Tomorrow Auckland's Councillors will decide on the next steps in the city's ongoing stadium debate, and it appears one option is technically feasible but isn't financially feasible while the other one might be financially feasible but not be technically feasible.
As a quick reminder, the Mayor started this process as a way to put an end to new, unfunded stadium proposals or upgrade plans for Eden Park popping up every few years, so that there was at least one preferred option. So, while a stadium is far from the most pressing issue for Auckland right now, this process does feel like a good idea as part of thinking how Auckland will grow and change.
Last year the council narrowed the options down from 5 proposals to two, an upgrade of Eden Park and a new stadium at Quay Park called Te Tōangaroa. Both of the shortlisted options were then asked to provide feasibility studies (at their own expense), which were delivered to the council in early February, the results of which are:
The key finding of council’s review of the feasibility studies is that neither proponent has demonstrated that their proposal is feasible without significant public funding.
A summary of council’s assessment is noted below.
Eden Park 2.1:
With a high degree of confidence, Eden Park 2.1 is feasible in most respects, but it is not currently financially feasible as it depends on additional council and/or central government funding. The full extent of public funding required cannot be determined, but Eden Park Trust are seeking $110 million in funding from Government for Stage 1 (Lower North Stand Development).
The proposal to redevelop Eden Park is broken into several stages. Council or government could choose to support or assist with one or several stages if desired.
A staged approach to developing Eden Park appears to have merit. Stage 1 appears to provide public value by improving the operational effectiveness of the venue and its functionality across a range of activities, including for rugby, cricket, concerts and smaller events. It also enables Stage 2 (redevelopment of the upper North Stand), which could be funded privately. The benefits of Stage 3 (retractable roof) are less clear and appear unlikely to justify the cost. As such, there may be merit in supporting the development of a business case for government support for Stage 1, subject to several conditions designed to resolve challenges with the status quo. This would not involve full endorsement of Eden Park 2.1.
Tōangaroa/Quay Park:
Te Tōangaroa has not demonstrated the feasibility of their proposal. While it may be technically and environmentally feasible, based on the information provided, council has a low level of confidence in its deliverability.
It is possible that Te Tōangaroa is commercially feasible, but council has a low level of confidence because it depends on a range of optimistic assumptions regarding infrastructure and construction costs and financing.
Te Tōangaroa could have significant public benefits if delivered without public funding, providing a major integrated redevelopment and modern stadium well-located in the city centre close to transport links. The proposal would also have financial benefits to council if it meant that renewal of Mt Smart was no longer required. Te Tōangaroa has indicated they would need a further 12 months to provide greater certainty about their project’s deliverability.
It's interesting that the first line says both require significant public funding as later in the paper they also say that Te Tōangaroa isn't asking for any public funding, just that the council "avoid making funding decisions that would impact the commercial viability for their proposal within the next 12 months"
The feasibility reports and council review also give some other interesting bits of information about the proposals.
Eden Park
The proposal is to develop Eden Park in stages
Stage 1 ($110m) – Redevelopment of the Lower North Stand with retractable seating to increase flexibility for rugby and cricket.
Stage 2 ($144m) – Redevelopment of the Upper North Stand, with potential additions such as hotel and student accommodation.
Stage 3 ($282m) – Installation of a retractable roof to improve venue versatility.
Future stage (optional) – Development of the outer oval into a complementary precinct, with potential for a hotel, university facilities, or a small second stadium (5,000 capacity).
Connectivity improvements – Options to enhance links to Kingsland CRL station to improve transport access
It seems the plans for options like improved connectivity to Kingsland Station aren't planned till later in the development and by in large are assuming that the City Rail Link solves a lot of the issues with rail services.
Te Tōangaroa
In the past it was a vague about the impact this would have on the rail network through the area. The proposal is to shift the rail lines
Infrastructure Enhancements
The development includes a new integrated bus interchange, layover, and terminal adjacent to the stadium to support the city transport network and event bus services as needed. Additionally, a new metro train station will be constructed between Waitematā and Ōrākei stations. This station will be integrated within or adjacent to the stadium, serving the entire eastern edge of the CBD and lower Parnell. Additionally, the project includes the replacement of the Strand overbridge.
Another initiative that could be integrated into the overall precinct development, offering mutual benefits and value for money through collaboration, is the potential grade separation of the SH16 traffic lanes and the adjacent cycleway and pedestrian pathway along SH16/The Strand adjacent to the stadium precinct
On rail specifically they say
Rail Infrastructure
The stadium design includes significant modifications to the existing rail lines that traverse the site. The main trunk line is moved north to align more directly along Quay Street, with a turnoff/link reconnecting to the Parnell Line. This also involves removing the current The Strand Station and the adjacent stabling provision. These changes create enough space to position the stadium and playing field at grade, rather than elevated above the existing rail network and infrastructure.
The design allows the existing rail network to remain operational while the new alignment is constructed alongside the current lines. A short “block of lines” during the typical Christmas/New Year period will be required to connect the existing and new lines.
We have identified several potential new sites for The Strand Station, which can also serve as a new metro station, either on or adjacent to the stadium.
This high-level design has been shared with KiwiRail. They agree that our proposal is technically feasible. Together, we will continue towards mitigating the impact on operations during construction, particularly during the block of line switch over. We also need to consider the effects of relocating metro train stabling further from the CBD and the impact of a new and repositioned Strand Station on the tourist/intercity train network. The latter may be mitigated by the new metro station and/or the eventual electrification of the rail line to Hamilton, enabling Te Huia to utilise Britomart and/or the CRL tunnels. The design team and KiwiRail are working collaboratively on solutions as the design progresses.
The council's review of the study shows this image, noting:
the stadium outline is shown in yellow. Existing rail lines are shown in red, while proposed new alignments are in green and magenta. As can be seen, the proposal is to move the Eastern Line north to be alongside Quay St and to move the Southern to Eastern Line connector to run on the northwest side of the new stadium rather than through the current Strand Station. Note that this proposal is preliminary, and detailed design work is yet to be undertaken.
The proponent believes rail services would only need to be suspended for several weeks to connect the new green lines to the existing network. However, KiwiRail believes that disruptions to service are likely to be much longer, given the amount of work required, including dealing with signalling and power systems. It also intended to build apartments on a podium above the rail northeast of the site, immediately to the west of the Strand to Tamaki Drive Road bridge. This is also likely to require rail closures.
.....
The Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) stabling yards shown in the centre of the plan above will need to be relocated. A site has not been identified, not has the cost been assessed. Depending on the final location, rail operating costs may increase.
It's great they're talking about potentially a new station in this area that could also serve as a metro station which would help connect this part of the city, though it's odd it's hidden so deeply in report as it seems something that should be highlighted as a benefit. It's also something I called for last year.
Stakeholder Feedback
The council have also highlighted some of the feedback from some key stakeholders including Auckland Transport and Kiwirail. Notably, for Eden Park both seem to be suggesting that further upgrades to Kingsland Station and track infrastructure will be required. For Te Tōangaroa the concern is the rail network will be impacted for a long period of time
What Next
Council officers haven't made a recommendation other than a generic one to receive the feasibility studies and the review of them but have given councillors a few options for them to consider as well.
Option 1: Decline to endorse either proposal
Option 2: Endorse Eden Park 2.1
Option 3: Endorse Te Tōangaroa
Option 4: Invite both proponents to submit a business case to establish the case for their proposal
Option 5: Endorse the staged development of Eden Park, but not the whole of Eden Park 2.1
Councillor Shane Henderson, who has chaired the working group wants the council to pick a preferred option and Radio NZ reports that he's leaning towards Eden Park.
Which option should councillors pick?
I appreciate that Eden Park would be less of a cost impact and is more feasible (as long as the Government stumps up well over $100m for stage 1) but from a transport point of view it is significantly deficient in the long term. Kingsland station is so limited in space and the fact that they would only look to improve connections to the station in stage three is very disappointing
Eden Park, if anything.