Follow us on Twitter

CRL Notice of Requirement recommended by commissioners

The CRL has been approved by the planning commissioners hearing the notice of requirement. I haven’t had a chance to look through the documents about the decision and won’t fit a little while yet so let me know if there’s anything interesting in them.

 Auckland Transport has today welcomed a unanimous recommendation by independent planning commissioners that the land required to build, operate and maintain the City Rail Link (CRL) be set aside for the project.

The five commissioners, who heard AT’s planning application for the CRL, have recommended that the designation for the land be confirmed, subject to conditions that address issues raised by submitters.

The commissioners say they accepted the CRL would result in significant overall benefits to the people and economy of Auckland. “There was no evidence to challenge the benefits of the project and most submitters in opposition accepted the merits of the project.”

AT Chief Executive, David Warburton, says the recommendation and related conditions would now be considered by Auckland Transport. AT has 30 working days to confirm, amend or withdraw the notices.

There was overwhelming support for the CRL and many of those who submitted in opposition to ensure their particular interests were addressed, also voiced their support for the project.

David Warburton says when a decision is made, all affected landowners and submitters will be informed of the result. Submitters will have 15 working days to appeal the decision to the Environment Court.

The documents are here.

8 comments to CRL Notice of Requirement recommended by commissioners

  • Dave B (Wellington)

    Wellington needs a CRL. It has a rail system which currently chucks 15,000 people/day out at the northern edge of the CBD, regardless of whether this is anywhere near their destination or not. Announcements are that Wgtn is to get a $268m bus rapid transit “system” from the city to Kilbirnie. This is on top of the $2.4bn Levin-Airport motorway it is being promised.

    None of this will fix the main deficiency that the arterial regional rail system (which was seriously proposed for extension in the 1960′s) fails to serve the corridor of recognised demand (Ngauranga – Airport). OK, an improved bus/rail interchange may help, but it still makes no sense to impose a disruptive interchange on the arterial flow. (Consider the lengths roading advocates go to to avoid such discontinuities for major traffic flows!). It also fails to address the perennial issue of conflict between pedestrians and buses through the CBD, resulting in a poor compromise for both.
    If $268m + $2.4bn could be re-directed to rail investment, it would buy a very decent extension of services to where the potential demand is. Unfortunately the vision of how this could utterly transform travel patterns throughout the whole Wellington region is lost on most people, particularly politicians.

    Auckland’s CRL will set the standard of what can be achieved with this sort of rail development. My hope is that somehow this $2.668bn of misdirected investment for Wellington will be delayed and stalled long enough for the penny to drop that what is good for Auckland is also good for Wellington.

    End of rant!

  • This rather settles any question of a possible alternative route being used. Won’t stop the do-nothings from trying to make such suggestions, of course, but at least it’s a very strong strike against their argument that it’s premature to commence the work under QE2 Square because it might not be the way the tunnels run.

  • Luke C

    Good to see there don’t seem to have been any changes to the route. Was some hearsay that Mediaworks concerns meant route would need to be shifted away from them, but there are just enhanced monitoring conditions for the TV studio’s instead.

  • George D

    Great to see. Does this need any active support at this stage?

    • Max

      Well, first Council needs to check whether it agrees with everything, and then there’s the possibility for appeals. Not done and dusted yet, just a (major) milestone for the approval.

  • Anthony

    Lapse period of 15 years, several submitters argued for the standard 5 years to be maintained. This could be appealed.
    Access to properties to be maintained following Normanby Rd grade separation.
    Noise & vibration limits around mediaworks may make construction through the basalt in that area quite slow. The limits chosen are as per AT {35dB L Aeq (5 min) and 37dB L Aeq (1 sec)}, rather than the tougher Mediaworks values {27dB L Aeq (5 min) and 30dB L Aeq (1 sec)}. I’d expect Mediaworks to appeal.
    Foodstuffs wanted to extend use of TBM to avoid intersection disruption.
    Stamford wanted tighter noise & vibration limits (than other similar buildings on route).

    There are two Māori heritage sites scheduled in the District Plan along the project alignment namely:
    (a) Ngā U Wera, a headland pā once located in the area which is now the intersection of Albert and Customs Streets.
    (b) Ngā Wharau a Tako, at 87-98 Albert Street, an ancestral settlement in this location which is subject to confidential ‘silent files’.

    Silent files???

  • Anthony

    Concept design report says stations are yet to be formally named. I wonder what “Sky City” station might be worth?

    Exiting Britomart: The radii in this reverse curve are 130m with an operating speed of 35km/hr.

    Design speed 50km/hr

    Platform length 150m (to suit new 6 car EMU’s)

    Provision for future installation of platform screen doors for all sub-surface stations

    Until more detailed investigations are undertaken there remains some uncertainty about using the TBM north of Aotea Station due to the storm water drain. However, further investigation and more detailed consideration of the construction programme implications may determine that it is feasible and this will be further examined at the time of procurement.

Leave a Reply