The discussion around the removal level crossings seems to be increasing lately. In June Auckland Transport kicked off discussion about the removal of seven pedestrian only level crossings across the network and a month before that we covered the proposal to replace four level crossing removals in Takanini with three bridges – the decision on the Walters Rd proposal was delayed until the most recent AT board meeting.
At that recent AT board meeting, as well as the council’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee a week earlier, AT have been talking about their “City Rail Link Day 1 – Level Crossing Removal Programme” and it very much feels like AT laying the groundwork to push for a lot of funding for level crossing removals which they told the committee “It is unlikely that the full programme will be affordable under current funding arrangements“. You can watch the presentation to the council, along with questions from councillors here.
I do wish one of them had asked they’re focusing so much on just the pedestrian crossings and not also road crossings that are likely to be easy to close.
What those presentations highlight is that AT have put level crossings into six groups for staged removal. Group 1 crossings are those that AT are focusing on to be done prior to the opening of the City Rail Link and includes the seven pedestrian level crossings as well as Church St East in Penrose. Group 2 is the Takanini crossings and they want those removed by 2031. The remaining crossings are spread across groups 3 to 6 with all crossings removed by 2046.
In total they have $63 million budgeted or proposed for the Group 1 works but estimate removing the rest of the crossings is going to cost around $3 billion – but if they’re each going to cost anything like Walters Rd, which is now estimated to cost over $200 million, then we won’t even get half of the crossings done.
Given the budget for the group 1 works, I am a bit concerned that AT will propose a bridge solution for Church St East when an easy surface level option of providing access from neighbouring sites exists. They continue to be cagey about their preferred solution and only say they’re working with their stakeholders to refine it.
Perhaps the most interesting information from the presentations is these tables which show AT’s estimates for how long barrier arms on road crossings will be down now, at the opening of the CRL and in 2031 – at which time they estimate that most the barriers on our key lines will be down more than half of the time. Though that is probably quite comparable to many sets of traffic lights, even more so for pedestrian phases.
There is something funny going on with that middle table though as it suggests west of Henderson will have 16 trans per hour (8 per direction) but that the rest of the western line will only have 12 per hour (6 per direction) which is the same as it is today. I’m guessing this is an error.
The proposed timing and solution for each crossing in groups 3 to 6 will be covered as part of a Level Crossing Removal Programme business case that’s currently underway and I believe is due for completion later this year.
I do hope they also look at wider opportunities regarding level crossings. For example, the Asquith Ave crossing is notable because it even has a driveway that joins the road inside of the existing barrier arms.
The level crossings at both Asquith Ave and the nearby Rossgrove Tce have previously been suggested for closure. Perhaps AT/council could also buy up some of the neighbouring properties and work with Eke Panuku to redevelop them with more dwellings while also incorporating a pedestrian crossing. More density is one of the things that could help Baldwin Station perform better based on AT’s station study.
Given many of the level crossings that need removal are near stations there may be other locations where a combined development and level crossing removal could work, with the development potentially helping to pay for some of the costs.
Processing...
2046? So hold on the CRL, the transport project that was promised, is going to have artificially lower frequencies (and speeds?) to facilitate roads moving a fraction the number of people for two more decades?
How does closing these road crossing cost so much, build a fence drop some blocks, maybe plant a couple of trees job done?
“How does closing these road crossing cost so much, build a fence drop some blocks, maybe plant a couple of trees job done?”
Ah, but the fury of Auckland drivers is feared in the decision corridors. Cars are our holy cows, they shall be able to (over)graze everywhere across all our commons.
Ah, and don’t forget the popularity of SUVs to enable winter grazing on berms and gardens and whatever else these drivers feel inclined to destroy.
Winter grazing, lol.
All year grazing, and occasional blood sacrifice of the odd human.
This will be some of the most “conflicted spending” AT and the council will have to undertake. Without it ,the rail can’t realize it’s potential. The lower cost options involve disrupting cars,doing nothing disrupts cars,gold plating is unaffordable. It will seem like “dead money “, no actual improvement to “traffic flow” for all that expense. This will clearly “grate” with some.
“Without it ,the rail can’t realize it’s potential. ”
Incorrect statement. Rail could, but we aren’t willing to make drivers suffer for better rail.
Only motor vehicles are allowed to increase in volumes year in and year out.
Until that once somewhat busy street through your town centre is so busy and hostile you can’t cross it anymore as a pedestrian, or ride a bike to school.
If the same thing happens with rail, it’s a “problem” that leads to the maximum number of trains being limited. Oh for a limit on car numbers!
“Oh for a limit on car numbers”
We had the opportunity decades ago but successive Governments have allowed the unfettered importation of used cars, which then catch fire in scrap yards.
If only there were a precedent for removing level crossings and improving the quality of the urban realm by elevating the rail lines. What a concept. Couldn’t possibly happen in Melbourne.
https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.8941979,145.0768169,3a,75y,209.46h,97.77t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sw6UQ6LiECrRGPr7WAsHKEg!2e0!5s20220401T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dw6UQ6LiECrRGPr7WAsHKEg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D103.273384%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
The inability of KR to think about the best long-term outcome for the railway lands (clue: It ISN’T motorway-like flyovers) is disappointing.
Sure. Lets spend a couple billion more than the already expensive proposals for level crossing grade separation, to make drivers able to cross under the rail line more freely.
Elevated rail may sometimes make sense. Most times it makes as much sense as our politicians desire to bury light rail underground, out of sight, and where it doesn’t dare affect parking.
Where did I say anything about increasing permeability for drivers? This article makes it clear that drivers in Auckland are being privileged via the proposed process.
Each bridge costs a lot of money, so we can “only afford” a few, road-only bridges for the cars. All the pedestrian level crossings in Auckland are being closed in the next year or no, with no proposed replacements for any of them.
It’s the active modes that benefit most from grade-separated railway lines. Look at the cycleways that thread their ways beneath Melbourne’s railway lines.
https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.8857824,145.0577004,3a,73.7y,297.1h,90.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH1fgskey0CHtJUjvtiCo5w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Melbourne’s Level Crossing Removal Program (LXRP) was initially to facilitate car traffic but the project morphed into something that has benefitted both road and rail. Newly elevated stations which were old and basic like Moreland now have much better amenities like parks, bike trails and sports facilities underneath them. The trench stations are also pretty good and one immediately noticeable feature is the upgraded track and ride quality. Its not a perfect project (notably the state govt here continuously refuses to provide full length platform shelters, but at least waiting rooms are provided) but its definitely an overall benefit to rail and the public realm.
The initial batch of removals like the one at Clayton linked above were very contentious and subject to NIMBYs. Newer LXRP stations dont get as much pushback now that the benefits have been witnessed for many years.
Melbourne is in the process of removing 110 level crossings, and will leave under 60 level crossings in place for the foreseeable future. There is no rationale or evidence to support AT’s notion that EVERY level crossing in Auckland MUST be removed.
Removing a risk is better than managing it.
Compliance by drivers and other road users isn’t guaranteed.
Clearing up the mess after a train hits a 55 ton truck stuck on a crossing is expensive.
“Removing a risk is better than managing it.”
“Compliance by drivers and other road users isn’t guaranteed.”
Ah, so this is why we are building protected cycle lanes everywhere?
Rail level crossings are not nearly as unsafe as a lot of stuff we accept in this city’s transport network without blinking.
“Ah, so this is why we are building protected cycle lanes everywhere”
We are? Or did you forget the sarcasm mode?
Protected cycle lanes are the same thing as closing a level crossing so I don’t understand the sarcasm here. We need protected cycle lane because some drivers are too useless to stay out of painted ones. One reason why we need to close level crossings is some drivers are too useless to not crash into trains.
“We are? Or did you forget the sarcasm mode?”
Eh, surely anybody outside of the talk radio core knows that we are not? Or have we become so Americanised that facts are optional?
Re translex – my point is that I feel building a protected cycle lane is much more important than closing a level crossing, especially when you consider how many you could build for 200 million a pop.
I am not necessarily opposed to level crossing closures, but I do consider the current process is actually a high car-centric one, that is bound to create massive costs (because unlike for peds, they don’t seem to propose CLOSING a lot of crossings – rather they will build massive grade separation). The opportunity cost of spending so much money will in my view totally drown the safety benefits.
I dont think its a safety issue as much as its an issue of traffic flow. Trains already have the right of way at intersections so grade separations are really to mitigate traffic congestion if u want to start running trains at higher frequencies.
AT knows how to handle this with cars, just set lower and lower speed limits until the risk is negligible. Have all trains cross level crossings at 10kph until the funds for a bridge or underpass there become available. That doesn’t cost any significant money to implement. It’s not like most Auckland trains have the ridership to support more frequent timetables and there are environmental benefits to running less frequent more heavily loaded trains. So doing all this right now so an empty train can go a little faster doesn’t have much benefit.
It is stupider that that, they need to close, but they won’t close them.
Why do you want rail crossings for cars? One idiot in a car can cause the entire rail network to grind to a halt. Some of these crossing 100% create car traffic.
They aren’t removing every level crossing in Melbourne. Some speculation there is a political aspect to which ones get removed being marginal electorates but politicians would never do that! Some lines will be entirely level crossing free tho, Cranbourne, Pakenham, Lilydale, Sunbury from memory. Also interesting to note not one level crossing on the Sandringham line is on the removal list.
The original list was 100 and recently the state govt added 10 more. Its not inconceivable that they just keep adding to the list over the next few decades (politics and funding permitting).
As far as the LXRP selection goes there was a list a while back with priority crossings that were set to be removed and the govt has mostly stuck to that list. If anyone is interested more information can be found here:
https://danielbowen.com/2022/11/05/level-crossings-nov-2022-update/
The stated example of $200 million for removal of ONE level crossing at Walter’s Road is horrendous. Totally, mind-bogglingly horrendous. Why, for that we could get almost two thirds of an Old Town Hall strengthened in Wellington, or half of a cycleway along the Hutt Road.
Hutt Road/Te Ara Tupua was a seawall/shore armouring project to protect the motorway and rail line. Still, nice of them to put a bike lane on it after hoovering up about 3 years of national cycling budget…
The harder we make it to access railway stations the less passengers we will get. Passenger level crossing removal lead to reduced numbers of passengers at Papatoetoe Station.
Hang on, the “pedestrian crossing” at Baldwin Avenue is one of two accesses to the railway station platforms, both of which cross the rail line. Why is making platforms less accessible a good idea?
I guess the point is that it’s removal of a LEVEL crossing. It doesn’t always imply removal of the crossing full stop – but could involve a new bridge or underpass. Albeit at some places like north of Mt Albert that (simple closure, nothing replacing it) seems to be indeed what AT is proposing.
There;s some strange prioritization out west. Christian Road is where the electrification and metro service ends – it’s WEST of Swanson Station, but it’s in the same group as Ranui which is dangerous AF.
The costings on these is not just negligent but criminal. WK/NZTA are building other similar bridges that are arguably more difficult for a fraction of the cost.
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/sh25-sh25a-thames-coromandel/kirikiri-stream-bridge-replacement/?mibextid=Zxz2cZ
Funding is as always at the heart of the problem. Level crossing removal (largely by grade separation but partly by simply closing a few) has been on the agenda for a very long time. The rapid rail scheme of the early 1970s included grade separation but the whole project got cancelled by Muldoon in 1976. In the early 90s there was renewed interest after several bad years for deaths and serious injuries on level crossings but all that really happened was improved signage and more half-arm barriers. The Horne report in 2004 recommended a program to resolve all the level crossings on the isthmus (Auckland City Council) but nobody could agree on who was going to fund it. Finally sone real progress with the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) in 2016 wherein Auckland Council and the government agreed to jointly fund transport projects in the region over the long term. Unfortunately, level crossings were left in the “unfunded” category in the first two iterations of ATAP but in 2021 $220 million was allocated for level crossing removal under the heading “CRL Day One Level Crossing Removal”. When I enquired what this actually meant, I was told it was to ensure that the last of the level crossings on the Southern Line (which has a higher number of gate cycles than the Western Line) could be closed and in particular the four level crossings along the Takanini Straight. Extensive consultation has occurred but now AT is claiming that there is no committed funding for this work. When pressed on this point and the $220 million in the current ATAP they now claim that rather than a shared cost for this project AT had assumed that government would fund the lot but there appears to be resistance on this point so in AT’s report to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on 21st September they described it as “unfunded”. So it appears that the ATAP is not worth the paper it is printed on. The Transport Committee will have a special workshop on level crossing funding in November (to which representatives of KiwiRail and the Ministry of Transport will be invited). Hopefully the promised business case for the Takanini grade-separation will be available in time (it was due in August) and the outcome of the general election known.
I think the heart of the problem is that these decisions are not yet being made in alignment with our modeshift and VKT reduction goals. Past agreements and plans are only relevant if they create the transport transformation laid out in the TERP.
AT should not be finding excuses to go cap in hand to council and government for more funding at every turn. They should be working to reduce the enormous cost of car dependence by prioritising cheap, logical, modeshift solutions to every problem they face.
Here, that means designing the low traffic neighbourhoods and the level crossing closures together, and using the available funding on active mode bridges and underpasses, not on wasteful vehicle bridges.
“So it appears that the ATAP is not worth the paper it is printed on”
That virtually sums up AT to a tee!
Granted that we can close some of the level crossings but certainly not all as some seem to suggest. Not only would that lead to community severance in affected suburbs but those who need to get to the other side of the railway lines would be herded into a limited number of crossing opportunities via existing over bridges putting considerable pressure on the roads and intersections leading to those bridges. While we should do what we can to encourage people to chose to use active modes versus private cars where – it is not appropriate to impose this by just cutting off parts of the network, particularly for those living along the Western Line where most of the remaining level crossings are. Some level crossings are on bus routes so simply closing them would have public transport implications.
Nah close the roads, build pedestrian and bike crossing for fraction the amount. These working as modal filters makes the city safer.
Cars are fast they can go the long way around. On the western line where this is the worst, there typically bridges and underpasses with 1 Km of each crossing.