On Monday the city will be hosting the next Auckland Conversations and this one will has the title of Fixing Auckland’s Transport. The discussion will be about the Long Term Plan

Auckland is the country’s fastest-growing region with transport considered the single biggest issue. Major investment will be needed in the next decade to avoid worsening congestion and the impact this will have on our economy, environment and way of life.

We have a choice to make. Do we accept a basic transport network which costs less, or do we invest more to get the advanced transport programme set out in the 30-year vision for our region, known as the Auckland Plan.

If we choose to fix Auckland’s transport issues and get our city moving, we need to consider how we should pay for it. This could be through increased fuel taxes and higher rates, or through the introduction of a new motorway charge.

Hear from a range of experts who will outline the key transport issues facing Aucklanders in the 10-year budget. Speakers to be announced.

There are quite a few speakers who will take part including Patrick

MC Fran O’Sullivan – NZ Herald

Mayor Len Brown

David Warburton – CEO, Auckland Transport

Sudhvir Singh – Generation Zero

Peter Winder – Transport Funding – Independent Advisory Board

Patrick Reynolds – Transport Blog

Pippa Coom – Waitemata Local Board

Details are

Monday 2 March, doors open 5pm for a 5.30pm start
Lower NZI Conference Room, Aotea Centre, central Auckland

Share this


  1. I notice MOT/NZTA not there. Is there a Continuing to Destroy Auckland’s Transport, Environment, Community Well Being and Sustsinability the following week?

  2. This is a city thing – soften you up for additional rates or charges. So NZTA is irrelevant.

    I had a phone poll yesterday from Colmar Brunton essentially asking about the same points. The poor pollster had quite a lot of text to read out to me before asking two or three binary questions. Personally I’m all for motorway charges as I use them rarely 😉 .

    1. Charles in terms of transport solutions MOT/NZTA are critically important, they are the mother ship. If they did a full 180 degree like Auckland Transport then everything changes at maximum velocity. Otherwise it is wrong direction away from liveable that controls 50% and can prejudice other 50% also. Imagine overnight go ahead to CRL, NW Busway, Northern Busway to Silverdale, and full focus on.other rapid transit and active modes. It would be amazing progress all going in a sustainable and liveable direction with no network limitations on any mode, but prioritized for people not cars.

    1. MOT/NZTA should be there as they hold the purse strings and should be financing Auckland’s transport conversion to a predominately public transport mode. All the trend evidence and statistics point to this being the best option and outcome for a livable city. And it can be done for much fewer dollars than the broad spectrum approach currently in NZTA/AT sights. Check out the Congestion Free Network Costings! If the CFN was adopted in its entirety and monies channeled away from low value RoNs expenditure there would be no need for extra ratepayer input or petrol tax.

      1. Totally agree, plus seperated cycling and intersection priority changes. RONs are proven to be inferior to investment in rapid transit and seperated cycling. I doubt we need additional money if all parties concerned focus on rapid transit and active modes maximising what we have built already and remove parking on arterial roads. Auckland Council get rid of parking minimums.

  3. None of the options of increased rates, road taxes, or increased fuel charges are acceptable. The Council must learn to live within current budgets. To state that there are only two choices is morally corrupt, but something we have come to accept as the norm from the current Council. Thank God we have a National government to help reign this corruption in.

    1. MOT/NZTA lead under National are probably.most to blame actually. Road Building Industry propped up by funding car only. Electric Rail eats 10 car lanes for breakfast, North Shore Busway outstanding success for years, why no more already? Seperated Cycling well Copenhagen very high.mode share. But car traveled by km flat lined per capita but PT climbing with no global network so biased against but flying anyway. Who looks corrupt again? Admitidly those overseas ambassadors don’t look good for council and not sure about unbias with Ports of Auckland.

  4. There is little indication as to what transport systems will look like as we really notice marked reductions in fuel supplies or the obvious anticipated price increases of fuel.
    Transition into new forms of fuel that will replace fossil fuel is not moving quick enough for a smooth change.
    These thoughts are going to make planning more difficult. I only see business as usual planning. Not planning for the future taking realistic scenarios into account.

    1. Yep,
      Thats whats called the “do-nothing” approach (or nowadays often the more PC description is used aka the “do minimum: option – same difference).

      Which is always reactive not pro-active – unlike Highway provisioning/planning which is always “just in case”.

    2. Again another reason for full funding into rapid transit and active modes. The rapid transit to be as green / fuel efficient as possible how can you beat electric trains? Well active modes needs what food and water for carbon based life forms, stealing phrases here.

    3. So many reasons for going 180 degree. Liveability, sustainability, health, choice of any mode, not relying on BGrade Action War Movies about fuel tussles or supply, transport not reliant on other countries, emission reduction in fact zero if electric, elderly can use mobility scooters and electric assist bikes, or disabled, what should go extinct our entire species or traffic engineers that focus on cars only?

    1. Nah,
      Title correctly refers to Auckland’s futuristic sister city in Never-Never land. 😉

      Where fairies exist and kids (and pigs) can fly – so theres no traffic congestion (on land anyway).

  5. If Len is talking about adding one more cent for car capacity except multi-modal with seperated cycling and rapid transit into greenfields areas he is not getting my vote either.

    1. Even then it needs to be prioritised as to what will drive the best bang for buck for rapid transit, and seperated cycling. A bit like the phased CFN plans, actually fully like that!! In terms of seperated cycling and bus network AT and Council need to have ability to remove parking at will and reprioritise the full sealed width to suit. Do the whole network of Arterial Roads and tell network operations that the new signal priority is the same as Strategic Fit – Public Transport as rapid as possible and cycling and walking. The sooner it is done globally the cheaper it will be!!!!!

  6. A false dichotomy. Spend more, or get worse transport.

    Worse than that, it’s a false dichotomy creates a very real risk that we will see the advocates of a better transport system unelected, and the troglodytes (slightly more on roads, nothing spent on anything else) entrenched and strengthened.

    It’s time to reject the premise. We don’t need to spend huge proportions of our income on transport in order to get around easily, and we shouldn’t.

  7. Never forget that those countries that have the best public transport systems have lower death and injury rates per capita than countries that rely very highly on personal vehicle transport which, of course, translates into less pressure on the public hospital system – a win, win, win for the taxpayer!
    And some of the inexperienced tourist drivers might prefer the option of transit journeys – another win,win!

    1. Agree. Just about everyday there is news of more crashes, more fatalities on our roads and the mantra is to ‘please drive carefully’. How about providing enough alternative so that people don’t have to drive everywhere.

      My concern about becoming a road statistic partly drives my choice to use the train (until there’s a derailing or I get run over as a pedestrian!).

      1. Yes Jeff ,train for safety another reason to encourage this mode. No emissions, 10 lanes worth, full right of way. It’s a green beast. It seems all the hot women in Auckland know it too.

        1. +1 Women are not PT amenities or marketing points, and I have to say this sort of comment is pretty alienating.

  8. IS the Bridge and walkway/cycle way, etc., one of the topics to be discussed. Think NORTH SHORE, NORTH SHORE, BRIDGE, BRIDGE, ETC DONT FORGET US, WE STILL PAY RATES, ETC., TO THE AUCKLAND CITY

  9. Smash it like Brendon, Patrick and hopefully all speakers with a people focus. People in Rapid Transit, People on bikes in Safe Seperated Cycling lanes, People by themselves. People in Cars already have a global network. Carbon life forms where the needs of the many outweigh needs of the few. No planning for objects planning for Life.

  10. Sock it for all the kids that can’t cycle to school, and their parents need to drive them.to there. Meanwhile No1 Cycling City has 55% mode share , Auckland has 1%, ranked 372 city and Christchurch 8% 172 nd city. Plus all the people in buses stuck I’m traffic, rail with no CRL approval yet are you joking, and all the pedestrians that wait at beg buttons when they are the majority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *