The CFN is a $10 Billion (approx) suite of projects that creates an additional layer on the transport system that is exclusively for the purpose of Public Transport (PT) built over a 17 year period. This system is to be highly integrated with itself and existing PT services creating a viable transport option over the majority of Auckland.
There are two key aspects to the CFN:
- It is grade separated meaning that it is completely separate from the existing transport network and therefore is unable to be impacted by congestion or other disruptions.
- It is high frequency with services being run at 5-10min intervals. It is assumed that the 5min frequency will be used during peak and shoulder peak periods with 10min frequencies off-peak or something similar.
Below is an image of a the Northern Busway which is an example of a grade separated PT link. Typically Rapid Transit Network (RTN) have greatly increased station separation reducing the amount of time spent waiting for other passengers.
 |
| TEARA.GOVT.NZ - 2014 |
Background:
Firstly, the CFN is a joint effort between 3 related lobby groups.
However the actual basis for the CFN is the Auckland Regional Public Transport Plan (ARPTP) which was created by Auckland Transport (AT) a year previously. Sadly AT and the various consultants that put many years of work into developing this plan don't get any recognition but rather ridicule for their work.
"Auckland's current plan is contained in the Integrated Transport Programme. This is both expensive and ineffectual - a road-heavy 'build everything' transport scheme that is currently unfunded."No reasons are given as to why it is ineffectual but the bias against road transport is made apparent in the first sentence.
The two following images show the similarities between the two plans.
 |
| ARPTP - 2013 |
 |
| CFN - 2014 |
Goals and Benefits:
The CFN is said to achieve the following outcomes:
- Higher quality and better functioning city.
- Cheaper and more effective then Integrated Transport Plan (ITP)
- Improved air quality
- Reduced carbon emissions
- Reduced oil dependency
- Improved urban form
- Better public health outcomes
- Maximizes value from existing infrastructure
- Fit into efficient operating models
- Unlock hidden capacity
- Improve quality of place
- Reduce road congestion
From the above list it sounds like an infomercial and one could expect the CFN to cut through boots, clean stains and make nutrient rich super smoothies. In reality most of these benefits are completely unsubstantiated and are simply generic sales terms to make the CFN sound like it's doing more than it is and to differentiate it from the ARPTP from which it was copied. There is no doubt that both the CFN, and therefore the ARPTP, have some great benefits but lets look at the list we have been given first.
Higher quality better functioning city:
This statement could very well be true however the issue is we have no context; what are we comparing things to? what makes the city higher quality, why is the city functioning better? what is the CFN being compared against?
In a way this is like claiming that blue is better than red, why? because it just is.
Cheaper and more effective than the ITP:
Half of this statement is true; the CFN is definitely cheaper than the ITP because it only builds a small fraction of it, however it's not clear as to why it would be more effective. The ITP was not developed because AT had a surplus of cash they wanted to dispose of but rather the city has a range of transport issues that need addressing. It's not possible to remove a series of critical transport projects from the ITP and arrive at a more effective outcome.
Improved air quality, reduced carbon emissions and reduce oil dependency:
The obvious rational behind this is that by having more people use PT will result in fewer cars and therefore fewer emissions and hence improved air quality. Unfortunately, many of the CFN projects will result in additional congestion along the routes which it is built by reducing capacity and rerouting trips along longer paths. By removing various projects from the ITP congestion in the city congestion will only be made worse and journey lengths increased, the CFN will makes things worse in some regards.
We also face the fact that modern cars are now very efficient and clean burning with electric and hydrogen vehicles making their way onto the market, come 2030 you will be able to by 20 year old electric vehicles and the majority of the fleet is likely to have zero emissions.
Improved urban form and improved quality of space:
This benefit really has no basis what so ever, the CFN will do nothing in any way shape or form in terms of creating improved urban form and improved quality of space and in some cases will make it worse, such as along Dominion Road were various communities stand in its way. What governs this is city planning and not the mode of transport. Neither a motorway or a busy railway line are the sort of things you want to sit next to and enjoy a quiet cup of coffee, however both of them can be used to provide access to a lake side or some other idyllic location.
A common claim is that Bitromart precinct is a shinning example of what happens when you build a train station, however the reality is Britomart precinct would be little different be the train station located under it or located 800m down the road at the old train station. The old train station itself is a good example of this; it spent 70 years there including the time when 60% of Aucklanders traveled by PT,with the railway land around it being returned for redevelopment yet it never became a trendy location like Ponsonby.
 |
| NZETC.VICTORIA.AC.NZ - 2014 |
Better public health outcomes:
This is another baseless benefit, active modes of transport such as walking and cycling are known to provide for health benefits but few would believe sitting on a bus or train is healthier than sitting in a car. You could argue that the improved air quality would aid in public health, however as noted above this is not likely to be much of an issue in the future vehicles will have few or zero emissions. The other potential area is that you are required to walk to or from the train stations, but the this is similar to when you drive that you need to walk to and from your car park.
Maximises Value of existing infrastructure:
This benefit is true in respect to the existing rail however in general the CFN does the reverse. For example, rather than keeping the busway it gets closed down and converted to a light rail line. For the existing road network, roads like Dominion Road and Te Irirangi Drive get downsized with their intersection capacities being reduced.
Fit into efficient operating models:
This is a straight sales slogan with no basis or detail to even comment on.
Unlock hidden capacity:
The CFN does increase PT capacity, there is no doubting this. However the term 'unlock hidden capacity' implies that something is being done for free, almost as if we have an entire rail network sitting waiting to go that just needs its power plug connected to a socket. In reality we are adding capacity with the CFN and paying for the privilege of doing so.
Reduce Congestion:
This claim is put in here for one specific reason, and that is to get road users to pay for the PT network, rather than the PT users. This is a common thing in that we all want everything for free, however if the CFN were built and required to fund itself in the same way that roads are you would likely be paying $20 rather than $5 a trip.
In reality the CFN will do nothing to improve congestion and in many cases make it worse, however it is claimed that there will be reduced road congestion and therefore the road users should pay for the CFN through the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF). If the CFN were so successful that it reduced congestion it would negate the need for it to be on its own network as both networks would be congestion free.
With reference to the image below, even with the busway in operation the northern motorway remains congested at peak times. This is great for the bus users but little different to the road users, the CFN will simply replicate this in other locations.
 |
| AT.GOVT.NZ - 2014 |
It may not be expected that the NLTF will pay for 100% of the CFN, however typically local projects such as PT systems are paid for with a 50/50 split, capital expenditure of the CFN's magnitude is well outside of the councils fiscal constraints and so its assumed a 90/10 split or similar is proposed with road users paying the 90% portion.
Summary:
So in conclusion what are the benefits of the CFN, well from my point of view we get the following:
- an improved PT network
- an isolated PT network that operates independently of the road network avoiding delays brought on by congestion and random events such as accidents.
- an integrated PT network that has less reliance on going through the CBD
- increased PT capacity
The net result of the above is that we obtain a greater range of choice in the way we travel to different parts of the city which reduces our reliance on the private car.
Based on the CFN website the grand cost of this whole new grade separated system is $10 Billion, this sounds like a bargain price if ever there was one however how close is it to reality.
For future posts I'll look into a few of the key elements and compare the estimates with the current build price of similar works to see how close to the mark the $10 Billion tag is.
No comments:
Post a Comment