys a well-developed network of bus routes, but this is
creating a number of negative amenity impacts, including:
„ Many streets used for bus transport are producing a negative impact on the street environment
with noise and pollution;
„ Bus stops that create a feeling of congestion on the footpath in many locations;
„ A bus layover parking system in the City Centre resulting in severely downgraded
streetscapes and creating unsafe situations for pedestrians;
60

„ An unacceptable level of bus dominance in the City Centre requiring a need for more
options and more environmentally sustainable surface system to accommodate the demands
of a quality 21
st
century public transport system.
As Ottawa’s busways converge on the centre, they give way to bus lanes which are also shared
with turning general traffic (as in Auckland). As bus usage has increased, approximately 100 buses
per hour during peak periods are required to share the same stops along the corridor as other
traffic. Consequently, lengthy queuing of buses occur creating “a virtual wall of buses along city
streets.”
61
The concern over the deterioration of amenity values – they have reached a tipping
point – has prompted the city to recommend building a light rail tunnel through the down town. As
an Ottawa transport report puts it, “heavy bus operation on downtown streets are seen as detriment
to good urban life.”
62

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

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

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 158
The underground bus option will have similar numbers of buses on Wellesley St to the Balanced
Reference Case. All the bus options will increase the number of peak buses significantly on the
eastern section of Wellesley, Symonds and Albert Streets during the peak periods but outside
these periods the number of buses will be similar to the Balanced Reference Case. The number of
additional peak buses on upper Wellesley and Symonds Streets will provide a barrier to
permeability within the educational areas. The surface bus option increases congested conditions
within the City Centre as described in Section 6.4.2 above while there is a smaller increase in
congestion for the underground bus options.
The bus options with regional approaches are likely to have a significant detrimental impact on
town centres along the routes, with reduced vitality, and urban quality due to the implementation of
the high volume bus corridors which also remove parking and increase separation between the two
sides. The introduction of a bus corridor could potentially provide a significant barrier effect in
between each side of the town centre. This would be the case even if they could be
comprehensively redeveloped without losing the established businesses. Lower numbers of buses
outside peak times would reduce the effect somewhat.
All the options require more land take than the Balanced Reference Case. CRL requires a
significant number of properties to be acquired (approx. 250).
The bus options require limited land take in the City Centre to provide for marshalling at University,
Fanshawe St but there would be more significant land take to provide for the underground facilities
at Britomart. Those bus options with regional approaches require significant land take (approx.
260). The underground bus option would largely be constructed within the road reserve but there
would be more land take required than the surface bus options.
6.4.6. Implementation
The assessment under the implementation objective has been undertaken by considering the
relative performance of the options to the Balanced Reference Case in terms of: construction
timeframes, constructability and consenting challenges, impacts on the road and public transport
network during construction and the potential for the option to be staged.
Construction of the 3.4 km CRL project was assumed to take 5 years to construct, based upon
indicative construction timelines provided by AT. The CRL was considered to take the longest to
construct of all the short listed options. The surface bus improvements in the City Centre were
generally considered to drive the overall construction timeframes for those options, and given the
tight working room available, a construction duration of 18-24 months was assumed, with the
majority of this time being required to construct the marshalling areas. For the underground bus
options, an overall construction period of three years was assumed, being governed by traffic
management, construction staging and construction areas within the confined road space and City
Centre area.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 159
The bus options which include regional approach treatments were generally assessed to be able to
be constructed within a similar timeframe to the City Centre improvements required for the options
with approaches included. The approach treatments could largely be built in parallel with the City
Centre works, without affecting the overall construction duration, with the Wellesley Street /
Symonds Street works or the bus tunnel construction still governing the overall construction
timeframes. However, construction of the Ellerslie-Panmure Highway section requires significant
construction of new facilities on that approach corridor. Timeframes for the construction of the
adjacent section of the busway for the AMETI project indicate that this section would likely take a
number of years.
With a mix of construction techniques including cut and cover and TBM construction (requiring
specialist equipment) for sections of the rail tunnel, and deep excavations for the rail stations, the
CRL option was considered to have a high degree of difficulty to construct. The on-street bus
option was considered to be much easier to construct but still requires significant physical works on
the connection between Symonds Street and Wellesley Street. The existing connection between
Princes Street and Symonds Street is widened to allow for provision of a two lane, two way
dedicated bus facility extending from Symonds Street to the intersection of Wellesley Street /
Mayoral Drive / Kitchener Street. To facilitate this widening, a new retaining wall is required to be
constructed, utilising the space currently occupied on Wellesley Street by a raised planted island.
The underground bus tunnel was assumed to be constructed by a mix of mined and cut and cover
tunnelling techniques, with stations excavated in a similar manner to those for CRL. Construction
complexity was considered to be broadly equivalent to the CRL option. Construction complexity of
the bus options with approach treatments was not considered to increase significantly with the
addition of the approach treatment when compared to the options without the approaches.
For the surface bus options, significant traffic management was considered to impact on network
operations, but effects were considered to be more locally focussed than that for the CRL option.
Construction of the underground bus option was assessed to have significant network effects
through the City Centre, caused by cut and cover construction in confined road corridors along
Wellesley Street, Victoria Street, Halsey Street and Fanshawe Street. The bus options which
included regional approaches were considered to perform the worst in terms of network effects,
with significant City Centre effects combined with localised effects on both the eastern and western
approach corridors.
Requiring predominantly surface works within the road reserve beyond the works at Symonds
Street and Wellesley Street, the on-street bus option was considered to be readily staged with
benefits accruing to those sections as they are completed. While the entire underground bus
tunnel needs to be completed for this section of the option to become operational, there are other
areas (predominantly surface works) that can be constructed and begin to deliver benefits that are
independent of the bus tunnel component. From a staging perspective, the approach treatment
options performed well. Approach corridors are not a prerequisite for the City Centre works could
be constructed independently of City Centre works, delivering localised benefits.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 160
Consenting
Both the CRL and the underground bus options would have tunnel portals and impacts within the
City Centre. Auckland Transport as the requiring authority responsible for these works could use its
designation powers. The designation would authorise the works without the need for a land use
consent from the Council. The designation doesn’t override the provisions of the regional plans.
Regional consents would likely be required for dewatering, stormwater, remediation of
contaminated land, and air discharges. Securing the necessary designation and associated
regional consents would involve significant challenges in design, to avoid or mitigate any potential
adverse effects the proposals may have on the environment, as well as the associated processing
time and cost delays.
All bus options would require consents to develop the marshalling facilities at University and
Fanshawe Street. The consents required to develop the underground marshalling / interchange at
Britomart would be similar to those required for a large underground car park area or the existing
Britomart station. The bus on-street options would largely utilise the existing road space, having
minimal impacts outside the road reserve. While there would be opposition from affected locals
and businesses, no significant consenting issues are anticipated.
To provide the necessary surety for the bus options with regional approaches, these routes would
be designated. These proposals involve significant land take and would have significant impacts
on the existing town centres, many of which are characterised by heritage buildings, some of which
are scheduled for protection. Past experience with the introduction of bus priority measures in
these areas would indicate that securing the necessary approvals for the full bus option treatments
will likely encounter considerable community resistance. Even a recent attempt to extend the
operation of the existing Dominion Road bus lanes by half an hour were not achieved due to
opposition from local businesses. This is a key risk for the bus options with regional approaches.
Overall, those options which had the least impact during construction and were likely to be able to
be consented and constructed are considered to perform best against the objective of
implementation. Those options with approach treatments are likely to have significant difficultly
obtaining consent and will disrupt not only the City Centre but also the wider network and are
considered to perform the worst. The options which involve tunnels in the City Centre, generally
take the longest and cause the most disruption within the City Centre for the longest period of time
and are also considered to perform poorly. These options also have significant challenges in terms
of gaining consents but it is considered that with appropriate design and mitigation they could be
consented.
6.4.7. Health and safety
Positive health impacts occur when more walking and cycling is taking place. All options would be
constructed in an environment where walking and cycling improvements to improve accessibility
and promote active mode share were progressed in line with the aspirations of the Auckland Pan
and the CCMP. There are often active mode components of trips at both the origin and destination
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 161
of public transport trips. Therefore the largest impact that the proposed options will have on active
modes is in increasing the number of people using public transport. All options increase public
transport as shown in Sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.3 above. CRL has the largest influence on the total
patronage enabled across the region. It increases patronage by 12,000 (10%) compared to the
Balanced Reference Case in 2041. The bus based options increase patronage between 5,800
(5%) and 7,700 (6%) in 2041.
The largest impact that the options will have on the number and seriousness of crashes will be
changes in the number of conflicts between public transport vehicles and pedestrians.
Under all options the number of pedestrians in the City Centre will increase as a result of increased
public transport patronage as described above.
A 2010 report on bus accidents in Auckland prepared by the New Zealand Transport Agency
(NZTA) indicated that pedestrians, cyclists and the other vulnerable road users certainly make up a
significant part of the injury victims in bus crashes accounting for 106 injuries or 27 percent of all
injuries. However, further work is required to determine what proportion of accidents occurred in
the City Centre. However, the map shown in Figure 6-48 confirms that while the injury rate is low,
there are a significant number of minor and/or non-injury events at present.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 162
„ Figure 6-48 Location of bus accidents in Auckland City Centre: 2005 - 2009


Source: NZTA report

6.5. Costs
Cost estimates for the short listed options defined in Section 6.1 have been developed in
conjunction with Construction Consulting Group Ltd (CCG Ltd). CCG Ltd are the Industry
Expert/Parallel Estimator for NZTA’s Waterview Connection Project ($1.4b), SH16 Causeway
($270m) and Auckland Transport’s CRL. CCG Ltd have an extensive data base of construction
costs for major infrastructure projects in Australia and New Zealand. Estimates for the short list
bus options are “high level” and are based on benchmark costs developed for the CRL NoR design
and recent infrastructure projects in Auckland.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 163
6.5.1. City Rail Link
The estimate for the CRL is the 2010 APB&B Study estimate updated to 2012 dollars using the
BERL local government cost index. A cost review was undertaken by Jacob’s Associates and Bond
Construction Management in April 2012 and further costs have been developed, August 2012, by
Construction Consulting Group Ltd and WT Partnership to support Auckland Transport Notice of
Requirement in August 2012.
6.5.2. Short listed bus options
For the short listed bus options, high level comparative cost estimates have been prepared. These
estimates have not been based on the same level of detail as available for the CRL option on the
basis that the CRL design is more advanced. The following overall assumptions have been made
in developing the cost estimates for the short listed bus options:
6.5.2.1. Property
For the purposes of the estimates Net Project Property Costs have been assumed to be $1.0m for
an urban/residential property that would be typical in the location between Panmure (from the
AMETI project) and Greenlane. Property required for at grade bus stations within the city centre
and Newmarket areas are based on $10.0m each. It is assumed that underground stations will be
constructed within the road reserve; however allowance has been made for property required
aspects such as entrances and plant rooms. An allowance of $7.5m has been made per station
location.
6.5.2.2. Contingency
No specific risk assessment has been undertaken. The calculation for the contingency is based on
the experience of SKM and CCG Ltd for similar projects at this stage of development. The P50 and
P95 values have been split into confidence levels based on the expected scope of works and
estimate certainty. Values assumed for the P50 calculation are as follows:
„ 22.5% has been used where there is reasonable confidence in scope of works and the
estimate has been based on benchmark rates such as those developed for the CRL NoR
design
„ 40% has been applied where the scope of works and estimate is less certain, and
„ 33.5% has been used for property.

The corresponding values for the P95 are 40%, 72.5%, and 60% respectively.
6.5.2.3. Estimates
The Investigation and Reporting amount is calculated at 3% of the construction cost total. Design
and Project Documentation is calculated at 4% of the construction cost total.
The construction total includes the following items as a proportion of the direct costs:
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 164
„ Management Surveillance and Quality Assurance - 2.5%
„ Contractors design - 8.5%
„ Contractors overheads - 26.5%
„ Contractors margin – 13.5%.

6.5.3. Surface bus option 1 (SB1)
The scope of works for the surface bus option includes 60,000m2 of city centre road surfacing
works, upgrading 17 intersections, 2 at grade bus stations and 1 underground terminus/marshalling
yard. Rates are based on typical resurfacing, line marking, signage and traffic management costs.
There is an allowance for upgrading some of the existing infrastructure and road architecture
however there could be a wide variation in the extent of works and the costs involved. This
uncertainty has been reflected in the contingency description above, however the contingency
allowances have not been subject to a specific risk assessment.
6.5.4. Underground bus option 1 (UB1)
The scope of works for the underground bus option includes 480m of mined tunnel, 850m of cut
and cover structures, 4 underground stations and 1 underground terminus/marshalling yard.
Tunnelling has been assumed to be a sequential excavation method in East Coast Bays formation.
Rates for tunnelling are based on the specimen design for the Waterview Connection project. Cut
and cover tunnels are based on the concept design developed for similar CRL structures (Albert St,
North Auckland Line). The underground station and marshalling yards are based on an open
box/diaphragm wall design similar to the concept developed for CRL Aotea Station.
Option UB1 also includes city centre road works as described for Option SB1.
6.5.5. Surface bus option 2 (SB2)
This option is as per Option SB1 with the addition of the Eastern and Western approaches as
summarised in Section 6.1.5.
The Eastern approach includes 4.5km of road widening along the Ellerslie Panmure Highway and
Main Highway from the interface of the AMETI project at the intersection with the Mt Wellington
Highway to the intersection with Great South Road at Greenlane. A substantial portion of the cost
of the approach treatments is the land requirement to facilitate the road widening. The estimate
allows for 176 properties in this section. The section of the Eastern approach from Greenlane to
Grafton Bridge (approximately 5.4km), is assumed to be constructed within the existing road
reserve. Allowance has been made for an additional 2 stations (at grade) in Newmarket.
The Western approach includes revised lane configuration to 5.4km of Great North Road
constructed within the existing road reserve. Bus stops are assumed to be constructed outside the
existing road reserve (indented) and would require the purchase of property to facilitate localised
widening. The estimate allows for 2 properties for each bus stop at approximately 800m centres.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 165
Allowance has been made for 56 properties within this corridor (based on 14 stops, 2 properties
per direction).
The extent of works and property take for the road widening section such as for earthworks,
environmental mitigation, retaining structures, service re-locations, pavement, traffic management
and landscaping could have significant variance from the costs allowed.
6.5.6. Underground bus option 2 (UB2)
This option is as per Option UB1 with the addition of the Eastern and Western approaches as
detailed above.
6.5.7. Cost estimate format and summary
The cost estimates have been presented in a format consistent with the NZTA’s Cost Estimation
Manual, SM014. This has been done to allow comparison to the cost estimate developed for the
CRL. A summary of the cost estimates is shown in Table 6-11.
„ Table 6-11 Cost estimate summary
Option ($m)
Total Description CRL SB1 UB1 SB2 UB2
A Net Property 95 30 55 282 307
B I&R - 9 35.8 17 43.8
C D&PD - 12 47.7 22.7 58.3
D Construction 1,764.2 299.4 1,191.8 566.3 1,458.7
E Base Estimate 1,859.2 350.3 1,330.3 887.9 1,867.8
G P50 Estimate 2,141 429.1 1,629.6 1,087.7 2,288.1
I P95 Estimate 2,522 521.3 1,901.9 1,407.9 2,788.5
J Rolling Stock 259 48 48 48 48
G+J 2,400 477.1 1,677.6 1,135.7 2,336.1
I+J 2,781 569.3 1,949.9 1,455.9 2,836.5

Refer to Appendix H for the breakdown of the cost estimates.
6.5.8. Operating costs
CRL
The annual operating costs for the CRL option have been assumed from the central government
review of the APB&B Study. These are:
„ $18.1 million per year from 2021 to 2030
„ $36.8 million per year from 2030 onwards due to the additional rolling stock which are
assumed to be running from 2030
An additional $190 million has been allowed in 2029 to purchase that additional rolling stock.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Short list option assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 166
In addition to the above figures, allowance has also been made for wage escalation, assumed to
be 2% per annum. This has been applied to approximately 30% of the annual operating costs
being the general proportion of operator costs for rail.
Bus options
Bus operating costs have been calculated relative to the Balanced Reference Case based on the
following assumptions:
„ $4 per km travelled
64

„ $100 per hour of operation
65

„ 4 peak operation hours per day (morning and afternoon)
„ 250 operation days when peak operation occurs (50 weeks of 5 days)
The bus options have approximately 80 additional buses compared to the Balanced Reference
Case and the operating costs calculated are related to operating those additional buses.
The distance travelled by each service and number of services allows the total distance travelled to
be calculated from the modelled bus services.
In addition to the above figures, allowance has also been made for wage escalation, assumed to
be 2% per annum. This has been applied to approximately 50% of the annual operating costs
being the general proportion of operator costs for bus.
Bus rolling stock renewal is assumed to occur incrementally over a 10 year period, with the useful
life of a bus assumed to be 20 years.
Additional resurfacing allowances every 7 years have been included for the additional pavement
areas attributable to the bus options. This is a small amount in the context of the operating costs.
Annual tunnel maintenance for the underground bus options has also been allowed for at $7 million
per year.
Table 6-12 summarises the total operating costs assumed in the economic evaluation.
„ Table 6-12 Operating cost summary
CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2
30 year
assessment
($NPV)($m)
$180 $136 $134 $176 $176
Source: CCFAS economic evaluation

64
Provided by AT
65
Provided by AT
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 167
7. Economic evaluation
The overall standard NZTA EEM economic evaluation summary is shown below using a 30 year
evaluation period and 8% discount rate.
Due to the longevity of the options with large civil infrastructure, such as tunnels, a longer
evaluation period of 60 years is considered appropriate. Using a discount rate in line with Auckland
Council’s cost of capital of 5.7%, the Comparative Benefit Cost Ratios (CBCRs) are as follows:
CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2
CBCR 1.7 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.5


A standard EEM approach has been applied for evaluation of the options in the CCFAS. This
includes the use of the following:
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 168
„ 30 year evaluation period
„ 8% discount rate
„ Value of time adjustment factor of 1.33
66
is applied to EEM values of time

The evaluation incorporates the following:
„ Calculation of traditional transport benefits including:
„ Travel time benefits to existing PT users
„ Travel time benefits to new PT users (incorporating the rule of a half)
„ Decongestion benefits to road users
„ Emissions reductions benefits
Accident reduction benefits have not been assessed as they were considered to be minimal given
the options in the context of the Study and any attempt to develop a methodology to evaluate them
would have been based on a large number of assumptions. For example, the bus options introduce
more buses to City Centre, but introduce a level of separation from general traffic which will reduce
the potential for this type of conflict whilst potentially increasing the likelihood of conflict with
pedestrians.
„ Calculation of Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs) including:
„ Agglomeration benefits
„ Imperfect competition
„ Labour force participation
„ Move to more productive jobs
Each of these is discussed in the following sections.
Annualisation factors
The annualisation factors derived in the APB&B Study and confirmed by the central government
review have been used as the starting point for the CCFAS for turning morning period (2 hour)
values / outputs into annual values. These are:
„ 1100 for PT user benefits
„ 950 for other benefit streams
The different modelling system used in the CCFAS has meant that these annualisation factors
have been revised for the different models and benefit streams as discussed below.
Annualisation factors – PT user benefits

66
EEM, Travel time cost savings, draft 2011 update factors, page 2.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 169
Due to the introduction of the crowding model, the calculation for annualising the PT user benefits
has been changed to account for the lower levels of crowding that would be present in the inter
peak period. This means that the benefit over the inter peak period would come mainly from a
reduction in travel time and improved service reliability, rather than a reduction in crowding on PT.
To incorporate this effect, a proportion of the benefits calculated from APT with the crowding
module in place are used as well as a proportion of the benefits calculated from APT without the
crowding module in place. The assumption that the AM and PM periods have a similar level of
crowding, leads to a proportion of 500 / 1100 (45%) of the crowded model benefits, with the
remaining proportion of 600 / 1100 (55%) being taken from the uncrowded model benefits. To
summarise:
„ Morning 2 hour period (with crowding)
„ Multiplied by 2 (morning and evening peaks), multiplied by 250 (applicable days per year)
= multiplied by 500 total
„ Morning 2 hour period (without crowding)
„ Multiplied by 600 (1100 – 500) to represent the benefits outside the ‘crowded’ peak
periods
„ These figures are added together to obtain the annual PT user benefits

Annualisation factors – ART3 decongestion
For decongestion calculated from the ART3 outputs, the annualisation factor of 950 as determined
in the APB&B Study has been maintained as this model does not incorporate crowding and
represents a similar approach to that used in the APB&B Study.
Annualisation factors - SATURN
The use of the City Centre SATURN model introduces an additional level of complexity due to the
impacts of the different options being modelled at a more detailed level compared to using ART3.
Through the CCFAS evaluation process, the impact on congestion in the City Centre of the
different options was highlighted, particularly for the surface bus options as they remove general
road capacity. For this reason, a two step process was developed which varies for each of the
options. This involves using the AM peak hour model, a peak hour factor and a daily factor to
obtain an estimate of the daily benefits of each option, and then an annualisation factor to turn the
daily benefits into annual benefits. The peak hour factor of 1.7 has been used to convert peak hour
to 2 hour morning period values. This factor is based on the peak hour being approximately 0.6 of
the 2 hour period (based on existing patterns). The annualisation factor is 250 which is consistent
with the working days per year referred to in the PT benefits annualisation above.
To determine the daily factors, as with the PT user benefits, the benefits in the morning period are
applied to the evening period as the level of congestion is assumed to be similar. This leads to a
base daily factor of 2. To understand and estimate the effects within the inter peak period,
indicative 2021 inter peak SATURN models were built using inter peak matrices from ART3 and
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 170
distribution patterns of base AM and PM SATURN models for the Balanced Reference Case, CRL
and surface bus options. Due to time constraints it was not possible to complete this process for all
the options. It is important to note that these inter peak models have been built for indicative
purposes only.
The inter peak models showed similar levels of congestion in the Balanced Reference Case and
CRL option models, indicating that as the road network is the same, there is negligible difference
outside the morning and evening peak periods when congestion levels are lower. With no
difference in the inter peak period, the daily factor for CRL remained at 2.
As the surface bus option removes significant road capacity, some effect in the inter peak period
was expected. Assessing the impacts relative to the Balanced Reference Case, it was determined
that a factor of 1.4 could be applied to the morning peak benefits to estimate the inter peak
benefits. This led to a daily factor of 3.4 (base factor of 2, plus 1.4). The same daily factor is
assumed for the underground bus options also on the basis that the reduction in general road
capacity is similar.
As a comparison, the APB&B Study annualisation factor of 950 equates to a daily factor of
approximately 3.8 using the 250 applicable days. The daily and annualisaiton factors for the
options from the morning benefits using the City Centre SATURN model are summarised in Table
7-1
„ Table 7-1 SATURN factor summary
Option
Daily
factor
Annual
factor
Effective annualisation factor
from morning peak model
CRL 2 250 500
Surface Bus 3.4 250 850
Underground Bus 3.4 250 850

Intermediate years
As the modelled years were 2021 and 2041, linear interpolation has been used to determine the
yearly benefits / costs as required.
7.1.1. Traditional transport user benefits
PT travel time benefits
Benefits to existing and new PT users were extracted from the APT model using the following
assumptions:
„ Total generalised cost is used including the crowded time used in the APT pivot model. As the
‘in vehicle’ time does not actually increase, this perceived increase in cost in crowded
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 171
conditions is captured through the use of crowded value of time (rather than using actual (non
crowded) time with an increased value of time.
„ The rule of a half
67
is used to account for changes in benefits due to changes in the numbers
of passengers.
„ The value of time in the APT macro is $10.76 per hour. Outputs have been factored by 0.71,
an equivalent of $7.63 per hour in 2011 dollars, consistent with the NZTA EEM.
With the exception of the value of time alteration, these calculations are consistent with previous
CRL assessments by central government.
This produces the benefit relative to the Balanced Reference Case for the 2 hour morning peak
which is then annualised and discounted across the assessment period and a summary of these
benefits are shown in Table 7-2.
„ Table 7-2 PT travel time benefits summary
CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2
2021 AM 2
hour period
$49,700 $29,000 $30,300 $15,500 $16,900
2041 AM 2
hour period
$86,500 $44,600 $47,600 $24,500 $27,400
30 year
assessment
($NPV)($m)
$386 $224 $233 $117 $129
Source: CCFAS economic evaluation
Decongestion benefits
The decongestion benefits (benefits to road users) have been calculated from two sources.
City Centre decongestion benefits – City Centre SATURN
As the options have the most significant effect within the City Centre, the City Centre SATURN
model has been used to capture congestion within the City Centre in more detail than ART3 is able
to. The surface bus options have the potential to significantly impact on congestion due to the road
space that they reallocate away from general traffic. Capturing this in the evaluation was
considered important to understand the impacts on general traffic.
One of the limitations of the SATURN model is its inability to respond to the influence of things like
high levels of congestion. For example, it cannot account for modal shift that might occur. It uses
fixed inputs and the model outputs are based on those.

67
‘The rule of a half’ – economics theory suggests that when consumers change their travel in
response to a financial incentive, the net consumer surplus averages half of their price change (the
rule of a half). Essentially it means that new users receive half the benefit that an existing user
would experience.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 172
Each of the options was modelled in SATURN and time and demand skims
68
were produced to
determine the number of trips between each origin and destination zone and also the time that it
was taking to complete the trip.
The rule of a half was used to account for differences in demand and the value of time for the
morning commuter peak ($15.13 / hour – 2002 dollars) is used to calculate the change in cost
between each origin and destination zone between the option and the Balanced Reference Case.
As the SATURN model only includes the City Centre, the impacts of the regional approach
corridors in Options SB2 and UB2 are not considered, and as such are not modelled explicitly. The
assumption is that within the City Centre, the effects would be virtually identical for Option SB1 and
SB2 and similarly for Options UB1 and UB2.
As the SATURN model is a peak hour model only, a factor of 1.7 has been used to convert peak
hour to 2 hour morning period values. This factor is based on the peak hour being approximately
0.6 of the 2 hour period (based on existing patterns) as mentioned above in the annualisation factor
discussion.
„ Table 7-3 SATURN decongestion benefits
CRL SB1 or SB2 UB1 or UB2
2021 AM 2 hour peak $69,300 -$96,000 -$37,800
2041 AM 2 hour peak $171,400 -$50,000 $3,700
30 year assessment
($NPV)($m)
$297 -$378 -$103
Source: CCFAS economic evaluation
In an initial analysis, only outputs from the AM peak City Centre SATURN model were used, with
annualisation factors used from the APB&B Study (developed from count information). Testing
was undertaken both on capping of absolute travel times in the Balanced Reference Case and
options and capping of the benefits for each OD pair. This was done to ensure that the modelled
delays were a realistic representation of what would be tolerated in the AM peak period so that
when results were annualised the travel times profiles would be broadly consistent with the daily
volume profiles.
In this updated analysis, as noted above in the SATURN annualisation factor discussion, inter peak
SATURN model runs have been made available for the 2021 Balanced reference, surface bus and
CRL options. When using this inter peak information in conjunction with the AM peak data used
already, it is important to capture the cost borne by travellers in the AM peak who are delayed
significantly enough that they may travel outside of the AM peak hour (or shift mode or not travel
altogether). To capture this additional cost, the capping in the AM peak has been removed from
the analysis. It is important to note that the significant delays in the AM peak in part reflect the

68
A process used in modelling to extract modelled data. In this case, the skim outputs demand and
travel time between each model zone.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 173
actual delays which would likely occur in the AM peak, and in part reflect the “inconvenience cost”
of not being able to travel by the preferred mode at the preferred time.
Wider network decongestion benefits – ART3
The decongestion benefits from ART3 were also evaluated to capture the wider network impacts of
the options. There would likely be some benefits on the wider networks as more people can travel
on PT, thereby reducing congestion on the wider network as a certain level of vehicles are
removed. As ART3 is not sensitive to changes in congestion at a local level it does not accurately
reflect the performance of intersections within congested conditions such as the City Centre. To
avoid double counting, benefits from trips with an origin or destination within the City Centre were
removed from the analysis on the premise that the benefits to these trips are being captured in the
SATURN modelling analysis. Table 7-4 summarises the wider network decongestion benefits
calculated from ART3.
„ Table 7-4 ART3 decongestion benefits
CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2
2021 AM 2
hour period
$7,700 $11,800 $11,600 $9,000 $7,300
2041 AM 2
hour period
$40,700 $31,000 $31,900 $28,600 $29,400
30 year
assessment
($NPV)($m)
$106 $108 $107 $88 $85
Source: CCFAS economic evaluation
There is little difference for general traffic movements between Options SB1 and SB2 as the
regional approaches do not take road space away. The same is true for Options UB1 and UB2.
Decongestion benefits summary
It is acknowledged that the complex interactions between congestion and mode choice that this
analysis is trying to replicate through the modelling are very complex. While further refinement may
be possible during a Detailed Business Case, it is unrealistic to expect that a study of this nature
will be able to utilise a fully consistent equilibrium modelling approach which accurately reflects all
aspects of behaviour. As a result we must interpret the information we have appropriately and form
a judgement about the relative performance of the options.
Removal of some trips from the road network as a result of public transport improvements will have
a positive impact on road congestion. This improvement is achieved without the need to take road
space with the CRL option. Similarly the bus options reduce the number of vehicle trips
69
.

69
The reduction in congestion is not proportional to the increase in the number of buses routed
through the City Centre. It is not appropriate to say in Wellesley St for example we are adding x
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 174
However, by increasing the bus accessibility in the bus options, we are adding a large number of
buses into the City Centre that need to be provided with facilities to ensure reliable journey times.
The effect of removing trips from the City Centre is captured in both the SATURN and ART3
models. By its nature, the SATURN model is much better at representing the effect of this within
the City Centre and is a more appropriate tool to understand the effects of this type of change.
Clearly the removal of key road links within the City Centre will result in increased congestion within
the City Centre. As noted above, ART3 does not represent the effects of traffic congestion very
well in this sort of environment and therefore the SATURN model is the appropriate tool for
understanding the effect of these changes.
Road speeds are forecast to reduce significantly by the SATURN models in some cases down to
walking speeds inside the City Centre cordon. It is possible that these sorts of road speeds would
not be acceptable to people, however given the fixed land use assumptions agreed for this study
there are limited options. Some may choose active modes for short tips but this effect is unlikely to
be significant. As detailed in Section 6.3, bus networks are largely at capacity so opportunities to
utilise bus will be difficult, particularly as there is significant crowding forecast already. Replication
of the effects of lower road speeds in the City Centre within ART3 and APT to understand the
effects on mode choice better may be possible during a more Detailed Business Case evaluation of
options. However, for the purposes of this study, it is considered that the SATURN results provide
a good comparative representation of the option performance.
Only mode choice changes would be assessed through use of the ART3 model. Land use effects
are more likely to result if modal shift is difficult. People could choose to live in the City Centre.
However, the residential growth assumed for the City Centre is already very large. More likely the
growth would take place in the areas where there is available PT capacity. These will likely be
served by the rail catchments.
The overall decongestion benefits incorporating both the City Centre SATURN and ART3 analyses
are shown in Table 7-5.
„ Table 7-5 Decongestion benefits
CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2
30 year
assessment
($NPV)($m)
$402 -$270 -$268 -$15 -$19
Source: CCFAS economic evaluation

bus therefore we are taking x time 40 cars off the road link. This is because the buses within the
CBD have already dropped off patronage and are not full. You cannot remove buses from the CBD
as they need to continue through to their destination and so still need to be catered for physically.

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 175
Emission reduction benefits
CO
2
benefits are assumed to be 4% of vehicle operating cost (VOC) benefits in line with
approximations set out in the EEM. The VOCs are calculated from ART3 outputs on a region wide
basis.
As shown in Table 7-6, the emissions benefits from any option are very low in the context of the
overall benefits and indicate that there are no substantial differences between the different options.
„ Table 7-6 Emissions benefits
CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2
30 year
assessment
($NPV)($k)
$220 $280 $250 $320 $310
Source: CCFAS economic evaluation
Accident benefits
Accident benefits have not been assessed as part of the economic evaluation. They have been
assessed qualitatively in the evaluation framework as discussed in Section 6.4.7.

7.1.2. Wider Economic Benefits
Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs) are now captured in standard cost-benefit analysis. The formal
incorporation of wider impacts of transport projects into economic appraisals began with
agglomeration, linking the ability of transport to enable clustering of businesses and the links
between employment density and productivity. Subsequent research has broadened WEBs to
include effects relating to returns of scale, densification of labour markets, and company and
household behavioural adaptations to changes in transport infrastructure and related cost
structures.
There is established guidance on estimating WEBs in the UK, and similar guidance also exists in
New Zealand. Research in this area identifies four WEBs of transport.
There are two WEBs concerned with employment density or agglomeration. The difference
between them relates to whether the standard transport appraisal assumption of fixed population
and employment is maintained. The “agglomeration” benefit assumes a fixed distribution of
employment and calculates an agglomeration gain based on the extent to which the transport
project improves effective density (ED). ED is a gravity-model style measure of job-to-job
accessibility calculated using the generalised cost of travel from one zone to all others, weighted by
the number of jobs in each zone. Reductions in transport generalised costs brings businesses
closer together, improving ED.
The second is the “Move to More Productive Jobs” (M2MPJ). This measures the productivity gains
(and losses) from changes in the absolute density of employment when the transport project in
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 176
question is expected to change the future distribution of employment. The clearest example is to
think about an absolute transport capacity constraint on a City Centre which is overcome by
provision of additional capacity. There is an external productivity gain to the existing businesses
within the City Centre if additional employment growth is enabled within the City Centre rather than
elsewhere.
The other two WEBs relate to Imperfect Competition and Labour Force Participation.
The Labour Force Participation (LFP) impact derives from the link between improvements to
commuter journey times and labour force participation. The rationale is that if transport costs (of
which journey time is a factor) fall then more people are encouraged to enter the labour market.
Individuals make that decision on the basis of their post-tax earnings, but the WEB results because
government captures the tax take on the increase in output produced by the increase in labour
supply (often referred to as the “tax wedge”). Quantification of LFP relies on two key issues: the
“return to work” elasticity i.e. how many people are likely to re-enter the labour market as a result of
reductions in commuting costs, and the tax take on the marginal increase in output created by the
increase in LFP.
Research
70
on the NZTA website suggests that the LFP benefit should be based on the value of
commuting time savings weighted by a number of factors including average earnings, the average
tax rate on labour and the tax take on increased labour supply. In the review
71
of the 2010 APB&B
Study this was translated into a LFP benefit equivalent to “4.8 percent of conventional transport
benefits”.
The Imperfect Competition (IC) impact exists because there are significant price cost margins in all
economies, i.e. the perfect competition assumption of all firms pricing at marginal costs is untrue.
Boulhol (2005)
72
found average price cost margins of 12% across 20 countries.
Reductions in transport costs for businesses will result in them reducing costs, cutting prices and
increasing output. As price is above marginal costs and faced by a downward sloping demand
curve, the increase in output will reduce the “deadweight loss” from imperfect competition. The
deadweight loss is found to be proportional to the value of business time savings, with the
proportion depending on the scale of the price cost margin and the aggregate price elasticity of
demand. The UK guidance values the IC impact at 10% of the value of business travel time
savings based on an aggregate demand elasticity of -0.5 and a price cost margin of 20%. NZTA
guidance is that the imperfect competition benefit should be valued at 11.7% of business user
benefits. In the review of the 2010 APB&B Study it is taken to be equivalent to 2.5% of
conventional benefits. The IC impact is entirely additional to the value of the business time savings

70
Kernohan, D. & Rognlien, L. (2011), Wider economic impacts of transport investments in New
Zealand, NZTA research report 448
71
Ministry of Transport, Treasury and NZTA (May 2011), Auckland City Centre Rail Link Business
Case Review
72
Boulhol (2005), Why haven’t price cost margins decreased with globalisation?
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 177
In summary, the WEBs extend traditional transport economic appraisal by including benefits arising
from:
„ Positive externalities – the link between employment density and productivity;
„ Market Imperfections – in particular the impacts of tax rates and imperfect competition; and
„ Appraisal assumptions – relaxing the assumption that population and employment distributions
are fixed irrespective of transport infrastructure.
 
7.1.2.1. Agglomeration, LFP and IC
Agglomeration benefits have been calculated using the methodology set out in Section A11.12 of
the EEM. This incorporates the approximation of the GDP per ART zone and the change in
productivity through differences in effective density between the reference case and each option.
Refer to Section 4 of Appendix I for a more detailed description of the agglomeration methodology.
To calculate the LFP and IC components of the WEBs, the percentages derived in the APB&B
Study were used.
„ LFP – 4.8% of conventional benefits
„ IC – 2.5% of conventional benefits or 10.7% of the business user benefits

Comparing the two methods for calculating the IC benefits showed that using 10.7% of business
user benefits results in approximately $10 million less benefits across the assessment period of the
option. For the purposes of economics evaluation for the CCFAS, the IC benefits are based on
using 2.5% of the conventional benefits due to the more straight forward calculations that are
involved. As shown, the difference is considered to be small relative to the magnitude of the overall
benefits and does not affect the relativity of the options that are being compared.
7.1.2.2. Move to More Productive Jobs
The above WEBs are all based on fixed population and employment for Balanced Reference Case
and option scenarios. The final element of WEBs is about whether the alternative transport
scenarios will change the level of employment in the City Centre and what the implications of that
might be. In an ideal scenario a Land Use and Transport Integration (LUTI) model would be used to
forecast the change but in this case that is not possible:
„ Although there is a LUTI model there is no response to public transport crowding or a capacity
constraint.
„ It has therefore proved unresponsive and previously forecast only approximately 40 additional
jobs in the City Centre as a result of large scale access improvements in early testing.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 178
In the absence of an appropriate LUTI model it still seems sensible to try and understand the scale
of the potential benefits that could arise from the different transport scenarios, in particular to
understand any differences that might exist between the bus and rail options. These are discussed
under three headings: Capacity, Development and Quality.
Capacity
The two bus options (SB and UB) add approximately 7,000 and 8,000 additional public transport
capacity to the Balanced Reference Case. The CRL options adds 23,000 to public transport
capacity and does not remove road capacity from other traffic as would be required by the SB
option. CRL clearly adds much more capacity than the bus based scenarios.
The CRL capacity within the City Centre is focussed on the stations, Britomart, Newton and
Karangahape Road. CRL therefore delivers significant transport capacity to a small number of
defined points. The bus options distribute their capacity more widely across the city centre and
suburbs.
Looking at the bus passenger numbers in more detail Table 7-7 summarises the bus supply and
demand under the four main scenarios: Balanced Reference Case, surface bus, underground bus
and CRL. These figures are measured inbound across the City Centre cordon for the morning peak
period.
„ Table 7-7 Bus supply and demand
73

M2MPJ Summary
Balanced
Reference
Case
CRL Surface Bus
Underground
Bus
Bus Supply 2021 21,800 18,300 28,800 29,000
Passengers > Caacity (uncrowded) 8,200 5,500 4,700 3,400
Passengers > Capacity (crowded) 1,300 600 100 400
Bus Supply 2041 20,000 20,400 31,400 31,400
Passengers > Caacity (uncrowded) 15,000 10,600 10,700 8,500
Passengers > Capacity (crowded) 4,600 1,700 900 900
Source: SKM
There are a number of impacts captured in this table:
1) The change in bus supply between the scenarios for 2021 is shown on the top row. This
shows the very significant increase provided by the UB and SB scenarios and that in the CRL
scenario bus volumes are reduced, even compared to the Balanced Reference Case as some
people who were previously catching buses are now shifted to train.

73
This information is created from the City Centre screenline PT flows from APT, summarised by
transit line
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 179
2) The second row shows that in the model run without crowding on the buses, buses are very
significantly over capacity. Thus in 2021 there are over 8,000 passengers in the Balanced
Reference Case in excess of standard bus capacity. There are also significant numbers of
passengers over capacity all three option scenarios.
3) The third row shows the impact of incorporating crowding costs into the public transport
assignment. This results in a significant shift of passengers from bus onto car and rail modes,
largely eliminating passengers over capacity. The key impact of that is a large increase in car
journey times, as demonstrated in the transport economic appraisal of the bus-based options.
4) CRL does not eliminate passengers over capacity on the bus network, because it doesn’t
serve all corridors and because it actually has lower bus flows, even than the Reference Case.
It would be possible to eliminate the majority of bus flows over capacity in the CRL scenario by
some selective increases in bus services and the impacts on car journey times are much lower
for CRL than for the bus-based options.

The impact of the transport capacity constraint on development of central Auckland is effectively
shown by the combination of:
„ The numbers of passengers entering the city centre on buses which are over capacity; and,
„ The dramatic reduction in car speeds in and to the City Centre under all of the bus options. In
reality employees would be unlikely to subject themselves to car journeys at 4.5 kph and
equilibrium would be reached with lower employment in the city centre;
„ The other likely change would be that city centre commuters would tend to cluster around the
CRL stations, simply because those locations provide better quality commuting journeys.

It is not possible to produce a firm estimate of the different transport constraints on city centre
employment growth arising from the different transport options. The models are not really
appropriate for that task. Despite this, the extent of the reduction in traffic speeds arising from the
bus based options strongly suggests that those won’t work and will constrain city centre growth;
The additional capacity provided by CRL does though provide a significant degree of resilience to
the network that otherwise is operating right on the limit. That resilience is useful when things go
wrong, but more importantly useful if reality turns out higher than the planning forecasts.
Development
Property developers, especially in city centres like to develop close to rail stations. Those stations
provide good accessibility, they are permanent and hence virtually guaranteed for the life of the
building and they provide very high capacity to each station. Thus large office blocks and
particularly clusters of office blocks tend to be very close to stations, they need both high capacity
and permanence.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 180
There is already evidence of that in the Auckland City Centre in the context of Britomart station.
Britomart is clearly the highest density employment cluster within central Auckland, and much of
that seems to have followed the opening of Britomart station. A paper
74
on Britomart’s office market
suggests that Britomart had 18,700m
2
of space in 2003 prior to the opening of the Britomart
Transport Centre in July of that year, which had increased to 65,000m
2
by 2012. This suggests that
Britomart station played at least some role in trebling the amount of office space in the area within
an eight year period, with an associated increase in employment, perhaps an additional 3-4,000
jobs.
It is difficult to prove whether that growth is additional to the City Centre or whether it would have
occurred elsewhere within the City Centre without Britomart, and it might be worth undertaking
further research – for instance, interviewing developers and property owners around Britomart to
see why they chose to develop there and what they would have done without the station.
Nonetheless, it does not seem credible to argue that all of the growth would have occurred without
the rail improvements; it is far more plausible that the station played a role in attracting new jobs in
to the City Centre.
On that basis, it can also be expected that CRL would attract further development in the City
Centre, leading to a further increase in City Centre employment. If, for instance, CRL adds a further
4,000 jobs at Britomart on top of the recent growth, as well as 4,000 jobs at Aotea, then that would
equate to an additional 8,000 City Centre jobs as a result of CRL. It might be that under the bus
scenarios Auckland city centre would struggle to attract the large scale property investment
required to enable the forecast growth in central employment.
Quality
Rail is attractive not just for reasons of speed and capacity, but also quality. In narrow terms that
can be through better transport reliability and comfort both of which are captured within the
transport economic appraisal. Rail also plays a key role in the quality of a city centre. It does that
by providing capacity without requiring road space. That opens up a range of policy options for
decision makers as to whether to increase available capacity (there is a mode shift from bus and
car to CRL which provides that increased available capacity) or whether they use it to create a
more attractive City Centre for business, retail and entertainment, through public realm,
pedestrianisation, cycle priority etc. There is increasing evidence that “Quality of Place” plays a role
in determining locational decisions of both businesses and mobile employees and hence impacts
on local economic growth. A successful city centre combines high levels of both accessibility and
amenity.
The reasons outlined above help to explain why CRL would be likely to lead to an increase in the
number of City Centre jobs. It is however not possible to reach a conclusive answer as to how

74
Colliers International (May 2012), Britomart’s Office Market Before and After – A Case Study
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 181
many jobs would result from the rail or bus scenarios. The existing models are not detailed or
comprehensive enough to produce those forecasts.
7.1.2.3. Move to More Productive jobs – method and results
As outlined in the previous section, there is a strong likelihood that the CRL option will lead to
higher employment within the City Centre. Given the transport models available, it is, difficult to use
them to prove a particular scale of change.
The central government review of the APB&B Study concluded that the level of additional
employment in the City Centre as a result of CRL would be likely to be around 5,000, roughly in line
with the modelled increase in morning peak public transport demand arising from CRL. A higher
sensitivity test of 20,000 jobs was run, but that appeared high for a scheme which adds 23,000
capacity in the morning peak so 12,000 has been adopted as a more realistic high test, where
roughly half of the additional capacity provided by CRL is eventually filled by additional city centre
employment. Those are the tests which have been valued using the M2MPJ approach.
In order to value this M2MPJ impact, the process is as follows:
„ Determine the likely number of additional City Centre jobs as a result of the scheme
„ Determine the likely length of time that it will take for that potential number of additional jobs to
be reached – the effect may take several years to reach its full potential, rather than all being
immediate
„ Determine the productivity differential between the City Centre and jobs elsewhere
„ Multiply the number of additional City Centre jobs by the productivity differential – this gives a
value for the total additional output produced
„ Estimate the ‘tax wedge’ element of that increase in output – this gives a value for the M2MPJ
welfare benefit which could be added to the conventional appraisal results
In order to value the M2MPJ benefit, it has been assumed that the number of additional City Centre
jobs will be 5,000 as per the findings of the review. We have also tested adding 12,000 City Centre
jobs.
With regards to a ‘ramp-up’ of benefits, it has been assumed that there is a gradual increase in the
number of additional City Centre jobs over time, with all the additional City Centre jobs located
there five years after the CRL has opened.
The productivity differential is based on analysis that was undertaken as part of the APB&B Study
review. This, using data from a paper by Maré
75
indicated that the productivity differential for the
Auckland City Centre relative to the rest of New Zealand was $20,107. The differential for the
Auckland region, outside of the City Centre and Isthmus, was estimated as $7,091. As a result the

75
Maré, D.C. (June 2008), Labour productivity in Auckland firms, Motu Working Paper 08-12, Motu
Economic and Public Policy Research
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 182
net productivity differential between the City Centre and Auckland region area was taken to be
$13,016.
That figure appears to be expressed in 2006 prices and values. It has therefore been increased to
2012 prices and values by applying an 18% uplift to account for changes to the Consumer Price
Index between 2006 and 2012, and a real productivity growth rate of 1.5% a year (matching the
conservative assumption that was used in the review). This gives a productivity differential in 2012
of $16,818, expressed in 2012 prices.
Applying that productivity differential, with real growth added year-on-year, to the additional number
of City Centre jobs enables the value of additional output produced to be estimated. Applying a
discount rate of 8%, the Present Value of the benefit over a 30 year appraisal period is $584m.
The welfare benefit associated with that increased output is equal to the ‘tax wedge’ element. A tax
rate of 32% has been applied, also in line with the review. The M2MPJ welfare benefit is therefore
$187m as a Present Value. This is very similar to the result of $148m that was obtained in the
review of the APB&B Study, albeit slightly higher as it is expressed in 2012 prices and values.
However, it is worth noting that the results outlined above are based on an assumption of fixed total
employment within the Auckland region. In other words, any additional City Centre employment is
assumed to have relocated from other parts of the Auckland region.
That assumption does not necessarily hold. It could be the case that jobs also relocate from other
parts of New Zealand or indeed from other countries. The scale and consistency of Auckland’s
growth strongly supports this view. The CRL will add to Auckland’s appeal as a city to live and work
in. Already one third of Auckland residents were foreign born and 24% of Auckland employees
work for foreign owned companies. If additional employment growth takes place within the City
Centre it will increase numbers of foreign workers.
The table below shows the assumption that has been used for each scenario in terms of the
proportion of additional City Centre jobs that come from:
„ The rest of Auckland;
„ The rest of New Zealand (apart from Auckland); and
„ Other countries.

„ Table 7-8 Proportion of new Auckland City Centre jobs by area that they redistribute
from
Scenario Auckland Rest of NZ Rest of world
Low 100% 0% 0%
Medium 50% 50% 0%
High 50% 25% 25%
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 183

The ‘low’ scenario is the same as the one that is described above, since it assumes that all City
Centre jobs have relocated from within the Auckland region. It is a low scenario because the
productivity gain is higher if workers relocate from the rest of New Zealand (since average
productivity is lower in the rest of NZ compared with Auckland). In the case of workers relocating
from outside of New Zealand, the whole of their output can be taken as a benefit rather than
applying the tax wedge, since all output that they produce is a net benefit to New Zealand.
The three scenarios outlined above have been applied to two alternative assumptions in terms of
the number of additional City Centre jobs – the 5,000 jobs that were recommended in the APB&B
Study review, and the 12,000 additional jobs that have been taken to represent a high level of City
Centre jobs growth here.
The table below shows the results for all scenarios, with the value of additional output and the
value of the M2MPJ welfare benefit both presented.
„ Table 7-9 M2MPJ results
Scenario
Additional City Centre
jobs
Total additional output
($M, PV, 2012 dollars)
Total M2MPJ benefit
($M, PV, 2012 dollars)
Low 5,000 $584 $187
Medium 5,000 $744 $238
High 5,000 $1,718 $1,365

Low 12,000 $1,403 $449
Medium 12,000 $1,785 $571
High 12,000 $4,122 $3,277

There is a reasonable amount of variety between the scenarios, particularly the ‘High’ scenario.
This is because the high scenario assumes that 25% of new City Centre workers come from
outside of New Zealand, and hence all of the additional output that they produce can be included
within the M2MPJ benefit – not just the tax wedge element. The high scenario therefore has a
much higher M2MPJ benefit as a proportion of additional output produced than the other scenarios.
If the combination of the high scenario and 12,000 additional City Centre jobs is excluded, this
indicates that a realistic range for the M2MPJ benefit is $200m - $1,400m as a Present Value over
30 years, on the basis of the other results shown in the table above.
7.1.3. Economic evaluation summary
A summary of the economic evaluation of the CCFAS options is shown below in Table 7-10. Note
that the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) shown is a Comparative BCR (CBCR), as it with regard to the
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 184
Balanced Reference Case rather than a Do Minimum which would be required for a standard or
traditional funding BCR.
„ Table 7-10 Economic evaluation summary

Source: CCFAS economic evaluation
Sensitivity tests
Three additional sensitivity tests were undertaken to assess the impact of differing population
assumptions. High and low population projections were used as well as a test using the high
projection and the 70/30 land use split.
The high population tests resulted in approximately 5-6% increases in PT patronage, both
regionally and to the City Centre.
The low population test resulted in approximately 4-5% decreases in PT patronage, both regionally
and to the City Centre.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 185
These changes were across all options and it indicates that the assessment is unlikely to change,
particularly with regard to the relative performance of the options. It is more likely to have an impact
on timing and when the options may be required, but given the scale of the changes in PT
patronage, this impact is likely to be small.
The CRL tunnel and civil infrastructure will have a design life of 100 years and to appraise it over
the same 30 year time period as the bus options does not provide a fair comparison. The big,
expensive infrastructure of CRL will provide benefits over a much longer time period. A sensitivity
test of increasing the assessment period to 60 years results in the following indicative CBCRs
shown in
„ Table 7-11 60 year assessment period CBCR results
CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2
CBCR 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3
Source: CCFAS economic evaluation
Further sensitivity tests of the discount rate and evaluation period are summarised below in Table
7-12.
„ Table 7-12 Evaluation period and discount rate sensitivity tests
Evaluation
period and
discount rate
CBCR
CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2
30 year, 8% DR 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2
30 year, 6% DR 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3
30 year, 4% DR 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3
60 year, 8% DR 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3
60 year, 6% DR 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4
60 year, 4% DR 2.4 1.8 1.2 0.8 0.7
Source: CCFAS economic evaluation
Another sensitivity test has been carried out where the discount rate has been changed to be
consistent with the discount rate associated with Auckland Council’s cost of capital
76
of 5.7%. The
impacts on the CBCRs are shown in Table 7-13.
„ Table 7-13 AC Cost of Capital (5.67%) sensitivity test
CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2
CBCR 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3
Source: CCFAS economic evaluation
As can be seen, this sensitivity test does not change the relative performance of the options.

76
Provided by Auckland Council, 5.67%.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Economic evaluation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 186
Using the assumptions in this sensitivity test and applying a 60 year evaluation period results in the
CBCRs shown in Table 7-14.
„ Table 7-14 AC Cost of Capital (5.67%) sensitivity test, 60 year evaluation
CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2
CBCR 1.7 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.5
Source: CCFAS economic evaluation
Another sensitivity test around the traditional WEBs has been carried out with the benefits to the
bus options adjusted pro-rata to their overall transport user benefits compared to CRL with the
rationale being that by increasing congestion within the City Centre, the agglomeration benefits in
particular would be difficult to realise. The results are shown in Table 7-15.
„ Table 7-15 Traditional WEBs adjusted pro-rata to transport benefits
CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2
CBCR 0.9 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
Source: CCFAS economic evaluation
One of the difficulties with assessing the impacts on buses of changes in the City Centre is the
ability of models to take account of bus to bus interaction and delays associated with interactions
with general traffic, for example when turning at intersections. To provide an indication of the
possible underestimation of benefits attributable to improvements to bus operation in the City
Centre, a sensitivity test has been carried out which increases the PT user benefits by 20% for the
bus based options. This is a proxy for an increase in average bus travel speed of up to10 kph over
the length of journey. It is noted that the PT user benefits also include a proportion of benefit
attributable to a reduction in crowding which would not be affected by improved bus operation. The
results of the sensitivity test are shown in Table 7-16.
„ Table 7-16 PT user benefits +20% sensitivity test
CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2
CBCR 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2
Source: CCFAS economic evaluation
As can be seen, this sensitivity test does not change the relative performance of the options.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Multimodal programme

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 187
8. Multimodal programme
Each of the options developed and taken through to the short list are multimodal and are premised
on a 2021 implementation time.

Analysis suggests that a multimodal programme combining the CRL and surface bus “headline”
(the Integrated option) would best meet City Centre access needs in a sustainable manner. This
option would include the CRL improvements but would also involve incremental bus improvements.
The Integrated option is the only one that meets the total demand for public transport travel into the
City Centre. If the CRL and improvements to bus facilities on Wellesley and Symonds Streets are
in place by 2021, vehicle speeds in the City Centre can be maintained at a similar level to the
Balanced Reference Case, while providing access for significantly more people by public transport.
The CBCR of the Integrated option would be similar to the CRL option which performed the best of
any of the individual short list options.
CBCR Integrated option
NZTA Economic Evaluation Manual without Wider Economic Benefits 0.4
NZTA EEM including WEBs 0.9

In terms of considering later implementation dates than 2021, it is clear that the transport demand
impacts are significant very early in the analysis period and delaying addressing these would
impose increasing costs on access to the City Centre. The effect of this will be: to displace
employment, restrict growth, forgo benefits of agglomeration.
City centre access also sits within a wider suite of transport projects and other headline projects
which are already committed or are outlined in the AP, the CCMP and the Integrated Transport
Plan. In the following timeline projects of significant scale and that involve large tunnel construction
have been highlighted.

The construction of a City Centre access solution in the early part of the 2020’s has the strongest
Major Project 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040
City Rail Link
Bus enhancements
     Waterview
AMETI
AWHC
SMART Phase 1
SMART Phase 2
Nothern Busway Extension
Puhoi to Wellsford
     East West Connection
Auckland Plan
Other Critical Issues MRC bus network at capacity Northern Busway at capacity
* Assuming a sensible sequencing to optimise construction industry spend profile
Southern Greenfields Northern Greenfields
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Multimodal programme

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 188
strategic fit with other key initiatives in Auckland both in terms of transport and in a wider context. It
is unlikely that multiple large construction projects involving tunnels could sustainable be run or
funded in parallel. This indicates that an optimal timing for CRL construction would see opening in
the early 2020s.

Each of the options developed and taken through to the short list are multimodal and are premised
on a 2021 implementation time. This section challenges at a strategic level:
„ Whether the “headline with other improvements” approach is appropriate given the deficiency
analysis and issues identified
„ Whether implementation dates other than 2021 would lead to improved outcomes.

It then sets out an optimal sequenced multimodal programme of improvements that can be
developed further as part of a full Business Case process.
8.1. Headline improvements based on a single mode?
The City Centre road network is under significant pressure currently and this is forecast to become
significantly worse in the future. This is highlighted by the SATURN modelling results in Section
4.3 which indicate that the average speed in the City Centre will reduce from 16 kph in 2010 to 7
kph and 5 kph in 2021 and 2041 respectively under the Balanced Reference Case. This will have
a significant adverse impact on private and commercial vehicle access to the City Centre. At the
same time, public transport is forecast to be capacity constrained. Therefore, to enable the
forecast growth in employment, residential and education in the City Centre, public transport needs
to contribute as much as possible to the transport task of providing access to the City Centre.
The CRL option clearly performs the best of the short list packages against almost every criterion,
and is especially good with regard to impacts on City Centre private and commercial traffic. This is
important because impacts on business travel have a strong influence on economic performance.
The bus options perform poorly for other modes given they take capacity away from general and
commercial traffic. Surface bus options would have significant adverse impacts on the City Centre
environment and impact on pedestrians as they have done in Brisbane along some corridors.
However, because rail only serves a defined catchment, yet growth is forecast across the region,
large sections of the city will continue to rely on buses for access to the City Centre under all
scenarios and this demand needs to be catered for as well.
This study was developed on the basis that City Centre access required a multimodal programme,
but that programme would be headlined by a particular modal solution. However, the analysis
undertaken indicates that to cater for the forecast demand to the City Centre, the package needs to
include significant increases in capacity and improvements in level of service for both bus AND rail.
Therefore, the question becomes not one of which of the headline options is the right one, but
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Multimodal programme

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 189
which combination of headline solutions is required and when. This investment is critical across all
modes of transport in the City Centre to accommodate growth under the assumptions used.
As seen in Section 6.3 above, none of the options caters for the level of uncrowded public transport
demand forecast for the Balanced Reference Case. CRL performs the best but still fails to meet
the forecast demand by 1,060 (2%) people in 2021 and 5,200 (6%) people in 2041.
A further scenario test was undertaken to see if this level of demand could be provided for at all.
This scenario combined the improvements envisaged under the CRL option and the surface bus
option. These were the two options that performed best. This combined scenario is able to meet
the Balanced Reference Case demand
77
. Interestingly, combining the patronage increase for the
surface bus option over the Balanced Reference Case and the patronage increase for the CRL
option over the Balanced Reference Case leads to only slightly more patronage that the combined
scenario. This is because the options are generally not competing for patronage. The bus options
provide improved service to the bus served catchments while the CRL option provides improved
service to the rail catchments and the PTNP 2012 largely removes any competing services to begin
with.

77
The level of uncrowded demand for the CRL+SB1 option would higher than the Balanced
Reference Case demand because the scenario includes additional frequency and network
improvements that would induce demand. The Balanced Reference Case demand has simply
been used to provide an indication of performance.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Multimodal programme

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 190
„ Figure 8-1 Option performance against demand
Source: SKM analysis of APT outputs
The table below sets out some of the key performance statistics for the Integrated option.
„ Table 8-1 Integrated option SATURN model results summary
78

Integrated option 2011 2021 2041
Auckland population 1,462,000 1,722,000 (+18%) 2,161,000 (+48%)
Number of vehicle trips
in CMJ cordon, morning
peak hour
26,600
79
35,500 (+33%) 37,800 (+42%)
Average speed (kph),
morning peak hour

Public transport
patronage to the City
Centre (morning 2
hours)
80

32,600 60,500 (+86%) 81,700 (+151%)

78
Patronage data for 2010 is from Passenger Transport Patronage Surveys, 2011. 2021 and 2041
data is taken from the integrated option (with crowding).
79
2010 City Centre SATURN model
80
Patronage data for 2011 is from Passenger Transport Patronage Surveys, 2011 and only
captures those people crossing the City Centre screenline. 2021 and 2041 data is taken from the
5 6 16
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Multimodal programme

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 191
Source: City Centre SATURN model, CBD cordon statistics, morning peak hour (except PT patronage – see footnote)
An integrated CRL and surface bus option has the benefit of being able to leverage the positives of
both options and to eliminate some of the negative impacts. As discussed above, the multimodal
programme would cater for significantly more patronage than an individual option. It would also
allow better use of the Central City road space. Because some demand for buses from the west is
catered for by the CRL component of the programme, fewer buses need to use the Albert Street
corridor. Bus numbers on this route would be comparable with that assumed in the Balance
Reference case (and potentially lower) and would mean that road space would not have to be
removed from general traffic on Albert Street. This improves the performance of the road network
compared with the surface bus options. The average speeds in the City Centre would still reduce
from 2010 to a level between the Balanced Reference Case and surface bus options due to the
reallocation of road space away from private and commercial traffic.
Table 8-2 summaries the PT operation in terms of services and patronage for the Integrated option
compared to the Balanced Reference Case.
„ Table 8-2 Integrated option PT summary
Integrated option 2021 2041
Additional train services in the
morning 2 hour peak
36 36
Additional train patronage in the
morning 2 hour peak
81

+6,000 (+49%) +11,700 (+65%)
Additional bus services in the
morning 2 hour peak
+106 +148
Additional bus patronage in the
morning 2 hour peak
82

+3,500 (+11%) +4,600 (+12%)
Additional ferry services in the
morning 2 hour peak
0 0
Additional ferry patronage in the
morning 2 hour peak
-700 (-20%) -500 (-11%)

Economic evaluation
The economic performance of the Integrated option is also strong.
Table 8-3 to Table 8-6 summarise the benefits for the Integrated option of the CRL and surface bus
improvements. The other options are also shown for ease of comparison. They have been
calculated in the same way as discussed earlier in Section 7 for the other options.

Integrated option (with crowding), APT evaluation data 1.01 and includes all PT journeys with the
City Centre as the destination, with some originating in the City Centre.
81
Rail passengers crossing the City Centre screenline
82
Bus passengers crossing the City Centre screenline, excluding school bus
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Multimodal programme

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 192
The daily factor for the SATURN model decongestion benefits has been calculated from assessing
the effects of the combined option of CRL and SB in the morning peak. The likely effect is
somewhere in the middle of the two individual options, so the daily factor that has been applied is
the average of the two options’ daily factors. The daily factor for the combined options has been
assumed as 2.7.
„ Table 8-3 PT travel time benefits summary
CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2
Integrated
(CRL+SB1)
2021 AM 2
hour period
$49,700 $29,000 $30,300 $15,500 $16,900 $72,000
2041 AM 2
hour period
$86,500 $44,600 $47,600 $24,500 $27,400 $123,100
30 year
assessment
($NPV)($M)
$386 $224 $233 $117 $129 $553
Source: CCFAS economic evaluation
The improved provision of PT in the Integrated option is shown by the much higher value of the
benefit to PT users.
„ Table 8-4 SATURN decongestion benefits
CRL SB1 & SB2 UB1 & UB2
Integrated
(CRL+SB1)
2021 AM 2 hour
peak
$69,300 -$96,000 -$37,800 $10,000
2041 AM 2 hour
peak
$171,400 -$50,000 $3,700 $61,900
30 year
assessment
($NPV)($M)
$297 -$378 -$103 $110
Source: CCFAS economic evaluation
As with the surface bus option, the Integrated option removes general road capacity and therefore
the decongestion benefits offered by CRL on its own are significantly reduced within the City
Centre. On the wider network, the Integrated option has the largest positive decongestion benefit
from the large number of trips it removes from the network.
„ Table 8-5 ART3 decongestion benefits
CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2
Integrated
(CRL+SB1)
2021 AM 2
hour period
$7,700 $11,800 $11,600 $9,000 $7,300 $17,700
2041 AM 2
hour period
$40,700 $31,000 $31,900 $28,600 $29,400 $68,900
30 year
assessment
$106 $108 $107 $88 $85 $194
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Multimodal programme

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 193
CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2
Integrated
(CRL+SB1)
($NPV)($M)
Source: CCFAS economic evaluation
„ Table 8-6 Decongestion benefits summary
CRL SB1 SB2 UB1 UB2
Integrated
(CRL+SB1)
30 year
assessment
($NPV)($M)
$402 -$270 -$268 -$15 -$19 $304
Source: CCFAS economic evaluation
Overall, the Integrated option has significantly higher costs than the individual options but this is
offset by the higher benefits as shown in Table 8-7..
„ Table 8-7 Economic evaluation summary

Source: CCFAS economic evaluation
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Multimodal programme

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 194
As can be seen, the CBCR is similar to that of CRL (which performed the best of any of the short
listed options) at 0.9.
Section 6.3 details the capacity constraints on bus and rail for each of the scenarios. It shows that
under any of the options (be they bus or rail focussed), that bus networks are largely at capacity in
the early 2020s. With an integrated CRL and surface bus option bus services are still under
significant pressure but have more capacity than the other options. As can be seen in Figure 8-2,
bus capacity on key routes is extended out to around 2034/35 in most cases. However, capacity
issues on the highest demand routes from all areas remain.
„ Figure 8-2 Integrated option bus volume capacity by service

Source: SKM analysis of APT model outputs
Rail demand and capacity with the Integrated option is shown in the figures below for the morning
peak period. As can be seen, the Integrated option provides the service levels to meet the
demand in the rail catchments. The demand in 2021 is below the seated capacity of rail with CRL
included but by 2041 the seated capacity is exceeded in a number of locations. This is because
improvements in rail provide significant increases in capacity and are not able to be implemented
incrementally as would be possible for a bus option. The capacity assessments undertaken have
assumed 6 car EMU units for all services. In reality, the number of train carriages for each service
could be optimised to bring capacity closer to demand in 2021. The number of carriages could then
be increased as required as demand rises up to 2041. This optimisation would have the effect of
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Multimodal programme

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 195
improving the economic performance of CRL component of the programme because operational
costs could be reduced while still providing a similar level of service.
„ Figure 8-3 Rail demand and capacity in 2021

Source: SKM analysis of APT model outputs
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Multimodal programme

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 196
„ Figure 8-4 Rail demand and capacity in 2041

Source: SKM analysis of APT model outputs
To come close to meeting the demand for public transport travel into the City Centre and to take as
much pressure off the road network as possible, it is concluded that a multi-headline modal solution
which involves both the CRL and significant bus improvements are required.
8.2. Multimodal programme and sequencing
If a multi-headline modal solution delivers greater benefit the next question is whether different
sequencing of headlines would deliver a different cost and benefit profile. A detailed analysis would
be required during a Detailed Business Case process to fully optimise the sequencing and leverage
the full synergies. However this section sets out a realistic indicative implementation plan.
Each of the options developed and taken through to the short list was assumed to be operational
by 2021. Pushing out the opening year of any of the options would increase the economic
performance, but this is just an artefact of assumed discounting. At a high level, the analysis points
to a rapid degradation of access across all modes in the early 2020s and indicates that significant
improvements across both road and rail need to be in place by then to avoid severe congestion
and crowding.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Multimodal programme

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 197
The CRL component of the programme has the benefit of maintaining City Centre speeds for
private motor vehicle users as well as providing the greatest uplift in capacity. It removes the need
for some bus services from the west, providing some headroom to bus capacity while also
providing the opportunity for staged development early in the rail catchments where there is spare
capacity to get people to the Central City. Bus improvements have the benefit that they can be
implemented incrementally and staged over time. Because of these factors, the most sensible
approach is to increase bus services incrementally to meet demand over time while implementing
CRL. This proactively manages the network as a whole by increasing patronage on both bus and
rail and removing private vehicle trips from the network without letting either the road or bus
network fail before implementing improvements.
CRL would be progressed through the design and consenting with opening in the early 2020s with
bus improvements taking place in parallel. This will involve a regular monitoring programme to
identify required bus improvements as operational performance degrades. As services are
increased, capacity constraints on different parts of the network will become critical. It is envisaged
that bus operations on Symonds and Wellesley Streets would deteriorate first requiring additional
bus facilities there. Similarly as demand from the north increases, improvements would be
required to improve the operation of Fanshawe Street and interchange and marshalling at
Britomart. Wellesley Street improvements would be made incrementally with stop lengths and
operational changes. Ideally, the full treatment removing all traffic lanes would be held off as long
as possible and undertaken following opening of CRL. This would allow for additional demand to
be taken off the road network reducing disruption to vehicle access to the City Centre. As shown in
Table 8-1, if the CRL and the surface bus treatments on Wellesley and Symonds Streets are in
place by 2021, vehicle speeds in the City Centre can be maintained at a similar level to the
Balanced Reference Case, while providing access for significantly more people by public transport.
Construction of the CRL at Britomart also provides the opportunity to incorporate bus interchange
and marshalling facilities as part of the project and including this component early in the CRL
programme would allow bus benefits to be realised earlier as additional buses can be
accommodated in the facility.
If however, there were to be a significant gap in the progression of each headline option the
SATURN modelling results suggest that progressing the CRL first would maintain City Centre
speeds for private motor vehicle users as well as providing the greatest uplift in capacity. As noted
above, this additional capacity could be rationalised by running smaller trains (3 car EMUs instead
of 6 car EMUs) to improve the capacity utilisation.
Leading with the surface bus headline, while cheaper, brings fewer people in, involves a much
greater residential and commercial property take (both in the City Centre and suburbs for the
approach corridors) and significantly degrades City Centre network speeds.
In short, an integrated multimodal package implemented in parallel would provide the best
outcome. However, if a single headline were to be progressed without the other or delayed, a CRL
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Multimodal programme

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 198
led solution advantages more people and defers the most negative impacts. It also offers the
greatest benefits to private vehicles, freight and commercial trips to and within the City Centre.
8.3. Strategic fit with other projects
Multimodal improvements are already programmed or underway which influence access to the City
Centre and include:
„ Rail electrification and new rolling stock
„ MRC bus networks
„ Completion of the motorway network
„ Ongoing pedestrian and cycling improvements
„ Streetscape and public realm improvements (e.g. Quay St Stage1)

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


The construction of a City Centre access solution in the early part of the 2020’s has the strongest
strategic fit with other key initiatives in Auckland both in terms of transport and in a wider context.
The Waterview Tunnel is scheduled for completion around 2016. While these projects do not have
confirmed funding or opening dates, current proposals are for construction of the Auckland
Waitemata Harbour Crossing and the SMART projects to begin in the early 2020s. Given the scale
of these projects (some of which involve large tunnelling exercises) and spend profiles, the
sustainability of the construction industry in New Zealand needs consideration. It is unlikely that
these large projects could sustainably be run or funded in parallel. This indicates that an optimal
timing for CRL construction would see opening in the early 2020s.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Multimodal programme


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 199


A number of CCMP projects in the City Centre are proposed by Auckland Council including
pedestrian and shared space schemes that would involve reallocation of road space.
Consideration of such schemes was specifically excluded from the CCFAS. The integration and
effects of these schemes are policy issues which may form part of considerations as part of a
Detailed Business Case process but have not been considered as part of this Study.
As part of this Study, no detailed assessment of funding or private sector financing and the effect
on implementation or staging has been undertaken. It was agreed that this would be considered
further at the Business Case phase.




STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Summary

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 200
9. Summary
Auckland as New Zealand’s largest city and largest employment centre plays a pivotal role in the
social, economic and cultural wellbeing of New Zealand.
Residential growth
Auckland is projected to grow by nearly 700,000 new residents to 2.16 million by 2041, using a
medium growth scenario. The AP caters for up to an additional 400,000 dwellings by 2041
including:
• Up to 280,000 (70 per cent) of the additional dwellings could be located within the 2010
metropolitan urban limit (MUL).
• Up to 160,000 dwellings are planned for outside of the MUL.
Employment and the City Centre
The City Centre plays a critical role as a residential location, employment hub, and education hub.
Both employment numbers and the residential population of both the City Centre and City Fringe
are projected to almost double between 2011 and 2041. Added to this are a further 15,000 (on top
of the current 50,000 EFTS) students planned for as the tertiary institutions expand.
Regional transport challenges
While the AP and the dwelling growth discussed above support greater intensification, the
fundamentals of the Auckland region require a transport system that services dispersed travel
patterns as well as the city centre.
The Auckland City Centre is not only one of the most important destinations in the city, but is also
the most important transit route. Many people who have origins and destinations outside of the City
Centre pass through the City Centre and city fringe.
While current and committed investment leaves Auckland with a more balanced network that is
delivering acceptable levels of service for the next 5-10 years, the ongoing challenge is to cost-
effectively address medium to long term issues. This challenge has a number of economic, social
and environmental components.
At a high level, the challenge is threefold:
„ Ensure future region-wide growth is accommodated
„ Deliver a network that supports targeted growth areas
„ Deliver a network that minimises economic loss and focuses on high economic returns in the
future

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Summary

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 201
The AP sets out a range of challenges and goals and is focussed around a development strategy
with four key elements:
„ Key shapers and enablers – including historical, physical, social, economic and environmental
influences, their impact and Auckland’s response to future opportunities. A particular focus of
this part of the development strategy is integrated land use and infrastructure.
„ The two big initiatives – that will deliver the greatest positive outcomes for Aucklanders and
New Zealand, namely the Southern Initiative and the City Centre. Moving to a quality, compact
Auckland – to accommodate high population and economic growth. The AP acknowledges that
delivering accessibility to support intensification as well as greenfield development is critical to
this part of the strategy.
„ Working and delivering with others – a collaborative, coordinated approach to achieve
Auckland’s vision. A particular emphasis of this part of the strategy is ensuring that investment
timing is well-aligned with growth objectives.

The CCFAS has critical links to all four of the key elements for the development strategy in that:
„ Auckland’s regional transport network is a fundamental component of the ability to deliver
people around the region for work, education and social goals. The sustainability of the current
transport network and any potential option to improve City Centre access has critical links to
the ability to effectively integrate with Auckland’s current future land use.
„ The CCFAS explicitly addresses accessibility for the two key initiatives in the AP. The City
Centre is the primary focus of the CCFAS, and a critical part of the assessment within the
CCFAS is the ability to access the City Centre from key areas of growth, including the
Southern Initiative.
„ The ability of the transport network to facilitate quality compact development as well as
greenfield development is also a key consideration.
„ Finally, part of the scope of the CCFAS is to consider a multimodal programme over time. This
critically links with the development strategy goal of ensuring investment is aligned with growth
objectives.

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Appendices
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 202

Appendix A CCFAS / APB&B differences
CCFAS – APB&B Differences   
Element  CCFAS (Nov 2012)  APB&B (May 2011)
Purpose  The CCFAS develops a robust and achievable multi‐
modal programme for transport into the Auckland City 
Centre. 
 
The APB&B study was commissioned to determine the case for 
route protection for the CRL. 
Context  The CCFAS is a response to the review of the APB&B 
Study by central government.  
The review identified that; 
 “the development of a robust and achievable multi‐
modal programme for transport into the Auckland City 
Centre, which considers a thorough analysis of 
alternatives and identifies the optimal mix of modes to 
meet demand”  
would improve confidence in considering outcomes 
expected from the CRL. 
  
The Study responded to a request in 2008 from the then 
Minister of Finance to KiwiRail to “secure and protect the CBD 
tunnel route even though construction may not take place for 
many years/.” 
Evidence Base  The government review of the APB&B Study invited 
Auckland Transport (AT) to provide significant 
supporting evidence to further help improve confidence 
levels.  
 
This qualitative and quantitative information has been 
used within the CCFAS to assist in better understanding 
the benefits of the CRL. 
 
Many of the claims made around the benefits of the CRL 
are now able to be quantified. 
 
Collaborative 
Approach 
(Participants) 
The CCFAS is an independent study undertaken by SKM. 
The Study was commissioned by AT and has been 
overseen by has been overseen by the Transport 
Planning Senior Officials Group (TPSOG) 
This group includes representation from the Ministry of 
Transport, Treasury, the New Zealand Transport Agency, 
Auckland Council and Auckland Transport.  
 
Workshops were held throughout the study with all 
those parties.  
 
 Key decision points required agreement from all parties 
to proceed to the next stage of the Study 
 
The study was commissioned by KiwiRail and the previous 
Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA). 
 
Other Government agencies reviewed the finished study and 
made recommendations based on their review. 
Planning  Context  The Auckland Plan provides a common future planning 
framework for Auckland and central government to 
work towards. 
 
The Regional Passenger Transport Plan currently being 
consulted brings all modes together to provide for an 
integrated PT system. The new PT operating plan mans 
that bus and rail are planned to compliment each other 
and maximise access to PT.  
The Regional Growth Strategy set out an agreed Auckland 
planning framework. 
 
There was no common planning framework for Auckland 
agreed with central government. 
 
 
Demographics 
Population   Derived from the 2012 Statistics New Zealand 
projections and informed by the Auckland Plan. 
 
2041  
High Population Projection = 2.47m 
Med Population Projection = 2.16m 
Low Population Projection =  1.8m 
 
2051  
High Population Projection = 2.77m 
Med Population Projection = 2.36m 
Low Population Projection =  1.9m 
 
Auckland reaches 2 million people in approximately 
2034 based on medium projection 
Derived from Auckland Regional Council (ARC) modeling of land 
use for the Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010. 
 
2041  
Medium Population Projection = 2.1m (Same assumption also 
used in MOT review and AC/AT Policy Case) 
 
2051  
Medium Population Projection = 2.3m 
 
Auckland reaches 2 million people in approximately 2035 based 
on medium projection 
Employment  Regional employment totals are derived from the 
Auckland Transport Model and informed by the 
Auckland Plan. 
 
2041  
High =  1,040,100 
Med = 957,659 
Low =  870,300 
 
2051  
High = 1,158,000 
Med =  1,051,442 
Low =  930,400 
 
Using the medium scenario regional employment is now 
expected to be significantly higher in 2041 with 40,000 
more jobs forecast. 
Regional employment totals were derived from Auckland 
Regional Council (ARC) modeling of land use for the Regional 
Land Transport Strategy 2010. 
 
 
2041 ‐ 918,000 employees 
 
2051 ‐ 976,000 employees 
 
 
By 2051 over 75,000 more jobs are forecast, compared 
to the modeling used in the APB&B Study.  
 
City Centre 
Employment  
145,000 employees by 2041 162,000 employees by 2041
Transport Outcomes 
PT Patronage ‐ 
Total Regional PT 
Trips  (2041 
morning 2hr Peak) 
Rail      49,350 
Bus     78,830 (excl school bus) 
Ferry    4,830 
Total PT                 133,010 
(based on CRL option) 
Rail   47,620 
Bus     120,420 
Ferry    6,190 
Total PT                174,620 
 
PT Patronage to 
City Centre (2041 
morning 2hr Peak) 
Rail      31,170 
Bus     37,450 
Ferry    4,620 
Total PT                 73,840     
(based on CRL option) 
Rail   21,600 
Bus     44,730 
Ferry    4,070 
Total PT                70,410 
 
   
Modelling and Economics 
Transport 
Modelling 
Based on outputs from: ART, APT and SATURN model of 
city centre 
 
SATURN Model: The major difference between the 
CCFAS and APB &B Study is the use in the CCFAS of the 
City Centre SATURN model which models the impacts of 
congestion within the City Centre. This model addresses 
a major gap identified by APB&B. 
Based on ART, APT outputs and forecasts of the number of cars 
and buses entering the CBD in the 2041 am peak to estimate 
the expected delays. 
 
The Study noted that “a more detailed model using a package 
such as SATURN would be ideal (to show the impact of 
congestion on cars) but such a model with the correct 
geographical coverage does not currently exist.” 
 
Crowding on PT  Crowding function in model: The transport modelling 
Includes a newly developed crowding function to limit 
PT patronage to capacity. 
No crowding function in model: The transport modelling did 
not include a crowding function to limit PT patronage to 
capacity. 
Assumptions for 
modelling 
The modelling is based on a comprehensive set of 
assumptions jointly agreed with central government. 
These include: 
• Land use based on Statistics NZ’s medium 
population projections  
• The 60/40 split of development within and 
outside the MUL . 
• City centre parking charge of $11 per day 
applied to 50% of commuters 
• Park and ride at a number of key rail stations 
 
Jointly agreed set of options and collaborative process 
to shortlist these for comparison in the CCFAS. 
 
A single land use was assumed, consistent with NZTA 
methodology. 
 
The modelling was based on a set of assumptions jointly
agreed between ARTA and KRG: 
 
• The maximum CBD parking charge in 2041 was taken as 
$30 for commuters, to reflect the scarcity of parking in 
an intensely developed CBD. 
• A single land use was assumed, consistent with NZTA 
methodology. 
• Park and ride at rail, bus and ferry stations based on
designated park and ride provision. 
 
Comparison for 
economic 
modelling 
The use of a different comparator in the economic 
modelling means that the results from the CCFAS are 
not directly comparable with the results of the APB&B 
Study. 
 
In the CCFAS shortlisted options were assessed against a 
Balanced Reference Case which comprised: 
In 2021: 
• Rail electrification; 
• AMETI (Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport 
Initiative) early stages (including South Eastern 
Busway– A new busway from Panmure Station 
to Botany, including major upgrade to Panmure 
bus/rail interchange); 
• Waterview connection; 
• Integrated ticketing and fares; 
• New bus network implementation with 
Passenger Transport Operating Model (PTOM); 
• Puhoi to Wellsford‐ Road of National 
Significance (RoNS). 
• AT has recently developed an integrated bus 
network approach described in the Auckland 
Passenger Transport Network Plan (PTNP) 
based on work undertaken by MRC.  Details of 
this service pattern which is assumed in the 
Reference Case is detailed in Section x 
In addition, by 2041 a number of other schemes that are 
currently not funded were also included, as follows: 
• Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing (in 
2041 only); 
• AMETI later stages; 
• Multi Modal East West Link  
• State highway upgrades and removal of 
bottlenecks, including widening on SH1, SH16, 
SH18 and SH20 and improvements at SH1 
Takanini interchange, SH16 St Lukes 
In the APB&B Study shortlisted options were assessed against a 
Do Minimum option which comprised: 
 
The 2010 Regional Land Transport Strategy. 
 
The “end state” from the Auckland Rail Development Plan, 
including: 
• 10 minute peak headways on the three main routes 
(Southern, Eastern and Western); 
• Electric traction, with a fleet comprising largely new 
EMUs; 
• Improvements at many stations; and 
• Reopening of Onehunga Branch and opening of the 
Manukau Rail Link by 2013/14. 
• Britomart capacity limited to more than about 21 trains 
per hour entering and leaving. 
 
interchange. 
 
 
Transport Costs and Benefits 
Baseline option for 
comparison 
Compares options against a Balanced Reference Case to 
determine incremental costs and benefits of the 
options. This is different to the Do Minimum that would 
be used in the development of a benefit‐cost ratio for 
funding purposes.  
 
The CCFAS Balanced Reference Case includes a large 
number of projects which require a high level of funding 
that is not currently committed. Outside the City Centre, 
all projects identified in the Auckland Plan are included. 
It also includes an increased level of PT service than 
might be available under a true Do Minimum. 
 
APB&B used a fully developed do minimum option to act as the 
base comparator against which the incremental benefits of the 
CRL were then assessed. 
 
 
 
BCR Transport plus 
Agglomeration 
0.8  1.1
BCR Transport plus 
all WEBs 
0.9  3.5
Transport Benefits (NPV) 
Total Transport 
Benefits  
$877m  $1,319 m
Decongestion 
benefit City Centre 
Saturn Model used to determine City Centre network 
performance. $421m 
Captured in regional total via estimation and adjustment of 
ART model output. No actual modelling of City Centre network 
performance.  
Decongestion 
benefit Total 
Region 
ART Model used to estimate de‐congestion on regional 
network. $171m 
 
$673m benefit to road users from reduced congestion 
Existing PT Users  (APT Model) $319m  $409m (APT Model)
New PT Users  (APT Model) $137m  $237m (APT Model)
Emissions   
Wider Economic Benefits (NPV) 
Agglomeration  (ART Model) $445m  $185m (ART Model)
Labour Market 
Impacts 
$42m  Not estimated
Imperfect 
Competition 
$22  Not estimated
Move to More 
Productive Jobs 
$187m : Based on the assumption that 5,000 additional 
jobs would be attracted to the city centre 
CBD Increased 
Productivity 
  $3,333m. Estimated by analysing case studies plus Auckland 
situation. Based on an assumption of 22,000 additional jobs 
being attracted to the city centre due to CRL. 
   
 
 
Purpose The CCFAS develops a robust and achievable multi‐modal programme for transport into the Auckland City Centre. The APB&B study was commissioned to 
determine the case for route protection for the CRL. 
 
Context The CCFAS is a response to the review of the APB&B Study by central government.  
The review identified that; 
 “the development of a robust and achievable multi‐modal programme for transport into the Auckland City Centre, which considers a thorough analysis of 
alternatives and identifies the optimal mix of modes to meet demand” would improve confidence in considering outcomes expected from the CRL. The APB&B 
Study responded to a request in 2008 from the then Minister of Finance to KiwiRail to “secure and protect the CBD tunnel route even though construction may not 
take place for many years.” 
 
Collaborative Approach (Participants)The CCFAS is an independent study undertaken by SKM.  
The Study was commissioned by AT and has been overseen by has been overseen by the Transport Planning Senior Officials Group (TPSOG). This group includes 
representation from the Ministry of Transport, Treasury, the New Zealand Transport Agency, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport.  
 
The APB&B Study was commissioned by KiwiRail and the previous Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA).Other Government agencies reviewed the 
finished study and made recommendations based on their review. 
 
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Appendices

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 203
Appendix B Inputs assumptions working paper
Working Paper

Date 5 July 2012
Project No ZB01280
Subject Revised Input Assumptions Summary


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Input Assumptions WP v5.docx PAGE 1
1. Introduction
Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) has been appointed by Auckland Transport (AT) to undertake the
City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS). This working paper details the assumptions that
will be used for carrying out the study and in particular the modelling of any options that are to
be assessed. It also defines the reference case against which the options will be assessed.
2. Input assumptions workshop
A workshop was held on 1 May 2012 at the SKM offices in Auckland. The aim of the
workshop was to discuss the range of assumptions that need to be made for the study and the
modelling that will occur.
Representatives from the following organisations attended the workshop:
„ Auckland Transport
„ Ministry of Transport
„ Treasury
„ Auckland Council
„ NZTA
„ SKM

The workshop is not intended to ‘lock down’ the assumptions; rather it serves as an initial
discussion of the assumptions that need to be made.
Where action is required, this is noted in bold along with the responsible party.
Since the workshop, feedback and discussion has occurred on the transport networks, land use
and modelling assumptions. This working paper has been updated to reflect those discussions
and provides an updated view on these matters for the CCFAS.
3. Reference case
The reference case developed for the CCFAS will be used to inform a ‘deficiency analysis’ in
the future and also be used in the assessment of the short listed options. The short listed
options will be compared against this reference case in the assessment process.
Input Assumptions Workshop Summary
4 July 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Input Assumptions WP v5.docx PAGE 2
3.1 Reference case transport network
3.1.1 Transport projects
Following discussions with central government, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport,
the reference case transport network has been revised from what was previously determined.
This was to be the current list of projects that has committed funding in the Regional Land
Transport Programme (RLTP).
The revised reference case transport network will now be broken into two distinct areas; inside
and outside the study area. Outside the study area, the projects listed in the Auckland Plan will
be included with the following exceptions. These projects are outside the study area and listed
in the Auckland Plan, but are dependent on the outcomes of the CCFAS, so therefore will not
be included:
„ Stage 3 of SWAMMCP. This is the rail component of SWAMMCP which consists of the
Onehunga – Airport rail link.
„ Avondale to Southdown rail.
Note that there had been discussion around North Shore rail, however this is not part of the
Auckland Plan and is therefore not part of the study.

Within the study area, the list of projects to include will be based on the funded RLTP with
some minor additions from the Auckland Plan as follows:
„ The updated Passenger Transport Network Plan (PTNP) – this is the 2012 version as per
the McCormick Rankin Cagney (MRC) study. The 2016 patterns and frequencies will be
used for the reference case.
„ Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing (AWHC).

These projects are either essentially funded or considered appropriate to include in the case of
the AWHC. They will be implemented in line with their forecast opening years in the
spreadsheet attached to this working paper which details all the projects and allows a detailed
analysis by the key stakeholder groups. Part of the overall Quay Street project (within the
study area) is funded, however as it does not remove physical road capacity, it is considered
necessary for it to be incorporated into the modelling.
3.1.2 Bus lanes
Auckland Transport are currently in the process of aligning the future bus lanes to be
consistent with the McCormick Rankin Cagney (MRC) PTNP study. These will inform the
reference case modelling in ART3 by allowing the bus lanes currently coded in ART3 to be
checked for consistency.
Auckland Transport to provide the 2012 MRC PTNP bus lane data when complete for
comparisons with the bus lanes currently coded in ART3.
Input Assumptions Workshop Summary
4 July 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Input Assumptions WP v5.docx PAGE 3
3.1.3 Reference case train frequency
In the reference case, the train frequencies adopted will be those defined by the pre-CRL train
plan, titled “Auckland Region 2021 Base Case Train Plan”. A copy is attached with this note.
This outlines the following frequencies:
„ Western line: 6 trains per hour
„ Eastern line: 6 trains per hour (3 starting/terminating at Manukau, 3 starting/terminating at
Papakura)
„ Southern line: 6 trains per hour (3 starting/terminating at Manukau, 3 starting/terminating
at Pukekohe)
„ Onehunga line: 2 trains per hour

4. ART3 Assumptions
A list of ART3 assumptions has recently been agreed for use in assessing a number of large
projects in the Auckland region (Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing, South Western
Airport Multi Modal Project). In the assumptions list, these projects are referred to as the
‘NZTA projects’. This list has more recently been revised for the Auckland Plan modelling.
The list is attached to this paper with the assumptions used in both sets of modelling. An
additional column has been added which captures the assumption that will are proposed to be
used for the CCFAS following discussion at the workshop. Note that the land use inputs and
road network are captured later in this paper.
4.1 Central government comments
Responses on the following modelling assumptions were received from central government
and they are discussed in the following sections.
„ Value of time
„ Parking charges
„ TDM assumptions

4.1.1 Value of time
The central government response on the ART3 modelling assumptions notes support for the
way that the value of time is used in the demand modelling, but highlights that any economic
evaluation should be carried out using a constant value of time, in line with the EEM. This
approach will be adopted for any economic evaluation.
4.1.2 Parking charges
Additional information on the derivation of the proportion of people paying the parking charge
has been requested by central government. It has also been requested that some analysis of the
sensitivity of travel demand to the assumptions relating to the growth in parking charges and
uniform application o that parking charge be undertaken.
Input Assumptions Workshop Summary
4 July 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Input Assumptions WP v5.docx PAGE 4
Auckland Council / Auckland Transport to provide a note on how the factors relating to
parking have been derived.
4.1.3 TDM assumptions
Central government have requested that sensitivity testing is carried out on the various TDM
initiatives as outlined in the TDM assumptions review carried out by Flow Transportation
Specialists in 2011.
4.2 Policy assumptions
Development density
The reference case scenario will allow dense development around outer stations in line with
the Auckland plan, but it will not be expressly encouraged.
Car parking
„ Auckland Transport is preparing a City Centre Parking Management Plan.
Auckland Transport to circulate the draft CCPMP.

„ The model doesn’t constrain parking in terms of total numbers; rather the cost of parking
is a proxy to infer a constraint.
„ New car parking in the CBD can be controlled through development regulations in
practice.

Road pricing
Road pricing will not be included in the reference case scenario.
A simple concept will be defined that can be applied to all short listed options if required as a
sensitivity test.

Mode specific constants
Auckland Transport is currently reviewing the mode specific constants that are used in the
modelling.
MoT would like further detail around them to develop a more robust understanding.
Auckland Transport to confirm the mode specific constants that have been used in the
Auckland Plan modelling in APT.
Park and ride
The question of ‘park and ride’ assumptions was raised, with Auckland Council / Auckland
Transport noting that current modelling assumptions will be provided for review.
Auckland Council / Auckland Transport to confirm the ‘park and ride’ assumptions that
have been used in the Auckland Plan modelling.
Input Assumptions Workshop Summary
4 July 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Input Assumptions WP v5.docx PAGE 5
5. Land Use
Following discussions with Stats NZ, central government, Auckland Transport and Auckland
Council, it has now been agreed to use the medium growth scenario as the ‘base scenario’ for
the modelling, with low and high growth scenarios being modelled to provide additional
information to the assessment. These additional tests will help inform the seriousness, urgency
and sensitivity of the options to changes in population growth.
The 60/40 (where 60% of permitted additional residential development occurs within the 2010
MUL and 40% occurs outside the 2010 MUL) is agreed to be used in the base scenario for the
study. This assumption defines the capacity for development and does not necessarily mean
the up take will be in the same proportions.
A single land use will be used for the reference case and options, as the aim of the CCFAS is
to identify the best option, not justify it. This will enable clear comparisons to be drawn
between the options, effectively ‘comparing apples with apples’.
The land use / population inputs for the modelling for the reference case will be those used in
the recent ‘Scenario I’ modelling in ART3.
6. Sensitive assumptions
No additional assumptions were raised during the workshop that had not been discussed
earlier. Following the review of this working paper, the key stakeholders may advise on which
assumptions are considered to be particularly sensitive and will require further investigation.
7. Other workshop notes
„ The Auckland Plan target is the high growth scenario with the 70/30 split. This means
70% of permitted additional residential development can occur within the 2010 MUL;
30% outside the 2010 MUL. However, as described above, the modelling will use the
60/40 split with the medium growth scenario as the ‘base scenario’.
„ How crowding (capacity constraints) is dealt with is important and this is currently still
being worked through in ongoing modelling discussions.
„ There is a need a collaboration approach to allow for feedback approach to progress

8. Next steps
The next steps in the study are:
„ Confirmation of assumptions following review of this paper and attachments;
„ Confirmation of the modelling approach;
„ Long list option development; and
„ Long list option assessment.
Draft Auckland Plan Alignment of Transport Projects with Development Strategy Oct 2011
As checked with Kevin Wright 7Oct11, then with DD, JV and EH
Modelling
Year
Lead Agency
TOTAL
COST (2011
$M) from
July 2012
Source
Est Value
NOT in
Draft
2012
RLTP
that
needs to
be added
Activity Type Area
Project (This list is adapted from Scenario B of the scenarios modelled as
inputs to the draft Auckland Plan) Assume HIGH GROWTH scenario
Included in CCFAS
Do Min
CCFAS Comments
1 2006 2006 ART3 validated network
26 2016 AT n/a n/a Road Pricing implemented from here N
41 2016 AT $10
City Centre Masterplan
- Mayor's 10-year plan
$10 PT Infra - rail central
Extend Wynyard tram to Britomart via Tepid Baths, lower Hobson, Quay to
Queen St
N City Centre - only what is funded
69 2016 AT $5 Unit rate $5m $5 PT Infra - rail south New rail station at Drury Y
71 2021 NZTA-HNO $1,100
S Loyd 2Nov11 (2019
construction)
$1,100 New Infra SH north SH1 6 laning Constellation Rd to Orewa (not programmed) Y
72 2021 AT $87
unit rate
825km*$150k/km (cf
RLTS estimate)
$87 W&C Infra all Completition of 70% of Regional Cycle Network Y
2031 AT $37 $37 W&C Infra all Completition of 100% of Regional Cycle Network Y
75 2021 AT/KIWIRAIL $560 ARTA (CH) $560 PT Infra - rail all
Additional rolling stock(to cater for increased service frequencies down to 5
minutes on main lines and additional services for CBD loop and Airport link
north, 2020-2029
N Part of CRL option
76 2021 AT
ARTA - RARP'09
($2,579M)
$2,524 New Infra Local Rds all RARP Priority 1 Y
2021 AT $23 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Broadway: Khyber Pass Road to Manukau Road Y
2021 AT $120 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Church Street: Neilson Street Great South Road Y
2021 AT $50 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Customs Street East: Customs Street West to Anzac Avenue N City Centre - only what is funded
2021 AT $85 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds east Ellerslie Panmure Highway: Great South Road to Lunn Avenue Y
2021 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $23m New Infra Local Rds east Ellerslie Panmure Highway: Lunn Avenue to Panmure Roundabout Y
2021 AT $35 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Great North Road: Blockhouse Bay Road to SH16 Y
2021 AT $440 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Great South Road: Church Street to Portage Road Y
2021 AT $240 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Great South Road: Atkinson Avenue to TLA Boundary (Tamaki River) Y
2021 AT $13 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Karangahape Road: Pitt Street to Great North Road N City Centre - only what is funded
2021 AT $23 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Khyber Pass Road: Symonds Street to Broadway Y
2021 AT $50 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Manukau Road: Greenlane to Mt Albert Road Y
2021 AT $50 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Manukau Road: Broadway to Greenlane Y
2021 AT $60 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Neilson Street: SH20 interchange Onehunga Mall Y
2021 Proj 57 ? ARTA - RARP'09 $30m New Infra Local Rds west Wolverton Street: TLA Boundary to Blockhouse Bay Road Y
2021 AT $21 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds east East Tamaki Drive: Preston Road to SH1 Y
2021 AT $1 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Great South Road: TLA Boundary to Shirley Road Y
2021 AT $140 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Great South Road: Te Irirangi Drive to Redoubt Road Y
2021 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $28m New Infra Local Rds east Pakuranga Drive : TLA Boundary to Ti Rakau Drive Y
2021 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $19m New Infra Local Rds east South Eastern Highway/Pakuranga Motorway: Waipuna Road to Ti Rakau Drive Y
Draft Auckland Plan Alignment of Transport Projects with Development Strategy Oct 2011
As checked with Kevin Wright 7Oct11, then with DD, JV and EH
Modelling
Year
Lead Agency
TOTAL
COST (2011
$M) from
July 2012
Source
Est Value
NOT in
Draft
2012
RLTP
that
needs to
be added
Activity Type Area
Project (This list is adapted from Scenario B of the scenarios modelled as
inputs to the draft Auckland Plan) Assume HIGH GROWTH scenario
Included in CCFAS
Do Min
CCFAS Comments
2021 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $80m New Infra Local Rds east Ti Rakau Drive: Pakuranga Road to Pakuranga Motorway Y
2021 AMETI ?
ARTA - RARP'09
$320m
New Infra Local Rds east Ti Rakau Drive: Pakuranga Motorway to Gossamer Drive Y
2021 AMETI ?
ARTA - RARP'09
$240m
New Infra Local Rds east Ti Rakau Drive: Gossamer Drive to Harris Road Y
2021 AT $48 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north SH17: Oteha Valley Road to SH1 Greville Interchange Y
2021 AT $460 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Albany Highway: Upper Harbour Highway to Glenfield Road Y
2021 AT $15 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Anzac Street: Fred Thomas Drive to Auburn Street Y
2021 AT $22 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north East Coast Road: Constellation Drive to Forrest Hill Road Y
2021 AT $100 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Wairau Road: Target Road to Tristram Avenue Y
2021 Proj 33? ARTA - RARP'09 $55m New Infra Local Rds north SH1 Hibiscus Coast Highway: SH1 Silverdale to Whangaparaoa Y
2021 Proj 56 ?
ARTA - RARP'09
$260m
New Infra Local Rds west Lincoln Road: Te Pai Place to SH16 Y
2021 AT $9 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds west Te Atatu Road: Edmonton Road to SH16 Y
2021 AT $28 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Balmoral Road: Dominion Road to Manukau Road Y
2021 Proj 49 ? ARTA - RARP'09 <$1m New Infra Local Rds central Dominion Road: SH20 to Mt Albert Road Y
2021 AT $33 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Gillies Avenue: Khyber Pass Road to Owens Road Y
2021 AT $30 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Kohimarama Road: Kepa Road to St Heliers Bay Road Y
2021 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $33m New Infra Local Rds central Lagoon Drive: Panmure Roundabout to TLA Boundary (Tamaki River) Y
2021 AT $23 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Lower Albert Street/Albert Street: Quay Street to Wellesley Street N City Centre - only what is funded
2021 AT $23 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds west Maioro Street: New Windsor Road to Sh20 Interchange Y
2021 AT $0 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Mayoral Drive: Wellesley Street to Cook Street N City Centre - only what is funded
2021 AT $30 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Pah Road: Mt Albert Road to SH20 Interchange Y
2021 AT ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Princes Street: Atkinson Avenue to SH1 Interchange Y
2021 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $13m New Infra Local Rds central South Eastern Highway: Carbine Road to Waipuna Road Y
2021 AT $85 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central St Johns Road: College Road to Greenlane Y
2013 Proj 57 ?
ARTA - RARP'09 -
$28m
New Infra Local Rds west Tiverton Road/New Windsor Road: Wolverton Road to Maioro Street Y
2021 AT $100 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Albany Highway: Oteha Valley Road to Upper Harbour Highway Y
2021 AT $0 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Glenfield Road: Bentley Avenue to Downing Street Y
2021 AT $120 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Lake Road: Esmonde Road to Calliope Road Y
2021 AT $43 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Oteha Valley Road: SH1 to North Cross intersection Y
2021 AT $9 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Wairau Road: Forest Hill Road to Northcote Road Y
78 2021 AT $0 New Infra Local Rds north
Protect option to put bridge (no ramps) over SH18 linking to Hobsonville Road
at Marina View Drive intersection
Y
79 2021 NZTA-HNO $820
S Loyd 2Nov11
(estimated in business
case)
$820 New Infra SH north SH 1 Puhoi-Warkworth motorway extension Y
Draft Auckland Plan Alignment of Transport Projects with Development Strategy Oct 2011
As checked with Kevin Wright 7Oct11, then with DD, JV and EH
Modelling
Year
Lead Agency
TOTAL
COST (2011
$M) from
July 2012
Source
Est Value
NOT in
Draft
2012
RLTP
that
needs to
be added
Activity Type Area
Project (This list is adapted from Scenario B of the scenarios modelled as
inputs to the draft Auckland Plan) Assume HIGH GROWTH scenario
Included in CCFAS
Do Min
CCFAS Comments
81 2021 NZTA-HNO $80
RLTP'12 (NLTP'09 -
$203m)
$0 New Infra Local Rds north
Penlink - Toll Road, East coast Rd realignment, widening (Arklow to Ladies
Mile), Redvale Interchange
Y
84 2021 AT/KIWIRAIL $2,505
RLTP 2012 (AT
Business case 2011
$2.4b in 2010 dollars)
$2,505 Rail line central City Centre Rail Link N Part of CRL option
85 2021 AT $100 $100 PT Infra - rail
New Park and Ride facilities to be developed in association with opening of
CRL .
N Part of CRL option
86 N
87 2021 AT
City Centre Masterplan
- Mayor's 10-year plan
PT Infra - rail central
Extend Wynyard tram to Britomart via Tepid Baths, lower Hobson, Quay to
Queen St
N
88 2021 AT n/a City Centre Masterplan n/a PT Serv central Bus services arranged for optimal operation during main CRL construction. N Part of CRL option
89 2021 AT $0 City Centre Masterplan $0 W&C Infra central Upper Queen Street remove 1 lane over CMJ, Wellington Street 1 lane only N City Centre - only what is funded
90 2021 KIWIRAIL/AT $0
Included in CRL
costing (DD)
$0 Rail line central Onehunga rail duplication & 6 trains per hour. N Part of CRL option
91 2021 KIWIRAIL/AT $400
ARTA unit cost of
$20m/km for20km
$160 Rail line central
Third Rail Line Westfield to Papakura, first stage is committed (Westfield to
Middlemore) other stages Middlemore - Wiri; Wiri - Papakura
Y Unrelated to CRL
92 2021 NZTA-HNO $113
Unit Rate
2.5km*$45m/km
$113 New Infra SH west SH16 widening Lincoln to Royal Road 6L Y
94 2021 NZTA-HNO $39 Unit rate 7km*$45m/km $39 New Infra SH south SH1 widening Hill Road to Hingaia Road (Phase 2) Y
95 2021 NZTA-HNO $235 $235 New Infra SH south SH20 A widening Y
96 2021 AT $50 Unit rate 4km*$13m/km $50 New Infra Local Rds south Redoubt Rd 4-laning SH1-Mill Rd Y
97 2021 AT $50 Unit rate 4km*$13m/km $50 New Infra Local Rds south Pukekohe Eastern Corridor by-pass Y
99 2026 AT $20
ART model - Unit rate
$5m/rail station
$20 PT Infra - rail all
New Rail Stations - Mangere Bridge, Mangere TC, Ascot Park, Airport (2020-
29) (Airport)
Y
100 2026 AT n/a n/a PT Serv - rail all Rail changed to 7.5 minute frequencies rather than 10 (all services) Y
101 2026 AT n/a n/a Road operations all More active management of road network N N/A
102 2026 NZTA-HNO $300 S Loyd 2Nov11 $300 New Infra SH - pt north Northern Busway Stage 3 Albany to Silverdale (RTN) Y
103 2026 NZTA-HNO $110 NZTA 2011 75-150m $110 New Infra SH north SH1 Greville Road Interchange Y
77 2026 NZTA-HNO $500 S Loyd 2Nov11 $500 New Infra SH north SH1-SH18 Motorway to Motorway ramps Y
105 2026 AT $250 $250 PT Infra central
Bus tunnels at Cook or Wellesley under Nelson and Hobson (dedicated bus
capacity) and Midtown bus terminal /interchange station
N City Centre - only what is funded
106 2026 NZTA-HNO $200
estimate from S Loyd
2Nov11
$200 New Infra SH central SH16 Port Link, include Grafton Gully S3 N City Centre - only what is funded
107 2026 NZTA-HNO $30 NZTA 2011 <$50m $30 New Infra SH central SH16 St Lukes Interchange (With St Lukes Rd) Y
108 2026 NZTA-HNO $400 Draft Auck Plan $400 New Infra SH central SH20 to East Tamaki Corridor stage 2 (SH20 to SH1) Y
109 2026 AT n/a n/a PT Serv west Henderson-Westgate-Albany bus (QTN) Y
2026 NZTA-HNO $110 S Loyd 2Nov11 $110 New Infra SH west
SH16 Kumeu 4 lane arterial standard Brigham Ck to Waimauku assume
speed under 80kph
Y
110 2026 AT $160
project split by KW et al
27Sep11
$160 New Infra Local Rds east AMETI Packages 5&6 Reeves Rd Flyover Y
111 2026 AT n/a n/a PT Serv - rail south Extension of RTN rail services to Pukekohe Y
112 2026 AT $141
Unit rate $7m/km*
18km + $ 3m/3car
EMU's *5
$141 PT Infra - rail south
Extension of RTN network (electrification) to Pukekohoe and additional rolling
stock
Y
113 2026 NZTA-HNO $75 NZTA 2011 $50-100m $75 New Infra SH south SH1 Takanini Interchange Y
114 2026 KIWIRAIL/AT $471
Becca - RTC in SW
Region Study 2008
$602 Rail line south AIA rail link to Manukau (Stage 1) Eastern Link (Puhunui to Airport) Y
Draft Auckland Plan Alignment of Transport Projects with Development Strategy Oct 2011
As checked with Kevin Wright 7Oct11, then with DD, JV and EH
Modelling
Year
Lead Agency
TOTAL
COST (2011
$M) from
July 2012
Source
Est Value
NOT in
Draft
2012
RLTP
that
needs to
be added
Activity Type Area
Project (This list is adapted from Scenario B of the scenarios modelled as
inputs to the draft Auckland Plan) Assume HIGH GROWTH scenario
Included in CCFAS
Do Min
CCFAS Comments
115 2026 NZTA-HNO $235
unit rate
10km*$45m/lane km +
$20 for Pukeke Bridge
$235 New Infra SH south SH20 B widening Y
116 2031 AT
ARTA - RARP'09
($484m)
$484 New Infra Local Rds all RARP Priority 2 Y
2031 AT $50 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Customs Street West: Fanshawe Street to Britomart Place N City Centre - only what is funded
2031 Proj 49 ? ARTA - RARP'09 $1m New Infra Local Rds central Dominion Road: Mt Albert Road to Balmoral Road Y
2031 Proj 49 ? ARTA - RARP'09 $55m New Infra Local Rds central Dominion Road: Balmoral Road to New North Road Y
2031 AT $0 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Great North Road: Ash Street to Blockhouse Bay Road Y
2031 AT $24 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds east Great South Road: Ellerslie Panmure Highway to Church Street Y
2031 AT $30 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Mount Albert Road: Dominion Road to Pah Road Y
2031 AT $17 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central Mount Smart Road: Royal Oak Roundabout to Mays Road Y
2031 AMETI ?
ARTA - RARP'09
$160m
New Infra Local Rds east Mt Wellington Highway: Ellerslie Panmure Highway to Waipuna Road Y
2031 AMETI ?
ARTA - RARP'09
$220m
New Infra Local Rds east Mt Wellington Highway: Waipuna Road to SH1 Interchange Y
2031 AT $0 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds central St Johns Road: Kohimarama Road to College Road Y
2031 AT $76 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Karaka Road (SH22): SH1 to Glenbrook Y
2031 AT $1 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Cavendish Drive: SH1 Interchange to SH20 Interchange Y
2031 AT $0 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds east East Tamaki Drive: SH1 to Great South Road Y
2031 AT $0 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Great South Road: Shirley Road to Tui Road Y
2031 AT $1 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Great South Road: Tui Road to Te Irirangi Drive Y
2031 AT $45 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds south Great South Road: Browns Road to Alfriston Road Y
2031 AT $58 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds west Massey Road: TLA Boundary to SH20 interchange Y
2031 AMETI ? ARTA - RARP'09 $35m New Infra Local Rds east Pakuranga Drive : Ti Rakau Drive to Glenmore Road Y
2031 AT $0 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds east Pakuranga Drive : Glenmore Road to Fortunes Road Y
2031 AT $0 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds east Pakuranga Drive: Fortunes Road to Bucklands Beach Road Y
2031 AT $22 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds east Springs Road/East Tamaki Road: Smales Road to Preston Road Y
2031 AT $160 ARTA - RARP'09 New Infra Local Rds north Tristram Avenue: Forrest Hill to Wairau Road Y
117 2031 N
118 2031 AT $350 ARC 2010 estimate $350 New Infra Local Rds all
Grade seperations at key intersections with rail network, model: Manuroa Rd,
Normanby Rd, Morningside Drive, St Jude Rd, Woodward Rd, Glenview Rd,
Bruce McLaren Rd
Y
119 2031 NZTA-HNO $30 NZTA 2011 <$50m $30 New Infra SH north SH18 Greenhithe Road to Albany (Additional 3rd lane eastbound) Y
120 2031 NZTA-HNO $450
S Loyd 2Nov11
(estimated in business
case)
$450 New Infra SH north SH1 Warkworth-Wellsford motorway Y
121 2031 NZTA-HNO $5,800
NZTA, Alternative
Harbour Crossing
Study, 2010. Average
of road tunnel estimate
of $4.0-5.3B. (Road
bridge is $3.0-3.9B.)
NZTA estimate Dec
2011 $5800m
$5,800 New Infra SH north SH1 - Additional WHX (Road tunnel with future proof rail ) Y
Draft Auckland Plan Alignment of Transport Projects with Development Strategy Oct 2011
As checked with Kevin Wright 7Oct11, then with DD, JV and EH
Modelling
Year
Lead Agency
TOTAL
COST (2011
$M) from
July 2012
Source
Est Value
NOT in
Draft
2012
RLTP
that
needs to
be added
Activity Type Area
Project (This list is adapted from Scenario B of the scenarios modelled as
inputs to the draft Auckland Plan) Assume HIGH GROWTH scenario
Included in CCFAS
Do Min
CCFAS Comments
122 2031 NZTA-HNO $10 Unit rate 5km*$2m/km $10 New Infra SH - pt north
Northern Busway Stage 4 - Onewa to CBD (Dedicated lane both directions on
existing bridge)
Y
123 2031 KIWIRAIL/AT $320
ARTA unit cost of
$20m/km for 16km
$320 Rail line central Third rail line on eastern line (passing bays) N Related to CRL - ?
124 2021 AT $200 guesstimate $200 New Infra Local Rds central City centre transport improvements (As defined by City Centre Masterplan) N City Centre - only what is funded
125 2031 NZTA-HNO $600 Draft Auck Plan $600 New Infra SH central SH20 to East Tamaki Corridor stage 3 (SH1 to Allens Rd) Y
126 2031 AT n/a n/a PT Serv west
Bus service frequency from Kumeu improved. QW1 change to 4 services per
hour.
Y
127 2031 AT n/a n/a PT Serv west
Bus service frequency on SH18 increased – QW120 and QW130 both
changed to 4 services per hour both directions.
Y
128 2031 NZTA-HNO $30 NZTA 2011 <$50m $30 New Infra SH west
SH18 Buckley Ave to Tauhinu Drive (Additional 3rd lane eastbound excluding
the bridge)
Y
129 2031 NZTA-HNO $180
unit rate
4km*$45m/lane km
$180 New Infra SH south SH20 Mangere to Puhinui 6 laning Y
130 2031 AT $100
One Plan Inventory
Database
$100 New Infra Local Rds south Mill Rd Corridor2 (Papakura to Drury SH1) Y
131 2031 AT $90 unit rate 9km*$10m/km $90 PT Infra south Botany to Flat Bush to Manukau busway extension (RTN), bus lanes Y
132 2031 KIWIRAIL/AT $707
Becca - RTC in SW
Region Study 2008
$491 Rail line south
AIA rail link (Stage 2) Northern link (Onehunga, Mangere to airport) 15 minute
frequency
Y
133 2036 N
134 2036 AT/KIWIRAIL $210 ARTA (CH) $210 PT Infra - rail all
Additional rolling stock(to cater for additional services for Avondale-
Southdown link and Airport East Link, 2030-2039)
N Related to CRL
135 2036 KIWIRAIL/AT $1,000
Becca - RTC in SW
Region Study 2008
$1,000 Rail line central Avondale to Onehunga/Southdown Rail Line Extension N Related to CRL
136 2036 AT $104
Unit Rate $100m for
bridge and
$12.5m/km*0.3km
$104 New Infra Local Rds west Extension of local roading network (Westgate), incl Oriel bridge Y
137 2036 AT $108
Unit Rate $100m for
bridge and
$12.5m/km*0.6km
$108 New Infra Local Rds west
New bridge over SH18 from Hobsonville Road to enable Whenuapai
development NORSGA 2
Y
138 2036 NZTA $60 Unit rate $200m/km*.3 $60 New Infra SH west
SH18 upgrade to accommodate NorSGA Stg 2, including capacity upgrade
and interchange at Northside Drive (not in NZTA programme)
Y
139 2036 AT $600
AMETI Investigation -
AT (Sheila Smart) -
28/12/10
$600 New Infra Local Rds east AMETI Packages 5&6 (Pakaranga Bridge duplication/SEART upgrade) Y
140 2036 AT $2 Draft RLTP 2012 $0 PT Infra south New rail station at Paerata Y
141 2036 AT $400
Unit rate $25m/km
*16km
$400 New Infra Local Rds south
New arterial Papakura to Pukekohe (need to confirm greenfield release date
and scale) Assume an arterial from Ramarama / SH1
Y
2036 AT $400
Unit rate $25m/km
*8km
$400 New Infra Local Rds west New arterial to service Westgate/Riverhead/Kumeu greenfield growth centre N As per comment, not in DAP
2036 AT $200
Unit rate $25m/km
*8km
$200 New Infra Local Rds north New arterial to service Orewa/Silverdale greenfield growth centre N As per comment, not in DAP
2036 AT $200
Unit rate $25m/km
*8km
$200 New Infra Local Rds east New arterial to service Beachlands/Maraetai greenfield growth centre N As per comment, not in DAP
2036 AT $1,800
Unit Rate
40km*$45m/km
$1,800 New Infra SH all SH improvements to service greenfield growth centres N As per comment, not in DAP
2037 AT $400 Guesstimate $400 PT Infra all Extension of pt infrastructure to service greenfield growth centres N As per comment, not in DAP
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Appendices

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 204
Appendix C Deficiency analysis working paper



City Centre Future Access Study
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
„ 1.0
„ 27 September 2012


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

City Centre Future Access Study
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
„ 1.0
„ 27 September 2012


Sinclair Knight Merz
PO Box 9806
Newmarket 1023
Auckland New Zealand
Tel: +64 9 928 5500
Fax: +64 9 928 5501
Web: www.globalskm.com

COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the
property of Sinclair Knight Merz Limited. Use or copying of this document in whole or in
part without the written permission of Sinclair Knight Merz constitutes an infringement of
copyright.
LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of
Sinclair Knight Merz Limited’s Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the
provisions of the agreement between Sinclair Knight Merz and its Client. Sinclair Knight
Merz accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or
reliance upon this report by any third party.

REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE i
Contents
1.  Introduction

1.1.  Background 1 
1.2.  Scope of work 1 
1.3.  Report structure 4 
2.  Assessment parameters

2.1.  Introduction 5 
2.2.  Reference case assumptions 5 
2.3.  Model outputs and assumptions 6 
2.4.  Demand and operational thresholds 7 
2.5.  Current bus service provision 7 
3.  Demand analysis

3.1.  Introduction 9 
3.2.  Reference case service 9 
3.3.  PT demand 10 
3.4.  Volume-to-capacity ratios (VCRs) 16 
3.5.  Required frequency to meet PT demand 19 
3.6.  Car demand 25 
4.  Journey time analysis
29 
4.1.  Introduction 29 
4.2.  Car 29 
4.3.  Public Transport 30 
4.4.  Implications for growth/development areas 32 
5.  Summary
35 
5.1.  Conclusions 35 
5.2.  Recommendations and next steps 36 
Appendix A – bus lane capacity 37 

REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE ii
Document history and status
Revision Date issued Reviewed by Approved by Date approved Revision type
1 28/09/12 Jarrod Darlington Andrew Bell 30/09/12 Draft









Distribution of copies
Revision Copy no Quantity Issued to
1









Printed: 15 November 2012
Last saved: 15 November 2012 10:16 AM
File name:
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency
analysis v4.docx
Author: Jon Hale
Project manager: Jarrod Darlington
Name of organisation: Auckland Transport
Name of project: City Centre Future Access Study
Name of document: Reference case deficiency analysis
Document version: 1.0
Project number: ZB01280

REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 1
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1.1.1. This report details the work undertaken by SKM in July and August 2012 to
assess future transport network deficiencies in Auckland. The work was
undertaken as part of the wider Auckland City Centre Future Access Study
(CCFAS) commissioned by Auckland Transport. The deficiency analysis detailed
in this report was requested by Central Government following the initial long list
option evaluation.
1.1.2. To assist with the CCFAS, Auckland Transport developed a range of ‘reference
case’ scenarios for future years using ART3, a strategic multi-modal EMME2
model of the wider Auckland area.
1.1.3. SKM assessed reference case model outputs from both 2021 and 2041. The key
aims of this piece of work were as follows:
ƒ to determine the location and scale of any forecast transport problems in the
city centre in the future-year reference case scenarios; and
ƒ to confirm the suitability of the long-list transport options proposed during the
development of the CCFAS.
1.2. Scope of work
1.2.1. The ART3 model network is shown in Figure 1-1 below. The core area extends
from Albany/Browns Bay in the north to Papakura in the south and Ranui in the
west to Botany Downs in the east, with a small number of external zones defined
to account for trips in and out of the wider Auckland area.
1.2.2. In many cases, model outputs were analysed for the entire model network, but
the focus of the deficiency analysis was primarily on access to the city centre.
The analysis undertaken focussed on three types of model outputs as follows:
ƒ Forecast demand on the Public Transport (PT) network, compared with
assumed reference case capacity – PT in this instance included Rail and Bus,
with Ferry excluded from the analysis;
ƒ Forecast journey times to the city centre;
ƒ Forecast traffic volumes on the road network.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 2
„ Figure 1-1: Core ART3 model network (2041 reference case)

1.2.3. In the case of the journey-time assessment, analysis was generally undertaken
from all zones to the city centre but in a number of instances, times were
assessed from 11 reference zones outside the city fringe, which are shown in
Figure 1-2. The reference zones were selected to cover journey times via all the
main corridors into the city centre.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 3
„ Figure 1-2: ART3 journey time reference zones

1.2.4. It should be noted that the assessment summarised in this report represents a
static analysis of demand v capacity and journey times in the ART3 reference
case model runs for 2021 and 2041. It was not possible within the scope of this
study to assess how passenger behaviour and consequently demand for services
would be impacted by crowding on bus and rail services, or by potential changes
to PT service frequencies.
1.2.5. Nor was it possible to determine quantitatively how bus operations would be
impacted in terms of network performance by changing service frequencies to
meet forecast demand – such impacts would be dependent on a range of factors
including traffic flows, capacity at individual junctions, and dwell times at bus
stops. As a result, further modelling would be required to better understand these
impacts quantitatively.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 4
1.2.6. In addition, it was not within the scope of this piece of work to assess the
suitability of any proposed transport schemes, although the results of the analysis
have been used to determine whether the long-list of options developed as part
of the CCFAS is likely to address the key deficiencies identified. The option
development and appraisal process is detailed in separate working papers.
1.3. Report structure
1.3.1. The remainder of this report is structured as follows:
ƒ Section 2 summarises the parameters used to assess reference case
deficiencies, highlights key assumptions made, and justifies various
operational and demand-related thresholds used to identify the key issues;
ƒ Section 3 summarises the results of the demand analysis undertaken,
including the calculation of volume-to-capacity ratios (VCRs) and required
service frequencies to meet demand on the PT network in future years;
ƒ Section 4 summarises the results of the journey time analysis undertaken for
both car and PT, and highlights key differences between the reference case
years;
ƒ Section 5 concludes the findings of this piece of work, provides
recommendations and identifies next steps.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 5
2. Assessment parameters
2.1. Introduction
2.1.1. This section provides the context for the analysis summarised in subsequent
sections of this report, and includes the following:
ƒ A summary of the transport schemes included in the reference case model
runs for 2021 and 2041; and
ƒ The key assumptions made by SKM to convert model outputs into an
assessment of deficiencies, including:
o Assumptions related to AM peak hour (AMPH) demand and
service capacities;
o Thresholds applied to the model outputs to identify the nature and
scale of deficiencies in the reference cases.
2.2. Reference case assumptions
2.2.1. The reference case scenarios for ART3 were developed based on a range of
assumptions regarding land-use and committed changes to PT service provision
and transport network capacity outlined in the input assumptions working paper.
2.2.2. The following committed transport schemes were included:
ƒ Rail electrification;
ƒ AMETI early stages (including SE Busway);
ƒ Waterview connection;
ƒ Integrated ticketing and fares;
ƒ New bus network implementation with PTOM;
ƒ Puhoi to Wellsford RoNS.
2.2.3. In addition, a number of other schemes that are currently not funded were also
included, as follows:
ƒ Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing (in 2041 only);
ƒ AMETI later stages;
ƒ East-West link;
ƒ State highway upgrades and removal of bottlenecks.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 6
2.2.4. Further details on the assumptions used in the reference case modelling can be
found in the input assumptions working paper.
2.2.5. As a result, the reference case scenarios used as the basis of this deficiency
analysis included a large amount of road-based transport infrastructure
investment outside the city centre. This therefore presents a ‘best case’ for the
wider network in both 2021 and 2041 as there is currently no guarantee that
some of the schemes listed above will be funded.
2.3. Model outputs and assumptions
2.3.1. All outputs from ART3 were for a 2-hour AM peak period, and PT demand in the
model was allocated to links and services on the basis of a generalised cost
assessment taking into account factors such as walk time from interchanges to
origins and destinations, wait time at interchanges (based on service
frequencies), transfer requirements, and in-vehicle journey times.
2.3.2. However, PT demand is unconstrained by service capacities in the model and
effectively represents the forecast passenger volumes wishing to use services
across the network based on the parameters described above. This allows an
assessment of the extent to which assumed reference case capacity meets
demand in each of the modelled years.
2.3.3. For the purposes of this deficiency analysis, a number of key assumptions were
made when assessing model outputs, as follows:
ƒ 62% of the 2-hour AM peak demand (for both car and PT) was assumed to
be on the network during the AM peak hour (AMPH), in line with surveys of
current AM peak period trips in Auckland;
ƒ Reference case bus service frequencies were assumed to peak in a similar
way, with 62% of all services across the 2-hour peak (calculated from
average headways in the reference case models) assumed to be operating
during the AMPH;
ƒ Reference case rail service frequencies were not assumed to peak, and so
the 2-hour headways defined in the reference case scenarios were used to
calculate AMPH service frequency;
ƒ The following vehicle planning capacities were assumed, as prescribed by
Auckland Transport:
o Standard bus = 46 passengers;
o High-capacity bus = 68 passengers;
o Rail 6-car EMUs = 764 passengers;
o Rail 3-car EMUs = 382 passengers.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 7
2.3.4. When assessing the reference case outputs, standard buses were assumed to
operate on all routes with the exception of the express routes from the North
Shore (F18 and S47) in both 2021 and 2041. All rail services were assumed to
operate with 6-car EMUs in both years with the exception of the Onehunga
branch line, which was assumed to operate 3-car EMUs.
2.3.5. A sensitivity test was also undertaken where all bus routes were assumed to be
upgraded to high-capacity vehicles in both reference case years. More details are
provided in Section 3 of this report.
2.4. Demand and operational thresholds
2.4.1. Much of the deficiency analysis that follows is focussed on the viability of catering
for reference case demand on the bus network, either through increasing vehicle
capacity or service frequency.
2.4.2. As a result, a key threshold that underpins this analysis relates to the operational
capacity of a bus lane. Background research has indicated that 100 buses per
hour is a reasonable threshold capacity for a single lane with no indented stops,
and that the capacity can be increased to a degree with the provision of indented
stops but space requirements at the stops themselves and the delays
experienced by buses at junctions limits the effectiveness of increasing service
capacity in this way. More information underpinning this assumption can be found
in Appendix A – bus lane capacityof this report.
2.4.3. It should be noted that in the context of this analysis, such a threshold should be
regarded as an upper-limit for the desirable efficient operation of a bus service
rather than an absolute limit. There are many examples of bus corridors around
the world operating with a combined frequency of more than 100 buses per hour,
but as shown in Appendix A – bus lane capacity, there is also much evidence to
suggest that once this threshold is exceeded, the performance of the network in
terms of delays and journey-time reliability begins to deteriorate.
2.4.4. Since service reliability is often identified as the most critical indicator in
passengers’ perception of the quality of service, and consequently the demand
for that service, there is a strong case to be made that such thresholds should be
seriously considered in the planning of any bus network.
2.5. Current bus service provision
2.5.1. At present, peak bus flows on the network in Auckland can be found on Symonds
Street north of its junction with Grafton Bridge. Timetables indicate that 125
buses serve this corridor one-way inbound in the AMPH, with 100 buses inbound
on Fanshawe Street during the same period.
2.5.2. Observation of the performance of the network during this time period in August
2012 indicated that the service currently does suffer from some reliability issues,
particularly on Symonds Street. Evidence of frequent platooning of vehicles
(typically around 4 or 5 at a time) and subsequent delays at stops and junctions
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 8
was noted on-site, despite relatively low dwell times of typically less than 30
seconds, which suggests that delays may be more significant in the PM peak
when boarding activity is more prevalent than alighting in the city centre.
Passengers typically take longer to board a bus than alight from one.
2.5.3. There was also evidence of bus-passing activity at stops, suggesting that there is
a requirement for more than one-lane operation on this section of street – typical
bus arrival patterns at the junction with Grafton Bridge and the stop to the north of
this junction are shown in Figure 2-1 below.
2.5.4. While no quantitative data is currently available on the scale of journey time
delays and reliability issues experienced by passengers using the service on the
highest-frequency corridors, the observations provide some validation of the
threshold of 100 buses per hour as a tolerable maximum for operation of a single
bus lane with no indented stops, which is the level of priority currently provided
on Symonds Street.

„ Figure 2-1: AM peak-hour (0800-0900) conditions on Symonds Street (August 2012)


REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 9
3. Demand analysis
3.1. Introduction
3.1.1. This section of the report focuses on forecast demand on the network in ART3 in
both the 2021 and 2041 reference case years, and with regard to PT, compares
that demand with assumed reference case service frequencies to identify the
scale and location of capacity shortfalls on the network based on the operational
assumptions and thresholds summarised in the previous section.
3.2. Reference case service
3.2.1. The bus network modelled in the 2021 and 2041 reference cases was based on
the latest Public Transport Network Plan (PTNP) excluding the Central Rail Link
(the network incorporating the CRL included significant changes to service
patterns to provide better links to railway stations).
3.2.2. Service frequencies in the PTNP have been optimised based on a recent study
undertaken by MRC. During this process, some under-utilised routes were
rationalised on key corridors to allow more road space for more highly-utilised
routes. The cumulative frequencies provided per link in the city centre in the
PTNP are shown on the plan in Figure 3-1 below. The numbers indicate that on
Symonds Street, overall peak frequency has been reduced from 125 buses per
hour currently to 110 in future years. In contrast, frequencies have been
increased on Fanshawe Street to take advantage of the provision of indented bus
stops on this corridor.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 10
„ Figure 3-1: Cumulative AMPH reference case service frequency by link (2021/41)

3.2.3. As described in Section 2.3, in the case of the bus network the AMPH reference
case frequencies were estimated by taking the assumed route headways in
ART3 and increasing them by 24%. This effectively means that 62% of all
services across the 2-hour modelled AM peak period operate in the AMPH, in line
with how demand currently peaks across the network in Auckland.
3.3. PT demand
3.3.1. The assumed reference case service frequencies described above generated the
unconstrained demand for PT services illustrated in Figure 3-2 in the 2021
reference case and Figure 3-3 in 2041.
3.3.2. Figure 3-2 indicates that outside the city centre, the key bus corridors in terms of
demand in 2021 are as follows:
ƒ Harbour Bridge – AMPH passengers flows of approx. 5,300;
ƒ Great North Road – flows of over 2,000 passengers in the far west of the
isthmus, increasing to over 3,000 as routes pass through the city fringe area;
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 11
ƒ Great South Road – flows of over 2,000 in the far east of the isthmus,
increasing to over 3,000 in the city fringe area, and increasing to over 5,000
as routes on this corridor merge with those approaching from the south along
Manukau Road.
„ Figure 3-2: AMPH PT demand by link (2021 ref case)

3.3.3. AMPH bus passenger flows are also above 1,000 on New North Road, Dominion
Road, Mount Eden Road, Manukau Road, and Tamaki Drive approaching the city
centre in 2021.
3.3.4. AMPH rail passenger flows are relatively low in 2021, with the busiest corridor
being the southern link from Papakura and Manukau. Demand on this corridor
exceeds 2,000 passengers on services approaching Newmarket station,
increasing to over 3,000 passengers on the link into Parnell including demand on
the western line.
3.3.5. By 2041, AMPH demand for PT services has increased noticeably in the
reference case, with a broadly similar distribution across the network to that
evident in the 2021 data. This is illustrated in Figure 3-3 below.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 12
„ Figure 3-3: AMPH PT demand by link (2041 ref case)

3.3.6. Passenger flows on the Harbour Bridge are similar to the 2021 figures, peaking at
around 5,300 in the AMPH. In contrast, flows along the Great North Road corridor
increase to above 3,000 in the far west of the isthmus and to above 5,000 as
services approach the city centre, with similar numbers on services on the Great
South Road corridor – demand on this corridor peaks at over 7,000 when
merging with flows on Manukau Road. Flows on Dominion Road also exceed
2,000 south of its junction with Balmoral Road by 2041.
3.3.7. Demand for rail services also increases noticeably between the two modelled
years during the AMPH. Outside the city centre, flows of over 5,000 are evident
on services passing through Westfield station (before the splitting-off of the Glen
Innes branch line) and on services approaching Newmarket station from the
south.
3.3.8. The PT demand on the network summarised in the plans above does indicate
that on a number of key corridors approaching the city centre, higher-capacity PT
services may be feasible. Table 3-1 below indicates approximate corridor
capacities for different types of PT intervention based on an assumed vehicle
planning capacity and a headway of 5 minutes (12 services per hour).
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 13
„ Table 3-1 Assumed peak-hour planning capacities for PT services, assuming operation of a 5
minute headway
Mode
Vehicle planning
capacity

Approx. Peak hour
capacity (5 min
headway)

Standard bus 46 500
High capacity bus 68 800
BRT 100 1,200
Light Rail 200 2,400
Train 764 9,200

3.3.9. Comparing the corridor capacities in the table above with PT demand on the
network in 2021 and 2041 suggests that flows on the Harbour Bridge, Great
North Road, Great South Road, and Dominion Road/Mt Eden Road (by 2041)
would support the provision of higher-capacity forms of PT in terms of patronage.
3.3.10. Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 below illustrate demand for PT services along links in
the city centre area in the 2021 and 2041 reference cases respectively.
„ Figure 3-4: AMPH PT demand by link in the city centre (2021 ref case)

REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 14
3.3.11. The plans indicate that the highest AMPH passenger flows in the city centre are
along Symonds Street north of its junction with Grafton Bridge in both years,
increasing from around 7,800 in 2021 to 10,700 by 2041.
3.3.12. The other key links in the city centre in terms of AMPH passenger flows are
Grafton Bridge (4,100 in 2021 increasing to 5,600 in 2041), K-Road (3,700
increasing to 5,100) and Fanshawe Street (4,600 increasing to 4,800). AMPH
demand exceeds 1,000 passengers on all bus links into the city centre in both
years with the exception of Beach Road.
3.3.13. It should be noted that the city centre zone system used in ART3 is relatively
coarse. The area within the motorways is split into 9 zones, and this means that
demand does not gradually dissipate from the network as buses pass through the
area, but is removed in large numbers at a number of key nodes. As a result,
demand on some links in the central area is likely to underestimate reality. This is
particularly evident on Wellesley Street, where demand is relatively low due to
the large number of bus passengers terminating their trip at the junction with
Symonds Street in the model due to the coding of the university zone connector
at this location.
3.3.14. Modelled passenger demand is however likely to be more accurate on links
approaching the city centre across the motorways, as the vast majority of
passenger destinations are in central areas.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 15
„ Figure 3-5: AMPH PT demand by link in the city centre (2041 ref case)

3.3.15. Table 3-2 below indicates the increase in PT demand to the city centre and across
the model network in general between the two years. Total PT trips to the city
centre increase by 30.5% from 2021 to 2041.
„ Table 3-2 Model network PT trips (2021 and 2041 reference cases)
AM peak (2 hr) 2021

2041

Increase (%)
Total PT trips to city
centre
40,431 52,764 +12,333 (+30.5%)
Total PT trips on
whole model network
93,000 129,700 +36,700 (+39%)
Total PT distance
travelled on whole
model network (km)
1,162,200 1,712,800 +550,600 (+47%)




REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 16
3.4. Volume-to-capacity ratios (VCRs)
3.4.1. The forecast demand for PT services described above was compared with
assumed reference case service frequencies in both years to calculate average
Volume-to-Capacity Ratios (VCRs) on each link. Since PT demand is
unconstrained by capacity, this calculation allowed an assessment of the extent
to which forecast demand exceeds assumed capacity on different parts of the
network in both future years.
3.4.2. In order to calculate AMPH service capacity, the frequencies described in Section
3.3 were multiplied by the assumed vehicle planning capacities provided in
Section 2.3.
3.4.3. Figure 3-6 below illustrates the calculated VCRs across the network in the 2021
reference case. The plan indicates that PT services are above planning capacity
(VCR > 1) on the majority of corridors approaching the city centre. In particular,
routes on the Great South Road consistently have a VCR of above 2 throughout
the isthmus extending as far east as Botany Downs. Demand also exceeds
capacity by a ratio of more than 1.5 on sections of the Great North Road as far
west as Avondale, on Mount Eden Road, and on Parnell Road approaching the
city centre from the east.
„ Figure 3-6: Average AMPH PT VCR by link (2021 ref case)

REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 17
3.4.4. Figure 3-7 below indicates that by 2041, VCRs exceed 2 on the Great North
Road at the far west of the isthmus and beyond, on the entire length of the Great
South Road within the isthmus, on Mount Eden Road south of its junction with
Balmoral Road, and on sections of Remuera Road. VCRs of above 1.5 are also
evident on Dominion Road, Manukau Road, New North Road, and sections of
Tamaki Drive.
„ Figure 3-7: Average AMPH PT VCR by link (2041 ref case)

3.4.5. Rail demand also exceeds capacity on a number of key links outside the city
centre by 2041, with VCRs of over 1 evident on a number of links from the south
approaching Puhinui, Penrose and Newmarket stations. This is due to a relatively
high level of boarding activity at stations such as Drury and Papakura to the
south, and Papatoetoe, Middlemore and Otahuhu approaching the isthmus.
3.4.6. Figure 3-8 below illustrates PT VCRs in the city centre in the 2021 reference
case. The plan indicates that every bus access point into the centre is over-
capacity with the exception of Quay Street, although average VCR here is above
0.8. In particular, services on Grafton Street have an average VCR of over 2
while services on Grafton Bridge are above 1.5.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 18
„ Figure 3-8: Average AMPH PT VCR by link in the city centre (2021 ref case)

3.4.7. Figure 3-9 below indicates that by 2041, all bus corridors into the city centre are
over capacity, including Quay Street. Services on Grafton Road and Grafton
Bridge have a VCR of over 2, while service on Symonds Street and K-Road are
over 1.5.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 19
„ Figure 3-9: Average AMPH PT VCR by link in the city centre (2041 ref case)

3.4.8. It should be noted that the VCRs described above are based on the total
passenger demand on each link in the AMPH. Taking into account variations in
demand for different services means that VCRs on the busiest routes on each
link will be higher than the figures provided, while some routes will be relatively
under-utilised and will therefore have lower VCRs.
3.4.9. It should also be noted that the variability of demand and service headway across
the AMPH will also result in higher VCRs at certain times during the AMPH.
3.5. Required frequency to meet PT demand
3.5.1. The analysis of VCRs described above highlights the extent to which PT network
demand exceeds reference case capacity in each of the modelled years.
However, because assumed service frequency varies by link, the level of demand
required to generate a high VCR can be quite low. Grafton Road is a case in
point – in the 2041 reference case, an overall VCR of 2.2 was generated by an
AMPH flow of 1,100 passengers using 11 buses in the peak hour (i.e. a capacity
of approximately 500 based on an average vehicle planning capacity of 46
passengers per bus across the AMPH).
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 20
3.5.2. To understand the impact of forecast AMPH PT demand in terms of service
operations, the assumed vehicle planning capacities indicated in Section 2.2
were used to estimate service frequencies required to meet demand.
3.5.3. In order to do this, the peak link demand was identified for each route in the
model network, and the relevant vehicle planning capacity was then used to
calculate a peak required service frequency for each route, based on the flow on
the peak link. This service frequency was then applied to all links used by the
route in question within the city centre area, as vehicles would still be required to
operate on these links even if demand reduces in certain areas as alighting takes
place.
3.5.4. It should be noted that this calculation was not applied to links outside the city
centre/fringe area since it would likely represent an over-estimate of the required
frequency – in reality, some buses could be turned around before route-end
points in order to provide a higher frequency along sections of the route with the
highest levels of demand.
3.5.5. However, opportunities for decreasing service frequencies in this way would be
limited within the city centre/fringe area since demand tends to peak on routes as
they approach the motorway through the city fringe, and most passengers
terminate their journeys within the city centre area.
3.5.6. Figure 3-10 indicates the AMPH service frequency that would be required to meet
PT demand on links in the city centre in the 2021 reference case, using the
methodology described above.
3.5.7. The plan indicates that the highest requirement would be on Symonds Street,
with just under 200 buses per hour operating north of the junction with Grafton
Bridge. Other high frequency corridors include Fanshawe Street (168), Wellesley
Street (150), Grafton Bridge (107), and K-Road (98).
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 21
„ Figure 3-10: Required frequency to meet AMPH demand in city centre (2021 ref case)

3.5.8. Figure 3-11 below indicates that by 2041, AMPH service frequency requirements
would reach over 260 buses per hour on Symonds Street and just under 200
buses per hour on Fanshawe Street and Wellesley Street. High frequencies
would also be required on Beach Road (162), Grafton Bridge (143), K-Road
(128), and Victoria Street (79).
3.5.9. Relating these frequencies to the desirable bus lane operational threshold of 100
buses per hour in a lane with no off-lane stops indicated in Section 2.4 of this
report suggests that the bus network would suffer severe delays and reliability
issues with the frequency of service required to meet demand in 2021, and
particularly in 2041, based on the vehicle planning capacities described in
Section 2.3.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 22
„ Figure 3-11: Required frequency to meet AMPH demand in city centre (2041 ref case)

3.5.10. The frequency of service required on multiple accesses to the city centre also
suggests that there is limited scope for re-routing services along different
corridors in order to better balance service frequencies on corridors to meet
demand.
3.5.11. Table 3-3 below indicates the required frequencies on all 8 bus access points to
the city centre, which indicates that by 2021, an average of over 92 buses per
hour would be needed on all accesses to the city centre assuming demand can
be completely balanced, increasing to 116 by 2041. Within the city centre itself, a
significant number of routes would need to be re-routed from Symonds Street to
alternative north-south corridors (the most obvious being Queen Street) in order
to achieve desirable frequencies here.
3.5.12. In reality, the extent to which services can be re-routed to balance demand
across all the access points would be limited due to impacts on route lengths and
journey times, and the differing capacity of different links would make it
undesirable to do so in any case. As a result, many accesses would still be
required to carry well over 100 buses per hour.

REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 23
„ Table 3-3 Required AMPH frequencies on bus access links to city centre
City centre bus access
Required AMPH frequency to meet demand
2021 reference case 2041 reference case
Fanshawe Street 168 193
Victoria Street 64 79
K-Road 98 128
Symonds Street 122 161
Grafton Bridge 107 143
Grafton Road 25 29
Beach Road 127 162
Quay Street 29 36
TOTAL 740 931
Average 92.5 116.4

Sensitivity test – high capacity buses
3.5.13. The analysis described above indicates that just increasing service frequency to
meet demand is likely to be unviable from an operational point of view. Journey
time delays and reliability issues would be severe and there would also be
significant impacts on environmental and streetscape amenity on many roads.
3.5.14. An alternative solution would be to use higher-capacity vehicles on bus routes to
reduce the required service frequencies needed to meet demand. As a result, a
sensitivity test was carried out where all bus routes were assumed to operate
with vehicles with an average AMPH planning capacity of 68 passengers. In the
analysis described above, all routes were assumed to have an average capacity
of 46 passengers with the exception of the Northern Express services, as
indicated in Section 2.3.
3.5.15. It should be noted that there are a number of issues with upgrading the bus fleet
to high-capacity buses that should be taken into account when considering the
outputs below, as follows:
ƒ The bus fleet in Auckland is relatively new, and since the average lifespan of
a vehicle is approximately 20 years, it is likely to take a significant length of
time to upgrade the fleet through natural replacement of vehicles;
ƒ Operators may be reluctant to run high-capacity services on many routes due
to the cost issues associated with operating such vehicles in off-peak periods;
ƒ Boarding and alighting times at stops are likely to increase to some degree as
a result of using high-capacity vehicles, particularly during the PM peak when
boarding numbers are high – this has the potential to increase delays at bus
stops and reduce the effective capacity of bus lanes;
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 24
ƒ Physical network changes would be required in some areas, particularly to
accommodate high-capacity articulated vehicles – this includes junction
alignments and space requirements for the provision of off-lane bus stops.
3.5.16. Figure 3-12 indicates the service frequencies required to meet 2021 reference
case demand on city centre links assuming that all bus routes were operated by
high-capacity vehicles.
„ Figure 3-12: Required frequency to meet AMPH demand in city centre (2021 ref case –
sensitivity test with high capacity buses)

3.5.17. The plan indicates that peak requirements would still rise to well above 100
buses per hour on many links in the city centre area. The requirement on
Fanshawe Street is for just under 160 buses per hour, with close to 150 buses
required on Symonds Street and 125 on Wellesley Street.
3.5.18. By 2041, Figure 3-13 below indicates the impact of increasing demand on
required frequencies, with a peak requirement of close to 200 buses per hour on
Symonds Street and 170 on Fanshawe Street.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 25
„ Figure 3-13: Required frequency to meet AMPH demand in city centre (2041 ref case –
sensitivity test with high capacity buses)

3.5.19. The results above suggest that even if the bus fleet in Auckland was upgraded to
high-capacity vehicles, required service frequencies on key corridors in the city
centre would still reach unsustainable levels in terms of desired network
operation, particularly by 2041.
3.6. Car demand
3.6.1. The extent to which bus services can be optimised (either through re-routing to
balance demand or through the provision of increased levels of bus priority on
links and at junctions) depends partly on traffic flows and congestion in and
around the city centre. As traffic congestion increases, so do the limitations on
allocating additional road space or signal priority to buses.
3.6.2. In addition to PT demand, ART3 also includes forecasts of vehicle movements
(measured in Passenger Car Units – PCUs) on links in the model network, and
analysis of these flows provided some indication of the extent to which traffic
congestion would impact on bus services in the reference case years.
3.6.3. It should be noted that the road network VCRs detailed in this section differ from
those calculated for PT in that re-assignment will occur as traffic congestion
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 26
reduces car journey times, and demand flows are also constrained by capacity on
specific links. As a result, once road network VCRs increase above 1, trips will be
suppressed in the model outputs if opportunities for re-assignment become
limited. Also, as with the analysis of PT demand, caution should be exercised
when looking at road network VCRs on links within the city centre in ART3 due to
the coarseness of the zone system in this area.
3.6.4. Figure 3-14 below illustrates the calculated road network VCRs for links in the
2021 reference case, while Figure 3-15 shows the comparable 2041 VCRs.
„ Figure 3-14: Am peak VCR for road (2021 ref case)

3.6.5. The plan above indicates that many links on the key road routes into the city
centre are close to saturation point in 2041, with orange links representing VCRs
of between 0.8 and 1.0 – this includes many links on the motorway approaches
across the Harbour Bridge and from the west and south-east.
3.6.6. In addition, many routes coming into the city centre from the south, including
Sandringham Road, Mt Eden Road and Manukau Road, also have links with
VCRs above 0.8, while there are also pinch-points on routes from the west (Great
North Road and Williamson Avenue) and east (Ayr Street/Shore Road).
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 27
„ Figure 3-15: Am peak VCR for road (2041 ref case)

3.6.7. By 2041, the situation on the road network has noticeably deteriorated. The
majority of links on the main motorway accesses are close to saturation point
(including the new harbour crossing) and VCRs exceed 1 at various points on
many routes into the city centre from the south and east.
3.6.8. It is worth noting that total AM peak car demand to the city centre is fairly
constant in both years, as shown in Table 3-4 below, but that the total number of
car trips on the model network as a whole increases noticeably between the two
years.
3.6.9. Given employment projections in the two years, this would suggest that there is a
capacity constraint on car access to the city centre in the reference case, and
that there is some mode shift to PT as a result of car demand being suppressed.
The analysis of PT demand on the network discussed earlier in this report
certainly supports this, as total PT demand to city centre zones increases by
30.5% between the two years.

REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 28
„ Table 3-4 Model network car trips (2021 and 2041 reference cases)
AM peak (2 hr) 2021 2041 Increase (%)
Total car trips to city centre 40,540 40,656 +116 (+0.3%)
Total car trips on whole model network 531,900 618,600 +86,700 (+16%)
Total car distance travelled on whole model
network (km)
5,182,400 5,851,000 +668,600
(+13%)

3.6.10. The plans above do indicate that traffic congestion will be a widespread issue on
the network by 2021 and certainly by 2041, even without taking into account the
extent to which road trips are suppressed in model outputs, and these traffic
flows are forecast alongside the predicted increase in demand for PT services
discussed earlier in this report. It should also be noted that the forecast VCRs
take into account a significant amount of investment in the road network assumed
in the reference case modelling, as described in Section 2.2 of this report.
3.6.11. Therefore, unless additional capacity is provided coming into the city centre, it
would appear that any significant attempts to improve bus network performance,
through the provision of additional road space or increased priority at signals, will
exacerbate the traffic congestion issues suggested by the ART3 model road
network outputs illustrated above.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 29
4. Journey time analysis
4.1. Introduction
4.1.1. This section of the report summarises the results of the journey time assessment
undertaken as part of this study. In particular, journey times by both car and PT
were compared in the 2021 and 2041 reference cases.
4.2. Car
4.2.1. Figure 4-1 below illustrates the change in car journey times to the city centre in
the model from 2021 to 2041. The plan indicates the impact of increasing
congestion on the network between the two years, as car journey times from all
zones to the west, south and east of the city centre experience increases in
journey times to the city centre to varying degrees. The only area where journey
times reduce is the North Shore, which benefits from the presence of the
additional harbour crossing in the 2041 reference case.
„ Figure 4-1: Change in total car journey time to city centre zones (2021 v 2041 ref cases)

4.2.2. The findings illustrated above are supported by journey time analysis from each
of the reference zones (summarised in Section 1.2 of this report) to the city
centre, indicated in Figure 4-2 below.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 30
„ Figure 4-2: Total car journey times to city centre from reference zones (2021 and 2041
ref cases)

4.2.3. The plans above highlight the reduction in car journey times from the North
Shore. From Takapuna to the city takes 25 minutes in 2021 but reduces to 18
minutes in 2041 as a result of the new harbour crossing.
4.2.4. However, journey times by car increase from all other selected refence case
zones – the most significant increase being from Western Springs. Car journey
time to the city centre from this zone increases by 35% between the two years,
from 11.5 minutes in 2021 to 15.5 minutes in 2041. Differences in car journey
times are typically around 3.5 minutes from reference zones on the isthmus to the
city centre between the two years.
4.3. Public Transport
4.3.1. Figure 4-3 below illustrates the change in total PT journey time to the city centre
between 2021 and 2041. The plan indicates that from many zones, the change is
within +2 or -2 minutes, which has been considered as no change in this
assessment. The most noticeable changes in PT journey times occur in areas to
the north and north-west of the city centre, and also to a lesser extent in areas to
the east of the isthmus. It is worth noting that where changes are occur, they are
virtually all negative indicating a deterioration in service between the two years.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 31
„ Figure 4-3: Change in total PT journey time to city centre zones (2021 v 2041 ref cases)

4.3.2. Figure 4-4 below supports the results indicated above. Total PT journey time
increases noticeably from Takapuna in the North Shore, from 40.5 minutes to
50.9 minutes, while increases from within the isthmus are less significant. In the
case of the latter, the most significant changes are an increase from 41 minutes
in 2021 to 44.2 minutes in 2041 between Point Chevalier and the city centre (an
increase of 7.8%) and an increase from 32.6 minutes to 35 minutes (7.4%) from
Remuera to the city centre. Journey time increases from within the isthmus are
typically around 1.5 minutes between the two years.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 32
„ Figure 4-4: Total PT journey times to city centre from reference zones (2021 and 2041
ref cases)

4.3.3. A couple of key points should be considered when assessing the differences in
PT journey times between the two years:
ƒ Journey times are based on assumed reference case frequencies, and so do
not take into account the delays that would be incurred as a result of
increasing service frequencies to meet demand, either through increased
dwell times at stops as a result of increased boarding/alighting activity, or
through increased queuing at junctions and stops;
ƒ In ART3, bus lanes are modelled with fixed speeds, and so do not take into
account any potential reductions in speed as a result of high frequencies
operating on key corridors in the model.
4.4. Implications for growth/development areas
4.4.1. The journey time analysis described above illustrates deteriorating conditions on
the transport network in terms of accessing the city centre between 2021 and
2041, with the notable exception of car travel from the North Shore.
4.4.2. Figure 4-5 below is an extract from the Auckland Plan illustrating identified urban
growth areas. Comparing this plan with the plans provided above indicate that
with the exception of the North Shore, development is planned in Auckland in
areas where the ART3 model is indicating a deteriorating level of accessibility to
the city centre between 2021 and 2041.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 33
„ Figure 4-5: Auckland Urban Core Development Strategy

4.4.3. Comparing the plans does suggest that in a lot of areas, the transport schemes
included in the reference cases for 2021 and 2041 are not sufficient to support
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 34
planned growth, leading to increasing congestion and a reduction in network
performance.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 35
5. Summary
5.1. Conclusions
5.1.1. It is clear from the analysis summarised in the previous sections that demand for
PT services will exceed assumed capacity by a significant degree in both the
2021 and 2041 reference case years.
5.1.2. The analysis also indicates that increasing the frequency of the bus network to
meet this demand is unlikely to be a feasible option in future even if the bus fleet
in Auckland is upgraded to high capacity vehicles, for a variety of reasons:
ƒ Operational constraints relating to service reliability and delays associated
with operating high frequencies on key corridors;
ƒ Physical road capacity and junction priority issues (both for bus and general
traffic);
ƒ Impacts on environmental and streetscape amenity and road safety created
by high frequency bus corridors;
ƒ Limited opportunities for route optimisation as a result of the limited number
of bus access corridors to the city centre.
5.1.3. The assessment of road network VCRs and car journey times also indicates that
traffic congestion is likely to be widespread across the network in future years,
leading to a deterioration in network conditions. This increase in congestion is
forecast to occur alongside the increase in demand for PT services, which
suggests that without additional capacity into the city centre, the opportunities for
optimising the bus network through the provision of more dedicated lanes and
priority at signal junctions will become more and more limited in future.
5.1.4. The forecast number of AM peak car trips to the city centre in 2041 is broadly
similar to the forecast for 2021, suggesting that road network capacity constraints
in the city centre result in suppressed demand and some mode shift to PT by
2041 (with total PT trips to the city centre forecast to increase by 30.5% between
the two years). In contrast, car trips outside the city centre are forecast to
increase between the two years, increasing congestion on many links and
journey times to the city centre as a result.
5.1.5. The findings also indicate that while there appears to be spare capacity on the
rail network coming into Britomart, there are capacity issues on rail outside the
city centre, with volumes exceeding assumed capacity on links approaching
Puhinui, Penrose and Newmarket stations from the south by 2041. A high level of
alighting activity at Newmarket and Parnell stations subsequently reduces
demand into Britomart itself.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 36
5.1.6. It is also clear that when looking at absolute demand for PT in both reference
case years, there are four key corridors that warrant higher-level PT intervention
as follows:
ƒ Harbour Bridge from North Shore
ƒ Great South Road corridor
ƒ Great North Road corridor
ƒ Dominion Road/Mt Eden Road corridor
5.2. Recommendations and next steps
5.2.1. The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the nature and scale of transport
network deficiencies in the 2021 and 2041 reference cases, and to ensure the
suitability of the long-list of proposed schemes developed as part of the CCFAS.
5.2.2. The deficiency analysis has indicated that forecast demand in 2021 and 2041 is
too high to be adequately addressed by adjusting service frequencies and vehicle
capacities on the existing transport network, and that additional intervention is
required to increase capacity to the city centre via recommendations put forward
as part of the CCFAS.
5.2.3. In particular, the analysis summarised above has demonstrated issues on two
specific corridors, the Great North Road and the Great South Road, that were not
high priorities in the initial scheme development stage.
5.2.4. As a result, the long-list will be adjusted to incorporate schemes that will address
identified capacity issues on these corridors prior to the commencement of the
appraisal process.
REFERENCE CASE DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Deficiency analysis v4.docx PAGE 37
Appendix A – bus lane capacity

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

STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Appendices

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 205
Appendix D Long list options development
working paper
Working Paper

Date 19 June 2012
Project No ZB01280
Subject Long List Options Development


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 1
1. Introduction
Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) has been appointed by Auckland Transport (AT) to undertake the
City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS). This working paper details the development of the
options that will be assessed at the long list stage.
2. Long list option development workshop
A workshop was held on 11 May 2012 at the SKM offices in Auckland. The aim of the
workshop was to discuss the range of options that have been developed as part of the long list
of options that are to be assessed.
Representatives from the following organisations attended the workshop:
„ Auckland Transport
„ Ministry of Transport
„ Treasury
„ Auckland Council
„ NZTA
„ SKM

The options presented at the workshop were not intended to be an exhaustive list; rather the
beginning of the list to be discussed at the workshop, expanded upon and taken forward to the
long list assessment stage.
Where action is required, this is noted in bold along with the responsible party.
3. Long list options
The following sections detail the long list options that have been developed under the headline
transport initiatives of:
„ Underground rail;
„ Surface bus;
„ Underground bus; and
„ Other.
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 2
4. Underground rail
The intention for the underground rail option is to use the Central Rail Link (CRL) option and
supporting bus networks developed by MRC once complete. This option is considered to be
the optimal option due to the significant work done by others to develop it. Other alignments
have not been considered as part of this study as these have been assessed in the past with the
current alignment being the preferred.
The CRL is currently undergoing further development through a value engineering process
which is focused on providing an optimal solution. This also includes potential changes to
station arrangements previously reported in the APB&B Business Case. The timeframe for
when this will be complete is currently uncertain.
The intention is that the revised CRL option will be included at the short list assessment stage.
Should timeframes not permit this; the CRL option identified in the previous Business Case
will be adopted for the assessment. The accompanying bus network that will be used in the
CRL option will be that which has been defined by the MRC work. Further detail on the
accompanying bus operations will be provided in the full description of the CRL option at the
short list stage.
Auckland Transport to provide the expected timeframes for the value engineering phase
of the CRL development and confirm the preferred option to be taken forward as part of
the CCFAS.
5. Surface bus
The surface bus options have been developed out of three broad surface bus options:
„ Best use of existing infrastructure;
„ Enhanced bus operation; and
„ Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

The 2010 AWHC Network Plan highlighted a bus lane capacity of approximately 100 buses an
hour (with an ultimate capacity of 130 buses an hour in ‘perfect’ conditions). We have
confirmed this capacity as being appropriate and it has been used in developing the options.
This capacity is largely influenced by the fact that when buses stop for passengers to board and
alight, this stops all buses using the lane. When double bus lanes, or indented bus stops are
used, the capacity of the bus lane increases dramatically by a factor of 2 to 3 times.
The 2041 bus forecasts from the 2010 Network Plan have been assessed to provide an
indication of the numbers of buses which are expected to be entering the CBD in 2041. We
understand that there is some concern over these numbers and at certain locations the numbers
of buses forecast are considered to be too high along some routes (Symonds St, Albert St).
Figure 5-1 shows the approximate peak hour bus volumes in 2041 entering the CBD. The
numbers in the coloured arrows are from the 2010 Network Plan. The numbers in the white
text boxes are those taken from the Business Case Review, which is based on the 2010 RLTS
modelling in APT. There are some significant differences in numbers coming from the central
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 3
isthmus entering at Symonds Street and those coming from the west at Vincent Street. Overall,
the numbers of buses that might be expected to enter the CBD in the peak hour is significant
and additional capacity needs to be provided.
„ Figure 5-1 2041 AM peak hour bus volumes

The current work being undertaken by McCormick Rankin Cagney (MRC) on the revised bus
network operation will be incorporated into all the bus options.
At the long list stage it is not important to have detailed bus numbers, just an indication so that
the scale of the impacts / operational performance can be assessed. At the short list stage, a
more detailed assessment and quantification will be used.
Following a review of the MRC report, the numbers on Fanshawe Street from the North Shore
are likely to be much lower due to the splitting of those services to use both Shelley Beach
Road and Cook Street. This spreads the load of the North Shore buses across many corridors
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 4
and numbers suggest that a single bus lane on Fanshawe Street may continue to be adequate
for entering the city on Fanshawe Street.
The use of higher capacity buses (double-decker / articulated) on certain dedicated corridors
has been a discussion point as part of the CCFAS. Following discussions with Auckland
Transport, these vehicles are likely to be introduced when required to meet demand on routes
on which they would be feasible. This includes the Northern Busway, further reducing the
number of buses entering the CBD along Fanshawe Street. Other likely corridors include
Dominion Road and possibly some services using Mt Eden Road, New North Road and Great
South Road to enter the CBD. Until a detailed analysis of the revised modelling is carried out,
it is difficult to establish a reduction in the number of buses that could be expected following
the introduction of higher capacity buses, where a double-decker bus might be able to
accommodate approximately 70-80 passengers, compared with 40-50 on a standard bus. Given
that not all routes using those corridors would warrant the higher capacity buses, the reduction
could potentially be in the order of 10-20%.
5.1 Option 1 – “Best use of existing infrastructure”
These options rely on existing road space, using existing bus lanes and providing some new
bus lanes to cope with the expected volumes of buses entering the CBD. The routes are split
out when they reach the CBD to more of the CBD streets so that the indicative numbers of
buses can be accommodated. Figure 5-2 indicates the likely roads that would require bus
services to run on them under these two sub options.
5.1.1 Option 1a: Heavy reliance on Queen St
Buses from the North Shore are split between Fanshawe Street and Cook Street with some
having been potentially rerouted through Shelly Beach Road and College Hill.
Buses from the east will enter the CBD via Tamaki Drive and The Strand. As the numbers are
forecast to be low (in the order of 50 buses per hour), these can be readily accommodated.
From the west, the main entrance point to the CBD is Vincent Street onto Albert Street.
Additional capacity would be needed, so some buses would be routed to Nelson Street and
Queen Street.
Buses coming from Grafton Bridge and upper Symonds Street (approximately 300 buses per
hour) would need to be rerouted significantly. Certain services that would be using Grafton
Bridge would be rerouted to enter the CBD via Parnell with some express services being
routed onto the motorway and entering on SH16 before travelling through to Britomart. Once
at the Symonds Street / Grafton Bridge intersection, buses would split between Symonds Street
and Queen Street.
5.1.2 Option 1b: Heavy reliance on Symonds St
This option varies slightly from Option 1a, as it removes the reliance on Queen Street by
providing indented bus stops on Symonds Street, which increases the capacity for buses
significantly as the stopping buses do not impede the following buses if they are not stopping.
It is this characteristic which effectively limits the capacity of the bus lane.
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 5
„ Figure 5-2 Options 1a and 1b


5.2 Option 2 – “Enhanced Bus Operation”
Building on the options above, the Option 2 sub options provide additional bus priority
through the CBD. The use of double bus lanes (potentially peak only) sees the capacity on the
identified bus corridors increase significantly while the general traffic capacity decreases. Bus
priority at signalised intersections would be implemented to improve the flow of buses through
the CBD. Under all the sub options, Queen Street requires at least a single bus lane and
Wellesley Street becomes the major east-west route, requiring double bus lanes in both
directions from Symonds Street to Nelson Street.
Buses from the North Shore enter the CBD via Fanshawe Street, with some routing through
Britomart before proceeding to the University or Parnell. Others use Albert or Hobson Street
before connecting to eastern / southern routes and some return to the North Shore.
Buses from the east link through the CBD to north and west services.
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 6
Buses from the west and south enter the CBD at the southern fringe of the CBD and connect to
northern or eastern services or return to the west or south on similar routes, consistent with the
routing plans developed as part of the MRC work.
5.2.1 Option 2a: Albert Street
In Option 2a, Vincent Street and Albert Street becomes the main north-south bus route with
double bus lanes along the entire length in both directions. Local access could be maintained
via service lanes (if space permitted), or special permits. As part of this option, Hobson Street
and Nelson Street require bus lanes to feed buses back to the North Shore in the morning
period, and from the North Shore in the afternoon peak. A single bus lane runs the length of
Queen Street in both directions. This would allow general traffic to still use Queen Street.
Symonds Street (south of Wellesley Street) requires double bus lanes in both directions to
cater for the high bus demands that access Wellesley Street, which becomes bus only. This is
consistent across all of the Option 2 sub options.
„ Figure 5-3 Option 2a

Plus indented bus stops
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 7
5.2.2 Option 2b: Double bus lane Hobson Street
Option 2b is very similar to Option 2a, but Hobson Street becomes the north-south bus route.
This would severely limit its capacity for general traffic. This is a major change, as Hobson
Street would be required to become two-way for buses to achieve this. It does however mean
that Albert Street retains general traffic access.
„ Figure 5-4 Option 2b

Plus indented bus stops




Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 8
5.2.3 Option 2c: Bus only Queen Street
In Option 2c, Queen Street takes the role of the north-south bus corridor through the CBD.
Western buses still use Vincent Street to enter the CBD, before using Wellesley and
subsequently Queen Street. Under this option, Queen Street would have double bus lanes in
both directions, making it bus only from Britomart to Karangahape Road. As noted for Option
2a, local accesses on the bus only streets could be maintained through the use of special
permits. There would be insufficient space on Queen Street to operate service lanes, but
service vehicles such as couriers could be exempt from the bus only restrictions.
„ Figure 5-5 Option 2c

Plus indented bus stops

5.2.4 Option 2d: One way bus circulation
This option would use Vincent Street, Albert Street, Symonds Street and a short section of
Karangahape Road and Customs Street to provide a one way circulation for buses in the CBD
as shown in Figure 5-6. This option concentrates the majority of buses onto a single route
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 9
through the city. This has the potential to be in excess of 600 buses an hour trying to circulate
on the loop. At this level of bus traffic, a double bus lane would be required with kerbside
stops being defined by route (skip-stop operation). The second bus lane therefore operates as a
bus only traffic lane. By rationalising the locations where different routes stop, the dedicated
circulating lane allows buses to adequately pass stopped buses and make their way to the
required stops.
It could operate in either a clockwise or anti clockwise direction. Buses from the different
areas of Auckland enter at separate locations, complete a full loop and can then return on their
route away from the CBD or leave the loop to route onto other services at the appropriate
location. General traffic could either be accommodated in a reduced two-way capacity (for
example, one lane in each direction along the loop), or in a one-way circulation regime (either
with or against the bus direction of travel). Local access would still be possible from the car
side, with service lanes, or controlled access through the bus lanes providing access to that side
of the road or by placing the bus lanes in the centre of the road with a traffic lane on the
outside. Careful control at intersections would be required where general traffic needs to cross
the bus lanes. This could be achieved through the use of ‘bus only’ phases at the signals.
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 10
„ Figure 5-6 Option 2d

or
or
5.2.5 Option 2e: Two way bus circulation
Similar to Option 2d (one way bus circulation), this option would use the same loop, but
operate in both directions. This would mean that double bus lanes could be provided in each
direction, which would make the majority of the route bus only, having a large impact on
general traffic access to the CBD. Again, local access would need to be achieved through the
use of special permits and some service lanes where road width constraints allow.
Careful control at intersections would be required where general traffic needs to cross the bus
lanes. This could be achieved through the use of ‘bus only’ phasing at the signals.
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 11
„ Figure 5-7 Option 2e


5.2.6 Option 2f: Dedicated CBD bus loop (interchanges at perimeter)
A further variant to surface bus options is a dedicated bus loop around and through the CBD.
This option is very similar in operation to that of Option 2e. Figure 5-8 shows the proposed
loop that would operate in a ‘figure 8’ to allow penetration into the heart of the CBD, rather
than a perimeter only service. It is envisaged to operate in one direction, to reduce the effect on
general traffic in the CBD. The bus loop would operate using the entering bus services.
Dedicated double bus lanes would be provided along the entire length of the loops with bus
priority at signalised intersections to improve overall performance for the buses.
It provides a longer loop than Option 2e and also requires Wellesley Street to be bus only from
Symonds St through to Hobson Street. The longer loop does lengthen the time required to
circulate, but it increases the catchment of the loop. Major stations located on the loop would
encourage development, particularly in the midtown area where Wellesley Street has buses
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 12
running on the loop in both directions. The location of the perimeter stations could be adjusted
to suit requirements if the option was to be developed further.
„ Figure 5-8 Option 2f


5.3 Option 3 – “Bus Rapid Transit”
Developing further into dominant bus priority are the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) options. These
options have a high level of bus priority, with intersection separation in the form of tunnel
underpasses and some bus only roads. It has the potential to be constrained to within the CBD
itself, providing fast efficient movement across the CBD at the end of the journey. However, to
be most effective, it would include the approaches to the CBD as well as the CBD itself. The
APB&B Business Case identified the corridors shown in blue in Figure 5-9 as the approach
corridors to the CBD where BRT treatment would provide the most benefit. These are:
„ New North Road which picks up Sandringham Road and Dominion Road services on the
approach to the CBD;
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 13
„ Great South Road, Broadway and Khyber Pass Road which would then likely extend past
the Auckland Hospital and over Grafton Bridge. This differs slightly from the connection
at the top of Khyber Pass Road as shown in Figure 5-9.
„ These routes would come together at Symonds Street where they would join together and
progress down a dedicated bus lane with bus priority at the signalised intersections before
joining the dedicated BRT corridors through the CBD.
The BRT treatment on these corridors would be in the form of a dedicated busway (similar to
that in use on the North Shore Busway). The exception would be through the shopping
precinct of Newmarket, where such infrastructure would be extremely difficult to implement.
Through this part of the network, dedicated bus lanes and bus pre-emption at signals would be
provided to improve the bus service on this section of the route.
In carrying out the long list assessment, we propose to assess the Option 3 sub options with
and without the BRT approaches described above.
„ Figure 5-9 BRT approach corridors

The aim of a BRT system would be to provide a north-south and an east-west corridor in the
CBD as detailed in the following sections. There would a major bus interchange / station
where the two corridors intersect which could be grade separated. As part of any BRT option,
Fanshawe Street requires dedicated bus lanes from the motorway off ramp to the point at
which the BRT system begins within the CBD.
In order to not completely sever other transport links across the BRT corridor within the CBD,
the intersections that the buses cross would be bypassed with tunnel underpasses for the buses.
This allows the buses consistency in travel times and therefore an improved level of service
whilst maintaining overall connectivity for general traffic and pedestrians within the CBD. The
approaches to these underpasses may require some smaller side roads to be closed to general
traffic.
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 14
5.3.1 North-south BRT
There are four potential north-south BRT corridors in the CBD. These are shown in Figure
5-10.
„ Hobson Street (Option a)
„ Passing under Cook Street, Wellesley Street, Victoria Street, Wyndham
Street
„ Vincent Street / Albert Street (Option b)
„ Passing under Cook Street, Wellesley Street, Victoria Street, Wyndham
Street, Swanston Street
„ Queen Street (Option c)
„ Passing under Scotia Place, Mayoral Drive, Wellesley Street, Victoria Street,
Wyndham Street
„ Symonds Street (Option d)
„ Passing under Wakefield Street, Grafton Road, Waterloo Quadrant

5.3.2 East-west BRT
There are three potential east-west BRT corridors in the CBD. These are shown in Figure 5-10.
„ Fanshawe Street (Option z)
„ Passing under Halsey Street, Nelson Street, Albert Street, Queen Street,
Commerce Street, Gore Street
„ Victoria Street (Option x)
„ Passing under Halsey Street, Hardinge Street, Nelson Street, Hobson Street,
Federal Street, Albert Street, Queen Street, High Street, Kitchener Street,
Princes Street
„ Wellesley Street (Option y)
„ Passing under Halsey Street, Victoria Street, Nelson Street, Hobson Street,
Federal Street, Queen Street, Kitchener Street

Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 15
„ Figure 5-10 BRT options

z
y
a
x
b
c d

5.3.3 BRT Options
There are 12 difference combinations for the BRT options. These are defined by combining the
letter for a north-south option with the letter for an east-west option. Each option described
below will be assessed with and without the BRT treatment on the approach corridors.
1) Option 3az: Hobson / Fanshawe
2) Option 3ax: Hobson / Victoria
3) Option 3ay: Hobson / Wellesley
4) Option 3bz: Albert / Fanshawe
5) Option 3bx: Albert / Victoria
6) Option 3by: Albert / Wellesley
7) Option 3cz: Queen / Fanshawe
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 16
8) Option 3cx: Queen / Victoria
9) Option 3cy: Queen / Wellesley
10) Option 3dz: Symonds / Fanshawe
11) Option 3dx: Symonds / Victoria
12) Option 3dy: Symonds / Wellesley

5.3.4 Elevated busway
Another variation of the BRT options is an elevated version, incorporating the approach
corridors and continuing down Symonds Street and onto Wellesley Street. Rather than assess
every different combination of the CBD BRT options, this combination of routes was chosen
as it naturally progresses into the CBD and fits best with the PTNP of having Wellesley Street
as the main bus corridor in the CBD. If through the assessment, it is established that one of the
other BRT corridor combinations in the CBD proves to have significant benefits, and the
elevated busway has merit, it can be modified to include the ‘best’ combination. The elevated
busway is indicatively shown in Figure 5-11.
„ Figure 5-11 Option 3e: Elevated busway


6. Underground bus
Taking the buses underground significantly reduces the impacts on the surface roads, but it
presents challenges in both construction and operation. The basis for the underground bus
options come from the BRT options. To obtain the maximum benefit of the underground
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 17
options, some BRT treatment is needed on the approaches to the tunnel(s). As with the BRT
options, the tunnel options will be assessed both with and without the BRT treatment on the
approaches.
An underground bus option would have either a north-south or east-west tunnel, or possibly
both with an interchange where they intersect. The tunnel itself would be two lanes wide (one
in each direction) with a station at mid town and a station near each end of the tunnel. At the
station, platforms would be provided so that stopping buses are removed from the carriageway,
thereby not impeding other buses that are not stopping or accessing adjacent platforms.
Building a bus tunnel does not remove all buses from the surface. It caters for certain routes,
but many surface buses are still required in order to provide high levels of service. The same
overall structure defined by the MRC study will be incorporated, with key corridors feeding
into the tunnel(s).
6.1 Option 4a: Vic Park to Grafton
Option 4a is a north-south tunnel along a similar alignment to that identified in the previous
Business Case. It would head underground near Victoria Park at the northern end and near
Grafton (Khyber Pass Road / Symonds Street) at the southern end. It is indicatively shown in
Figure 6-1.
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 18
„ Figure 6-1 Option 4a

As part of this option, Symonds Street would still retain an important bus function. There
would be a station around midtown and also at either end of the tunnel.
6.2 Option 4b: CRL Alignment
Option 4b is a north-south tunnel along a similar alignment to the proposed CRL option. It
would head underground near the Fanshawe Street / Albert Street intersection at the northern
end and return to the surface in Newton, around Upper Queen Street.

Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 19
„ Figure 6-2 Option 4b

As part of this option, Symonds Street would still retain an important bus function, providing
access to the eastern CBD. There would be a station around midtown and also at either end of
the tunnel.
6.3 Option 4c: East – West tunnel
Option 4c is an east – west tunnel running under the Wellesley Street alignment. It would head
underground near Victoria Park at the western end and near Symonds Street at the eastern end.
The southern part of Symonds Street would require substantial bus priority to enable the tunnel
to operate effectively.
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 20
„ Figure 6-3 Option 4c

As part of this option, Symonds Street and Albert Street would still retain an important bus
function, providing north–south access through the CBD. There would be a station around
midtown and also one near the western end. A further station would link in with the education
precinct near the top of Wellesley Street providing access to the universities.
6.4 Option 4d: Two tunnels
Option 4d combines Options 4b and 4c, with a north-south tunnel along a similar alignment to
the proposed CRL and an east-west tunnel along the Wellesley Street alignment.

Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 21
„ Figure 6-4 Option 4d

A major station would be located at midtown, where the two tunnels intersect. This option
would remove the majority of buses from the surface road network as it provides connections
to all quadrants of the CBD.
7. Other options
A range of other options were considered as alternatives to headline bus or rail options and
these are discussed below. The majority of them are considered to be complimentary to any
major bus or rail option. A light rail / tram option is considered to be the only realistic true
alternative to a headline bus or rail option
7.1 Ferry based solution
Ferry options are not considered to represent a true alternative for providing access to the
CBD. Revised and improved ferry services will be assumed to form part of any option as they
are complimentary to rail and bus, rather than an alternative. At the long list stage, any ferry
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 22
option will not prove to be a point of differentiation between any options, so details around
potential future ferry operation have not been considered.
No headline ferry option needs to be considered; any improved ferry service would be
consistent across all options and therefore not provide any point of differentiation.
7.2 Increasing car capacity
Increasing the capacity for private vehicle access to the CBD is not considered to be realistic,
given that significant additional road and parking space would be required. This would be
detrimental to public transport capacity and reduce the number of people that could access the
CBD, which is counter to the objectives of this study.
No headline car based option needs to be considered.
7.3 Above ground heavy/commuter rail
We are currently awaiting detail from the APB&B concept work relating to an above ground
route and why this was discounted. We believe it was due to gradient issues in the southern
part of the CBD, but this will need to be confirmed upon reviewing the earlier concept work.
7.4 Light rail
A light rail option has been considered as an ‘other’ option. There are two possibilities for light
rail. One would see it act as a ‘shuttle’ type mode providing access to the CBD by linking with
either the western train line, or a common point on a large number of bus services. Given the
fact that the buses enter from a variety of places, the sensible solution is to intersect such a
service with the western train line. The nearest stations are either Grafton or Mt Eden, with Mt
Eden considered to be the most efficient location due to the distance required to travel.
Without demolishing large blocks of the CBD, there are two reasonable alignments from Mt
Eden, as shown in Figure 7-1. One would follow the approximate CRL alignment, running
down Vincent Street / Albert Street (Option 5a, shown in black), with the other running down
Queen Street (Option 5b, shown in red). Under either option, general traffic capacity would be
significantly reduced on the route that is chosen.
Both Britomart and Mt Eden Stations would require significant upgrades to function as the
interchange points. Likely major stops along the way would be Karangahape Road and
midtown (near Wellesley Street).
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 23
„ Figure 7-1 Options 5a and 5b: Light rail ‘shuttle’
Option 5a: Albert St
Option 5b: Queen St
Stations

Another light rail option is to develop a wider network, complimentary to the existing rail
corridors so that their catchments have minimal overlap. This would allow a significant
reduction in the number of buses required to cater for demand along key corridors. The central
isthmus segment between New North Road and Great South Road is served poorly by rail and
has four main arterial corridors heading towards the CBD. These are Sandringham Road,
Dominion Road, Mt Eden Road and Manukau Road. Three of these corridors have the
potential to carry light rail as they all come together on the outskirts of the CBD in Eden
Terrace. Manukau Road has no readily available connection through to make this connection,
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 24
though a tunnel under Mt Eden could be a future possibility. With the Newmarket rail station
being at the end of Manukau Road, there is a reduced benefit from providing another mode of
transport for this corridor, as the recent Business Case and review showed that the southern
line has spare rail capacity. A further consideration has been included to the north of the North
Western Motorway, using the Great North Road corridor from Pt Chevalier. Queen Street has
been chosen for this option as the point where the light rail lines join and operate down to
Britomart, providing the central connections to the CBD. On the light rail corridors, the
existing bus lanes would be converted to light rail, so road capacity would be largely
unaffected.
Option 5c is shown in Figure 7-2 and Figure 7-3 below.
„ Figure 7-2 Option 5c: Light rail network - outer

Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 25
„ Figure 7-3 Option 5c: Light rail network - CBD

Capacity of light rail depends heavily on the rolling stock that is implemented. Smaller light
rail vehicles can accommodate in the order of 80-100 passengers, with longer light rail
vehicles now being produced to accommodate in excess of 200 passengers. Given that the
routes defined above are largely straight, with few tight turns, a capacity of 130 passengers per
vehicle will be assumed in assessing these options. This is consistent with the
Light rail could potentially replace a ‘bus loop’ option (Option 2d / 2e / 2f). To achieve the
same function as would be achieved with buses, significant interchanges would be required for
all bus passengers to transfer to light rail at the perimeter of the loop, creating both large
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 26
increases in cost and inconvenience for passengers, buses are considered to represent the
preferred mode for this type of operation.

7.5 Personal rapid transit
Personal rapid transit (PRT) is not considered to represent a realistic solution for providing
access to the CBD. Rather it has the potential to provide rapid transit across or around a
dedicated network, such as within the CBD. It could provide a similar function to the light rail
option above by connecting the CBD to a nearby transport hub, such as train station or major
bus stop / interchange. It makes sense to use a similar connection to the light rail options, with
an interchange with the western train line at Mt Eden station. With its close proximity (~500m)
to the Dominion Road and New North Road, it also lends itself to possible future extensions to
connect with buses in these corridors. With additional guideways, improved distribution over
the light rail option could be achieved around the CBD. The PRT option is shown below in
Figure 7-2. It is envisaged to operate most efficiently in a network of guideways. On a single
guideway (2m wide), the capacity would be approximately 4,000 people per hour.
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 27
„ Figure 7-4 Option 5d: PRT
PRT interchange


7.6 Elevated Rail
Another option for rail is to raise it above street level on a dedicated structure. An option has
recently been publicised by the Greenways Project group which would see rail run on an
elevated structure around the western perimeter of the CBD between Mt Eden station and
Britomart as shown in Figure 7-5. Travelling along Fanshawe Street, it would then climb up
onto the Victoria Park flyover structure, travel through the central motorway junction and
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 28
connect into the Mt Eden rail station. This option removes the need for a transfer at Mt Eden
station, as the same rolling stock are assumed to carry on travelling on this new link. The
reported cost has been stated as being approximately $1.7 billion and this has been used for the
purpose of the evaluation. This option would operate similarly to the CRL, without the
intermediate stations due to being elevated above the motorway network.
„ Figure 7-5 Option 5e: Elevated rail


Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 29
7.7 Travel demand management
Any large scale travel demand management (TDM) options are not considered to represent a
true alternative for providing access to the CBD. Improved TDM measures are accounted for
in the modelling of any options and are considered to be consistent across any of the
alternatives.
No headline TDM option needs to be considered.
7.8 Walking / cycling focus
Major walking and/or cycling options are not considered to represent a true alternative for
providing access to the CBD. Given the sprawled nature of Auckland, distances that need to be
covered are too long to be realistically serviced by active mode. Improvements for pedestrians
and cyclists in and around the CBD are envisaged to form part of any option and will not be a
key differentiator between the sub options at the long list stage.
No headline walking or cycling option needs to be considered; any improvements to walking
and cycling would be consistent across all options and therefore not provide any point of
differentiation.
7.9 Intelligent transport systems and other incremental improvements
Intelligent transport systems (ITS) have a part to play in any option in the refinement stage of
option development. ITS itself is not deemed to be an alternative method of access to the CBD;
rather it is an incremental improvement that would be complimentary to any improved
passenger transport solution. Such technology that informs travellers of their real time options
would improve service, but needs to work in conjunction with transport infrastructure. An
example of this is the ‘tram tracker’ smart phone app that is used in Melbourne.
Buses with large passenger capacity (up to 250 people) could only run on dedicated routes due
to the operating space required. Therefore, this only makes them appropriate for use on a BRT
route and would form part of an optimised BRT scheme not as an outright alternative option.
Similarly, buses with improved configurations for boarding and alighting make an incremental
improvement to service and are not considered to be enough of a ‘step change’ to be
considered as a true alternative for access to the CBD. This type of improvement would be
consistent across all bus options and would not differentiate between bus options.
These items are considered to be incremental improvements that would be consistent across
the sub options and not act as a differentiator so do not need to be included in the long list
options to inform this stage of the evaluation. Higher capacity buses for BRT options have
been discussed earlier in the development of those options.
8. Other workshop considerations
The possibility of including south–west train services as part of any bus option was raised.
This would provide additional capacity on the western line, allowing more passengers to come
from Western line stations. In turn, this would allow more passengers from this line to reach
Britomart. Currently there are large number of passengers on the Western line alighting in
Grafton and Newmarket, meaning that Western Line trains arrive at Britomart well under
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 30
capacity. By providing South – West (and vice versa) train services, passengers heading not
heading for the CBD could use these trains, freeing up space on the Britomart bound trains.
While the inclusion of these services does not increase the number of trains that can use
Britomart, it has the potential to allow the Western line trains to operate more effectively and
allow more passengers to access Britomart and hence enter the CBD.
This is an interesting operational change and whilst it may require more rolling stock, no
significant infrastructure would be required. Given that they are constrained to the rail
network, these services could be included in all the bus options and as such are not a
differentiator at the long list stage. They will however be included in the short listed bus
options for the short list assessment if they are deemed feasible.
MoT to report whether this operation is feasible on the current rail network following
confirmation from KiwiRail.

9. Options summary
Underground rail:
Option CRL: Use the CRL option currently being confirmed by AT.
Surface bus:
Best use of existing infrastructure
Option 1a – services split throughout the CBD
Option 1b – increase demand on Symonds Street, less on Queen Street
Enhanced bus operation
Option 2a – dedicated bus on Albert Street
Option 2b – dedicated bus on Hobson Street
Option 2c – dedicated bus on Queen Street
Option 2d – one way bus circulation (Albert – Customs – Symonds – K Rd)
Option 2e – two way bus circulation (Albert – Customs – Symonds – K Rd)
Option 2f – dedicated CBD bus loop using a ‘figure 8’ operation
Bus rapid transit (BRT) – with and without BRT approaches
Option 3az: Hobson / Fanshawe
Option 3ax: Hobson / Victoria
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 31
Option 3ay: Hobson / Wellesley
Option 3bz: Albert / Fanshawe
Option 3bx: Albert / Victoria
Option 3by: Albert / Wellesley
Option 3cz: Queen / Fanshawe
Option 3cx: Queen / Victoria
Option 3cy: Queen / Wellesley
Option 3dz: Symonds / Fanshawe
Option 3dx: Symonds / Victoria
Option 3dy: Symonds / Wellesley
Elevated BRT
Option 3e – Elevated BRT
Underground bus: (with and without BRT approaches)
Option 4a – Victoria Park to Grafton
Option 4b – CRL alignment
Option 4c – Wellesley Street
Option 4d – CRL alignment and Wellesley Street
Other options:
Light rail
Option 5a – Albert Street / Vincent Street
Option 5b – Queen Street
Option 5c – Light rail network
PRT
Option 5d – PRT
Elevated rail
Option 5e – Elevated rail
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 32
10. High level cost estimates
To inform the assessment of the long list options, some very high level cost estimates have
been developed for the options using existing information and indicative rates for costing.
In preparing these cost estimates, five main sources have been used:
„ Auckland Plan projects list
„ APB&B Business Case cost estimate
„ Bus tunnelling advice from within SKM Australia
„ Light rail costs from Australia, based on recent projects. However, light rail costs vary
significantly as evidence by literature and case studies detailed on the internet.
„ Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 118 – Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s
Guide, 2007, Transportation Research Board. (TCRPR 118)

The Auckland Plan projects list gives the indicative costs for a busway at $45M / km and
$10M / km for dedicated bus lanes. TCRRP 118 gives an indicative estimate of an elevated
busway structure of approximately $70M / km when the values in the report are converted to
NZD and updated from 2007.
The APB&B Business Case has been used to determine an indicative cost for an underground
station at approximately $150M. The Business Case estimate was also used to populate
preliminary and general costs (22% of capital cost), overheads and profit (15% of physical
works), design, planning, client and management costs (15.4%), contingency (17% of base
estimate) and funding risk (20% of expected estimate).
BRT station costs were developed from the Northern Busway, though to a smaller scale and
without large park and ride facilities, an indicative cost of $10M has been used.
Indicative costs for driven bus tunnels less than 2km long are taken to be $200M / km. This
assumes two lanes and an escape path and that good ground conditions present and jet fans are
used for ventilation. For driven tunnels longer than 2km, additional ventilation treatment is
required and this can be in the order of an additional 10-15%; $260M / km has been assumed.
For cut and cover tunnels, the indicative cost of $150M / km has been assumed. This is the
way in which the BRT intersection underpasses have been estimated, with an assumed length
of 150m (accounting for both approaches to lower the elevation and the actual distance under
the intersection).
Light rail costs were identified as varying considerably from $20 - $200M / km. Some recent
projects in Australia have been used as a basis and these indicate that AUD$35-$40M/km
could be used to provide an indicative cost. A NZD$50M / km rate has been used to provide an
estimate at the long list stage.
PRT costs have been initially estimated at 2/3 that of the indicative cost of light rail. We are
currently awaiting additional information to provide confidence in this high level estimate.
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 33
For minor works (new signals, upgraded paint markings etc), an arbitrary value of $1M per
intersection has been used to indicate that some cost would be incurred, but not requiring
major infrastructure.
A summary of the indicative costs used to develop the high level cost estimates is provided in
Table 10-3
„ Table 10-1 Indicative cost summary
Item Unit cost ($M) Source
Busway $45 /km Auckland Plan projects
Dedicated bus lanes $10M / km Auckland Plan projects
Elevated busway $70M / km TCRRP 118
Underground stations $150M / station APB&B Business Case
BRT stations $10M / station Northern busway (reduced)
Driven tunnel (<2km) $200M / km SKM Australia
Driven tunnel (>2km) $260M / km SKM Australia
Cut and cover tunnel $150M / km SKM Australia
Light rail $50M / km Recent Australian projects
PRT $30M / km Awaiting additional information
Minor intersection works $1 M / intersection Assumed
Preliminary and general costs 22% of physical works APB&B Business Case
Overheads and profit 15% of physical works (incl
P+G)
APB&B Business Case
Design, planning, client and
management costs
15.4% of physical works (incl
P+G, O+P)
APB&B Business Case
Contingency 17% of base estimate APB&B Business Case
Funding risk 20% of expected estimate APB&B Business Case

Note that these indicative costs have been developed using very approximate costings to
provide an indication of the likely scale of cost, rather than an absolute estimate. For example,
weather an option more likely to be $10M or $100M. As such, they have not been reviewed in
detail and should be viewed an indicator only.
The costs for each sub group of options are shown in the following sections.
10.1 Surface bus options
„ Table 10-2 Surface bus option cost estimates (without BRT approaches)
Option (without BRT approach treatment) High level cost estimate ($M)
Option 1a: services split throughout the CBD <$10M
Option 1b: increase demand on Symonds Street, less on
Queen Street
<$10M
Option 2a: dedicated bus on Albert Street $200M
Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 34
Option (without BRT approach treatment) High level cost estimate ($M)
Option 2b: dedicated bus on Hobson Street $200M
Option 2c: dedicated bus on Queen Street $150M
Option 2d: one way bus circulation (Albert – Customs –
Symonds – Karangahape)
$150M
Option 2e: two way bus circulation (Albert – Customs –
Symonds – Karangahape)
$300M
Option 2f: dedicated CBD bus loop using a ‘figure 8’
operation
$200M
Option 3az: Hobson / Fanshawe $1,100M
Option 3ax: Hobson / Victoria $1,300M
Option 3ay: Hobson / Wellesley $1,100M
Option 3bz: Albert / Fanshawe $1,200M
Option 3bx: Albert / Victoria $1,400M
Option 3by: Albert / Wellesley $1,200M
Option 3cz: Queen / Fanshawe $1,200M
Option 3cx: Queen / Victoria $1,400M
Option 3cy: Queen / Wellesley $1,200M
Option 3dz: Symonds / Fanshawe $1,050M
Option 3dx: Symonds / Victoria $1,250M
Option 3dy: Symonds / Wellesley $1,050M

„ Table 10-3 Surface bus options (with BRT approaches)
Option (with BRT approach treatment) High level cost estimate ($M)
Option 3az: Hobson / Fanshawe $2,600M
Option 3ax: Hobson / Victoria $2,750M
Option 3ay: Hobson / Wellesley $2,550M
Option 3bz: Albert / Fanshawe $2,600M
Option 3bx: Albert / Victoria $2,800M
Option 3by: Albert / Wellesley $2,600M
Option 3cz: Queen / Fanshawe $2,600M
Option 3cx: Queen / Victoria $2,800M
Option 3cy: Queen / Wellesley $2,650M
Option 3dz: Symonds / Fanshawe $2,500M
Option 3dx: Symonds / Victoria $2,700M
Option 3dy: Symonds / Wellesley $2,500M
Option 3e: Elevated BRT $2,800M


Long List Options Working Paper
31 May 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Options Development WPv3.docx PAGE 35
10.2 Underground bus options
„ Table 10-4 Underground bus cost estimates (without BRT approaches)
Option (without BRT approach treatment) High level cost estimate ($M)
Option 4a: Victoria Park to Grafton $2,550M
Option 4b: CRL alignment $2,250M
Option 4c: Wellesley St $1,850M
Option 4d: CRL alignment and Wellesley St $3,500M

„ Table 10-5 Underground bus cost estimates (with BRT approaches)
Option (with BRT approach treatment) High level cost estimate ($M)
Option 4a: Victoria Park to Grafton $3,700M
Option 4b: CRL alignment $3,400M
Option 4c: Wellesley St $2,950M
Option 4d: CRL alignment and Wellesley St $4,600M

10.3 Other options
„ Table 10-6 Other option cost estimates
Option High level cost estimate ($M)
Option 5a: Light rail shuttle - Albert / Vincent $700M
Option 5b: Light rail shuttle - Queen $700M
Option 5c: Light rail network $3,050M
Option 5d: PRT $750M
Option 5e: Elevated Rail $1,800M

11. Next steps
The next steps in the study are:
„ Confirmation of assumptions (currently awaiting feedback);
„ Confirmation of the modelling approach;
„ Finalise the long list options, providing detail as required; and
„ Long list option assessment.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Appendices

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 206
Appendix E Long list options evaluation working
paper











Working Paper

Date 30 August 2012
Project No ZB01280
Subject Long List Options Evaluation


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Evaluation WPv1.docx PAGE 1
1. Introduction
Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) has been appointed by Auckland Transport (AT) to undertake the
City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS). This working paper details the evaluation of the
options that have been assessed at the long list stage.
2. Long list option evaluation workshops
The first long list evaluation workshop was held on 22 June 2012 at the SKM offices in
Auckland. The aim of the workshop was to evaluate the options using the agreed evaluation
framework with the focus being on the differentiation between the options using qualitative
measures. As part of the workshop, additional information that would assist in informing the
overall evaluation was identified as being extremely beneficial before progressing the
evaluation any further. This related to developing quantifiable measures which would revise
the evaluation approach to include both quantitative and qualitative assessments.
During the following 8 weeks, the reference case was modelled in ART3 and a number of the
outputs from the modelling were used in developing the measures that would assist in
informing the evaluation of the long list options. These measures were worked through
collaboratively with AT, Ministry of Transport (MoT) and NZTA before being presented and
discussed at a workshop on 29 August 2012 with the wider stakeholder group.
Representatives from the following organisations attended the workshops:
„ Auckland Transport
„ Ministry of Transport
„ Treasury
„ Auckland Council
„ NZTA
„ SKM
The outcomes of the final workshop are discussed later in this working paper.
3. Evaluation measures
The 2041 reference case AM peak from ART3 was used to prepare the measures that were
used in the long list evaluation. The metrics used to inform the measures consisted of the
following and were split by mode, being bus, train and private vehicle:
„ Travel time
„ Travel distance
Long List Evaluation Working Paper
28 August 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Evaluation WPv1.docx PAGE 2
„ Demand

3.1 Time and distance
In vehicle travel time and distance by mode were extracted on the key corridors to the city
centre shown in Figure 3-1. This enabled average speed to be calculated along those routes.
„ Figure 3-1 Key corridors to the CBD

To the CBD from:
„ Takapuna, over the AHB (zone 108)
„ Pt Chevalier via Herne Bay (zone 240)
„ Pt Chevalier (from Mt Albert Rd) via Great North Road (zone 241)
„ Mt Albert (from Mt Albert Rd) via New North Road (zone 249)
„ Sandringham (from Mt Albert Rd) via Sandringham Road then New North Road (zone
269)
„ Mt Roskill (from Mt Albert Rd) via Dominion Road (zone 273)
„ Three Kings (from Mt Albert Rd) via Mt Eden Road (zone 282)
Long List Evaluation Working Paper
28 August 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Evaluation WPv1.docx PAGE 3
„ Royal Oak via Manukau Road then Newmarket (zone 286)
„ Ellerslie / Penrose via Great South Road then Newmarket (zone 298)
„ Remuera via Remuera Road then Newmarket (zone 237)
„ Mission Bay via Tamaki Drive (zone 309)
„ The three train lines (West from Kingsland, South from Greenlane, East from
Meadowbank)

3.2 Demands
Demands, by mode, were extracted from key zones to the city centre (as noted above), but
specifically at the points identified in Figure 3-2. The city centre screenline used in ART3 is
indicated by the red line and demands (by mode) crossing this were also extracted to determine
total demand for travel to the city centre.
„ Figure 3-2 Key demand points


Key ‘outer’ points
Long List Evaluation Working Paper
28 August 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Evaluation WPv1.docx PAGE 4
3.3 Aggregated outputs
Aggregated demands and travel time by mode from different sectors of Auckland to sectors of
the city were also gathered. Four wider Auckland sectors were used, as shown in Figure 3-3, in
line with the previous TLAs:
„ North (North Shore and Rodney)
„ South (Manukau, Papakura and Franklin)
„ West (Waitakere)
„ Central (Auckland City)

„ Figure 3-3 Auckland sectors


In order to better understand the travel demands by destination, the city centre was split into
the relevant ART3 zones, as shown in Figure 3-4. Note that the Port, Zone 194, was excluded
from the analysis.

West
North
South
Central
Long List Evaluation Working Paper
28 August 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Evaluation WPv1.docx PAGE 5
„ Figure 3-4 City centre ART3 zones


4. Revised evaluation process
4.1 Preparing quantitative assessment
For each of the 46 options, the potential impacts on travel time and patronage were estimated
using the measures extracted from the ART3 reference case described above. This involved
making a large number of assumptions which are listed below. The different operation of the
options meant that certain assumptions were applicable to certain options and not all had an
impact or were incorporated into the evaluation of a particular option.
Assumptions for quantifying the impacts of each option included:
„ Travel speeds (with and without the option);
„ Average signalised intersection delay;
Long List Evaluation Working Paper
28 August 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Evaluation WPv1.docx PAGE 6
„ Mode split from areas where mode choice is viable based on existing data;
„ Portion of routes from the common origin (identified in Section 3.3) that would use the
option;
„ Portion of the option route over which passengers would realise benefit. For example,
along the Wellesley Street corridor, buses would be largely empty beyond Aotea;
„ Number of intersections that would be affected through removal, separation or avoidance;
„ Travel distance changes caused by implementing the option; and
„ Impacts on demand through travel improvements, using an elasticity for public transport
travel demand and travel time (0.3 from WebTag, UK).
For the quantitative assessment, the effect on both public transport and general traffic users
were incorporated. A constant level of demand, as generated by the ART3 reference case, was
used for simplicity and was considered appropriate for the level of assessment that was
undertaken.
Once the assessment case for each option had been developed, a simplified matrix approach
was adopted to determine an indication of the monetised effect of each option. An example of
the matrix approach used is shown in Figure 4-1.
„ Figure 4-1 Matrix calculation example

The difference in the total travel time for each option compared to the reference case was used
with an EEM value of time to obtain a dollar value. This was annualised using the
annualisation factors from the previous business to get an annual value for the indicative
benefits of each option.
Long List Evaluation Working Paper
28 August 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Evaluation WPv1.docx PAGE 7
With each option now having an annual benefit based on travel time alone, it could be
compared to the high level cost estimate for each option to provide an indication of the relative
performance of each option.
4.2 Option assessment
The 46 options were grouped into five sub categories being:
„ Option 1: Best use of existing infrastructure (surface bus options);
„ Option 2: Enhanced bus operation (surface bus options);
„ Option 3: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) (surface bus options);
„ Option 4: Underground bus; and
„ Option 5: Other options.

Through feedback from the initial workshop, it was agreed that it was extremely difficult to
assess the options against each other comprehensively against the reference case due to the
limited granularity offered by the five point evaluation scale (++ to --) and the vastly different
nature of the options.
The revised approach saw each sub category assessed individually using one of the options
within the category as the benchmark. This meant that better granularity would be achieved as
both ++’s and --‘s would be more applicable.
The evaluation of each category is discussed in the following sections.
4.2.1 Option 1: Best use of existing infrastructure
Through the work carried out in preparing the deficiency analysis, it was shown that was not a
true or feasible option for addressing city centre access problems. The quantitative assessment
showed it would achieve almost no benefit over the reference case.
The recommendation was that this group of options were not considered any further.
4.2.2 Option 2: Enhanced bus operation
Six different options existed in this category, further categorised into two groups:
„ Three options involving on street solutions with high bus priority
„ Three options using a form of ‘bus loop circulation’ in their operation

The quantitative assessment quickly identified the poor performance of the ‘bus loop’ options
(options 2d, 2e and 2f). They had significant implications for general traffic and would not
adequately cater for the volumes of buses required to service forecast demands. The
quantitative summary table for this category is shown in Table 4-1.
Long List Evaluation Working Paper
28 August 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Evaluation WPv1.docx PAGE 8
„ Table 4-1 Option 2 quantitative summary

Of the three remaining options (options 2a, 2b and 2c), Hobson Street was excluded due to the
high impact on general traffic (motorway access) and relative poor performance. At the high
level at which the quantitative measures were developed, it was considered that there was a
relatively minor difference between having the focus on Albert Street or Queen Street.
For the qualitative assessment, Option 2a was used as the benchmark and the critical
differentiator was identified within economic performance and environmental and amenity
impacts. The use of Queen Street in Option 2c as a dedicated bus corridor detracted
significantly from both a city centre economic and amenity perspective, resulting in it having a
slightly negative score. This option also went against the objectives of the Auckland Plan and
CCMP and would both sever the city centre and dramatically reduce the amenity of the heart
of the city. A summary of the qualitative comparison is shown in Table 4-2.
„ Table 4-2 Option 2 qualitative summary

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

4.2.3 Option 3: BRT
For the BRT options through the city centre, both a north-south and east-west corridor were
identified as being required which led to 12 different combinations for this sub category.
Intersections along each corridor would be grade separated allowing buses to have unimpeded
travel through the city centre via the network of bus lanes and off lane bus stops.
Long List Evaluation Working Paper
28 August 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Evaluation WPv1.docx PAGE 9
The quantitative summary of the Option 3 assessment is shown in Table 4-3.
„ Table 4-3 Option 3 quantitative summary

Those corridors using Hobson and Fanshawe Streets perform much worse than others, largely
due to the impacts on general traffic on these vital corridors. For the remaining six options,
there is relatively little meaningful difference that can be established from the high level
quantitative assessment, though Wellesley Street appears more favourable than Victoria Street,
mainly due to the lower cost and easier construction through that corridor.
Moving to the qualitative assessment, the combination of Symonds and Victoria Streets as the
north-south and east-west corridors respectively were the benchmark for the comparison. The
summary of the qualitative assessment is shown in Table 4-4.
„ Table 4-4 Option 3 qualitative summary

Building on the quantitative indication, Wellesley Street is clearly preferable to Victoria Street
for the east-west route. As was identified in the Option 2 assessment, Queen Street is the least
preferred north-south corridor due mainly to the amenity impacts and objectives of the
Auckland Plan and CCMP. There appears to be little to separate Albert Street or Symonds
Streets as the north-south corridor from either form of assessment, though it is the indicative
higher cost of Albert Street which brings Symonds Street back into contention.
Long List Evaluation Working Paper
28 August 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Evaluation WPv1.docx PAGE 10
The deficiency analysis highlighted that the southern part of Symonds St would require some
form of improvement under any scenario and this section would be improved under the
Wellesley Street corridor. Albert Street fits better strategically with forecast bus operations and
maintains the ability to keep multiple access points for buses to the city centre rather than
focussing virtually all buses onto Symonds Street which would introduce significant
operational issues.
The outcome of the assessment of Option3 is that Option 3by (Albert and Wellesley) is the
preferred sub-option for BRT in the city centre.
However, in further development and assessment of the BRT options, a number of physical
constraints were identified and assessed:
„ City centre block length: 200-250m maximum
„ Max grade for bus ramps to the underpass: 5%
„ Vertical change required for clearance: 6m minimum
„ Horizontal length required: 120m
„ Transition length required (each end): 27m
„ Total length required: 174m

This assessment of the physical requirements to achieve the grade separation of the
intersections meant that most of the block length is required to transition from street level to
below street level. This meant that there is insufficient distance to return to the surface for
passengers to board or alight the bus. In order to still maintain the high level of movement
intended by this option, a trench along the entire corridor would be required. This would
represent significant safety, access, service, pedestrian and passenger problems, many of which
would be impossible to mitigate.
The assessment of the physical requirements and constraints of trying to achieve this type of
BRT operation in a challenging city centre environment led to the conclusion that these would
be fatal flaws for this option and therefore any of the Option 3 options should not be
considered further.
4.2.4 Option 4: Underground bus
Four potential tunnel alignments were developed for the long list:
„ Victoria Park to Grafton – similar to the alignment identified in the APB&B business case
„ A north-south tunnel running on the proposed CRL alignment
„ An east-west tunnel running under Wellesley Street and including some surface
improvement on Symonds Street
„ Both the north-south and east-west tunnels

The quantitative summary of the Option 5 assessment is shown in Table 4-5.

Long List Evaluation Working Paper
28 August 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Evaluation WPv1.docx PAGE 11
„ Table 4-5 Option 4 quantitative summary

The tunnel using the CRL alignment clearly performs the worst through its high cost and
relatively low level of benefit which is due to the number of buses that would actually be able
to use the tunnel on this alignment.
The performance of the longer arcing tunnel from Victoria Park to Grafton and the twin
tunnels is indicated as being similar and both have significant cost. The Wellesley Street tunnel
is likely to be significantly cheaper due to its shorter length and performs slightly better.
Moving to the qualitative assessment, the Victoria Park to Grafton tunnel was the benchmark
for the comparison. The summary of the qualitative assessment is shown in Table 4-6
„ Table 4-6 Option 4 qualitative summary

The qualitative assessment reinforces the quantitative assessment and identifies the Wellesley
Street tunnel as being the best alignment. Two tunnels performs well, but the high cost
associated with it is unlikely to be offset by the additional benefits that it would generate.
4.2.5 Option 5: Other options
For the other options to address city centre access, five potential options were identified. They
consisted of:
„ Light rail shuttle using Albert Street or Queen Street from Mt Eden train station
„ Light rail network within the isthmus
„ Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) to the city centre from Mt Eden train station
„ Elevated rail from Britomart through CMJ to Mt Eden station
Long List Evaluation Working Paper
28 August 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Evaluation WPv1.docx PAGE 12

The quantitative summary of the Option 5 assessment is shown in Table 4-7.
„ Table 4-7 Option 5 quantitative summary

The quantitative assessment indicates that the potential benefits from elevated rail, PRT, or a
light rail shuttle option (Mt Eden Station – Britomart) would be relatively modest. Greater
benefits are likely from a more comprehensive light rail network, but this also has significantly
higher cost. The benefit / cost indicator is low for all options, with the light rail network
scoring best and would therefore be the preferred other option based on the quantitative
assessment
Moving to the qualitative assessment, the Albert Street light rail shuttle was the benchmark for
the comparison. The summary of the qualitative assessment is shown in Table 4-8.
„ Table 4-8 Option 4 qualitative summary

The assessment of elevated rail is consistent with the quantitative assessment and it is the
worst performing option overall. It does however have some benefit with regards to city centre
access and is much cheaper than a light rail network. The Albert Street and Queen Street
shuttles performs similarly, but as with the earlier options, the use of Queen Street as a major
transport corridor has a negative impact on amenity in the city centre.
The light rail network and PRT come out similar in the qualitative assessment. However, PRT
really represents a mobility option, rather than one focused on access to the city centre.
Implementing PRT as a means of access to the city centre from a rail station introduces many
problems. Primarily this is related to the large delays and poor level of service in transferring
up to 700 people from a train to 4 person PRT pods which could potentially take up to 30 mins
per train. The reality of trying to facilitate this enforced transfer would be unfeasible.
Long List Evaluation Working Paper
28 August 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Evaluation WPv1.docx PAGE 13
This meant that a light rail network was the preferred ‘other’ option that could be developed
further for the short list. However, as with PRT, there are some constraints with introducing a
new mode which were discussed at the workshop. These included:
„ Bus to light rail interchange is required
„ This interchange is not a capacity problem as it is with PRT
„ Brings another mode of travel into the city centre
„ Takes significant dedicated road space
„ Requires a high level of demand to justify, as a frequent service is required to make it an
attractive option which is not forecast until much closer to 2041.

The last point was the critical consideration in the decision to progress with a light rail network
as an option. It would achieve the overall aim, but it would be extremely difficult to justify and
implement in the short to medium term which is the focus of the CCFAS. It was agreed that no
‘other’ option would warrant further investigation in the context of the CCFAS, but a move to
light rail in certain corridors could be beneficial at some stage in the more distant future.
4.2.6 Regional approaches
Along with the city centre improvements identified in the options that will form the short list,
the deficiency analysis identified four key regional corridors with significant public transport
(bus) demand. These were:
„ Great North Road (from Pt Chevalier) where the majority of West and Norwest Auckland
buses join together and travel to the city centre through Grey Lynn
„ Ellerslie Panmure Highway / Great South Road (from Panmure) where large demand from
East Auckland (Pakuranga, Botany, Howick) travels towards the city centre
„ Dominion Road / Mt Eden Road corridor through the centre of the Auckland isthmus
„ Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB) for bus travel from the North Shore

With the introduction of the Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing in the reference case in
approximately 2031, the AHB is forecast to have a dedicated bus facility, which will
essentially extend the Northern Busway to the city centre and cater for the bulk of the forecast
demand. As such, nothing additional was proposed as part of the options for the CCFAS.
Along the other three corridors, some form of bus priority measure would be warranted
assuming the levels of demand that are forecast.
Implementing a full segregated facility is largely impractical through the intensely urban and
residential corridors identified above, but some provision of dedicated bus lanes and off lane
stops to cater for these volumes would be envisaged to allow efficient access to the city centre.
This would still come at significant cost which is largely attributable to the requirement to
acquire a high number of properties along the corridor.
These approach corridor treatments would be combined with a surface or underground bus
option to make better use of the improvements proposed in the city centre. Since the CCFAS
Long List Evaluation Working Paper
28 August 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Long List Evaluation WPv1.docx PAGE 14
relates to city centre access, these improvements wider out should be considered and in
particular with regard to providing a robust comparison with CRL.
Through additional discussion at the long list workshop, it was agreed to take forward the
surface and underground bus options both with and without these regional approach corridor
treatments.
4.3 Short list option summary
Through the two long list option evaluation workshops and revising the evaluation approach to
incorporate both quantitative and qualitative assessments, the options to take forward to the
short list for more detailed modelling and assessment were agreed by all stakeholders.
4.4 Underground rail
It was agreed that the CRL option being developed by AT will be the underground rail option
that is assessed as part of the short list.
4.5 Surface bus option
It was agreed that Option 2b, which introduces enhanced bus priority on Wellesley Street,
Symonds Street (between Wellesley Street and Grafton Bridge) and Albert / Vincent Streets
would be developed further as the preferred surface bus option for the short list.
A version of this option that includes the regional approach corridors was also agreed to be
incorporated at the short list stage of the study.
4.6 Underground bus option
It was agreed that the underground bus tunnel along the Wellesley Street alignment with
enhanced bus priority on Symonds Street between Wellesley Street and Grafton Bridge along
with surface improvements on Albert / Vincent Streets would be developed further as the
preferred underground bus option for the short list.
A version of this option that includes the regional approach corridors was also agreed to be
incorporated at the short list stage of the study.
4.7 Other option
It was agreed that no ‘other’ option would warrant further investigation in the context of the
CCFAS, but could beneficial at some stage in the more distant future.
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Appendices

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 207
Appendix F Short list options working paper
Working Paper

Date 4 October 2012
Project No ZB01280
Subject Short List Options


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 1
1. Introduction
Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) has been appointed by Auckland Transport (AT) to undertake the
City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS). This working paper details the refinement of the
options that will be assessed at the short list stage.
2. Short list options
Through the long list evaluation procedure to identify the options to take forward to the short
list, options under the following headline transport initiatives have been developed:
„ Underground rail;
„ Surface bus; and
„ Underground bus.

No other option was deemed suitable to take forward to the short list stage.
Each of these options is detailed in the following sections.
3. Underground rail
The intention for the underground rail option is to use the City Rail Link (CRL) option and
supporting bus networks developed by MRC (PTNP 2012). This option is considered to be the
optimal option due to the significant work done by others to develop it. This includes the 2022
version of the PTNP 2012 bus operations when CRL is operational. Auckland Transport has
confirmed that ‘Train Plan 1 (modified October 2012)’ is the correct version of the CRL to be
modelled. The rail network with CRL in place is shown below in Figure 3-1.

Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 2
„ Figure 3-1 CRL train network

4. Surface bus
The surface bus option is based on a high level of bus priority in the city centre, by providing
the following:
„ Dedicated bus lane along the defined bus corridors
„ Off-line bus stops (either indented or in a second bus lane)
„ Three bus bays provided at each stop location (approximately 60-75m required when in
lane or 90-105m required when indented)
„ Skip stop operation in the city centre
„ Dependent bus stop operation at each stop location
„ Fixed timings at signalised intersections to allow buses to travel through on a ‘green
wave’
„ Improved service frequency over the reference case to better cater for forecast demand
„ Use of high capacity (double-decker or articulated) buses on key services
„ This has limitations due to longer boarding and alighting times, longer stop
lengths, infrastructure costs – particularly for articulated buses and height
issues (verandas, overhangs) for double decker buses. Hence large capacity
buses are not a solution, but use on some routes may be warranted at a cost.
„ Optional approach corridor treatments
„ Off board ticketing in the peak hours
„ Integrated ticketing and fares
Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 3

For the purposes of this paper and going forward, the surface bus option which includes
treatment within the city centre only will be referred to as Option SB1. The surface bus option
that treats the city centre and the identified approach corridors will be referred to as Option
SB2.
4.1 Option SB1
Option SB1 provides high levels of bus priority through the city centre. The corridors within
the city centre that are optimised for bus traffic are:
„ southern Symonds Street (Grafton Bridge to Wellesley Street)
„ Wellesley Street
„ Albert Street
„ Fanshawe Street (current bus stops require lengthening)

The use of full time bus lanes with indented bus stops or double bus lanes sees the capacity for
buses on the identified bus corridors increase significantly while the general traffic capacity
decreases. Bus priority and pre-emption at signalised intersections would be implemented to
improve the flow of buses through the city centre. Traffic signal phasing will be on fixed
signal timings for all approaches with the timing determined by the combination of bus travel
and average stop dwell time so that buses in normal operation should get close to a “green
wave” through signalised intersections. Within the city centre, this will have negative impacts
on general traffic particularly on the main general traffic routes of Nelson and Hobson Streets
where they cross the Wellesley Street bus corridor.
Symonds Street, from Grafton Bridge to Wellesley Street is upgraded from existing to provide
a dedicated bus lane with off line or indented stops in both directions to cater for the high bus
demands that access Wellesley Street. The stops on Symonds Street are also rationalised to
allow skip stop operation for buses on different routes. Wellesley Street becomes the major
east-west route, requiring double bus lanes in both directions from Symonds Street to Hobson
Street.
Vincent Street and Albert Street becomes the main north-south bus route with double bus lanes
along the entire length in both directions. Local access is maintained to service the properties
on these streets. A single bus lane runs the length of Queen Street in both directions to cater for
the city link services. This would allow general traffic to still use Queen Street.
The bus routes developed as part of the 2016 version of the PTNP 2012 generally fit well with
Option SB1 and SB2 and no routes have been identified that would benefit significantly from
re-routing. Certain routes have been identified as warranting the use of high capacity (double
decker or articulated) buses as follows:
„ F7 – Onehunga to Takapuna
„ F8 – Mt Eden Road
„ F9A – Dominion Road (from New Lynn)
„ F9B – Dominion Road (from Lynfield)
Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 4
„ F12 – from Pakuranga
„ F18 – Northern Express

It is understood that a number of high capacity buses are to be trialled in 2013 on the Northern
Express with a capacity of approximately 90 passengers. For the purposes of the CCFAS, a
similar bus is envisaged to be implemented on the corridors above; this may be double-decker
buses or articulated buses.

The type of bus lane and speeds on them are assumed to be similar to those in use for the
central connector, typically 4.5m ; higher quality than the narrower types on Dominion Road
for example. Where the bus lanes pass a stop, they narrow to 3.5m to reduce the overall
required road space.
Figure 4-1 indicates the surface bus operation and improvement in the city centre for the AM
period where the focus is on the inbound services.
„ Figure 4-1 Surface bus option (indicating inbound services)

Plus indented bus stops
Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 5

The heaviest bus flows are on the portion of Symonds Street between Grafton Bridge and
Wellesley Street, where the services from Symonds Street and Grafton Bridge come together.
4.1.1 Skip stop operation
In order to cater for these high bus volumes, skip stop operation is required along the Symonds
Street / Wellesley Street corridor. The buses have been identified according to whether they
enter via Grafton Bridge or Symonds Street and their corresponding stops along the corridor
are shown in Figure 4-2.
„ Figure 4-2 Skip stop operation for inbound Symonds St / Wellesley St buses

Whilst it is preferable to have bus stops located after signalised intersections, due to the close
spacing of intersections within the city centre, some of the bus stops are situated before the
intersections. Given the available block lengths and length of kerbside space required for the
bus stops, this is unfortunately unavoidable. The signal pre-emption to allow swift bus
Stops for Symonds Street buses
Stops for Grafton Bridge buses
Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 6
progression through the corridor should mean that significant operational delays can be
avoided or minimized.
4.1.2 Wellesley Street / Symonds Street intersection
The intersection of Wellesley Street and Symonds Street also requires significant works to
reconfigure it to cater for the high bus volumes as well as general traffic to and from the
motorway on Wellesley Street which passes under Symonds Street.
Figure 4-3 shows the indicative arrangement of vehicle flows at and near the intersection.
„ Figure 4-3 Reconfiguration of Symonds Street / Wellesley Street


A single lane in each direction on Wellesley Street is maintained for general traffic with the
following restrictions:
„ No access to Princes Street from Wellesley Street for general traffic
„ As is currently the case, all general traffic on Wellesley Street from Grafton Gully
(passing under Symonds Street) must turn into Mayoral Drive or Kitchener St (single lane
for each destination)
„ No access from Princes Street to Wellesley Street in either direction for general traffic
„ Ramp from Wellesley Street to Symonds Street is widened and made two way for buses
General traffic (from Grafton /
M’way)
General traffic (to Grafton /
M’way)
Bus inbound
Bus outbound
„ Revised intersection operation
„ Inbound buses on new structure (retained
ramp)
„ Realign general traffic
„ No access for general traffic to/from
Princes Street
Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 7
„ Gated bus signals at the intersection of Wellesley / Mayoral / Kitchener are installed to
maintain turning movements and provide safe and efficient movement for buses

The existing ramp up from Wellesley Street to Symonds Street is widened, and made two way
for buses. The intersection at the top is reconfigured to allow all movements and general traffic
access to and from Princes Street is removed. Revisions to the signals at Wellesley / Mayoral /
Kitchener are installed to allow for the bus only movements through the intersection, which
allow the inbound buses to shift to the correct side of Wellesley Street.
Heading away from the city centre, a general traffic lane from Mayoral Drive is maintained in
the centre of the road to allow vehicles to access the motorway ramps in Grafton Gully. A
dedicated kerbside bus lane is provided which allows buses to turn up Princes Street or carry
on up to Symonds Street by reconstructing the kerbs and traffic islands in this area.
Figure 4-4 shows the intended layout for operation under Option SB1 and SB2 with general
traffic indicated by the yellow arrows and bus traffic indicated by the red arrows. Wellesley
Street is approximately 21m wide, so can accommodate the 5-6 required lanes with minimal
works required in this area other than re-marking.
„ Figure 4-4 Revised Wellesley Street

General traffic
Bus traffic
Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 8

4.1.3 Service frequency revisions
Through the work carried out in the deficiency analysis for CCFAS, the majority of the bus
service frequencies were found to be insufficient to cater for the demand on them. This
resulted in most services having unrealistically high patronage.
Through the introduction of the crowding function within APT, the patronage levels are
‘capped’ at the available capacity on each service which presents a more realistic level of
patronage on the buses.
There is scope to increase the reference case frequencies to higher levels to provide more
capacity and hence allow more of that demand onto the services.
However, the critical component to defining the level of service provision is the ability of the
surface streets to cope with the numbers of buses that are provided.
The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (2
nd
Edition) (TCQSM), published by the
Transportation Research Board, USA has been used to inform the upper limit of buses that
could be catered on the city centre streets. Option SB1 and SB2 in the city centre relate to
Type 3 bus stops, where a dedicated overtaking lane for buses is provided at bus stops (either
indented bus stops, or two bus lanes).
A number of assumptions have been made in order to calculate the theoretical number of buses
that could be catered for in the city centre:
„ Three loading areas have been assumed at each stop giving an effective loading area of
2.65 loading areas (80% efficiency)
„ Off-line loading areas are provided at all stops; being either indented which requires a
longer length of kerbside space (90m) or in a separate lane which requires a shorter
kerbside length (60m)
„ Default of 60% for the coefficient of variation in dwell time
„ Default of 10% acceptable failure rate
„ Skip stop impedance factor, f
k
, = 0.88 (using typical arrivals for Type 3 bus lanes)
„ Average dwell time of 30 seconds. With double decker buses assumed on some routes,
certain buses will likely dwell longer, but others will dwell for shorter times.
„ Signalised intersection g/C = 0.45 (default)
„ Default clearance time of 10 seconds

Using Equation 4-6 from the TCQSM, this give a capacity of 35 buses / hour per loading area.
Multiplying this by the effective loading areas (2.65), and skip stop impedance factor (0.88) it
gives a capacity of 82 buses per hour per stop. By operating an alternating skip stop every 2
nd

stop pattern, this gives an approximate capacity of 164 buses / hour / direction.
Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 9
As identified earlier, the busiest point on the city centre streets is Symonds Street between
Grafton Bridge and Wellesley Street, meaning this section of the network will be constrained
to approximately 160 buses / hour / direction.
In order to calculate the service frequencies for Option SB1 and SB2, demands from the
unconstrained reference case (no crowding function) in APT have been used along with the
route plans for the PTNP 2012. This has allowed us to calculate the buses that travel along
various sections of the city centre road network and subsequently define the frequencies for
each individual service that can therefore be accommodated.
The service frequencies and corresponding headways for each service are included in the
attached spreadsheet “Option SB and UB Headways.xlsx”. The resulting numbers of buses on
city streets are shown in Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6.
„ Figure 4-5 Buses on city streets - Option SB1/SB2 - 2021

Note that the 80 inbound buses all travel straight through on Symonds Street, whilst the 70
crossing Grafton Bridge split, with a small number travelling straight onto Karangahape Road.
This leads to the sum of those two routes (150) not equalling the downstream flow on
Symonds Street (140). This is the case in all years and options.
Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 10
„ Figure 4-6 Buses on city streets - Option SB1/SB2 - 2041


4.2 Option SB2
Building on Option SB1, Option SB2 includes treatment to three key approaches to the city
centre as shown in Figure 4-7. They are:
„ Great North Road (from Pt Chevalier)
„ Dominion Road (from SH20 at Mt Roskill)
„ Ellerslie-Panmure Highway and Great South Road (from Panmure)

Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 11
„ Figure 4-7 Identified approach corridors for improvements

A 4.5m wide bus lane is added in both directions on these sections with indented (off-line) bus
stops to allow through buses to pass stopped buses without having to enter congested general
traffic lanes. In addition, at signalised intersections, bus lanes are continued through the
intersection to provide an improved level of service. Left turning vehicles will be permitted to
enter the bus lane 50m from the intersection, in line with current operation so that turning
movements for general traffic are maintained.
Significant widening and property purchase is required along these three corridors to achieve a
high level of bus service, frequency and reliability.
Figure 4-8 to Figure 4-10 highlight the concept on Ellerslie-Panmure Highway with an
indication of the land take required along a short stretch as well as concept cross sections on
the route. This corridor would then carry on through Ellerslie town centre and over the
motorway on a duplicate / new over bridge. From there, Main Highway would be widened
significantly before the route turns onto Great South Road, where localised widening at bus
stop locations would be required.
Through Ellerslie town centre, heritage and consent issues may mean that a lower provision of
service may be all that is possible. This may limit the ability to provide indented bus stops
along this section without demolishing one side of the road. On line bus stops may prove to the
only feasible solution for this section of the corridor. The same issue occurs at the Market
Road shops, though there are more options for widening and redevelopment at this location as
it is not a traditional town centre and the buildings are not of a heritage nature.
Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 12
Two lanes for general traffic are maintained on Ellerslie-Panmure Highway with a single lane
for general traffic on Main Highway.
On Great South Road from Harp of Erin to Greenlane Road, two general traffic lanes are
maintained. From Greenlane Road to Broadway, a single general traffic lane is maintained as
currently exists.
An approximate total of 160 properties are required along this corridor.
The bus lanes along the corridor would be envisaged to operate from 7am – 10pm, with those
through the town centre at Ellerslie being peak operation only (inbound 7am-9am, outbound
4pm-6pm) to allow kerbside parking within the town centre.
„ Figure 4-8 Indicative land impacts (Ellerslie-Panmure Highway)


Existing corridor width, approx 16m
Required corridor width, approx 28-33m
Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 13
„ Figure 4-9 Indicative cross section on EPH

This provides a shared bus / cycle lane of 4.5m width, 3.5m wide traffic lanes, a 2.5m flush
median for turning vehicles and allows for a footpath width of 1.5m which is the minimum
width that could be acceptable.
„ Figure 4-10 Indicative cross section at bus stops on EPH

This cross section provides a 3.5m wide bus stop, a 3.5m shared bus / cycle lane to allow non
stopping buses to pass stopped buses, 3.5m wide traffic lanes and 2.5m wide footpaths to
incorporate the bus shelters. No flush median is provided in the cross section to reduce the
corridor width. This would mean that any turning vehicles in the vicinity of the bus stops will
block the traffic lanes.
Figure 4-11 to Figure 4-13 highlight the concept on Dominion Road with an indication of the
land take required along a short stretch as well as concept cross sections on the route. This
corridor would then carry on through all the local town centres (Mt Roskill, Balmoral and
Valley Road) where heritage and consent issues may mean that a lower provision of service is
all that could be provided, similar to Ellerslie town centre. From there, the route switches to
View Road and then Mt Eden Road, where localised widening at bus stop locations would be
required along with some property purchase and the removal of on street car parking.
Through the town centres at Mt Roskill, Balmoral and Valley Road, indented bus stops are
unlikely to be able to be provided due to constraints on the available road corridor width,
without demolishing one side of the road. In these areas, bus stop locations may be shifted to
wider sections of road. However, in some cases this will not be possible and on line bus stops
may be the only feasible solution.
Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 14
A single lane for general traffic is maintained along the Dominion Road / View Road / Mt
Eden Road route.
An approximate total of 240 properties are required along this corridor.
Bus lanes are envisaged to operate 24 hours to provide a dedicated public transport option on
this congested corridor.
„ Figure 4-11 Indicative land impacts (Dominion Road)



Existing corridor
width, approx 18m
Required corridor width,
approx 22-26m
Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 15
„ Figure 4-12 Indicative cross section on Dominion Road

This provides a shared bus / cycle lane of 4.5m width, 3.5m wide traffic lanes, a 2.5m flush
median for turning vehicles and allows for a footpath width of 1.5m which is the minimum
width that could be acceptable.
„ Figure 4-13 Indicative cross section at bus stops on Dominion Road

This cross section provides a 3.5m wide bus stop, a 3.5m shared bus / cycle lane to allow non
stopping buses to pass stopped buses, 3.5m wide traffic lanes and 2.5m wide footpaths to
incorporate the bus shelters. No flush median is provided in the cross section to reduce the
corridor width. This would mean that any turning vehicles in the vicinity of the bus stops will
block the traffic lanes.
The Great North Road corridor is generally wide enough to accommodate this high level of
bus treatment within the existing road reserve. There may be some localised widening
identified during a detailed design phase that is required along the route. Through the removal
of general traffic lanes and on street car parking, the approach treatment can generally be
accommodated without extensive property purchase.
A single general traffic lane is maintained in each direction along the route, with some small
areas of localised widening including widening and reconfiguring slightly the intersection with
St Lukes Road. Once Karangahape Road is reached, a bus lane is provided with a single
general traffic lane.
The bus lanes in the Great North Road corridor are envisaged to operate from 7am-10pm.
Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 16
5. Underground bus
The underground bus option is based on a high level of bus priority in the city centre, by
providing the following:
„ Dedicated bus tunnel along the defined bus corridors
„ Off-line platforms for bus stations in the tunnel
„ Three bus bays provided at each station location (approximately 90-105m required)
„ Skip stop operation on Symonds Street between Grafton Bridge and the tunnel portal on
Wellesley Street
„ Dependant bus stop operation at each stop location
„ Buses using the tunnel no longer interact with signalised intersections
„ Improved service frequency over the reference case to better cater for forecast demand
„ Use of high capacity (double-decker or articulated) buses on key services
„ Optional approach corridor treatments
„ Off board ticketing in the peak hours
„ Integrated ticketing and fares

For the purposes of this paper and going forward, the underground bus option which includes
treatment within the city centre only will be referred to as Option UB1. The underground bus
option that treats the city centre and the identified approach corridors will be referred to as
Option UB2.
Note that the bus tunnel does not remove all the bus services from Wellesley Street, as some
are still required to use the surface streets due to the capacity constraint within the tunnel itself.
5.1 Option UB1
As with Options SB1 and SB2, Symonds Street, from Grafton Bridge to Wellesley Street is
upgraded to a dedicated bus lane with off line or indented stops in both directions to cater for
the high bus demands that access Wellesley Street. Wellesley Street becomes the major east-
west route, requiring double bus lanes in both directions from Symonds Street to Hobson
Street.
The treatment on Vincent Street and Albert Street is the same as in Options SB1 and SB2 as it
still retains the function of the main north-south bus route through the city centre.
The bus routes developed as part of the 2016 version of the PTNP 2012 generally fit well with
Option UB1 and UB2 and no routes have been identified that would benefit significantly from
re-routing. Certain routes have been identified as warranting the use of high capacity (double
decker or articulated) buses as follows:
„ F7 – Onehunge to Takapuna
„ F8 – Mt Eden Road
„ F9A – Dominion Road (from New Lynn)
„ F9B – Dominion Road (from Lynfield)
Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 17
„ F12 – from Pakuranga
„ F18 – Northern Express

It is understood that high capacity buses are to be trialled in 2013 on the Northern Express with
a capacity of approximately 90 passengers. For the purposes of the CCFAS, a similar bus is
envisaged to be implemented on the corridors above.

Figure 5-1 shows the indicative layout of the Wellesley Street tunnel.
„ Figure 5-1 Option 4f – Wellesley Street tunnel

There would be stations at Aotea (near the intersection of Elliot and Wellesley Streets)
catering for high quality interchanges, on the western side of the city centre near Sale Street
and also one near Wynyard Quarter between Daldy and Halsey Streets. A further station would
link in with the education precinct near the top of Wellesley Street providing access to the
universities.
Bus tunnel station:
High quality interchange:
Tunnel
Single bus lane
Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 18
Symonds Street maintains a dedicated bus lane in each direction between Grafton Bridge and
Wellesley Street to allow buses right of way to the tunnel. The skip stop operation proposed
for Options SB1 and SB2 also applies to this section of the city centre. At the Fanshawe Street
end, buses enter and exit the tunnel to the north of Fanshawe Street between Beaumont and
Halsey Streets.
The tunnel is a single lane in each direction, expanding at the stations to allow buses to stop at
the platform while the ‘through’ lane can still be used for buses travelling through. This makes
the stations effectively two lanes in each direction. At the Aotea (Albert St) interchange there
is the facility for buses to turn around, allowing them to leave via the way that they have
entered.
The services from the 2016 version of the PTNP 2012 that would use the bus tunnel are shown
in Table 5-1.
„ Table 5-1 Bus services using the tunnel
Bus routes in using the tunnel
P10 P11 P16 P28 P32
F9 F9A F9B F10 F10A
F11

5.1.1 Service frequency revisions
Through the work carried out in the deficiency analysis for CCFAS, the majority of the bus
service frequencies were found to be insufficient to cater for the demand on them. This
resulted in most services having unrealistically high patronage.
In order to calculate the service frequencies for Option SB1 and SB2, demands from the
unconstrained reference case (no crowding function) in APT have been used along with the
route plans for the PTNP 2012. This has allowed us to calculate the buses that travel along
various sections of the city centre road network and subsequently define the frequencies for
each individual service that can therefore be accommodated.
The service frequencies and corresponding headways for each service are included in the
attached spreadsheet “Option SB and UB Headways.xlsx”. In 2021, there are approximately
116 buses / hour using the tunnel and this volume increases to 131 buses / hour in 2041.
The buses on city streets and in the tunnel are shown in Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3.
Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 19
„ Figure 5-2 Buses on city streets - Option UB1/UB2 - 2021


Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 20
„ Figure 5-3 Buses on city streets - Option UB1/UB2 - 2041


5.1.2 Bus tunnel operational characteristics (Options UB1 and UB2)
An average speed of 50kph can be assumed for the buses in the tunnel, due to the lack of
interaction with other vehicles, side friction and intersections.
With the buses underground for up to approximately 1800m, ventilation of the tunnel will be
critical, adding to the cost of this option. This mitigates the requirement for large number of
electric or hybrid buses.
5.2 Option UB2
This variant to the underground bus option take Option UB1 and adds the approach treatments
on the regional corridors previously defined for Option SB2.


Short List Options Working Paper
4 October 2012

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01280\DELIVERABLES\Working Papers\Short List Options v3.docx PAGE 21
6. Options summary
Underground rail:
Option CRL: Use the CRL option currently confirmed by AT which includes the October 2012
revision to ‘Train Plan 1’.
Surface bus:
Enhanced bus operation in the city centre
Option SB1 – dedicated bus on Albert and Wellesley Streets
Enhanced bus operation in the city centre with approach corridor treatments
Option SB2 – dedicated bus on Albert and Wellesley Streets with approach corridor treatments
Underground bus:
City centre bus tunnel only
Option UB1 – Wellesley Street tunnel only
City centre bus tunnel with approach corridor treatments
Option UB2 – Wellesley Street tunnel with approach corridor treatments

7. Next steps
The next steps in the process are:
„ Model the expanded shortlist in ART3 and APT for evaluation
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Appendices

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 208
Appendix G Evaluation framework
CCFAS Evaluation Feedback 
Objective Description
CBD Access Increasing the overall level of access to the CBD, while also taking into acount wider network effects
Regional Movement Allowing the wider effects of any transport option to be assessed
Economic 
Performance
Improving the overall economic performance of the Auckland CBD and improving the potential for economic development
Environment and 
Amenity Impacts
Reducing environmental impacts, greenhouse gases, energy use, impacts on amenity
Implementation Assessing the construction, costs and overall implementation of a particular transport option
Health and Safety Reducing the number of crashes, injuries, exposure to harmful emisisons and exposure to harm
Objective Reference Criteria Measure Source Comment
1.01
The extent to which the option increases PT patronage to/from the 
CBD
PT patronage for trips to/from CBD in the 
AM/IP/PM period
Transport model
1.02
The extent to which the option reduces private vehicles to/from the 
CBD
Private vehicle km for trips to/from CBD in the 
AM/IP/PM period
Transport model
1.03 The extent to which the option reduces congestion within the CBD
Congested VKT within the CBD cordon in the 
AM/IP/PM period
Transport model
1.04 The extent to which the option affects PT travel times to/from the CBD
Travel times on key PT routes to/from the CBD 
in the AM/IP/PM period
Transport model
1.05
The extent to which the option affects private vehicle travel times 
to/from the CBD
Travel times on key routes to/from the CBD in 
the AM/IP/PM period
Transport model
1.06 The extent to which the option reduces bus congestion on key routes
Bus km travelled on congested routes in the 
AM/IP/PM period
Transport model
1.07 The extent to which the option reduces in‐vehicle bus crowding Peak period demand and capacity (bus) Transport model Crowding to be incorporated into model
1.08 The extent to which the option reduces in‐vehicle rail crowding Peak period demand and capacity (rail) Transport model Crowding to be incorporated into model
1.09 The extent to which the option adds useful additional capacity
Volume/capacity at key screenlines for PT 
passengers and private vehicles
Transport model
1.10
The extent to which the option contributes to a well connected and 
accessible Auckland (Auckland Plan Objective)
Qaulitative assessment, further input needed 
from Auckland Council
Transport model
2.01
The extent to which the option increases PT patronage on the overall 
network
Total PT patronage in the AM/IP/PM period Transport model
2.02
The extent to which the option reduces private vehicles on the overall 
network
Network wide private vehicle km in the 
AM/IP/PM period
Transport model
2.03 The extent to which the option reduces congestion on the network
Congested VKT on the network in the 
AM/IP/PM period
Transport model
2.04
The extent to which the option integrates with the overall transport 
network planning and delivery beyond the CBD
Qualitative assessment
2.05
The extent to which the option improves the resilience of the 
transport network (eg to natural disasters, changing trends)
Qualitative assessment
3.01
The extent to which the option supports national productivity growth 
by encouraging job location in the CBD
Qualitative assessment (how the option links 
job growth areas in/around the CBD)
3.02
The extent to which the option allows efficient access to employment 
with the CBD
Travel time to/from key residential areas 
to/from the CBD
Transport model
3.03
The extent to which the option contributes to an Auckland of 
prosperity and opportunity (Auckland Plan Objective)
Qualitative assessment, further input needed 
from Auckland Council
3.04
The extent to which the option increases development value within 
the CBD (consistent with Auckland Plan objectives for the City Centre)
Qualitative assessment (potential for increased 
plot density)
3.05
The extent to which the option reduces travel times on the strategic 
freight network
Travel times on defined strategic freight 
network
Transport model
4.01
The extent to which the option removes traffic (thereby improving 
local amenity) of key CBD areas
Number of vehicles on these key roads in CBD Transport model
4.02
The extent to which the option takes up physical space (affecting local 
amenity) in the CBD
Qualitative assessment of physical impacts of 
the option
4.03
The extent to which the option supports high quality residential 
development in the CBD
Qualitative assessment
4.04
The extent to which the option contributes to urban image, street 
quality and vitality
Qualitative assessment
4.05 The extent to which the option reduces greenhouse gas emissions Emitting vehicle VKT on the network Transport model
4.06 The extent to which the option requires land take Qualitative mapping assessment GIS
5.01 The length of time required to construct the option Qualitative assessment
5.02 The difficulty of construction of the option Qualitative assessment
5.03
The degree of ease with which the option could be consented 
(planning requirements)
Qualitative assessment
5.04 The impact of construction on network operations Qualitative assessment
5.05 The ability of the option to be constructed in stages Qualitative assessment
5.06 The ongoing maintenacne and operational costs of the option
Quantitative assessment of the costs at long 
list stage largely based on existing information
6.01 The extent to which the option supports active modes in the CBD
PT patronage to/from CBD and private vehicle 
VKT reduction within the CBD cordon
Transport model
6.02 The extent to which the option improves personal safety in the CBD
Road vehicle VKT in the CBD cordon (ie bus and 
private vehicles on non segregated facilities 
(busway)) (exposure to harm)
Transport model
6.03 The extent to which the option reduces harmful emissions in the CBD Emitting vehicle VKT in the CBD cordon Transport model
Cost 7.01 The capital cost of the option
Quantitative assessment of the costs at long 
list stage largely based on existing information
Economic 
Performance
Environment and 
Amenity Impacts
Health and Safety
Regional Movement
CBD Access 
Implementation
Objective Reference Criteria
Measure
1.01
The extent to which the 
option increases PT patronage 
to the CBD
PT patronage for trips to
CBD in the AMperiod
0
2011 (obs): 35,000
2021: 52,700
2041: 67,600
++
2021: + 4,600 ( + 9%)
2041: + 9,100 (+13%)
Largest ability to cope with growth into the 
future
+
2021: + 4,200 (+8%)
2041: + 6,100 (+9%)
Copes well to 2021, then increase is limited
+
2021: + 4,200 (+8%)
2041: + 6,200 (+9%)
Copes well to 2021, then increase is limited
+
2021: + 2,900 (+6%)
2041: + 4,600 (+7%)
Lower increases compared to SB1, due to 
coverage within city centre
+
2021: + 3,000 (+6%)
2041: + 4,700 (+7%)
Marginally better than UB1, but not significant
1.02
The extent to which the 
option reduces private vehicle 
trips to the CBD
Private vehicle trips to
CBD in the AMperiod
0
2021: 43,500
2041: 47,800
+
2021: ‐ 1,200 (‐3%)
2041: ‐ 2,500 (‐5%)
Largest ability to remove private vehicle trips 
into the future
+
2021: ‐ 1,100 (‐3%)
2041: ‐ 1,700 (‐3%)
Good reduction in private vehicle trips in both 
years
+
2021: ‐ 1,200 (‐3%)
2041: ‐ 1,700 (‐4%)
Good reduction in private vehicle trips in both 
years
+
2021: ‐ 800 (‐2%)
2041: ‐ 1,200 (‐3%)
Modest reduction in private vehicle trips in both 
years
+
2021: ‐ 800 (‐2%)
2041: ‐ 1,200 (‐3%)
Modest reduction in private vehicle trips in both 
years
1.03
The extent to which the 
option reduces congestion 
within the CBD
Congested VKT (LOS E &
F) within the CBD cordon
in the AMperiod
0
2021: 41.2% cong. VKT,  13kph,
5,000hrs q
2041: 44.4% cong. VKT, 11kph,
8,100hrs q
+
2021: 40.6% cong. VKT,  15kph, 3,300hrs q
2041: 43.7% cong. VKT, 13kph, 3,500hrs q
No change in cong. VKT, increase speed,
reduction in queuing
‐‐
2021: 43.4% cong. VKT,  11kph, 7,200hrs q
2041: 48.1% cong. VKT, 10kph, 9,100hrs q
Incr in congestion, reduction in speed and 
increased queuing
‐‐
2021: 43.4% cong. VKT,  11kph, 7,200hrs q
2041: 48.1% cong. VKT, 10kph, 9,100hrs q
Incr in congestion, reduction in speed and 
increased queuing

2021: 38.2%
2041: 49.3%
Sligth reduction 2021, large increase in 
congested VKT in 2041

2021: 40.2%
2041: 48.4%
Sligth reduction 2021, large increase in 
congested VKT in 2041
1.04
The extent to which the 
option affects PT travel times 
to the CBD
Weighted PT travel times 
from sectors to the CBD
in the AMperiod
0 +
North: No effect
West: 7min reduction (12%)
Isthmus: 1‐2min reduction (up to 10%)
South/East: 9min reduction (13%)
++
North: 9min reduction (20%)
West: 5min reduction (8%)
Isthmus: 3‐4min reduction (10%)
South/East: 3‐4min reduction (5%)
++
North: 9min reduction (20%)
West: 5min reduction (8%)
Isthmus: 3‐4min reduction (10%)
South/East: 3‐4min reduction (5%)
++
North: 9min reduction (20%)
West: 2‐3min reduction (5%)
Isthmus: 3‐4min reduction (10%)
South/East: 3‐4min reduction (5%)
++
North: 9min reduction (20%)
West: 2‐3min reduction (5%)
Isthmus: 3‐4min reduction (10%)
South/East: 3‐4min reduction (5%)
1.05
The extent to which the 
option affects private vehicle 
travel times to the CBD
Weighted private vehicle
travel times from sectors 
to the CBD in the AM
period
0 0
ART3 is largely insensitive, by 2041, 2‐5min 
reductions from most origins (up to 10%). No 
effect from North.
SATURN shows slight improvement in speed 
within City Centre ‐ ie no effect on gen. traffic
‐‐
ART3 is largely insensitive, by 2041, 3‐4min 
reductions from North (10‐15%), no effect on 
other origins.
SATURN shows large reduction in speed within 
City Centre ‐ gen. Traffic performance is 
degraded severely through road reallocation.
‐‐
As for SB1. Approaches have no general traffic
effect.

ART3 is largely insensitive, by 2041, 3‐4min 
reductions from North (10‐15%), no effect on 
other origins.
SATURN shows reduction in speed within City 
Centre ‐ gen. Traffic performance is degraded 
through road reallocation, but Wellesley St
remains open. Not as bad as SB1.

As for UB1. Approaches have no general traffic
effect.
1.06
The extent to which the 
option improves journey time 
reliability on public transport
Qualitative assessment 0
Significant improvements to rail
from present due to electrification 
and other network improvements.  
Bus reliability to reduce because of 
additional buses without supporting
infrastructure
++
Significantly improves rail reliability by 
removing the need to trun trains at Britomart or 
reverse trains at Newmarket.
Reduces the number of buses on key routes 
particularly through the CBD where they 
interract
+
Improved bus facilities on Wellersley and Albert
Streets means that buses can pass each other 
reducing conflicts in bus lanes. However, there 
is a higher number of buses in the CBD.
++
As for SB1 however regioal approach 
treatments provide for passing opportunites 
and better level of service
+ Separates Wellersley St buses in bus tunnel. ++
As for SB2 however regioal approach 
treatments provide for passing opportunites 
and better level od service
1.07
The extent to which the 
option reduces in‐vehicle bus 
crowding
Bus passenger kilometres 
travelled on services 
<80% capacity, 80 –
100% capacity and
>100% capacity.  
0
2021: 61% / 17% / 21%
2041: 55% / 13% / 32%
+
2021: 68% / 11% / 21%
2041: 54% / 16% / 30%
Shift to less congested travel in 2021, by 2041,
similar to ref case
+
2021: 66% / 11% / 22%
2041: 55% / 14% / 32%
Shift to less congested travel in 2021, by 2041,
similar to ref case
+
2021: 66% / 12% / 22%
2041: 54% / 15% / 32%
Shift to less congested travel in 2021, by 2041,
similar to ref case
+
2021: 67% / 14% / 19%
2041: 57% / 11% / 31%
Shift to less congested travel in 2021, by 2041,
similar to ref case
+
2021: 67% / 14% / 19%
2041: 57% / 12% / 31%
Shift to less congested travel in 2021, by 2041,
similar to ref case
1.08
The extent to which the 
option reduces in‐vehicle rail 
crowding
Rail passenger kilometres 
travelled on services 
<80% capacity, 80 –
100% capacity, 100 –
120% capacity and
>120% capacity.  
0
2021, no rail is > 80%
2041, 6% of rail is > 80%
+ All rail travel is < 80% v/c in both years 0 Negligible difference in 2041 to the ref case 0 Negligible difference in 2041 to the ref case 0 Negligible difference in 2041 to the ref case 0 Negligible difference in 2041 to the ref case
1.09
The extent to which the 
option adds useful additional 
capacity
Volume/capacity at CBD
screenline for PT and
private vehicles
0 ++
Private veh: slight reduction in 2041.
PT: signif additional rail capacity, 50% incr in rail
demand (v/c reduces). Bus reduction in volume 
and capacity, marginal reduction in bus v/c.
Enables significant expansion as required in 
future
+
Private veh: slight reduction in 2041.
PT: signif redcution in v/c from North Shore. On 
other routes, some slight reduciton in v/c ratio 
due to additonal service. Some routes, no 
change.
Capacity max's out with limited ability to 
expand further
+ As for SB1 +
Private veh: slight reduction in 2041.
PT: signif redcution in v/c from North Shore. On 
other routes, some slight reduciton in v/c ratio 
due to additonal service. Some routes, no 
change.
Capacity max's out with limited ability to 
expand further due to constraints on approach 
to tunnel
+ As for UB1
1.10
The extent to which the 
option contributes to a well 
connected and accessible 
Auckland (Auckland Plan 
Objective)
Qaulitative assessment 0 +
CRL improves access from W and S, small
improvement from Isthmus. Problem remains 
from N, E
+
SB improves access from N, small improvement
from Isthmus. Problem remains from W, S, E
+
SB improves access from N, small improvement
from Isthmus. Problem remains from W, S, E
+
UB improves access from N, small improvement
from Isthmus. Problem remains from W, S, E
+
UB improves access from N, small improvement
from Isthmus. Problem remains from W, S, E
2.01
The extent to which the 
option increases PT patronage 
on the overall network
Total PT patronage in the
AMperiod and passenger‐
km (000's)
0
2021: 90,400
2041: 120,600
2021: 311 (rail), 738 (bus), 38 (ferry)
2041: 485 (rail), 971 (bus), 49 (ferry)
++
2021: + 6,600 (+7%)
2041: + 12,400 (+10%)
Largest ability to cope with growth in PT trips 
into the future on the wider network. Large 
increase in additional trips over ref case. 
2021: 416 (+34% R), 732 (‐1% B), 36 (‐5% F)
2021: 702 (+45% R), 964 (‐1% B), 48 (‐2% F)
Large incr in rail‐pass‐km, small impact on other 
modes
+
2021: + 5,100 (+6%)
2041: + 7,600 (+6%)
Noticeable network wide increases in PT trips. 
Modest increase from 2021 to 2041.
2021: 301 (‐3% R), 823 (+12% B), 34 (‐10% F)
2021: 480 (‐1% R), 1083 (+11% B), 45 (‐8% F)
Approx 12% incr in bus‐pass‐km, small impact
on other modes
+
2021: + 5,200 (+6%)
2041: + 7,700 (+6%)
Noticeable network wide increases in PT trips. 
Modest increase from 2021 to 2041.
2021: 300(‐3% R), 825 (+12% B), 34 (‐11% F)
2021: 479 (‐1% R), 1086 (+12% B), 45 (‐8% F)
Approx 12% incr in bus‐pass‐km, small impact
on other modes
+
2021: + 3,700 (+4%)
2041: + 5,800 (+4%)
Modest network wide increases in PT trips
2021: 304 (‐2% R), 804 (+9% B), 35 (‐9% F)
2021: 482 (0% R), 1061 (+9% B), 46 (‐6% F)
Approx 9% incr in bus‐pass‐km, small impact on 
other modes
+
2021: + 3,800 (+4%)
2041: + 6,000 (+5%)
Modest network wide increases in PT trips
2021: 303 (‐2% R), 806 (+9% B), 35 (‐9% F)
2021: 481 (‐1% R), 1063 (+10% B), 46 (‐7% F)
Approx 10% incr in bus‐pass‐km, small impact
on other modes
Surface Bus Underground Bus Underground Rail Balanced Reference Case
B‐Ref CRL SB1 SB2
Short List Options
CBD Access 
UB1 UB2
City Rail Link Surface Bus, city centre treatment only
Surface Bus, city centre and regional 
approach treatments
Underground Bus, city centre treatment 
only
Underground Bus, city centre and 
regional approach treatments
Balanced Reference Case
Objective Reference Criteria
Measure
Surface Bus Underground Bus Underground Rail Balanced Reference Case
B‐Ref CRL SB1 SB2
Short List Options
UB1 UB2
City Rail Link Surface Bus, city centre treatment only
Surface Bus, city centre and regional 
approach treatments
Underground Bus, city centre treatment 
only
Underground Bus, city centre and 
regional approach treatments
Balanced Reference Case
2.02
The extent to which the 
option reduces private vehicle 
travel on the overall network
Network wide private
vehicle km in the AM
period
0
2021: 5.5M km travelled
2041: 6.7M km travelled
+
2021: 25,000 km reduction (0.5%)
2041: 60,000 km reduction (0.9%)
Largest reduction in 2041 across the network as 
CRL still has capacity to attract passengers from 
car
+
2021: 26,000 km reduction (0.5%)
2041: 37,000 km reduction (0.6%)
+
2021: 26,000 km reduction (0.5%)
2041: 38,000 km reduction (0.6%)
+
2021: 23,000 km reduction (0.4%)
2041: 30,000 km reduction (0.4%)
+
2021: 22,000 km reduction (0.4%)
2041: 31,000 km reduction (0.5%)
2.03
The extent to which the 
option reduces congestion on 
the network
Congested VKT (LOS E &
F) on the network in the
AMperiod
0
2021: 14%
2041: 21%
+
Approx 7% reduction in congested VKT by 2041 ‐
congested VKT is 19%
+
Approx 3% reduction in congested VKT by 2041 ‐
congested VKT is 20%
+
Approx 3% reduction in congested VKT by 2041 ‐
congested VKT is 20%
+
Approx 3% reduction in congested VKT by 2041 ‐
congested VKT is 20%
+
Approx 3% reduction in congested VKT by 2041 ‐
congested VKT is 20%
2.04
The extent to which the 
option integrates with the 
overall transport network 
planning and delivery beyond 
the CBD
Qualitative assessment 0 ++
Improves travel flexibility and use of feeder 
buses allows shorter bus trips that are more 
frequent improving service overall.
Enables additional expansion and further 
upgrades into the future (future proofing).
0 No real difference to ref case outside city centre +
Approach treatments improve travel reliability 
and service outside the city centre
0 No real difference to ref case outside city centre +
Approach treatments improve travel reliability 
and service outside the city centre
2.05
The extent to which the 
option improves the resilience 
of the transport network (eg 
to natural disasters, changing 
trends, adjusting to significant 
change)
Qualitative assessment 0 To be removed.? +
Allows flexibility and significant capacity 
improvements to be realised. Builds resilience. 
2 ways to get into the city centre on rail.
0
No real difference to ref case, limited to 
improvements that can be made
0
No real difference to ref case, limited to 
improvements that can be made, aids approach 
travel
0
No real difference to ref case, improves city 
centre movement, but constrained by approach 
capacity and bottlenecks
0
No real difference to ref case, improves city 
centre movement, but constrained by approach 
capacity and bottlenecks
3.01
The extent to which the 
option supports national 
productivity growth by 
encouraging job location in 
the CBD
Qualitative assessment
(how the option links job
growth areas in/around
the CBD)
0 ++
CRL provides the highest level of access to the 
CBD. It also provides the ability to undertake 
master planning to allow development and 
regeneration to occur in a cohesive manner. 
Property developers like to develop near rail
station due to the permanence of the 
infrastructure. Aotea, K Rd and Newton 
regeneration would be catalysed by the 
introduction of permanent rail infrastructure.
0
Less permanent infrastrucutre (tunnels,
stations) associated with a surface bus option 
does not materially differ from the reference
case with regards to both the desire and ability 
to regenerate and develop in a comprehensive 
manner. Whilst the additional access that the 
buses offer is going to increase access over the 
reference case, this alone is unlikely to 
encourage significant job growth and location in 
the CBD, Any increase is most likely to be 
modest when compared to the benefits 
associated with CRL or UB.
0 As for SB1 +
Underground bus tunnel provides some 
additional capacity and through the associated 
planning and development that would occur as 
a result of implementing this infrastructure, a 
certain level of cohesion could be achieved to 
stimulate economic development and 
subsequent job location, but unlikely to be to 
the extent offered by CRL and the multiple 
station locations associated with that.
+ As for UB1
3.02
The extent to which the 
option allows efficient access 
to employment with the CBD
Combination of 1.01 and
1.02
0 + + + + +
3.03
The extent to which the 
option contributes to an 
Auckland of prosperity and 
opportunity (Auckland Plan 
Objective)
Qualitative assessment,
further input needed
from Auckland Council
0 ++
As for 3.01 and by increasing patronage on the 
rail network as a whole, the CRL option will
encourage intensification and TOD style 
development around existing stations on the 
wider network.
0 As for 3.01 ‐
As for SB1, and regional approaches to the city 
could seriously impinge on town centre 
activitives, removing whole shop frontages to 
allow for corridor widenings. For example, at
Ellerslie, where plot structures will not be big
enough to allow for redevelopment on existing
sites.  It is unlikely the same scale of 
development would be able to be provided in 
all locations where this occurs due to available 
land parcels and attractiveness of being located 
on a bus corridor. Comprehensive TOD 
redevelopment plans would be required in 
affected town centres to enable 
redevelopment, although it is possible that the 
same levels of amenity won't be able to be 
provided due to the barrier effect from 
incorporating a wide bus corridor through a 
town centre. 
+ As for 3.01 0
As for UB1, and regional approaches to the city 
could seriously impinge on town centre 
activitives, removing whole shop frontages to 
allow for corridor widenings. For example, at
Ellerslie, where plot structures will not be big
enough to allow for redevelopment on existing
sites.  It is unlikely the same scale of 
development would be able to be provided in 
all locations where this occurs due to available 
land parcels and attractiveness of being located 
on a bus corridor. Comprehensive TOD 
redevelopment plans would be required in 
affected town centres to enable 
redevelopment, although it is possible that the 
same levels of amenity won't be able to be 
provided due to the barrier effect from 
incorporating a wide bus corridor through a 
town centre. 
3.04
The extent to which the 
option increases development 
value within the CBD 
(consistent with Auckland 
Plan objectives for the City 
Centre)
Qualitative assessment
(potential for increased
plot density)
0 ++
As for 3.01 above.
Increases in accessibility will increase land and 
development values will increase as more 
businesses are attracted to the city centre,
particularly around rail stations. Higher values 
can be leveraged further to provide high quality 
mixed use development through 
comprehensive masterplanning.
Development focused around areas identified 
in the Auckland Plan for concentrated growth 
and development.
0
increased access will increase land values, but
less/no redevelopment opportunities provided 
without interchanges/nodes provided in the 
CBD to encourage strategic reinvestment in the 
CBD comapred to CRL or UB. This option offers 
marginal impacts on development value when 
compared to the reference case.
0 As for SB1 + As for 3.01 + As for UB1
Regional Movement
Economic 
Performance
Objective Reference Criteria
Measure
Surface Bus Underground Bus Underground Rail Balanced Reference Case
B‐Ref CRL SB1 SB2
Short List Options
UB1 UB2
City Rail Link Surface Bus, city centre treatment only
Surface Bus, city centre and regional 
approach treatments
Underground Bus, city centre treatment 
only
Underground Bus, city centre and 
regional approach treatments
Balanced Reference Case
3.05
The extent to which the 
option reduces travel times on 
the strategic freight network
Average travel times on
the defined strategic 
freight network into the
CBD in the AMpeak
0 0 No material difference from the reference case 0 No material difference from the reference case 0 No material difference from the reference case 0 No material difference from the reference case 0 No material difference from the reference case
4.02
The extent to which the 
option takes up physical space 
(affecting local amenity) in the 
CBD
Qualitative assessment of 
physical impacts of the
option
0 0
 No additional space required for infrastructure 
other than underground for station locations.  
Land surrounding proposed station locations 
provide the opportunity for intensification of 
activities and improved amenity.  
Masterplanning and redevelopments of K Rd,
Newton and Aotea provides the opportunity to 
incorporate additional public realm 
improvements.
0
Generally within the road reserve, so taking up 
space is more of a reallocation. Double bus 
lanes are provided along the full length 
Wellesley Street.  Symonds Street will have 
some road space reallocated and additional
space taken up by ramps leading to Wellesley 
Street.  Large stop at the Grafton Bridge / 
Symonds St intersection will require removal of 
some buildings. Additional space will be taken 
up by stop furniture and requirements for 
additional kerb space to operate skip stop 
operation.  This will include the removal of 
loading, parking and taxi ranks.  Additional
footway space will be required to 
accommodate passenger waiting as a result of 
the larger number of buses.  There will be some 
reduction in space required at Britomart as a 
result of underground interchange / 
marshalling facility which will return some 
surface space.  Additional space will be 
required at Fanshawe St and University 
Marshalling areas.
0 As for SB1 0
 Land surrounding proposed station locations 
provide the opportunity for intensification of 
activities and improved amenity.  
Masterplanning of station precincts provides 
the opportunity to incorporate additional public
realm improvements.  Symonds Street will have 
road space reallocated and additional space 
taken up by ramps leading to Wellesley Street.  
Large stop at the Grafton Bridge / Symonds St
intersection will require removal of some 
buildings.  Additional space will be taken up by 
stop furniture and requirements for additional
kerb space to operate skip stop operation.  This 
will include the removal of loading, parking and 
taxi ranks.  Additional footway space will be 
required to accommodate passenger waiting as 
a result of the larger number of buses.  There 
will be some reduction in space required at
Britomart as a result of underground 
interchange / marshalling facility which will
return some surface space.  Additional space 
will be required at Fanshawe St and University 
Marshalling areas.
0 As for UB1
4.03
The extent to which the 
option supports high quality 
mixed use development in the 
CBD.
Qualitative assessment 0 ++
Land surrounding proposed station locations 
provide the opportunity for intensification of 
activities and improved amenity.
Intensification of development will encourage a 
proportion of additional residential use,
alongside CBD uses.
It also provides the ability to undertake master 
planning to allow development and 
regeneration to occur in a cohesive manner. 
Aotea, K Rd and Newton regeneration would be 
catalysed by the introduction of permanent rail
infrastructure.
0
Less/no redevelopment opportunities provided 
without interchanges/nodes provided in the 
CBD to encourage strategic reinvestment in the 
CBD. The lack of permanent infrastrucutre 
associated with a surface bus option reduces 
both the desire and ability to regenerate and 
develop in a comprehensive manner. No 
significant different to the reference case.
0 As for SB1 +
Underground bus tunnel provides the 
permanent inrastructure and through the 
associated planning and development that
would occur as a result of implementing this 
infrastructure, a certain level of cohesion could 
be achieved in developing the surrounding
areas, but unlikely to be to the extent offered 
by CRL and the multiple station locations 
associated with that.
+ As for UB1
4.04
The extent to which the 
option contributes to urban 
image, street quality and 
vitality
Qualitative assessment 0 +
In addition to benefits identified above,
underground rail option provides the 
opportunity to improve pedestrian routes,
connectivity and travel times around proposed 
stations from increased footfall. However,
buses will still be required to complement this 
option, in most cases to a similar level as the 
reference case. 
Rail allows increased footfall in CBD without
additional vehicles on street with potentially 
improved streets.

See comments at  4.02
Increased footfall means additional buses on 
the street (congestion), but in an organised 
improved layout compared to Ref Case. 
Increase in pedestrian conflict. 
Large effect during the peak times, but in IP
times, there's essentially no difference between 
any of the options.
‐‐
Town centres along the approach corridors will
be greatly affected, with reduced vitality, and 
urban quality due to the implementation of the 
high volume bus corridors which remove 
parking and increase seperation between the 
two sides. This could be somewhat limited to 
peak times only to partially mitigate this effect.
[Previous proposals that involved removal of 
buildings in existing centres failed.  Resulted in 
designation of dedicated loops behind the main 
commercial centres. Designations were 
uplifted. In relation to Ellerslie Panmure 
Highway ‐ is this an extension of that covered 
by the AMETI designation?]
+
In addition to benefits identified above,
underground bus option provides the 
opportunity to improve pedestrian routes and 
connectivity around proposed stations from 
increased footfall. However, it doesn't remove 
all surface buses and these will still be required 
to complement those in the tunnel, which in 
many cases are similar to the reference case 
outside the Wellesley St corridor.
‐‐ As for SB2
4.05
The extent to which the 
option reduces greenhouse 
gas emissions
CO2 emmissions from 
vehicles on the network
0
2021: 18,120 kg
2041: 13,060 kg
0
Slight reduction (90‐120kg) in both modelled 
years. No material difference.
0
Slight increase (60‐150kg) in both modelled 
years.  No material difference.
0
Slight increase (50‐60kg) in 2021. Negligible 
reduction in 2041. No material difference.
0
Slight reduction (90‐100kg) in 2021, but slight
increase (30kg) in 2041. No material difference.
0
Slight reduction (90kg) in 2021. Negligible 
reduction in 2041. No material difference.
4.06
The extent to which the 
option requires land take
Qualitative mapping 
assessment
0 No land required ‐
Land required initially (210 properties), mainly 
redeveloped

Within the CBD, uses road reserve, but bus 
marshalling areas required at Fanshawe and 
University and improvements at Britomart.
‐‐
As for SB1 and major land requirements (170
properties, on EP Highway, Ellerslie, Great North 
Rd).
‐ As for SB1 ‐‐ As for SB2
Environment and 
Amenity Impacts
Objective Reference Criteria
Measure
Surface Bus Underground Bus Underground Rail Balanced Reference Case
B‐Ref CRL SB1 SB2
Short List Options
UB1 UB2
City Rail Link Surface Bus, city centre treatment only
Surface Bus, city centre and regional 
approach treatments
Underground Bus, city centre treatment 
only
Underground Bus, city centre and 
regional approach treatments
Balanced Reference Case
5.01
The length of time required to 
construct the option
Qualitative assessment 0 No construction reqd ‐‐
5 year overall construction period (taken from 
CRL timeline to 2020 construction) for 3.3kms

Ramp widening / retaining wall works focussed 
at Symonds / Wellesley.  Traffic management,
construction staging and construction areas will
dictate timing.  Short duration construction (12‐
18 months).  Remainder of surface works 
require simple construction. Undergrounding
Britomart longer than surface works, but not in 
the order of 5 years.

Approach treatments can be undertaken in 
parallel with CBD works.  
Approach treatment construction period will be 
substantially longer than works in the CBD.
‐‐
1.7km bus tunnel construction, assumed total 3
year construction period for entire works.  
Traffic management, construction staging and 
construction areas will govern timeframe.
‐‐
Approach treatments can be undertaken in 
parallel with CBD works.
5.02
The difficulty of construction 
of the option
Qualitative assessment 0 No construction reqd ‐‐
Mix of cut and cover and TBM for rail tunnel.  
Stations excavated to significant depth (42m for 
Newton). TBM sourcing (specialist equipment),
property owner interaction (settlement &
vibration monitoring), traffic management
significant for stations & cut and cover.

 Significant traffic management and 
construction staging, with limited construction 
areas for retaining structure at Symonds / 
Wellesley.

As per SB1, with typical road widneing works 
with associated services relations / protection
‐‐
Tunnelling is road header and cut/cover 
combination with excavated stations.  Similar 
complexity to CRL.
‐‐
As per UB1, with typical road widneing works 
with associated services relations / protection
5.03
The degree of ease with which 
the option could be 
consented (planning 
requirements)
Qualitative assessment 0 No construction reqd ‐‐
Tunnel portals and impacts within city centre. 
Notice of requirement to protect the route and 
provide for construction and operation.  
Regional consents likely required dewatering,
stormwater, possible remediation of 
contaminated land, air discharges.
0
Exisitng road space is used, minimal impacts 
outside road reserve
‐‐
Significant land take, heritage buildings, town 
centre impacts ‐ full treatment likley 
unconsentable

Tunnel portals, ventilation within city centre. 
Regional consents likely required dewatering,
stormwater, possible remediation of 
contaminated land, air discharges.
‐‐
Significant land take, heritage buildings, town 
centre impacts ‐ full treatment likley 
unconsentable. Regional consents likely 
required dewatering, stormwater, possible 
remediation of contaminated land, air 
discharges.
5.04
The impact of construction on 
network operations
Qualitative assessment 0 No construction reqd ‐‐
Network operations likely to be mostly affected 
by cut and cover along lower portion of Albert
Street, along with station construction.

Significant network disruption but confined to 
around the Symonds / Wellesley area.  
‐‐
As per SB1 with significant localised network
operation effects around town centre widening ‐
potential for temporary diversion of bus 
services, bus stop locations, scheduling etc
‐‐
Major network effects in city centre with cut
and cover construction affecting Wellesley / 
Victoria / Halsey & Fanshawe.
‐‐
Major network effects in city centreas per UB1
with significant localised town centre effects as 
per SB2
5.05
The ability of the option to be 
constructed in stages
Qualitative assessment 0 No construction reqd ‐‐
Entire tunnel needs to be completed for option 
to be operable
0
Option not reliant on other sections to be 
completed
+
Appraoches could be staged and used as each 
secton is complete.  Not a prerequisite for CBD 
works.
‐‐
Entire tunnel needs to be completed for option 
to be operable.  

Appraoches could be staged and used as each 
secton is complete.  Not a prerequisite for CBD 
works.
5.06
The ongoing maintenacne and 
operational costs of the 
option
Quantitative assessment
of the costs at long list
stage largely based on
existing information
0 ‐‐ NPV $180m ‐ NPV $136m ‐ NPV $134m ‐ NPV $145m ‐ NPV $145m
6.01
The extent to which the 
option supports active modes 
in the CBD
PT patronage to CBD 0
2011 (obs): 35,000
2021: 52,700
2041: 67,600
++
2021: + 4,600 ( + 9%)
2041: + 9,100 (+13%)
Largest ability to cope with growth into the 
future
+
2021: + 4,200 (+8%)
2041: + 6,100 (+9%)
Copes well to 2021, then increase is limited
+
2021: + 4,200 (+8%)
2041: + 6,200 (+9%)
Copes well to 2021, then increase is limited
+
2021: + 2,900 (+6%)
2041: + 4,600 (+7%)
Lower increases compared to SB1, due to 
coverage within city centre
+
2021: + 3,000 (+6%)
2041: + 4,700 (+7%)
Marginally better than UB1, but not significant
6.02
The extent to which the 
option reduces crash 
exposure
Qualitative Assessment 0 0
Similar level of buses to B‐ref in city centre,
trains segregated fully

Segregation of private vehicles and buses, but
no physical segregation for buses and 
pedestrians. More buses than B‐Ref

Segregation of private vehicles and buses, but
no physical segregation for buses and 
pedestrians. More buses than B‐Ref
+
Certain segregation due to tunnel, but more 
buses on approaches, trenches deisgned with 
saftey. Overall benefit from reduciton on 
surface
+
Certain segregation due to tunnel, but more 
buses on approaches, trenches deisgned with 
saftey. Overall benefit from reduciton on 
surface
6.03
The extent to which the 
option reduces harmful 
emissions in the CBD
Volume of harmful air 
quality emiossions in the
CBD.  Qualitative
assessment on PT
0 0
No modelled difference.
More electric trains, similar number of buses in 
the city centre

No modelled difference.
More buses in the city centre, additional
emissions

No modelled difference.
More buses in the city centre, additional
emissions

No modelled difference.
Steep gradients on tunnel approach, open 
trench section, higher emissions on these 
sections

No modelled difference.
Steep gradients on tunnel approach, open 
trench section, higher emissions on these 
sections
Health and Safety
Implementation
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Appendices

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 209
Appendix H Cost estimate
Auckland Transport: City Center Future Access Study
Item Description City Rail Link
Unit Rate Qty Amount Qty Amount Qty Amount Qty Amount
Total A NETT PROJECT PROPERTY COSTS $ 95,000,000 $ 55,000,000 $ 287,000,000 $ 30,000,000 $ 262,000,000
A1 CBD Station at Grade No. 10,000,000 - - - 2 20,000,000 2 20,000,000
A2 CBD Station Underground No. 7,500,000 4 30,000,000 4 30,000,000 - - -
A3 CBD Terminus/Depot at Grade No. 15,000,000 1 15,000,000 1 15,000,000 - - -
A4 CBD Terminus/Depot Underground No. 10,000,000 1 10,000,000 1 10,000,000 1 10,000,000 1 10,000,000
A5 Road Construction Property Take No. 1,000,000 - 232 232,000,000 - 232 232,000,000
Total B INVESTIGATION AND REPORTING $ - % 3.0 $ 35,754,734 $ 42,819,646 $ 8,980,676 $ 16,045,588
Total C DESIGN AND PROJECT DOCUMENTATION $ - % 4.0 $ 47,672,979 $ 57,092,861 $ 11,974,235 $ 21,394,117
Total D CONSTRUCTION $ 1,764,226,553 $ 1,191,824,463 $ 1,427,321,520 $ 299,355,874 $ 534,852,931
D1 MSQA (AT Managed Costs) % 2.5 29,068,889 34,812,720 7,301,363 13,045,193
D2 Tunnel (Mined) m 150,000 480 72,000,000 480 72,000,000 - -
D3 Cut and Cover Tunnel m 175,000 850 148,750,000 850 148,750,000 - - -
D4 Road Construction (Widening) m2 1,500 - 40,500 60,750,000 - 40,500 60,750,000
D5 Road Re-Surfacing Type-1 m2 250 61,420 15,355,000 61,420 15,355,000 61,420 15,355,000 61,420 15,355,000
D6 Road Re-Surfacing Type-2 m2 150 - 262,800 39,420,000 - 262,800 39,420,000
D7 Major Road Intersection No. 250,000 17 4,250,000 37 9,250,000 17 4,250,000 37 9,250,000
D8 Bridge Construction m2 4,000 250 1,000,000 1,250 5,000,000 250 1,000,000 1,250 5,000,000
D9 Station at Grade No. 10,000,000 - - - 2 20,000,000 2 20,000,000
D10 Terminus/Depot at Grade No. 17,500,000 1 17,500,000 1 17,500,000 - - -
D11 Station Underground No. 85,000,000 4 340,000,000 4 340,000,000 - - -
D12 Terminus/Depot Underground No. 140,000,000 1 140,000,000 1 140,000,000 1 140,000,000 1 140,000,000
D13 Bus Stop Type-1 No. 225,000 - 23 5,175,000 - 23 5,175,000
D14 Bus Stop Type-2 No. 400,000 - 14 5,600,000 - 14 5,600,000
D15 Extra Ordinary Construction Costs L.S. 1 20,000,000 50,000,000 1 10,000,000 40,000,000
D16 Design % 8.5 64,502,675 77,248,000 16,201,425 28,946,750
D17 Overheads (P&G) % 26.5 201,096,575 240,832,000 50,510,325 90,245,750
D18 Margin % 13.5 138,301,324 165,628,800 34,737,761 62,065,238
Total E PROJECT BASE ESTIMATE $ 1,859,226,553 $ 1,330,252,176 $ 1,814,234,026 $ 350,310,785 $ 834,292,636
Bus Options Surface Bus Option (SB2) Underground Bus Option (UB1) Underground Bus Option (UB2) Surface Bus Option (SB1)
5/11/2012
Page 1 of 2
i
s
s
u
e
d

f
o
r

r
e
v
i
e
w

5
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
2

r
e
v
3
Auckland Transport: City Center Future Access Study
Item Description City Rail Link
Unit Rate Qty Amount Qty Amount Qty Amount Qty Amount
Bus Options Surface Bus Option (SB2) Underground Bus Option (UB1) Underground Bus Option (UB2) Surface Bus Option (SB1)
F1 Confidence Level-1 Construction + Fees (CRL=P50) 281,773,447 % 22.5 1,187,361,757 267,156,395 1,212,534,748 272,820,318 243,764,969 54,847,118 268,937,960 60,511,041
F2 Confidence Level-2 Construction % 40.0 87,890,419 19,775,344 314,699,279 70,807,338 76,545,816 17,222,809 303,354,676 68,254,802
F3 Confidence Level-3 Property % 33.5 55,000,000 12,375,000 287,000,000 64,575,000 30,000,000 6,750,000 262,000,000 58,950,000
Total F $ 281,773,447 $ 299,306,739 $ 408,202,656 $ 78,819,927 $ 187,715,843
Total G CONTINGENCY P50 $ 2,141,000,000 $ 1,629,558,915 $ 2,222,436,682 $ 429,130,712 $ 1,022,008,479
H1 Confidence Level-1 Construction + Fees (CRL=P95) 662,775,701 % 40.0 1,187,361,757 474,944,703 1,212,534,748 485,013,899 243,764,969 97,505,988 268,937,960 107,575,184
H2 Confidence Level-2 Construction % 72.5 87,890,419 63,720,553 314,699,279 228,156,977 76,545,816 55,495,717 303,354,676 219,932,140
H3 Confidence Level-3 Property % 60.0 55,000,000 33,000,000 287,000,000 172,200,000 30,000,000 18,000,000 262,000,000 157,200,000
Total H $ 662,775,701 $ 571,665,256 $ 885,370,876 $ 171,001,704 $ 484,707,324
Total I CONTINGENCY P95 (Funding Risk) $ 2,522,002,254 $ 1,901,917,432 $ 2,699,604,902 $ 521,312,489 $ 1,318,999,960
Total J ROLLING STOCK (CAPEX) $ 259,000,000 $ 48,000,000 $ 48,000,000 $ 48,000,000 $ 48,000,000
J1 Trains 259,000,000
J2 Buses No. 600,000 80 48,000,000 80 48,000,000 80 48,000,000 80 48,000,000
Total L
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (30 Years at 4%
Discount)
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
L1 Operations
L2 Infrastructure Maintainance
TOTAL P50 $ 2,400,000,000 $ 1,677,558,915 $ 2,270,436,682 $ 477,130,712 $ 1,070,008,479
TOTAL P95 $ 2,781,002,254 $ 1,949,917,432 $ 2,747,604,902 $ 569,312,489 $ 1,366,999,960
5/11/2012
Page 2 of 2
i
s
s
u
e
d

f
o
r

r
e
v
i
e
w

5
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
2

r
e
v
3
STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT Appendices

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 210
Appendix I CCFAS economic analysis working
paper
File Note
Economics Chapter v02.docx SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 1
Date 30 October 2012
Project No ZB01280
Subject CCFAS Economic Analysis

1. CCFAS Benefits
The following benefit streams are captured using model outputs from ART and APT:
„ “Traditional” PT user benefits
„ “Traditional” Private vehicle benefits (travel time, vehicle operating cost and CO
2
)
„ Agglomeration benefits
„ Imperfect competition and Labour Force Participation benefits
These benefit streams are discussed in the following sections.
2. PT user benefits
APT macros held by Auckland Council (AC) have been used to extract benefits to existing and
new PT users utilising the following assumptions:
„ Total generalised cost is used utilising the crowded time used in the APT pivot model.
Note that since the in vehicle time does not actually increase, this perceived increase in
cost in crowded conditions is captured through the use of crowded value of time (rather
than using actual (non crowded) time with an increased value of time.
„ The rule of a half is used to account for changes in benefits due to changes in the
numbers of passengers.
„ The value of time in the APT macro is $10.76. Outputs have been factored by 0.71, an
equivalent of $7.63 in 2011 dollars, consistent with the NZTA EEM.
With the exception of the value of time alteration, these calculations are consistent with
previous CRL assessments.
3. Private vehicle benefits
Previous assessments have incorporated the likely impacts of the decongestion of the road
network due to mode shift to PT assuming a proportion of the benefits to PT users.
The CCFAS assessment utilises outputs from the ART model in terms of time and distance
costs in each scenario. Whilst a reference demand scenario has been fully run in ART, the
mode proportions in the ART models used incorporate trips that are diverted from PT
according to the APT pivot model incorporating a crowding function. These ART models have
not included a full model run, simply an assignment of the diverted trips. Trip purposes for
these diverted trips have been inferred from existing trip purpose proportions in the non-
diverted ART trips.
Outputs from the ART model for the AM peak period in 2021 and 2041 are as follows:
„ Travel time benefits in generalised minutes for HBW (commuting), EB (employers
business), other and HCV person trips. As with the PT benefits, these use the rule of a
half to establish benefits to new as well as existing users. These are converted to 2011
dollars using values of time set out in the EEM.
„ A travel time resource cost correction term in generalised minutes for HBW and other trips
to account for the changes in resource costs (as opposed to the perceived cost changes
captured in the travel time benefits term above).
File Note
Economics Chapter v02.docx SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 2
„ (I
opt
u
opt
-I
ÐM
u
ÐM
)
The resource cost correction term in section A11.12 of the EEM can be rearranged as
follows:
„ I
opt
(u
opt
-R
opt
) - I
ÐM
(u
ÐM
-R
ÐM
) = (I
opt
u
opt
-I
ÐM
u
ÐM
)(1 -
1
1.1S
, )
This uses the fact that the user cost is 1.15 times the resource cost (Table A11.1 in the
EEM). The travel time resource cost correction in generalised minutes is therefore
converted into 2011 dollars by multiplying by the user cost × (1 -
1
1.1S
, )
„ As with the travel time benefits, ART outputs in km are converted to 2011 dollars using
vehicle operating (perceived) costs as set out in the EEM.
„ The vehicle operating resource cost correction in km is converted into 2011 dollars by
multiplying by the user cost × (1 -
1
1.2
, ) in line with Table A11.1 of the EEM
These four benefits streams are summed for the 2021 and 2041 two hour AM peak periods in
line with the ART model periods.
CO
2
benefits are assumed to be 4% of VOC benefits in line with approximations set out in the
EEM.
4. Agglomeration benefits
Agglomeration benefits have been calculated using the methodology set out in Section A11.12
of the EEM. This incorporates the approximation of the GDP per ART zone and the change in
productivity through differences in effective density between the reference case and each
option. These are discussed in turn below.
4.1 GDP per ART zone
There are a number of estimates of the GDP per ART zone for 2011
1
. Data provided by AC
has been used for both GDP and employment. It is of note that the 2011 employment data
provided by AC does not match the 2011 data from the ART model. Two calculation methods
of GDP per employee were generated to develop forecasts of GDP per employee and
consequently per ART zone:
1) Using AC employment and GDP data
2) Using ART employment data and AC GDP data
It was decided to use method 1 to generate GDP per employee data, with GDP per ART zone
then calculated using employment forecasts from ART. Reasons for this decision are provided
below.
The AC data by ANZSIC category was aggregated to ART employment category assuming the
correspondence as shown in Table 4-1.


1
GDP_EC_2011.xlsx
File Note
Economics Chapter v02.docx SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 3
„ Table 4-1 ANZSIC to ART employment category correspondence

This provided GDP, employment and GDP per employee data as shown in Table 4-2.
„ Table 4-2 AC data by ART employment category

Due to quite significant differences in ART employment data for the industrial and business
services categories in particular, applying AC GDP data to ART employment data resulted in
GDPs per employee that we considered unrealistic ($178k per Category 1 (industrial)
employee and $35 per Category 5 (government, defence etc) employee. The final calculated
agglomeration benefits vary by of the order of 5-10% based on how the GDP per employee is
calculated so use of both the AC employment and GDP data is considered appropriate.
The employment data for each ART zone was then used to generate GDP per ART zone,
factored such that the total GDP for Auckland remains consistent with the AC GDP totals for
2011.
ANZSIC Industry ART category
A Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing EMP6
B Mining EMP1
C Manufacturing EMP1
D Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services EMP1
E Construction EMP1
F Wholesale Trade EMP3
G Retail Trade EMP4
H Accommodation and Food Services EMP2
I Transport, Postal and Warehousing EMP1
J Information Media and Telecommunications EMP2
K Financial and Insurance Services EMP2
L Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services EMP2
M Professional, Scientific and Technical Services EMP5
N Administrative and Support Services EMP2
O Public Administration and Safety EMP2
P Education and Training EMP2
Q Health Care and Social Assistance EMP2
R Arts and Recreation Services EMP6
S Other Services EMP6
T Unallocated
Z Total Industry
ART Categories
1 Industrial EMP1
2 Business Services EMP2
3 Wholesale Trade EMP3
4 Retail Trade EMP4
5 Govt, Defence, Medical, Education  EMP5
6 Agricultural, Utilities, Other  EMP6
ART Categories GDP YE Sep 11 Employment
GDP per 
employee
Industrial EMP1 12,226 $                  140,450 87,049 $                 
Business Services EMP2 23,254 $                  274,020 84,861 $                 
Wholesale Trade EMP3 3,851 $                    52,140 73,861 $                 
Retail Trade EMP4 2,537 $                    60,460 41,965 $                 
Govt, Defence, Medical, Education  EMP5 3,948 $                    62,430 63,232 $                 
Agricultural, Utilities, Other  EMP6 1,936 $                    37,610 51,481 $                 
Total 47,752 $                  627,110 76,145 $                 
File Note
Economics Chapter v02.docx SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 4
Future year GDP per employee has been assumed to rise in line with real wage increases
based on data from the last 10 years, approximately 1.0% per year.
This data accounts for differences in employment make up within each ART zone. For
example, ART zones with the same number of employees a higher proportion of industrial
employees would have a higher GDP those with a higher proportion of retail employees. This
data does not however account for current differences in productivity due to location. The
2008 Mare report
2
identifies differences in productivity in Auckland (ex) TAs compared to the
rest of NZ, isolating these differences from employment mix. Data provided in the Mare report
is shown in Table 4-3.
„ Table 4-3 Mare productivity data

With Auckland region found to be 25% more productive per employee than the rest of NZ, the
productivity in each TA within Auckland has been normalised against the Auckland region.
The data in Table 4-3 shows that Auckland City is 12% more productive than Auckland
Region, Manukau’s productivity is consistent with the region, with Waitakere being 76% as
productive as Auckland (comparable with NZ as a whole).
These productivity factors have been applied to ART zones within each TA which results in an
unchanged total GDP for the Auckland Region, but with more of the GDP being focussed in
the productive areas (Auckland City).
The GDP per ART zone which has been used to apply productivity changes as a result of
agglomeration therefore incorporates:
„ GDP per employee based on data provided by AC
„ Employment forecasts from ART
„ Productivity growth in line with historic real increases in wages
„ Existing productivity differentials within the Auckland Region
4.2 Productivity gains
Agglomeration productivity gains are assumed to result from changes in effective density in
line with Section A10.4 of the EEM. An elasticity has been calculated for each ART zone
based on the mix of employment within each ART zone (by ANZSIC)
3
. This results in

2
“Labour productivity in Auckland firms”, David C Maré, Motu Working Paper 08-12, Motu
Economic and Public Policy Research, June 2008
3
AC spreadsheet, GDP.xlsx
TA 
productivity
Compared to AKL 
region
Mare report, compared 
to NZ
Auckland 112% 140%
External 0% 0%
Franklin 88% 110%
Manukau 100% 125%
North Shore 88% 110%
Papakura 88% 110%
Rodney 76% 95%
Waitakere 76% 95%
File Note
Economics Chapter v02.docx SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5
elasticities approximately 25% higher in Auckland City compared to the rest of NZ (or 10%
higher than Auckland as a whole).
The changes in effective density use the following outputs from the ART and APT models.
ART
„ Person demands by purpose (commuting, employer’s business, other and HCV)
„ Time cost (in minutes)
„ Distance in km
„ Toll costs ($)
„ Commuting parking cost ($)
„ Other parking cost ($)
APT
„ Person demands
„ Total crowded cost (in generalised minutes)
4

These outputs are converted to generalised costs by purpose by applying values of time and
distance to convert all output costs into generalised minutes. These are then demand
weighted to get a representative generalised cost for each origin destination pair accounting
for both purpose and mode mix.
In line with Step D in the EEM Section A10.4, the effective density for each origin is then
calculated by summing employment over generalised cost for each destination. As a
sensitivity test, the effective density for each destination has also been calculated.
The ratio of effective densities is then raised to the power of the zone specific elasticity to
generate a relative change in productivity which is then multiplied by the GDP for that origin (or
destination in the case of the sensitivity test).

Darren Fidler
NZ Modelling Leader
Phone: 0210318707
E-mail: dfidler@globalskm.com

4
The “crowded cost” incorporates factors to reflect increased perceived cost incurred by passengers
travelling in crowded conditions.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.