Restoring the North Auckland Line

Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones marks the announcement of funding for the North Auckland Line

The New Zealand government’s decision to invest $94.8 million to improve the rail line between Swanson and Whangarei in Northland underlines the clear vision it has for rail in New Zealand.

Announcing the funding in September, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones described rail as a crucial part of building a modern transport system, connecting people and regions, efficiently moving freight around the country and helping to take trucks off the roads.

However, he added, rail has been left to languish over the decades, receiving only a fraction of the investment needed to deliver an efficient and reliable network.

The North Auckland Line is a prime example of that. It is worn and prone to flooding, and the infrastructure will fall apart in the near future without proper maintenance. As a result, there are speed restrictions on many parts of the line, so trains have to travel slowly, and freight services are too easily stopped by weather events and derailments.

Tunnel 2, the one closest to Helensville, has already had steel ribs installed to ensure it stays safe in the short term. Without this work the North Auckland Line would have had to be closed within one or two years.

A long history
Rail has a long history in Northland. What became the North Auckland Line was built in sections from the 1870s, with the link between Helensville and Whangarei being built progressively between the 1880s and 1920s. The line north of Kauri (north of Whangarei) to Otiria (near Kawakawa) and the Dargaville branch line are currently mothballed.

The line now running between Swanson and Whangarei is approximately 181 km long and includes 13 tunnels, 88 bridges and 950 culverts. Used predominantly to transport freight, trains have carried logs and woodchips, china clay, dairy products, coal, cement, limestone, fertiliser, livestock, and general freight. Commuter services have never proved sustainable in the long term, and now run only between Auckland and Swanson.

In 2000 almost a million tonnes of freight a year was transported in the region by rail, marking the highest point of its popularity. With the move of Whangarei Port to Marsden Point in 2007, however, this dropped away significantly, and had fallen to 300,000 tonnes by 2008.

Other factors affecting usage include the poor condition of the rail line, resulting in slower trains and delays. Now, only 116,000 tonnes of freight is currently carried on the North Auckland Line a year.

KiwiRail runs one freight service to and from Whangarei each week day, carrying processed dairy products from Fonterra’s Kauri plant to MetroPort and on to Port of Tauranga; a small volume of high-value china clay between Whangarei and Metro- Port; and woodchip from Whangarei to Kawerau.

However, even this reduced tonnage is still equivalent to more than 8000 truck trips avoided each year. This means that if the line closed, Northland would see increased congestion, higher road maintenance costs, and higher transport emissions.

The investment announced by Minister Jones will allow us to offer more reliable and timely freight services and work to grow freight volumes, which will give Northland businesses/exporters more options to move their produce, and help take more trucks off the road.

Planned improvements
While this work is about maintaining what is already there, we are also looking at improvements to the line. Principal among them is lowering the existing tunnels so that hi-cube containers – which are an industry standard for export goods – can be carried on the line.

As part of the strengthening work on the tunnels, KiwiRail will be investigating what would be needed to lower the tunnels (to take hi-cube containers) in preparation for this work to be done later. For most of the tunnels, the works are expected to be relatively straightforward, but lowering Tunnel 2, which has been a problem almost from the day it opened, presents some challenging engineering problems to resolve.

The Ministry of Transport has completed the North Auckland Line Business Case for rail in Northland, and an Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy study is underway which will focus on the respective roles, opportunities and options for Northport, Ports of Auckland and Port of Tauranga. An improved and extended North Auckland Line and Marsden Spur could play a key role in that, opening the way for freight to flow to and from Northport by rail.

KiwiRail has held a designation for a 20 km Marsden Point rail spur for several years, and we have investigated the design and potential construction methods for the link, as well as costs and timeframes. However, the government is yet to make a decision on a rail line to the port.

The entrance to Tunnel 2, the Makarau tunnel, north of Helensville – the tunnel is one of the longest on the North Auckland Line

Reinforcing ribs inside Tunnel 2 now support the tunnel lining – KiwiRail has nearly completed the work to strengthen Tunnel 2

Detailed works
The work KiwiRail has currently been funded to undertake on the North Auckland Line includes the following.

Track, sleepers and ballast ($40–$50 million)

Works will target improving track resilience and reducing wear on track and rolling stock. Approximately 30% (54 km) of the network will be either upgraded or replaced, particularly worn areas where there are bends, turnouts and steep grades. This equates to around 80 linear kilometres of new rail. Approximately 80,000 sleepers are expected to be replaced and 50,000 cu m of ballast added.

Replacing five of the 88 bridges on the line ($15–$20 million)

These mostly wooden bridges will be replaced with concrete structures due to their deteriorating structural condition.

Repairs to 13 tunnels ($7–$10 million)

KiwiRail has nearly completed the work to strengthen Tunnel 2, north of Helensville, one of the longest on the North Auckland Line. This has included installing steel ribs to support the tunnel lining in an area of deformation. Work will also be done on the other 12 tunnels, including plaster repairs, crack filling and drainage improvements.

As part of the maintenance work on all the tunnels, below-ground conditions will be investigated in preparation for later work to lower the ground level in the tunnels (to fit the larger, modern hi-cube shipping containers).

Clearing drains and culverts ($7–$10 million)

Trackside drains along the 181 km stretch of line will need to be cleared. A quarter (237) of the 950 culverts (drainage pipes) on the line are in poor condition and will be remediated as required. Maintaining the drains and culverts is crucial for ensuring the stability of the rail line and managing flood waters during weather events. Many have not been looked at for decades.

Culvert and drainage work will protect the track condition, reducing clay and mud build-up in the track ballast, which makes the track more susceptible to movement.

Work stabilising the slopes on nine embankments ($3–$5 million)

This work will include drainage improvements and widening the embankments. There will be ongoing monitoring of the embankments to determine if further civil engineering work is required over the longer term.

Vegetation control along the rail line ($1 million)

In recent years, vegetation clearance has been limited to removing fallen trees and branches from the track. A significant amount of vegetation needs to be cleared from the sides of the track, which will protect the track and rolling stock, as well as improving access to worksites.

Review and make improvements to the Whangarei Rail Yard ($2–$3 million)

Changes will be made to improve safety and make freight handling and storage more efficient. For example, disused track that used to go to Whangarei Port could be removed.

A huge project
We are excited by the changes this will bring to our abilities to offer Northland businesses a better deal. We will be able to lift some of the speed restrictions, reducing the rail freight journey time to Auckland by approximately 1.5 hours. And we will be able to make rail services more resilient and reliable, reducing the number of line outages.

Where possible, KiwiRail will be using Northland-based contractors and sourcing materials from Northland. This will see millions of dollars going into Northland’s economy and help boost the region. If KiwiRail takes on any more permanent staff, we will look to Northland first.

This huge project will be structured into a mix of larger and smaller jobs making up the overall programme of works, and we have taken steps to ensure the local industry is aware of the opportunities, not just for large companies, but also for smallerscale contractors. Recently, in Whangarei, we held a briefing for about 40 contractors about future work opportunities. We have ensured that where possible the work is broken into bite-sized pieces suitable for smaller contractors.

We are delighted that the work is already underway, with the majority of it targeted for completion by September 2020. The investment is the first step in setting up the line to deliver for KiwiRail, for the region and for the country.

David Gordon is KiwiRail’s chief operating officer – capital projects and asset development; he oversees KiwiRail’s strategic capital projects and leads KiwiRail’s collaboration with the government, its agencies and local government on transport policy and investment issues

Auckland one of the worst cities in the world for public transport, road taxes according to new data

Auckland has placed among the worst cities in the world for public transport and road taxes in a new global rankings index.

The meta-analysis also found the cost of parking in New Zealand’s biggest city is comparable to Los Angeles.

According to a new rankings index, it’s worse than Mongolia and Nigeria’s biggest cities. 

A transport expert says there are two key reasons why.

“We need more rapid transit, more busways, more rail lines, more light rail, more of those projects, and cheaper fares in comparison to other options,” said Matt Lowrie from Greater Auckland.

Auckland has the 11th worst public transport, according to the new index, which gave scores based on accessibility, reliability, and affordability.

The best are the ones you’d expect — New York, Singapore, London, and Tokyo.

“You need good public transport so people have more options so people aren’t stuck in a car because every person who’s on a train or bus or ferry is someone who’s not on the road, in your way and causing congestion,” said Lowrie.

Published by an auto retailer, which is part of the French car group that makes Peugeot and Citroen, the research pulled together data from trusted sources like the World Bank, the United Nations, and the OECD.

Auckland Transport says it doesn’t agree with the findings. It pointed to another recent study that ranked Auckland 3rd in the world a measure called urban mobility.

The French rankings found Auckland drivers are out of pocket too – the city ranked as the 8th least affordable in terms of road taxes.

It’s not all bad, though; Aucklanders are apparently comparatively calm drivers – ranked 17th for road rage.

And the air quality was found to be the fourth-best — something that could get even better if more people swap cars for public transport. 

Auckland port move: Review claims ‘omissions and flawed logic’ in plan to relocate to Northland

The case for moving Auckland’s port business to Northland does not fit the criteria of the working group proposing it, says a new analysis.

A review by Auckland Council said it is not satisfied the move option, recommended by the New Zealand First-driven group, justifies the estimated $10 billion of investment needed.

The council review described an economic case advanced by Ernst and Young as “inscrutable”, because it lacked detail on how it found the re-location made sense.

Ports of Auckland continues to invest in its site, with a hydrogen fuel plant and automated straddles
SUPPLIEDPorts of Auckland continues to invest in its site, with a hydrogen fuel plant and automated straddles

The work by the council, which owns Ports of Auckland and the 77 hectares of waterfront land it operates from, is the most detailed criticism yet of the controversial proposal to wind down the port and transfer its business to Marsden Point, perhaps within a decade. 

“The preferred option appears to be an extremely expensive way to relocate jobs to Northland from Auckland,” said the council analysis.

An aerial view of Ports of Auckland from the east
NONEAn aerial view of Ports of Auckland from the east

The council analysis is of the interim report by the Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy working group, released in October along with an economic analysis from EY, of the future options for the ports at Marsden Point, Auckland and Tauranga.

The group, backed by EY’s findings, recommended re-locating Auckland’s port to Northland, reflecting New Zealand First’s 2017 election policy, before getting agreement from Labour in the coalition agreement to conduct the UNISCS study

The final report has just gone to the Government and will be considered by cabinet in December.

New Zealand First MP Shane Jones is driving the case to relocate Auckland's port to Northland
TOM LEE/STUFFNew Zealand First MP Shane Jones is driving the case to relocate Auckland’s port to Northland

Analysis of the interim report by Auckland Council’s chief economist unit and its strategy and research department said the re-location option did not meet the principles which the working group established for itself.

It said instead of “cost efficiency”, costs would rise, “maintaining the level of competition” would not be achieved, and removing a key supply point for Auckland would not “maintain or improve the resilience of the supply chain”.

The review disputed the working group’s conclusion that clearing prime waterfront land would be an economic windfall through higher rates for Auckland Council.

“There is no evidence for this – any new activity on the waterfront will likely displace activity elsewhere in the city,” it said.

The council also said the economic case did not seem to take into account the significant spending before any benefits might flow.

“Investment in Northland required to handle Auckland’s freight volumes would need to be complete and operational before any managed closure (in Auckland).

“This means the net benefit is probably much lower than estimated in the report,” said the council review.

The council said the assessed impacts on employment were inconsistent, suggesting few jobs would be lost in Auckland, but 2000 created in Northland.

“A $10 billion project to relocate 2000 jobs is a very expensive way to relocate jobs (roughly $5 million per job),” said Auckland Council.

It also questioned whether the rail infrastructure that would be needed to run more than 100 freight trains a day through Auckland, as well as the truck traffic generated by a freight hub near Kumeu, had been fully assessed.

Another analysis of the EY economic impact report, seen by Stuff, but with the name of the author not disclosed, believed EY and the group might have over-estimated the net economic benefit of the move by nearly four times.

New Zealand First MP, and Associate Transport Minister Shane Jones who is championing the case to relocate to Northport, said he was aware of the differing views.

“There was always doubt about EY’s work (on the move) – but I just consider that to be part of the consultancy gossip chain,” Jones told Stuff. 

The UNISC working party was chaired by Jones’ friend and Northland neighbour, businessman Wayne Brown, who took part in a television interview on TVNZ’s Q&A on Monday night in which several lines said to be from the final report, still unseen by cabinet, were put to him.

Stuff asked Jones whether the interview was appropriate.

“I don’t think it’s disproportionately unorthodox,” said Jones, who had been informed the interview would take place, but said he had not discussed with Brown what should or should not be said.

“Wayne Brown is someone my leader (Winston Peters) and I regard as an incredibly successful businessman, interested in Northland – but he is his own man,” Jones said.

The Government had made no promises on whether the idea proposed by New Zealand First in 2017 will progress.

“We undertook that we would complete the study, and we will,” Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told Stuff in October.

“I am not going to make commitments beyond receiving the final report because we need to see what evidence has ben compiled, and what the report tells us,” Ardern said.

The conduct of the working group’s study has created tension between it and Auckland Council, with sparring between Brown and Auckland Mayor Phil Goff who favoured the gradual redevelopment of the waterfront, but insisted there would need to be a price negotiated. 

Ernst and Young was approached for comment, but declined.

Stuff

Did KiwiBuild not teach this lot anything?

Duncan Garner 05:00, Nov 16 2019

OPINION: So now Winston Peters and his Government want to move the Ports of Auckland to Whangārei.

Such a small little thing to do that will barely cause much disruption at all. Said no-one ever.

Does anyone have any idea how ginormous this pie-in-the-sky promise really is?

Containers being loaded on to rail wagons at Ports of Auckland. Rail freight is a major part of the proposed expansion of Northport, in Whangārei.
Containers being loaded on to rail wagons at Ports of Auckland. Rail freight is a major part of the proposed expansion of Northport, in Whangārei.

Why? When? Where does the cargo go in the meantime? Has it been done before anywhere in a sane Western nation?

I applaud ambition usually, but this Government doesn’t appear to have a master plan at all. It has a series of massive work plans and ideas whose time may never come.

They being an expert panel who probably have no real idea, but call it a panel and it gets serious. Seriously, with Shane Jones’s wacko performance to farmers and now this out-there port wind-up, no wonder business is rightly nervous.

This port idea is shamelessly the work of Jones and Peters. It’s not just economic nationalism but is regional parochialism at its best – or worst, depending on how the future pans out.

NZ First wants to move Auckland port operations to Northport, in Whangārei.
NORTHPORTNZ First wants to move Auckland port operations to Northport, in Whangārei.

So will the roads be upgraded north of Auckland, and what trains are needed, and how can it be done when we can’t get a passenger rail system to Auckland Airport?

Peters has spoken publicly about the port report like it’s a done deal, and the money will come shortly. But how can this happen so easily if the same Government couldn’t build a few houses for the middle class? Taking the build out of KiwiBuild since election night 2017. 

Also no gain like a capital gain, as in the tax that sunk confidence but never went anywhere. And while we are at it, so much for ETS for farmers, because Labour suddenly froze.

The Whangārei port move is "shamelessly" the work of NZ First deputy Winston Peters and his colleague Shane Jones, writes Duncan Garner.
LAWRENCE SMITH/STUFFThe Whangārei port move is “shamelessly” the work of NZ First deputy Winston Peters and his colleague Shane Jones, writes Duncan Garner.

Anyway, the prime minister would hardly say boo about sinking the ports of Auckland into northern waters for fear of saying the wrong thing.

She hadn’t seen the report, but an hour later Winston was word for word all about it. So why was he all over it and the country’s most high-profile Auckland MP, who happens to be the PM, didn’t know anything. Is it deliberate and, if so, let’s drag her deep and demand answers.

It’s not a Government scared of trying anything and everything. Something has to work soon, if not in education, then health. If those then fail, maybe it’s in tax reform, but we know that answer, so maybe it’s on climate reform. Oh yes, the Zero Carbon Bill. That’ll do it.

Duncan Garner: "I applaud ambition usually, but this Government doesn't appear to have a master plan at all. It has a series of massive work plans and ideas whose time may never come."
SUPPLIEDDuncan Garner: “I applaud ambition usually, but this Government doesn’t appear to have a master plan at all. It has a series of massive work plans and ideas whose time may never come.”

I think this Government is dreaming, even on some of the small stuff. Standards and credibility matter, and they need to get busy, but they need to be believable.

Their eyes are bigger than their stomachs, and I wonder how much voters can digest if it’s a repeat next year.

Stuff

Andrew Dickens: Latest ports proposal is rooted in politics

A leaked report has found that the Ports of Auckland should be moved to Whangarei.

The report details how the freight operation at Ports of Auckland is no longer economically or environmentally viable. It also says that if Auckland and Northport can’t reach a commercial agreement within 12 months, then the Government should introduce new legislation to force the move.

That’s a big call. A really big call.

To recreate a wharf operation 150 kilometres away from where it already exists is going to cost a pretty penny.  It makes dams and tunnels and trains that we’ve built so far look like children’s sandcastles.

To make it work for the next 100 years would require road and rail upgrades in the billions. Wharves and cranes in the billions. Processing and inland ports in the billions.  It would exponentially increase the traffic and congestion between Auckland and Whangarei.

Yet the executive summary tries to suggest it would cost just $10 billion.

Now I understand the capacity constraints the Auckland wharf is under and as the city continues to expand its population that capacity constraint will be exceeded uncomfortably.  But this suggestion seems half-baked.

And considering its implications you have to wonder who decided that this extreme course of action is needed and that if it doesn’t happen then the government has to step into commercial companies and tell them how to run their business.

Well the working group that is making this huge claim is chaired by former Northland Mayor Wayne Brown.  Now Mr Brown is a very skilled technocrat who has produced reports on all sorts of state organisations, and I’m not suggesting that he has cooked this report to suit his region. 

But appearances are important and having a Northland politician advocating that the biggest infrastructural investment in New Zealand should happen in his patch still has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Auckland Chamber of Commerce head Michael Barnett didn’t swallow that this morning on TV either, calling the idea political and not business. And we know politics always ruins and slows our infrastructure which is why our infrastructure is so bad and compromised.

That’s why an Infrastructure Commission has been formed.  It has a chairman in Alan Bollard and announcements shortly will come on how it will operate and what its remit will be.

When it comes to things like moving ports, the thinking needs to be free of any stain of politics whether real or implied. It needs to make sense now, in 10 years’ time, in 50 years’ time and in 100 years’ time. It needs to be made by unbiased experts not local body politicians

This is why I’m not buying this idea at this time.

3000 heavy vehicle certificates revoked in 2019 so far

Three thousand truck and heavy vehicle certifications have been revoked this year, compared to just five in total two years ago.

Stock image of someone inspecting a truck.

New figures show 67 heavy vehicle owners have had low safety risks identified in towing connections since last December. Photo: 123rf.com

The surge began last year when 2000 were revoked and is mostly pegged to the belated detection of poor work by two certifying engineers in Nelson and Auckland, Peter Wastney and Patrick Chu, according to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).

It expected numbers to drop “dramatically” once it finished investigations that had gone on for two years and as it carried on with more rigourous monitoring, NZTA said.

Numbers of heavy vehicle certifications revoked

  • 1 Dec 2018 to present: 3186
  • 1 Dec 2017 to 31 Nov 2018: 2103
  • 1 Dec 2016 to 31 Nov 2017: 5

Other new figures show 67 heavy vehicle owners have had low safety risks identified in towing connections since last December, and been told to get them checked.

Ten light vehicle owners had risks around repairs detected, and half of these certifications were revoked.

And 71,000 vehicle owners were alerted to potential safety risks related to a warrant of fitness issued by a suspended garage.

Sixteen thousand owners were contacted about a product recall over airbag risks.

The agency also elaborated on its investigation of chassis problems with trucks that followed on from the towing connection investigations, saying it told its licensed certifiers to submit files under its earlier regulatory compliance review that ended in mid-2019.

“These files formed the basis of the desktop review that is ongoing, and the basis for certain vehicle inspections, which are ongoing”.

Also, minimum standards for such files were introduced this year, and it was reviewing files to check on that.

Port Nelson getting ready to handle larger ships

31/10/19

Drilling of the seabed in and around Port Nelson is due to begin today, in preparation for the port to handle larger ships.

State Highway 6 at Rocks Rd, near Port Nelson.

State Highway 6 at Rocks Rd, near Port Nelson. Photo: RNZ / Tracy Neal

The port said contractors will be undertaking drilling investigations for geotechnical purposes, at the port’s entrance known as The Cut, and inside the harbour to the port’s northern wharves.

The port company’s environmental officer said the explorative drilling will investigate to a depth of 10 metres, and aimed to provide analysis of the seabed composition.

Kelly Leonard said it was needed before the company planned to dredge areas of the shipping channel, and before work began to extend the port’s main wharf.

Over the last three years the number of containers handled at Port Nelson has grown by over 25 percent, the amount of vessel visits has risen by 7.5 percent, and the size of the ships calling had increased too.

Almost 900 vessels visited the port last year.

Ms Leonard said it needed to prepare for larger vessels and their safe navigation. She said the plan was to dredge three new areas near the current channel, to increase the safety margins for larger vessels and expand the safe operating windows in terms of weather.

The works proposed would include giving vessels a simpler line of approach, as well as increasing the scope for turning vessels inside the lee of Haulashore Island, which offered some protection from the wind, rather than turning them in the area near the wharf, called the “swing basin”.

“In keeping with having the ability to accommodate bigger ships, and tying-in with the purchase of the new tug and redevelopment of Main Wharf North, concepts are now also being drawn up to create a more ideal approach and access to the port,” Ms Leonard said in the port company’s newsletter RePort.

She said the port was currently limited in its capacity to safely bring in larger vessels, and in order to accommodate the requests of shipping lines already calling at Nelson, the port company was currently doing initial scoping ahead of applying for resource consent to do the dredging.

The work that started today was being done by a drill rig attached to a barge, and was expected to operate for up to two weeks, subject to weather conditions

Ms Leonard said if the consent was granted the proposed work would be beneath high water, so there would be no visible changes. That included the areas adjacent to the Boulder Bank and Haulashore Island.

The port entrance known as The Cut separated the naturally formed Boulder Bank from Haulashore Island. The Cut was artificially created in the early 1900s as a shipping channel. It was originally 61 metres wide, and is now 150 metres wide and dredged every six months to maintain a 10-metre depth.

Ms Leonard said the reality was that larger ships were now coming to New Zealand, and Nelson would be limited in its ability to export produce if it was restricted to receiving on smaller ships.

“That adds time and costs for our regional exporters to then have their produce moved to larger vessels elsewhere, so it’s important we continue to serve the region as best we can and don’t get left behind.”