Level crossing removals: Of tracks, traffic, and (cycle) trails

While Auckland and Melbourne are quite different cities, one thing stays the same. Level crossings are a dangerous interface between pedestrians, trains, and vehicles. Safety is a major reason for the state of Victoria ramping up removal in recent years and is a big part of Auckland’s program too.

Removing level crossings can also unchoke suffocated roads – a problem in almost all Australasian cities, In a major benefit, it can improve the reliability of travel times for both car and train users.

Hayden, who has worked on up to fifty level crossing removals in Australia, says level crossing removal, if done well, can help revitalise urban areas and enhance the lifestyle of the local communities they occur in, in addition to the obvious traffic and safety improvements.

He points to removal projects such as in Murumbeena and Carnegie, an area that had some of the least green space in Melbourne. Four level crossings were removed, with the railway elevated onto a viaduct for 3.5 kilometres. Landscaped parkland and cycle trails were created underneath.

With funding and financing of infrastructure being a perennial issue in Aotearoa New Zealand, Auckland is unlikely to replicate rail over road in the same fashion. But this and other level crossing removal projects in Victoria are a useful reference point in seeing what options look like off the pages of blueprints.

WSP is the design partner in Victoria’s Southern Program Alliance (SPA), which has so far removed eighteen level crossings, including on Melbourne’s heavily trafficked Frankston Line.

“At Carrum on the Frankston Line, there was a railway location with lots of sidings. If you lived on the other side and wanted to go to the beach, you had to walk down to McCloud Road and cross at the level crossing. So, we elevated the railway onto a viaduct, which opened pedestrian flow. Now, at Carrum Station, you stand on an elevated platform and can see the coastline. If you want to go to the beach, you now walk under the viaduct,” says Hayden.

A tower at the new Carrum Station has a periscope that lets people see out over Port Phillip Bay. Ground level at Carrum Station now features lush green parkland, connected to a new town square that hosts a water play area and café. The design has won the Joseph Reed Award for Urban Design and plaudits from the community.

In Melbourne, as in Auckland, level crossings are an historical issue. Before Melbourne started getting rid of theirs, over 280 dotted the city.

Where a level crossing sits in relation to people and place will dictate the best approach for a removal.

“As part of any level crossing removal in Melbourne, five options are considered: put a road over the railway, put a road under the railway, put the railway over the road, put the railway under the road, or close the level crossing,” says Hayden.

“Whatever the chosen solution, it's important to minimise disruption to both road and rail traffic, as well as reduce the social impact. Designing with minimal disruption to the road and rail network has been done effectively in Melbourne and will be important in Auckland - especially for strategically important freight, regional and metro passenger train routes.

“We start with an options appraisal phase, where we’ll do a concept assessment for each option. We generally find one option writes itself quickly from a cost and transport disruption perspective. If there are two close options, we might do a Multi Criteria Analysis.”

Hayden says the easiest way is to put a road over the railway, but notes this can sometimes have sub-par urban outcomes, as was seen in places in Melbourne in the 1960s and 1970s.

“What we find is that, historically, stations in little townships or villages are the heart of the community. There are examples in Melbourne where level crossings have been removed and replaced with road-overs. Grade-separating everything in this way can destroy the urban fabric. There was one example where a town centre completely disbanded. Shops sat empty and a whole new town centre grew up a kilometre away.”

When considering options for level crossing removal, it’s crucial to balance costs and targeted spending. The approach might differ slightly in urban areas near town centres, for instance, where extra funds could be allocated to align with long-term precinct planning, he says.

Closing a level crossing and not replacing it with alternative access at the same site can be controversial. But it has been done with success in Melbourne as part of a ‘corridor approach,’ where three level crossings, for example, were recently replaced with two new roads under an elevated railway bridge.

“You generally find because of the additional service you get from the new roads being 100 percent available, it’s a better traffic outcome than having more level crossings,” says Hayden.

“We worked on another corridor approach in the South-East of Melbourne, where six level crossings were removed, and the railway was put in a large trench, with four new road bridges crossing it.”

Level crossing projects involve many transport disciplines, including road and civil engineering, railway track overhead and wiring, bridges and structures, geotechnical, and stations. But community and stakeholder engagement specialists also play a significant role.

Virtual renderings help people see what a completed project will look like. Hayden says as part of the SPA alliance, digital models have been used for project communications. Virtual reality headsets have been used to ‘walk’ people through the design.

“My experience of big level crossing projects is that the technical challenges are the easy bit. More challenging is making sure that community and project stakeholders get the right outcome. Keeping an open mind is important. It’s about matching the solution and outcome to the social context of the area.

“Road-overs are appropriate in some cases, such as industrial areas, but careful thought should be given in cases where hundreds of properties, for example, may need to be procured. In those situations, there may be another solution that allows properties to remain untouched and communities undisturbed. Social impact assessments can play a key role there.”

Hayden says the program of level crossing removal works in Auckland is an excellent chance for the city to think about how it can get the best out of its level crossing removals.

“Some of the sites we’ve seen in Auckland have four level crossings in a row. That’s where you might get some benefits from doing a Melbourne-style corridor approach.

“The way we’ve done our program alliances in Victoria means we’ve got some very efficient projects that can now get rid of level crossings in short timeframes.

Hayden says one of the things the Victorian State Government has been enthusiastic about is continuous improvement.

"The major advantage of having these programmes that go from one site to the next is that we get better and better. If Auckland is committed to dozens of level crossing removals, there’s a unique opportunity to maximise the efficiencies that can provide.

“Over 10 years ago, Melbourne was just chipping away at a few level crossing removals. It wasn’t until they were scaled up that the city really started seeing the benefit. If Auckland has this opportunity, it probably won’t get it again. So, it will be important to make the most of the opportunity.

“In 10- or 20-years’ time, as a decisionmaker, you should look back at a level crossing removal program and say, ‘look at the benefit I’ve helped bring to the community. They can now use those roads all the time, they’re not going to get hit by a train, and they’ve got beautiful new stations and public spaces’. If it’s done well, it can be city-shaping and leave a positive legacy.”