The Linear Park is one of those projects that once implemented, will become one of the defining features of the city centre, one that Aucklanders admire and be proud of. A project future Aucklanders will be amazed we ever considered not doing. Given the project is one of the centerpieces of the council’s vision for the city, decisions that could prevent it from happening should not be being made behind closed doors at Auckland Transport but in full view of the public by the council.

But given AT are pushing ahead with the project anyway, it’s critical you submit on the project as there are only a few days left on the consultation. If you don’t want to use Auckland Transports form, you can also use Generation Zero’s form.

Why it’s important is something we’ve talked a lot about. Some recent posts on the issue are below.

The Victoria St Linear Park: Why it is vital, but not really a park.
Linear Park – The (AT) Empire Clutches Back
Council saves Linear Park from AT’s clutches

For a different take on it, Below is a post from reader Stephen Davis about the history of the Linear Park and why it’s important that originally appeared on his blog City Beautiful.

In 2012, Auckland Council released the City Centre Masterplan. It had strong support from the council, and the public who submitted on it. Perhaps the cornerstone was a plan to pedestrianise Queen Street, a fantastic idea in itself, but not the topic of today’s post.

The key element I want to talk about was a “green stitch”, a series of connections between the city centre’s main parks: Victoria Park, Albert Park, the Domain, and a proposed new park on the headland at Wynyard Quarter.

The heart of this was the Victoria Street Linear Park. Vehicle traffic on the street would be reduced to the bare minimum – one lane each way, and no parking. Through traffic and buses would be removed from route. With the space freed up, most of the street would become a long thin park, on the south side to get maximum sun.

This would provide valuable open space and greenery in the heart of the city centre. It would also provide space for the tens of thousands of people due to pour out of Aotea Station once the City Rail Link is built.

So far, so good. There were a few hiccups – the plan couldn’t happen immediately, due to the actual construction of the City Rail Link. Victoria Street is also a route for buses, but Victoria Street wouldn’t have the room to handle them with the Linear Park. So they’d have to find an alternative route. Which would be good for the buses, anyway. The Victoria Street route had numerous twists and turns, more intersections, and in rush hour was frequently stuck for up to half an hour going one block on Waterloo Quadrant to where the bus lanes began.

Buses also only used Victoria Street heading out of the city: they already came on Wellesley Street, instead, a block away. This was confusing and inconvenient for passengers, who would not be able to catch a bus back from where they had been dropped off, and would suddenly need to figure out that the departing buses took a totally different route.

Fortunately, Auckland was planning a ground-up rearrangement of bus services anyway, which included Wellesley Street becoming the new main east-west route for buses. Wellesley Street is straighter, with fewer traffic lights and conflicts. Plenty of buses already used it. So the sensible solution would be to dedicate Wellesley Street to buses (removing general traffic). Four bus lanes and associated bus stops, no cars.

Having Wellesley Street as a two-way bus corridor offered some other opportunities as well. Extending the route a few blocks up Halsey Street into Wynyard Quarter would finally provide a decent public transport service to that fast-growing area, currently only served by the excruciatingly slow City Link bus. Indeed, the bus network was going to include a bus interchange in Wynyard Quarter.

But then…1

Enter Auckland Transport

The City Rail Link grinded slowly on, as did the rearrangement of Auckland’s buses, both of which would need to be underway (if not completed) before the Linear Park could begin. At first, some nasty rumours began to surface – Auckland Transport (AT) was having difficulty getting a site for the bus interchange in Wynyard. AT had got pushback about sending buses up Wellesley Street from the top brass at the University of Auckland, who apparently didn’t want any unsightly buses anywhere near the campus, despite being how most of their students arrived.

AT was running a series of consultations on the new network for different parts of the Auckland Region, staggered over time. The consultation for the part covering the central city ended up being last. By the time it finally happened, there was a shock: AT no longer planned to get buses off Victoria Street, and no longer planned to make Wellesley Street a dedicated “transit mall”2.

Plenty of people submitted against this, but AT stuck with it into the final plans, now due to be implemented later in 2017.

And then things got worse. Auckland Transport admitted they wanted to kill the Victoria Street Linear Park permanently. They wanted to keep four lanes of traffic on Victoria Street as well. Even pedestrianising Queen Street was now too hard. They reported back to Council that there were “conflicts” with the council’s Linear Park plan.

At this point the councillors lost their patience, and delivered a harsh rebuke to Auckland Transport. The case for the Linear Park was as strong as ever. They had approved a plan for a city centre targeted at people, not cars, and they wanted it delivered.

The junior guy Auckland Transport sent to the meeting agreed: they’d make it happen. The council resolved to uphold the City Centre Masterplan and move forward with the Linear Park.

Wait, I thought “Auckland Transport” was the council

I should explain first how Auckland Transport works. Auckland Transport is not part of the Auckland Council as such, the way that, say, the Parks department or Resource Consents are. Auckland Transport is a subsidiary of the council, and a “Council-Controlled Organisation”. With the amalgamation of Auckland’s local governments in 2010, it was set up deliberately at arm’s length from the council proper. The council would still set its budget, appoint the board, and give strategic direction, but councillors would not be able to interfere in day-to-day operations.

This was not a recipe for success. It meant an organisation that had no effective political control, and no effective commercial control, spending half of the council’s budget and affecting every other area of the council’s business. But still, this is the model we have today. An organisation that accounts for about half of what we expect Auckland Council to do is only barely under control by the council that supposedly “controls” it.

Which explains what happened next.

Auckland Transport’s stealth war on the linear park

A few days after supposedly capitulating, Auckland Transport had a new tactic. Suddenly, and secretly, on a Friday afternoon, they quietly set up a webpage taking submissions on “route options out of the city centre” for the buses currently using Victoria Street. The Wellesley Street option was not favoured: they wanted “Option One”: the status quo.

Supposedly, Wellesley Street had a whole host of disadvantages compared to Victoria Street:

  • This route would require buses to use an uphill slip lane to reach Symonds Street, and introducing more buses to this narrow, pedestrian-filled area would be challenging.

Except… the buses already used the downhill equivalent of that slip lane, just as narrow, and with far more pedestrians, because it was a more direct walking route.

  • This route would require new traffic lights to enable buses to turn right out of the slip lane into Symonds Street, which would delay other buses using Symonds Street.

Except… the intersection already has traffic lights, used to allow cars to make a right turn into the downhill equivalent of that slip lane.

Red: inbound buses on Wellesley Street. Blue: the right turn buses would make outbound. Black: a turn for cars that currently has a dedicated traffic light phase

Prohibiting cars from making that right turn, or even entering the slip lanes entirely, would solve that even if it were an issue.

  • This route does not serve the northern parts of the University of Auckland campus well, meaning staff and students would have to walk further to get to and from buses.

Except… no-one would walk any further from buses, since inbound buses would use Wellesley Street either way. As for going to the buses, it would add a few minutes walk from a few parts of the campus of one of the two universities, level, and across the campus staff and students routinely walk across all day.

And for the other university, AUT, the route would be worse: you would need to walk uphill to Symonds Street to catch a bus.

  • Buses will need to turn and layover near Victoria Park. This is an area with limited space available and may cause delays for passengers.

Which is true, at least. But it brings us back to a point from earlier. These buses were supposed to be extended to a terminus to serve Wynyard Quarter, which would render the point moot. Clearly, that has dropped through a crack in the Earth.

Meanwhile, Victoria Street had only the throwaway comment:

  • This route will make it difficult to reduce the number of lanes on Victoria Street, as part of a planned future upgrade of Victoria Street.

Admitting that their preferred option would make it impossible to build the Linear Park. Which the Council, supposedly their bosses, had reiterated support for just days earlier.

The Battle for Victoria Street

The title of this post comes from friend of the blog, Harriet Gale, who mounted a swift Twitter campaign in defence of the Linear Park. The battle found allies, not least councillor Richard Hills, who described himself as “pissed”, as well he should. We can only hope the war is won.

No, wait. We can do more than hope.

So after all that, dear reader, is where you come in. If you want the Victoria Street Linear Park, tell Auckland Transport that, on their feedback page, by Monday 24 April. Tell them you want Option Two, which was supposed to happen all along, and the Linear Park.

¡Viva el parque lineal!

Notes

  1. Irrelevant to anything, but a chance to throw in a reference to one of my favourite films. “one day in June, a knock at the door was to change all that”. 
  2. A transit mall is a surface street entirely for public transport. Buses travel at city speeds, and stop for pedestrian crossings and traffic lights, but do not have to compete with cars or parking. This would mean buses could travel the length of Wellesley Street unimpeded by traffic all the way to Symonds Street, which would have the traditional bus lanes it does right now.
Share this

61 comments

  1. I agree that buses should be on Wellesley St rather than Vic St.
    However Wellesley St as a bus only road is an issue since the only way for vehicles to travel East-West or vice versa would be the single lane each way on Vic St, Mayoral Drive, or all the way down in Customs St (remembering that Quay St will become pedestrianised, Shortland St doesn’t connect through to Swanson St, Wyndham and Durham don’t go through either and that the next connection up the hill is City Road). It would make for very poor connections crossing the city especially since Queen St will also be pedestrianised (which is the road that links all of these mazes together).
    Of course part of Wellesley is already buses only (between Queen and where Mayoral joins it) so sure if you mean that part only as buses only then that is fine but not if you mean Mayoral-Symonds or Hobson-Queen.

    1. Bus only on Wellesley St between Albert and Mayoral Dr is happening in either situation. As such, option 1 is also worse for cars as they’ll have to compete with buses up Bowen Ave and on Waterloo Quad

    2. So what you are saying is there will be *only* three traffic-prioritised arterial roads running east-west across that 1km stretch of Queen St, with a total capacity of ten lanes of traffic?

      Remind me again why we need any capacity for through traffic in out downtown?

    3. Mayoral Drive was expensively smashed through the existing street pattern specifically to enable the Queen St valley to be ‘relieved’ of traffic. That the authorities failed to take the dividend from this investment at the time is no reason to not take it now.

      As the City Centre East West study concluded, east-west general traffic is to be on Mayoral, Victoria, and Customs. Of those: Customs is to be general traffic and PT, Victoria general traffic and pedestrians, and Mayoral general traffic. And of course general traffic is supposed to be using the other extremely expensive route sold to us as a bypass, to get through (around) the city; the motorway moat.

      A key point to remember here is that private vehicle traffic will continue to fall as road space is more intelligently re-purposed. And the city will continue to bloom as a result. These are mere extrapolations of recent trends.

      And that everything AT have to do becomes easier and less costly with that reduction in space eating private vehicles; buses running more reliably and efficiently, pedestrians (the biggest and most important economic force on city streets) gain more space and priority, deliveries get through more efficiently, and construction is more able to function.

    4. “the only way for vehicles to travel East-West or vice versa would be the single lane each way on Vic St, Mayoral Drive, or all the way down in Customs St ”

      Good.

      1. So let me get this straight, you think going from 11 lanes (not including the likes of Fort St) in each direction for general traffic down to 5 (with 1 of those lanes becoming the main road between the west of the city (Ponsonby, Wynyard, CBD through to the Eastern part of the city – CBD, Parnell, Mission Bay etc), is good or still too many lanes? Especially considering that numbers of people living and working in the CBD has soared in the meantime?

        1. More people live in the CBD now than drive to it every morning, and numbers driving are declining. Combine with significantly more now (and in the future) arriving but public transport and it makes sense to repurpose space to cater for the significant increase in people walking

        2. More PEOPLE are living and working in the CBD. That’s not the same as cars. In fact, the fact there are more people is a good reason to get rid of the cars. Far more pedestrians than cars in the CBD yet cars screw everything up for everyone.

          Reducing the number of lanes may make it less practical or pleasant to drive into or across the CBD, but that’s a good thing. We need to deter people from doing it.

        3. “So let me get this straight, you think going from 11 lanes (not including the likes of Fort St) in each direction for general traffic down to 5 is good or still too many lanes?”

          You got it.

          I lean to ‘good for now but too many long term’.

          I’d actually be happier going down to one general lane on Customs Street and completely closing Quay Street From Albert St to Queens Wharf.

          Cars are not necessary, or desirable in the CBD, and for that reason the only private vehicles that should be welcomed are delivery vehicles and vehicles carrying those who are not able to catch public transport through disability. I’d even ban bicycles from Queen Street eventually.

          1. I drive on Quay St sometimes… I’d rather not. That said, SH16 to SH1 North is my alternative but it has a traffic light on it for some reason I can’t fathom. Why are people trying to get out of the city less of a priority than some minor speed reduction for people driving past it? (Note that I wouldn’t drive at all except (a) I get a free carpark at work and (b) public transport for my part of the Shore is currently a black hole with no easy way to get to Onewa or the NEX besides a long steep walk… please add an “Onewa station” with access from the bottom of Exmouth where the motorway overbridge is)

          2. Which traffic light do you mean, Camryn? I’m sure someone here can explain the rationale (or lack of it) for that traffic light. Also, have you thought of asking your employer to offer a transport allowance or a paid-for AT-HOP card instead of the free carpark. Possibly not something that would suit, given the steep climb you’d have to take (mind you, great exercise) but since you’d prefer to not drive, maybe something could be worked out that is financially workable for you. Your employer might get a warm fuzzy for doing the right thing too.

          1. It’s 11 (if you are counting the ones above Custom’s Street, with Quay St going and Customs Street dropping to 1 lane then it really is just 1 lane for them realistically) not 22 and will shortly be 5 if these proposals go ahead.

          2. Yes because Sailor Boy seems to think that everyone can walk or cycle the 8.3km distance to Wynyard Quarter and back again at the end. Even easier to do if you are travelling with work items/bags etc etc. The alternative is bus sure but again that isn’t for everyone and if you have 4 people in a car it is cheaper and faster than a bus. But hey I guess someone could always drive twice as far going completely around the city and get on the already blocked up motorway system to do this otherwise easy trip?

            Yes the idea is to get most people out of cars and onto PT or active travel modes, that doesn’t mean you completely ignore vehicles used by the likes of tradies, disabled, families, etc – oh yeah that person with a cold – put them on a bus so that they can get everyone else sick – marvellous!

          3. AKLDUDE, I agree that a good plan caters for the diversity. But you haven’t convinced me: Disabled? Buses kneel for wheelchairs. Tradies? How do the progressive cities do it – tradies have to come in in the evening or at night or certain hours in the weekend. Or they come in with their toolbox on the bus or the cargo bike – opens up a whole niche job opportunity. I mean, Venice has tradies. Families? What do you mean? Families travel by bus. Sure, it’s expensive, but we can change that. The person with the cold? Come on, the buses are full of people with colds. If we’re going to worry about that we’d make huge changes to society, not least in the bug-havens that are our schools.

          4. Heidi, indeed, Venice has tradies – they arrive by boat and park it outside in the nearest canal. It’s just like a classic white van man thing, except it is a barge instead. But I agree, it does show that cultures can adapt to not having a car. NZ can adapt as well. Not sure how, but they will.

          5. Of course the needs of those with disabilities needs to be taken into account when we’re thinking about reducing private vehicle access.

            But I would suggest that the only valid comments are those from people that can demonstrate a history of advocating for disability rights across a range of subjects.

            Otherwise it’s the usual crap of people that love cars and don’t like change cynically using disability to support their cause. Pretty insulting really.

          6. What I’d like to know, AKLDUDE, is what did you mean about families? Did that slip in by mistake, or do you mean because the cost of buses is so high? (one of my little bugbears) Families do, of course, use PT all around the world. I told my kids early on that the only activities they were allowed to choose were those we could walk, cycle or bus to. And they preferred getting exercise or having my attention on the bus than being in a car with a parent concentrating on driving, even though it took longer.

          7. There is a difference between access and capacity however. A road with a lane each way still has full access for tradies or those with disabilities or whatever, if not lots of capacity for commuters.
            Having two lanes each way doesn’t change accessibility, only capacity.

          8. Exactly. Reduce vkt by reducing the capacity. And even if some roads need to limit access too, I’m sure the way Auckland would go would be to allow permits for tradies and people with disabilities in some fashion.

          9. The most relevant disability-related issue is probably distance from the transit node to the start and finish point of the journey.

            Transport policy mainly assumes everyone can walk 500m unaided to or from a bus stop or train station. That’s simply not the reality for a lot of people, especially as our population ages. 90% of mobility permit holders do not use wheelchairs. The qualifying criteria is not being able to walk unaided more than 200m. Spot the mismatch.

            The impact on planning might be seen in clashes between travel through-routes and destination parking and drop-off zones (including for mobility taxis).

            While working with Waitakere Council I advocated to get mobility parking moved up the on-street parking hierarchy because it has constraints like site slope, width and length that are more restrictive than other uses like bus stops or delivery bays (which were higher).

            Off-street parking often addresses those constraints better but must be incorporated in designs and consents for buildings and precincts. Councils are still to this day signing off non-complying buildings – eg: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/325581/%27they-find-every-excuse-not-to-do-it%27-disability-advocates

            Mainly, this stuff needs to be taught to all designers and planners and their managers and governors, along with a fair measure of humility about historic ignorance.

          10. Thanks Sacha. We weren’t taught any of this stuff in civil engineering in the 80’s, nor anything about driver psychology or even induced demand. What kind of an education is that? Obviously engineers are upskilling while they work, but I’d be interested to hear what the UoA civil engineering curriculum includes now.

        4. I have lived over there and yes there’s way too many traffic lanes over there. We desperately need more ambition to make the city actually a nice place to live. Especially from the likes of AT.

    5. How else would you suggest dis-incentivising through traffic in the centre of the city, which is after all one of the goals of the City Centre Master Plan?

      Where will all of the pedestrians go, given that they currently only barely fit on the footpaths and the CRL will move ever more people, some of whom may wish to walk around and not get run over.

  2. Battle for Victoria is for AT that Battle of Onehunga is for NZTA. This is why Auckland has big transport issues. Because those incharge keeps making bad decisions… massive bad decisions that we are stuck with for many many years.

  3. Who on earth at Auckland Transport is making these decisions?
    Ignoring Auckland Council and all the plans / strategies ??
    Supporting the East / West link etc when other options are clearly cheaper and provide better benefits ???
    etc. .
    There is some serious issues inside Auckland Transport that need to be sorted when evidence based good analysis and consultations are being ignored for the privileged few (be they Auckland Uni / trucking lobby etc).

        1. Well done Patrick on getting in there – hopefully your influence can make some positive changes to AT!

          Also think Cullen should do a good job of working with his buddy Goff and he does still hold considerable sway at government level it seems.

          1. Congratulations to Patrick but why has he merely been co-opted to the Boards’ Customer Focus Committee?
            He should have been appointed to the full Board. He has a really extensive knowledge of both transport and Auckland City and the ability to make a quick riposte when the meeting descends to nonsense talk.

          2. Agree with Warren S’s comment and just hope that this committee co-opting is just not tokenism (sorry I suspect it is)

          3. Congratulations to Patrick although, as Warren S observes, he should have been appointed to the full board, and, yes, I suspect tokenism. Notwithstanding their gender, I’m not sure the corporate shills will add to the board’s understanding of how it has to initiate a sea change in the organisation’s approach to the city’s transport issues. And I’m a little depressed by Cullen’s appointment, a man with a natural bias towards road transport (he only funded Project Dart because he was told it was essential to solving New Lynn’s road traffic woes and as chair of NZ Post he dumped cycle-based deliveries in favour of motorised wagons). Notwithstanding Patrick’s advocacy, I suspect we’re in for more of the same road-based solutions.

          4. The appointment of Cullen is so blatantly a case of cronyism and even more tragic is the prospect he is being forecast as the next chairman of Auckland Transport. As for his governance skill he brings to AT board, is it likely a Nat Govt will listen to him? Maybe Goff is depending on change of Govt at next election. Instead of political appointments it would have been so refreshing to see people who actually cared about public transport.
            When we refer to AT now does this mean we include Patrick as AT?

  4. Having followed the last few posts about Linear park. It strikes me the blog hasn’t clearly addressed the legitimacy of Auckland Uni’s grumblings about option 2 and the bus volumes by their relatively new science block. In their letters imply the impact will be diesel fumes, sensitive equipment being disturbed, and delivery access. Essentially, stuff they hadn’t factored in when they spent millions developing their site. If Linear Park has been on the cards for years can they still complain if they didn’t plan for it to?

    1. There is no legitimacy, I understand that behind the scenes they kept changing their excuses. They’re just throwing everything against the wall hoping something sticks

    2. I’ll listen to UoA’s concerns only when they change their car park policy. Parking cost $25 per day, but they offer their staff weekly car parking for $45, so it’s a nice little incentive to drive every day. Council’s got rid of retrograde policies like that, and should give no ear to an organisation that’s bringing traffic into the CBD. Ah, I forgot, we’re talking about AT…

      1. You do realise $45 a week to allow some of the world’s best researchers to get to work quickly and easily is an absolutely brilliant bargain, right? These aren’t drones working in a call centre, these are top global academics.

        1. Ha ha ha, we’re talking about the same university here right? Tenured chair warmers getting subsidised to drive while the executive does everything it can to push the mode of choice of 80% of the students to the wrong side of Albert St. Really bunch of global thought leaders there.

          Meh, if these “top global academics” can be so easily bought by cheap parking, maybe it’s better you let them drive on over to Massey.

        2. Lol. I’m sure subsidised parking is crucial to their research and there’s absolutely nothing more research-relevant that the uni could be doing with its money instead. Travel, equipment, consumables, research assistant hours, pffff.

          Also, if it’s really important that they get to work quickly and easily, why encourage them to get stuck in traffic?

  5. Why doesn’t AT just focus on the issues that they might be able to fix and leave the “biggies” to others. After how many years with the new trains, why are dwell times still an issue. Why is there a distinct lack of growth for non RTN services? (I am going to go out on a limb here, as a frequent user of North Shore transport services, and say that the very poor adherence to timetables is likely to be a part of it).
    Why has the new N/S network not been rolled out?
    Unfortunately AT seems to be a triumph of style over substance. How many thousands of dollars were spent on the glossy colour pamphlet titled, “Busy period ahead”. What surprised me more was that this supposedly vital message didn’t make it to their email release the next day.
    I try to view AT’s efforts objectively, but this linear park matter seems to be just another demonstration that they are determined to do it their way regardless of whether it makes sense.

  6. Why not a pair of two lanes, one way on Wellesley st and victoria street, one being east bound and one west bound?

    With the victoria street going down hill so there will be less smoke and engine noise.

    That will leave enough space for the linear park and traffic also flows more efficient.

  7. The entire problem with the CCMP is that it lacks any clarity about goals.

    If it is designed to increase the number of people visiting the central city, then state a number.

    If it is designed to improve the satisfaction of the people already in the CBD, then survey current satisfaction and hypothesise the likely impact of the CCMP.

    Otherwise, it’s all a bunch of fuzzies – no clear goals, no way of judging success or failure, just millions of dollars with no clear result.

    Compare this, for example, to the CRL. The CRL has clear objectives – travel time reductions primarily, but also in taking people off the road, you can identify the carbon reductions as well.

    IMO policy set by hipsters or “urban design champions” is generally terrible policy. Money spent on this could be better spent on sports park improvements.

    1. Balancing travel through a space with using that space for other things is more complex than only addressing one or the other. CRL is about travel alone. Sports parks are about non-travel uses. Things like the Linear Park are about both.

      The problem here is we have a travel-focused agency clashing with place-design experts at another but their organisational governance arrangements dictated by central govt not enabling better coordination, quite deliberately.

    2. The first forty pages of the document outline the goals and the numerical targets, clearly you haven’t even read it, just turned up to moan about all weather playing fields again.

      Like I said in the other thread, these projects are funded by the city centre targeted rate, a special rate paid for by city centre business. If you want more sports fields then go out and advocate for a targeted sports field rate in the places you want them.

  8. As owners of the city roads, surely the council has the ability to proceed with the linear park, regardless of what AT plans to do. So build the park, ban buses from Victoria St, and leave AT to re-plan their routes with the streets that remain accessible to them.

    If AT want to play silly buggers, then play silly buggers back!

      1. According to Wikipedia:

        “AT’s assets total $11.5 billion as of 2011, primarily roads and bridges.[5] AT owns or operates the following transport assets as of early 2013 (noting that legally, roads remain owned directly by the council, but are listed – the tally however excludes state highways in the Auckland area, which are owned and maintained by NZ Transport Agency):[6]”

  9. Provincialism and cronyism rules at an AT (and NZTA) senior level it seems. These grey old anglo-saxon men really need to get out from their Audi 4x4s and BMWs to live what the world has to offer, or retreat to their baby-boomer mansions and let the real leaders take charge.

    The Victoria St Linear Park has to be built. The future for great cities of the world is in more pedestrian space. Wellesley St as a transit corridor and a pedestrianized Queen St with light rail is the direction for Auckland’s future. Quite correctly, once CRL is in full operation, pedestrian space, and foliaged and landscaped green space is going to be at a premium. Once those pedestrian spaces are there, the city will surely take another huge leap forward as a family friendly space day and night, just like other great cities. I can just visualise a crowded colourful, family filled evening promenade running from Albert Park to Victoria Park on a warm evening, with space for buskers and lots of laughter.

    C’mon Auckland, deep down you know the right path to take……..

Leave a Reply