A few months ago the government announced it would contribute $200 million towards level crossing removal in Takanini and at a few stations so that the Southern and Eastern lines north of Papakura would be fully grade separated. This enables us to make better use of the City Rail Link in the future.
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.
It is going to take some time to build the new road crossings but Auckland Transport is getting on the three stations on the list and have kicked off consultation on their plans to do so.
Three Auckland train stations where there have been dozens of near misses between pedestrians and trains during the past decade will have their pedestrian level crossings replaced by modern, accessible overbridges, Auckland Transport (AT) says.
New pedestrian overbridges at Glen Innes, Takaanini and Te Mahia stations will improve safety and support more frequent and reliable train services when the City Rail Link opens.
The Government and Auckland Council have brought forward funding to allow construction of the three pedestrian bridges to be fast-tracked, with work starting at Labour Weekend when the rail network is closed and continuing during the summer rail closure.
From this week, AT is asking for feedback on the proposed bridge designs for Glen Innes, Takaanini and Te Mahia stations.
…..
The designs for the three bridges have been developed to provide good access to the train stations, improve pedestrian safety, and to deliver value for money for ratepayers.
“We now want to hear feedback from our passengers and local communities about what the designs will mean for access, connection, and safety,” Mr Burt says.
This feedback will be used to finalise the bridge designs and to help with AT’s plans to integrate the bridges and station access into the wider neighbourhoods nearby.
Let’s take a look at what’s proposed.
Glen Innes
Of the three stations, Glen Innes is the one I have the most concern about simply because it has the most potential for making accessing the station harder.
The station currently has two level crossings, one at each end of the platform, as well as an underpass with links in two directions – it would be interesting to know how many use that underpass compared the level crossings.
The plan is to build a new pedestrian bridge from Apriana Ave to the station.
The new bridge will be fully accessible; meaning it is able to be used by parents with prams, cyclists and wheelchairs. It is proposed to be located between the current carpark areas to maintain connectivity into Glen Innes Town Centre and minimise disruption.
There are currently two crossings that require people to walk directly on the rail tracks. They will be permanently closed and replaced with this new, safer, accessible pedestrian bridge.
Access to the station via the current Merton Road walkway will be removed, with people coming from that direction needing to walk along Apirana Avenue to the new pedestrian bridge – about an extra one to two minutes.
We will be making it easier to walk this way by improving the shared path along Merton Road through the Links to GI project. This work will be done by the end of 2025.
The existing underpass access to the rail station platform, located at the northern end of the station, will still be available to use.
Adding a few minutes to journeys might not seem like a lot but we’ve see at other stations in the past, when station access is made easier or harder, even bit a little bit, it can have an impact on usage. Though having more services thanks to the CRL will certainly help make rail more attractive.
I get the desire for bridges from AT compared to underpasses, they’re less disruptive to build and likely cheaper but they can also have downsides, such as the need to get up and over the wires meaning passengers have to go further, and that’s enhanced here given Apirana Ave sits lower than the tracks. Lifts also have a tendency to be unreliable and when they stop working, which happens a lot, it cuts off accessible travel.
On lifts, it’s interesting they note “Lift design standards and rigorous maintenance will ensure reliability”
Te Mahia
Te Mahia is currently only accessed via level crossings and the proposed bridge will replace them will also make use of the recently build barren plaza linking the station to Gt South Rd.
It looks like AT have only allowed for a third track through here which seems shortsighted given the current 30-year plan is to have at least 4 tracks on this section.
Takaanini
In order to add a bridge at Takaanini, AT will need to remove 19 carparks from the park and ride but the rest will remain unchanged.
Like with Te Mahia, AT are only allowing for one additional track though this area. It does appear they are adding bike ramps to the stairs which is good.
Is it too much to ask for a little shelter on these bridges (and others around the network), not to mention on the platforms, if nothing else to reduce the risk of being poked in the eye by an umbrella while following someone on a rainy day.
Consultation for these bridges is open till 30-May and all are linked from here.
Given there are a number of stations on the Western line that will also need similar treatment it would be interesting to know how much these three bridges are costing.
Processing...
These new lifts need to be bigger than those currently used across the rail network to allow for bike access.
For example, last weekend I took the train with my family to Penrose for a bike ride around the basin. However getting off the train we discovered the lifts weren’t big enough to fit our bikes. So we had to take the next train to Sylvia Park which has an island platform so we could then wait for the next train going back the other way and take that back to Glen Innes. We got off there and then had to ride our bikes back to Penrose. All that on a Sunday with 20min frequencies
Which lift was too small, Ellerslie ? Penrose has no lofts only ramps which are great for bike.
Sorry Grant, I got confused. It was Panmure we got stuck at, not Penrose. We were trying to get to Panmure Basin.
Ahh yes thought maybe Panmure. Didn’t notice they smaller than Sylvia.
It is disappointing that GI overbridge will take 2 minutes longer from Merton Road (redirecting people through the existing road underpass to Apirana Avenue).
Meantime negotiations with affected landowners for alternative access off Hugo Johnson Drive are nearing completion so the Church Street East crossing will be closed in the coming months.
It seems particularity short sighed to close the Merton Rd access when it is directly beside the old Tamaki Campus, which is earmarked for a major new residential development – I.e. a whole lot of new potential rail users.
Mental so from those pics there’s no shelter anywhere along the platform not just the steps and overpass?
It’s all these little things which just make PT less inviting to use.
It’s increasingly obvious that nobody in the Auckland Transport design team has ever actually had to use the infrastructure that they’re charged with designing.
For all we know, their design experience may have started (and mostly finished) with the computer game ‘The Sims’.
AT designers will try to make it nice, and then someone in AT/KiwiRail will “value engineer” something out of the design. (i.e. engineer the value out of a design). That’s their job.
The best way to save money is to disestablish the jobs responsible for value engineering.
Strongly agree that the lack of rain shelter is unacceptable. These designs are below minimum standard. If such substandard amenity is built it will rewarded with lower ridership.
Is the intention to show users and potential new users that they are not wanted or valued, because that’s the effect? What a terrible false economy. Likely will need to be expensively rebuilt later too.
Further to Barry’s comment – why does the pedestrian overbridge at the Elletslie station have cover (including the steps down to the platform) – no other suburban station has anything remotely like it . Was this a one-off experiment?
I can see shelter adding a huge extra cost (in the comparatively small budgets we give for rail and PT), so I presume this keeps being suggested and then “value” engineered, because it is a nice to have not a need to have.
I’m not sure, Damian. If “need to have” is so limited that it doesn’t include drier steps at locations where there could be people jostling others trying to rush to a train or onward connection, then we can certainly build our roads more cheaply, with all sorts of expensive driver amenities-including-slight-safety removed. If it’s thought through from an inclusive perspective, this is a “need to have”.
I think it was mitigation paid for by NZTA from when they narrowed the platform and shifted the tracks so they could widen the motorway. It’s also why there are sound barriers there.
Manurewa train station has a cover on its pedestrian overbridge. But again, only a select handful.
I’m 90% sure the Manurewa bridge shelter was an ‘upgrade’ paid for by the local board.
The underpass at Glen Innes is to be upgraded in this – this should help more people flow through it as those stairs will be difficult for many users. Right now it is quite dark and probably a little uncomfortable for too many people to use. It seems a real miss that there is no additional access to the other side of Line Road – this area has become a real squeeze at peak times with so many buses passing through as well as pedestrians. If they can make that underpass nicer I am sure more will use it!
I guess we’re stuck with the island platforms as they are, but (for the sake of future stations; should we ever get any) are they cheaper to build access for compared to stations with platforms on both sides (with the tracks running between)?
Better access from one side to other if a bridge has to be anyway. They seem nicer and just one place for putting gates in if they choose to do so. They seem safer if you turn up to the wrong side of on non island station and see the train approaching.
Everywhere else in the world (UK, Australia, Japan, etc) happily uses pedestrian-only level crossings to provide station access. Why is New Zealand so “exceptional” that we must spend millions of dollars making access to our stations more difficult and convoluted?
It’s not as if we have high-speed rail, ultra-high train frequencies, wandering animals or any of the usual reasons for eliminating level crossings.
Also, it’s insane not to allow space for four tracks, given that four-tracking is going to be essential in the near future.
Words fail me.
Completely agree! Japan has massively busy commuter trains going every 4 to 5 minutes at level crossings all through outer Tokyo. Cars have to wait, people wait. No problems. This is unbelievable.
Underpasses smell of urine and feel unsafe. That is all.
Agree on the lack of cover, crazy in Auckland’s climate.
These all seem a bit of overkill when, as someone said above, the rest of the world dares to ask traffic to stop for a cycle, while pedestrians cross. And are underpasses really cheaper when you factor in lift costs, maintenance, etc?
A lack of 4th line, a tangible metaphor for the continuing lack of vision for our network.
Underpasses will smell of urine and feel unsafe if they are badly designed.
But can be fresh and smell lovely if they are well-lit and have good clear sightlines from one side to the other. There is a large underpass in Wellington from the train station to the bus station, and it is wide, well lit by daylight (at the ends) and by artificial light (full length, both sides), and has a super-active footfall of some tens of thousands a day. The road is almost impossible to cross – and the design is really well integrated into the area on each side.
Key thing is the lift reliability. I don’t think I’ve heard Sylvia going out of action since they did the overhaul of it. Yeah they could be bigger to fit more especially for bikes/e-bikes. At GI 9/10 people use the current level crossing I would say.
Glen Innes seems like a massive waste of money. There is already a grade separated underpass, surely they can make that safer? Also, both of the ped crossings have automatic gates, so the only users at risk of being hit by a train are those who jump over the gates. Surely it would be better to spend money at other higher risk crossings than trying to protect those few users?
The crossings are also before the platforms, so have no performance impact on train operations (unlike crossings after a platform in normal direction of travel).
This money should be saved and put towards other more important grade separations. Do this crossing once all others in Auckland have been closed. They have their priorities wrong.
All pedestrian level crossings have gates these days but it seems that’s been deemed not enough by regulators.
To be fair, I do see some people still bypassing them and running in front of trains.
I doubt any money saved would be enough to do any other level crossing (other than paying to just close some).
They don’t all have gates (but nearly all do). But the ones associated with roads are much easier to walk around (by walking on the road) than these, where you have to jump over them to defeat them. The cost of a bridge and lifts will be considerable.
Please find me a crossing which is lower risk than this one in Auckland? It should be one of the last they deal with.
Also, there are plenty of pedestrian crossings in Wellington that don’t have gates. i.e. they are very good by a national standard already.
Making it harder to jump the gate would be millions of dollars cheaper than building theses? We don’t put barriers on the platforms to stop people hopping down and crossing the tracks, so making it harder to jump the gate (like higher gates) would be more cost-effective.
Oh good the Eastern and Southern lines are getting yet more investment.
Meanwhile, on the western line…nothing.
As someone who lives out west I agree with the sentiment but also can understand the logic – there are fewer crossings to sort to have all removed, which then makes running more services easier.
A choice has be made to ensure CRL gets undermined by this.
Just wait for the chaos that West Auckland will be with St Judes road out and no rail for a month/months. Even the terrible bike lane will out of commission.
I think the deal with the western line is that it’s going to be better and more cost efficient to knock it out in one big project (as they need to remove both road and pedestrian crossings at stations)
While you will need to wait a bit longer, it’s going to be very well worth it I’m sure!
Take a look at what’s happened at mt eden & new Lynn stations so far – I believe it would be reasonable to expect multiple projects of that type along the entirety of the line (possibly even elevated stations like they have in Melbourne)
Avondale, Glen Eden, Morningside & Baldwin Ave will likely be the most major upgrades along the line – with upgrades trench or viaduct stations grade separating the surrounding roads too!
So multiple years with no trains out west, still close to zero bike infrastructure and extra chaos on the roads… post CRL, sounds awful. Particularly given there was golden opportunity to get this done over covid.
Dave I agree, or at least in batches.
I think closing George St and Baldwin, and separating Morningside could be done reasonably undisruptively, through smart design.
Then add a turn back west of Mt Albert, close Woodward to Portage, and work furiously 24/7 on Woodward and St Jude, just closing the other 3 once St Jude St reopens.
With buses between New Lynn and Mt Albert. Running the western in two parts: Swanson – New Lynn, stabling at Henderson. And Mt Albert and rest of network.
Do it like Melbourne, rip that plaster off. Work round the clock.
Will be painful but worth it. West of New Lynn last, with a turn back west of NL while that work is done.
>>Lift design standards and rigorous maintenance will ensure reliability
Unless there are two lifts per platform, this is going to be a challenge.
Elevator outages on public transport systems are quite common; where there are two elevators instead of one, that at any given time at least one works is a near certainty.
Basically every Japanese station has one elevator per platform. Granted there are less bikes. I’ve never seen a Brocken elevator ever in the 10 years I lived in kapan. Make the supplier guarantee it.
The last time I tried to use the Glenn Innes underpass (about three years ago) I was
frustrated by what appeared to be knee deep water at the lowest part of the
path. Some locals told me it was common with heavy rain.
Anyone know if that situation has been fixed ?
We use the underpass at Glen Innes regularly. It could do with a scrub up and better lighting, which would make it a far cheaper option than building a whole bridge over the lines. The underpass is protected from the weather, is accessible to bikes, prams, wheelchairs etc and comes directly from the township centre. We have never encountered any issues with the underpass
Unfortunate to see all the people complaining about this here – let’s all be grateful that AT is taking a step towards a modern & safe rail network with this.
Some of the dissatisfaction with AT is of course fair – however some of you will never be happy no matter what happens.
It’s the inconsistency in prioritisation Dave. Millions on this project and yet speed tables on arterial crossings too expensive/hard.
Whatever happened to this solution proposed for Glen Innes? – https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2020/01/10/weekly-roundup-10-jan-20/
It feels like it will end up like Sylvia Park – dump the passengers on the opposite of the road from where they want to be and leave them with poor road crossings to deal with. The one appears to be budget cuts to ensure that funds can be channelled into roads instead.
Good catch. Yup we have a new regime.
You mean the Glen Innes station that should have been rebuilt when the Eastern Line was completely closed from March – December 2023?
At the same time as the underpass should have been built from Gowing Drive to John Rhymer Place via Te Ara ki Uta ki Tai?
The rail station that would have supported the substantial growth, regeneration and densification in Glen Innes?
Nah, couldn’t possibly coordinate that. The Kiwi Way is to refuse to prevaricate, procrastinate endlessly, tie things up in business cases and absolutely refuse to commit funding. Then you wind up with last-minute, minimum-standard crap as we now see proposed Glen Innes.
It’s a surefire way to ensure that future problems are never solved, and that no-one is ever held accountable.
It’s interesting to reflect on the irrationally different attitudes that people have to safety on rail versus road.
An actively controlled pedestrian rail crossing is similar to a light controlled major intersection in the key respect : cross against the red and you may die.
In reality it’s much, much safer, since: 1. the vehicles that might kill you are much less frequent; 2. you can in most cases add a gate to stop people running the red light.
Contrast that reality to the emotional attitude to risk. We’re quite happy to have thousands of light-controlled major intersections around the city; but a few rail pedestrian crossings are awful and dangerous and we must spend hundreds of millions to remove them.
It has nothing to do with rational risk assessment; it’s just how people normalise what they’re used to. Plus, I suspect, a instinctive (literally), visceral response to the pure fact that trains are big and heavy, like a charging rhinoceros.**
Similarly, in the debate a few years ago about light rail on Dominion Road, I recall there was a line of argument among the nay-sayers about how dangerous on-road trams would be. Like a tram running every few minutes is more dangerous that the rest of the traffic passing every few seconds?
** It’s irrational because, at typical speeds in free flowing arterial road traffic, a 2-tonne sedan will kill you just as dead as a 200-tonne train, so the weight doesn’t make any different to the risk.
Nailed it.
We are spending so much extra money on this stuff for PT. Meanwhile a raised pedestrian crossing is a step too far in slowing cars down 15mins, and absolving pedestrians of any personal responsibility.
Agreed. We should mitigate those left-wing radicals and spend money on real transport infrastructure that boosts real productivity. Motorways such as RoNS will supercharge our economic efficiency into 21st century.
Yes, those lefty radicals in New York, Tokyo, LA, London, Paris, Seoul, and Singapore have it all backwards. Hence their pitiful productivity. Good call.