This is a guest post by Malcolm McCracken. It previously appeared on his blog Better Things Are Possible and is shared by kind permission.
New Zealand’s largest infrastructure project, the City Rail Link (CRL), is expected to open in 2026. This will be an exciting step forward for Auckland, delivering better access to the City Centre, increased network capacity and more frequent trains across the network.
However, this is not the endpoint. There are several steps we need to take to maximise the value of our investment in the CRL. Speaking broadly, these are:
- Unlocking more capacity in the rail network by removing network constraints, so that we can run more trains, more often.
- Station access: Making it easier to access our train stations
- Land-use changes: enabling more homes and jobs around train stations.
Through these actions, we can:
- Maximise the number of trains we can operate at peak times (and throughout the day) to deliver high capacity.
- Maximise the number of people able to use this capacity to achieve higher patronage.
These are not chronological steps, rather they go hand in hand and create positive feedback loops. More frequent trains reduce journey times (when you account for wait time), making public transport more useable and further driving patronage to support more investment. Maximising the number of people who can access your existing services will still deliver benefits, with higher patronage and a better financially performing network, before additional capacity is required.
In the rest of this article, I will unpack at a high level what these steps look like.
Unlocking more capacity from the network
The CRL removes the current main bottleneck on our rail network, which is Britomart station. By through-running trains, we will be able to go from 20 trains per hour into the City Centre, up to 30 trains per hour (15 in each direction). But other constraints on the network limit us from fully utilising the new tunnel, which should be able to get up to 48 trains per hour. So how can we unlock the rest of this capacity?
If you are struggling to translate what that means, 48 trains per hour (24 in each direction) is one every 2.5 minutes. Proper metro frequencies and something to aspire to!
Removal of level crossings, where roads cross the rail tracks, will allow us to run more trains, more often with no disruption to the road network. Plans are in place to remove the final level crossings from the Southern Line (north of Papakura). The Eastern Line, thanks to it being built at a later date, is already level crossing free. The real challenge lies in addressing the Western Line, where there are 15 level crossings remaining. Most of which will require a grade-separation project to address. Without removing the level crossings, we will be unable to run more trains without major disruption to the road network, which of course is politically a non-starter.
We also need to add more tracks to boost capacity in the busiest sections of the network. Currently, the Third Main project is nearing completion. This adds a third track between Westfield and Wiri, the busiest section of our network. This will enable some separation of express passenger services and freight trains from regular service. However, we need a fourth track, to unlock the full extent of service to South Auckland, including Drury and Pukekohe. This would allow trains from south of Manukau, to run an express pattern between Manukau and the city to deliver faster journeys from the south, while another pattern stops at all stations. However, the existing corridor remains a constraint to the Fourth Main Line being built. As is some of the existing infrastructure with some bridge spans being too narrow.
The other change is upgrading signalling to enable more trains to operate. Auckland’s rail network currently operates with the European Train Control System (ETCS) Level 1. Level 1 is a static tracking system, only allowing one train into a section of track at a time. The next step would be to ETCS Level 2, which provides continuous “supervision” of all trains on the tracks, knowing the location of each and communicating directly with each train. This would safely allow closer operation and higher throughput on the lines. Level 2 becomes a requirement at around 18-20 trains per hour in each direction and therefore is key for moving towards 48 trains per hour through the CRL. However, it is less critical if we have not largely addressed level-crossing constraints first.
Much of this is spelt out in the Auckland Rail Programme Business Case, a joint Auckland Transport – KiwiRail business case. What is now needed, is a finalised investment plan for the next 10 years with agreed funding commitments, including the identified use of funding tools to help capture the benefits and help pay for upgrades. With this in place, we can get on with identifying solutions, purchasing land where required, identifying funding solutions and communicating with the public ahead of disruptions.
Enabling land use change (Transit Oriented Development)
Allowing more people to live and work close to our rail network will further maximise the value of City Rail Link. For this, we need changes to our planning rules, to enable higher density, mixed-use development in station catchments (minimum 800m). This was a key part of the internationally lauded National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD). However, in Auckland, we still have yet to see the upzoning around train stations implemented.
Housing (and now Transport) Minister Chris Bishop has signalled that Auckland Council (and other Tier One authorities) will be required to enable greater density and mixed-use development, building on the NPS-UD. The timing of this implementation is still unknown but the closer these changes are delivered to the City Rail Link opening in 2026, the sooner we can get on with building more homes and jobs around the rail network.
The CRL will dramatically improve public transport access in the inner west suburbs of Kingsland, Morningside and Mount Albert. These will be some of the most accessible neighbourhoods in the city by public transport post-CRL, which will deliver a 50-72% time saving by train to the middle of the City Centre.
However, large parts of these areas are under special character protection, meaning that more homes cannot be built. This has led to the Infrastructure Commission referring to these areas as Transit Oriented Museums. It is critical to maximise the value of CRL that we change this to enable more homes to be built along the inner-Western Line.
Improving station access
The third step to maximise the value of the CRL and support patronage growth is to make it easier to access stations across the network. This means investing in walking, cycling and public transport access, which can maximise the rail users in a spatially efficient manner.
Park and Rides have a role in some locations, typically at the city fringe, but are a spatially inefficient and costly way to increase patronage. So, what do we need to focus on instead?
Additional station entrances can provide more direct access and increase the walking catchments of stations. Glen Eden provides a good example where an entrance at the Eastern end of the station would provide a 150m saving each way and increase the number of properties within the 800m of the station substantially. This would also increase the number of properties upzoned under the NPS-UD to enable more homes.
Investing in feeder bus routes and supporting infrastructure is critical to maximising the catchment of the station to improve public transport access for suburbs further out. A great example of this was with the reopening of Pukekohe Station, following the completion of electrification, which saw all local feeder buses upgraded to a 20-minute frequency. This goes hand in hand with the upgraded 6-bay bus interchange that opened in 2018.
Improving walking and cycling infrastructure within the catchment. This means improving footpaths, building cycleways and addressing missing crossings. In 2022, Auckland Transport with AECOM, developed the Auckland Rapid Transit Study, which evaluated every existing and planned station against a standard developed based on the category of station. This provides a strong basis for where and what scale of improvements are needed by each access mode, at each station.
Most station access interventions have quite localised benefits. This provides the opportunity to consider the use of targeted rates for a portion of the funding, acting as a proxy for value capture.
Final thoughts
This article has sought to outline, at a high level, what we need to do to maximise the value of the investment in the City Rail Link. There is of course far greater complexity in each of the points discussed. However, it is important to bring these together and consider how each contributes to the overarching goal of maximising the value from the (joint local and central government) investment in the CRL.
This post, like all our work, is brought to you by the Greater Auckland crew and made possible by generous donations from our readers and fans. If you’d like to support our work, you can join our circle of supporters here, or support us on Substack!
Processing...
I am really, really concerned about the lack of reliability of the rail network. I don’t use the trains anymore because I found them so prone to cancellations and delays due to track faults, signaling issues, station “incidents” etc etc. My most recent interaction with rail was my wife dropping a vehicle to a workshop then taking over two hours to get from Ellerslie to Morningside due to cancelations and delays. The following day I took the train to Glen Eden, and was basically stranded for an hour due to a track problem in Henderson.
The CRL has involved massive disruption and cost vast sums. Nothing will undermine public faith in further investment in PT quicker than on day one of the CRL a track fault causing chaos on the southern line, day two a signaling issue at Britomart slowing the network to a snails pace and the on day eight the Western line have problems leading to delays. The MSM in Auckland is ambiently hostile to PT in Auckland – they’ll leap on any issues in the first three months of operation to heap scorn on the CRL. We all know it.
The rail system simply has to be reliable by the time the CRL is completed and operational.
While I totally agree that such faults and issues would be a huge PR (and user!) nightmare, at least one good thing about the CRL is that it isn’t something the next minister can just cancel or change into a road tunnel.
They’d HAVE to sort out such issues – and the tunnel would still be there once they got sorted out – rather than do a Cook Strait Ferry purchase cancellation type move, for which it is thankfully far too late now.
Hopefully Labour/Greens have learnt so next time (and I am open to 4 year terms), they understand the value of getting major projects like Light Rail or Ferries underway and ideally being exposed to the public so that they become difficult to cancel
My fear is that National coalition are going to load up $30b dollars of roading projects tied into partnership deals which the next government will have to see through.
After CRL, the biggest argument will be on the ‘second’ harbour crossing. I really hope that the ‘Mor Roads’ crowd get nowhere near that boondoggle and we can get a government really focused on smaller but key projects to unlock the value in what we already have
Yes it would be sad to have day one or so plagued with problems but I think it will all go pretty good with all the testing and preparation they are doing. The CRL/Britomart sections will probably be more reliable that sections further out at least to begin with. Some of the Britomart problems will be reduced of course dur to not so many trains have to cross over track & jam into a dead end station.
Sometimes you can just time it wrong, have some bad luck with the problems.
It’s all well and good to permit higher density dwellings (and mixed use developments); however the real issue is whether anybody will actually buy them.
Auckland is awash with half-built high density developments, even high quality builders like Ockham are struggling to sell their apartments.
For young people looking to enter the property market, why would you accept being crammed into a poorly built shoebox when you can simply move overseas where the standard of housing is so much better?
Without appropriate pressure (regulatory or otherwise) developers will do their best to maximise profit on apartment and townhouse developments by getting as many individual units in there as they are allowed to fit. We have a lot of space in the central suburbs for upzoning and higher density, why can’t we incentivise construction of higher quality and larger apartments? Even the nice apartments are so small I can’t imagine wanting to raise a family there.
New housing (and new neighbourhoods) might be better provided when the overall design and specifications are set by a government agency (as with Eke Panuku).
Perhaps is easier than chasing developers with rulers etc after the fact.
Where are these people moving to where the standard is both better and cheaper that people are leaving NZ to BUY somewhere else?
Don’t get me wrong, young people are leaving but I don’t think they are are off to buy apartments in London on their 2 year working holiday visa.
Yes I think you’re right re: young people on their OEs, the point more applies to New Zealanders at the point in their lives where they want to settle down.
It could be a question of volume (i.e. New Zealand being smaller and having fewer newbuilds overall); but I can see how Australia (excluding central Sydney) is more appealing.
Alternatively, it could be that many young New Zealanders are doomed to shoeboxes no matter where they go. In which case, New Zealand being a second-rate option for them depends on more than zoning regulations.
Well somebody is embarking on spending an awful lot of money because they believe will pay heaps to live above a train station in Central Auckland.
https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/11-6m-to-live-above-a-train-station-penthouse-for-sale-in-aucklands-new-vertical-village-47119
A nice looking development that will do hugely more for businesses then providing more and cheaper car parking.
I hope it’s a success.
A young couple in my family are looking to buy and are avoiding all the high density townhouses and looking for something with a bit more space – internal and external. If we did better density in Auckland there would be a lot more buy-in to it.
I think a big issue (previously identified on this blog and elsewhere) is that a lot of this housing is the result of infilling/subdividing established sections.
These neighbourhoods are mostly without the additional public amenities that are particularly important for mid-density areas (particularly access to parks which are difficult to establish in already existing neighbourhoods).
Without these compensating factors, it’s easy to see why anybody with a family (or who are looking to start one) might turn their nose up at mid-density options.
And that’s without mentioning the issues with poor design, un-aesthetic design and general build quality.
These are surmountable problems, but only with a lot of planning and good execution.
Yes agree- this came up at a community hui last night- even though the subject matter was unrelated. A playground that served 30 houses now serves 100, schools giving up playspace for temporary classrooms etc etc. I live in a medium density area but in our case it was designed like that and so has adequate facilities.
Having a higher level of train control could enable express services without the need for a fourth line.
The Chitose line in Japan is a double track line which has local (2-3 per hour), express (5 per hour), intercity (~1 per hour) and freight trains.
Express trains don’t necessarily need extra tracks, just the ability to pass local trains at stations or other passing points (passing at stations where both trains stop – the local train arriving first and leaving later – is ideal to allow for transfer between local and express).
I’ve asked AT about this, but only yesterday so not yet had response, but wonder why they run alternate 3/6 units at peak time on the Western Line. From 07:00 to 08:30’ish and 16:30-18:00 the 3 units are always rammed full. Seems an easy win to increase capacity by making all 6 unit, same 10 min frequency. Presume it is due to hardware, marshalling, or maybe staffing?
But that means every possible passing station will have to have 4 tracks through it with enough holding capacity for 8-10 car trains so that they can be sidelined with the expresses holding the main. Probably one of those things where “bang for buck” can be established by getting proper train patterns.
The reason for more 3-car sets as peak, is that there isn’t enough trains in service, due to the extension to Pukekohe.
Although Council has budgeted $600 million for grade-separating the Takanini level crossings, which Government will eventually match through FAR funding, it will take 7-19 years to complete the project. In fact AT requested a 15 year lapse period on the Designations, giving them until 2039, though at the hearings back in May-June they reckoned they could do it by 2032. The Minister of Transport claimed on 21st February that they would be ready by CRL DayOne (early 2026) but this is a ridiculous fantasy. Although the Notices of Requirement were approved in January, the resultant Designations were subject to appeal – the closing date for appeals being on the same day as the Minister’s foolish statement. Optimistically the 3 claims lodged could be resolved by negotiation – but otherwise they are off to the Environment Court. Then there is the small matter of Resource Consenting and an Outline Plan of Works, and compulsory acquisition of private land using the Public Works Act. So it will take a fair bit of luck to even start construction of the first of the Takanini overpasses by CRL Day One. Because of the soft peat underlying most of Takanini construction is likely to take at least a year and probably longer as the approach ramp materials need to be progressively laid and compacted. And it will not be possible to construct them all at once as that would paralyse the local road network.
And of course there is not one cent available for any of the Western Line level crossing grade-separations -though a few might be closed by other means. For example, Sherrybrooke Place level crossings (serving just a few dozen houses) might be replaced by a relatively inexpensive connecting road across Waikumete Stream to Seymour Road. But doing them all is going to cost over a billion dollars (KiwiRail thinks at least double that) and at current rate of progress take decades!
Yes there are probably several cases where it would be far easier and cheaper to compulsory acquire a single property or two to knock down and build a road link through rather than build an over/underpass of the rail tracks.
In some cases it might even be better to simply purchase all the properties and then turn it into a reserve/offer it to the neighbouring properties on the other side.
‘where there are 15 level crossings remaining. Most of which will require a grade-separation project to address. Without removing the level crossings, we will be unable to run more trains without major disruption to the road network, which of course is politically a non-starter.’
1. No, grade separation is not ‘required’. Pro-car zealots would argue can’t have new trains without keeping the traffic flowing or faster flowing. I have a different view: keeping the level crossings with the barrier arm down longer creates new incentives for taking the train in the first place by reducing traffic flow and saves money by not building grade separated monstrosities. Win-win.
2. So if we close the level crossings, we have no vehicular access, but keeping them open still provides some access, and therefore would have LESS disruption to motorists. Just save time, money and headaches, and keep them open.
In the modern era we can’t let the pro-car status quo bias keep us making the most out of our new and improved train network. These trains need to be as frequent as possible on day 1, particularly on the Western Line where a massive shortcut is being created, to maximise uptake and ultimately reduce driving across west Auckland. Any grade separated crossings the motorists desire should be paid for by those motorists who wish to keep motoring despite more and faster rail services on offer.
Agree pretty much apart form keeping things non-grade separated will result in deaths and injuries plus hold ups to both vehicular and train traffic as a result, all else being equal.
Yes, it’s more of roading issue not a train issue, so the funding should come from roading budgets.
@Passenger there are some that can be closed or have walking and cycling only bridges. But many need to be grade separated, not only for general traffic and politics but also for buses. We are already going to see a reduced counter-peak service on the Western Line post-CRL due to the level crossings. Again, not grade separating is a political non-starter.
If you really believe it is possible I look forward to seeing you elected on such a platform 🙂
That’d be Morningside Dr, St Jude St, Bruce McLaren Rd, and Metcalfe Rd then. Maybe Woodward Rd, cause the 2018 RPTP was proposing putting a frequent bus route along there.
I am a little perplexed with the third main and how it could or would help with the running of express or limited services to and from Pukekohe. I am thinking that Puhinui needs an extra platform surely. I sort of understand why Middlemore had being given one. Once you get past Otahuhu we’ll you have got four lines. I was thinking Pukekohe Papakura Puhinui Otahuhu then run to Britomart on the Eastern line. The all stop service could run on the Southern line. Anyway something like that because all stops from Pukekohe to Britomart is a bit tedious. Also seeing as bus feeders were mentioned the ones around Pukekohe are pretty empty. I am not sure what could be done to make them more attractive. Boarding at Pukekohe look quite good to me and the park n ride is full by 6.30 am. Well I will leave it at that for now I suppose AT and Kiwirail will have being putting a lot of thought and work into it after all having spent up large getting the electrification to Pukekohe and building the new Stations and upgrading Pukekohe station we would have to hope we will see significant passenger growth. The town is becoming a congested mess as well.
AT seems to be planning to replace the Pukekohe buses with the AT Local on-demand vans; and to run half-hourly express trains at peak times, all stops Pukekohe to Papakura, then express to Puhinui, then no stops via the Eastern Line the rest of the way into the city.
There is another map in the Iconic Transit Maps book by Mark ovenden that suggests these express services will return south through the CRL via the southern line, all stops through the CRL to Grafton and Newmarket, then no stops until otahuhu and all stops back to Pukekohe
Once again, we do not need to go reinventing the wheel here folks. Plenty of other countries run 4 sets of tracks with no issues, so we should be looking at them for examples. There are two possibilities, broadly speaking.
First – move the existing lines out to the edges, and have the two new lines running down the centre. Means that the trains in the centre can operate unencumbered, speedy or slow, without obstructing the commuter train tracks, but this may mean that you would have to move/rebuild the passenger shelters / facilities further away from the centre.
Second option would be to leave the existing tracks and their facilities where they are, and let the additional tracks be built on the outside of the original tracks – so on your photo above, it would require an additional small tunnel under the road on one side of the other.
Lastly, re Graeme Easte’s letter above warning of a 2 billion price tag for getting rid of level crossings, just simply: NO. What needs to cross there is the people, the pedestrians. Small, simply pedestrian bridges over the tracks are possible, at relatively low cost. No need to build expensive crossings for cars. Cars have wheels and can drive down the road for a bit. Job done. Saved you a billion bucks, or two.
Ahhh… to be very fair to us in Auckland, we’ve done incredibly well building a modern rail system from a couple old rail lines and run down stations… one that in terms of comfort, cleanliness & safety rivals some of the best in the world.
But it’s disappointing to see that there’s so much more to do… we absolutely need more investment in rail – people much prefer rail to buses & therefore will use trains if they’re available, taking cars off the road.
I’d love to see our network fully separated as well as a light rail network to connect the missing areas. Although it will take time – it’s completely possible!
Is there any plan to build the extra platforms at Puhinui that have been planned for? Surely the 3rd main opening means we need it now?
There is a small stub platform at Puhinui. Te Huia could possibly use this with selective door opening. Probably from the cafe car. Northbound services would benefit particularly from this.
Another entrance to Greenlane station would be great, say at Adam Street. Bonus points if they build a new bridge over the motorway to the new apartment complex going up in the race course car park.
Of course, GA has covered this before – https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2012/06/16/improving-greenlane-station/
Absolutely! Greenlane for sure is cut off from its surroundings.
I also reckon Sylvia park could do with an eastern entrance, as well as papatoetoe with a northern entrance to the park & ride.
Absolutely! Greenlane for sure is cut off from its surroundings.
I also reckon Sylvia park could do with an eastern entrance, as well as papatoetoe with a northern entrance to the park & ride.