The Auckland Council is looking to update the 2012 City Centre Masterplan (CCMP), a document that has been a critical in helping shape our city centre. The CCMP pulled together a 20-year vision for the city and first introduced ideas such as the Victoria St Linear Park.

The CCMP is now in need of a refresh as it is now six years since it was first approved, there have been significant changes in the city centre and many of the assumptions the plan was based on are now well out of date. Some examples include:

  • The City Rail link is now under construction and other large projects, like Light Rail are also now a reality having not even been on the cards back in 2012.
  • The number of people living in the city has already exceeded all of the projections in the original CCMP.
  • There has been significant public and private sector development which is helping to reshape the city.
  • The Auckland Transport Alignment Project (between the government and council) has confirmed the high-level

As part of the new CCMP, the Council want to add three new key focus areas

  1. Māori Outcomes
  2. Grafton Gully Boulevard
  3. Access for Everyone

Below is a quick look at the second two

Grafton Gully Boulevard

Compared to most of the city centre, stepping onto The Strand is a bit like you’ve been transported to a completely different part of the city, and not in a good way. Here’s what the report says about this idea.

  1. Council is working with a team of local landowners and stakeholders, including Auckland Transport, the New Zealand Transport Agency and Ngāti Whātua Orākei. The aim is to develop a more affordable ground-based approach at a different location, slightly further  north, broadly following the Stanley Street Corridor from Parnell Rise to Tamaki Drive.
  2. The area surrounding Stanley Street/The Strand is generally a low-quality, low-value environment, despite being situated between the city centre and Parnell. The vision is to integrate the many workstreams for the area and surroundings into a coherent vision. These include the Ports Master Plan; the Parnell Plan, regional rail network planning and a private sector proposal to reopen the Albert Park tunnels. There is an opportunity to deliver considerable transport improvements, land value capture, housing and employment space.
  3. This project will examine new design solutions that are more feasible to fund and build. The outcome would be that this connection is able to be provided sooner and cheaper, enabling access to the Port and the Eastern Suburbs; in, out and around the city. It would also improve road safety and deliver better foot, cycle and public transport connections. Completed successfully, it would transform the performance, connectivity and productivity of the entire eastern edge of the city.

We first covered the idea of a Grafton Gully Boulevard back in 2014. I don’t know if it is exactly the same but should be similar.

Access for Everyone

With all of the growth and projects going on, Auckland’s city centre simply has to change. It needs more space for pedestrians, bikes, scooters and buses but also for non-discreationary trips like rubbish collection, deliveries and emergency services.

Once we start to build light rail we will need to close Queen St to cars. For those that still drive in the city (why would you) it will result in changes in how they get around. The council are trying to get ahead of that and have come up with a concept called Access for Everyone (AfE). I think this is a really exciting idea and is one that could significantly change our city centre for the better.

Below are how the paper describes A4E. They also note that pedestrianisation of Queen St was the most supported of any proposal in the last CCMP.

  1. Auckland Council is working with stakeholders in Auckland Transport and other organisations to develop a new city centre access concept called Access for Everyone. It is based on examples used successfully in cities overseas, such as Groningen and Barcelona and under consideration in Melbourne. The overall aim of Access for Everyone is to ensure that everyone who needs to get to the city centre is able to do so more easily.

  1. Access for Everyone would mean that car drivers would access the city centre from its edge, not via the core. Private motorised through-traffic would be directed around Auckland city centre before entering. East-west journeys would be made exclusively via the motorway box and, in the first instance, Mayoral Drive.
  2. Access within the city would be prioritised for non-discretionary trips. These include, but are not limited to, emergency vehicles, servicing, deliveries, rubbish removal, existing access to buildings, people with specific mobility requirements and other critical business trips.
  3. A reduction in non-discretionary vehicle trips is anticipated of up to 20%. The reduction in discretionary traffic should make non-discretionary vehicular trips (deliveries, etc.) easier and more predictable, as well as allowing for road-space reallocation to walking, cycling and public realm.
  4. Within the city centre, the existing street network would be reconfigured to function as a series of zones. Buses, light rail vehicles, pedestrians and people on bikes would be able to pass directly between zones. Private motor traffic would generally be required to enter and leave from the same zone. Private vehicles would be able to move within the zones for most of the day but not between them. Traffic to each zone would be carefully accommodated from all motorway points and key arterials.
  5. Access for Everyone allows space to be reallocated from private vehicles to other uses. It therefore meets the needs of the growing residential, worker and visitor populations by favouring spatially-efficient transport modes. As the city centre accommodates more residents, businesses and visitors, there is an imperative to make more efficient use of limited city centre street capacity.

  1. Reallocation of street space in favour of spatially-efficient modes also increases streets’ abilities to perform other functions, such as loading, servicing and public amenity.
  2. Access for Everyone is predicated on the fact that, over the past 15 years, all growth in commuting to Auckland city centre has taken place via public transport; it now accounts for the majority of commutes. City centre employment growth has been de-coupled from increases in inbound car traffic since 2001.
  3.  With the scale of forthcoming investment in City Rail Link, light rail and the New Bus Network, public transport capacity into the city centre will increase by 150% above existing levels between 2018 and 2028. The number of people within a 30 minute rail journey if the city centre will double when City Rail Link is complete. Access for Everyone therefore
    reflects wider transformations in Aucklanders’ journey to and from the city centre.

Both of these look like fantastic proposals and ones that could have many benefits to all users of the city centre. Let’s hope the councillors vote to keep things going the way they are. Finally, while I hope I’m wrong, I’m anticipating some colourful commentary when some people realise the plan means they can’t just drive across the city like they’re used to.

Share this

96 comments

  1. I’m all in favour, provided that cycling and scooters are banned in pedestrian areas and the light rail is not seen as a means of PT for the airport. If it is a Pedestrian Area, it’s for walkers!

    1. Correct. LRT is not “a means of PT to the airport”. It’s a means of connecting the South to the city centre. The Airport is one singular stop on that line. It’s no more Light Rail to the airport than it is Light Rail to Smiths Sports Shoes on Dominion Road.

      1. We should call the LRT an airport line, but only if we rename SH1to the Cape Reinga – Bluff Highway and resize it appropriately; one bidirectional lane with a few passing bays ought to do it.

    2. Any transport that is not cars is a bonus, walking, biking and scooter. Allowing controlled provisioning for that would complement the pedestrian zone. Its better to control it rather than ignore it as people will bike and scooter on it anyway.

    3. I wouldn’t go too far to ban shared e-scooters given most of the people use it with care and consideration and it does provide access to short distance commute.

      It is mostly a few young kids that use the scooter dangerously need to be addressed. Those few people shouldn’t ruin the fun of everyone.

      Moving forward, the council should consider to add safe cycle/scooter lanes near the shoulder of the city road to encourage e-scooter to use those instead.

      Recently I have noticed a pink line along queen St, are those one the temporarily e-scooter lanes?

      1. I thought it was blue lines, I & my son were wondering about those, anyone know? Are they just like the blue etc dots on Federal St to help slow & make drivers more attentive?

        1. Nope they do this every year for the Santa Parade, it’s just the line to stand behind.

          Somewhat ironically, it’s pretty much a physical measure of how inadequate our pedestrian provision is for large crowds.

    4. That would be completely out of whack with most of the really good pedestrianized areas I have seen. They usually welcome bikes and other active transport. It is just a matter of people being courteous and moving at appropriate speeds.

    5. Strongly disagree with disallowing cycling in pedestrian areas, especially on the wider ones such as Queen Street. Cyclists and pedestrians generally work well together internationally, and we should be encouraging all modes of transport that aren’t car, especially cycling.

      Could see an argument for requiring cyclists to dismount on narrower laneways though, but most cyclists will likely do this anyway, or slow down significantly. Cyclists who want to use queen Street as a through route will likely use the parallel streets anyway to avoid having to weave through pedestrians, especially those who are not cycling casually.

      1. And the Dutch don’t call cycling just a faster version of walking for no reason! People on foot and bike are practically the same in kinetic energy, and are WAY below the dangers of going over 30kmph in a car.

  2. The zones idea would be great. It certainly works overseas. Good to see road and space reallocation being discussed upfront. But then Council’s been doing that for a while; it’s AT that interprets it in a somewhat limited way.

    The biggie is reducing the volume of traffic entering the city at each offramp. If the zones do their job, reduced lane numbers can cope with the reduced traffic. If the zones don’t do their job, reduced lanes are required to force it to happen.

    What’s exciting is that once they’ve done the zones idea in the central city, people will start to see how it can happen in the suburbs, too, and that’s when we really start to get a liveable city where it’s safe to move around actively, instead of our streets being ratruns.

    1. I’m hoping (but not hopeful) that the zones will see a reduction in the number of on/off ramps within the CBD entirely; a reduction in the lane count wouldn’t be a bad start, however.

      1. +1 Yip. It’s great they’re referencing places like Barcelona and Groningen, whose impressive gains from doing zone-like reorganisations have been chapmioned by GA and others for ages.

  3. Yes, there seem to have been some retained for some pretty dodgy reasons. The Wellington St and Symonds St ramps seem obvious ones to knock on the head now. However, you’d have to know the details of the zones plan to be sure what should be cut.

  4. What this appears to be really is all about is ensuring that those who work and live in the CBD will get, in essence, a walled city. Has Auckland’s CBD become some Mandarins play thing in Auckland Council to play games with?

    And yes I know there is quite a movement in AC at the moment to ensure this enshrined place, funded by all ratepayers, gets very special status such as the recently proposed 30 km/hr speed limit throughout the boundaries, now known as the “concrete collar”.

    Missing from your commentary but included in Heralds is “It also suggests there will be many other changes in the city, such as couriers using e-bikes for “last-mile” deliveries”. That’s right folks, your friendly NZ Courier will abandon his/her Hiace at a mythical car park (of course which there will be none they way some in AC are going) at the city’s walled limits, take out a 100 kg of freight, put it in a sack on their back and Lime Scooter across town to their delivery destination. What fffing ever!

    I run these streets for fitness and I do so because the the terrain is a challenge if not steep in places and just outright hilly in others even in our sub tropical humidity. And the funny thing is I can cope with motor vehicles just fine. But plenty find the hilly terrain too much, I can understand that. So “Access for Everyone” will only include access for those fit enough or have time enough to somehow find parking on the out ring of the CBD and find a way of getting in, in a very relaxed manner.

    I mean this fruity ideology defies reality. It is the CBD because a lot of business is in there. Cutting off access to evil motorists is hardly going to enhance that. Not unless of course the idea is to turn what was the CBD into a giant residential suburb and at that point it makes sense. But then again, if that is the case then why not do that for all suburbs? Possibly because its doomed to failure?

    1. Changed circumstances will result in new methods of organising courier deliveries and pickups. No doubt some space could be found just inside the entrance of some of the existing carpark buildings to establish courier depots to receive and collect parcels and base cart, cycle and foot deliveries for the last 500m.

    2. Waspman, multiple lanes of traffic are the wall around the city. Reducing those allows far better access for the people who use other modes. Whingeing about loss of access via car just continues the focus on the people who drive. Let’s look out for the children and the elderly instead, now, who need a far safer network for walking.

      We need to start in the city centre for reasons of geometry. But the concepts can be applied elsewhere, and will be easier to find public support for once the success in the city is clear to see.

      Because for some reason, the experience of so many cities overseas seems to be ignored by many. Can you shed some light on why people ignore the cities that have successfully deprioritised the car and made things safer, more pleasant, and more vibrant for the people on foot?

      1. How do the elderly, children and there infirmed get around Aucklands hIlly CBD with ease Heidi, especially from the perimeter of the exclusion zone?

          1. At least do some research on the needs of elderly people, Waspman, and on how progressive cities provide for their needs through healthy modes. The most important thing we can do is improve walking amenity.

            For those who absolutely must drive, or be driven, reducing the motorway-type multilane highways (Nelson St, Hobson St, etc) will make it far less stressful for them.

          2. The best thing we can do for those who are unable to walk is improve walking amenity, reduce through traffic and allow vehicle access to strategic locations. This makes it faster for the vehicle they’re in to get to where they need to go, easier to be dropped off and easier to manage the final part of the journey on crutches or in a wheelchair.

            Providing access for people with reduced mobility isn’t aligned with the with our current car focused way of thinking. For exsmple if you charge for parking people complain that their access is reduced. But what we could (should, even) do is charge heavily or onstreet parking while exempting or equally heavily subsidising people with mobility passes.

          3. From your comment you have obviously not had any real bad health issues.

            When I lived in the city and was being treated for Cancer I was unable to walk and not in any condition to take a bus. I also did not have a permanent issue which would have allowed me to have a mobility card. I had to use a car for transport.

            That Auckland DHB, AT and Auckland Council made my journeys hell by the wide spread use of speed bumps is a testament to there lack of empathy for the sick. Which is particularly disappointing from a Health Board. The speed humps at GreenLane Clinical Centre and the Cancer Centre being particularly bad news for patients.

          4. I’m sorry to hear about your health issues. That’s a tough journey. I hope you’re through it now.

            My comment was: “For those who absolutely must drive, or be driven, reducing the motorway-type multilane highways (Nelson St, Hobson St, etc) will make it far less stressful for them.”

            Luxated’s comment was: “improve walking amenity, reduce through traffic and allow vehicle access to strategic locations. This makes it faster for the vehicle they’re in to get to where they need to go, easier to be dropped off and easier to manage the final part of the journey on crutches or in a wheelchair.”

            What we have now doesn’t work. The cities in the world that have improved walking and cycling amenity are also the best places in the world to drive. Basically, driving takes up too much space, uses too many resources, and spoils things for too many people. It needs to be reserved for those who need it most.

          5. “Walk. Bus.” → I lived there, and no, it was not possible to get around within the CBD using buses. There were no usable east-west connections. The red link bus is there but runs in the bottom of a steep valley, in a wide L shape avoiding the most populated areas.

            If you’re with someone who is not 30 and fit, you would end up driving to K road or driving to Wynyard Quarter. That is how bad it was.

            The problems are the peculiar running patterns of the green and yellow link buses (making them in practice useless for these trips) and the lack of Wellesley Street busway. Both are yet to be solved.

            Line 75 is an improvement but does not have the reduced fare you have on the red link bus, and it has a confusing running pattern on Victoria Street and Wellesley Street.

          1. These articles need to use bold, italics, capital letters, flashing lights, etc, for the concern trolls.

            The article clearly stated vehicle access would be available for deliveries and for those with mobility issues.

            I had to laugh at the concerns for shopping though. That goes from strength to strength despite elimination of almost all carparks. If you need to drive to Queen St to shop, what do you do with the car when you get there? You probably drive out again and find a park elsewhere. Pointless.

          2. You have to remember people are looking at access using the currently available transport options, most which are all clustered at one end of town but also somehow all over the place in no logical order. In short, it’s shit.

            It becomes a very different proposition once the CRL stations open. Catch a train from West Auckland to Victoria St West, without having to walk 2km up Queen St? That’s a different kettle of fish. Hell, the only time I’d ever drive in is if I had to pick someone up late at night for safety reasons, which is maybe once or twice a year? Every other time I could just catch a train.

          3. Just gonna leave this here:

            Great for emergency services, disabled, delivery vehicles, etc.

            This and less traffic is gonna be awesome for these things.

        1. They get in on the RTN routes… buses down albert, LR down queen, CRL, buses down symonds, many cycle and walking access points… That’s how everyone gets in. Did you read the post?

        2. Did you not bother reading the article? If so then there are plenty of articles on Stuff for you to comment on.

          There are no plans to ban cars, just prioritise the majority of people in the CBD who don’t use a car. There are loads of PT options for elderly to get around on and most will get them much closer to their destination than the nearest carpark.

          1. I did Jezza;

            “Campbell-Reid is the author of the report going to council next week, called City Centre Masterplan 2040. He and the council’s chief strategy officer, Jim Quinn, have spoken exclusively to the Herald about the plans”.

            “Access for Everyone is completely new for the city centre,” Campbell-Reid says. “It’s not just Queen St, it’s the whole valley. We don’t know all the details yet about how we’re going to do it. That wouldn’t be right at this stage. This is a plan that leads us towards that.”

            And as I have answered below, if the standard sought is for special provision for emergency vehicle access and e bike couriers then you can best believe its pretty much a motor vehicle ban, for the whole valley!

          2. The plan clearly states that traffic would enter and exit in cells, a clear statement that traffic would still be allowed in the CBD.

            That is clearly laid out in the report yet you choose to focus on some inference that you have made that suggests otherwise.

            Why would we continue to allow unfettered access to the CBD to anyone who wants to use it as a thoroughfare or just drive around looking for a park, just in case some old infirm person with enough money to afford a park outside the shop they want to go to can still get there without having to drive round a couple more blocks?

        3. Waspman, unfettered car access is a net disadvantage to children and the disabled. It is a long wait before children can get a drivers licence, and even longer before they have the funds to run a car. Immaturity and reduced mobility seriously impinges the ability to mix it with cars on the pedestrian phase of every journey. There are many other disabilities , many almost inevitable in old age, that totally remove the driving yourself around option.
          Already the improved public transport options and pedestrian amenity in Auckland are in fact dramatically improving transit options for children and the disabled. For most of them cars, actually curtail independance.
          Whilst we could free up a lot of capital by selling up here in Auckland and moving to the provinces, the almost certain inevitability of losing our ability to drive safely well before our total loss of independance , makes a move to a public transport desert completely unattractive.

      2. My issue is this; “Access for Everyone”.

        Crosby Textor, the grand masters of truth inversion could have written the horse manure that has been put out on this subject that I have read in the Herald. The “Access for Everyone” objective is based firmly on the exclusion of the most used means of transport in the country. That excludes people and we are not all fit groovy worldly young things. And Auckland is not Christchurch built on a flat plain.

        When I read bullshit lines like that, it truly makes me wonder why. Why use spin or lies because it that what it is, dressing something up to be something that it cannot possibly deliver and when you have to to that there is a problem. And the likes of the users of Crosby Textor think we are all thick and won’t question the proposition.

        It reeks of someone or someones have a vested interest in this scheme and I could imagine they live in the CBD and what this vision outlines is what suits them.

        I see the benefits of reduced traffic but to the near total exclusion of motor vehicles, because that is the bottom line when having e bike couriers and special provisions to allow emergency vehicles in the exclusive zone, is totally unrealistic.

        And I promise I don’t listen to ZB or Radio Live.

        1. “The “Access for Everyone” objective is based firmly on the exclusion of the most used means of transport in the country. That excludes people and we are not all fit groovy worldly young things.”

          The most used means of transport in the country is walking – it is part of every journey. Driving, gets lots of ‘mosts’ though – the most damaging environmentally, socially, financially, and spacially. Through the space it hogs, it excludes a lot of people and imposes an unhealthy lifestyle and commute time on many.

          We are not all fit; that’s for sure. And our car dominated transport network is the main reason for that. But we’re all groovy, in our own ways. I’m sure you’re groovy, Waspman. Not many people realise I’m groovy. But I am on the inside.

    3. There is already a courier company using e-bikes for parcel delivery (On a Mission). It’s easier to get around on a bike apparently.

        1. I (seriously) just saw a delivery E-bike this morning, with a 55” TV being delivered. Going down SH1 and turning into a main arterial road. There’s pretty much nothing that can’t actually be delivered by bike if you set your mind to it.

          As it was an e-bike, the courier wasn’t even peddling hard at the time.

        2. Well yeah…hence it won’t be for all items, hence access being available for delivery vehicles! At least read the quotes you make!

          Take your car to the Mall mate, you can walk around the Mall with Newstalk ZB blasting in your earphones to your hearts content, limiting CBD access has massive support all over, time to let it go.

          1. Wow Joe, don’t like dissent do you? “Troll”, now a “ZB” listener going to the mall, “mate”, with my car. You could add to the mall of low life ordinary people, which is what you are getting at, but in my V8 diesel SUV with the emission gear removed listening to rugby replays. You could have thrown in alternating my listening to Radio Sport with Mark Richardson as the host.

            Or should I join the groupthink with my embracing of an E bike that has massive support and pretend I am saving the world?

          2. While I disagree with Waspman on his argument, sanctimony isn’t going to help get buy in from the wider, non-specifically PT interested citizens

          3. “Or should I join the groupthink with my embracing of an E bike that has massive support and pretend I am saving the world?”

            Yes that sounds great.

        3. But he doesn’t have an argument, that is the point. There are a clear problems identified in which we need to address; growing population, accessibility to CBD, reduce emissions to name a few, as of yet he offers no solution, only a ‘it won’t work/I don’t want change’ offering. Then belittles any suggestion made to at least try and resolve the problems idetified, suing concern for demographics as a mask aka concern trolling.

          So whilst of course, my comments are tongue in cheek around how they get around or their radio and shopping habits, my concern that people like this are usually the loudest heard and halt the progress which is so desperately needed.

    4. Waspman – why would the courier driver get out of their van and go and deliver items on an e-scooter? There are 50,000 people who live in the CBD, if the courier companies can run a distribution base from Invercargill then there is no reason they can’t run one from the CBD.

      A truck comes in with all the parcels and the couriers head out on their bikes or paxters and deliver them.

      1. Given as we have learned that in the competitive space of couriers, that the drivers get exploited to a disgraceful extent, it will be these drivers or couriers who have to bear the financial burden. Either that or the less likely case that the cost of freight goes up exponentially to compensate.

        1. Why would the cost of freight go up? The plan would mean much less traffic for the couriers to deal with, which would more than counter any increased expenses from a different delivery model, if there are any.

    5. Thank you time traveller from the 1980s. Apparently you have missed the last three decades of urban development and the changes that have proved absolutely everything you just aid wrong.

      Even in Sydney and Melbourne only about 15% of people travelling to the CBD use a car. Auckland has heaps of room to move.

    6. Let’s get some facts straight: you would still be able to drive a car, van or truck to every street in the CBD. The restriction is that through traffic is limited to a number of traffic priority corridors, Mayoral Drive and Customs St specifically. All other streets would have a local access function only.

      So what does this mean for couriers and deliveries? Wonderful things actually. They will be able to drive their delivery run without being caught in queues of cars waiting to turn left and right at every little intersection in the CBD. They won’t have to duke it out with cars circling the block and trying to parallel park on the offisde of High Street. They won’t have to go three times round the block because they cant drive down Hobson Street. When they get to their destination, they’ll be able to stop for two minutes right in front of where they need to go, then get away immediately after.

      Yes they might have a somewhat circuitous trip to go from Wyndham Street to Shortland Street via Mayoral Drive, or whatever, but they will be much faster overall by not being delayed by cars, parking and queues.

      This already happens. I’ve talked to the couriers on O’Connell Street and Elliot, they love it. They can get in, do their thing and get out in a minute or two. Compared to High Street or Queen where it is almost impossible for them to either move or stop.

      Right now, couriers stop in O’Connell Street and carry or hand truck their parcels to shops on HIgh Street. Why? Because they can’t get into high street, can’t stop and can’t get out again because of the parked cars and queues of traffic.

      This same thing goes for the mobility impaired: Driving close to where people need to be will be far quicker and easier. Dropping off or picking someone up on a shared space street it far easier than doing so on an arterial filled with through traffic. Driving across town from one mobility carpark to a drop off zone or a parking building on the other side will be much easier. And of course, unloading and moving around once you get there is far easier.

      If you think the status quo works for the mobility impaired, go pick someone on crutches or a wheelchair from Nelson Street, then go with them to a destination on Queen or Symonds.

      Then tell me how having every single road, side street and lane flooded with through traffic helps that.

    7. Ljubljana, Slovenia, has a great solution for those who find the walk difficult (elderly, families, people carrying groceries) with bus like electric golf carts (seat about 8 people) that cruise around town drop them off where required. I don’t know about other car free city centers because I haven’t been to any others, but surely they all employ similar solutions and address the issue

  5. How do bring some items forward for action now?

    How we ensure Council does not spend $1.8 million on reinstating the Wynyard tram, and spends that instead on pedestrianising Queen St now?

    1. The tram is wasted unless they put in a new bridge or connect it to the Viaduct/Quay precinct somehow. That’s going to cost $1.8m.

      Put that money into designing a Queen St + stream + LRT + walking area from Victoria St to Beach Rd and then start digging stuff up.

      1. Yes, that’d be nice. But if $1.5 million Canadian was enough to cover the actual works (not just a business case, not just a design) for removing through traffic from King St, adding 20,000 transit riders overnight and increasing cycling by 440%, we can do that too.

        I think I heard last night at the Auckland Conversations, that they’re now producing a business case for Wayfinding? Nice, but… how about, “Wayfinding is necessary. Let’s do this.” and spending the money on actually doing it??

        1. I can write that business now (While walking):

          Wayfinding is proven internationally to work and be cost effective, surveys of the public indicate that improved wayfinding is highly desirable. Trial roll outs around the following town centres and RTN stations will be used to identify effective designs and sign locations. Local surveys will be used at each site both pre and post treatment to measure the trials effectiveness. Estimated coatings are <$1M per site.

          Invoice is in the mail Ludo.

        1. They don’t have to roll in tomorrow as this company will be laying the tracks and electrics which aren’t needed until the tunnels are complete. Plenty of time for another company to be engaged. Tomlinson may complete existing work or who ever buys them may.

      1. Maybe not but we seem to be running out of large infra construction companies who are interested in doing the CRL. Time perhaps to call in the Chinese tunnellers. Doesn’t bode good either for LR construction.

        1. Nothing like a good, stead work flow to allow the companies to plan, I suppose. The light rail programme needs a long-term commitment.

      1. Tomlinson are not related to the tunneling contracts, they have a contract for tracks and signals, something that will be done late in the project.

        1. Also the NZ company in contract with the CRL work is not in receivership like it’s parent in Australia….they expect they will carry on to the end of the contract, but a bit unclear if I understand it correctly.

    1. Ho ho ho Vance. I can just hear the glee in your voice. Merry xmas to you.
      It’s not as if any roading contractor has ever gone bust……….
      Keep sucking the lemons.

  6. The Grafton gully is long due. This area will be activated by the new carlaw to Parnell station connection, as well as albert park tunnel.

    Also are there any news about the place-making upgrade of Victoria precinct (sales st area)?

  7. Do we really need a “refresh” and another 20yr plan to get private cars out of Queen St?

    It could be done tomorrow. Cross town traffic could stay in the interim. Surely better to do that, leaving it as a walking, cycling and PT (buses) corridor, with options for delivery, emergency vehicles and those with mobility issues.

    Lets do that, stand back and envisage what it would be when LR replaces the buses. See what works and what doesnt. Then do the “refresh”.

    1. Exactly. A few of those bollards that sink into the ground like in Wynyard quarter so that buses can get in and you are done. See how it goes for a year or so.

      But no, in Auckland we have to ask every bloody person for their opinion. Just do it!

  8. Thank christ someone’s doing something about the Strand: it’s a shocker. I run along there regularly; only one side of the Strand is useable for pedestrians as the other is blocked with cars on the “pavement”.

    1. It’s one of those parts of town that if you have to go to it, you make sure you don’t bring the kids. Which is unacceptable for being so close to town, Parnell, the waterfront, the university, the Strand Station, the Domain (Oh, the Domain, let’s talk about walking in the Domain!)

      To do it well, they’ll need to provide great separation between the trucks from the port and active modes. Space. Greenery. Barriers.

      All of which means space for the general traffic needs to be minimised.

    2. How far are you planning on pushing anything non-white collar businesses out of the CBD? Last time I checked, the Strand wasn’t in the CBD.

      1. Pedestrian safety and amenity incompatible with non-white collar business? Where did a type of business get the mandate to create an unsafe public space environment? Perhaps we could try some new ideas: Why don’t we try to remove the white collar workers driving through the area to commute, so the road infrastructure can cater to the port trucks and local businesses?

        1. I’m confused; the only parking on the footpath I’ve ever seen on the Strand is down by the mechanics at the bottom of Parnell. Everywhere else is incredibly tightly monitored by AT (Source: I worked in the area and had to drive).

          For what it’s worth, I personally would rather see the Strand activated as a historic place, given it is the former natural shoreline. Perhaps shunting the traffic over to one side and opening up a green belt next to it would be positive.

          But there’s no getting away from the Beach Rd/Strand areas being some of the few industrial areas within the City people tend to forget about things that don’t happen in offices when it comes to employment in cities.

          1. I agree; we need to keep the industrial focus. I’d like to see a concept plan for that idea. The area needs less road corridor given to cars, and perhaps some changes to entrance ways so there’s less length of footpath that is actually vehicle crossing would help, too.

  9. I like these plans, need more time to look into it again but think it will work well for all with the cross journeys by general traffic done around Mayoral Drive etc. The current complexity of Queen St and general traffic is rediculous

    1. Cute, eh? “the logistical challenges of bringing trains back into the town’s CBD would simply be too great.” Compare this to almost any sentence from his company’s webpage. Eg. “Contemporary challenges require modern and open minds…” or “When it hasn’t been done before, when no apparent solution can be seen, when no blueprint on how it can be done exists that’s when we step forward…” Hmmm, but when it has been done before, when the blueprint already exists… that’s when the logistics are too great?

    2. Meek bullshit. Consultant paid by Fonterra to try and pour cold water on reopening the line through a Fonterra plant.

      If fonterra build a factory either side of a rail line then great for them, but they don’t actually own the rail corridor and they might one day have to deal with trains running on the train route.

      Otherwise it’s super simple to reinstate the rail line to the town centre, you don’t even need a resource consent to add rail tracks back to a rail designation.

      Compare this to the Onehunga branch, about the same length, same number of level crossings, etc. I’d say about $15m including ten level crossings and a new station.

Leave a Reply