One of the proposals that is floating around at the moment and something that is being pushed fairly strongly by the  Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board is the idea of a transit oriented development (TOD) at Tamaki centred around the re-opening of the Tamaki train station. This was also highlighted in the CCFAS supporting documents looking at large scale development that is being planned along the rail corridors. At first the idea makes some sense as the area is both fairly close to town thanks to the train line and is an old industrial area that has large lots and that is ripe for redevelopment. The map below shows the area that is being talked about for a TOD. The council/AT own the land in red due to the AMETI plans while the light orange is one single land holding.

Tamaki TOD Land

But while I like putting more people right next to the rail line, I think there is a major flaw with the idea an it is to do with the idea of reopening the Tamaki train station which is intended to be right in the centre of the development. The issue is its proximity to the two stations that would surround it, Panmure and Glen Innes as it would only be around 800m and 1.2km away respectively (to/from roughly the centre of the platforms. That may seem like a lot but for a rail system it is pretty close and means the trains start to lose some one of their big advantages over buses which is their speed. It means that the distances between stations in this section end up similar like the horribly slow inner western line stations and by my calculations such a station could slow down trains by as much 1½ minutes. That would affect anyone who used the trains from south of the station and while it might not sound like much, making savings of that level across a large number of people is what is often used to justify large transport projects like motorways. In effect there would have to be massive amounts of additional patronage to justify the addition of a station here.

Tamaki Station location
The proposed station would only be ~900m from Panmure and 1.3km from Glen Innes 

So what are the alternatives, well most people generally tend to be ok walking up to ~800m  if it means access to a really high quality PT option like a train station with frequent services and 800m from the northern end of Panmure is right smack in the middle of this proposed development. Further it would be a nice flat walk taking most people somewhere between 5 and 10 minutes depending on how fast they walked. Those with a bike could go even faster and cycle the journey to Panmure in just a couple of minutes, even at a leisurely pace and by my reading of the AMETI plans, dedicated cycle lanes are going in alongside the rail line/ new AMETI road.

AMETI walking and cycling improvements 

Perhaps the only redeeming feature is that it would also be the closest station for those living in Stonefields or in the older housing developments to the east of the area but even then most would probably still find it just as easy to get to either Panmure of Glen Innes as they would getting to this station. Building the station could also have other unforeseen consequences, in particular the neighbouring Orakei local board have been pushing to get another station added between Glen Innes and Meadowbank. AT have already dismissed that as being to costly with not enough patronage however this development could see them reignite that debate adding more political pressure on to AT. I think looking at the plans so far, it simply doesn’t seem worth it to put a station in here as the existing ones in the area already serve the potential development fairly well.

Share this


  1. The main argument given for reopening the Tamaki Station seems to be simply mostly “because its already there”.

    On its own, it makes sense on the surface to make use of existing stations if you can, but Tamaki is not the only “ghost” station on the rails – there is also one opposite Ellerslie race course.
    But when you look there isn’t actually much infrastrcuture there – the platform is an island one, and the tracks diverge around the old station platform same as the GI station platform.

    But once you dig in a little, as you say, there is not that much overall benefit, if any, and once the increased delays on all rail passengers passing through the Eastern line are factored in it not really very practical just yet.

    As I recall the station is isolated from the surrounding areas now, and the proposed access is from the Quarry Link Road bridge which is shown in your first diagram as that white patch of land which has a road designation on it.

    As such any station here would need to be a future one – and should really open only once the surrounding area has been totally redeveloped from its existing industrial base to justify the inconvenience.

    While it would be a closer walk for the Stonefields folks at the eastern end of that development than GI station would be, but is it worth actually inconveniencing the many (actual) rail users for the (potential) benefit of the few residents at that end of Stonefields (which is all low/medium-density “sprawl” housing anyway)?

    As for cycleways, can’t say I’d want to use the cycleways along there, that roadway north of Panmure will become a real racetrack and it will not be a very pleasant area to walk or cycle through as the buildings that surround the land where the road/cycleway will go (parallel to Hannigan Drive) all have their massive “backs” towards you
    – it will be very like that area of land by the SEART where it cuts through from Carbine to Waipuna Road – which is not a very pleasant area now.and is a real race track.

      1. Somewhere between/near Michelson and Walpole St’s was an area used for Ellerslie race course trains many years ago.
        Can’t see it very well in GE these days, but there used to be raised platforms besides the railways on both sides, used for people getting the trains to/from Ellerslie races, in the days when that was the main way to get to the races.
        The eastern platform got built on/lost when the Motorway went through so thats how long ago it was.

        1. There still appears to be an underpass from the rail corridor to connect to the Wairakei St underpass. Hadn’t noticed that before.

        2. I’ve never walked down the Wairakei St underpass, but I believe you are right about the linking underpass to the station platforms “above”.

          In fact if you check on Google Earth carefully – you *can* just see the raised platform between the railway and the motorway and it starts right at Michelson St.
          Its way overgrown now, on both sides of the railway.
          It stretches to about halfway between Wairakei and Walpole Sts on both sides.

  2. Well this is really a discussion about the nature of the network, Matt and Greg clearly see it as a commuter system prioritising further out travellers and not a Metro style one also trying to serve local communities. There is always a tension between speed and coverage.

    This looks like it could be a good way of stimulating urban renewal and at the cost of a minute or so I am not so convinced that that is so bad because of the pretty sizeable area that could be transformed. 2km between the existing stations? 800m+ is a pretty long walk for many….

    Meadowbank is a different situation because there is not a big brownfields site to develop. There is an argument to move that station up the hill, but no good one to duplicate it.

    1. Patrick,
      I don’t disagree with your comments of Metro over Commuter system, but I also do agree with Matts (implied suggestion/query) as to why inconvenience a lot of people by opening Tamaki again until the area has been redeveloped? Once there is a demand then by all means put it in place if it can be shown to be positive overall.

      But Matts comments regarding the knock on effect of adding 1.5 minutes to each commuters journey that goes through this station in either direction is certainly a valid point – for now.
      And in any case until the Quarry Link Road/Bridge is built and access to Tamaki station granted via that bridge, there is no access to said station.

      However, it could be said that without a station being opened the demand won’t eventuate, so there is the old chicken and egg.

      But right now any plans for a TOD around Tamaki station is so fluid who knows in what form and when it will be built?

      Certainly,until the AMETI road north to Merton Road from Panmure is completed in the coming years, there is no certainty in this area in a lot of peoples minds (including mine)..

      Even opening Tamaki only at peak times won’t solve the bigger problem and makes it worse in some ways as we want a system that people get use to get from A to B any time and having peak only stations won’t solve that – all stations all the time is a Metro style operation.

      Yes 800m+ is a longish walk for some, but isn’t that what frequent local bus services are for (the type planned with PTOM) to cover the too long to walk easily areas so that anyone in the Tamaki area who can’t easily ealk to GI or Panmure can get there without a lot of walking or waiting?
      And if they’d struggle with that distance, how would having a “local” station at Tamaki help then? Most people will end up walking that sort of distance anyway at street level to the Tamaki Station once the redevelopment occurs.

      I recall a discussion a while back on how far the current Tamaki campus actually is as a walking distance from the GI station and its around that when you actually measure the track taken on your walk.
      An “as the crow flies” 400m/800m circle will show it to be less, but thats because it assumes no buildings, roads or other topological barriers to completing a straight line walk exist – which is never the case).

      For Meadowbank station as I recall the original plans (way way back in the 60s/70s) for the Eastern Rail link was for a “St Johns” station at or near the summit of the St Johns “hill”
      – with possibly removing Meadowbank station in the process..

      In fact Meadowbank station’s only claim to fame right now is as a de-facto park and ride for outer suburbs folks to drive to and park all day in the local streets for free (something which both ARA/ARTA and ACC encouraged and actively advertised it as such).

      There is now a great walkway (boardwalk) from the Meadowbank end of the Orakei embankment all the way to the Orakei station – which crosses under the Orakei road avoiding the need to cross that busy road.
      It is a nice walk on fine days (not so on windy/wet days).

      But you could easily close Meadowbank station and have those folks walk/cycle to Orakei.who live locally to Meadowbank Station and who do use the train(s).

      As you say there is no brownfields sites nearby for a intensive development around this station.
      And its not easy to get buses to/from this station either, being as it is at the end of a winding road cul-de-sac.Of course, if you put a north south road bridge across the Meadowbank stream you could – but thats pretty extreme way to solve a problem of a isolated station. Easier to move the station and will cost less too.

      The second question is then what to do about the St Johns road station though (to give in to the OLB its request of a station closer to St Johns road).

      This is a more difficult than Tamaki station question – not least due to the height difference from the road to the rail and need for expensive to build infrastructure there – but it is one that could be solved I am sure with some thought and actual spending of decent money not the $50K back of the envelope exercise done to date by AT.

      – and it is important to consider as potentially this station would pull rail users from a much wider area (entire Eastern bays) than Meadowbank ever could.
      Especially if the buses were to start/end/travel past the St Johns station from the surrounding suburbs then it would be as big a GI station for passenger usage.

      And it could be put in place – without adding any extra stops to the Eastern railway if Meadowbank is closed.

      1. Yes St John is a good but expensive plan so hard to justify any time soon, and must involve the closure of Meadowbank Station.

        The Tamaki idea only has merit if coordinated with a really big and intense development there, coordinated time wise as well, you’d never do it speculatively. Would clearly need to be a much more sophisticated deal than the very poor effort at Sylvia Park. But done properly with hundreds of apartments and small retail it could make for a very busy station- including Metro style intra network journeys, not just for to the commuters.

        Something for the second half of this decade.

        1. Meadowbank near the Meadowbank station has a bus route serving it now, its part of the GI 655 service.

          Longer term, that route may be shortened so it doesn’t start/end in Britomart, but the GI end of the route is still valid, and to some extent it competes directly with the train now.

  3. “As for cycleways, can’t say I’d want to use the cycleways along there, that roadway north of Panmure will become a real racetrack and it will not be a very pleasant area to walk or cycle through as the buildings that surround the land where the road/cycleway will go (parallel to Hannigan Drive) all have their massive “backs” towards you”

    Having been (for Cycle Action) been involved with the design of the cycle facilities, I sincerely hope that the road will not end up as a “racetrack (50 km/h speed zone and all that). However, the current plans only have cycle lanes (not off-road paths) in the northern part of the AMETI facilities – we tried to change that, but were not successful. A proper large-scale residential development should provide off-road cycleways to nearby train stations. So while I think it’s not as bad as Greg N says, it could still be a lot better. A cycle path to Glen Innes station would be the logical minimum, while linking in towards the south via the AMETI cycle lanes (again, as a minimum – if I had my way, all rail routes would also have cycle paths anyway).

    1. A 50 km/h speed zone in Auckland doesn’t mean much. On a 4 lane road it just manages to keep cars below 60 km/h.

    2. I hope you are right,
      But I fear that the cycleways for AMETI are seen as a definite after everything else “luxury” after thought..

      Witness the problems you describe getting a half decent design accepted for what should be a no-brainer adjunct to the AMETI roadway given the money they’re spending,
      How much more does adding a proper cycleway design add to the overall cost?

      Do you think the cycleway beside the traffic tunnel beside Panmure station as is being built now will be other than a dark and dingy area full of petrol and diesel fumes and one that no one will walk or cycle in who is safety/health concious?

      Cycle links to GI station, as you say should be a given, but are they?
      – the only access path to GI station on the western side is a walkway not a combined walkway/cycleway – and there are no separate cycle ways or anything like that on the GI side of Apirana Ave to make it easy to cycle to the station.

      Even once you get your cycle to the station, what then?
      The only acknowledgement at GI that cyclists exist is some bike stands/lockers at the northern end on the GI side.
      So you’ll be able to use the few cycle lockers and bike stands.
      But – you most likely won’t be able to take your cycle on the train except off peak due to lack of room on the trains – even once the EMUs are on-stream..

      And if the solution presented to your request for proper cycleways is just a painted line on a road, when you’ll have buses whizzing by at 50km/hr (and thats on a slow day when the buses are all on time) in the bus lane/traffic lane right next door, all while dodging around the badly parked cars and cars pulling in and out – is that actually an acceptable/better solution these days in a more enlightened age?

      And is that in effect no different than a race track for cars/obstacle course for cyclists – something cycle ways are supposed to avoid?

      Yes there should be cycleways beside the rail lines but that would require spending of some money to achieve.
      I think it shows the kind of thinking that is still going on in some of the planners minds (and their purse minders).

      The planners and the politicians all know and agree that as cyclists don’t pay road tax and there aren’t enough of them to bother courting for votes compared to motorists so their wishes don’t actually count.

      How else do you explain the situation?

      1. On the Stonefields side of the line there is a whole dedicated piece of land that a cycleway could be built on without having any effect on the potential for it to be used for roading in the future. In my opinion there is no will from AT and I’ve heard that there is someone within that organisation that is a roadblock to cycle and walking infrastructure. I have mentioned recently that it feels that NZTA are more concerned with helping cyclists (and pedestrians for that matter) than AT.

      2. Hi Greg N – for the record, between Morrin Road and Mt Wellington Highway (where the new road re-joins, somewhat south of Malone Road), off-road paths AND cycle lanes are being provided, and there will be the option to ignore the tunnel (where we did raise the same security issues) and go across the top instead. My comment only refererred to NORTH of Morrin Road, parts of which are also considered part of AMETI.

        Further, on MWH there will be off-road paths on both sides, there will be cycle lanes and off-road paths on EPH, and a hide shared path cycleway off-road all the way from Panmure Roundabout to Pakuranga (east of the new bridge it will even be separated from pedestrians).

        So AMETI is actually spending a lot of money and thought on cyclists, and is actually a great example of good design, in our view. However, they aren’t “changing everything in every street in the area”, which would have been a bit much to expect. As I said, to link up to a new development like the one discussed in this blog post with off-road cycle paths, you couldn’t just depend on AMETI, you’d need some added facilities. That’s just normal.

  4. How about a tram line between both Panmure and GI Stations following the road? The do that here in Europe. Therefore no need to have a train station in the middle, and high quality PT links to both stations and houses/businesses.

  5. Just need one bus shuttle running between the two stations non-stop. Though, modern trams rolling would be nicer, more attractive to commuters.

  6. Wait up. Are they still pushing to use the old Eastern Highway designation for a road? How many more roads does that area need?

    1. I recall during Eastern Corridor Motorway planning which became AMETI Auckland City Council said they have to use it or redesignate it by 2014/16 or so, or lose the designation.

      I think while the current thinking of the old ACC (and presumably AC/AT by extension) was that no AMETI roads north of Merton Road, that doesn’t mean the designation on the land will be lifted.
      [I don’t know who owns the land? NZTA? And if the designation for roading is ever lifted, then what – NZTA sell it off to the highest bidder?].

      Seems to me that maybe AT/NZTA could use the land for a realignment of the rail-line with a less deep tunnel – especially now that the EMUs will allow steeper grades because of the design of them for CRL operation? That would allow the St Johns station to be built closer to St Johns road and not down a deep hole like it would be now.

      1. Not cheap, but freight could use the current line and tunnel and a new shallower route could be built for passenger tracks…? Again too expensive to happen soon or at least until we get a gov that understands the strategic value in freight on rails….

        1. My thoughts exactly Patrick.
          And when the TBMs complete, the CRL tunnel, why they can be moved to St Johns and bore the passenger rail tunnels then, for a fraction of the cost of doing it the old fashioned way.
          [or your could the St Johns tunnels first to “run in” the new TBMs before they tackle the main job 😉

          Yes, you would isolate Freight and Passenger tracks at that point but you could run them seperately that way and give a better outcome all round – effectively putting in a loop track for freight.

          As you say its won’t happen overnight, but it might happen?

        2. Patrick cut and cover might be do-able. Depending on how deep you make it.

          I recall when they looked at the “busway” and Motorway concepts for the original Eastern Motorway when Banks (remember him?) was mayor, that the same idea for the cut and cover tunnel under St Johns road were mooted then.

          The comment was made at the time that Motorway road above one of rail tunnel entrances would need some special “bridge supporting structure” due to the land topology and the need to protect the tunnel entrance from the road just above.

          However, if you had the full width of the designated motorway corridor for your passenger rail lines, and you went to the side as you came up the St Johns hill, you could probably do a rail-only alignment that just went under the road near the summit way cheaper than that proposed for the Eastern Motorway/busway because it was trying to be all things to everyone (Motorway and busway).

          And they wanted to avoid the steep grades up the hill either side of the St Johns crossing due to the container trucks – which for EMUs is not such a big problem.
          I would think if the EMUs will handle the specified grades from the bottom of Queen St to the top end of Symonds St you would get a EMU only alignment through St Johns without ending up having the station too deep.

  7. New Lynn TOD was a total cock up.
    All that money spent and the areas to the south and east went to big box retail.

    While the Council may own the land currently because of the requirements of the AMETI project, they are bound to obtain the highest return when selling on
    Lets not blow more money until there is certainty around the land use.

    Did anyone see the Auckland Council lost $167 million last year betting on derivative bets?
    What’s that? Half the house hold rates for the entire City for a year?
    This bunch of fools are expert at blowing money, makes me so angry.

    1. Um, I am pretty sure that “big box retail” was there BEFORE there was any talk of New Lynn being a TOD. And some of the stuff on the south side is intended to be later converted to other uses. Can anyone confirm.

      “Did anyone see the Auckland Council lost $167 million last year betting on derivative bets? What’s that? Half the house hold rates for the entire City for a year”

      Not even close, with a budget of 3 billion a year. And while you are right that technically speaking, those WERE “bets”, what they did is fix in low interest rates, and then saw actual interest rates stay even lower. So the “loss”, while real, is the same loss you make when say, fix your house mortgate for a certain amount, and then see other people get a better deal 3 months after you jumped. Yes, you made a “loss”, but I am sure if interest rates had risen strongly, some people would have blamed them for NOT fixing the interest, so damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

  8. Have feeder buses run between St Heliers-Glen Innes-Tamaki-Panmure-to a near station on the Southern Line to connect the northeastern suburbs including the Tamaki development with the Eastern & Southern Lines, a future tram line at St Heliers and AMETI bus way into Pakuranga and beyond. Or any other combination, just as long as there’s feeders and connectivity…

    Consolidate the existing railways and its corridors and concentrate on network building instead of
    trying to fit in a new station for every new development.

  9. The Eastern Line is the fastest line on the network – partially due to its wider station spacing. I think it probably could afford one new station. Two however would be too many. Once a new station is added at Tamaki and at St Johns, it becomes quite slow. Better feeder buses are a good option.

    1. I know it’s probably not cost effective but if the GI station was moved to the northern end of the shops, it would put it closer to more people (GI’s not know as a shopping destination. Well, it wasn’t when I lived in Panmure.) and cover part of St Johns a bit better while leaving space for a Tamaki Station.

      1. Its interesting you mention moving GI station.

        When the eastern Line originally called the “Westfield Deviation” was planned/built there quite some argument about where GI station should be.

        There were two schools of thought – north of where it is now – about level with Nosh/Four Season Pets etc in that block there.
        The other school of thought was where Tamaki Stn is now.

        So in effect they compromised and put it half way in kind of a (then) no-mans land..
        I guess moving a north won’t achieve much, as it could never work as a GI/St Johns station due to the height difference between St Johns hill and the track at tunnel level.

        1. Looking a bit further ahead, isn’t the University of Auckland considering moving the Tamaki campus to the new Newmarket site? And if so what will replace the campus? Hopefully some decent medium/high density housing requiring a good PT link, although realistically we’ll probably end up with another metastatic sprawl like Stonefields…

        2. Not considering – they’ve bought the Lion Breweries site bar the shouting and formal approval from the Uni Board, so its pretty much a “done deal”.

          As to what goes where Tamaki Campus is now, thats anyones guess – depends on who buys it, if it became the technology campus for some overseas outfit (e.g. Google?) then it may stay pretty much as-is if some developer buys it then who knows – but ones thing is for sure, the AMETI corridor runs right at its back door so it had better be designed as some kind of PT orientated development as the roads there won’t be able to take a mini-Sylvia Park development, even once AMETI completes.
          Also depends on what happens to the Sports grounds across the road – owned by Auckland Uni as well.
          Could all be sold as a job lot to pay for the Newmarket Campus.

        3. Google has no interest in coming to NZ with a presence such as what they have in places like Zurich, but even if they did they certainly wouldn’t locate to a campus in the middle of nowhere like GI. The people who work for Google want to be in the thick of it and that would mean being somewhere downtown.

        4. Google or any of the big guys wouldn’t come here with whats there now, but in a few years time, places located around GI/Tamaki
          – if the proposed TOD is done properly (no big box retail thanks), could very much be a “happenin place” – as much as anywhere in NZ will be.
          Don’t forget that there are major (sports) grounds associated with the Tamki campus – if any large technology company wanted to build a (R&D) presence here, they could do a lot worse than the Tamaki Campus which is pretty much . And if any Technology company in the world can see long term potential out there and develop it to the max – Google is one such company.

          Would anyone like Google want a Zurich style operation at the arse end of the world?
          I doubt it. It would be something more appropriate. Those who would work for such a company if they want to be “in the thick of it” will already be in Zurich or Silicon Valley.
          You’d be looking for those who don’t want to be there yet want to work for the best companies on the planet at one of the best cities on the planet.

          If the Auckland Tamaki Campus and the area around the Tamaki Station, plus the land between was done as a totally integrated development then who knows.
          Maybe Tamaki could become the main station and GI then dwindles to a commuter one

          – certainly there no real reason to go to GI for shopping now – heck they don’t even have the minimum drawcard – a Warehouse!
          – but you could say the same about Panmure, yet AT are spending major dollars at Panmure to create a TOD development over the station precinct.
          And, in many ways, GI/Tamaki is a better location all round, its very much a diamond in the rough…

  10. Think it’s good to have additional stations wherever there will be sufficent passenger numbers. The long term goal should be to run a mix of local ‘all stops’, Express/Semi-Express trains which leap frog various local trains on the line stopping only at main stations.

    This works very well overseas. You catch an express to your nearest main station (eg Panmure), cross the platform and change to a local that’s either waiting or not far behind then ride one or two stations to your final stop. The new signalling system and points either side of local station platforms(eg Orakei, Meadowbank,new Tamaki station) should make this possible.

    Would ensure inner and smaller suburbs are well served and importantly that those further out – eg Panmure/ Otahuhu etc can benefit from a much faster express service.

    1. I’d like Auckland to look at that that ONCE we finally have reliability up & dependable again. I.e. not before 2-3 years when the electric trains are settled in. And it would likely need some serious money into overtaking infrastructure, again unless you want to risk a fragile system coming apart again – one single delay domino-ing out of control…

  11. Shouldn’t be too hard Max. Correcting myself, I meant to say points at either end, not side, of smaller stations so EMUs can cross back to the correct line after departure. Incidentally trains can already run parallel now. The other benefit is you get a lot more trains stopping in the big stations. To make it work in Auckland you’d probably need 2-3 local trains on a line for every express.

    The Keio and Chuo lines in Tokyo are great examples of this. Long lines out of the city with many stops, but still one line in each direction for the most part.

    1. Jeff, I am not opposed to making the best use of our system, and outlying regions getting express trains which skip the inner stations (or “lesser” stations along the whole line) would be a of great use and a patronage booster. I am just worried that we don’t want to be biting off more than we can chew, when despite our large investments, we still aren’t exactly good at making our trains run on time… plus, you’d need extra trains for that, and I think we need the publicity & patronage boost from the electrics before we have even a glint of a chance of getting more money for Auckland rail.

  12. On a semi related note, speaking of stations, I notice there is a big gap in the height of the current Diesel trains to the station platform it self? Has this been done on purpose to compensate for the EMUs?

    1. As I understand it, yes – the track levels have been changed as part of the EMU preparations which makes the diesel rolling stock sit higher above the platform. When the EMUs come into service their floors will be level with the station platforms.

  13. I would have thought reopening it is a good idea, my suggestion would be to build a proper park and ride (a bit like the parkway stations in the UK) charge a nominal cost for parking but provide security and make it the end of the zone 2 for fares. That way it would take the pressure off GI and Panmure which would then free up the space for the locals. It could also become a proper transport interchange for the multitude of buses that run from GI at present where the bus interchange is less than inviting. That in turn could provide the incentive to rebuild the GI town centre.

      1. The buses would still go through GI. The suggestion is to build a proper facility in an area where public transport is pretty poor, but there is a lot of employment, and access would be better for people changing between the two modes.

        The GI bus station is pretty uninviting and is not a place you would want to wait very long. Once the days get shorter waiting for a bus is simply not an option.

  14. I understand the concerns about delays but I would have thought 90sec is a fair trade off when considering the time savings from the EMUs and, eventually, the CRL.

    Developments like this – actively incorporating rail – are few and far between and should be encouraged. At the very least future proof a station.

  15. If Westfield and possibly Te Mahia are closing soon, then adding another station at Tamaki wouldn’t really add any time to the current overall journey time (Britomart-Papakura) would it?

    1. Still doesn’t mean we should remove a badly-performing station and then spend teh time gain to add a new badly performing station… As Patrick said above, it really only makes sense together with significant intensification, and not before that.

  16. The Tamaki station is a bit of a puzzle.As I remember it part of the justification for shutting it was the fact that only 70 people were using it per day.The fact that it was buried behind stacks of containers may have had some bearing on this.I guess its a case of build it and see?On the subject of trains ,I cant see why a right turn couldnt be put in at Westfield at the south end of the eastern line thus making a loop around through Newmarket etc.I think there was a platform near the strand and some trains could circle around both ways with out going into the bottle neck of Britomart.No doubt there is a good reason this wouldnt work?

Leave a Reply

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