appendix h. onehunga branch line challenge workshop report€¦ · the purpose of the workshop was...

Appendix H. Onehunga Branch Line Challenge Workshop Report

SMART (Rail to the Airport)

Auckland Transport

SMART Workshop 1: Onehunga Branch Line

Document No.1 | Draft

27 May 2016

Client Reference

SMART Wor kshop 1: Onehung a Br anch Li ne Auckl and Transport

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Review Approved

0 18/05/2016 Draft for Client review Kerry King Jeremy Hosking Jeremy Hosking

1 27/05/2016 Updated to include stakeholder comments Kerry King Jeremy Hosking Jeremy Hosking

Distribution of copies

Revision Issue

approved Date issued Issued to Comments

0 18/05/2016 19/05/2016 Auckland Transport Draft for Client review

1 27/05/2016 30/06/2016 Auckland Transport Final draft for review


Document No.1 i

SMART (Rail to the Airport)

Project No: IZ032300 Document Title: SMART Workshop 1: Onehunga Branch Line Document No.: Document No.1 Revision: Draft Date: 27 May 2016 Client Name: Auckland Transport Client No: Client Reference Project Manager: Jeremy Hosking Author: Kerry King File Name: SMART Workshop 1: Onehunga Branch Line

Jacobs New Zealand Limited Carlaw Park 12-16 Nicholls Lane, Parnell Auckland 1010 PO Box 9806, Newmarket 1149 Auckland New Zealand T +64 9 928 5500 F +64 9 928 5501 www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2016 Jacobs New Zealand Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the

provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance

upon, this report by any third party.


Document No.1 ii

Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 3

2. Onehunga Branch Line context ............................................................................................................... 3

3. Grade separation ....................................................................................................................................... 4

4. Land use and impacts ............................................................................................................................... 5

5. Onehunga Branch Line specific issues .................................................................................................. 5

6. Grade separation experience ................................................................................................................... 7

7. Safety .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

8. Impacts to network operations ................................................................................................................ 8

9. Summary of actions .................................................................................................................................. 9

10. Further assessment to inform the SMART IBC ...................................................................................... 9

Appendix A. OBL Feasibility Investigation Summary


Document No.1

1. Introduction This document provides a record of discussions from Workshop 1: Onehunga Branch Line Double-tracking, held from 10:00am – 3:00pm on Friday 1 April 2016.

The purpose of the workshop was to understand the current approach to grade separating and confirm the assumptions made for the previous Onehunga Branch Line work. The conclusions from discussions during this workshop will inform further option development to input into the Rail to the Airport Indicative Business Case.

The workshop agenda covered the following items:

1. Introductions and workshop purpose;

2. Overview of the OBL project within the context of the SMART project;

3. Grade separation – policy and rest of network approach;

4. Land use changes;

5. OBL specific issues;

6. Grade separation experience;

7. Safety – at grade level crossings and grade separated crossings; and

8. Impacts to network operations.

2. Onehunga Branch Line context A summary document was circulated in advance of the workshop providing an overview of the previous investigations and is included in Appendix A. The workshop provided further information and context in relation to the earlier investigations undertaken in 2014 for double tracking the Onehunga Branch Line (OBL). This included an overview of how this fits into the wider SMART project context in providing rail to the airport. It was confirmed and agreed by workshop attendees that the OBL options were to be assessed in terms of their rail to the airport function.

The OBL is currently a single track line extending 3.5km from Penrose Station to Onehunga Station and has 8 level crossings at the following locations along the line:

1. O’rorke Road;

2. Maurice Road;

3. Mays Road;

4. Captain Springs Road;

5. Church Street;

6. Alfred Street;

7. Victoria Street; and

8. Galway Street.

The line previously extended further south of the Onehunga Station towards the Manukau Harbour connecting to the Port. The tracks have been decommissioned but the formation and rail corridor still exist.

Costs were estimated for double-tracking and extending the existing line within the existing corridor by utilising the decommissioned rail corridor beyond the Onehunga Station. Three options were investigated which included lowered rail; realignment via Mt Smart; and elevated rail.

As specified by Auckland Transport, the previous assessment assumed that the level crossings at O’rorke Road, Maurice Road, Mays Road and Church Street were to be replaced by grade separated facilities. The


Document No.1

level crossings at Captain Springs Road, Alfred Street, Victoria Street and Galway Street were assumed to be closed permanently and the roads truncated on either side.

The options that were considered and the costs estimated as part of the previous investigation are summarised in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1Summary of previous options and cost estimates

Option Description Cost Estimate

P50 Contingency P95 Contingency

Option 1 – Heavy rail lowered

OBL is double-tracked and lowered into a trench from Penrose Station to allow for grade separations and returns to grade west of Church Street. Option requires a flat/at grade rail junction at Penrose.

$458M $534M

Option 2 – Heavy rail realignment via Mt Smart

A new line would begin just south of Penrose Station grade separated from the North Island Main Trunk (NIMT) line and crosses over O’rorke Road to pass through the Mt Smart Stadium grounds. The new line then joins the Onehunga Line just north of Te Papapa Station.

$578M $675M

Option 3 – Heavy rail elevated

The OBL is double-tracked and elevated from Penrose Station to return to grade just before Onehunga Station. This option will involve elevating Te Papapa Station. Option requires a flat/at grade rail junction at Penrose.

$488M $569M

Since the previous assessment, the following have become clear:

Closing the Captain Springs Road level crossing would be undesirable from the point of view of the East West Connections project;

With the implementation of the City Rail Link, there is a need for stations and platforms to accommodate six car trains and for the branch to operate services at a frequency of at least 20 minutes. This requires at least some double tracking, alteration to the length and potentially, the location of three platforms along the branch; and

In terms of the SMART project, light rail to the Airport via Onehunga and heavy rail to the Airport via Onehunga are alternative options and whichever option progresses, there will be a requirement for an interchange between the two.

3. Grade separation Auckland Transport has been shifting towards removing level crossings from the rail network and is looking to remove or grade separate level crossings over the next 20 years. However, it was noted that this is more of an aspiration and no specific policies are in place for the treatment of level crossings.

In terms of the approach adopted for the rest of the rail network, level crossings along the Western Line have been assessed to understand safety and network impacts and how these can be improved. Improvements include active pedestrian level crossings and implementing CCTV technology.


Document No.1

It was identified that further investigations may be required to justify the need for grade separating existing level crossings. It was confirmed that each level crossing needs to be assessed on a case by case basis (due to the different road and surrounding land uses), and that the justification for closures will be undertaken as a group assessment or local traffic model to achieve a holistic solution.

4. Land use and impacts There are a variety of land uses adjacent to the OBL which may cause significant property cost impacts to secure the required corridor. The previous investigation assumed a corridor width of 11m and assessed alignment options to the north and south of the existing OBL. The associated property costs were then incorporated into the cost estimates for the options. Further assessment of property impacts is required using the revised rail corridor footprint (see Section 5), and for additional rail alignments that were identified during the workshop.

Further work may be required to assess elevated rail options. Although a rail over treatment would typically have a longer construction period, it would likely be cheaper and more flexible than lowered rail in trench options. Overheard lines and possible relocation impacts may need to be considered.

It was noted that even if light rail is taken forward as the preferred option through the IBC process, work on the OBL may still be required to facilitate land development and growth within the area.

5. Onehunga Branch Line specific issues A number of design assumptions were made to develop the cost estimates for the previous investigation (see Table 2.1). A key outcome of the workshop was to test the validity of these assumptions in terms of informing the form for the OBL as part of the Heavy Rail option within the SMART IBC. Summarised in Table 5.1 are the design assumptions made as part of the previous investigation as well as any changes to these assumptions as a result of workshop discussions.

The revised rail corridor is shown in Figure 5.1 which has a width of 14m which is 3m wider than initially assumed, allowing for an access way along one side of the corridor.

Any changes to assumptions since the previous investigation will be used as inputs to refine the heavy rail alignment options and to update cost estimates accordingly.

Table 5.1 Heavy rail option assumptions

Item Previous Assumption (if applicable)

Revised assumption

Vertical grade

2%

2.5% with 3% as an absolute maximum

Grades need curve compensation where appropriate

Corridor cross section footprint 11 m 14 m (12 – 13 m for low cost option)

Vertical clearance N/A 5.5 m from top of rail to bridge soffit

Platform length N/A

160 m minimum

200 m desirable


Document No.1

Service frequency 2 trains/hour 6 trains/hour in each direction (10 minute frequency)

Construction methodology

Rail corridor closed with replacement bus services; or

Staged construction approach to lower into trench

Rail corridor closed for 12 months with replacement buses.

Figure 5.1 Revised rail corridor cross section assumption

A low cost option for double tracking the OBL (including realigning the existing line to the new formation), was developed during the workshop for comparison purposes. This option was based on the assumptions summarised in Table 5.2. A cross section for the low cost option was developed and confirmed during the workshop as shown in Figure 5.2.

Table 5.2 Low cost option assumptions for the Onehunga Branch Line

Feature Assumptions

Track

Realign existing line to new formation

Add new second track

New flat/at-grade double junction at Penrose

Overhead Line Equipment Extension

Assume 50% replace existing line

Assume 100% new for the second track

1 new substation at Penrose

Stations

Penrose Station – demolish existing platform and construct a new 200m, 2-side platform between O’rorke Road and Maurice Road (closer to Maurice Road).

Te Papapa Station – demolish existing platform, assume a 200m platform. Mays Road crossing is closed.

Onehunga Station – Demolish existing station and construct a 200m platform on Princes Street between Galway Street and Victoria Street. Princes Street will be closed.

Line Extension As per other options, include Neilson Street grade approach modifications


Document No.1

Figure 5.2 Low cost option cross section requirement

6. Grade separation experience Each level crossing was considered individually and based on Australasian grade separation experience.

For comparison, low cost treatments were proposed and confirmed for each crossing as shown in Table 6.1. The low cost option will be used as a basis for comparison of first level costs for heavy rail vs. light rail connection to the Airport. Should the low cost option in conjunction with the heavy rail costs at the Airport reasonably compare with the light rail costing, further review of grade separation requirements for this corridor will be needed.

Table 6.1 Low cost option treatments for level crossings

Level crossing location

Leav

e as

is

Clo

se

Full

barr

ier

Full

barr

ier +

C

CTV

Pede

stria

n ga

tes

(act

ive)

Gra

de s

epar

atio

n /

road

alte

ratio

ns

O’rorke Road

Maurice Road


Document No.1

7. Safety A risk assessment will need to be undertaken for each of the level crossings. The Australian Level Crossing Assessment Model (ALCAM) is a risk assessment tool that can be used to identify site-specific issues and inform the prioritisation of level crossing improvements. The findings from the risk assessment will indicate the change in risk profile associated with the Onehunga Branch Line duplication. This changed risk profile should be supported by safety policy to create clear guidance on when grade separation is required.

The forecast vehicle volumes and increased rail service volumes require further investigation to input into ALCAM. Changes to volumes within the study area will typically impact the risk

It was discussed whether it was acceptable to consider non grade separated crossing treatments such as full arm barriers, as an alternative.

It was confirmed that two scenarios need to be investigated and compared to form the outcome of the risk assessment. These include:

Assessment of the 8 level crossings under the current layout; and

Assessment of the 8 crossings under the current layout including the recommended modifications.

8. Impacts to network operations There has been no assessment of the impacts of crossings on the transport network to date. It was assumed that the barrier downtime per train (including amber light time), is 1.5 minutes. Delays to traffic caused by level crossing barriers will become more significant as the train frequency increases.

The current frequency along the OBL is 2 trains / hour but may increase to 6 trains / hour (per direction) with the proposed double tracking after the implementation of the CRL. At this frequency and using the existing assumptions, the barrier downtime will be approximately 18 minutes/hour.

The traffic impacts will require further investigation including an assessment of the traffic delays and the potential increase in risky driver behaviours.

1Te Papapa Station is located near the Mays Road level crossing. The existing platform facilities will remain and need to be accommodated.

Mays Road ()1

Captain Springs Road

Church Street

+ local traffic signal controls

+ local road

Alfred Street Ideally

Victoria Street Ideally

Galway Street


Document No.1

9. Further assessment to inform the SMART IBC For the purposes of updating the SMART Rail to the Airport Indicative Business Case, it was agreed that the lower cost option will be developed and included as part of the heavy rail option; recognising that this will inform a lower bound cost / highest BCR scenario. Should heavy rail be identified as the preferred public transport mode through the IBC process, further assessments as identified in Table 10.1 below may then be progressed.

10. Summary of future actions Table 10.1 summarises the key actions and responsibilities for further assessment of heavy rail alignment options resulting from workshop discussions.

Table 10.1 Summary of actions

Item Action Responsible

Grade separation Further development of rail service frequency forecasts

Further investigation to be undertaken using ALCAM for assessing individual crossing risk. Clear system wide safety policy direction to be considered on level crossings and grade separations

Develop and justify the need for grade separation based on outcomes of risk assessment

Kiwirail/NZTA

Kiwirail/NZTA/AT

Jacobs

Property impacts Review property impacts with revised rail corridor footprint assumptions

Identify property ‘pinch points’

Jacobs

Road network impacts

Assess traffic impacts of the increased train frequency on level crossings

Determine the cost associated with the impacts of the current situation

Jacobs

Mt Smart alternative alignment

Develop more detail of benefits of the Mt Smart alignment options

Jacobs / Auckland Transport

Rail alignments and cost estimates

Updates to cost estimates for the following options in terms of rail to the airport function:

Rail over (base case with flat junction at Penrose)

Rail under (base case with flat junction at Penrose)

Alternate Mt Smart Stadium alignment - rail over (upper bound due to junction)

Alternate Mt Smart Stadium alignment - rail under (upper bound due to junction)

Jacobs


Document No.1

Appendix A. OBL Feasibility Investigation Summary, June 2014

Onehunga Branch Line Investigations

AUCKLAND TRANSPORT

Summary Report

001 | 1

Client Reference

15 Jun 2014

Summary Report

001 i

Onehunga Branch Line Investigations

Project no: ZB01497 Document title: Summary Report Document no: 001 Revision: 1 Date: 15 Jun 2014 Client name: Auckland Transport Client no: Client Reference Project manager: Jeremy Hosking Author: Tom Small File name: I:\ZBIFA\Projects\ZB01497\DELIVERABLES\Reports\Onehunga Branch Line

Investigations Rev01.docx

Jacobs New Zealand Limited Carlaw Park 12-16 Nicholls Lane, Parnell Auckland 1010, New Zealand T +64 9 928 5500 F +64 9 928 5501 www.jacobs.com

COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs New Zealand Limited. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Review Approved

Rev 0 09/04/2014 For Client Comment TSmall JHosking JHosking

Rev 1 15/06/2014 Final Issue – Including client requested amendments TSmall JHosking JHosking

Summary Report

001 ii

Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 2

1.1 Scope .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

2. Design ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1.1 Design Conditions ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1.2 Geological Conditions ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1.3 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Design Assumptions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Design Options ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3.1 Mt Smart Design Option (Des New02)............................................................................................................................................ 4

2.3.2 Double Tracking Design Option (DesA102) .................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3.3 Onehunga Branch Line Extension Option (DesExt01).................................................................................................................... 4

2.3.4 Double Tracking Elevated Design Option (DesExt02) .................................................................................................................... 5

2.4 Level Crossings .............................................................................................................................................................................. 5

2.4.1 O’Rorke Road Grade Separation .................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.4.2 Maurice Road Grade Separation .................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.4.3 Mays Road ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.4.4 Church Street .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

2.4.5 Neilson Street (for extension of Onehunga Branch Line) ............................................................................................................... 6

2.5 Summary......................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

3. Property Impacts ....................................................................................................................................... 8

4. Construction .............................................................................................................................................. 9

4.1.1 Stage One ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

4.1.2 Stage Two ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

4.1.3 Stage Three .................................................................................................................................................................................. 10

5. Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................................................... 12

Appendix A. Geological Information

Appendix B. Property Impact Maps

Appendix C. Plans and Long Sections

Appendix D. Cost Estimates

Summary Report

001 1

Important note about your report

The sole purpose of this report and the associated services performed by Jacobs is access the costs associated with double tracking the Onehunga Branch Line in accordance with the scope of services set out in the contract between Jacobs and the Client. That scope of services, as described in this report, was developed with the Client.

In preparing this report, Jacobs has relied upon, and presumed accurate, any information (or confirmation of the absence thereof) provided by the Client and/or from other sources. Except as otherwise stated in the report, Jacobs has not attempted to verify the accuracy or completeness of any such information. If the information is subsequently determined to be false, inaccurate or incomplete then it is possible that our observations and conclusions as expressed in this report may change.

Jacobs derived the data in this report from information sourced from the Client (if any) and/or available in the public domain at the time or times outlined in this report. The passage of time, manifestation of latent conditions or impacts of future events may require further examination of the project and subsequent data analysis, and re-evaluation of the data, findings, observations and conclusions expressed in this report. Jacobs has prepared this report in accordance with the usual care and thoroughness of the consulting profession, for the sole purpose described above and by reference to applicable standards, guidelines, procedures and practices at the date of issue of this report. For the reasons outlined above, however, no other warranty or guarantee, whether expressed or implied, is made as to the data, observations and findings expressed in this report, to the extent permitted by law.

This report should be read in full and no excerpts are to be taken as representative of the findings. No responsibility is accepted by Jacobs for use of any part of this report in any other context.

This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of, Jacobs’s Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third party

Summary Report

001 2

1. Introduction Auckland Transport has commissioned Jacobs to develop a high level cost estimate for double tracking the Onehunga Branch Line. To assist in informing this cost estimate, the study has assumed that all existing level crossings will be removed from the Onehunga Branch Line. The brief assumes that four of the eight level crossings will be replaced with grade separated facilities; the remaining four will be closed permanently. As part of the cost development, a high level concept design has been produced; largely based on the design of the existing line within the existing corridor. Costs have also been estimated for extending the existing line though to the Manukau Harbour along the decommissioned rail corridor, with an additional option assessing the costs associated with the Onehunga Branch Line travelling though Mt Smart Stadium as an alternative to the current alignment adjacent to Station Road East.

The cost estimate developed through this commission will assist Auckland Transport in understanding the overall costs associated with providing rail to the Airport through the SMART project.

1.1 Scope

The scope of this report is covered below:

1) Development of Design Criteria based on the Existing Line: Using existing aerial photography and design drawings provided by Auckland Transport current design standards were extrapolated. This information formed the basis of the design criterion to double track the Onehunga Branch Line. Section 2.2 provides an outline of assumptions which were used in the development of the design.

2) Develop Grade Separations options (including review of Aurecon1 report): A review was undertaken of the Aurecon report to access the Grade Separation options along the route. Further assessment and development of all crossing locations has been undertaken and recommendations made on the most appropriate crossing form. Details on the recommended crossings are discussed in Section 2.4.

3) Layout Design: A layout design for the duplicate line, largely by replicating the existing line has been produced. The layout design extends the Onehunga Branch Line from its current terminus at the Onehunga station along the previous rail corridor to connect to the proposed location for crossing the Manukau Harbour. The design has been developed to minimise disruption to the surrounding land users. Section Error! Reference source not found. provides commentary on the Land Requirements and process for minimising disruptions.

4) Cost Estimate: Based on the design and discussions with Auckland Transport a Feasibility Estimate (FE) for the scheme has been developed in accordance with NZTA’s SM014 – Cost Estimation Manual. Details of the Cost Estimate are covered in Section 5.

1 Rail Level Crossing Removal Feasibility Report – Volume 1, Reference 236852, Revision 4 dated 11 February 2014

Summary Report

001 3

2. Design 2.1 Existing Conditions

2.1.1 Design Conditions

The existing single Onehunga Branch Line begins at Penrose station and generally follows the existing topography through to the Onehunga station. The line is approximately 3.5km long. The line has eight level crossings along its route. The level crossings are:-

O’Rorke Road

Maurice Road

Mays Road

Captain Springs Road

Church St

Alfred Street

Victoria Street

Galway Street.

The line has recently been upgraded to take the new Auckland AM Class electric trains which went live in April 2014.

The line generally runs through industrial areas with some residential areas at the Onehunga end of the line.

The line had previously run further south to the Manukau Harbour. The tracks have been decommissioned however the formation and rail corridor still exists.

2.1.2 Geological Conditions

A desktop geological assessment has been undertaken of the route which the proposed track would follow; this provides an understanding of the ground conditions which will be encountered when considering the grade separation at the existing level crossings. The majority of the line is in basalt lava with the possibility of underlying ash/buff layers before reaching east coast bays at depth. At the Onehunga end of the site, including the Neilson Street Bridge there is a possibility of ash / buff or uncontrolled refuse fill.

The basalt material is generally a strong to very strong material which is not prone to compression. Although this would create a strong footing for any above ground structure it will create difficulties for any excavation required for a cutting.

The ash can be highly variable and is generally a compressible sensitive material; working in areas with significant quantities of ash would add design and construction complexities.

Similarly, the uncontrolled refuse fill may be highly variable, contain voids and potentially be contaminated. Differential settlement could be an issue in this area.

A layout plan of the geology in the area can be found in Appendix A.

Summary Report

001 4

2.1.3 Groundwater Conditions

At this stage there is no available information regarding the groundwater levels along the proposed alignment. A high groundwater level in the proposed areas of cutting could have a significant implication on the proposed costs as the retaining solution would need to provide a water tight ‘tanked’ solution which prevents the groundwater entering the cutting (the alternative is to permanently lower the groundwater level in the area, which is likely to result in settlement of surrounding properties).

2.2 Design Assumptions

At this stage of design it has been assumed that the vertical and horizontal design curves of the existing line are acceptable and will be replicated for the duplicate line. The design has been developed assuming a maximum grade of 2%.

For design purposes, it has been assumed the two tracks will have a centre to centre separation of 4m with a 3.5m distance from the track centreline to the edge of the formation (or rail corridor). This provides an overall rail corridor of 11m. Consideration would need to be made at subsequent stages of design as to whether any additional space is required for emergency access/egress paths for options where the rail is either elevated or lowered.

In the locations where work will be undertaken on the existing roads, largely in locations where grade separation will be required, Austroads design guidelines have been used with a 60kph design speed with 2 second reaction times.

2.3 Design Options

As part of this investigation, five alignment design options have been investigated.

2.3.1 Mt Smart Design Option (Des New02)

Investigations have been undertaken to a new line which would begin just south of the existing Penrose Station on the North Island Main Trunk Line (NIMT), travelling past Mt Smart Stadium before re-joining the Onehunga Line at Te Papapa Station. This alignment would provide more direct and improved access to Mt Smart Stadium during key events.

Design New02 commences south of Penrose Station on the NIMT. It starts immediately after Penrose Station so that the south bound line is graded such that it is grade separated from the NIMT. The line then crosses over O’Rorke Road passes through the Mt Smart stadium grounds, then under Maurice Road before joining the Onehunga line again just north of the Te Papapa station.

2.3.2 Double Tracking Design Option (DesA102)

Design DesA102 essentially drops the existing Onehunga Branch Line into a trench from the Penrose Station in order to allow for grade separations without introducing potential conflict with adjacent overhead power lines along the corridor. The alignment comes back to grade west of Church Street.

2.3.3 Onehunga Branch Line Extension Option (DesExt01)

Design DesExt01 extends the existing Onehunga line by approximately 800m from the existing Onehunga station south to the existing port, utilising the existing decommissioned rail corridor. The works involve re-grading the existing formation and rebuilding the existing Neilson St road bridge to cater for the rail double tracking, and to comply with current Austroads standards in relation to road geometry.

Summary Report

001 5

2.3.4 Double Tracking Elevated Design Option (DesExt02)

Design DesExt02 is essentially elevates the Onehunga Branch line and double tracking. The elevation will commence near Penrose Station and will be back at grade before Onehunga Station. Due to the distance required to reach the final elevation, there will still be a requirement for hybrid grade separation at O’Rorke Road. The station at Te Papapa will be elevated. Further assessment will be required on this option to understand any implications it may have with the high voltage lines in the vicinity.

2.4 Level Crossings

This assessment has assumed that all the level crossings will be removed along the Onehunga Branch Line. Four level crossings will be replaced with grade separated crossings. The grade separated crossings specified in the scope include:-

O’Rorke Road

Maurice Road

Mays Road

Church Street

The remaining existing level crossings will be closed, with the roads on either side truncated.

An assessment, based on our experience in Victoria, Australia has been made on each of the locations as to how the grade separation should be undertaken.

Based on past experience, it is generally recommended where possible to grade separate by lowering roads under a rail corridor. This typically would result in the lowest construction cost, subject to gaining an understanding of the underlying ground conditions. Grade separation by raising local roads over rail could be introduced in areas where it is considered that environmental aspects such as visual impacts may not be significant. Typically lowering or raising the rail alignment is a more complex and more expensive method to achieve grade separations. A hybrid approach to grade separation, a mixture of lowering the rail and raising the road or vice versa, is typically not desirable. During construction this design and construction approach would require both the existing road and rail to be closed for lengthy periods.

The approach to grade separations will need to be considered further during subsequent stages of investigation in conjunction with Auckland Transport and should include constructability constraints and costs associated with the full grade separation on a site by site basis.

2.4.1 O’Rorke Road Grade Separation

Notwithstanding the general advice above, for the purposes of developing a grade separation option, we have assumed a hybrid grade separation in this location. Adjusting the rail alignment to grade either above or below O’Rourke Road is likely to have significant repercussions on the surrounding rail infrastructure due to proximity of Penrose Station and the turnout to the NIMT. Grade separating O’Rourke Road under the rail corridor would have less visual impact; however, this option may introduce significant property access issues for adjacent commercial premises. Road over rail may be acceptable due to the commercial nature of the surrounding properties from a visual perspective. However this configuration may also have significant property access impacts. A hybrid of both is likely a good compromise given the likely site constraints. The property access issues, high voltage power lines and preference for a rail-under road solution and the Maurice Road (discussed below) lead to a solution which requires both methods to successfully deliver the grade separation within tight

Summary Report

001 6

geometric constraints. Careful construction and mitigation planning would be required to minimise the significant disruption this would likely have to road operations.

For the option which provides elevated rail, a similar Hybrid would be considered which has the road beneath the rail.

Access to the surrounding properties would need to be carefully considered as adjusting the road levels (raising or lowering) is likely to have significant implication to property accesses.

2.4.2 Maurice Road Grade Separation

In this location there are a number of commercial operations, including a transport company which would be significantly impacted by any significant adjustment to the existing road levels and it is unlikely alternative access arrangement could be made to work without severely impacting the operability of the sites. For this reason, it is recommended that a rail under (or over for the elevated option) the existing road would be the most appropriate solution.

2.4.3 Mays Road

The more residential nature of the surrounding development, and the close proximity of the Mays Road and Church Street crossings, it would be recommended that a rail under (or over for the elevated option) road separation is developed at this location.

2.4.4 Church Street

As described above due to the close proximity of the Mays Road and Church Street level crossings, a rail under (or over for the elevated option) road solution has been assumed for this assessment.

2.4.5 Neilson Street (for extension of Onehunga Branch Line)

The decommissioned rail corridor that leads to the port on the Manukau Harbour currently passes under Neilson Street. The current distance between bridge abutments of the Neilson Street Bridge will not allow for double tracking without significant modification / replacement of the existing bridge structure. For the purposes of the assessment, it has been assumed that replacement of the Neilson Street Bridge will be required. Careful consideration would need to be given to the construction methodology due to the high traffic volumes and overhead high voltage lines in this location through subsequent investigations.

2.5 Summary

The type of grade separation assumed at this stage for each location are based on the known physical constraints at each site, such as ground conditions, adjacent infrastructure, property accesses, or land use. At subsequent stages these constraints will need to be considered in further detail alongside the views of major stakeholders such as the rail operator (including internal stakeholders such as customer services, operations and standards), planning authorities, and the Auckland Council. The views and opinions of all these stakeholders will influence the final choice of grade separation at each location.

Summary Report

001 7

A summary of the treatment options is provided below:

Level Crossing Treatment

Rail in Trench Option Rail Elevated Option

O’Rourke Road Hybrid (rail under, road over) Hybrid (rail over, road under)

Maurice Road Rail Under Rail Over

Mays Road Rail Under Rail Over

Captain Springs Road Closed Closed

Church St Rail Under Rail Over

Alfred Street Closed Closed

Victoria Street Closed Closed

Galway Street Closed Closed

Layout drawings for each of the options are provided in Appendix C.

Summary Report

001 8

3. Property Impacts There are variety of surrounding land uses along the Onehunga Branch Line that have the potential to cause a significant property cost impact; during both construction and long term operation in securing the required corridor for double tracking. A key aim of this high level assessment has been to reduce the impact to surrounding land uses and minimise overall land requirements. Minimising the land requirements though design and construction sequencing provides significant financial benefits to the outturn cost of the project.

To understand if the preferred approach would be to generally develop the double track to the north or the south of the existing line, an analysis utilising GIS has been undertaken to assess the implications on land requirements. The existing track line has been taken as a base for the development of the double tracking. The new line will need an additional corridor width of 7.5m from the existing track centreline based on the cross section described in Section 2.2. Two scenarios were tested and both will need further development and refining to optimise the alignment at the next stage of the design development.

Appendix B contains GIS developed maps which shows the properties which may be impacted by each of the scenarios. An estimate has been made for purchasing the required land, either in part or full purchase depending on the level of impact. Developing the new line to the north of the existing rail line could result in property costs in the order of $25million. In comparison, properties identified to the south of the existing rail line could cost approximately $7.5million. In both the North and South scenarios, there are a number of expensive properties which, if avoided, could reduce the overall property cost exposure of the scheme. In the next stage of design development, design iterations should be undertaken to align the route, including the existing infrastructure, to minimise the overall cost of the land required. Further examination will also be undertaken to ensure the access to and from existing properties is maintained. For the purposes of this assessment, it has been assumed that double tracking the Onehunga Branch Line along its existing alignment will incur property costs of $7.5M by constructing to the south of the existing line. Again, this could be further optimised during the next stage of investigations.

For the alternative alignment which would run past the Mt Smart Stadium complex, due to their being no corridor currently provided, there may be associated property costs in the order of $50million. During the next stage of the design development an iteration process could be carried out to minimise the overall cost of the required properties, including opportunities for “land swap” if appropriate, should this option be pursued.

The extension of the Onehunga Branch Line though the decommissioned rail corridor to the port (DesExt01) based on the GIS assessment does not require any additional land. This extension has not been shown on the diagrams detailing land requirements.

Summary Report

001 9

4. Construction The cost estimate has been developed assuming that the existing line will be shut down throughout the construction period to provide an almost ‘greenfield’ site which will greatly improve the efficiency of construction and reduce the construction cost. In order to facilitate this, a bus service would be required to service the rail patronage demand during the construction period. In our experience this can be readily achievable provided bus frequencies can be achieved to service the demand.

If there is a requirement to maintain rail services on the existing Onehunga Branch Line during construction, either a staged construction within the rail corridor, or off line construction could be considered. Off line construction would result in significantly more land requirements that either closing the exiting line, or staged construction.

With regard to staged construction for the works an assessment has been undertaken for the double tracking to understand the potential implications this will have on the overall costs of the project. Figure 1 provides an outline of a potential staging which could be used.

Summary Report

001 10

Figure 1: Possible Staging to Minimise Rail and Road Disruptions

4.1.1 Stage One

4.1.2 Stage One

Depending on the ground conditions, to preserve the stability of the trench wall, an offset from the existing rail centre line would need to be 3m. Soil nailing could be used to temporarily stabilise the bank if ground conditions allow. Sheet piling would be an alternative option; however this would result in significant noise and potential vibration impacts which would cause a disturbance to the local residents. From the bottom of the wall an off-set to the centre line of the new track of 3m would be provided; this would allow the second stage of construction to be completed.

4.1.3 Stage Two

At the completion of the first stage, the existing rail operations can be lowered onto the newly constructed tracks. The old line can then be removed and excavation for the second line undertaken. The second line would need to have an off set of 6m from the centre line of the newly constructed line. Construction of the second line could then be undertaken.

4.1.4 Stage Three

At the completion of stage two, both double tracked lanes will be running within the newly constructed trench.

A staged construction would be more complicated than an online build, and would ultimately require more land acquisition as the corridor is wider to allow for construction offsets to running tracks. The position of the first lowered track therefore probably needs to be based on allowing these offsets from existing to proposed track. This would lead to an additional 3m of rail corridor including safety access tracks. This additional 3m has not been allowed for in the design assumptions.

Based on experience, the cost difference between construction on a ‘greenfield’ site and construction using the methodology described above would be at least 30-50% depending on ground conditions, Auckland Transport and Kiwi Rail safety requirements and whether existing level crossings would be kept open during construction (the bridges would still need to be built in two stages as well which would require the level crossing apparatus to be shifted a couple of times). Temporary overheads would be needed to cover just one track in the cutting. This methodology would also have a similar impact on programme.

Summary Report

001 11

Based on the additional cost for the staging option, the abortive works required and the inefficiency of construction, this would not be the preferred option and so has not been used as the basis for design and costing at this stage. Further work would need to be undertaken to establish the feasibility of this staged option.

Summary Report

001 12

5. Cost Estimate A cost estimate has been undertaken based on the following design information.

1) Double tracking, with grade separation and the Onehunga Branch Line Extension(DesA102 + DesExt01) – Cost Estimate DesA 102

2) Double tracking, with grade separation via Mt Smart and the Onehunga Branch Line Extension (DesNew02 + DesA102 (from Chainage 1400) + DexExt01) – Cost Estimate New02

3) Double tracking with the elevated rail and the Onehunga Branch Line Extension (DesExt02 + Des Ext01) – Cost Estimate DesEx102

The estimates have been undertaken at a high level based on the alignment drawings and long sections included in Appendix C. The design estimates have not utilised any other supporting reports such as geotechnical, utilities or risk and constraint information. It is recommended that these be developed and incorporated into the reporting at the next stage of the project.

The cost estimates have been calculated using a per metre rate for the different rail formation sections based on experience of the estimated costs for similar projects including the parallel estimate for SMART. It has been assumed the line would be closed down during the construction period with replacement buses facilitating transport for rail passengers.

Typical percentages have been assumed for Investigation and Reporting, Design and Project Development, MSQA and the Contractors Design, Overheads and Margin. A P50 contingency (20%) and P95 contingency (40%) has been used for the estimate.

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

P50 $458M $578M $488M

P95 $534M $675M $569M

The cost estimate can be found in Appendix D.

Summary Report

001

Appendix A. Geological Information

Summary Report

001

Appendix B. Property Impact Maps

14

11

18

15

2

1

23

4

13

6

19

9

22

5

3

17

7

20

16

24

21

8

GA

LWAY S

TRE

ET

RO

CK

FIELD

RO

AD

NEILSON STREET

WAD

E AV

ENU

E

BOW PL ACE

CHURCH STREET

MOUNT SMART ROAD

MAROA ROAD

CU

RZO

N S

TRE

ET

ARTHUR STREET

CA

PTA

IN S

PR

ING

S R

OA

D

MA

RIR

I RO

AD

STA

TEAV

ENU

E

TAWA ROAD

WA

ITAN

GI R

OA

D

BOND PLACE

ROOSEVELT AVENU

E

HARDINGTON STREET

EDM

ONTON AVENUE

CAMPBELL ROAD

HENDERSON

PLA

CE

ORANGA AVENUE

O'RORKE RO

AD

HOHERIA ROAD

JORDAN AVENUE

ON

EH

UN

GA

MA

LL

NGAT

IAW

A ST

REET

MCN

AB S

TREE

T

RANG

IPAW

A RO

AD

GREAT

SOUTH

ROADAMARU ROAD

AN

G

LE STREET

JUB

ILEE

AVE

NU

E

GREAT SO

UTH ROAD

RAWHITI ROAD

MAYS ROAD

FELI

X STR

EET

CAIN ROAD

RO

WE

STR

EE

T

PAYNES LANE

HU

LL PLA

CE

PU

KA S

TRE

ET

ROCKRIDGE AVENUE

TAIERE TERRACE

BA

SS

AN

T AVE

NU

EHERETAUNGA AVENUE

GROTTO STREET

HOUPARA STREET

FAIR

FAX

AVE

NU

E

PUKEMIRO STREET

ED

INB

UR

GH

STR

EE

T

SP

RIN

G S

TRE

ET

PATRIC

K S

TRE

ET

BO

THA R

OA

D

MOATA ROAD

HU

APA

I STR

EE

T

MA

UR

ICE

RO

AD

BEAS

LEY

AVEN

UE

OLIVE

RO

AD

ATH

ENS

RO

AD

ATHENSR

OA

D

ALFR

ED

STR

EE

T

GREY STREET

PAIHIA ROAD

PAIHIA

ROAD

VIC

TOR

IA STR

EE

T

VIC

TOR

IA S

TRE

ET

CA

ME

RO

N S

TR

EE

TC

AM

ER

ON

ST

RE

ET

WA

L L ER

S TRE

ET

CA

RD

WE

LL STR

EE

T

NAMATA ROAD

NA

MAT

A

ROAD

STATION ROAD

STATION ROAD

MO

ANA

AVEN

UE

MO

ANA

AVE

NU

E

WALLATH ROAD

ARAPUNI AVENUE

I:\Z

BIF

A\P

roje

cts\

ZB01

497\

TEC

HN

ICA

L\G

IS\m

xd\O

nehu

ngaB

ranc

hLin

e_E

xist

ing_

7_5m

eter

s_N

OR

TH

.mxd

Onehunga Branch Line(DesA102)

±0 200100 Meters

Carlaw Park12-16 Nicholls Lane

Parnell, AucklandTel +64 9 928 5500

Fax +64 9 928 5501

SCALE PROJECT CODE

PROJECT MANAGER DRAWN

PROJECT DIRECTOR DATE

1:8,882 @ A3 ZB01497

KS

15/04/2014

CLIENT

PROJECTOnehunga Branch Line

RH

FIGURE NO REVISIONDRAFT

CP

X

7.5m Buffer

Affected Properties

6

11

15

9

2

17

5 7

16

13

18

12

1

84

10

14

19

3

O'RORKE RO

AD

GA

LWAY S

TRE

ET

RO

CK

FIELD

RO

AD

NEILSON STREET

WAD

E AV

ENU

E

ARTHUR STREET

BOW PL ACE

CHURCH STREET

MOUNT SMART ROADCU

RZO

N S

TRE

ET

MAROA ROAD

TAWA ROAD

MA

RIR

I RO

AD

STA

TEAV

ENU

E

WA

ITAN

GI R

OA

D

BOND PLACE

ROOSEVELT AVENU

E

HARDINGTON STREET

EDM

ONTON AVENUE

CAMPBELL ROAD

HENDERSON

PL A

CE

ORANGA AVENUE

HOHERIA ROAD

JORDAN AVENUE

ON

EH

UN

GA

MA

LL

NGAT

IAW

A ST

REET

MCN

AB S

TREE

T

RANG

IPAW

A RO

AD

GREATSO

UTH

ROAD

ANG

L E STREET

AMARU ROAD

JUB

ILEE

AVE

NU

E

GREAT SO

UTH ROAD

RAWHITI ROAD

MAYS ROAD

FELI

X STR

EET

CAIN ROAD

RO

WE

STR

EE

T

PAYNES LANE

HU

LL PLA

CE

PU

KA S

TRE

ET

ROCKRIDGE AVENUE

TAIERE TERRACE

HERETAUNGA AVENUE

GROTTO STREET

HOUPARA STREET

FAIR

FAX

AVE

NU

E

PUKEMIRO STREET

ED

INB

UR

GH

STR

EE

T

SP

RIN

G S

TRE

ET

PATRIC

K S

TRE

ET

BO

THA R

OA

D

MOATA ROAD

HU

APA

I STR

EE

T

MA

UR

ICE

RO

AD

BEAS

LEY

AVEN

UE

OLIVE

RO

AD

ATH

ENS

RO

AD

ATHENSR

OA

D

ALFR

ED

STR

EE

T

GREY STREET

PAIH IA ROAD

PAIHIA

ROAD

VIC

TOR

IA STR

EE

T

VIC

TOR

IA S

TRE

ET

CA

ME

RO

N S

TR

EE

TC

AM

ER

ON

ST

RE

ET

WA

L L ER

STR

EE

T

CA

RD

WE

LL STR

EE

T

NAMATA ROAD

NA

MAT

A

ROAD

STATION ROAD

STATION ROAD

WALLS ROAD

MO

ANA

AVEN

UE

MO

ANAAV

EN

UE

WALLATH ROAD

ARAPUNI AVENUE

I:\Z

BIF

A\P

roje

cts\

ZB01

497\

TEC

HN

ICA

L\G

IS\m

xd\O

nehu

ngaB

ranc

hLin

e_E

xist

ing_

7_5m

eter

s_S

OU

TH.m

xd

Onehunga Branch Line(DesA102)

±0 200100 Meters

Carlaw Park12-16 Nicholls Lane

Parnell, AucklandTel +64 9 928 5500

Fax +64 9 928 5501

SCALE PROJECT CODE

PROJECT MANAGER DRAWN

PROJECT DIRECTOR DATE

1:8,882 @ A3 ZB01497

KS

15/04/2014

CLIENT

PROJECTOnehunga Branch Line

RH

FIGURE NO REVISIONDRAFT

CP

X

7.5m Buffer

Affected Properties

Summary Report

001

Appendix C. Plans and Long Sections

Summary Report

001

Appendix D. Cost Estimates

Jacobs SKM/Auckland TransportSMO14 Summary Onehunga Branch Line Option New02

Construction Consulting Group Ltd26th May 2014

Item Description Qty Unit Rate Amount

A1 NETT PROJECT PROPERTY COSTS 1 L.S. 50,000,000 $ 50,000,000

B1 INVESTIGATION AND REPORTING 1 L.S. 11,800,000 $ 11,800,000

C1 DESIGN AND PROJECT DOCUMENTATION 1 L.S. 15,700,000 $ 15,700,000

D1 MSQA 1 L.S. 13,700,000 $ 13,700,000

D2 FORMATION AND RAIL $ 243,750,000

D2.1 Formation and Rail: Cut 1,775 m 50,000 88,750,000

D2.2 Formation and Rail: At Grade 1,700 m 25,000 42,500,000

D2.3 Formation and Rail: Cut and Cover Tunnel 125 m 140,000 17,500,000

D2.4 Formation and Rail: Cut and Cover Trench 375 m 125,000 46,875,000

D2.5 Formation and Rail: 2 x Single Track Bridge 375 m 85,000 31,875,000

D2.6 Formation and Rail: Double Track Bridge 250 m 65,000 16,250,000

D4 STATIONS $ 16,500,000

D4.1 Penrose 1 L.S 2,500,000 2,500,000

D4.2 Mt Smart Stadium 1 L.S. 4,000,000 4,000,000

D4.3 Te Papapa 1 L.S. 2,500,000 2,500,000

D4.4 Onehunga 1 L.S. 7,500,000 7,500,000

D5 CONTRACTORS DESIGN 1 L.S. 22,200,000 $ 22,200,000

D6 CONTRACTORS OVERHEAD (PRELIMINARY & GENERAL)

1 L.S. 57,300,000 $ 57,300,000

D7 CONTRACTORS MARGIN 1 L.S. 51,000,000 $ 51,000,000

F1 CONTINGENCY P50 1 L.S. 96,400,000 $ 96,400,000

H1 CONTINGENCY P95 1 L.S. 192,800,000 $ 192,800,000

G1 TOTAL P50 $ 578,350,000

I1 TOTAL P95 $ 674,750,000

draft 2

6.05.2

014

Jacobs SKM/Auckland TransportSMO14 Summary Onehunga Branch Line Option DesA102






D1 MSQA 1 L.S. 11,900,000 $ 11,900,000


D2.1 Formation and Rail: Cut 1,875 m 50,000 93,750,000


D2.3 Formation and Rail: Cut and Cover Tunnel 150 m 140,000 21,000,000

D2.4 Formation and Rail: Cut and Cover Trench 425 m 125,000 53,125,000

D2.5 Formation and Rail: Bridge 2 x Single Track - m 85,000 -

D2.6 Formation and Rail: Bridge Double Track - m 65,000 -

D4 STATIONS $ 12,500,000

D4.1 Penrose 1 L.S 2,500,000 2,500,000

D4.2 Mt Smart Stadium - L.S. 4,000,000 -

D4.3 Te Papapa 1 L.S. 2,500,000 2,500,000

D4.4 Onehunga 1 L.S. 7,500,000 7,500,000



1 L.S. 49,600,000 $ 49,600,000




G1 TOTAL P50 $ 457,975,000

I1 TOTAL P95 $ 534,275,000

draft 2

6.05.2

014

SMO14 Summary Onehunga Branch Line Option DesEX102






D1 MSQA 1 L.S. 12,700,000 $ 12,700,000


D2.1 Formation and Rail: Cut 500 m 50,000 25,000,000


D2.3 Formation and Rail: Cut and Cover Tunnel - m 140,000 -

D2.4 Formation and Rail: Cut and Cover Trench - m 125,000 -

D2.5 Formation and Rail: Bridge 2 x Single Track 500 m 85,000 42,500,000

D2.6 Formation and Rail: Bridge Double Track 1,850 m 65,000 120,250,000

D4 STATIONS $ 17,500,000

D4.1 Penrose 1 L.S 2,500,000 2,500,000

D4.2 Mt Smart Stadium - L.S. 4,000,000 -

D4.3 Te Papapa 1 L.S. 7,500,000 7,500,000

D4.4 Onehunga 1 L.S. 7,500,000 7,500,000



1 L.S. 52,900,000 $ 52,900,000




G1 TOTAL P50 $ 487,650,000

I1 TOTAL P95 $ 568,950,000

draft 2

6.05.2

014

appendix h. onehunga branch line challenge workshop report€¦ · the purpose of the workshop was...

Documents