While it’s most likely that we are at least 10-15 years away from seriously considering starting construction of any railway line to the North Shore, given that at its city end the line will need to link into the rest of the railway network in one way or another (either directly or by way of a transfer), there are a matters which need consideration in the relatively near future. Particularly when we’re thinking about the detailed design of the City Rail Link.

My most recent concept for the first stage of North Shore Rail, largely designed as a cheaper alternative to a road crossing, suggests linking in with the rail network at Aotea Station, but probably by way of a transfer, rather than with a direct track connection: 

The map below gives a way that this could work in the much longer term, with the North Shore line linking through to the Eastern and then potentially out to the far southeast along this alignment. For the first stage though, it has seemed to me that there’s no reason why the red line couldn’t simply terminate at Aotea station, with people transferring onto “green line” and “blue line” trains to travel elsewhere in the region. Another possible option (although cost-prohibitive in my opinion), might be to eventually link the North Shore Line through to the southern at Newmarket: The route in the map above was used by NZTA to discredit North Shore rail as mind-bogglingly expensive, which obviously it would be with the cross-town tunnel proposed. Other options over the years have included connecting straight into Britomart, effectively forming a “Y” junction underneath the current downtown shopping centre.

Interestingly though, one map in the City Centre Master Plan suggests an alternative alignment:

Regular commenter Patrick Reynolds suggested that this option may have some strong advantages:

A number of trains from say the Southern line entering the city via Newton-K Rd would turn west after Aotea station to Gaunt St then head under the harbour to Akoranga and Takapuna. As per your NS programme. Then return back across the harbour, to Gaunt St and continue on to Britomart and then either the Eastern or Southern lines back south. This deals with the capacity issues as it could run without really adding trains to the network, the new line being so short. Direct travelers won’t need to wait long for the next train on the CRL that isn’t heading out to Takapuna, as you wouldn’t run every train this way…

…Gaunt St is going to be as least as important a destination as Britomart at the morning peak with all the offices moving there, and I see no problem with people from the south either transferring at Aotea or Newmarket, or walking from Aotea to get to the downtown area. And many will probably be keen on the one-seat ride directly to the Wynyard wharf area, not to mention Akoranga and Takapuna, from south and east AK. Really from the south if you are heading to Britomart or of course Parnell you’ll change at Newmarket.

It also should mean fewer transfers at the city stations for Shore people, many of whom will have already changed at Akoranga, which would be a good thing. This could also offer one seat rides to the Airport for Shore train riders too.

The possibility of running direct services from Takapuna to the Airport is obviously quite attractive, and I am also mindful that probably most passengers on a North Shore Line that started at Takapuna would have already transferred once between services (from the bus to the train at Akoranga). These are strong arguments for connecting the North Shore tracks into the City Rail Link tunnel directly. On the other hand, if we are thinking about the pure capacity of the system, with the North Shore Line likely to require pretty high frequency trains to deal with its volumes, linking it into the rest of the network could create problems in the long run with too many trains on the City Rail Link tunnel and with it becoming too difficult to manage those trains coming in from various lines, trains stopping at Aotea Station and so forth.

I really don’t know the answer to this issue, but I think it’s something that needs to be given some strong consideration as we shift into undertaking detailed design of the City Rail Link tunnel – because whichever option we choose, if we don’t think about how North Shore rail will ‘link in’, doing so in the future will become much harder and much more expensive.

Share this


  1. How is a rail tunnel cheaper than a road crossing? Will it generate a single dollar in revenue to contribute towards the long run capital cost of building a new bespoke single use corridor? Contrast that to the existing harbour bridge which if tolled tomorrow would defer the need for a new crossing for easily 20-30 years (by addressing congestion on the northern motorway and enabling the busway to operate at maximum capacity), whilst generating considerable surpluses that could be used for a range of purposes (you’d say public transport, others may say roads, I may say reduce rates by cutting rates funding for roads, but that’s another debate).

    The rational response to this corridor is to price it effectively. It will delay literally billions in capex which in itself has a NPV of tens of millions every year. Congestion pricing on the bridge will save a fortune in delays and fuel costs, and greatly enhance the range of viable bus services (and perhaps a few ferry services). It will incentivise better utilisation of the Upper Harbour Motorway, and provide ample road space for more buses downtown and on the approaches to the busway and on the arterials. The political cost of doing so is high, so the only way to make it palatable is to spend the surplus on the Shore, perhaps with a combination of projects and cutting rates (which will require some serious governance reform).

    Building rail to the North Shore wont resolve the congestion, will do nothing for freight, will render the Busway partially redundant, will provide a windfall property value gain to those in its vicinity and require more capital than the crossing and stations as it will need more rolling stock (and of course will demand more money in subsidies).

    The opposite of always building more roads is not always building more public transport corridors. Urban transport pricing is fundamentally flawed.

        1. Well this is in essence a philosophical objection: I see the need and value in big transformative changes in both how we move and how we live in Auckland as in other cities, and have less than no problem with cross-subsidising these changes from various sources. This is what society and civilisation is for; the greater good. Of course there will always need to be debate around the very real issues of costs and benefits, but I do not suffer from any religious belief that infrastructure projects must to pay for themselves. If so we would have no sewerage system, libraries, hospitals, or schools, and in fact much of the road network couldn’t be justified on this basis either. Of course a holistic view is more important than simply the arithmetic of the cost accountants. This a narrow and limited understanding of what is really at stake. Process is important but it mustn’t be allowed to be the final arbiter of total value. Unless I suppose, like Thatcher, you don’t believe that society exists at all…?

          1. You can’t use the “greater good” argument with Scott. Libertarians believe in no greater good than personal enrichment at the expense of anyone and everyone who gets in their way.

          2. Oh I know, it’s like trying to reason with a fundamentalist of any creed, but I think it’s important to call out errant nonsense whenever it pops up, especially of the bullying kind.

    1. Tolling the current harbour bridge is an excellent idea. It will slash the National vote on the Shore without the need for Andrew Williams standing for NZ First. It worked for Muldoon against Brash several decades ago. We should us that trick again to cut down Key/Blinglish/Joyce to size.

  2. The route in that last map isn’t physically possible without massive costs, as an example it cuts straight under the ANZ centre which is a 30+ story tower as well a number of other buildings so unless the city ws to buy them all and demolish them then this just isn’t going to happen. There also would be an issue with capacity, adding in a north shore link like suggested in that image that would strangle the network, with your suggested routing from the post the other day (which is my favorite so far) then we would be having 24 trains per hour in each direction. The business case suggests that with advanaced signalling we will only be able to 30 trains per direction each hour.

    Personally I think it should come in either directly under Wellesley St or Victoria St with the former probably being the easier, the latter probably better located in relation to the city. This would connect it up to one end of the Aotea station and provide transfers to the rest of the rail network with us eventually taking out the eastern side to either Quay park like in your suggestion or to Newmarket like in the NZTA proposal.

      1. Yes I realise that but the suggestion is that it would link into the CRL but even if you managed to find a workable route you would still have the capacity issues that would prevent increased capacity elsewhere.

        1. Well Matt I’m not so sure there would be capacity issues for quite a while. The plan here would be to run trains from say the southern line after Aotea across to Takapuna then back to Guant St then on to Britomart. Run like this it is really just a looping extension to the CRL, and quite a short but high capacity one. Other trains would proceed directly to Britomart from Aotea. The diversion, if you like, to the North Shore, even if it took 12 TPH does not take them from the CRL, they are still serving the rest of the network… so explain to me how this has such a bad effect on capacity?

          I foresee many more disadvantages with a separate shuttle service, as it would create both too much of a bottleneck at Aotea and basically be expecting NS ridders to transfer too often to be attractive. And do you really think the ideal alternative of both a cross harbour tunnel and an additional sub-city tunnel is likely to be funded?

  3. Another alternative could be along Madden Street, under the Viaduct then along Customs/Beach Road emerging at the Strand with stops at Madden Street and Britomart under Customs Street. Advantages would be lower cost as more of it could be built cut and cover and a link to Britomart.Disadvantages are that you don’t increase your catchment by much and you put more people into a crowded Britomart.

  4. I still favour a new North Shore Line linking into Aotea Station and then to the Stand before ehading out along the eastern rail to Orakei. Aotea should be a natural central exchange and the stand would provide very easy access to Vector arena.

    A cheaper option could involve a North Shore line in a cut and cover trench along the waterfront with the train terminating at a new platform under Quay St adjacent Britomart.

  5. This still really doesn’t make sense to me. I’d love to understand why it’s more sensible than a route via the Devonport peninsula. You end up splitting frequency with a spur to Takapuna, forcing peninsula and Takapuna passengers heading north or northern passengers heading to Takapuna to head south and then transfer back up. You run an expensive tunnel across the harbour to a part of the city with low density and low TOD opportunity. This only makes sense if the idea is to be an intersuburban line that one day stretches all the way up to Warkworth. But what’s really needed is a metro style line with high frequency connecting North Shore’s dense centres (and growth centres) through to AKL city, Newmarket, and the Airport.

    1. I think cost is the main reason why you wouldn’t go up the Devonport Peninsula, because you’d need to go under it, which would mean an enormously long tunnel from Takapuna to the city. It also means you probably wouldn’t be able to serve Wynyard Quarter (too far west), which is a huge gain from any North Shore line.

      Ultimately my preferred option is a relatively short tunnel from Aotea Station to Onewa Road, with one new underground station plus an extension to Aotea Station. Then the Akoranga to Takapuna section, which I’m not quite sure how that’d work exactly.

      1. I’d bet the cost difference wont seem so big in the future though, especially if the benefits really are that much greater for a city of 2-2.5 million. And take that out even further to 2060 or 2070 or even 2100, tunnels have a long long lifespan. There’d be some tunneling and complexity to be saved by linking up at Mechanics Bay and then running through the CRL, until that runs out of capacity then a second CBD loop can be constructed. The Wynyard Qtr will hopefully be well serve by light rail connections in either case. In the Onewa tunnel option most passengers headed to Wynyard will still have to make some kind of transfer to LRT or the North Shore line to reach the Wynyard stop anyway.

  6. I would vote against against linking a North Shore tunnel into the city rail link directly. The CRL will have a hard enough time carrying the four paired main lines that are proposed to run through (especially once there is the inevitable demand for 5 min suburban frequencies), let alone if it has an extra junction half way along and a third pair of lines to route through part of it.

    Any value that could be gained from joining the tracks into the CRL could be had almost to the same level by simply making transfers straightforward, with less cost and none of the impact upon operations. The more I look into these things the more I think that Auckland should focus on a sectorised metro style model for it’s rail operations (taking hints from the RER and S-Bahn), rather than replicating the cumbersome suburban hybrid systems of the Australian capitals.

    I can see only two realistic sets of options:
    -Firstly terminating it at separate but integrated platforms adjacent to either 1) Midtown or 2) Briotmart
    -Secondly allowing for subsequent extension with either A) a short tunnelled link to the eastern line or B) a longer second city rail tunnel via the universities/hospital/museum etc to the vicinity of Newmarket.

    However having said that, as the Shore line would be an entirely new route there is no real need to have it impact upon the existing system at all. If the connections are simple it need not even have the same class of rolling stock or really even the same gauge or power supply if something else is more appropriate.

    Perhaps we should stop thinking of the Shore line as the next line on Auckland’s suburban railway, and maybe think of it as the first line of Auckland’s metro system?

    1. “However having said that, as the Shore line would be an entirely new route there is no real need to have it impact upon the existing system at all. If the connections are simple it need not even have the same class of rolling stock or really even the same gauge or power supply if something else is more appropriate.

      Perhaps we should stop thinking of the Shore line as the next line on Auckland’s suburban railway, and maybe think of it as the first line of Auckland’s metro system?”

      Whilst I think I agree with the sentiment, I would be really cautious about bringing in something incompatible in terms of gauge or power supply, as there is no telling what future desires there may be to switch parts of the existing network over to the new one.

      1. Sure, we should maintain the same standards and interoperability unless something presented particularly compelling benefits for a different class of vehicle. I’m just thinking in terms of light metro systems that don’t suffer nearly the same constraints on curvature and grade as our heavy rail EMUs. That might make refitting the busway possible without much modification and could make simple sub-surface cut and cover tunnels under city streets a realistic option for the city side extensions, i.e. potentially slashing billions of the proposed costs. I’m been looking into this concept lately, I’ll do a little more research and put together a post on the subject shortly.

    2. “Perhaps we should stop thinking of the Shore line as the next line on Auckland’s suburban railway, and maybe think of it as the first line of Auckland’s metro system?”

      I agree, that’s what I’m going for in my argument it should head up Devonport. I’d link it into thew CRL to start, when the CRL runs out of capacity complete a new loop, probably something from the Strand over to Vic Park, up to Newton, and back over to Mt Eden then on to Newmarket. Then convert the line from Newmarket through Onehunga and to the airport basically into the southern leg of your main north/south (ideally fully automated) metro line.

  7. I have two issues with the final diagram that I think would need addressing.

    The first is that at least two and ideally all three junctions of the triangle would need to be grade seperated. This is the busiest section of the network, and we would have just spent millions to increase capacity. The last thing we want to do next is to then throw away some of that extra capacity with pathing conflicts at flat junctions. Provision of the grade seperation is likely to increase enormously the cost the triangular junction option.

    The second is split destinations and origins. If there are say 12tph from the north shore, half going each way, then travelling to the CBD a North Shore commuter has a 12 tph service. But for their return journey they need to choose between Aotea and Britomart as their departure station and each only has a 6tph service. From the point of view of the CBD commuter a terminal station under Aotea would be better. Someone travelling from elsewhere would have a different view, of course, and so the issue will be complex to analyse.

    I suppose there is a simple long term vision to be considered: will a two track tunnel through the CBD with probably 24tph as a realistic maximum be sufficient for all time? If the answer is ‘no’ then there will need to be a second tunnel feeding the CBD at some point, and we would be as well considering what we would want that second tunnel to do, so that any short term stub-ends can be suitably aligned to be a step on the way.

    1. Richard and Nick: I’m not so sure there would be capacity issues for quite a while. The plan here would be to run trains from say the southern line after Aotea across to Takapuna then back to Guant St then on to Britomart. Run like this it is really just a looping extension to the CRL, and quite a short but high capacity one. Other trains would proceed directly to Britomart from Aotea. The diversion, if you like, to the North Shore, even if it took 12 TPH does not take them from the CRL, they are still serving the rest of the network… so explain to me how this has such a bad effect on capacity?

      I foresee many more disadvantages with a separate shuttle service, as it would create both too much of a bottleneck at Aotea and basically be expecting NS ridders to transfer too often to be attractive. And do you really think the ideal alternative of both a cross harbour tunnel and an additional sub-city tunnel is likely to be funded?

      Remember any system crossing the harbour is going to be very expensive, one of the most important things you will need is for it to appeal to NS people who generally don’t want to fund rail at all right now. The opportunity for them to have a one or two seat [max] ride to the airport would for me be a bottom line if I was trying to get funding for any kind of crossing. Nick I disagree strongly that any PT crossing doesn’t need to integrate with the network, without real integration a new expensive system will not be functionally much better than existing buses [except, admittedly, for the great advantage of getting those horrors off the streets].

      1. Two things Patrick, firstly if I understand your proposal correctly wouldn’t your routing mean that people heading into town from the Shore get off at Britomart, but have to go to Aotea to get a train back to the Shore again? This also entails a transfer via the CRL, or at least a short walk and a confusing situation. One alternative would be to run all Shore trains to and from Aotea, K Rd and southward (i.e. only south facing junction in use), occupying say 1/2 of the tunnel capacity in that section. Meanwhile the other 1/2 is occupied by routes from Mt Eden to Britomart as generally proposed. This would leave a gap of 1/2 the tunnels capacity at Britomart, which could be used to solve the dilemma of what to do with terminating trains.

        Secondly, I certainly do understand your concerns about non-integration between the Shore and the rest of the network, however we do need to draw a distinction between an integrated network from the passengers perspective and one which is totally interoperable. The London Tube for example is an integrated network, but is operated by three different classes of vehicle that can only operate on their own tracks. No reason we couldn’t have things like a cross-platform interchange between metro vehicles on one side and main line EMUs on the other. That is still an integrated network by my definition.

        Let me flesh out my ‘light metro’ concept a bit more and I shall throw it to the wolves shortly.

  8. The Devonport peninsula is likewise a low density area with low TOD opportunities (particularly as it is mostly a heritage zone with zero opportunity for intensification). In either case the point is basically to get the line up to Akoranga and beyond, which is cheaper and easier to do by widening the existing causeway along the western side of the inlet rather than tunnelling all the way up from Devonport or trying to push through a new causeway from Bayswater or something.

    Furthermore running it along the western side provides access to the huge catchment of the Northcote-Birkenhead-Beachhaven corridor, which currently comprises about a quarter of Shore’s population.

    1. Devonport also already has its very own RTN, remember, the ferries. And is even networked with Waiheke. Absolutely no need to cross the harbour via this little seaside village, with its independent vibe. Buses to connect to Takapuna and Akoranga and the wharf of course.,

      1. That ferry service ‘networked with Waiheke’ is the worst route invention by Fullers. It simply makes the trip from Waiheke to town 10mins longer for barely any benefit. The number of passengers getting on/off is so small it doesn’t warrant the time and energy loss – not mentioning the terrible wharf design unsuitable for larger ferries to dock – we had JetRaider smash into it earlier this year. The Devonportugese have their Kea service to downtown, which shouldn’t be duplicated by the Waiheke Ferry every 2 hours.

        1. Surely the trip from Devonport to the Downtown Ferry Terminal is short and frequent enough for anyone making the journey from Devo to Waiheke to simply transfer there?

    2. “The Devonport peninsula is likewise a low density area with low TOD opportunities (particularly as it is mostly a heritage zone with zero opportunity for intensification).”

      But all of Auckland is low density at the moment. The peninsula is a large area. It’s only low TOD opportunity if people want to keep all of it low density. Surely not all of Hauraki, Narrow Neck, Belmont, the fringes of Devonport, and of course all of Takapuna are heritage areas doomed to be low density forever? (That’s horrible!)

      1. erentz, Devonport will remain low-ish density but Takapuna will become much more intense. Why?, because there is no desire by the people of Devpo. for any sort of change, but Takapuna has large areas of undeveloped land [ie carparks] in its commercial centre, there are already highrise buildings there, so this is the place to go up, and therefore this is a key place to connect as directly as possible to the RTN network. Devonport does have a transit problem up its spine but this is best dealt with by offering a high standard alternative to the private car from both Takapuna [to the city and the rest of the Shore] and the Wharf and connecting those with better bus privilege up that main artery and throughout the peninsula.

  9. Rather than H-bahn which is still with similar engineering weight standards to conventional rail, the U-bahn is going to be the better example. Lighter weights means that we don’t need to be supplying at the rate our new EMUs will require – 2720kW to get up that downtown tunnel. A U-bahn style of vehicle can be primarily a surface transit operation such as Vancouver’s Skytrain or Chicago’s elevated network. A U-bahn train has heavy rail equivalent capacity rather than Light rail which is closer to that of a busway.

    The Auckland Harbour Bridge has a gradient of 1:20 which is tantalisingly close to the downtown 1:26 of the CBD tunnel. Conventional rail can and does very occasionally operate on 1:20 type gradients…there are examples in Norway, Switzerland and South America…however such operations come with a massive power requirement and/or reduced and less economic loads. Something to be avoided for Heavy Rail……but not out of the question for lighter U-Bahn type vehicles. The North Shore line may indeed become Auckland’s first true metro.

    Building as a standalone line allows for a potentially greater range of possible tenderers able to offer standardised rolling stock.

    1. Skytrain (Bombadier ART) is precisely the example I had in mind, and apparently it’s linear induction traction can cope with a 1 in 20 grade. I recently rode the same system installed in Kuala Lumpur and was very impressed, it has a set of qualities that is starting to look perfect for new lines in Auckland.

  10. Yes those Skytrain Mk2 Bombardier vehicles look great, roomy too and well up to the job of shifting large volumes of people quickly.

    I can see them working well on North Shore’s busway too.

    Just to clarify my comments on the new heavy rail EMUs and the downtown city rail tunnel……obviously we’re now fully committed to using those carriages in the tunnel, 1:26 gradient and all. This is because of the absolute requirement to integrate the heavy rail western rail line with that tunnel…..southern lines and Onehunga/Airport line too.

    A Skytrain/U-bahn type operation as Nick R has commented, is going to add an attractive new option into the mix for new rail lines. And it certainly does make possible lower cost options for additional tunneling under the city.

    1. Skytrain vehicles also have the huge advantage of being driverless, which means that you can run really high off-peak frequencies like Vancouver does, and retain good ridership at all times of the day.

      1. Further to that, without drivers the operating costs are basically divisible by the unit-kilometre. Which means it costs the same to run a six-car train every fifteen minutes as it does to run a two-car train every five minutes.
        Also the computer control means they can switch junctions very quickly without the need for signal blocks, making high frequency branch lines and cross-town routes feasible. Take a look at the Docklands Light Railway, while the technology is inferior to the Bombadier ART in my opinion, their collection of three ‘track’ lines and junctions is typically operated as seven high frequency ‘route’ lines.

        1. If conventional rail’s capacity to the North Shore is 17,000 per 2 hour morning peak, then that is the benchmark for the effectiveness of a Skytrain/U-Bahn set up. Personally I do think conventional rail can do better than that, however I’m also confident that a Skytrain/U-Bahn can surpass those numbers, and potentially through economic use of the current Harbour Bridge.

          The feasibility of conventional electric rail to the north shore is determined by whether a tunnel and spur to Takapuna can be run at a low “all-of-life” cost relative to alternatives.

          Another scenario is that conventional electric rail will work brilliantly as a high speed commuter link through the Glenfield/Albany basin to new commuter belts in the Whangaparoa Peninsula, Warkworth and indeed Wellsford. However, does Auckland want itself to grow north in this way? And does NZ Inc want Auckland to grow this way and is it prepared to fund what is really a trans-regional initiative?

          Skytrain/U-Bahn has the potential to be able to hug North Shore’s undulating topography at a much lower cost than a conventional rail line but with equivalent capacity. Crucially, I think it has the potential to break out of the Glenfield/Albany basin to fundamentally provide a better service than the current busway. This will in turn consolidate the success of the busway from its current “peaky” patronage profile into effective all-day PT.

          1. tuktuk, I’m no expert on issues like line capacity that 17 000 figure is very back of the envelope and anyway only based on 12 trains/hour. So I have no idea what any kind of ceiling might be. Building the line as admin has suggested to Akoranga and perhaps Takapuna in no way precludes converting the busway to some kind of rail system and heading as far north as is sensible. Which of course would mean a more direct ride for travelers north of Akoranga. But this idea is a way of getting maximum use with a lower initial capex, as the harbour crossing itself will be a big cost to absorb. It is a longterm model staging if you like.

  11. Our new trains will have a capacity of 120 per car. If 5 min freqs were run on this line, 12 T/hour, or 24 trains across the 2 hour mourning peak. 6 car trains 6 x 120 = 720 x 24= a capacity 17,280 souls.

    Currently the Bridge is moving around half this number in the morning peak on buses. A few bus routes would still go direct I guess from Northcote and Birkenhead… but a great deal of drivers would switch to the much faster and more direct option of networked rail.

    The trains would be worked really efficiently as most riders of pretty full trains from the south would disembark in the city before the same train speed to the Shore to fill up again and return again very full.

    I more I look at this the more I like it.

  12. The new line will have to link up with the rest of the rail network, surely, or otherwise how do you get the rolling stock onto the line. How do you get the rolling stock to maintenance facilities? If the spur was disconnected from the rest of Auckland’s rail lines, you would have to lift the trains and carriages onto the line with a crane every time you needed to add or remove capacity or maintain them, and then truck the trains around the region. That seems pretty mickey mouse to me…

  13. Yes I did consider the asymmetry of the inbound and outbound journeys for the Shore commuter, but I figured that the stations are close enough together and the area between being the highest density in AK for one other of the stations to be closer their destinations that it is likely not to matter much. And I’m also sure that it is something that the average Shore person could understand…. A little peculiar perhaps. Of course there will be some workers in the Westpac building above Britomart for example who would either have a transfer or take a post-work walk past the shops and bars on their way home. But then of course with your alternative these same people wouldn’t get the direct morning ride and be faced with the transfer or walk both ways. Either system is bound to suit some and not others, but like I say the density is so high that there will surely be enough combinations that work.

    I was rather taken with the idea of the trains only turning left for simplicity of construction and operation. And the way that we could plug in the Shore without either prohibitive expense or blowing the capacity of the CRL. The amount of work those trains would be doing on relatively short hauls is extremely impressive too- bang for buck.

    Looking closer I think the eastbound connection from Guant St could be cut and cover under Fanshaw St and either connect to the CRL at the point the lines turn from Albert towards Britomart, or this track could continue on to platform 1 in its own right next to the two CRL lines proper. While this won’t increase the capacity at the eastern end of Britomart, of course, it would help with the large volumes of pax arriving at Britomart. So three line leaving Britomart to the west- would have to help with maintenance etc

    The other connection from Guant St looks like it could go under Wyndam St to connect with the west side track out of Aotea. So I am proposing to bificate the connection of the NS line to the CRL at Fanshaw St in order to achieve better alignments and simplify the route in terms of impacts on property and construction access and costs….?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *