Auckland CBD Rail Link Business Case - Alternatives Option Review

Executive Summary of CBD Rail Link Business Case Review

In November 2010, the Auckland Mayor announced a rail tunnel was the preferred solution to provide greater public transport capacity into the Auckland CBT. This solution was recommended over a bus tunnel option based on the greater cost of the latter. This review of the analysis that led to this conclusion found that the relative cost advantage of the rail solution had been overestimated by over $1.5 billion (net present value). This was made up of a $720M underestimation of the rail option and a $790M overestimation of the bus solution: Rail Tunnel Bus Tunnel A basic but serious spreadsheet calculation error in the rail operating cost The illogical exclusion the costed link to connect the Northern Busway into the Auckland CBD A basic but serious spreadsheet calculation error in the bus tunnel operating cost The unjustified and undocumented addition of a second 2-Lane bus tunnel The illogical inclusion of the cost for the Dominion Road Bus Lanes into the bus options but not the rail options The illogical assumption that the Central Bus Tunnel option needs 8 more busways to carry 60,000 bus passengers into the CBD while the recommended CBD Rail Link option excludes any investment to support a doubling of current patronage to 42,000 bus passengers. Applying a reasonable busway investment to both options changes the real capital cost Applying the more reasonable stated cost for operating the bus tunnel Total Present Value Cost Change from Review Findings This review of the options analysis also found: obtaining the cost calculation information used to support the CBD Rail Link was refused by Auckland Transport. The information was only provided after several months delay following the intervention of the Office of the Ombudsman. supporting transport modelling information and even basic patronage information (such as car, bus and rail commuter numbers for each option) is missing from this major transport business case when these are normally provided in transport proposals a tenth the size. questionable judgement that the transport benefits of the original rail and bus tunnel options would be similar. the evaluation process appears to include staff from KiwiRail, a commercial interested party, compromising the claim the evaluation was by impartial professionals. The business case Alternatives Paper omits key cost elements including a 2-Lane bus tunnel being costed as TWO 2-Lane tunnels and that the CBDRL option success assumes as many additional bus passengers as rail passengers yet does not propose investing a cent towards supporting higher capacity bus services. The cumulative result of the above costing errors and logic flaws leads the Alternatives Paper and CBD Rail Link Business Case to incorrectly identify the CBD Rail Link option being cheaper than the Central Bus Tunnel option. +$720M +$340M +$140M +$240M -$50M -$230M -$80M -$400M

-$30M -$790M

Author: Tony Randle

26 October 2011

Page 1 of 2

File: Auckland CBD Rail Link BC Review T Randle - Summary only 111026.doc

Auckland CBD Rail Link Business Case - Alternatives Option Review

Review Conclusions
The CBD Rail Link Business Case compared four alternative options and found best Rapid Transit solutions to be the rail and bus tunnel options because both: are broadly equally effective at delivering the required extra capacity into the CBD However the Business Case Conclusion recommends the CBD Rail Link option: because the CBD Rail Link costs are approximately 60% of those for a CBD bus tunnel This review of the option costing spreadsheet and other information shows the Alternatives Paper contains a number of arithmetic and unjustified design errors. The spreadsheet errors and design gaps alone mean the CBD Rail Link cost is actually about 83% of those the CBD bus tunnel. Even worse, the review finds that applying a reasonable level of CBD access busway investment to both options would have led to a recommendation for the Central Bus Tunnel option. CDB Rail Link Original Business Case Costs Correcting for Errors and Design Gaps Correcting to provide reasonable busway access to CBD $1,520M $1,900M $2,240M Central Bus Tunnel $2,640M $2,280M $1,850M Rail % of Bus Cost 58% 83% 121%

The Alternatives Paper also hides the fact that the Central Bus Tunnel option carries far more commuters on congestion free PT corridors than the CBD Rail Link option while being cheaper to both build and operate. The Central Bus Tunnel option is much fairer in providing a Rapid Transit service to more PT commuters across more of Auckland than any passenger rail system. In recommending the inferior rail tunnel option, the business case fails in meeting any objective to identify the best rapid transit solution for central Auckland. It cannot go unnoticed that identified assumption errors and design gaps do have one constant theme . . . that they consistently advantage the recommended rail tunnel option over all other alternative options. Even the alternative option titles are wrong as the CBD Rail Link option is really just a rail tunnel while the Central Bus Tunnel option is really a huge Bus Rapid Transit system across central Auckland ! The deceptive elimination of the superior Central Bus Tunnel option has reduced the debate on to whether or not the rail tunnel should be built. Aucklanders do not know a Bus Rapid Transit tunnel is the superior third way to improve CBD Public Transport being. The consistent misrepresentation of passenger rail over Bus Rapid Transit is difficult to understand . . . until of course you read the title page and recognise the Auckland CBD Rail Link Business Case was Prepared for KiwiRail and ARTA. Tony Randle Johnsonville Wellington 26 October 2011

Author: Tony Randle

26 October 2011

Page 2 of 2

File: Auckland CBD Rail Link BC Review T Randle - Summary only 111026.doc