I think you could just close Morningside Drive, reroute the 22 along NNR and terminate the Outer Link at Morningside Station instead of St Lukes to provide the coverage. A simple underpass/subway for active modes with access to the platform would be a lot cheaper than elevating the line along that section. Closure would also enable a new station plaza/town square to be built on the north side of the line.
I love the concept but I have a few concerns surrounding the building process. I suspect that the line would have to be completely shut during the process of building as the line would have to be elevated. Having no train service on important parts of the network caused by the building work would be incredibly disruptive and irritating towards train passengers and I'm not sure that the end result is much better compared to 'conventional' methods of removing road crossings. The costs are also probably a lot more although I have little knowledge on timing and pricing of a project like this but I wouldn't be surprised if these style projects are more expensive.
Depending on which section you are refering too, some proposals can still be completed while a part or all of the original alignment remains in use. Over in Melbourne, where inspiration for this post has mainly come from, the old alignments remained in use while the new skyrail flyovers were being built, commissioned, then put into use. This keeps the line open with minimal disruption to services where possible.
At this time I don't see why the Takanini-Papakura proposal would be hard to implement, especially keeping the NIMT open to rail traffic while the construction happens. The only downside to these proposals would be the impact from closed stations rather than closed line sections.
Are there any forecasts for the Western Line level crossing for post CRL closure duration? I notice at Glen Eden (and Avondale to lessor degree) stations due to the close proximity to road crossings the level crossings are closed much longer than the train transition time. Suspect with increased frequency, and any offset in to/from city train, they will barely be open at all in peak
Any stations on the North Island Main Trunk are likely going to need to be triple or quad-tracked in future to allow freight and regional services to operate along with the metro services. I would assume that would put up the cost of any elevated sections of track by quite a lot.
Though I agree that elevated tracks are worth considering on non-freight, non-trunk routes.
I think you could just close Morningside Drive, reroute the 22 along NNR and terminate the Outer Link at Morningside Station instead of St Lukes to provide the coverage. A simple underpass/subway for active modes with access to the platform would be a lot cheaper than elevating the line along that section. Closure would also enable a new station plaza/town square to be built on the north side of the line.
I love the concept but I have a few concerns surrounding the building process. I suspect that the line would have to be completely shut during the process of building as the line would have to be elevated. Having no train service on important parts of the network caused by the building work would be incredibly disruptive and irritating towards train passengers and I'm not sure that the end result is much better compared to 'conventional' methods of removing road crossings. The costs are also probably a lot more although I have little knowledge on timing and pricing of a project like this but I wouldn't be surprised if these style projects are more expensive.
Depending on which section you are refering too, some proposals can still be completed while a part or all of the original alignment remains in use. Over in Melbourne, where inspiration for this post has mainly come from, the old alignments remained in use while the new skyrail flyovers were being built, commissioned, then put into use. This keeps the line open with minimal disruption to services where possible.
At this time I don't see why the Takanini-Papakura proposal would be hard to implement, especially keeping the NIMT open to rail traffic while the construction happens. The only downside to these proposals would be the impact from closed stations rather than closed line sections.
Are there any forecasts for the Western Line level crossing for post CRL closure duration? I notice at Glen Eden (and Avondale to lessor degree) stations due to the close proximity to road crossings the level crossings are closed much longer than the train transition time. Suspect with increased frequency, and any offset in to/from city train, they will barely be open at all in peak
Any stations on the North Island Main Trunk are likely going to need to be triple or quad-tracked in future to allow freight and regional services to operate along with the metro services. I would assume that would put up the cost of any elevated sections of track by quite a lot.
Though I agree that elevated tracks are worth considering on non-freight, non-trunk routes.