Tomorrow, Auckland’s advisers will decide on the next steps in the in progress of the city, and it seems that one option is technically viable, but not financially viable, while the other may be financially viable, but not technically viable.
As a quick reminder, Mmayor has started this process as a way to put an end to new proposals from uninfined stadiums or update plans for Eden Park by appearing every few years, so that there was at least one preferred option. Therefore, while a stadium is far from being the most pressing issue of Auckland now, this process seems a good idea as part of thinking about how Auckland will grow and change.
Last year, the advice reduced the 5 proposals options for two, an Eden Park update and a new Quay Park stadium called Te Tōangaroa. The two selected options were asked to provide feasibility studies (at their own costs), which were delivered to the Council in early February, whose results are:
The main finding of the review of the Board of Feasibility Studies is that none of the proponents show that its proposal is viable without significant public funding.
A summary of the board evaluation is observed below.
Eden Park 2.1:
- With a high degree of confidence, Eden Park 2.1 is viable in most aspects, but is currently not financially feasible, as it depends on the Additional Council and/or Central Government Council. The total extent of the required public funding cannot be determined, but Eden Park Trust is looking for $ 110 million in government funding for stage 1 (North Stand development).
- The proposal to rebuild Eden Park is divided into various stages. Council or government may choose to support or help in one or more stages if you wish.
- A staged approach to the development of Eden Park seems to have merit. Stage 1 seems to provide public value, improving the operational effectiveness of the site and its functionality in a variety of activities, including rugby, cricket, shows and smaller events. It also allows stage 2 (superior north support reconstruction), which can be financed in particular. The benefits of stage 3 (retractable ceiling) are less clear and seem unlikely to justify the cost. As such, there may be merit in supporting the development of a commercial argument for government support to stage 1, subject to various conditions designed to resolve challenges with the status quo. This would not involve the full endorsement of Eden Park 2.1.
Tōangaroa/Quay Park:
- Te Tōangaroa did not show the feasibility of his proposal. Although it may be technical and environmentally viable, based on the information provided, the advice has a low level of confidence in its delivery.
- It is possible that Tetangaroa is commercially viable, but the advice has a low level of confidence because it depends on a series of optimistic assumptions about infrastructure and construction and financing costs.
- Te Tōangaroa can have significant public benefits if delivered without public financing, providing a great integrated reconstruction and a modern stadium well located in the city center near the transportation bonds. The proposal would also have financial benefits for the board if that meant that MT Smart renewal was no longer necessary. Te Tōangaroa indicated that he would need another 12 months to provide greater certainty about the delivery of his project.
It is interesting that the first line says that both require significant public financing, as later in the article, they also say that Te Tōangaro is not asking for any public financing, only that the board “Avoid making financing decisions that would affect commercial viability for your proposal in the next 12 months”
Feasibility reports and council review also provide some other interesting bits of information about the proposals.
Eden Park
The proposal is to develop Eden Park in stages
- Step 1 (US $ 110 million) – Lower north support reconstruction with retractable seats to increase flexibility for rugby and cricket.
- Step 2 (US $ 144m) – Superior North Stand reconstruction, with possible additions, such as hotel and student accommodations.
- Step 3 (US $ 282 million) – Installation of a retractable roof to improve site versatility.
- Future Stage (Optional) – Development of external oval in a complementary police station, with potential for a hotel, university facilities or a small second stadium (5,000 capacity).
- Connectivity Improvements – Options to improve Kingsland CRL Station Links to improve access to transportation
It seems that options of options such as Kingsland Station enhanced are not planned later in development and largely assume that the Rail City link solves many of the problems with rail services.
Te Tōangaroa
In the past, it was vacant on the impact that would have on the rail network through the area. The proposal is to change the railway lines
Infrastructure enhancements
Development includes a new integrated bus exchange, scale and terminal adjacent to the stadium to support the city’s transport network and event bus services as needed. In addition, a new subway train station will be built between Waitematā and ōrākei stations. This season will be integrated inside or adjacent to the stadium, serving the entire east edge of the CBD and Lower Parnell. In addition, the project includes replacing Strand Overbridge.
Another initiative that could be integrated into the general development of the police station, offering mutual benefits and value to money through collaboration, is the potential separation of degree from SH16 traffic ranges and the adjacent bike path and the pedestrian pathway over SH16/The Strand adjacent to the police stadium
On the rail specifically they say
Railway infrastructure
Stadium design includes significant modifications on existing railways that cross the site. The trunk main line is moved north to align more directly along Quay Street, with a deviation/link reconnecting to the Parnell line. This also involves the removal of the current tape station and the adjacent stable provision. These changes create enough space to position the stadium and the field of play in the note rather than high network and existing railway infrastructure.
Design allows the existing rail network to remain operational while the new alignment is built next to the current lines. A short “line of lines” during the typical Christmas/New Year will be required to connect the new and existing lines.
We have identified several new potential places for Strand station, which can also serve as a new subway station, in or adjacent to the stadium.
This high level design was shared with Kiwirail. They agree that our proposal is technically viable. Together, we will continue to mitigate the impact on operations during construction, especially during the line switch block. We also need to consider the effects of CBD’s most established subway train and the impact of a new and repositioned strand station on the tourist/interurestial trains network. The latter can be mitigated by the new subway station and/or the eventual electrification of the railway line for Hamilton, allowing you to use Britomart and/or CRL tunnels. The design team and Kiwirail are working in collaboration in solutions as design advances.
The review of the study shows this image, observing:
The stadium contour is shown in yellow. The existing railway lines are shown in red, while new alignments are in green and magenta. As can be seen, the proposal is to move the eastern line to the north to be next to Quay St and move the southern line connector to the east to run on the northwest side of the new stadium, not by the current thread station. Note that this proposal is preliminary and the detailed design work is yet to be done.
The proponent believes that rail services would need to be suspended for several weeks to connect the new green lines to the existing network. However, Kiwirail believes that service interruptions will probably be much longer, given the amount of work needed, including dealing with signaling and energy systems. He also intended to build apartments on a podium above the northeast of the place, immediately west of Strand for Tamaki Drive Road Bridge. This is likely to require rail closure.
… ..
The Multiple Electric Unit (EMU) is established in courtyards shown in the center of the plane above, will need to be relocated. A site was not identified, the cost was not evaluated. Depending on the final location, rail operating costs may increase.
Feedback from stakeholders
The advice also highlighted some of the comments from some stakeholders, including Auckland Transport and Kiwirail. Notably, for Eden Park, both seem to suggest that new updates at Kingsland station and track infrastructure will be needed. For Te Tōangaroa, the concern is that the rail network will be impacted for a long period of time
What’s next
The board officers did not have a recommendation beyond a generic to receive their feasibility studies and their review, but gave the counselors some options to consider them as well.
- Option 1: Refuse endorsement any of the proposals
- Option 2: Support Eden Park 2.1
- Option 3: Endoisa Te Tōangaroa
- Option 4: Invite both proponents to send a business case to establish the case for your proposal
- Option 5: Endorse the staged development of Eden Park, but not all Eden Park 2.1
Counselor Shane Henderson, who presided over the working group wants the board to choose a favorite option and Radio NZ reports that he is leaning for Eden Park.
What option should the counselors choose?
