East St cycleway. “AT can move fast when other priorities are involved” – Councillors

Last week, some correspondence about Auckland Transport’s performance was made public in the agenda of the upcoming Waitematā Local Board meeting.

Councillor Coom’s Report to the Waitematā Local Board, July 2021 included an appendix titled,

Correspondence with Auckland Transport regarding the delivery of “Healthy Streets” and the cycling programme

The first piece of correspondence is from the Mayor to the Chair of the Board of Auckland Transport.

The second, from Councillors Bartley, Coom, Darby and Hills, describes:

the excuses [they] have heard from Auckland Transport, and [their] belief that these excuses are not relevant or have been overplayed… issues with non-delivery relate more to issues of internal culture & siloed thinking

The Councillors called for:

a fundamental reset of cycling policy and delivery within Auckland Transport.

and are firm on this key point:

AT has the mandate and CCO structure to enable it to deliver “healthy streets” without further political direction

Auckland Transport took a full three months to respond and directly rejected many of the Councillors’ concerns.

A major shakeup is overdue.

Below are the three pieces of correspondence in full.

Letter from Phil Goff, Mayor of Auckland, to Adrienne Young-Cooper, Chair of the Board of Auckland Transport, 16 March 2021

16 March 2021

Adrienne Young-Cooper
Auckland Transport

By email

Tēnā koe Adrienne

Thank you for the work your team has done on the ATAP package and for working closely with Auckland Council to ensure this was passed unanimously.

However, following discussions on ATAP as well as the RLTP, councillors raised a number of concerns regarding the performance of Auckland Transport in particular areas.

The overarching concern was around the modelled increase in emissions over the next decade, though concerns were also expressed around Auckland Transport’s delivery in a range of areas that could support emissions reduction. A key concern is the slow pace of delivering cycling infrastructure in Auckland.

At the Thursday 11 March Extraordinary Planning Committee, a motion was passed which included a request that Auckland Transport “ensures more rapid, and flexible delivery of cycle infrastructure”. The Minister of Transport also indicated in a recent letter to me that he too has concerns regarding the delivery of safe cycling infrastructure.

Following February’s Planning Committee workshop on ATAP, the Chair & Deputy Chair of both the Planning Committee and the Environment & Climate Change Committee approached me with their concerns, which will be forwarded to you.

Auckland Transport’s explanations on this matter to date have not been fully satisfactory. It appears that cycling projects suffer unnecessary complications in delivery, have become more expensive than necessary and even once delivered, regularly suffered from a range of design shortcomings. There also needs to be a focus on joined up cycleways capable of maximizing the use of cycles for transport purposes to have the greatest impact on minimizing carbon emissions.

I am not convinced cycling has sufficient support with the Auckland Transport structure, which appears to be required to ensure projects can move through the design, consultation & delivery processes at the appropriate pace, while noting the need to respond to particular community concerns.

I propose that I meet with yourself and your CEO Shane Ellison to discuss these matters with Councillors Darby, Hills, Bartley and Cooms who raised these issues. My office will be in touch to arrange an appropriate time.

Ngā mihi
Phil Goff

Copy to: Shane Ellison, CEO, Auckland Transport

Concerns laid out by Councillors Bartley, Coom, Darby and Hills, 17 March 2021

17.3.21 – Outline of concerns regarding the delivery of “Healthy Streets” and the cycling programme

We are concerned at the slow and often ineffectual or non-delivery by Auckland Transport of the cycleway programme and a range of “healthy streets” projects. These projects have the potential to address many key challenges Auckland faces, including but not limited to:

  • encourage active transport and health benefits this brings
  • reduce car dependency,
  • tackle transport inequality,
  • respond to a post-Covid recovery to meet the increased demand to get around locally by bike, micro mobility or on foot
  • the rapid uptake of e-mobility, including e-bikes and e-scooters
  • reduce deaths and serious injuries of vulnerable road users, and
  • put us on a pathway to meet our agreed emissions targets.

This paper outlines what we consider to be the range of barriers that need to be broken down and our response to a number of non-delivery excuses we have heard from Auckland Transport in recent memo’s and workshops. It is also shaped by stories we have been told from local board members, cycling advocates, members of the community and our discussions with people in the industry.

Given the range of concerns we believe there needs to be a fundamental reset of cycling policy and delivery within Auckland Transport. We would like to meet the AT CEO and Board Chair with the Mayor to discuss and to agree on the next steps to put AT on track with clear political direction and support.

  1. Background

The Urban Cycleways Programme was launched by the National Government in 2014 and became a $333 million fund. In Auckland 15 projects were funded, and projects were expected to be completed by 2018.

Out of the 15 Auckland projects announced in 2015, public information suggests that 5 have been fully completed, a further 4 are expected to be completed this year, 2 have been partially completed, and 4 are on hold. The latest information supplied to us suggest that the remaining projects will only be complete by 2023, 9 years after the initial announcement and 5 years late.

The Cycling Programme Business Case was signed off by the Auckland Transport Board in August 2017. This recommended a $635 million investment in cycling over the next decade, which would deliver on the Auckland Plan target to deliver 70% of the Auckland Cycle Network by 2030.

There has been no clear progress in the Walking and Cycling Programme since 2018, with the exception of some local business case work in several priority areas which we have very limited visibility of. Part of the budget appears to have be subsumed into the broader Connected Communities programme, again of which we have not seen clear progress in the last three years.

In terms of budget, figures supplied by Auckland Transport suggest that AT fell well behind delivery in 2018/19, underspending by $34 million, and since then have fallen a further $15 million behind planned spend, despite the reported cost increases.

  2. Excuses for non-delivery

We have raised the issue of non-delivery of cycling projects with Auckland Transport for some time at several meetings, workshops as well as email correspondence with senior staff. The answers we have received have been unsatisfactory and have not matched the experience we have had talking with communities, as well as our previous experience as local board members championing local projects. This section lays out the excuses we have heard from Auckland Transport, and our belief that these excuses are not relevant or have been overplayed.

Community “opposition” and there is “no demand”

There have been a few high-profile projects that have put AT in the firing line for community opposition. However, AT has often over played this as an issue and used it as an excuse for non-delivery. We’re confident we’ve reached a tipping point of consensus that we need to act for the well-being of our communities, emissions reductions and health outcomes.

Since 2011 there has consistently been public support for investing in cycling, people friendly streets and safety around schools.

The Great North Road improvements project, just one example of the many issues with AT’s approach, is on to the third round of consultation since 2016. This project was strongly supported in the first round but got caught up in the issues with the Surrey Cres/Garnet Rd cycleway in 2017, even  though Great North Road was a completely separate project. The project has since become part of the large Connected Communities programme, which has had little visible progress despite being a flagship programme.

We recognise the tension between AT delivering “healthy streets” at pace and public consultation requirements. However, we believe that AT is over complicating processes where there is no requirement to re-consult on agreed political outcomes, plans and strategies. We want to see AT take advantage of the CCO governance structure to deliver healthy streets and not to hide behind “consultation” as an excuse not to make hard decisions. It is politicians who get voted out if we get it wrong not AT management!

Roads are too “narrow”

Many of Auckland’s main roads were built around tram routes. The problem isn’t that these routes (and the majority of roads on the Auckland cycle network) are too narrow but that AT is unwilling to reprioritise road space. One of the reasons why we have a transport CCO is so the organisation can make tough calls without political interference if it is in the best interests of all road users and to deliver agreed objectives.

At the moment AT wants it both ways leading to poor decision making. For example $9m has been invested in the “temporary” Victoria Street cycleway that delivers a substandard level of service. There are a number of high-risk conflict areas between PT users, pedestrians, riders and drivers along the route.

AT has conceded “they wouldn’t design it like this now” but compromised the project because management would not sign off on necessary changes to the road corridor. Following a site visit (photo above), the board chair made it clear to staff that road space might have to be re-allocated and that these big calls should be brought to the AT Board rather than left with management to decide in favour of the status quo, which is the type of direction we would like to see.

  3. Barriers

Rather than the excuses we identified above we believe issues with non-delivery relate more to issues of internal culture & siloed thinking that predominates. Cycling also lacks the internal profile needed across Auckland Transport, given cycling projects often challenge status quo thinking and require compromises to be made.

Lack of internal champions

Auckland Transport’s walking and cycling team was disbanded in 2018, and since that time there has been no single manager responsible for leading AT’s cycling programme. At the time the CEO  said “that active transport had become a priority for the whole organisation and a steering group, led by a member of the executive, would help ensure it stayed that way”. However, we have seen examples time and time again that demonstrate this is not true or not working. It is not clear to us if this steering group exists, and which member of the ELT is championing cycling in the organisation.

Just some recent examples of this apparent failing includes new projects reinforcing the status quo even when on the agreed cycle network, renewals failing to make improvements for walking and cycling (despite budget available from local boards) and the lack of leadership around responding quickly to lockdown, opportunities for innovating streets funding as well as identified quick wins.

We recognise that the CEO and AT Board Chair have a big task turning around an organisation that was originally focussed on optimising vehicle efficiency at the expense of all other modes, however all the signs are that there hasn’t been the internal cultural and organisational change that was signalled in 2018.
There appears to be a layer of management who are able to block progressive changes and carry on “business as usual”. Just some examples include:

  • cycling projects not progressing (actively blocked) if to do so would impact AT’s revenue stream from on street parking.
  • Response to innovating streets projects such as resisting efforts to remove car parks.

We know that AT can move fast when other priorities are involved. For example, this cycleway connection on East St (connecting Lightpath to Karangahape Road) appeared in less than a week in response to safety around the CRL project development. This project required the removal of one lane of traffic and parking.


It is promising to see the commitment to walking and cycling funding in the ATAP and RLTP. We are concerned, however, that AT has not drawn down on all funding currently available from Waka Kotahi and is going to lose the remaining UCP funds for the outstanding elements of that programme. AT is also having to play catch up for years of under-delivery even when funding was available.  For example, of the total 2018/18 budget over $52m actual spend was just under $18m.

As AT has highlighted the costs of delivery have increased especially as “cycling” projects are expected to deliver a range of streetscape upgrades. It appears AT have accepted that cycling projects now cost $8 million per kilometre, and this is being quoted repeatedly in different contexts as reasons (another excuse) for slow progress with the available budget. While some projects such as the Karangahape Road upgrade (and others in town centres) are going to be expensive, this approach is not required on arterial roads or quiet streets. AT must work harder to deliver cycling projects at a more reasonable per kilometre cost.

These cost challenges make it even more important for AT to leverage local board budgets, innovating streets funding and other budgets such as renewals to deliver “pop up” infrastructure cheaply and quickly and fix gaps in the network.

As mentioned, we don’t believe the organisation has the internal structure or willingness to do this currently.


Auckland doesn’t have agreed mode shift targets that AT is working towards. There are different targets in the Auckland Plan, recommended by the Climate Change Commission and in AT’s SOI.

The measure of “kilometres of new cycleway added to the regional cycleway network” in the SOI, has resulted in AT is reporting every new metre of “cycling” infrastructure being delivered in Auckland regardless of funding source and location. The figures supplied for cycleways delivered in 2019/20 includes paths through parks funded 100% by Auckland Council & Local Boards, as well as cycleways delivered as part of other roading projects which generally do not aid delivery of a connected network. Only one of the 9 cycleways delivered in 2019/20 was part of the Urban Cycleway Programme, and this was just 200m in length.

In the latest Quarterly Report AT states the Herne Bay “cycleway” will contribute 3.8km towards the 7km of cycleways AT plan to deliver this year despite the fact this project doesn’t deliver any separated infrastructure, but is purely a traffic calming project! This does not match our understanding that this target was intended to measure progress on the Urban Cycleways and Walking & Cycling Programme.

Even with this approach AT has failed to deliver the (very modest) cycleway target every year other than 15/16. To deliver their cycling programme agreed by the AT Board in 2018 15km a year needs to be delivered and we’re not even seeing 10km.

AT has lost sight of the importance of delivering a connected, safe network at speed and with urgency (to achieve the “network effect” – as presented to the AT Board in 2017). There is no one in the organisation with this vision and mandate to deliver.

We would like to see meaningful mode shift targets and updated measures in the SOI focused on “healthy streets” outcomes.

  Next Steps

Arguably AT has the mandate and CCO structure to enable it to deliver “healthy streets” without further political direction. For example, clear outcomes are included in the Auckland Plan; the Parking Strategy supports prioritising key routes; and emission reduction targets and climate actions have been agreed.

However, given the range of barriers and issues that have resulted in slow and inadequate delivery to meet agreed outcomes we believe there needs to be a fundamental reset of cycling policy and delivery within Auckland Transport, which we would like to discuss further how this can be progressed.

Prepared by Councillors Bartley, Coom, Darby and Hills
Date: 17 March 2021

Response from Adrienne Young-Cooper, Chair, Auckland Transport, 17 June, 2021

17 June 2021

Phil Goff
Mayor of Auckland
Private Bag 92300
Auckland 1142

Tēnā koe Mayor Goff

Cycling Infrastructure

Your recent feedback to Auckland Transport (AT) on our performance in the delivery of cycling infrastructure in Tamaki Makaurau is important to us. We understand your concerns, and your need for more rapid and flexible delivery of cycle infrastructure.

The effective delivery of cycle infrastructure is critical in addressing the actual and perception of safety for people cycling, supporting Auckland’s emission reduction targets, reducing congestion through mode shift, and improving health and transport equity for all Aucklanders. We understand this and are committed to it.

It is a significant task. Redesigning transport corridors to include safe cycling infrastructure often necessitates reallocating space in the transport corridor to reduce vehicle traffic lanes and road side parking. This can result in heated and difficult conversations as part of our community consultation. We are challenging the way Aucklanders think about and use our transport corridors and have a large inflight programme to prioritise the allocation of road space for high efficiency vehicles (buses and high occupancy vehicles), cycle infrastructure and walking and environmental services. We very rarely widen the transport corridor or have a sufficiently wide existing corridor to easily install cycle infrastructure and maintain parking and vehicle lanes for private low occupancy vehicles.

AT’s role as planner and integrator of all these programmes is important to ensure the needs of our customers are integrated into this activity, and to maintain a strategic view of the cycling infrastructure network. Auckland Council’s role in providing the political direction is critical, as is its presence and leadership in our conversations with our communities, and its acknowledgement and support for the trade-offs that are required to achieve its goals.

Progress is being made to build a network of safe cycling facilities. AT has achieved its 2020/21 Statement of Intent (SOI) target of adding five kilometres of new cycleway (5.25km of new cycleways delivered as of April 2021). Tranche 1 of the Urban Cycling Programme (UCP) will be completed by the end of 2021, including the upcoming completion of Tamaki Drive Cycleway (estimated September 2021) and New Lynn to Avondale Cycleway (estimated November 2021). Tranche 2 of the UCP is planned to be completed by the end of the upcoming RLTP period (2021-24).

In addition to the delivery of cycling facilities, AT is improving safety outcomes and accelerating the uptake of cycling through delivery of behaviour change initiatives and engagement programmes with schools, businesses and communities. Initiatives include a wide range of events, cycle network activations, cycle skills training and marketing campaigns.

Our draft Regional Land Transport Programme for 2021-31 provides for the delivery of a further 199 kilometres of safe cycling facilities by Auckland Transport and Waka Kotahi across the region. When combined with the investment from other agencies, the next decade will see a significant shift. In addition, the approved Auckland Housing Brownfields Programme Business Case includes further safe cycling facilities, which are planned to be delivered with partners (Kāinga Ora) in the next decade from the $401m allocation in the 2021-31 RLTP for projects supporting the Auckland  Housing Programme.

More agencies have a role to play going forward in the delivery of cycling infrastructure for Tamaki Makaurau. AT’s delivery programme sits alongside traditional cycling infrastructure delivery agencies such as Waka Kotahi, Kainga Ora (e.g. Auckland Housing Programme) and Eke Panuku, as well as private developers and Auckland Council’s Parks and Recreation Team.

Moving forward Auckland needs to get the benefits of the investment and programmes being delivered by all these agencies in a much more integrated and prioritised manner. Separate projects and funding buckets do produce disjointed outcomes.

There are several changes we can make to the way we work to respond to your concerns.

Having a clear strategic direction and mandate from Auckland Council is critical. The Independent Review of Auckland Council’s Council Controlled Organisations highlighted that improved outcomes could be achieved be ensuring that CCOs have clear strategic direction. There are opportunities for Council to strengthen this direction for cycling, and to acknowledge and provide support for the trade-offs that are needed. Like AT, the Council needs to “own” and influence the entire delivery programme for cycle infrastructure, especially the huge contribution from Waka Kotahi as both funding and delivery agency.

AT is undertaking a full review of the Auckland strategic cycling network. We expect this review to re-test the strategic network strategy assumptions (such as the types of trips that contribute to mode shift) and objectives; to review our standards and their application, to review evidence of providing small amount of high quality infrastructure against the provision of a more extensive network of  lower (but safe) quality infrastructure; and to re-test the contribution that cycling makes to first and last mile journeys from transport hubs. The continued support of Council in this review on our  Political Reference Group is important, and its final outputs would benefit from formal consideration by Auckland Council’s Planning Committee in addition to the AT Board.

Visible leadership is important. We propose to establish a new single point of leadership within AT, to oversee cycling outcomes, including those set out in the Statement of Intent. The Cycling Outcomes Lead, a new tier three (senior manager) position, would be the advocate for cycling outcomes across planning and prioritisation, would oversight design and delivery by all agencies, oversight AT’s behaviour change programmes, lead engagement with stakeholders on the cycling programme, take responsibility for overseeing the communication of a joined-up cycling story independent of which agency delivers or maintains cycling infrastructure, and ensure cycling facilities are considered and positioned within our wider transport system challenges.

Telling the Auckland cycling story (regardless of who delivers the infrastructure) to a wide range of stakeholders with multiple perspectives both in outcome and in geography needs to be done effectively. To support the Cycling Outcomes Lead we will nominate a dedicated resource in our Strategic Communications team for developing and maintaining this story for multiple audiences, and optimising opportunities to celebrate our achievements together.

Noting the amount of cycling facilities that other agencies will deliver, and AT’s role as planner and integrator, it’s important that we are able to take an integrated network view of progress and operational issues which need to be solved. In that context we propose to extend our Cycling Infrastructure Steering Group membership to incorporate officers from Waka Kotahi, Kāinga Ora, Eke Panuku and Auckland Council’s Parks and Recreation department in recognition of the contribution those organisations make to cycling outcomes in Auckland. We will test their plans and priorities to ensure we minimise perverse outcomes of for example major new cycle routes funded and delivered by Waka Kotahi with no local connections funded.

Finally, we propose to examine how we can improve the alignment and coordination of physical works in the road corridor across all our programmes of work to achieve, where possible a dig once approach, to enable better efficiencies and to articulate a clear story about why we can, or in some cases cannot incorporate cycling improvements into maintenance and renewal works. Where this requires re-consideration of existing funding allocations then we will raise this matter with Auckland Council if this is required.

AT is committed to the delivery of cycle outcomes for Auckland. The significant changes outlined above, together with Auckland Council’s support, will go some way to improving our performance and better enable us to meet Auckland Council’s expectations more effectively.

Yours sincerely
Adrienne Young-Cooper
Chair, Auckland Transport

cc. Shane Ellison, Chief Executive, Auckland Transport

Share this


  1. The response is genuinely pathetic but not really unexpected

    What is sad is the limp response on twitter from Darby and Coons who state tragic platitudes about how the Board isn’t the problem and how we’re making progress, which is such obvious nonsense that it should be blindingly obvious

    If the Board can’t drive change within the organisation then they should be dumped. Clearly the organisation does not care for cycling, you can’t tell me we couldn’t institute a crash programme of separated cycleways on every major arterial as they all have centre medians wasting space for no purpose

    1. Exactly – there’s no shortage of space on those arterials. The only thing they’re short of is the will to do it.

    2. Yes. They had two options for an appropriate response:

      – Explain how they’re going to entirely reinvent the organisation to start delivering.
      – Tender their resignation.

    3. “You can’t tell me we couldn’t institute a crash programme of separated cycleways on every major arterial as they all have centre medians wasting space for no purpose”

      THIS! On every major arterial.

  2. This: “Like AT, the Council needs to “own” and influence the entire delivery programme for cycle infrastructure”

    Then who is running the cycleway program? It should not be too hard yet it is too hard for them.

  3. I am guessing AT’s Chair did not write all that response herself. Do we know who did? Are they part of the ‘clay’ that all these leaders seem incapable of digging out?

    1. Word has it either Shane the CEO wrote it or Hamish Bunn wrote it.
      Whatever or whoever it was it was crap, but the response from the Councillors is equally crap.

    2. When she had the response given her, she should have seen the problems with it herself – or if incapable of that, sought independent advice before signing it.

  4. “Articulate a clear story” God give me strength.

    Why are they proposing things. They’re paid to do them. This endless cycle of self-examination at the expense of their actual core function is a black hole for energy being expended on things that are their whole reason for existing.

    1. Just 3 quotes from that letter:

      “AT is undertaking a full review of the Auckland strategic cycling network”

      This is surely more delay, and the inevitable reduction of long ago finished plans and strategies.

      The letter clearly states they can’t imagine where the network can possibly go, so how can they be competent to review existing plans?:

      “We very rarely widen the transport corridor or have a sufficiently wide existing corridor to easily install cycle infrastructure and maintain parking and vehicle lanes for private low occupancy vehicles.” (Hint: the current low value use of space you mention is exactly the opportunity)

      “More agencies have a role to play going forward in the delivery of cycling infrastructure for Tamaki Makaurau. AT’s delivery programme sits alongside traditional cycling infrastructure delivery agencies such as Waka Kotahi, Kainga Ora (e.g. Auckland Housing Programme) and Eke Panuku, as well as private developers and Auckland Council’s Parks and Recreation Team.“

      Desperately dreaming that some other groups; those responsible for parks or motorways, can do it instead. Not the one single agency with total control of all Auckland’s roads and streets? Cross agency cooperation is expected, but this is clearly and squarely a core AT role.

      Is all so sad, so much time has been lost, and all the evidence in the world is there for the value of such a network; for improving safety for all road users, reducing harms, pollution, and congestion, enabling greater equity. But also that it is the absence of a sufficiently connected well enough protected network that holds back our city from reaping these rewards.

      1. ‘we very rarely widen the transport corridor’

        So we can take the property purchase costs out of the RLTP. That’ll free up a bit of money.

      2. Do AT even support/allow other agencies to deliver cycleways when they want to? Who takes responsibility within AT for coordinating/enabling this if there is no cycling team? The maintenance team? The Metro team? The comms team?

        1. Yes, most of the main cycle routes developed lately have been NZTA led projects.
          The eastern cycleway along the rail corridor for example.

        2. but those projects are not on AT controlled land so doubt AT would even have any say on the matter?
          I’m talking about AT allowing other orgs to put down cycling infra on the assets they control i.e. streets.

  5. So many, not all, board directors are complacent, lazy and ‘going through the motions’. This is a general comment, but I believe it could be applied to some of the AT board. The same comment could apply to some of the management. I think the whole organisation needs a total rebuild.

  6. I would like to see Auckland Council provide a directive along the lines of;
    Auckland’s response to traffic congestion will not be “build more roads” but the reallocation of existing road space(boundary line to boundary line) 1st to safe walkways, 2ndly to grade separated cycleways, 3rd to 24/7 public transport priority, 4th to disabled access, 5th to delivery service vehicles and finally 6th to general traffic.
    The Council should make it clear to the public that this is the directive and that it will back AT and facilitate the RAPID implementation of this change.
    The Council should expect protests of a type that will make last Friday’s farmers howl seem a non-event by comparison.
    The current attempt to do the above while seeming not to do the above has left us in the farcical situation where the Chair of AT sees writing the letter above as OK.

    1. I enjoyed the farmers howl. Seeing New Zealand’s cholesterol producers shoot themselves in the foot amused me. Their anti Te Reo, transphobic, anti teaching history, pro polluting placards got noticed by their customers.

      1. Yes this is what struck me: some customer relations focus you got there, boys. Been on a course?

      2. Mainly preaching to their own base too: they probably think they did an excellent PR job. Very heavy turn out of tractors in the bustling metropolis of Ashburton, Timaru, Katikati etc: none (at all?) in Wellington.

      3. I was motivated by the placard, “no farmers, no food” and went into the dairy near Wellesley St to find out if this was true. The guy sold me a “Collins Pie” and assured me that it had no meat.

    2. The farmers protest was kind of a non event in most of Auckland, if you didn’t follow the news, and didn’t happen to use a specific part of the motorway network, and didn’t happen to be exactly on queen street, all at some time, then you wouldn’t have known. I would argue that Auckland transport causes more disruption regularly with their train network failing at inopportune times.

      1. Oh yeah, outside of their vast machines that was a vanishingly small number of people. Many more stand patiently on the corners of Queen St’s Barnes Dances every hour of the day waiting for the pointless yet privileged traffic to be paused for them…

      2. There was a shit load of them out here near Helensville.
        They purposely left Wellington out for what ever reason.

    3. would like to see Auckland Council provide a directive along the lines of;
      Auckland’s response to traffic congestion will not be “build more roads” but the reallocation of existing road space(boundary line to boundary line) 1st to safe walkways, 2ndly to grade separated cycleways, 3rd to 24/7 public transport priority, 4th to disabled access, 5th to delivery service vehicles and finally 6th to general traffic.

      Could this be copied more often cos it is what is needed. THank you Mr Plod

  7. Wellington Council agreed something very similar to this with their parking policy which contains specific hierarchies of road-space use.


    Wellington has also had a “mobility hierarchy” (ie active transport > PT > private car > air travel) baked into its planning documents for about 5 years.

    Unfortunately, without wider organisational change, and courageous leadership in elected and appointed office, it doesnt change process much. They still run a full traffic resolution process for individual car parks, and spend hours debating whether their policy should apply to Thorndon Quay.

    1. Unfortunately, and rather incredibly, Auckland Transport are streets ahead of Wellington in the provision of cycleways. Despite the ineptitude of the AT/AC leadership on this issue, Auckland has a far better rollout of cycleways than in Wellington, where we are still sitting at a sum total of one and a half: Island Bay Cycleway being the incomplete half, and Oriental Bay / round the eastern bays being almost complete.

      1. How’s the Hutt City Council going with Cycleways? The kapiti coast seems to be getting a fair few Cycleways.

        1. Better than you’d think, but still not great.

          They’ve built a new shared path over Wainuiomata hill, which is nice as it was miserable to cycle on the non-existent shoulder, but there’s still no grade separation at the off ramps.

          The Esplanade path by the beach is a shared path, but it’s prone to conflicts with families enjoying a walk.

          They’re also trying to run new cycle lanes along the rail lines: the Petone-Melling Cycleway and the Beltway Cycleway. Combined with the Hutt River Trail connections up and down the valley will be pretty great, (if they don’t get flooded and washed away, as they did this weekend) but getting across the valley, to or from the main cycleways, continues to be a bit grim in a city built around multi laned roundabouts.

          The innovating streets protected cycle lane on Knights Road was subject to the normal howling.

        2. I’m picking petone to ngauranga will be a game changer for the Hutt cyclists. The network effect will be massive.

      2. That’s a little understated to say the least; Wellington has rolled out quite a few new cycleways in the past 5 years. Offhand, I can think of Hutt Road, Victoria St, Crawford St, Rongotai Rd as well as the Oriental Bay – Miramar route (which isn’t exactly small). Already that would tot up to at least 8-9km of new/improved routes, and I’ve probably forgotten some others.

        1. Island Bay cycle way is still (purposefully) incomplete. It is an absolute mess. Probably would be quite good if it was finished, but its a cock-up as it is. No physical separation – just a painted line on the road which seems to disappear when it rains, and locals park all over it. It would really benefit from the measures shown in the images above, ie those vertical plastic flappy things, and those horizontal sticking up out of the road mini-berms. The official (Lester) proposal was to put in a concrete kerb which would give drivers an edge to park to – as it is they can’t see or “feel” the edge and so they park all over the action.

      3. That’s what I was saying about the leadership Vacuum.

        Wellington has all the right policies, they’re just determined to ignore them when it gets difficult – and stick to the status quo because it’s politically easy

    2. Not quite a mobility hierarchy, but AT’s parking strategy says this about arterials:

      AT will manage parking on arterial roads by extending clearways or removing parking where it:
      • Inhibits the capacity of the road to carry more people (& goods) particularly in the peak periods, and/or
      • Causes significant delays to the speed and reliability of public transport on the FTN, and/or
      • Causes safety risks for cyclists or impedes quality improvements on the Auckland Cycle Network.


      Of course it is “under review”, like any progressive strategy in AT.

      1. Yes. Also, the Parking Strategy says:

        “Under the Plan, parking supply and pricing should:
        • reduce car travel to contribute to reduced energy consumption and climate change mitigation
        • reduce dependence on car travel
        • support the transformation of the public transport system
        • enhance walkability, especially in metropolitan and town centres, by careful consideration of the location, design and management of parking facilities.”

        If parking “supply” is to have this effect, it is via parking supply reduction. Yet we’ve had both Council and AT create REALLY crap outcomes due to ignoring this.

        This is an example of extremely weak leadership from both organisations, but particularly from AT, who should be schooling up the Council. Refusing to participate in regressive transport planning.

        In the same way that a DHB would attempt to educate politicians and refuse to participate in something that would cause ill health.

        1. The problem is an AT policy doesn’t bind anyone else and can be changed without any process. The old Auckland District Plan Central Area Section set five priorities for parking 1/ Public Transport 2/ Servicing, 3/Short term visitor, 4/permitted parking, 5/ commuter parking. That was in a document that had the status of Govt Regulation. The Super City threw all that away and just has some weak stuff in the Unitary Plan. So much for amalgamation benefits. We have gone backwards.

        2. For the entire history of the supercity, the Council – with AT’s expert transport knowledge to support them – could’ve been discussing with government the need for changes to these sorts of details.

          In the RLTP, for example, AT and Council put in the request for changes to policy about EV’s etc. Where are the equivalent requests for changes to legislation so that there is no public land in Auckland that isn’t required to follow the Auckland Council documents (like the Auckland Climate Plan and the Parking Strategy)?

          It’s not like the issues haven’t been brought to their attention. I can confirm they have, in very clear terms.

        3. Heidi
          Yes we have had very crap outcomes, one of those being the Toka Puia parking building in Takapuna. This would have paid for 3? years of new cycle ways.
          This parking building is in the local news because AT don’t operate it into the evening. My guess is because the cost of running the lights would be more than the parking revenue derived. How can you run a $30m parking building when you charge $1 per hour. Unfortunately every local body rep from the Mayor down put their name to this fiasco.

  8. I think the best communicators use simple english rather than a lot of jargon such as Adrienne Young-Cooper’s response. She is definitely writing to an exclusive few and not to most people in Auckland.
    Here are 2 easy to read stories;
    When school is back this September, cars will be banished from the streets around 185 schools in the Paris area—students and parents can access them on foot, or by bicycle.
    The Victoria Government says one of the main ways they will increase walking and bike riding is paths as part of the Big Build. But a shared path next to a freeway or train line is not exactly attractive for walking.
    I wonder about the benefits of the multi $million New Lynn to Avonale path and the GI to Orakei path.

  9. Sigh, lt seems AT are asking for a political champion for change projects, the council seem to think a collective approach is the way forward. Overseas ,we see / hear prominent public figures pushing for change, yet to see that here ,at a local level.
    Re AT cycling job, who in their right mind would apply for that job. (The job description will be along the lines of maintaining the status quo,while promoting the illusion of progress), something they are already quite capable of, probably comes with a bonus ,if cycle delivery KS are,kept off road, and any on road KS are under 5 per year.
    We can consult forever,but seriously we are “fiddling while Rome burns”

  10. As Ben Ross so eloquently put it, this response from AYC / AT is crap. Since Kathryn King was fired, AT have never had any intention to build more bike paths and proactively link bike use to more PT use. This is classic National Party / right-wing do-nothing thinking. Its no surprise thus that AT continues to be despised by large swathes of Auckland residents. They don’t ever serve the public, just a small-minded minority including themselves. Replace the entire AT Board and the AT Exec ASAP – its the only way to produce quickly, a real-world transport services authority.

  11. The council needs to get a lot more mongrel in this. Effectively “deliver 20km of physically protected cycleways on AT roads next year or you’re sacked”. Make it specific and direct and maybe even specifically exclude some of the big roading projects (AMETI, Penlink) by name too.

      1. Because even I think that expecting 20km in 5 months is a bit ambitious when 18 months is effectively the minimum implementation time with design and the minimum legal consultation.

        1. Financial years run from July to June

          I’m also not expecting a full implementation, I’m expecting 25-30 kms of urban tacticalism, some of which won’t work, so we’ll get the 20km we’re looking for, with the barriers being reused constantly for the next experiment.

          I’m also expecting some monitoring, so that we don’t get it undone by those who are less than pleased with sharing.

        2. The tactical urbanism you describe still needs public consultation to make the cycle lanes legal. However, I agree that you could probably do 20km by the end of the financial year.

    1. If he was a train guard, good on him. I’ve not seen that. My favourite lecturers at engineering school were people who’d started out in hands-on roles and got their professional training much later. I think it’s a strength. As I understand it, the CEO has a masters, so there’ll be no lacking in intellectual capacity. He’s also, as I understand it, a nice guy.

      What’s gone on here is more complicated than what you’re suggesting. There are people in the clay layer who are bullies and others who are two-faced manipulators. Some strongly believe in their really bad misconceptions about transport planning and are powerful enough to impose them on the whole system. Others are in it for the cushy salary and like to protect their status and budget, so don’t want to give up the current biased system.

      Yet there are also PLENTY who want it all to change and are doing little bits here and there. The problem is anyone who really wants to challenge the status quo is either cowed into submission, pushed out of the organisation, or is biding their time until the environment is better.

      Both the CEO and the Board Chair seem to have tried to look beyond the story they’re being given by this clay layer. That’s why the Councillors still think it’ll work. But this is where the failure has happened – neither CEO nor Chair have been able to penetrate the technical misconceptions that underpin the errors they’re being fed. I don’t think either understand the nature of the systems problems they are facing, and perhaps they aren’t strong enough to reject the status quo narrative.

      1. Maybe a board mandated independent review of cycling planning and delivery within the organisation – similar to the Road Safety Review may daylight the barriers?

      2. If neither Board nor CEO are up to immediately ejecting the clay, they need to be replaced. Fast. We do not have the luxury of waiting for old age to fix the problem.

        It would be less costly just to pay out all the people who are problems and send them on their way.

      3. “The clay layer” – very apt and I think you would be referring to the Executive General Manager layer that sit directly beneath Shane… Below them are people who DO want to get on with things and effect change, but the EGM is where the risk aversion, incremental change and status quo layer sits. They don’t move on, they just sit there and stymie the sort of things that need to happen in this city.

      4. This is a description so accurate it’s almost poetry.

        A further concern, is that this behaviour is happening across multiple bureaucratic agencies. AT is getting called to task here, but until it’s resolved across the board then any kind of ‘you’re fired’ or seeing it as an isolated issue is just going to see new people with the same culture onboarding. Or other orgs that AT has interdependence on frustrating their isolated move to change. I expect it’s Ms Ardern and a variety of chairpersons who need to lead the independent audit for any change to happen.

        While I’m here. Can I have loud round of F.F.S. for:
        “…AT is undertaking a full review of the Auckland strategic cycling network. We expect this review to re-test the strategic network strategy assumptions…”
        Let me hazard a guess, this not being my first rodeo, that when this review is complete, there can be a following 12 months of implementation planning. Followed by 18 months of budget planning and planning planning, and probably some BAU churn. Add in a local election and a central election – when all work halts 6 months over.

        By then it should be time for another review to get back up to date.

    2. Maduro, the corrupt autocrat that is decimating the population of Venezuela, was famously a bus driver in a former life. A previous occupation should not necessarily restrict you from any particular post, but there is no doubt a myriad of examples that could form a good argument for such restrictions.

  12. “If you build it they will come” – but only if you take the security fences down so they can use it. Does anyone know why the two shiny new shared path motorway over-bridges at Northcote Road are still all fenced off? Why finish building it if you wont let anyone use it? They could even claim a couple of hundred meters of new cycle infrastructure if they opened them. I worry that they are keeping them closed until a date that is suitable for some Politician to come and cut the ribbon on them – Leaving people risking their lives on the road here which could be safer on the new bridge just to suit some PR objective maybe?

  13. I think everyone here is in agreement that AT and the Auckland Council are not working the way it should work in delivering good transport policy. I think we can also include NZTA as well. Their collective inability to deliver over the years is getting pathetic. Governments have changed, councils have changed, CEOs and other senior people have gone yet we are still the in the same boat. Large sums of money are been spent and we are not getting the results we want.

    The answer cannot be doing the same and expecting a different result – that is madness. We cannot expect the Auckland Council nor AT nor NZTA to change if we carry on doing the same thing. Therefore, let’s privatize all of it – sell everything. More government or even different government will not get results. Only if there is price, profit, and accountability will we ever get something different than the mediocre results we have now.

    1. Oh god no.
      The last 35 years of privatisation was really only effective at privatising profit and socialising losses.
      There are definitely better ways of managing a problem than leaving it to private enterprise.
      We have accountability options right now, they’re just not being utilised effectively.

    2. The best change to transport in the last ten years was the new bus network. That was only possible because the PTOM law change reversed a previous privatisation. More government works best for social outcomes.

      1. “More government works best for social outcomes” – that’s nonsense and I am sure you would not agree if that was applied to it’s logical conclusions. What do governments do well? When it comes to providing services the answer is not much really. The private sector always provides a better service.

        “Privatizing profits and socializing loses” is not privatization – that’s just corruption. We have not privatized roads in NZ and no company should ever be bailed out or subsidized by the government.

        But what we see over and over is government regulation making things worse and worse and all the answer we get is more government regulation. Maybe the answer is do something different than what we are doing now and hoping this time it will be different.

        1. I kind of agree, however I don’t think privatisation of core services ever really works without creating monopolies. But the SOE approach might be possible.
          However in the case of AT, why would a private equivalent ever invest? We already have lots of roads, they really couldn’t charge enough for new roads to justify the cost, and alternative modes are just competitors to their roads. I would think a private company would actually sell off a huge amount of the land under the roads, for example our street sits on millions of dollars of land and is only used by a 50 odd people a day. Maybe that would be a good outcome, who knows.

        2. “no company should ever be bailed out or subsidized by the government.”

          Yet here we are. Open your eyes.

      2. “What do governments do well? When it comes to providing services the answer is not much really. The private sector always provides a better service.”

        Public healthcare is far cheaper.
        Public public transport is far cheaper and faster.
        Public fire service covers far more people.
        Public security (the Police) is much more secure.
        Public food regulation is far safer.
        Public regulation of vehicles is far safer.

        What I see is government regulation and provision making things better and better. I’m not sure what you are looking at.

        Healthcare is your go to example. Public healthcare is better for about 95% of people. A good chunk of people would have no access to healthcare without public provision. A bigger portion would have significantly reduced access. People who currently have health insurance would be paying far more for the same level of care. The only people better off are the richest 5% who pay slightly less in a privatised system and receive the same care. In a privatised system no one receives better care than when a public system exists.

  14. There has been a consistent ‘do-nothing culture’ at exec / board level at AT for quite some years now. The previous CEO elevated several managers to the exec team to ensure there would be no culture change after he left. The previous chair hired the current CEO on that basis. B-Grade managers / exec always hire / cultivate B and C-grade people to ensure their legacy.

  15. “Quack” …
    sorry just listening to see if the claim that a duck’s quack doesn’t echo will work in here.
    You see I worry that we are in our own echo chamber here in the GA comments. We understand that there needs to be a much higher priority on cycle infrastructure. But maybe many of the council politicians have not given AT a legally binding direction to push ahead with that in the face of massive opposition from people who don’t want to loose parking spaces to that goal.

    So yeah as a CCO AT is meant to be able to make decisions politicians are afraid of but it seems like AT might be just as concerned with what they see the majority wanting rather than doing the right thing.

    Democracy really is the worst political system (apart from all the others).

    1. Unfortunately, where AT has gone entirely wrong is in thinking along the lines that you have just expressed, Translex: “politicians have not given AT a legally binding direction to push ahead with that in the face of massive opposition from people who don’t want to lose parking spaces to that goal.”

      Absolutely Council have given sufficient direction. If AT doesn’t see that as “legally binding” then they should’ve been laying out – many years ago – how Council should make it more legally binding. But, as with so many legal excuses they are throwing up to prevent progress, AT are taking a very narrow approach to risk management. They seem to be myopically focused on one type of legal risk while ignoring many others. And are refusing to use the legal options available to them.

      The direction is given. The law should be used or tested, to enable that. AT is instead seeking legal excuses not to follow the direction.

      “In the face of massive opposition”

      Where did you get the idea from that it’s massive, Translex? I’ll tell you where: the clay layer themselves. They have been manipulating public sentiment to support the investment they wish to see. This has included public sentiment about cycling and healthy streets but it’s not only that – they’ve manipulated sentiment around congestion and how it should be relieved.

      People are leaving AT because the way AT have allowed safety and modeshift to be trumped by minority NIMBY views is something they can no longer ethically work with.

      As the Councillors pointed out, “Since 2011 there has consistently been public support for investing in cycling, people friendly streets and safety around schools.”

      1. I was more thinking it would be good if Council used its power under section 49 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to make operational rules that AT must follow along the lines of requiring AT to prioritise cycle infrastructure over kerb side parking. they could even impose an operational rule requiring AT to only appoint people with proven track record in the provision of cycling infrastructure in to senior roles in the transport operational departments (i.e. not the head of IT or HR but definitely the heads traffic, parking and PT).
        And yes I see what others are saying, I have made the mistake of suggesting loud opposition is large opposition – that might not be the case. But I do think a lot of people who answer surveys saying they support cycle infrastructure change their tune when it is going to stop them personally form having on road parking outside their home.

        1. Your first suggestions are good. Just sad that AT has to be micromanaged like this. You would think there was someone with power in the organisation with the wherewithal to steer the organisation in the right direction.

          Which position do you think is the valid one: the decision people make when they’re thinking about creating a network to serve the needs of all the people in the city, or when they’re concerned about parking outside their home? Part of the paradigm shift is understanding that our society has been incredibly biased towards the latter sort of concern and hasn’t prioritised the needs of the whole population. This has to change; you cannot provide sustainable transport access for a population without making this paradigm shift.

          AT know that support for investing in a cycle network is very high – over four times that of opposition. They also know that support grows and opposition drops radically as the network is built. But they instead manipulated this data and concocted a story that there is low support for cycling investment.

          AT can switch to a far more democratic and quite different consultation approach. (And still meet the legal requirements.)

          In the Island Bay decision, we heard that “The case advanced for the Association was permeated with the idea that there was an express or implied obligation on the Council to comply with the preferences of the majority of the Island Bay community” and it was firmly established that there was no such obligation. “The Local Government Act does not impose on the Council an obligation to accede to the views of a majority of a community or the majority of any part of a community.”

          AT has ignored this and in the process overridden the views of the majority, put lives at risk, and kept children in dependence, with luck determining if they have a willing driver to give them mobility, establishing patterns of ill health for life.

          AT’s overriding legal obligation is to provide a safe system. AT’s position should have been to build the cycleways, and if Councillors had wavered or complained, AT should have been unequivocal about the reasons and the obligations.

    2. “AT might be just as concerned with what they see the majority wanting rather than doing the right thing.”

      That’s the problem though. AT and AC have done a load of public opinion research which clearly shows that the majority support cycling infrastructure. AT have promptly ignored it because a few people relatively high up in the organisation don’t believe AT’s own research. Those people should be instructed to follow the organisation’s policies and vision or be given the opportunity to find employment somewhere better aligned to their beliefs.

      1. SB, I believe that the solution that you have proposed is sensible. I think that the organization needs an “agile” type restructure (similar to what Telecom and the Warehouse undertook) where you select people who are aligned to organisational goals. The agile goals will be critical to AT adapting to a fast changing environment; likely as the goal posts for emissions reductions change on a yearly basis.
        Leading such a restructure you don’t need nice guys, but resilient people who can see through monumental change.

        1. I have worked in IT for a long time, I have NEVER seen an organization that has successfully implemented Agile at an ORG level with the existing senior management. You always need to get rid of the old guard to bring institutional level changes.

    3. If AT need a “legally binding” direction instead of just a “clear” direction then that’s where the problem is. Council should be working with a partner, not with an organisation that needs to be dragged along with the force of the law.

  16. Note the difference between massive opposition and loud opposition. Every cave-in to loud opposition encourages more of the same. Loud opposition does require political response, as well as factual support for what is being opposed. And response to loud opposition is not just to shout back, but show why it is unfounded.
    The problem is, sometimes, that the loud opposition identifies a factor that has been overlooked, such as network faults that promote rat-running or transport poverty that still requires excessive car dependency. We need to be honest about those problems while sticking to the need to make the opposed changes.
    Analysing the opposition can help. Having a coherent story of change can help. And tactical demonstrations of change can help – like seeing how many tractors can be parked on Queen Street without interrupting business or movement.

  17. If AT is yearning for clearer/ louder political direction, stronger “presence and leadership in our conversations with our communities”, and more joined-up storytelling in general… why don’t they surface and publish the draft public-facing cycling strategy document mentioned in this Bike AKL post from last year?


    It’s been gathering dust for nearly three years now – but it comes with introductions by the Mayor and the (then) Minister, and evidently makes a clear and compelling case. If that’s not political direction and joined-up storytelling, what is? And if time, staff, and budget are currently constrained, and this work already exists – why reinvent the wheel?

    Obviously you’d need a fresh intro from the (new) Minister, an update from the Mayor about the urgency of climate action and Covid response, and a new section on how Auckland can fast-follow other cities doing rapid rollouts of bike infrastructure.

    But I bet the rest holds up pretty well. AT’s storytelling around the joy, freedom, and sheer investment logic of bike-friendly neighbourhoods for all kinds of Aucklanders was great, back in the day.

  18. This one: “AT compromised the project because management would not sign off on necessary changes to the road corridor”

    Good they put that in the letter. It’s what we hear all the time. Particularly if the project removes a parking space or two, as if carpark availability overrules the need for safe streets.

    1. AT should never have formed in the first place.

      Rodney Hide only did it to p**s off Auckland Council which was Labour controlled.

      My fear is that if it were abolished and brought back under direct council control the situation would probably be worse.

      Doesn’t worry me though, I’m moving to Waharoa when my new house is finished.

  19. “We very rarely… have a sufficiently wide existing corridor to easily install cycle infrastructure and maintain parking and vehicle lanes for private low occupancy vehicles.”

    So, don’t. Just install the cycle infrastructure without maintaining parking and vehicle lanes for private low occupancy vehicles…

    “AT’s role as planner and integrator of all these programmes is important to ensure the needs of our customers are integrated into this activity, and to maintain a strategic view of the cycling infrastructure network.”

    I can’t see any meaning here other than, “we don’t want to impact on driving, so are interpreting the instructions to reallocate with this in mind. That is, we are ignoring them.”

    1. So, don’t. Just install the cycle infrastructure without maintaining parking and vehicle lanes for private low occupancy vehicles…’

      So, just get rid of driving lanes altogether?

      1. In most places there are parking lanes, flush medians or multiple traffic lanes in each direction that can be reallocated. If not, and it’s truly a road that’s simply one lane in each direction without parking lanes or flush medians then it’s probably a small road that can be traffic calmed instead. Or made one way as part of a circulation plan.

      2. “We very rarely… have a sufficiently wide existing corridor to easily install cycle infrastructure and maintain parking and vehicle lanes for private low occupancy vehicles.”
        “We can only install cycle infrastructure by eliminating all parking and vehicle lanes for private low occupancy vehicles'”

        1. Thanks for that captain obvious.
          But ‘ So, don’t. Just install the cycle infrastructure without maintaining parking and vehicle lanes for private low occupancy vehicles…’ might. Hence the question.

        2. Yes. I copied the phrase without specifying “all” “some” “additional” etc … because AT also hadn’t specified it.

          The critical point being that people have a right to safe cycling. Reallocation is necessary and there is space for both driving and cycling; only a determination that drivers are not impacted *at all* is preventing it. And there’s no justification for that. Driving is not of higher value than cycling.

    2. “to ensure the needs of our customers are integrated into this activity”

      Where customers = owners and roadside storers of cars.

  20. would like to see Auckland Council provide a directive along the lines of;
    Auckland’s response to traffic congestion will not be “build more roads” but the reallocation of existing road space(boundary line to boundary line) 1st to safe walkways, 2ndly to grade separated cycleways, 3rd to 24/7 public transport priority, 4th to disabled access, 5th to delivery service vehicles and finally 6th to general traffic.

    Thank you, that’s what we need, thank you Mr Plod

    1. Disability vehicle access needs first crack at any allocation because it is most constrained by site slope and adjacent loading space. Does not take up much total space compared with other modes but must be thought of right from the start of any projects, not tacked on.

      We got that into a draft Auckland regional parking strategy in about 2009 but without a champion at the table subsequently it was easily dropped.

      1. There will be some pedestrianised areas without vehicles at all which need to be particularly well planned for people with disabilities, and this can be designed to work for independent children and for any carers with dependents. So the first two tiers of space allocation priority should be:

        disability access without vehicles
        independent children’s access without vehicles
        access for people caring for dependent people, without vehicles

        disability vehicle access

        1. And the proposed changes to Courteney Place show one way – to prioritise mobility parking at the nearest end of side streets alongside pedestrianised spaces.

        2. Same goes for non-parking drop-off zones in general for others who cannot walk long distances independently, like young children.

        3. Yes, that seems to be a solution that works well. As long as it’s enforced and not filled up with tradies and ubers picking up passengers with good mobility.

        4. Always a fan of ruthless enforcement providing other options are clearly signalled.

          Maybe room for some top-tier approaches like license-plate/permit based exceptions to a P5 rule accompanied by clamping and rapid hoist towaways for the rest.

        5. Basically, no allocation or parking system works in a car swamped transport system without enforcement. Hence our problems.

  21. Shout out to Councillors Bartley, Coom, Darby and Hills.
    Please know you have our support.
    AT needs a reset – but this is also on you – as your team directs AT’s budget and outcomes. The CCO review made this abundantly clear.
    We do not need a please explain from AT. Those years, have passed.
    As our mayor put it “modelled increases in emissions, and slow pace of cycling infrastructure”. Auckland Transport is not the tool for the job.
    Now is the time councilors – get this done.

  22. And,

    this new plan is very vague, it mentions that it is only a “step towards” or that it is “aspirational” ( ie we would like to do this but there is no funding, and no public support for the suggestions ) not an actual year by year delivery plan.

    See: “It thereby enables Auckland Transport to step towards achieving a safe and efficient network in terms of the movement of people, goods and services today, within the context of existing funding provisions and the broader Regional Land Transport Plan for Auckland”.

  23. Management guru Peter Drucker said ‘Managers rise to their level of incompetence’.

    In the case of AT & NZTA, its a scary mix of incompetence combined with arrogance as they choose to ignore the LTMA’s requirement that they must give effect to the GPS. Unfortunately there are no consequences. MoT’s monitoring function is ineffective.

Leave a Reply

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