The government have seemed a bit more desperate to be seen to be doing things lately, and yesterday they got an opportunity with a sod-turning event to mark the start of removing the last seven level crossings on the southern and eastern lines north of Papakura. This follows on from the funding announcement earlier this year.
Construction work to remove many of Auckland’s level crossings and replace them with over-bridges for vehicles and pedestrians begins next week in a boost for the city’s productivity and job creation, Transport Minister Chris Bishop and Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown say.
Earlier this year, the Government and Auckland Council agreed to jointly contribute funding for the removal of level crossings in Takanini and Glen Innes. The level crossings will be removed or replaced with grade-separated crossings to maximise the City Rail Link’s ability to speed up journey times by rail and road and boost Auckland’s productivity.
The scope of the Takanini and Glen Innes package includes a total of eight level crossing removals or replacements: three new grade-separated road bridges, three new pedestrian access bridges, and the closure of two unsafe level crossings.
“The City Rail Link is on schedule to open next year, and will reshape travel for much of Auckland. Commuters can expect faster journeys, less congestion, and a range of other major benefits,” Mr Bishop says.
“Level crossings – where roads intersect with train tracks – are a common source of frustration for motorists. Most people know the sinking feeling when warning lights start flashing and the barriers come down, signalling an approaching train. For truck drivers, tradies, couriers, and many others, those minutes of waiting can mean lost time, and in many cases, lost income.”
Removing level crossings is a good thing, and has taken far too long to get to this point – the need to get them removed has been talked about for decades. However, I do find it odd how much the government are talking up the productivity aspect, when from a time perspective, the barrier arms are down for less time than the red light phase at standard intersection.
Far more important are the safety benefits, but going by the government’s press release, these were only talked about by Mayor Wayne Brown.
Auckland Transport’s press release provides some safety stats, noting that “barrier arm collisions accounted for 68% of all events“.
Between 2013 and 2025 a total of 1,242 level crossing collisions and near-miss incidents were recorded in Auckland.
- Pedestrian Near Misses: Total (321) Glen Innes Crossings (18), Takanini Crossings (68)
- Vehicle Near Misses: Total (126) Takanini Crossings (29)
- Road Barrier Arm collisions: Total (1102), Takanini Crossings (212)
Also notable is that the bridges getting started on now are the three pedestrian ones that AT consulted on a few months ago, and which are likely to be substantially completed over the upcoming summer shutdown. The road bridges could be years off starting.
From Auckland Transport:
Pre-construction works start this week, with main construction of new bridges at Takanini, Te Mahia and Glen Innes stations starting during summer.
…..
In addition to work starting on station bridges, essential work on the road bridges is underway. This includes property acquisition, geotechnical investigations, further developing designs of the new bridges, tendering for a construction contractor and further community engagement in the coming months.
…..
“Auckland Transport has progressed from funding approval to breaking ground for the projects in just six months, there’s a lot of work to get done but people can now see things are happening.”
About 200 construction workers will be employed on the projects this year, with a similar number of construction jobs in the coming years when road bridges are being built.
It’s also likely that AT will need to stage the road crossings, both to minimise disruption and so that there is still a viable way to get across the tracks.
I get why these crossings are being done first, but personally, the lack of progress for level crossings on the Western Line is very frustrating. This is especially so as the numerous level crossings are cited as the reason train frequencies on the Western Line will be limited after the City Rail Link opens – to the point that counter-peak frequencies (e.g. heading west in the morning peak) will be reduced, so that the total number of trains travelling across level crossings will be the same as it is today.
To that point, AT’s press release says:
Auckland Transport is seeking funding to continue planning work with the Government, Auckland Council and KiwiRail to determine the best approach for removing level crossings on the Western Line, likely required in the 2030s to support passenger growth. Work is underway, including early engagement with elected members, freight and business stakeholders.
AT provided me with a briefing on their work for the Western Line crossings last month, but it doesn’t provide me with a lot of confidence. They appear to be taking the same approach as they took with the failed Connected Communities programme – with separate business cases for every crossing, and the engagement with elected members sounding very high-level on the issues and trade-offs.
They did include this, on the high-level affordability for work on the Western Line:
- Separating all 21 crossings would be in the range of approx. $5 billion
- Closing all crossings with mitigations including pedestrian access would be in the range of $1b
- Separating strategic road crossings and providing pedestrian crossing and mitigations would be in the region of $2-2.5b
There was also some interesting information that they provided on the crossings. These are the traffic volumes across the various crossings along the line – though it seems to be missing a few of the station-related pedestrian only crossings, like at Baldwin Ave and Avondale:
From what I can tell, Metcalfe Rd and Walters Rd are neck and neck for the busiest level crossing for traffic in the region.
Also, there is generally a high correlation between volumes of usage, and safety incidents.
Auckland Transport also says that over half of the crossings have a medium-high Level Crossings Safety Score, with Morningside, Glenview and Metcalfe having the highest safety risks.
Auckland Transport has previously said that the general plan for the Western Line is to do the inner-west first, as that would then allow them to add additional train services to that part of the line sooner.
However, they are considering doing some of those higher-risk crossings first. Hopefully by removing the highest risk crossings, it might give some comfort to allow for some frequency improvements over the whole line.
The upcoming changes to the Unitary Plan are also likely to put increased pressure on the need for AT to have solutions for the Western Line. A lot more housing development will be allowed around inner west train stations – and if that is realised, it will mean more services will be needed sooner.
At the same time, and perhaps even more importantly, the longer this is left, the more costly property acquisition is going to be and the higher the risk of development of sites that are needed for upgrading level crossings with bridges.
Processing...
“the barrier arms are down less than the red light phase at standard intersection” – why not spend all that money on something new instead, a new busway or similar. We wouldn’t spend all that money getting rid of any other traffic light.
Instead of spending every last cent on the 3 rail lines, why not spend some of it on the rest of Auckland?
The time the barrier arms are down is a bit of a red herring. The reason level crossings are removed on metro rail systems across the world is delays to the rail network caused by accidents, stations close to level crossings.
The ultimate aim with the CRL is to have 18tph in each direction, you won’t find many if any metro system around the world with these frequencies and level crossings.
Yamanote Line in Tokyo is one of the busiest lines on the planet and it still has a level crossing – but I do think removing them is a good idea to improve safety and reliability
I would suspect the few level crossings on the Yamanote line are used by a handful of vehicles per day and most of those would be access to private parking. In other words not normal public roads.
Any Tokyo motorist crossing the double tracks with 16 carriage trains going past every 4 minutes or so each way could find crossing a very long wait and would be most unlikely to put the crossing in a normal travel route.
The time the barrier arms are down is a bit of a red herring. The reason level crossings are removed on metro rail systems across the world is delays to the rail network caused by accidents, stations close to level crossings.
The ultimate aim with the CRL is to have 18tph in each direction, you won’t find many if any metro system around the world with these frequencies and level crossings.
I was appalled, last night, to see Wayne Browne speaking at the sod-turning and calling the CRL “wretched” (or was it “ratsh*t”?). I think it was because of the cost (he managed to inflate it again from $5.5 bn to $6 bn – or is this a new “final” cost?).
Any which way, it would be good to have a mayor who enthused about the imminent opening of the most transformational piece of PT infrastructure in what, a century(?), instead of going public with such miserable comments.
We seem to have a history of mayors treating transformative projects as if they were a millstone. I well remember that as mayor, Chris Fletcher signed the contract for Britomart the day before the election she lost, because she knew that John Banks would otherwise can the project if he was elected (which he was). Then as mayor Banks was able to enthuse about how great the project was at the opening, but pointedly didn’t even invite Fletcher to attend – something she has never forgotten. Or forgiven.
I say kudos to Fletcher: if she had not signed that contract our main railway station would still be at the Strand, there’d be no Britomart, and the rail network would probably not have progressed beyond diesel trains hauling ancient carriages and a handful of DMUs. If it still existed at all – in the pre-Britomart, pre-DMU days the trains were truly awful. I think that in the Pantheon of Auckland PT heroes Fletcher deserves to be up there alongside Robbie and Raymond Siddalls (responsible for getting the Perth DMUs to Auckland in 1993, without which the railway system would almost certainly have closed).
Who will be seen as hero of the CRL? Ironically, it was another right wing politician, John Key, who promised in 2013 that the CRL would proceed if patronage had increased from 11 million to 20 million by 2020. The Nats thought they were safe when they made that promise, because they believed the target was impossible, and they’d never be called upon to build it. But the target was actually reached in 2017, and the only way out was to swallow the dead rat and give the go-ahead. I’m not sure history will give Key the credit he deserves for this. Mind you, I’m not sure how much credit you SHOULD give a politician who reluctantly fulfils a promise he never thought he would be called on to keep.
Let’s hope that if Browne is re-elected he can muster a few words of support at the CRL opening, anyway, not a miserable and grudging diatribe about how burdensome it will be to Council. He should read Patrick’s recent piece on the subject first.
He has to produce a budget to fund all of the Council’s essential services but he has to do so with the CRL millstone around his neck. I don’t envy him.
And the alternative to providing the same capacity transport solutions to Auckland’s growing population is?
Because of our government’s love of roads, I suppose increasing road capacity would have had a much larger taxpayer, rather then ratepayer, contribution. So more somebody else’s doing the paying.
And Rail vastly reduces the amount of valuable land adjacent to employment locations, a lot of it Council land, that is required to store cars between their morning and evening commutes.
Also the govt should of really have come to the party and funded it near to or at 100% then he wouldn’t have a budget problem. Also, issues with other cut serves like library hours etc partly as a result of this.
I would have used the platform to ask for consistency in future.
If its a regional transport solution of this scale – road or rail – its either 100% crown funded or 50% ratepayer funded, wherever it is in the country.
No such roads would ever get built under the latter, so the former should apply also for rail (or busways).
I guess the alternative is to invest in projects where the benefits exceed the costs. That might be a place to start.
Even the Nats recognize it’s an investment, not a millstone.
Let’s support Wayne and subsequent mayors to capture some of the value it will add to the areas it serves, and make sure viewshafts, ‘special character’ and nimbys don’t cripple it.
“…kudos to Fletcher”.
Signing on for Britomart at the last available minute, when she really did not want to, to get a win over the other side of the (council) isle.
The right result I guess, but not sure she deserves a bouquet over it.
As I recall, she publicly opposed the Les Mills original large, developer-heavy Britomart plan, advocating for a rethink that emphasised heritage retention and rail-first design, and once in power terminated the existing agreement with the developer. She was desperate to get the more heritage-focused alternative project under way before her term finished, and Council agreed to let the contract in what was probably its last meeting before the 2001 elections. It’s quite wrong to say that she “really didn’t want to” – she didn’t want a project that was insensitive to heritage values and would have trashed the Britomart precinct, as I recall. Any which way, had she not pushed the modified project through, we’d still be back in the transport stone age.
I just took your original post to indicate she was reluctant, but your follow-up provides context. Cheers.
Thank you
The CRL hero would be Len Brown. He campaigned hard to get it built in public and with central government. I heard Simon Bridges talking recently (online but sorry forget where) and he mentioned how constructive and consistent he had been keeping the dialogue going to get agreement on the project.
Sort of a laugh (but not really) at the Walters Road plan showing them buying and demolishing new houses built in 2021. Or is it the bridge going over the top of them? Either way … lovely joint planning by AT and AC.
“Either way … lovely joint planning by AT and AC.”
Shit like that happens. There’s thousands of plans and potential future projects on private and public plan lists for the future – you can’t stop everyone’s projects just because some other project might clash in the future. Yes, “better coordination” is better (it’s in the word) – but what would you have done? Bought those properties in 2020 or 2019, when the rail crossing removal wasn’t even funded and then carried them as empty land? From what funds?
Yes I’m well aware that ‘shit’ like that happens. More the irony that they’re relatively newly built homes, and will be more expensive that the 1 site that was originally there.
Lack of early foresight maybe with a designation? I don’t know how it could be fixed, but it is sad / ironic that someone has recently purchased a new house and it’s going to be demolished for a road.
Excellent information in this article on the Western Line thank you! I’ll share with the Glen Eden Residents Association. The Glenview rail crossing combined with the traffic lights phasing snarls up the Glen Eden centre, the Fire Engine is on the other side, and all my alarm bells go on travelling through the area from a safety perspective – cars, pedestrians and trains do not mix.
The road crossing at Glenview will need to close I think. Westlight and the comparatively small number of people north of the tracks, will make trenching a no go and the topography basically rules out bridges (for cars). A south end accessible non powered pedestrian crossing and some trees will make Glen Ed much nicer.
Hilariously the “firefighters” think for some mad reason that the train station is going to move, not them.
FENZ are fully engaged on the Glenview Rd crossing issue, working out the best answer.
It does not sound like it. These fire dude are all about driving their trucks fast rathern than thinking about how to limit harm in society.
The said in their submission about the “New Lynn” bike next work (where they were really anti bike), that they want to move the station. Moving the station away from the Glen Eden hub would be insane.
Our mayor is a man of his generation. Some people enjoy his crude, non-intellectual style. In my mind his most famous statement was “I can do division in my head”. As we would like our primary school children to be able to do. For the leader of our city he is a handy bully with so many bullies in Wellington’s parliament, but he has also lived most of his life, so does not seem to carry the same concern as many of our less old citizens.
I know I can be a little obtuse regarding the age of our current mayor, but it is a factor, when so many of our current world leaders are fellow beneficiaries of the post second world war baby boom.
Our city has been disabled by its inadequate public transport, and suffers the consequences of congestion and other time and money destroying activities.
Public transport is the only way to travel, so all we need to do is make it a little less complicated, by perhaps allowing people to live more centrally, in those other modern marvels: apartments!?!
I’m not sure that having bullies representing Auckland interests in Wellington is a guarantee of success. Remember how Mike Lee alienated Wellington when Chair of the ARC, through bring implacable about . . . everything. Sometimes having someone who can read the room and adjust his/her language to suit will get more done.
Very funny how the Western line has gone from the primary beneficiary of the CRL to a line that will have a reduction in counter peak services. The past Henderson end of the line will be further marginalised and intended Henderson station upgrade sounds utterly terrible and not fit for the new zoning. I also remember in 2023/2024 the Eastern line gobbling up all the Rail rebuild funding while AT used CATR funding to run extra new busses lol.
The West is now needs billions, to suffer death by consultation, and if they get it, they will get absolutely plagued by disruptions after the half decade of hell.
Have long felt the Western Line gets treated like the poor cousin despite it being the best performing line. This is particularly seen at Newmarket where the western line often gets held for a long time to wait for Southern Line trains even though the western line train could easily have gone sooner.
The eastern line was up early for rail rebuild in large part because it was in some of the worst condition. The west was in generally much better condition as half of it was only 15-20 years old (my understanding is there’s not to much issue with the parts where double tracking took place.
“The eastern line was up early for rail rebuild in large part because it was in some of the worst condition.” I hear things like this, but well into the 2020s the the trains would “fly” along at well above 80kp the entire length of the of the eastern line, whereas there were bits along the western where they crawled for years and train hardly got near the speeds the east gets to enjoy.
I still don’t get how the decades in the making formation situation was a non issue 2020 when the entire rail network came to screaming halt and not even worth discussing. Then was the most critical thing in the world in 2022 needing hundreds of billions and more massive network disruptions… but at this time next to zero rail crossings can be updated/sorted out?
The speed difference is just a case of the Western Line’s alignment being hopelessly curvy no? The 55/60kmh speed boards there are all permanent, so the only way you’re fixing that is a massive realignment when you do some LXRs (which realistically means never.)
You’re right about Kiwirail being hopelessly unprepared to take advantage of the shutdowns with designs for crossings or pedestrian bridges (or literally anything) to take advantage of the once in a generation shutdowns. Really speaks to either incompetence or their capacity to design and contract being completely maxed out.
The straight behind Pack n Save, had years of trains getting gassed by people on bikes for some reason. Endlesss shut downs during this time…but no this was not important enough to fix.
Kiwirail simply have no incentive to actually provide a service, or play nice as part of society. The Glen Eden town upgrades took an extra 8 months, because kiwirail refused to let AT make some minor adjustments in to the rail corssing. This while we had rolling shut downs. It is insane how poorly these guys get along. I wonder if ATs recent focus on the Eastern line over the western has somthing to do with Kiwirails preference?
None of these figures makes sense to me. Barrier arm collisions don’t or anything add up:
Between 2013 and 2025 a total of 1,242 level crossing collisions and near-miss incidents were recorded in Auckland.
Pedestrian Near Misses: Total (321) Glen Innes Crossings (18), Takanini Crossings (68)
Vehicle Near Misses: Total (126) Takanini Crossings (29)
Road Barrier Arm collisions: Total (1102), Takanini Crossings (212)
I think that one incident can be recorded as both a Road Barrier Arm collision as well as a near miss, so the sum is higher than the total number of incidents.
CRL Achievement is now unlocked.
next level – Mill road Billions…
Separating all 21 crossings on the Western line for $5 billion is insane. Near the cost of the CRL itself. Yes, as per the $1B range I would think that closing most of the crossings, especially road ones would save a ton of money. Traffic will find another way around. Land can be sold to help recoup costs.
This makes the Western line almost seem a bit of a lemon on it’s original alignment and the cost of a surface light rail proposal down Dominion Rd a very attractive proposal.
Agree, heavy rail keeps looking more and more like a dog. Should have ripped all the tracks up on day one and built light rail, CRL could have been above ground, level crossings not a problem, could easily extend to north shore / north west / airport, etc. hindsight is 20/20 I guess.
They tried that strategy for a while in the 90s and early 2000s. The sticking point was they couldn’t actually rip up the tracks without removing freight trains too. For a while they were willing to abandon freight on the NAL to do that tho.
thought the plan was for tram-trains with 1067mm gauge track for the Queen St ‘at-grade’ CRL?
Half the road crossing can be closed. But AT is going to let this become a side show while each and every one is consulted on. Keeping the entire network limited, burring money and time.
“The upcoming changes to the Unitary Plan are also likely to put increased pressure on the need for AT to have solutions for the Western Line. A lot more development will be allowed around inner west train stations…”
Not the stations of the other lines?
They do have some but not to the same level as they tend to have big parts of their catchments lost to other things e.g. southern to motorway, eastern to new coastal controls Orakei/Meadowbank) and height limits (Panmure) etc..
>Separating all 21 crossings would be in the range of approx. $5 billion
Why does it cost circa $240m to replace a level crossing? This is not a rhetorical question. I want to know how it costs so much.
2 years of community consultation and 239 million in consultants fees.
More serious answer (because I know that as a consultant our fees in the current economy are barely keeping up with cost): Because there is a horrible fear of making driving worse, so any new level crossing is essentially a massive new bridge or tunnel when sometimes it could just be… closed. Add to that the – in my opinion, justified – desire to not build old-style bridges with a razor thin footpath and a painted sliver called a “cycle lane” (or no cycle facilities at all) – and then add the fact that these crossings tend to be in areas where land is very expensive (and you need land to build – not just for the final structure, but also WHILE building)… and you got a perfect storm of cost.
That said, the people saying this is “heavy rail’s” fault are ridiculous. As if roading projects aren’t even more expensive, but get half or less the scrutiny…
I mean, everything seems to cost exorbitant amounts.
I just feel like you should be able to build a bridge for $120m which is still objectively an absurd amount of money but is somehow half the price.
Like, if we were doing back of the envelope calculations, what would our prices and inputs be?
Agree re frustrating delays. I can’t believe we are where we are on level crossings. Western Line the next focus.
Let’s fly a kite.
The hardest crossing to close is probably the busiest so let’s start with Metcalf Rd.
On the southern side of the tracks it has two watershed areas;
1. Western Heights via Summerland Drive/Munroe Rd
2. Ranui Heights bounded by Pooks Rd, Metcalfe Rd & Hetherington Rd
Henderson Valley traffic is well served via Sturges Rd & Candia Rd over bridges.
Unless someone really wants to go to Ranui the population of Western Heights people mostly have better access to the Sturges Rd over bridge so I can’t see too many complaints from there in shutting the Metcalf Rd crossing.
At least half of the Ranui Heights traffic has good access west to the Candia Rd over bridge.
The other complexity with Metcalfe Rd is the close proximity of other intersections at odd angles on both sides of the train line.
From afar Henderson Valley traffic is well served via Sturges Rd & Candia Rd over bridges.
On this basis I would close this crossing to vehicles and put in really good active mode bridges at both ends of the station. Beef up the parking on Pooks Rd and dd good secure bike racks then promote Ranui Heights as a low traffic neighbourhood. That might even attract some local retail which the area desperately needs.
Seems doable to me. It probably saves a BIG chunk of that $5B and as they say, traffic is like water and will just flow somewhere else.
Metcalfe is the closest level crossing to me and I use it quite a bit. I wouldn’t even put it in the top 5 hardest and given the volumes across it, I don’t think diversion to Sturges or Candia is appropriate here.
It will require a bit of property purchase but feel there’s a couple of viable options.
On the south side, Pooks and Munroe get linked up to a new 4-way intersection, likely just south of the current Munroe intersection (which also gives a crossing little bit more starting height.
On the North side there are a couple of options, one would be to continue it back down to Metcalfe with a little bit of property impact but another option would be to link it up to Marinich Dr – it would also require a new bridge across the stream dividing Marinich Dr. This route was actually planned to be a minor arterial route by Waitakere City Council back in the day which is why the two sides exist and are super wide for what they are now.
Short term they should just close the crossing, add a bunch more fences and put in a pedestrian bridge nearby. Long term replace with a vehicle crossing if necessary, but I think diverting traffic is the most cost effective solution. When they’re spending 500m on a crossing doesn’t make sense to do the nice to haves, especially for somewhere that far from the CBD.
That said, I don’t think it should be fixed anytime soon, as the frequency is planned to be from Henderson to the CBD, so those crossings are far more crucial than the stations with reduced frequency – and given there are only 2 more stations after the crossing, it’s not like upgrading it makes sense in the short run compared to busier crossings further in.
New Lynn – CBD should be the priority, as they can just run the higher frequency trains from New Lynn (1 of the 3 major nodes west along with Henderson and Westgate) to the CBD and build a track between Titirangi Rd bridge and Fruitvale to store trains to turn them around.
the crossings that carry bus routes should be the priorities for full blown replacement IMO, i’d be gunning for Morningside Dr to get bridged first so that the 22N/22R can get to St Lukes
long-term rail plans seem to indicate Mt Albert being used as a station to short-stop Inner West trains (and up to 15TPH each way at peak between there and Maungawhau)
Burrower
Half a billion so busses avoid 2 minute detour, is insane. Add new bus lanes to make up the time and extend a service like the 64 if there are truly problematic dead spots.
In isolation I agree that Morningside Drive would be high priority in isolation, but it’s just such a difficult crossing that I can’t see it being viable.
Start by swapping the routes of the 22 and 20 a little, so that the 22 takes Sainsbury Rd (instead of the 20) and the 20 takes Morningside Dr (instead of the 22.) Then if we must close the Morningside Drive crossing outright, you can just send the 20 via Rossmay Tce/Altham Ave->Sandringham Rd with minimal problems.
I don’t think closure is viable here – given the volumes stated. There’s no indication that it will cost $500m, there’s been no crossing level breakdown of costs they’ve released. And I don’t think the distance from the city makes a difference, it’s the impact of the crossing on safety and movement
Also at peak time there is no difference in timetable frequency for passengers inside or outside of Henderson, but Metcalfe (and Mt Lebanon Lane) will actually see more train movements than any other part of the Western Line on CRL day 1. That’s because it will also have out of service trains passing over it heading to and from the stabling yard in Henderson. That and the safety record is why it’s being considered one of the highest priority western line ones.
I should also note, AT’s analysis on impacts to level crossings is down to the timetable level e.g. with the planned timetable, some crossings will have trains crossing at the same time in both directions, that will have less impact than crossings where train arrivals are more staggered.
Re Morningside – I was initially for a Inwood St – Morningside Drive bridge, taking out a building or two, but allowing the sale of the old land reserve to balance it out – and with a full footpath/cycleway/road bridge that would be closed for events, with access to the station.
But given the cost blowouts, I don’t think it can ever financially stack up compared to just closing it and putting in a pedestrian bridge, which might blow out by millions but not hundreds of millions. I do think Morningside is a priority for Eden Park games, as allows better train stacking for events. It’s not far for traffic to drive around (and most traffic is going through rather than directly from one side to the other so not hard to reroute with minimal difference), and pretty easy to change the bus routes. The 22N/22R don’t need to go via St Lukes, as super easy to change to an Outer Link or 65 bus, and this will speed up 22N/22R journeys.
—
Re Metcalfe – the car volumes can divert, and if anything, the volume is a reason to close it due to safety and put in some extra fencing/new pedestrian links. I don’t think we should be planning for CRL day 1 frequencies, as that’s the least frequent scenario that can be handled like at present (because they’re keeping the same frequency as now just reorganising it). The focus should be on how to incrementally improve it to reach the ideal timetable, and the best way to do it is from the CBD outwards.
Swanson/Ranui are the 16th and 14th busiest stations of the Western Line’s 17 stations in terms of passengers, so it’s not like the frequency is particularly likely to increase out there (as the extra trains will terminate further in, or best case Henderson or Sturges which are the 5th/7th busiest). The crossings further in are the ones that will have the massive frequencies so need grade seperation earlier for the CRL’s potential to be realised. No point doing ones on the edge of Auckland earlier as it’s not like they’re going to run super frequent trains from Swanson to New Lynn, then cut the frequency to the CBD.
It would require rerouting the 145, but it’s an infrequent service and moving it to Candia would allow better connections to the infrequent 146/147.
For CRL funding they should be doing from the CBD outwards (so they can incrementally increase frequency to Mt Albert, then Avondale, then to New Lynn).
For safety funding, obviously the most dangerous ones first (and a lot of them the best option is closing the crossings entirely and putting in a pedestrian bridge, as the extra cost for a vehicle crossing isn’t usually justified when there are suitable alternatives nearby) – but safety funding should be based on the most dangerous ones across the country, not just Auckland, as we shouldn’t value the lives of Aucklanders above other areas.
The same reason Waitemata Drive is so wide, this was all part of that Western bypass to Massey. Add the missing bridge over Waimoko Stream (imho a cycle and foot bridge would be fine), this would make the Te Rangi Hiroa cycle park more accessible from Ranui, and provide a more direct connection from all the new housing off Birdwood Road to the station and existing bus routes.
All this discussion illustrates why AT needs to be given funding for a Business Case to prioritise and develop solutions for the Western Line crossings.
Somewhere between $1bn and $5bn will take a lot of serious work – that does cost money that AC/NZTA/Kiwirail need to make available.
There are a lot of options to identify, evaluate and estimate so that a funded programme of work can be started.
The complication and cost of the Takaanini crossings shows how much is needed for this to happen. It’s taken CRL panic to get momentum behind this. Five years ago it might have been seen as fantasy pipe dreams.
Yes work needs to be done but even if AT were given lots of funding, there’s very little chance we’ll actually get any results from it given the processes being employed and people involved.
The western line work is shaping up as classic AT busy work – where things endlessly go around in circles of the business case process but nothing ever gets decided or delivered.
My guess is in 5 years we’ll be no closer to having plans for the Western Line than we have today.
AT knew that this situation was coming. Why did they do their analysis/planning in the decade past? That why existing next work closures could have been used to minimise delays.
Instead west is going to have probably decades of massive rail and traffic disruptions. How long will trench take the city rail line out for? 3 months?
Given the 2020 so far this is absolute last thing any PT users deserves.
Western line suggestions:
– George St close and add pedestrian overpass similar to Porters Ave. Once Dominion Rd flyover is demolished and replaced with signalised intersection, left turn from Dominion onto New North will be possible for vehicles.
– Morningside Dr build bridge, reconfigure gym carpark to enter/exit from Rossmay Terrace. Close McDonald St to vehicle traffic, buy 8 McDonald & 10 Morningside and create new link road to Morningside/Taylors Rd intersection.
– Rossgrove Terrace & Asquith Ave close and add pedestrian bridges at the Baldwin Ave station and at Asquith. Traffic to use Linwood Ave & St Lukes Rd (signalise intersection). Will mean removal of through traffic from the neighbourhood.
– Woodward Rd close and add pedestrian bridge, traffic to use Carrington Rd, signalise Woodward/Carrington intersection & maybe Willcott/Carrington if needed. Will mean removal of through traffic from the neighbourhood.
– St Jude St close and add pedestrian bridge, traffic to use Blockhouse Bay Rd, Rosebank Rd & GNR or Chalmers St.
– Chalmers St buy some properties, build a bridge and connect Chalmers to GNR as a bypass of Avondale.
– St Georges Rd close and add pedestrian bridge, vehicles to use Chalmers St.
– Portage Rd build bridge/underpass. Otherwise close and divert traffic via Veronica St.
– Fruitvale Rd close and build pedestrian overpass at the station. Vehicles to use West Coast Rd or Titirangi Rd. Will mean removal of through traffic from the neighbourhood.
– Glenview Rd close and build pedestrian overpass at the station. Vehicles to use West Coast Rd. This one will be way too costly and disruptive to build a bridge.
– Sherrybrooke Pl close and build a link road and bridge over the stream to Woodbank Dr. Can be one-way bridge to save costs.
– Bruce McLaren Rd close and build pedestrian bridge. Vehicles to use Corban Ave. Otherwise buy out the car yards and create a curved bridge similar to Clark St in New Lynn.
– Mt Lebanon Lane close and build pedestrian bridge. Build link road to Miriam Corban Heights.
– Metcalfe Rd. Build bridge. Move Pooks & Munroe into combined intersection south of bridge. Close access to Ranui Station Rd & build bridge over stream to link the two halves of Marinich (should do the same with Waitemata Dr too, the area is growing rapidly). Build pedestrian overpass at the station.
– Christian Rd. Build a bridge and link to Swanson Rd/Knox Rd intersection. Close off access to Tram Valley Rd.
Quite good suggestions.
I’d say just close Fruitvale station, speeds up & simplifies the line.
Also if we were to be ruthless, just close Morningside Dr, save a tonne of money giving an instant safety benefit. Perhaps make just a active mode bridge over or even just walking stairs.
Actually, I’d swap the closing of Chalmers & St Jude St idea around, no need to buy property and St Jude is by the station so trains will generally be going slow anyway.
The reason why St Jude St isn’t feasible is because of the gradient – they can’t figure a way to bridge/tunnel the line without either rebuilding an enormous section of the rail, or massive property purchases.
Tbh I’d close St Judes (traffic to use Blockhouse/Rosebank/one way system through Avondale), close Chalmers (traffic to use bridge over St George’s) and close Portage (traffic to use St George’s or Veronica St). For every road closed adding a pedestrian bridge – as the budget for that should be millions vs hundreds of millions. It’s relatively easy to drive round a closure in a car, far more time intensive to walk a few blocks and you risk people breaking into the rail corridor to save time.
Christian Rd is at end of the electrified line and has no incidents in that graphic so would just leave it as is.
* Fruitvale Rd, yes close the road crossing too.
JR announced in 2020 that the last level crossing on the Yamanote line between Sugamo and Tahsta Stations was to be closed.
This level crossing is mainly used by students and cyclists. During peak hours the level crossing gates are raised for a maximum of 30 seconds every few minutes. The gates are actively patrolled by lollipop men.
Due to local body finances, proposed alternative solutions and intergovernmental/local governmental friction a pedestrian overbridge and alternative road route may not be built until 2030. Sound familiar?
The level crossing situation for the Western line is an absolute cluster.
It’s just one thing to the next with these clowns, sat on insidious problems (the track maintenance anyone) until the big reveal at the 11th hour. In this case, the counter peak cut.
They need to:
– Build a better turnback than Henderson, much closer in (Glen Eden at a push – could have done in the trench rebuild!)
– Work on the inner crossings asap
– Work on quicker turnarounds for level crossing gates to shorten closure time
– Frankly, accept that higher closure times are worth it for the broader populace and suck up the reaction. Water will find a way, as will traffic and people. Maybe to the train!
It’s an insane mentality.
That said, I see many (the Keio Inoshira sp? From Shibuya to Kichijoji) – which are rapid up, rapid down, through dense areas and at higher frequency.
Especially on the western with close stops, this will become a metro in both directions and locally useful at all hours – vs a peak commuter service alone – and those tph will be well needed.