Tag Archives: Onehunga

Debunking that Onehunga Open Letter

Posted on by
Reply

It Was Fine – Until…

 

I caught this open letter on Facebook this morning after the Onehunga Unitary Plan Community Meeting. While the meeting itself was a full house it did seem to fall over on the question of: “What Alternative?” Again like other places the residents took a vote to “reject the unitary plan” due to intensification and mass rezoning. Again they did not like the 8 storeys for Onehunga Town Centre. But, like just about everywhere else they forgot two things (and the Ward Councillor and Local Board should be kicked up the backside for this – for failing to lead the debate properly):

  1. What do you want the Town Centre height lowered too?
  2. What would you put in the Unitary Plan’s place…

 

And again while they forget this they also forget that taking a vote in rejecting the Unitary Plan will be just considered as one submission to the UP – but with nothing to back it up. So it won’t give the Governing Body much to work on here – as Councillor Alf Filipaina said at the Weymouth UP meeting not so long ago. So Onehunga unless each one of you that “voted” against the UP last night write a physical submission and send it to council (I even have the optimum layout at KARAKA COLLECTIVE HAS BEGUN A MSM PR CAMPAIGN ), your vote is pretty much a waste of time.

For Onehunga’s sake I have considered the area for the Special Character Zone – Centralised Master Community Plan role along with Mt Eden and St Heliers. The SCZ work so far can be seen at my “BACK FROM ORAKEI PRESENTATION“ post which has been received favourably in the Orakei Local Board area. Once the SCZ draft has been strengthen it can then be translated across the city with Onehunga and Mt Eden next up for the SCZ designation if I had my way. In the same regard with Onehunga deemed a Town Centre (someone did mention it should be an actual Metropolitan Zone as it is very close to motorway and rail services like Manukau is) it would be limited to 5 storeys per my Housing Mix Simulator – so somewhat less than the 8 storey currently proposed in the UP.

 

 

But, as I mentioned I saw this Open Letter to Auckland Council in regards to Onehunga. This it here with my initial reactions:

This is the draft letter that you’re welcome to copy and paste/edit to suit your street and zoning concerns:

Make sure you then send your letter to the feedback form on the Shape Auckland website:http://www.shapeauckland.co.nz/

Letter regarding: Objection to the Re-zoning of Grotto Street and surrounds as multi-storey apartments, multi-unit terrace housing.

Community is imperative to a functional and healthy society. A functional and healthy society is defined as a place where people engage, interact, look out for each other and know each other by name. Our community is just that. We love our street. We speak and socialise with our neighbours. We put time, money and personal effort into making our homes and immediate neighbourhood a welcoming one. Our community is strong, connected and one that we are immensely proud of. On the 16th of March your Council issued the Unitary Plan which rezones our street to the highest level of intensive development which would allow its century old character homes to be replaced with multi-storey apartments and terrace housing.

The purpose of this zoning as stated in the Unitary Plan is:

To make efficient use of land and infrastructure, increase the supply of housing and ensure that residents have convenient access to services, employment, education facilities, retail and entertainment opportunities and public transport. This will promote walkable neighbourhoods and also foster a sense of community and increase the vitality of centres.

In what way are we not currently making efficient use of our land? Our children have room to play outside in a safe and healthy environment, we grow and harvest our own fruit and vegetables, compost organic material, we care and maintain our homes with pride and live a distinctly New Zealand lifestyle not too dissimilar from our own childhoods. This is what we value.

How would intensification achieve better walkability, a sense of community and vitality? Intensification will bring busier streets, reduced sunlight, noise and air pollution, a less safe environment, no room for our children to roam and play. Destroying the existing historic character of our street will lead to a community that is disenfranchised and disconnected from the very essence of what a community means.

Who decided for our community that intensification is what we need? Intensification throughout Auckland is on the whole poor. Lifeless boxes or rows of identical housing don’t create “better communities” they instead create an atmosphere of poverty, of transient occupants holed up in the confines of four walls. There is no ‘better community’ than the one we already have in our street.

The Unitary Plan should be about a renaissance of ‘dead areas’ and creating new, better neighbourhoods – not destroying existing communities. There is much wasted, abandoned and cheaper industrial land across the city that is an eyesore, and should be the focus of new housing developments and revitalization for the betterment of all Auckland.

Intensification is not what the people of Auckland want; statistics show that the desire to live in a detached home with your own back yard is increasing rather than decreasing even with changes in demographics. People that live in apartments tend to be the young and restless, the dispossessed, and the transient – what sort of community does that look like, there is certainly no community existing in the inner city right now where intensification exists. An example of this can be seen with the already existing high raised council flats on Mt Smart Road. How many of these occupants are “employed” or “educated” and where are the “retail” and “entertainment opportunities” afforded to these such intensified structures? Consequently, why would the community feel the need to “foster” collegiality with these eyesores and their occupants, when the “vitality” of the infrastructure is reflected by the many empty beer bottles on the grass and the insipid exterior obtrusively forced upon the ‘real’ community of Onehunga?

Economics, household demand, equity, environmental outcomes and liveability demand a lot more imagination and flexibility that comes with simply copying overseas cities like Hong Kong and London. Some intensification is necessary as there is a demand for it, but that is for the minority. For the majority we need to preserve what exists and look outward. We also need robust, researched and quantifiable evidence that intensification actually works in every endeavor, within Auckland. So far, we as a community are not convinced. Nor were we consulted on such atrocious bureaucratic decisions for our street. Shame on you Auckland Council!

Auckland is already liveable. That’s why so many people choose to live here – including many migrants from the sorts of places the Council would apparently have us imitate (Hong Kong as an example).

Auckland needs to focus on harnessing growth in areas like Albany, Manukau, Warkworth or the Airport where people have the option of living and working in these growth areas rather than forcing more people into the already congested central city and surrounding suburbs.

The Council has been negligent in using intensification as its only solution to a housing shortage. Our street, Grotto Steet, Onehunga and other vibrant villages in central Auckland will likely be in opposition to this plan. Community will be united on all fronts to this disregard in what we value. This city which we love is not all about making a public transport system work, or providing future people with substandard housing in existing centres. It should be about embracing what is already good about Auckland and not trying to change its face, because then it’s just not Auckland anymore.

My family vehemently opposes the Unitary Plan rezoning of Grotto Street and the wider Onehunga area and seek the right to be heard in person, in support of my submission.

Draft Auckland Unitary Plan | Shape Auckland
One month left to have your say Posted on 01/05/13 by admin | No comments From today there are 30 days left to give your feedback on what’s proposed in the draft Unitary Plan. We’ve already received 1,272 pieces of feedback since launch on 15 March. Over 60,000 people have visited this website and 8…
  • Nigel James Turnbull and 2 others like this.
  • Ben Ross Nigel - you got a suggestion WHICH industrial land should be rezoned?
  • An open letter to Auckland Council In Onehunga, the land between Church Street and Nielson Street running from Onehunga Mall to Captain Springs Road.
  • Ben Ross Umm not going to happen sorry. I just took a look another look on Google Maps and Council’s GIS system on what is there. That is all light to medium industry with significant employment in there. I can also see the Onehunga Aquifer and Treatment Plant and the NZ Bus – Bus Depot in there as well. Furthermore the entire area will be contaminated with hydrocarbon waste making remedial work very expensive. To make life more fun, NZTA and Auckland Transport are gearing up to to build the East-West Highway link between State Highways One and Twenty as well.

    Also if you are going to flip that over as residential, where will the industry go?

    Best keep the area industrial and look for green space/belts to act as a buffer

 

That was one reaction from me which was followed up by this straight after:

Just read this. I was nodding to it until I saw two particular sections:
  • “There is much wasted, abandoned and cheaper industrial land across the city that is an eyesore, and should be the focus of new housing developments and revitalization for the betterment of all Auckland.”

And

  • Auckland needs to focus on harnessing growth in areas like Albany, Manukau, Warkworth or the Airport where people have the option of living and working in these growth areas rather than forcing more people into the already congested central city and surrounding suburbs.

After I read those parts I then took the letter into disregard rather than agreeing with it. This letter mimics Mayoral Candidate who is a restaurateur in most regards which I dismantled yesterday. Yes Manukau and Albany can take the brunt of growth and we welcome it – BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR INDUSTRIAL LAND. If anything we need more industrial land than what the UP is calling for – not to have it chewed up on housing developments – all that will do is kill off employment.

So sorry – while Onehunga was being looked at as a candidate for my Special Character Zone work and still is, this letter as such I will treat in disregard until those two statements in the letter pointed out above are dropped.

 

Basically I am returning fire rather hard and fast. As I said yes Manukau (the Metropolitan and General Business Zones) can take the brunt (as I push for no height limits and Manukau to become the Second CBD) but not while chewing up our very limited and precious industrial land. NO WAY – NOT EVER unless industry moves out on its own accord.

In my eyes our industrial land is more valuable than most of the residential land in Auckland. Industry (which includes logistics centres) is a very large employment magnet in Auckland and is a true engine house of the city and wider national economy as well. Furthermore we already do not have enough land as it is for expanding industry (even with Takanini and Drury South opening up) – so if anything Council via the Unitary Plan is still short selling our engine house. We have a million more people coming; we need all the industrial land we can get.

 

But, to reiterate my point – if industry moves out of Onehunga on its own accord then it can be redeveloped. But I doubt it with its links to the road and rail corridors near by.

 

SO NO TOUCHING OUR INDUSTRIAL LAND for more housing. That is asking for a double whammy in the expensive mass relocation of existing industry – usually to the Wiri and Southern Rural Urban Boundary, which means chewing up land for relocating industry where new industry could have taken its place. Also got to provide jobs – so where are the employment centres going to go? South and force a lengthy commute? I rather think not!

 

Auckland’s Industrial Land – HANDS OFF!

 

Onehunga per the Unitary Plan thus far

 

Onehunga

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legend can be found below

 

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

BR:AKL: Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL

 

2011-2012 Rail Patronage Stats – And a Direct Message to AT

Posted on by

2011-2012 Rail Patronage Stats – For Auckland

 

Direct Message to Auckland Transport also included

 

While undertaking my normal cruising through blogs and social media that I keep an eye on, someone had filed a Local Government Official Meetings and Information Act (LGOIMA) request into the 2011 and 2012 Auckland rail patronage statistics – in which the numbers have been released by Auckland Transport.

 

You can see the patronage information HERE on page two or in the embed below

Accordingly the disclaimer from Auckland Transport applies: “The following sets out the observations of train passenger boardings by station following a single weekday sample during the month of May. The data is representative of a “typical” weekday usage but is subject to daily/seasonal variances. Auckland Transport does not warrant the accuracy of the counts.”

Source: Auckland Transport

It is of also to note that it is mentioned by Auckland Transport that there were service disruptions (I am trying to remember them) in 2011 and 2012 which “could have” affected “normal” patronage demand on the network.

 

So in other words the statistics are pretty next to worthless as you need an uninterrupted day to gauge “normal” patronage demand properly.

 

The Request and Stats

Source: Auckland Transport

Disclaimer: [as above]

 

What can I get out of these stats?

  • Papakura is still the third busiest station
  • Increase on patronage on the Western Line but slump on the Southern and Eastern Lines (again there were disruptions on those life which WILL affect numbers)
  • Onehunga is underwhelming – which means those passengers are getting on at Ellersile making the Onehunga trains appear busy in the peaks
  • Manukau. The comment from my Facebook will be more apt in describing this one:
    • As for Manukau, well George you and I have been down this road with Manukau. With the station 700 metres short to where it short and an observation on that concrete post, it was the entire reason behind my urgency to you and Mike Lee to see that South Link be built in order to get that patronage up

 

Now arguably these measurements were done in May when (looking at the Auckland Transport rolling 12-month patronage statistics) there was still growth, however since August 2012 there has been what is now a systemic and noticeable decline kicking the patronage levels back to July-August 2011 levels (so a full total back slide rendering efforts and good work gone in – useless). You can see my views on this backsliding over at my “FIRST STEP IN IMPROVING AUCKLAND’S PUBLIC TRANSPORT” post.

 

To which I have this message to Auckland Transport:

 

I am not your enemy and I don’t want to be your enemy.

Your goal is the same as my goal (I think after a head scratch) and that is: to build and maintain (and this includes in the customer service satisfaction and confidence in using our public transport) a world-class public transport system that is: easy to access, easy to use, easy to understand, and most of all it is affordable to all – for our most liveable City.

However something has gone horribly wrong your direction and we are now seeing a sustained and systemic patronage slip in our rail network – a backbone (but not the sole back bone) to keeping the citizens and visitors of this city moving. I have no interest in attacking you Auckland Transport as that is counter-productive.

But your experiences that I have had with you both good but more hostility does not (and with absolute respect) leave me with much confidence in you nor your abilities in achieving the goal – it just simply does not. What is not also helping in my confidence towards you is the feedback I hear from infrequent and frequent passengers – customers of Auckland Transport on the public transport system which I am sorry as much as I want positives, I only see overtly negative feedback on experiences.

Your goal is my goal and all I want to do – am trying to do is as a ratepayer (your master, your employer – not the other way around) is do my bit in making our transport system better. Whether that be through praise in what you do right, constructive criticism to overcome the weaknesses, or offer alternatives and ideas others might not have thought of in getting our transport system moving forwards – not backwards as we are seeing; this is my way in doing my part in achieving the goal so that our transport system  is: easy to access, easy to use, easy to understand, and most of all it is affordable to all – for our most Liveable City.

You would have now doubt read my “FIRST STEP IN IMPROVING AUCKLAND’S PUBLIC TRANSPORT” post that sums up the current feelings towards you – Auckland Transport on the customer service and experience of the current system; and if you haven’t then I recommend strongly in reading it.

So what say you Auckland Transport – I am pitching with everything I have (skills, experience, knowledge, ideas, and pure passion and enthusiasm (my former co-workers can vouch for those two) to you – to make our transport system a better place in partnership with you. You know where to find me, you know where to contact me.

I await your reply. 

 

CRL Timetable and Operation Plan – Part Two

Posted on by

CRL Timetable and Operation with Proposed Frequencies

 

Part of The City Rail Link Series

Debate on the City Rail Link continues with figures and all sorts coming out from both sides coin.

VOAKL will cut right down the middle and look at my own proposal on how frequent services could run post CRL (but pre North Shore Line)

It is time for a discussion and VOAKL will provide one – for everyone with a VIEW

 

Proposed Frequencies on Auckland Rail Network

In my City Rail Link Timetable/Operation – Proposal post, I laid out the foundation of my own idea/proposal for a City Rail Link Timetable slash Operation Plan for running trains once the CRL was opened. In brief recap of the proposal:

I came up with a proposal for building a CRL Timetable that would in my opinion make best and efficient use of the Inner Circuit (so the rail network and services running between New Lynn and Otahuhu (this includes Onehunga and the CRL)) infrastructure while being as flexible as possible in serving a wide-range of rail passenger needs as possible. In building my own version of the CRL Timetable I had to take into account the following:

  • The CRL Timetable/Operation reflects the staged development of the CRL project. That is the CRL tunnel including THE EAST LINK at Mt Eden along with Aotea Station is built first, then over the next seven years the K Road and Newton Stations will be developed and built.
  • That is; no other lines built and operating prior to 2032 apart from maybe the Airport Line. This means my timetable/operation proposal assumes the North Shore Line will not be up and operating until post 2032. This gives around at minimum 8 years of running my proposed plan before doing a minor alteration to incorporate The North Shore Line (if it actually ever gets built)
  • The Grafton Question; which is how to effectively get passengers from either South or West to Grafton (which is a heavy patronage station) without buggering them up service wise as all focus is set for the CBD.

 The Three Proposed Lines

The three lines for CRL and wider Auckland rail service delivery are the following (fancy names and colours later) (each line is also bi-directional):

  • The South to West Line via Newmarket and Grafton (brown on the map)
  • The East to West Line via Britomart, CRL and Mt Eden/Kingsland Station (red on map)
  • The Onehunga Loop via Newmarket, Britomart , CRL, CRL East Link, Grafton,Newmarket(or vice versa – bi-directional loop system) (pink on map)
 For more information on the baseline proposal, read the proposal post

The CRL Timetable/Operation Frequency Plan

With the baseline operation plan laid out (so basically one train an hour on each of the three lines in each direction) it was time to ramp the frequencies up to acceptable standards. First up for trial and error was the Monday to Friday peak services (6:30-9:30am, 3-7pm); off-peak and weekend frequencies will be next – but first the heavy and primary stuff, moving those commuters. Now I had set a new baseline for the “high-frequency” model across all three lines at 6 trains per hour – per direction once the CRL was up and running. Now there is a catch with the section of track between Penrose and Onehunga but I will cover that in a moment. But at the high-frequency base of 6 trains per hour – per direction – per line means the total minimum capacity is for a 3-car EMU 2,250 passenger an hour being moved in a single direction (375 x 6); 4,500 passengers if a 6-car EMU (so double EMU) per hour being moved in a single direction. Increase the number of trains per hour and the capacity for moving passengers increase as well – but for now lets stick with the baseline of 6 trains per hour – per direction – per line.
Now I have embedded in this post my latest Excel worksheet on my workings for train per hour frequencies across the Auckland Rail Network, because with some sections you get more than the baseline 6 trains per hour.
The Frequency Workings
For those who actually looked at the sheet you would have seen two sets of figures for the Onehunga Loop Line. This is explained here (in brief) and in full in my first CRL Operation post:

However I do see a snag forming a 5-7 minute frequency (that is between Onehunga and Newmarket, 10-14 minute frequency once the loop splits at Newmarket and each train goes in opposite directions on the loop) for the Onehunga Loop and that is the fact that it is single track between Penrose and Onehunga itself. It takes 8 minutes for the train currently to reach Onehunga once it leaves the dual tracked main line, around a 3-5min park up at Onehunga to exchange passengers and crews to change ends, then another 8 mins back to the dual main line heading towards the city. That means the line is blocked for upwards of 21 minutes before another train can go down – which means in short it buggers my Loop pattern for the CRL. 21 minute frequency between Onehunga and Newmarket, with 42 mins on the actual loop is not quite the high frequency I had in mind. There is an intermediate solution and there is an optimal solution to this problem.

The optimal solution is to double track the Onehunga Line – which will be needed when the Airport Line is built and open. The intermediate solution is to electrify and utilise the passing-loop between Penrose Platform 3 and Te Papapa stations. The idea is that either the arriving or departing Onehunga service could park up in the passing loop briefly while the other train moves out of the road.

The Excel Sheet takes into account whether the Onehunga Duplication happens or not.

 

So anywhere between 4 to 18 trains per hour (so between one every 15mins to one every 3:20 mins) is the range of frequencies we are looking at across the Auckland Rail Network. Your average though across the lines (with Onehunga duplicated) though is around 12 trains per hour (so every five minutes) with four sections including trains using the CRL East Link operating around the 6 TPH mark, and one section (Penrose to Grafton) operating at 18 trains per hour. The reason there is 18 trains per hour between Penrose and Newmarket (arguably the heaviest patronage in the rail network)  is the combination of the 12 TPH on the Onehunga Loop (which splits evenly at Newmarket so 6 go clockwise around the CRL Loop and 6 anti-clockwise around the CRL loop) and the 6 TPH on the South-West Line.

When I look at the frequency model I have devised for across the network taking into account: main travel patterns, cross-city running while not shunning the CBD, feasibility, keeping Manukau in the loop, and answering the Grafton Question; I am pretty satisfied  with the 6 train per hour base meaning a wait of at maximum 10 mins for your next train to get to your destination. Often the wait will be less with higher frequencies but depends on where you are going, or any modifications to the frequency model.

 

For those interested, I have calculated that to run this baseline frequency model we would need 90 EMUs. Currently 57 are on order so 33 more are needed. The high number of EMUs is to allow double EMU running on certain lines (so 6 car instead of 3 car) and have spares as always ;) :) . Of course once more lines open, the number of EMUs will go up.

 

Now through using my CRL Proposal as I continue to build on it, timetables, network maps and displays saying where trains are going will be needed post CRL as they are now. I personally have no problem with that with the 6 TPH base frequency proposed. People just have to learn to use their eyes and brain that God/Nature gave them and use just a little bit of intelligence to work out which is their train to their destination. But alas people are like sheep and regardless of all the prompts we can give them, you will still have people getting on the wrong train and ending out west rather than east :P .

 

Next up with this CRL Timetable/Operation Proposal, I shall try to create a mock-up timetable and network map based on my ideas presented so far. I will also check passenger numbers in certain sections of the rail network and see whether shuttles are needed to help increase frequencies and move passengers inside the Inner Circuit (between Otahuhu and New Lynn) which are the heavy areas in terms people movement (owing to our urban development).

Comments and thoughts (constructive) are welcome as always.

Trains are Back From Wednesday

Posted on by

From tomorrow (4th Jan) parts of the rail network will be reopened. Otahuhu to Newmarket, Onehunga to Newmarket and the Western Line from Newmarket to Henderson/Swanson/Waitakere will be open to passenger (and freight) services.

My advice is, allow for extra time if you are travelling by train tomorrow. There are bound to be some “teething issues” as new signalling and points are brought on-stream, and the DMU units probably needing a jump start after sitting idle since Christmas Day.

I will Blog further on the gradual start up of the network when I return home from the control room this afternoon.

Back to Work and So are the Trains

Posted on by

Update from the earlier Quick Post

[Work Computer won't let me do full posts without crashing]

Well my annual leave is over (for now) for another Christmas/New Years. The weather was great in Tauranga for Christmas but utter crap in Auckland for New Years which is rather typical.

So back to the Britomart Control Room I go (or was as I am back home when I finished this post), although today is still a total block of line across the entire network. Tomorrow however the first part of the network is open with Otahuhu to Newmarket, Onehunga to Newmarket and the Western Line from Newmarket to Henderson/Swanson/Waitakere being opened from tomorrow (4th Jan).

Over the course of the rest of the week, I will try to get some snaps (pictures) of the rail works and post them to VOAKL.

The media are beginning to pick up on the rail network slowly being opened as well with the NZ Herald giving a small report in today’s issue.

[Edit from Admin] Head to the Campaign for Better Transport site for pics on the rail upgrades that have been happening over the Xmas-New Year Block of Line – they look incredibly good :D

Ellersile is basically complete with the platform and track moved to the west as part of a New Zealand Transport Authority program to build a fourth motorway lane from Ellersile On-ramp on the city-bound side of State Highway One (Southern Motorway). That fourth lane should go some way in freeing up a bottleneck that is constant from 6:30am until 6:30pm Monday to Friday on that stretch of motorway. However users of the Southern Motorway city-bound know that the South Eastern Highway on-ramp can even prove a bigger headache and bottleneck than Ellersile. So something needs to be addressed there urgently.

Did not see Parnell today where the controversial station is set to be built by the Mainline Steam Depot. I will blog later on the controversies of Parnell Station and why I am so dead against it. However I will endeavour to get some snaps of it this week and post it to this blog.

At Britomart there were two projects I checked out today, one complete and one not so complete. Both would be hidden from the public’s eye but have great benefit and importance to the passenger rail network.

The first was the bi-directional signalling system upgrade that is now complete from Morningside to Swanson Stations. This upgrade extends the bi-directional signalling system from Wiri in the south (including Manukau Branch Line) to Britomart (via Newmarket and Glen Innes (and includes the Onehunga Branch Line) and out west to Swanson. In short bi-directional signalling allows Train Control (Wellington) and the Co-located Control Room at Britomart (where I am based) to (through co-ordination between the two control centres and executed finally by Wellington) send trains down any direction on any of the dual lines at any time (providing it is safe) and even run trains parallel in the same direction. Rail users would see at times in the approaches and inside the Britomart Tunnel two trains running parallel together in and out of Britomart Station (or during the Rugby World Cup from Kingsland to Grafton). Rail users might have also been on a passenger train when the train suddenly crosses over at Tamaki and you find yourself going down the “wrong line” to Otahuhu where the train crosses back over again.

Britomart with Platform One on the extreme left.

All that above is possible due to bi-directional signalling, giving Veolia and Train Control some more redundancy flexibility in disruptions when for example a train breaks down on the line (especially the pesky Metro Port freight services which usually break down outside the bi-directional signalling areas). However to get more redundancy capacity and minimise disruptions on the network, ideally the system would also have cross overs between every station to allow trains to “run around” the train fault more quickly and easily – something to keep pressuring Kiwi Rail and Auckland Transport on.

With the extension of the bi-directional signalling system also means an “update” to the signal panel board display  (that mimics the board from Train Control Wellington and serves as a emergency back up in case of a failure somewhere in the communications line between Britomart and Wellington) in the Co-located Control Room. Every single train inside the bi-directional area of the network comes up as a red line or blip with a train number attached and often a “route set” (with signal and points indications as well). As the panel is real-time and the fact more can be seen with the extensions, more accurate tracking (coupled with the Real Time Information Display Systems being rolled out) can be done and (in theory); better communications to passengers where their trains are, how  far away the said train is and how late (or early) the service is.

The second piece of work at Britomart [note from VOAKL Admin, I did some investigating today, to be on the correct and factual side I will report on this set of works that affect platforms 1-3 at Britomart when Britomart is full operational again after the 18th of January]

So as the network is slowly brought up to running from tomorrow, rail users should be able to see some of the works down as Auckland strives to get a better passenger rail system. As for the bits the using public can not see, well here is hoping it helps your commute on the network.