Yesterday we covered a big part of a recent speech by Minister of Housing and Transport Chris Bishop. One aspect we didn’t cover was about the City Rail Link and his announcement of $200 million towards the removal of level crossings.
On the CRL he notes:
I’ve been down to the new stations. Aucklanders are going to be blown away. My prediction is that people will say what they always do once a big new project eventually finishes: why didn’t we do this decades ago?
I agree with that prediction. I also think we’ll find usage of the rail network will increase faster and in different locations to what existing modelling suggests and that will put pressure on for more services. One big constraint to more services will be the presence of level crossings. That brings us to the other part of the announcement.
It is critical for the city’s future that we take advantage of CRL and ensure that the maximum benefits are felt by Aucklanders. That’s why today I am pleased to announce a number of steps the Government is taking to fully harness the true benefits of City Rail Link.
The first step is removing level crossings.
CRL will only achieve its true potential capacity by the removal of level crossings – locations where roads and rail tracks intersect.
Frankly, every motorist under the sun hates them, me included. They require the direct trading-off between road-user efficiency and rail-user efficiency.
Separating our train and roading systems by grade-separating level crossings greatly reduces traffic delays for motorists, while at the same time enables more frequent and reliable trains. It means that, in future, we can run many more trains on the Auckland network, without having to worry about disrupting the road network.
Crucially, it will also make our railways safer. In the decade between 2013 and 2023, Auckland saw almost 70 crashes – some of these serious, as well as more than 250 pedestrian near-misses and 100 vehicle near misses at level crossings across the city. That’s almost one incident a week.
Investment in Auckland’s level crossings delivers a faster, safer, and more reliable transport system. It’s a win, win, win.
Sorting level crossings in Auckland will take many years and cost a lot – but it is imperative we crack on with the job of doing the most important ones first.
I am announcing today that, subject to final approval by the NZTA board, the Government will be allocating funding for its share of the cost of accelerating the grade-separation of 7 level crossings in Takāanini and Glen Innes.
The work will involve building three new grade-separated road bridges at Manuia Road, Taka Street, and Walters Road; constructing new station access bridges at Glen Innes, Te Mahia and Takāanini Stations, and closing two unsafe crossings at Spartan Road and Manuroa Road.
Auckland Council has previously indicated that it is willing to fund its share of the cost, so this announcement will provide Aucklanders with confidence that the work will go ahead.
I agree that removing level crossings has a lot of benefit, not just to road users but also being able to run more trains on the rail network as well as improving safety outcomes.
Theoretically the rail line has the right of way so level crossings shouldn’t impact frequencies but my understanding is the regulator (NZTA) has ruled that because more trains means barrier arms will be down for longer, that increases the safety risk. This is because people, both drivers and those on foot/bike etc, are more likely to take risks and bypass barriers and bells to cross the tracks anyway.
As such, the Western Line will actually see fewer counter-peak trains (4 per hour instead of 6 currently) in order to maintain the same number of movements through level crossings as exist today. With the big time savings the Western line will see thanks to the CRL, I feel the inability to add additional frequency will quickly become an issue.
The need to remove level crossings has been on the agenda for a long time the issue has always been a lack of funding and priority. This $200 million announced by the government will help but there is a key issue with it.
“Today we are pleased to announce that the Government will allocate up to $200 million for its share of funding to accelerate removal of the level crossings in Takanini and Glen Innes, which will include building three new grade-separated road bridges at Manuia Road, Taka Street, and Walters Road; constructing new station access bridges at Glen Innes, Te Mahia and Takanini Stations, and closing two unsafe crossings at Spartan Road and Manuroa Road.”
Auckland Transport’s Regional Land Transport Plan currently allocates $550 million towards removing the Takanini crossings but that doesn’t include the costs to grade separate station access to Te Mahia or Glen Innes which were also part of the announcement. This suggests the government will only be contributing about a third of the costs when it should be covering about half of them.
Worse is even that $550 million is not likely enough. Back in 2023 they said the road crossings alone could cost $650 million and I’ve heard suggestions it is now quite a bit higher, possibly as much as $800 million.
There is the question of why a handful of bridges will cost more than a typical motorway.
The crossings announced for removal, along with ones currently underway will mean that there will be no level crossings on the Southern or Eastern lines north of Papakura. Even if the funding for these crossings is sorted, they won’t be done by the time the CRL opens with the a press release noting:
The intention is that enabling works for these level crossing removals will be completed around the time CRL opens.
The $200 million from the government is welcome but it is also a drop in the bucket of what is needed to remove crossings across the entire network. Even with these ones removed it will still leave 34 others across the network, including 20 on the Western Line, though I’m unsure why Christian Rd is included in this list given it’s outside the electrified network.
Back in 2023 AT said they were working on a Programme Business Case for the removal of the remaining crossings and was possibly due to be completed that same year. However, my understanding is that the business case has still not been completed and that the person responsible for delivering it is the same person responsible for AT’s connected communities debacle.
It’s important that AT get this business case delivered so that the full impact of these crossings is understood and so that potentially funding could be made available to get them removed faster. There is probably greater benefit in getting them sorted than most of the projects government’s Roads of National Significance programme.
As a reminder, we have our event with Ray Delahanty, also known as CityNerd, on Thursday.
Processing...
How are they going to run 8 trains an hour into the city but only 4 trains an hour the other way on the Western Line? I would have through they would quickly run out of trains at Swanson to send to the city if they are not all coming back!
Probably stabling extra trains at hendo for the mornings, might also use trains from the onehunga service after they terminate at maungawhau
Seems like a headache either way
Put them on a boat and send them up the Whau?
Yeez, it seems a real mess (and all, as always, it’s in part because PT improvement isn’t allowed to make driving any worse).
Probably do it like the Northern Busway where you wait while a whole bunch of empty ones go past without stopping.
They’d still have to go through level crossings though.
They would. But PT operators like to run empty vehicles past crowded stops to remind everyone they think their customers are sh*t and to make them stand when the stopping service eventually arrives.
There does seem to be a high degree of catastrophising about driver delay at level crossings. Especially, as expected, by the road lobby, with the Road Carriers association being particularly giddy with panic and falsehoods.
But also the regulator also appears to be being disproportionately cautious.
After all at any signalised cross intersection a driver or walker can expect to be stopped at least 50% of the time, usually much more when there are dedicated turning and pedestrian cycles etc.
Frustration is also event at these conflict zones too, but I never see calls for reducing traffic flow to address that.
Frankly it is absurd to invest over $5b in a hugely enabling piece of infrastructure then choose not to use it fully, cos some people might not be able to control their frustration.
Of course we should remove all the level crossings, but that will take time.
So meanwhile, let’s run the trains properly, all day, minimum 6 trains per hour out west, and put very visible cameras with very big signs, backed by very big fines, to help the frustrated with their car-brained self control issues.
Looking at info from AT, with 12 trains per hour (tph), 6 tph each way, the barrier arms are only down 30% of the time.
Considerably less than a standard intersection.
This is surely more than fine, and be the bare minimum frequencies on the western line.
There are no Intercity services west either, currently 2 freighters per day, I understand.
Strongly agree. I think the most important short-term advocacy on this whole topic is to get full transparency from NZTA on the continued restriction to 12tph out West. Seems wildly conservative. Is it based on hard science, with international benchmarking? Surely this ‘cut red tape’ government can step in. Has anyone seen the actual underlying analyses?
I’ll also say it again one last time: the other big quick win pre-CRL is building the third platform at Puhinui.
Yes was thinking the same how most of the concern is about driver delay rather than train speed or efficiently and reliability.
You can see the difference between how the works removing level crossings are angled over in Victoria (Australia) (Melbourne) when compared with this side of the Tasman. In Melbourne they talk a lot more about improving the reliability of trains.
Don’t disagree but some crossings on the Western line have ‘barrier downs’ longer than the train pass time due to station proximity. Add that to ‘out of sync’ city/west trains and suspect barrier down time will be much longer.
There’s also the issue of the time the barrier arms are down after a train has passed. I understand there’s a need to have the arms down for some time before a train arrives but they seem to stay down a similar amount of time after too. This is possibly a similar issue to the lengthy dwell times at stations and reducing this time could have significant benefits no cost
If the concern is that drivers will get frustrated and drive around the barriers, strikes me that the rail safety regulator should apply the hierarchy of controls and re-engineer level crossings so that is not possible. Replacing our single-lane barriers with full-width level crossing barriers, as used in the UK, (or even barriers that can’t be driven through like rising bollards) would be a good, cheap, quick place to start (apparently you can still drive through these if there is an emergency, but it’s going to stop people sneaking around): https://cdn.prgloo.com/media/db6fea4c6eaa4862b0dac7984146bdcc.jpg?width=1135&height=960
“But also the regulator also appears to be being disproportionately cautious.”
Since Pike River, regulators in NZ have erred far to much on the side of caution and have totally dismissed the doctrine of “personal responsibility”
Does this appear to be forgetting the importance of West Auckland?
Is this actually just freight related…better for trucks?
My worry is that this government could turn into the last one, part funding things and then not following through to finalise these things, then blaming their political term, or something about communists and neoliberals.
Trains are the only salvation for Auckland, and the North may never have them. I just feel sad for those that cannot enjoy either inner city living, or the ease of movement that a passenger train provides.
The postcode bias-isms continue…
The Minister’s statement about completing 7 level crossing removals before CRL Day-One was very misleading. The most significant were three new road over-bridges to replace the 4 existing level-crossings at Takanini. Although the planning designations for Takanini are now in place, expert evidence given at the NOR hearing in mid-2024 was that each of them would take 2-3 years to construct on top of deep layers of soft peat – and they would need to be done sequentially (one-at-a-time) to avoid years of massive traffic disruption. AT actually requested a 15-year lapse period (up to 2039) to complete the Takanini grade separations – though they hoped that the job could be done by about 2032! Although the designations are inplace, no physical construction can start until a bunch of other planning work is carried out, such as obtains Resource Consents and an Outline Plan of Works. More months will be chewed up with compulsory land purchase using the Public Works Act and negotiating alternative access for adjacent commercial properties. So, despite our vey new Minister’s naive assertions, a start on physical works on the first overbridge (let alone completion of all 7 announced on Friday) before CRL opening in early 2026 is very doubtful.
And The Bish would reply it’s listed in the fast track
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2024/0056/latest/LMS943327.html
Although the Southern and Western Lines have just as many suburban passenger services (6 each way per hour during peaks), the Southern Line also has dozens of freight train movements. So although barrier down times on the Western Line are about 25-30% of the time (each crossing is a bit different) on the Southern Line crossings it ranges from 30-50%. This is why the priority is to complete grade-separation of the handful of crossings on the Southern Line (at least as far out as Papakura) ASAP. The Western Line has 20 level crossings and not one cent allocated for grade-separation.
Higher frequency of trains will increase the barrier down-times – so expect to see only incremental increases per hour until the level crossings are progressively resolved over the next couple of decades. The expedient of running more inbound trains (say 8 ph) than outbound trains (say 4 ph) in the morning peak, and vice versa in the afternoons will require some “spare” EMUs. The idea is that early each morning a bunch of out-of-service EMUs would run out to stabling yards near the Western and Southern extremities of the network so that there were enough units available to run 8 inbound services while only 4 outbound services would run (a total of 12 ph as now). This is only a concept so far – it would require those “spare” EMus and construction of the stabling yards, which would require funding and construction time.
Likewise suspect Christian Rd, although outside electrified network, was included due to potential northern freight movements and housing development going on there.
It might be on the list but given the extended time frame for the high priority crossings and lack of adequate funding, will it ever happen?
The thing is the Western line has 20 rail crossing including on Arterial roads yet has had literally nothing allocated towards it
Either nothing happens and the entire next work is half ransom to idiots in cars or the west gets piecemeal fixes that extend the disruption for decades.
Not everyone can live in villa belt thanks to nimby zone rules.
It is one thing to have squandered a half decade of unparalleled continued rail disruptions and not build the grade separation. But how is there not a even a plan?
Also absolutely hilarious how the western line is getting treated here. What is going to happen to Avondale station and St Jude st?
“But how is there not a even a plan?”
These are roughly the same people and worldview that completely remade the northwestern motorway without a rapid transit corridor.
Bumpkins, basically.
We had a plan for an overbridge on Dublin Street, Picton.
Then along came Nicola and stopped the ferry upgrade which cancelled the bridge project that was part of the whole package.
When the barriers Co e down on Dublin Street it’s mainly for shunting, but there are eight train arrival/departures into Picton in summer(include Coastal Pacific).
Using Google Earth you can see how disruptive to the whole town this can be especially around midday when two ferries artive close together.
So if you think Picton is a sleepy town, think again. Those that have driven off the ferries and got caught at the crossing will know what I am talking about!
The $200m is just for the AT/KR favourite consultants bridge planning and design fees for the most expensive and disruptive solution possible.
KR don’t want online rail bridges over online road/pedestrian underpasses because they have a bridge phobia and they certainly don’t want to draw attention to their poorly maintained existing railway bridges.
4 such grade separations are rough order $20M each and 3 pedestrian/cycle pathways over the tracks at the stations is $10M each. In total $110M with $90M contingency plus the development opportunities at the 4 corners of each of the 4 grade separations. But KR don’t want them so the CRL will remain crippled, and the favoured AT/KR consultants will do well designing the road over bridges that are never likely to be built. IREX all over again. Another win for the road lobby with KR doing their bidding behind the scenes.
$550m let alone $800m+ is frankly an absurd amount of money for what is a relatively easy piece of work.
One option that seems to be avoided is underpasses. They involve a whole lot less concrete, land, safety costs (railings etc). They do disrupt the rail line slightly for a little bit (but nothing major).
Obviously this needs to be done in areas that aren’t subject to flash flooding.
The Kirkbride Rd interchange was built as an underpass and this definitely didn’t save money.
Unfortunately underpasses won’t work at Takanini as the whole area there is basically a peat swamp.
Might be a reason the overbridges are so expensive. They are not cheap to built on soft ground.
Takanini Town Centre is built on this peat soil, including an underground carpark and they have proven that underpasses can also be constructed successfully. However the Growth Alliance pushed back against underpasses in favour of bridges and did not seriously entertain the idea.
Interesting.
Other than maybe prohibitive cost, are there any other specific reasons why they are against underpasses?
They are more expensive because they are a bigger project that is harder to build, take longer to open and can only be done during a railway block of line when you can close and lift the tracks to dig the underpass.
Building a bridge over the railway without touching it is relatively simple
In comparison.
So it’s not that they’re expensive because they’re expensive, they’re expensive because they are a bigger project that’s harder to do and more time consuming.
Thanks Riccardo.
I finally found the MCA Assessment here:
https://at.govt.nz/media/1991791/144-sag-takanini-attachment-4-bridges-v-underpass.pdf
Businesses and road freight calling catastrophe helps to motivate government to cough up the money needed. Keep them boiling until full project funding is in place. Fast-track consenting can help (what better-deserving?).
Keep up the noise on the Western. Woodward Road and Morningside Drive, for example. There may be less business productivity risk on the Western, but tackling one bridge on each of the lines at a time can minimise the adverse effects while maximising the progress on the whole programme.
Too late with the money can’t be helped, but too little needs effort.
That image up above “handful of bridges will cost more than a typical motorway” is truly a horrific waste of space and budget. What a horrible solution.
Here’s an alternative possibility, involving a massive cost saving, by not spending nearly as much money. How about just testing the complete closure of the level crossings in question, with a row of concrete barriers placed overnight, either side of the train tracks. Next day, chaos on the roads, but as we all have observed with other instances of instant road closures (Embarcadero Freeway et al), Traffic Finds a Way. Within a week or two, people in cars will have worked out the next best workaround route, and you will then know what area to improve, and what areas not to waste money on.
This.
About half the western line should be shut.
I would not be surprised if spots like Woodward road actually had their “traffic” improve as a result.
careful, the nutters who demand access to the shortest and fastest route by car at all times will be out for your head.
Maybe they should just close all the crossings and not build bridges.
The reverse of induced demand. Traffic will flow away along other roads. Complaining drivers can go and catch a train. Lol
So at stations like fruitvale you’ll have to walk all the way around through another suburb just to catch your train or to get home seems rather cruel. Remember many stations don’t have pedestrian over bridges so this means they will just have to walk for miles just to get home. If anything they will just ditch the train all together and drive.
Wonder if they could use close Fruitvale. Be good to get some current station stats.
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2019/09/11/2019-rail-station-boardings/
pre pandemic Fruitvale was the third least used station on the Western Line, ahead of Swanson and Morningside.
Thanks Burrower, so it should indeed not close given it’s ahead of Morningside for life! In all seriousness it would be a shame to close any station I think especially fruitvale given all the recent developments around it. Yes they could take a bus to New Lynn I guess but then if you’re going to fart around doing that just drive to work especially given how expensive PT can be for a family or even just 2 adults. One thing I would be interested in is if Fruitvale has higher ridership than Mount Colah station (on the way to B town if you don’t know Syd that well).
Selfishly, hell no as it’s a quick walk from my house. But seriously that would require beefing up the current Titirangi/glen eden bus services to something better than 30 min frequency. Also Fruitvale never gets very significant queues at the level crossing so most likely a fair way down the priority list
Fruitvale will be horrendously tricky/expensive to grade separate due to the grades around it. There’s also very little value in through traffic.
The most likely solution will be to close it and build a ped bridge for station/through access
Sounds great Matt if you want to delay emergency services getting to some houses. I understand you’re not in favour of letting emergency services get places quicker (in fact you think the opposite having supported reduced speed limits) . It’s better to keep acess rather than lose it even though it might cost a bit but we are great in this country at ignoring cost and forging ahead (think the northern expressway). So yeah let’s just spend the money or leave it as it is as the traffic volumes aren’t that insane.
*sighs and taps the statement by Fire and Emergency NZ, and the studies that state traffic congestion holds up emergency services well more than speed bumps*
https://fireandemergency.nz/assets/Documents/Research-and-reports/Report_201_Traffic_Calming.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342143575_Traffic_congestion_transportation_policies_and_the_performance_of_first_responders
surprisingly I agree with Colah, that if the level crossings west of Avondale can handle a train every 5 minutes each way at peak without grade separation – why not leave it that way. Grade separate pedestrian access for safety, but if I can survive a 2 hour 10km round trip on foot to the supermarket and back, entitled car brains can survive a few minutes behind the boom arms at a level crossing.
What a bs strawman argument. It won’t hold up emergency services by having the crossing closed because they’d access each side the same way the do now.
If an emergency was on Arawa St they would just access it from Gt North Rd and if on the south side of the crossing they’d just use Rua Rd. They’re probably doing that already.
Like a number of crossings on the Western line, the line here is on the side of a hill making any kind of grade separation very tricky and expensive.
I would be fine with leaving it open and just having barriers down longer though. I think NZTA are being over-zealous in not allowing more train movements.
There are a few other crossings that have very little usage that it are just not worth the cost to separate e.g. Sherrybrooke Pl and Mt Lebanon Lane.
I notice neither of you actually debated my point though slower speed limits does slow emergency services down. Where did I mention speed bumps? Remember if you drop a limit from 50-30 (Heidi’s dream) that limits Ambos and Fire to 60kmh as opposed to the current 80kmh. Every second counts for emergency response. Anyway overall if it’s too expensive just leave the crossing open at least this still provides valuable access.
If delays to emergency services are a serious issue then surely the solution would be to allow them to go 50kmh over the speed limit.
Keeping all cars going quicker just for emergency services makes no sense.
You’re quite correct Jezza.
And to give some background:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/new-ambulance-speed-rules-follow-court-case/SVO5EDHL2L4ZHRNPHFK5XD2VEA/
Nothing stops the NZAB to adjust their guidelines. Ambulance drivers will still be accountable if accidents happen.
Colah, basic question: which is faster, an ambulance/fire truck stuck in gridlocked traffic on a 50km/h signposted road, or an ambulance/firetruck in freeflowing traffic on a 30-40km/h signposted road with traffic calming measures?
There is many variables to think about Burrower when answering the question. Is the ambulance carrying a spinal cord patient? The arterial without traffic calming would be better and safer. Does the arterial have a median strip? There aren’t actually many roads in AKL where they have complete congestion and nowhere to pass. From what I hear we should raise most urban roads to 60-70kmh like in Australia as they have proved this is safer given their lower road tolls. This also has the benefit of improving FLOW which is extremely important for getting to places. In Mount Colah many urban roads are 60kmh. Slower speeds are NOT safer in NZ as I have first hand seen the effects of dangerous overtaking from following the lower speed limit. Many drivers are wiling to risk their lives and others because 30 is just too slow. 30 is rejected by a vast majority of NZers and must be eliminated where possible. School zones are OK and 40 I would actually accept for narrow roads. 30 is an extreme speed limit and should only be used in exceptional circumstances. Just a simple question to you Burrower what was the justification for AT to lower Highbrook drive from 70-60? Or was it because it was Blanketly getting rid of all 70 zones?
“Slower speeds are NOT safer in NZ as I have first hand seen the effects of dangerous overtaking from following the lower speed limit”
With these kinds of statements no wonder no one takes your drivel seriously
It’s not their goal Jerry.
Their goal is to annoy/offend ‘lefties’, ‘greenies’ and of course the ‘woke’ as they take enjoyment out of that.
They contradict themselves many times, e.g. saying that NZ shouldn’t do things just because they’re done overseas but next they argue we should follow Australia.
Or they argue that increased speed increases flow which has been proven to be wrong in multiple papers, e.g. here:
https://nielsbenedikter.de/traffic/speedlimit30_EN.pdf
When you mention that, they twist it in such a way so they can annoy people even further.
They’re smart people, don’t get me wrong. I’ve always found it’s best to either ignore them or counteract them with facts.
In the end, they’re just boring though and most of the time adding nothing to the debate. Which is a shame as they sometimes do make a valid point. But because they get ignored by the majority, they don’t get heard.
I can already predict their response to this – it will range from ‘no response’ to ‘free speech’.
Colah, like it or not 50km/h is the safest speed for single carriageway urban roads with frequent intersections and driveways, where the main risk is of side-on collisions.
If you don’t like it, I suggest you go harass-I mean exercise your right to freeze peach- the folks at Vision Zero and the International Transport Forum who studied and calculated to get the following evidence-based speed figures:
30km/h speed limit where main risk is hitting pedestrians
50km/h speed limit where main risk is side-on collisions
70km/h speed limit where main risk is head-on collisions
100km/h speed limit where only risk is collision with infrastructure.
I agree. Certainly a lot cheaper. Perhaps just some of them.
Building a pedestrian bridge is a helluva lot quicker, cheaper, and simpler than building a road bypass. Keeps the locals engaged, diverts the cars, what’s not to like?
Interesting that they have gone to converting Manuia Road, which is a minor road, into an overbridge and closing the two major roads either side of it, Spartan and Manuroa, both of which are major roads entering Great South Road at light controlled intersections. Manuroa also serves the Takanini station, and this will close the station off to passengers accessing it from the west of the station.
With Seymour and friends opening up nz to overseas investment, can we get some more overseas skills delivering overseas prices for our transport infrastructure
Billion dollar projects to separate our cars and trains is too much for a country struggling to feed its kids.
The cars (spice) must flow!
What’s up with Glen Innes?
There is already a perfectly good, well-lit subway connecting the rail station to the town centre.
Nothing more is needed.
*cough cough* I presume this is a sarcastic comment? Went though it the other day, not many do, it had about every third lighting box working. I’m OK with going through it at certain times but many would find it unsafe.
why don’t they construct a Tironui train station at the same time as they do the Walters Rd overbridge? Fit it under the bridge, as a sort of compromise between the Glenora station location and Tironui station location that’s equidistant between the two and doesn’t overly sacrifice proximity to the Takanini village centre and the McLenan Park subdivisions
From today’s weekly National Road Carriers Assn mailout:
“While this funding is welcomed, the frustration from of transport operators surrounds is that they are up to 6 years away. Properties for building have not even been purchased yet. The CRL build was started in 2015 – there is no excuse for this. NRC is a strong supporter of the City Rail Link, it will be a game changer for public transport and help reduce journey times on the motorway network. But road freight congestion is already bad in Takanini – a key light industry centre in Auckland. Blithely accepting worsening congestion over the next six years is unacceptable. “