Over the long weekend rail shutdown a new project got underway, an upgrade to Henderson station but the plans highlight that improving the customer experience by making it easier to use public transport is not a part of Auckland Transport’s agenda.
Work begins later this Labour Weekend on a third platform and additional tracks at Henderson Station, which will enable more frequent and reliable train services, as part of the City Rail Link (CRL) programme.
The Auckland Transport (AT) and KiwiRail project is expected to be completed in early 2026.
…..
AT’s Director of Public Transport and Active Modes, Stacey van der Putten says weekday train services will typically run as normal while Henderson Station is being upgraded.
“Major construction works are planned to take place while the rail network is closed during the Christmas period and long weekends in 2025. There’ll be replacement buses running during these times, so Aucklanders still have reliable public transport options.
…..
“For Western Line passengers, the third platform and major track infrastructure upgrades at Henderson mean more frequent trains that can connect them to more places across Auckland.”
In addition to the new track and platform, other modifications to Henderson Station include the construction of a new emergency exit bridge at the southern end of the station, upgrades to the track layout, overhead lines and signalling equipment, improving the track drainage system, and adding a new staff facility. Having staff based in Henderson will allow faster responses to any issues on the Western Line.
The third platform allows some trains to be turned around at end of service (operational improvement), while keeping two tracks available for trains travelling to Swanson.
Additionally, all of the lifts and escalators at Henderson Station will be replaced, as they have reached the end of their serviceable life.
This portion of the project will start from mid-November 2024, with completion anticipated in June 2025. The replacements have been sequenced to minimise disruption felt by passengers, meaning that no additional timetable changes or station closures will be required.
There are a few different things in there so let’s break it down.
First the good, that AT will be replacing the lifts and escalators at the station. As I highlighted back in March, the lifts at Henderson have been incredibly unreliable of late with outages on at least one of the lifts on a combined 167 days over the course of a year. This made the station unusable for many people including those with disabilities or or parents with prams.
There will obviously be more disruption to access as these are replaced over the coming eight months but at least there is an end in sight.
Less good is the additional platform to turn trains around. As I’ve argued before, this should have been built at Swanson.
There are over 30,000 people living in proximity to the three rail stations west of Henderson and that will continue to grow as more housing gets added. Based on 2019 data before COVID, the three stations combined were the equivalent to 5th busiest on the network. They will only get busier once the City Rail Link dramatically improves the network, especially if AT and Kiwirail can get the rail network up to speed as they could be 40 minutes or less from the centre of the city. Particularly at peak times, this will become much faster and more reliable that driving. All up there is a huge potential for growth in usage from this area but that will be limited if AT don’t extend the additional services the CRL enables west of Henderson.
To me this feels like it’s all about a focus on moving trains rather than moving people.
As for the upgrade itself, AT provided me this image of what is planned for the station and it is quite different to earlier plans (shown later in the post).
By my estimate, this will involve extending the existing platform by around 120m to the south and turning the existing Platform 2 into a dock platform. A new Platform 3 will then be created by widening and extending the northern end of the platform with a new track squeezed west of the existing track, up against the green wall.
The previous plan for additional platforms are shown below and shows new platforms in the carpark beside the existing station. New access would also have been needed though the former council building and I wonder if that was impacted by the sale of the building, of if they were just trying to avoid the need for additional lifts and escalators etc.
By having such a long platform, if you happen to be at the back of a train that terminates here, you’ll have around a 300m walk just to get out of the station.
My biggest concerns related to the new southern bridge and the lack of station/platform amenities.
The first of these is the question of why the new southern bridge is only going to be used for emergencies rather than for the public which could help make the station easier to access. AT gave me this answer.
The Southern Access Bridge is being provided as a secondary egress route due to the length of platform and need to maintain diverse egress routes. It also functions as an access to the train drivers break facility.
As for why it is not being proposed as a public entrance, from the Western side of the Rail Line, the point of entry to the wider station precinct would be at the Smythe Road / Henderson Valley Road intersection, which is served by the current access bridge. Therefore, for passengers coming from the Western side of the Rail Corridor, this provides limited value. For passengers coming from the Eastern Side of the corridor, the main destinations or passenger catchment areas are the Henderson Mall, Bus Interchange and Town Centre, all of which are optimally served by the current entry. The area that would be served by the Southern Access if it was made public, would be largely industrial areas at the Southern End of Railside Avenue, which are not a source of significant demand.
To me this doesn’t hold up. Sure, maybe adding a new bridge wouldn’t be a justified if it was just for improving access – though I feel we should be making all stations as easy to access as possible. But if the bridge is being built anyway, why not make the most of it. To get to the exit of that bridge via the current access is about a 300m walk so opening this up to the public is a 300m extension to the walking catchment.
To me this feels like AT falling into the trap of thinking that the current land use and travel patterns are permanent and can’t be changed. In reality most of the land around and just southeast of the station, as far View Rd, has metropolitan centre zoning which means it could quite easily be redeveloped with more intense uses and that’s far more likely to happen after the CRL when Henderson could be just 30 minutes from the city.
The other amenities I’m concerned about is the shelter. AT are adding a few bus shelters to the platform rather than proper shelter. More concerning is
- There will now also be quite a gap between the existing canopy and the edge of Platform 3.
- There exists a 30m gap between the base of the escalators and the existing canopy. More than a few times I’ve been caught in heavy rain getting between the two. Why can’t AT at least add something like at Ellerslie to provide a bit of protection
It would also be good if AT could put some passenger displays on the existing bridge used to access the station. At the moment you have to tag on to get through the gates and then go down to the platform to find out if/when a train is due.
There are plenty of often small improvements at many of our stations that could make them much easier and more comfortable to use. Upgrades like this one at Henderson are the perfect time to make those.
Processing...
So they are building a second bridge…but people can’t use it? This is peak AT.
Precisely.
Also peak AT: let’s build a new platform that isn’t future proofed so in future it will cause huge disruption and cost to rip it out and build the 3rd proper platform that we should’ve built in the first place!
Should be through platform in other words.
Hol up, let me get this straight.
They’re build an extra long train platform extension where the last carriage will be 300m south of the station entrance.
Then they’re building a new footbridge right at the new platform extension, from the train to the street.
But they’re not going to open the footbridge to the public, so you’ll have to walk 300m up then 300m back to get to the other side of the footbridge, so 600m. Thats further than walking from the current station escalators to Lincoln Road!
Don’t AT measure the catchment of stations at 500m? So literally the other side of the new gated off station footbridge isn’t within the catchment of the station.
“Don’t AT measure the catchment of stations at 500m?”
Generally station catchment is considered as 800m for trains and busways. And measured from the station entrance. But in principle your comment holds up – lots of extra walking.
The more reasonable answer is what AT provided – there’s little current catchment that way. But as the blog said, that can change. I guess the good thing is that the bridge should easily be able to be opened to the public, whether it’s on Day 1, or when the area does redevelop.
And yet, as some people will undoubtedly choose to use a train carriage that ends up at the furthest end, this is a revealed preference, and needs to be accommodated.
In the current financial climate, “keep it cheap” is a clear priority. Some questions to be asked of the design are: How may demand change in the future (covered at the end of the post) and how may the facilities be upgraded in the future (gated access at the southern stairs and shelter).
This won’t be cheap thou. It looks like wasteful spending. I don’t understand why this station needs 3 platforms, or why a dead end track needs to be created. If bypass tracks are needed for freight or express services, then just create those, they don’t need platforms.
I also agree that terminating services at Henderson feels odd, and Swanson would make more sense.
The idea here is that the Onehunga line will go from Henderson to Onehunga. The longer it is, the less frequently the trains end up running.
Unless they’re going to invest in more rolling stock and drivers (which I think they should, actually) the only other option to ensure reasonable frequency is to have the trains turn round at Henderson.
Its so they can cut peak trains short running then straight to and from the stabling yard at Henderson, rather than going to the end of the line at Swanson.
Don’t worry about that Onehunga line, there’s no way they’re actually going to run it out to Henderson. They don’t have the trains and drivers to be running empty crosstown lines between suburbs.
The communication on this leaves a lot to be desired. The replacement of lifts and escalators is scheduled for, from mid November to June 2025. AT say during this time ” you will be able to use alternate transport.” What does this actually mean for those in wheelchairs, with prams or bicycles?
It means “Your baby in the pushchair will be old enough to walk when it’s finished.”
And of course today the lift isn’t working so those in wheelchairs etc are being advised to get off at Sturgess Rd or Sunnyvale then bus to Hendo.
On the topic of AT’s disinterest in passengers’ travel experiences, the weirdest thing that I have noticed was when I was last on an AT train platform (Newmarket) was the lack of transport network maps.
Instead, all they had was a poster of a barcode that, when scanned, prompted your phone to open (or download) their app.
Not much good if your phone is dead (and it would be a trifling matter to include such a barcode on a network app).
There are also more and more barcode scams, so I’m cautious to use them in environments where someone could replace them without it being picked up.
The lack of printed network maps is a result of ATs belief that everyone should be forced to download and use the AT Mobile app. ( assuming that customers have data on their phones ). This is part of an ongoing strategy to reduce the cost of updating, printing and installing network maps that has been underway for 5 years. It is being led by a group of “digital natives” within AT
“The lack of printed network maps is a result of ATs belief that everyone should be forced to download and use the AT Mobile app. ( assuming that customers have data on their phones ). This is part of an ongoing strategy to reduce the cost of updating, printing and installing network maps that has been underway for 5 years. It is being led by a group of “digital natives” within AT”.
Do these “digital natives” actually use PT themselves? Are they responsible for useless local maps already at various bus stops? The ones always orientated north/south even if, for example, North is in fact behind you?
AT are missing a clue here: if it is really about the “cost” of updating maps (as an aside, i really freaking hate this idea that useful public service is a “cost”) then perhaps they could have a small charge for local businesses to included on the maps.
I personally loved these aerial maps that were at every bus stop in Shenzhen China: https://www.dreamstime.com/editorial-stock-photo-shenzhen-china-visitors-look-bus-stop-signs-traffic-routes-shennan-road-station-see-route-image64627413
Those Shenzhen maps are very similar to ones we saw in Tokyo. They also serve a purpose of highlighting local amenities – showing you places of interest in the local area so again showing how PT can be a great way to visit and learn. AT did try to include this with a few half hearted signs at Avondale train station but not sure if that was rolled out beyond.
Putting lifts on the southern access would give redundancy for people in wheelchairs in case the other lifts go out but would add considerable capital and operational expense.
If I had a magic wand, I would make it mandatory that all AT plans needed the sign off of greater Auckland.org. I’m sure the folk at AT have the best of intentions but boy they miss the mark on most occasions in terms of customer experience, and that at the end of the day is what we’ll drive passenger numbers which in turn will provide the revenue to fund and expand the network.
You are actually on the right path.
All their designs should be subject to peer review from “stakeholders” which should include disabled persons organisations, bike advocates (BikeAKL), and even motorists groups (eg AA)
AT consults with lots of stakeholders, often long before plans get public – and in my personal experience, that very much includes groups like Bike Auckland, truck haulage interest groups etc.
But not all those comments are listened to (which to be fair, they can’t – because different stakeholder groups have different opinions, and because money is never not a concern to some level).
Requiring “peer review” in some formal way wouldn’t change that. There’s already much more of that going on than you might imagine, which is one of the reasons it takes Council so long to do anything.
(I don’t want to bash that too much though – after all, many of the comments of “Look at X-Country – they just go and do things!” ignores the fact that those countries simply override any local protest, or even input. Democracy is a messy process, and not always efficient (or democratic). Pushing for more input is usually the right instinct, but at some point the decisionmakers just have to… make the decision.
They can then get judged at the next election. [They main problem with some of our key agencies is that even their top decisionmakers aren’t elected, and our politicians have limited oversight – or choose not to exercise their oversight, because “those bloody bureaucrats never listen” also makes such a lovely scapegoat, no matter your political colour…]
Yeah, although from what I’ve seen, the countries doing things well aren’t overriding public opinion. They’re following the public’s informed decisions on city-wide direction. They are prepared for complaints, knowing which part of a project is likely to gather complaints. They also understand that giving up on delivering safety and improvements on the basis of a few naysayers, however lots, ultimately makes them look foolish, and loses public trust.
The staff at AT have often managed design and consultation well, only to have management overreact (fearfully or willingly) to minority vocal views.
As a result, change-averse people (who have generally never even experienced the changes proposed) have grown in their mistaken belief that consultation equips them with the right to prevent delivery of a safe and accessible environment. Had AT been consistent that safety and equitable access was not negotiable, there wouldn’t now be such unrealistic expectations.
“Yeah, although from what I’ve seen, the countries doing things well”
I was mainly about countries doing things FAST…
Most new designs and network maps are already reviewed by stakeholder groups including Blind and Low Vision plus a panel of regular PT users. The head of AT Research was made redundant by an incoming AT leadership team member. Following his departure key members of the insights team also quit.
One issue with that is we’re all unpaid volunteers. We currently get invited to stakeholder meetings for some projects but it’s always a trade off of, if during the day, whether we take time off from our day jobs or if in the evening our families. It can be a hard balance at times.
Most of the snr customer experience, people, designers, map makers and savvy marketing people at AT have been made redundant during several restructures.
Henderson is an extremely important station, and deserves much better respect.
Everywhere you move in this city, you see excess trains, excess buses, excess trucks, and of course excess cars.
Clearly we have plenty of rolling stock, and as you point out, there is so much NOT IN SERVICE movements in our public transport fleet, that it seems counterintuitive. Good systems have a circular nature, which is what the CRL will finally provide for us, at least in the inner suburbs.
Clearly AT does not prioritise public transport, even though it heavily advertises everything about it, but this is clearly one of the problems with its mandate (the other, being dominated by men, obviously dating as the name implies).
We suffer incredible inefficiency as a city due to a motor normation, and although it seems our council is defending us against those wallies in welly, for us devotees of the publicly transported life, we may have decades before the we can claim any minor victory against the car addicts that dominate our lands.
Why can a train station upgrade not be planned like Otahuhu, or New Lynn in its day? Why are Westies not treated equally to Easties? Why is the postcode lottery so real?
bah humbug
Huh?. What a sexist and uninformed remark. Many of the snr managers, stakeholder and leadership team at AT are women.
The ideal would be to build sufficient flexibility into the system so that any number of train running patterns could be used in the future subject to passenger demand. Whether that is what the have done well I don’t know. I think that is behind the absolute monostrocity that has being built at Pukekohe. I suppose build it once and build it right. But then there are other demands as well. We can only watch and see what happens when everything hopefully falls into place or doesn’t when it’s all finished including the CRL. My feelings is we are seeing fewer passengers blame the economic downturn. Also it’s probably what’s behind the zero road toll over labour weekend. A similar thing happened in the mid seventies with the oil crisis.
In my view the single most important improvement required at Henderson would be a pedestrian overbridge from the upper concourse directly into the shopping mall.
I don’t understand why planners think it’s acceptable for shoppers to have to go down to street level, cross a road out in the open then access the shops through a car park.
What’s wrong with crossing a road (if it’s safe and doesn’t make you wait forever)? Overpasses aren’t the end all and be-all (and how the mall welcomes people – through the car park or a nice ped entry) isn’t really the Council’s job to fix…
What’s wrong with providing safety, convenience and shelter from the elements for rail users and pedestrians?
And if it isn’t the council’s job to provide facilities and services for the community then what’s the point of it?
Your not advocating for any of that; your advocating for a hermetically sealed bubble.
Should the council also pay for an escalator the whole way as well?
Sure it would be nice if you were visiting the mall but the mall should be paying for it. They could vastly improve the experience for people arriving by public transport without a bridge and they choose not to
If the mall owners want that they should pay for it. Just like how the developer of Sylvia Park paid for the train station there.
Double track to Helensville and that will move quantum passengers relieving the gridlock on SH 16 and the northwest motorway. Shane Jones supposedly had it funded in the previous government’s wish list.
Is there enough patronage to justify the expense of double tracking and 6 trains per hour to Helensville, though? I can see an hourly shuttle service making sense, but not full commuter service, and I’d rather not advocate for suburban sprawl all the way up the Kaipara.
Northwestern busway’s going to be far quicker for Kumeu-Huapai trips, besides, even after the CRL opens and even presuming AT get up to running the trains as fast as CAF said they could go.
As far as I know the sprawl is already happening from Brigham Creek to Huapai, so it would be good to have a train there.
This would also enable better PT access to Muriwai if done well.
Yes sprawl already happening. NORs on busway 20 years so unlikely to happen soon and ridiculous ajs rcpensive idea for an area that has had 3+ enormous floods in last 4 years.. unless you are a benefactor on gravy train that cones up with these impractical ideas.. kumeu huapai community and beyond has been lobbying for train service for over a decade
Pray tell, how is it different to run a train and a busway to the same flood prone township? Or is this just a convenient argument of “train good anything else bad” bias?
Rapid transit down the SH16 route would take less than 40 minutes to get to the city AND enable transfers at Westgate to get to the North Shore, which per the 2018 census is a bigger employment destination for Kumeu-Huapai residents than Henderson. Not to mention there’s a lot of suburbs along the way that would get true rapid transit service – Royal Park, Lincoln, Te Atatu, Point Chevalier, Western Springs. So well worth the cost I think, and a much smaller investment to extend said busway from Brigham Creek to Huapai and unlock buses every 5 minutes or better at peak than to completely reconstruct, double track and electrify a rail line for an hour+ long trip into the city
Trains are a lot nicer, safer to ride & can take bikes etc easier could be a factor for the bias.
In my own personal experience, those arguing for trains over “loser cruisers” (buses) aren’t usually standing up for cycleways. But I am sure that some fall into that category, Grant.
I think once we get true rapid transit down SH16, the sheer speed, frequency, efficiency and wider flexibility (transfers) will see the arguments for the train falling away a fair bit and instead, further extension of the busway out west being demanded.
I think right now, many can’t comprehend just how good a proper NW busway will be.
“….aren’t usually standing up for cycleways”
By that I mean, they aren’t likely to be cyclists….
Just to be clear I’m in favour of all three. Trains, buses/busway, cycleways.
Agree the busway properly done would be great. Trains to Huapai could work as a shuttle if the balance of spend and service is just right.
Burrower ..the train line already exists, thats how , the bus way will take decades and wipe out peoples homes. businesses and green space. currently buses sit in the same traffic on mostly a single lane road. trains are easier to access by mobility impaired and are a far more enjoyable form of public transport
How much does rolling stock to buy or upgrade, maintain and the staff to employee, run the shuttles (assuming that model of operation), track leasing off Kiwirail and all the planning costs etc to work around their freight schedules? It’s a single track line as well isn’t it?
work around Freight schedules … 1 freight train a day going North (if that), shouldnt be too hard. re 2018 data. a lot has changed since then
Burrower. re flood prone, if you go to kumeu you will see the railway sits much higher than the road, 2 more lanes of tarseal= removal of even more permeable ground, our green space, we dont have much, Kumeu is linear with a railway on one side and river on the other, this plan will destroy Kumeu and Huapai as it will mostly be tarseal if the busway goes through, not very environmental all that run off going into the Kumeu river, there has already been enough bad planning inflicted on the area
Isn’t there a bunch of Kumeu-Huapai residents championing an alternate proposal for growth and transport corridors – including proper Northwestern RTN – away from the flood-prone river areas?
Burrower, you can get to the north shore from Kumeu-Huapai-Riverhead already, there is a bus service that goes along Riverhead-Coastville highway then right at top of Albany hill. Originally funded via targeted rates, now a permanent service
*sigh*… but the 126 is not rapid or frequent transit Thomas. or does your generation have no understanding of the convenience and capacity of 10-15 minute turn-up-and-go no-timetable-needed frequencies?
Burrower, yes there is a group trying to get the main centre, area of development moved to higher ground, their main focus is getting by pass in that goes via this area. it really makes no sense focusig on the area they want to put the double bus lanes through at Kumeu-Huapai, it has become even more flood prone with all the development incl SHA storm water going into the river, loss of huge amounts of permeable ground near the river, the filling in of 7 hec of flood plain next to the river with intensive housing has already caused major issues when the river is in flood. putting a bus corridor here will just encourage more filling in of flood plain next to river, this river is catchment for the Waitakeri ranges, a river valley, Kumeu is a flood plain. unless they plan on building dykes and windmills, its only going to encourage issues. unsure why land was not put aside in the Huapai triangle (a recent development on the other side of the railway line) if they wanted a bus lanes
have a good understanding of how real rapid infrastructure works, I have been to many countries that use it. from what I have seen that works well, its normally trains (incl underground) that are the back bone, with trams and buses connecting to these networks, tbh, the trains we use probably dont quite cut it yet. Buses are not really rapid transit. much quicker boarding/exiting with trains and their multitude of doors, bigger capacity, easier for mobility impaired to board (normally level with platform), for transporting prams and bikes.. lol my generation, does your generation not think about the elderly, infirmed, bike users who might want to on travel and mums;) Rem the elderly lady that died falling down the stairs of a bus?
lmao okay old man, enjoy waiting an hour for a rattly half-century old diesel railcar if that’s what you really want. or open your mind and come have a go on the northern busway, experience 2-minute rush hour headways.
burrower, never said the northern busway isnt effective for the North Shore, just not convinced it is the solution for the north west. Get frequency is impt but this is subsidized by rate payers. We see a lot of buses with only 2-3 people, wouldnt it be better using a mini bus for these services that have very little patronage?
126 would not have patronage to be too frequent atm. have a good understanding of how real rapid infrastructure works, have been to many countries & used it. from what I have seen that works well, its normally trains (incl underground) that are the back bone, with trams and buses connecting to these networks, tbh, AT trains dont quite cut it yet. Trains have much quicker boarding/exiting with trains and their multitude of doors, bigger capacity, easier for mobility impaired to board (normally level with platform), for transporting prams and bikes.. lol my generation, does your generation not think about the elderly, infirmed, bike users who might want to on travel and mums with prams 😉 Rem the elderly lady that died falling down the stairs of a bus? also what is the obsession with frequency?, isnt it better to have a nearly full vehicle than something running every 10-15 mins with a handful of people, which is what we are seeing with some of these bus services, not really cost effective use of rate payer funds
i can see you’re stuck in the dogged old mentality of “why can’t they follow the timetable”. Frequency is freedom, to not be stuck if you miss your bus/train/tram, to make on-the-fly choices and modify your journey to do other things. It elevates public transport to be more comparable to the oft-touted freedoms of driving a private vehicle.
As well as visiting the Northern Busway i might recommend catching the 120 as well. Constantly so heavily loaded, even with double deckers at peak times and good loadings even offpeak, and naturally AT are slacking off at upgradin git to a frequent route It proves that the Westgate to Constellation corridor is perfect for a crosstown rapid transit corridor, and as much as you deny or cherrypick it Thomas it’s another argument that Huapai mass transit SHOULD connect to Westgate.
“also what is the obsession with frequency?”
Frequency is everything, man.
“Frequency is freedom”: https://humantransit.org/2011/12/how-frequent-is-freedom.html
Most of us can’t precisely time an arrival at a PT stop, so on average the waiting time for a ride is half the frequency. That wait time you can effectively add to your journey time. 30 min frequency average wait is: (0 mins, just in time plus 30 mins, just miss it) /2 = 15 mins.
Grant, get waiting time/travelling time around use of p.t but there are aps that help both with calculating how long to get to p.t stop and movements of p.t. Shouldnt it be up to the individual to work this out rather than run services that are not cost effective to rate payers. there are plenty of services that dont pay their way (ie very low patronage), pushes fares up too.
thomas i would worry more about the economic losses of traffic congestion and this government subsidising parasites – i mean landlords- to the tune of billions. that’s far more wasteful than running public transport conveniently frequent enough to attract people out of cars.
Thomas. Apples for apples comparison though, rail will be expensive, so if it’s low patronage out there then it maybe too much for rail OR bus at a HIGHER frequency.
Grant..could low patronage per bus be due to frequency atm being too high for the population to full these buses. Years back before the super city the buses used to be full but there were less of them. Maybe Public transport needs to be bought back to being publicly owned so there is more flexibility around not running buses when no one is using? Most rate payers are not happy about funding buses with no customers.
One of the best things about Ellerslie station is the continuous cover from platform, up the stairs and over the motorway footbridge to the village shops. This is the kind of thing that encourages public transport – you stay drier on rainy days on your way to drinks/dinner than parking on side streets. And no being stabbed in the eye by passing umbrellas on the stairs in the rain.
Am hoping but doubting the massive new stairs at Middlemore will eventually be sheltered.
Yes agree with all of this post. Seems it’s gone into the budget mode & issue with the building sale. Other stations lack displays further out too.
Are they still using the same size tiny elevators? I am told they are. My mobility device is too long so I have to use neighboring stations. So I guess using Henderson remains forbidden for me.
I’ve never walked from Henderson High School to the train but it appears to me that Matt’s suggestions could serve them better, too, especially if AT was to focus on safe crossings where required.
Has anyone at AT done any work around improving the approaches to the school?
The platform should have been built this long in first place but a.t did not predict patronage just like they tell kumeu huapai we won’t have patronage citing their set up to fail unreliable ^trial^ with trains breaking down prior to all the development as an excuse and jacked out studies to suit their agenda, not serve the rate payers who fund them. Too many snouts pushing what keeps them on the gravy train
Should hv built 3 to start, but a.t didn’t anticipate popularity of train service, just like they tell kumeu huapai not enough people to use service even though huge developments all around the un used huapai station. How about listening to rate payers for a change?
From what I’ve seen KiwiRail are quite keen and have done quite a bit of research on it. But others just keep recycling the same debunked arguments against it, like the tunnel, the flawed 2008 trial, single track, directness to city, rolling stock and so forth. It’s quite disingenuous because the same people you prove their arguments wrong with, still continue to go back and rehash them as if you had said nothing. They also often paint it as doing either that or the NW RTN, which is just false, you can easily do both and should, nobody loses so I don’t get why some PT advocates advocate against PT options, it’s like there is something strange at play there.
I don’t get why some PT advocates for the NW want to prioritise an inferior solution.
If the goal of rapid transit to/from the NW is speed/directness and frequency, then you would build the Busway first and then see what was needed after that.
+1
like, it’s not a conspiracy. The NAL is just inferior to a SH16 RTN aligned corridor and should not be the primary mass transit connection for Kumeu-Huapai. I don’t know what copium Paul’s smoking but a 27km, mostly straight route to downtown is factually shorter and quicker than a 40km winding route.
I hope that whoever was behind Commuter Waka is able to do an update from latest census. Understanding people’s travel patterns has to be a useful planning tool.
“I hope that whoever was behind Commuter Waka”
AFAIK that was a Waka Kotahi website (Sorry, strike that, it’s NZTA now, so it will probably not be called “Waka” anymore…)
Ah just discovered it was someone called Jono Cooper https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/winner-announced-for-2018-census-commuter-data-visualisation-competition/
What would train access be like for say more like Swanson & Henderson though. Think, yes agree that you guys right though, main priority should be the NW corridor.
depends what you mean by directness, the busway advocates seem to think everyone wants to head to the CDB, it will take decades to implement and goodness know what the cost blow out will be is the other issue
we want rail because there is already a railway line there, it will take decades and be costly for a busway. like a train service will cause urban sprawl but a busway wont??
Thomas, as per the 2018 census more kumeu-huapai residents commuted to the central city, north shore, Lincoln Rd and Rosebank areas – places better accessed by a Northwestern Busway or by a transfer at Westgate. Move the goalposts as much as you want, it doesn’t change the reality.
Also need I point out that heavy rail cultists never acknowledge the impractical lack of readily available rolling stock, and talk like the old DMUs can just be put back in service tomorrow or battery trains conjured out of thin air at no cost.
You say Northwestern RTN advocates never address criticisms, and then go and do it yourself. Your lot project so blatantly it’s laughable.
They really should be advancing both rail and busway options if they keep building stupid single house stuff out this far.
PS We seriously considered living out at Kumeu/Huapai a some stage a couple & a half decades back. Had a temp job there so got to know it a bit and actually looked at a house to buy. Just didn’t all work out that way in the end.
KLK because its about a lot more than providing public transport, the busway ‘ solution’ wipes out half the towns businesses on one side of the road and our green space, its a narrow strip which is currently greenspace and businesses, the railway, road, more businesses that are now flood prone except the 7hec the council allowed to be filled in next to river with intensive housing (which displaces water to everywhere else) & river, it will just encourage more infill in the floodplain, further degrade the water quality in the river, already all the storm water from all the new development goes into the river, this water has to go somewhere when it rains a lot, this is catchment for the waitakeri ranges and a river valley, this water affects further along the river at Waimauku, all the way to the Kaipara with only 1 m fall per km. we really dont want our community & township to be turned into bus lanes because thats what someone sitting at a desk who doesnt live here thinks should happen. So in what would be needed after that, more buy outs as the new housing would end up under water with more infilled flood plain, dykes, windmills, storm water mitigation. its more than just about public transport, there is a good reason this area has not had intensive development in the past
this is kumeu, you will see there is not much room for a bus lane, it has been like this 3 times in the last 3 years, doesnt help with 7 hec next to river being built up like a little island and covered with intensive housing, , its negligent planning, one of the writers of a report that helped this development go ahead was also a co author of the 2021 flood report titled something along the lines ‘kumeu flood predicted in 2016’. the community tried to stop this development but were ignored. isnt it time we halted intensive development in flood plains? https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/west-auckland-flooding-incredible-photos-as-kumeu-experiences-second-wettest-day-on-record/6BEAX3LGS2X3JKSEVOZ7QFFCGQ/
Wow sure flooded good back then.
Where does the traffic currently back up from in the morning commute these days (and evening other way?)?
As a more budget and alternative version I wonder if the 4 lanes (2 lanes general, bus lane each direction) section of “busway” could end at around Riverhead Rd, or perhaps even on higher ground opposite the Kumeu Village Rest Home & Baptist Church. Not ideal but they could run more frequent buses past here without a major “station”. So just keep the single lane roads by and large through the two towns.
The big more southern bypass (I think is roughly planned) from Brigham Creek Rd could be built at a later date or as needed all things been equal.
That’s another part of why a SH16 busway/brt is the better primary rapid transit corridor option. The full corridor doesn’t need to be a busway from the get go – hell, solve the traffic snarlup on SH16, bring back the interim safety and widening improvements NZTA had promised they’d finish in 2021 back in 2018 or something, and extend the WX1 services from Westgate to Huapai as-is!
Hibiscus Coast NX1 & NX2 services seem to be doing okay patronage-wise despite the lack of a busway north of Albany
There had been a plan to widen along SH16 from Taupaki rd to brighams creek rd but think its on hold at the moment (funding?)… Fletchers had purchased an ex dairy farm in Taupaki that has been completely under water a number of times. The river is not coping with the amount of storm water off all these new development & filling in flood plain (7hc Kumeu central development next to the river behind shops at kumeu, its all filled in flood plain)These are the ideas ‘ future kumeu’ have come up, they think it would be good to move town centre out of flood plain http://www.futurekumeu.nz/
Dont consider myself a heavy rail cultist,like both heavy and light rail & think cycleways & buses have there place. Have seen how efficiently trains and light rail work overseas, even in cities with similar populations to Auckland. As far as Northwest is concerned, it is frustrating that people who have lived here their whole lives and know the lay of the land and issues are not listened to, we are entitled to not want our town to be sacrificed and turned into bus lanes esp when it its so close to the Kumeu river which is already suffering increased pollution and destruction from all the development run off. Coxs creek is proof planting trees does not make up for lack of infrastructure, we dont want our river ending up like that. We cant even get Water Care to move the over burdened retro fitted pump station next to the river out of the flood plain. Its not just about bus lanes its about other neglected infrastructure that is already struggling and wont cope with more intensive development & the potential for even more infilling of flood plain/wetland next to river if these bus lanes are forced on us. its only 1m fall from Kumeu to the Kaipara and there is a tidal influence on the river up this far even though AC deny it.
So basically you don’t want Kumeu to grow? If so then with it’s current population it is unlikely to get either trains or a busway.
I agree with you Thomas. Here in Buckinghamshire buses go everywhere, as well as being quicker and significantly cheaper then trains BUT everyone prefers rail as it is always on time, cleaner and a lot more comfortable.
jezza, not in its current location, as previously explained, this is a river valley/flood plain, water catchment for the waitakeri ranges with 1 m fall per km to the Kaipara (with tidal influence on the river), all the storm water from development in the area goes into the kumeu river and we have lost a lot of permeable ground, including huge amounts of flood plain being allowed to be filled in by council based on fake flood modelling,a lot more people will lose their homes, lives put at risk, potential for this to include some of the new development. We need catch up infrastructure, this isnt about forcing growth on an area that can not cope and isnt really suitable for intensive development, its not just public transport, its roading, storm water, sewerage, thats why utilizing the existing train track to alleviate some of the current congestion makes sense. the area does not even have a structure plan.
still hard disagree thomas. there is no reason why interim BRT service couldn’t provide a more frequent and faster transit service with better interconnectivity at Westgate than a rail service, and without having to wait years for new or refurbished rolling stock to be ready to use.
boost the frequencies of the existing bus routes or extend the WX1 via SH16, get interim upgrades & widening to SH16 done so the buses aren’t caught in traffic. that can all be done for low infrastructure capex, without being dependant on the town centre being moved or the Kumeu main drag being widened and demolished.
Burrower, SH16 should at least be widened to the Taupaki round about, all the design work for it has already been done.It would be a good start. in reality it should have been done years ago… Its the all or nothing mentality where they want to bulldoze Kumeu thats not acceptable, for so many reasons.
yeah I agree, could it be a busway from end of northwest mway to kumeu will allow sprawl all along that route due to ‘ proximity to public transport’ ? The train solution could be implemented a lot quicker
It took 2-3 years for the ex-BR carriages stored in Taumaranui to be refurbished for Te Huia and the Capital Connection.
all i’m saying is for the same money as rebuilding 50-year old trains you could run the existing Huapai bus routes 122/123/125 at higher frequencies for a more convenient transport service
West Auckland being neglected again even when they try and make improvements on the cheap.
What has happened to the northern expressway Rosedale Station, the signs on the expressway advise you are approaching the station, but the station remains unfinished, and it’s been that way for years.