Welcome to Friday and the last one for September.

This week in Greater Auckland

AT defends speed limit changes

After National once again tried to generate a culture war over roads to win votes, it’s particularly pleasing to see that Auckland Transport’s leadership publicly opposed it.

The chair of Auckland Transport (AT) has called out National leader Christopher Luxon and his transport spokesman Simeon Brown, over their policy to reverse many reduced speed limits.

Wayne Donnelly said the pair’s Botany and Pakuranga electorates had some of the highest death and serious injury figures in Auckland, and AT’s programme of speed reductions had made roads safer.

“You really have to wonder if the MPs really had the interest or understanding of the impact of speed management, particularly in urban areas,” said Donnelly, opening the council agency’s board meeting.


Donnelly said where AT had reduced limits under its speed management programme, deaths and serious injuries had “reduced significantly” while figures where the programme hadn’t been implemented were still increasing.

He and the agency’s chief executive Dean Kimpton also noted the big reduction in dedicated safety funding in the latest Government Policy Statement, released this year.

Kimpton told the board the change to the GPS meant AT may not be funded (by Waka Kotahi) to solve the speed and safety problem.

Common Sense Prevails

Waka Kotahi have extended the exemption for e-scooters for another five years

E-scooters will stay on New Zealand roads, cycle lanes and footpaths.

Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency had until September 30 to decide whether to renew e-scooters’ exemption from being classed as motor vehicles – a decision the agency earlier said would ban e-scooters from everywhere bar private property, given there is no mechanism for licensing riders.

Back in 2018, shortly before Lime launched in New Zealand, NZTA (now Waka Kotahi) declared that e-scooters were not motor vehicles under the Land Transport Act 1998 – but it was an exemption that would time out on September 30, 2023.

In the event, Waka Kotahi announced its decision two days early. The exemption has been renewed for another five years.

Will the real cost of Puhoi to Warkworth please stand up

A report from 1 News highlights that the current actual cost of the Puhoi to Warkworth motorway is over $1 billion and the final costs are still not known.

Waka Kotahi has paid road builders millions more on top of the billion-dollar cost of the Pūhoi to Warkworth motorway.

Official information suggests $77 million has been paid to a Fletcher construction alliance with Spanish giant Acciona, and there may be more to come.

Last year, the claims, mostly over extra costs due to Covid disruptions in 2021-22, were put at $280m.

This week, they were put at $203m in the pre-election fiscal update.


Earlier, construction costs for the 18km motorway were put at $709m plus two earlier settlement payouts – one for Covid, one for “historic” claims – together totalling $165m.

At its June opening, the cost was widely reported as $877m, and this is still how the estimated project cost appears on the official website.

“The more recent government reported value of $1.05 billion for the project road also includes additional costs such as property purchased,” the agency told RNZ.

“Final costs will not be known until all claims for additional cost entitlement from the contractor have been resolved.”

Finishing-off work had still to be done, as of last month, including completing earthworks at the northern end where the biggest slip is, and finalising work on local roads nearby.

A Rod Carr Corker

A great speech and other comments from Rod Carr on climate change.

the reality of the transport transition is that even battery electric cars if only used four percent of the time are an enormous drain on the planet’s resources that is unnecessary that the transition and transport through mode shift is in our own self-interest


I think one of the interesting challenges is the sort of framing between individual choice and responsibility in the institutional Arrangements that preclude individuals from choosing that the fossil fuel industry actually set about and quite effectively managed to say nothing to see here it’s all about your choice your your responsible for your emissions you’re responsible for the car you drive you’re responsible for the fossil gas you burn


but where the rich and the powerful and the affluent can still buy the convenience of the expense of the planet the burden that falls on those who have no choice is incredibly debilitating on the conversation we need to have. And you can see that replicated across the discussion about what modes of Transport are available to who, and the reality is that if those who are affluent choose not to take up the new low emitting technologies but rather use their affluence to continue with the purchase of high emitting single person transport, we’re a long way from anything that resembles a just transition

Bike Business

A neat story from the Waikato Times about a lady rebuilding her life by bike

A serious mountainbiking accident led Miriam Ellis to a job that’s made her the happiest she’s ever been.

The 45-year-old Cambridge woman crashed on a Te Miro track in November 2020 and was airlifted to Waikato Hospital with a head injury.

Not that she remembers the accident, or the following week.

Her head injury meant resuming her career as a university lecturer wasn’t possible.

She also wasn’t allowed to drive, which restricted her options even further. Add to the mix she and her then 10-year-old son had just moved to Cambridge from Melbourne.

So a new business venture was born – the cycle coffee company called Cy-Co.

“I’ve always loved bikes and I’ve always loved coffee,” she said.

The cost of noisy roads

Share this


  1. So basically, we can expect their East West Link project to cost 3 billion or more once it’s done. You’d have to cancel a lot of cycleways and safety projects (probably all built since 1900s and all future ones) to pay for that. But “Kiwis like to drive”…

  2. The speed limit changes announced by the National party made a great sound bite,but was caged in all sorts of caveats, ( if the locals want it, economic benefits etc).
    Wales have just introduced a blanket 20mph speed limit in urban areas,it seems to be linked to how far apart street lights are spaced, l can see the rationale for this ,bit like no exemptions on GST,easy to understand and implement,
    If you want varying speed limits ,there will be an eye watering cost to implement, signs everywhere,l suspect this is what the speed lobby want,after all what’s wrong with the status quo.
    There was also a mention of road works,(unnecessary road cones and 30 kph restrictions when no workers on site). Quite timely as footpath replacement is happening in Onehunga street at present. Slight meltdown that street was reduced to one way, and no parking,it was only the footpath after all. A study of the worksite, showed pedestrians being directed, to cross the road,as footpath was closed(dug up), this surely necessitates the 30 kph restriction,being in place for duration of roadworks,sorry footpath replacement, until the full roadway is back to normal. I’d be happy to debate this with the National shadow transport spokesperson,and the Mayor,they seem to have different views.

  3. The public transport in NZ is horrific. Tge customer service is terrabal.

    Where are all the humans working . All the machines have taken the jobs of hundreds of humans of humans. The public transport in NZ smell. The streets of Auckland and the shine and heritage of Auckland city has been destroyed all to make room for public transport and pedestrians . The people who own vehichales have been over looked and the council is turning a blind eye to what the people actually want. They Auckland council have NO SHAME. They should be a shamed of themselves. They have destroyed tge roads of NZ.. Th people even tried to take the Auckland Council to court and it was all overlooked becauase I believe it was a set up and the peopple did not support the Council plans at all. Neither did the retail market they did not support the Auckland Council. The people were ignored . The climmat would improve if all the unnessasary changes to the country stopped..

    I got taught that if it isnt broken then n dont fix it, it most probably just needs a clean and sharpen up.

      1. And make that walk down the white line in a 50kph zone. I am picking that you might survive for 2km in the north, 700m down south, and 7m out west.

    1. Ahh, the great New Zealand heritage of the automobile. After all, every good exhaust contributes to the long white(/grey) cloud that is so prominent in this country. Come to think of it, volcanoes are like nature’s exhaust pipe! This has good to be a sign. On top of that, Taranaki almost sounds like tarmac. The Marlborough Sounds are the sounds of screeching tires and old diesel engines. Fordland was clearly named after one of the greatest car manufacturers. They even have a model called Ford (Tau)Ranger! And not to mention the Carmanawa ranges, just south of the Car-amandel, too!

      Please, pave the beaches, pave the mountains! We will get rid of all those invasive trees if just convert the land to parking lots. Give me drive-though dairys and pubs that bring you the pint directly to your truck. Convert all those stupid “racecourses” to ACTUAL racecourses – we could have NASCAR or our own series. Auckland Council should listen to the people!

  4. Puhoi-Warkworth in other words 5x the cost of this new overbridge on the Southern line for 50x the road.

    I also see in the news today that Auckland Council is facing a massive probably billion dollar budget blowout (this after last year’s increases and airport sale). So glad we wasted $200m+ (and more to come) on consultants, road signs, speed bumps and lowered speed limits that have achieved diddly squat. That money could have made a huge impact on the budget, or it could have paid for a ton of cycle lanes all over the city.

    1. The speed management plan has the best benefit to cost ratio of anything that AT has been able to do – low cost, huge cost savings in deaths and serious injuries and a respect for human life and wellbeing that Nats and others don’t care about.

    2. I’d take a general lowering of vehicle speed over any amount of on-road cycle lanes for safety impact.

      Even better, exclude motor-vehicle through-traffic from residential areas completely.

      Drivers get exclusive priority on motorways, nowhere else.

      1. There might very well have been a car in the left lane directly behind David’s car however if there was not the first 3 minutes of the Motorway video the driving is not following the road rules by keeping left. However he does move to the left for the balance of the video.

        Not saying David is wrong (as above) however so many people either do not know this rule or simply ignore it.


  5. Rod Carr very eloquently states what the progressive among us know. It is not our fault, but those institutions that are destroying the planet and us, will never accept responsibility. Perhaps not a particularly hopeful reflection, but at least there are some very educated people in influential areas showing that pretending we can carry on is futile.

    Walk, ride for fun, catch public transport and enjoy not controlling a steering wheel; momentary bliss is still within us!

  6. Referring to ” E-scooters will stay on New Zealand roads, cycle lanes and footpaths.”
    Concerning; “Great-grandmother hit by cyclist on footpath suffers life-changing injuries
    Catherine Hubbard- Sep 29 2023; Link- https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/133010092/greatgrandmother-hit-by-cyclist-on-footpath-suffers-lifechanging-injuries
    Motorists hit people and other motorists’ vehicles when on the roads frequently and are liable for damages and prosecution for doing so. However have we seen any recent calls to ban the use of cars on the road?
    Reminder; Historically when motor vehicles were introduced to our roads, a person was required to walk ahead of the vehicle waving a flag, warning other road users to clear the way. I’m sure that at that time there was a popular movement of alarmists missing the point about the fact that decrying the use of new technology is a little like commanding the tide to stop their seasonal tidal surging over and destroying our coastal and ‘flood plain’ located communities due to ‘climate change’….possibly unaware that catastrophic “floods” are mentioned in the Bible… maybe because of all that animal dung from using oxen and horses to drive their vehicles and cook their food? ….
    The use of bicycles and other small personal transport devices is currently unsafe on our roads due to poor regulation which encourages bad behavior, and neglected, poorly and lazily designed, transport use environments.
    I’ve lost count of the amount of broken pavers, and ‘ungraduated’ curbs, tree roots and shaggy overhanging hedges creating concealed driveway exits, I have to negotiate regularly, to get to our newly constructed shared pathways.
    Most of the public is quietly getting on with the process of dealing with these matters, favoring behavior which is conducive to survival, learning from, instead of wasting time making a political point out of their experiences.
    Its about time our media and regulators learned this lesson.
    Yes absolutely the cyclist who ran over this elderly lady should be held accountable for their actions. But their poor behavior should not be permitted to arbitrarily reflect on others who make the environmentally friendly choice to use these vehicles.
    Currently the ‘speed limit’ for the footpath is set at 6kph, which is ridiculous for the current times and conditions. Most people can walk faster than that, and motorized mobility equipment exists now and is often used to help those who cannot move around at sufficient speed easily.
    Maybe these regulations need to be reviewed and set down as an enforceable code of conduct for using the footpaths and cycle tracks. Motorists have to adhere to speed limits and especially if they cause injury and damage are held legally accountable. However we do not see calls to “ban” the use of motor vehicles on our roads, or reduce motor vehicle speed to ‘walking speed’ based on these incidents.
    Why then do people feel entitled to expect support for calls to “ban the use of other transport technology” based on the fact that sharing public spaces with others who use this technology makes them feel so uncomfortable that they fail to distinguish between mere use of innovations in transport technology, and space, and its misuse? Powered scooters have been in existence for more than a century. In NYC they were “banned” because criminals found them effective ‘getaway’ vehicles… regulated away under an assumption that most people who used these vehicles were “criminals”. This was never because they provided less well off people, including people living with restricted mobility, with an efficient and affordable means of transport? Did this prevent bank robbers,in those days, or present day ‘ram raiders’ from using motor vehicles to get away from the scene of their crime?
    The time is due for our regulators to take these issues seriously, and start a non- confrontational process to examine and update our public space user regulations.
    A bicycle, whether manually powered or not is capable of speeds up to the level of the road speed limits. But, does this mean that they should be allowed to travel this fast on the footpath? Some cyclists may do this because legally they ‘believe they can’. The same goes for our new shared pathways as well. That is probably why people who use mobility scooters are not welcomed as they should be in these spaces. Heaven forbid that a ‘sportsman’ cyclist should be inconvenienced by other shared pathway users.
    There is bad behavior on both sides of the spectrum, eg pedestrians deliberately obstructing other pathway users in many ways, for example, standing and slow pacing in groups and pedestrian queues, even loitering in the main traffic areas, walking dogs off-leash, and allowing young children to wander on the pathway unchecked, or darting suddenly out of a blind driveway entrance without looking to see if the way is clear beforehand.
    I am not suggesting that the elderly lady involved in the aforementioned news article was in any way culpable for what happened to her, but I do question the speed at which the cyclist chose to travel along the pathway.
    For references sake- “The “official” rate for “jogging” speed, is “running at a gentle pace;[1] its definition, as compared with running, is not standard. In general, jogging speed is between 4 and 6 miles per hour (6.4 and 9.7 km/h).”[Wiki]
    If I am riding I find that a maximum of 15-20k on a empty cycle track is ample and slower, more like the current speed limit, is needed on a densely populated, or narrower footpath.
    Shared pathways are not places that are provided for people to travel at “road speed”. I have had a small number of ‘near misses’ resulting from people behaving poorly but NO actual collisions in the 8 YEARS I have been using a bicycle for transport. I am sure if the cyclist was ‘riding to allow for the riding conditions it would be unlikely that there would have been a collision.
    Its time we all got over this and started to introduce some sanity to the matter so we can all reap the benefits of this new technology instead of having our regulatory processes and public spaces turned into ‘social justice, and political ‘vote grabbing’ battlegrounds’. We need to move beyond the unhelpful narrative which ‘valorizes’ a cultural ‘death zone’ around so called ‘confident’ cyclists, small numbers of whom delight in darting in and out of rush hour traffic, scaring the sh*t out of other road users, while sharing the road with ‘well behaved and considerate motorists’, and take a new pathway which holds our culturally lazy, well fed infrastructure regulators to account.

    1. Agree. Very well-argued. We have become inured to death and injury from motor-vehicles because because of a grotesque societal blind-spot that has developed over many decades. Any new device that carries a significant level of safety-risk will receive far more scrutiny and potential regulation because we will not turn a blind-eye to it as we largely do with motor vehicle safety-risk.

      1. Re ” Any new device that carries a significant level of safety-risk will receive far more scrutiny and potential regulation because we will not turn a blind-eye to it as we largely do with motor vehicle safety-risk.”
        Yes; that has also been the case with mobility scooters. Even NZ public transport authorities are refusing services to people who use these devices to get around. There are many overlooked serious issues involved here. see- https://www.1news.co.nz/2021/09/06/woman-baffled-why-she-cant-get-mobility-scooter-on-buses/
        When I started on my “mobility” journey, I discovered that many people who have mild to moderate mobility difficulties have used cycle technology to get around for decades. This has happened, mostly ‘under the radar’ in NZ public spaces, and those doing so have have often been mistaken for attempting to be athletes, and therefore consideration about any difficulties they may be meeting using these devices often means that they are considered ‘less deserving’ of personal respect by all varieties of NZ’s ‘entitled’ class.
        NZ is among other Western countries, that follow a prevailing attitude from the “sports and toy” industrial complex, who get over-invested in their passionate belief that their products being associated with “unwellness and disability” is distasteful; and will ‘hurt their sales pitch; preferring to restrict the marketing of their products to the ‘ultra-healthy’ people market.
        Due to their mental insecurity, these people also have a tendency to ‘look down on’ other less ‘confident’ cyclists and try to ‘take over’ shared pathways and footpaths by behaving poorly, speeding on our shared pathways, and engaging in other activities which makes them dangerous spaces for other users.
        While these people do not form a majority of NZers, they have a disproportionate share of the public ‘voice’ and turned into a dangerous lobby which seeks to disrupt the introduction of regulation changes to curb their activities, and our regulators, up until now, have allowed them to do this.
        When I decided to stop driving, for personal reasons, unrelated to political correctness, I visited the Independent Living center[ILS]. At that time I had a significant conversation about new personal transport technology innovations and how it meant that many people who would have normally been stuck at home or dependent on someone taking them out in a car or pushing them in a [ ‘unpowered’ ]wheelchair were experiencing new found freedom.
        One person in particular, a young guy living with profound mobility impairments was able to travel about locally independently using his powered wheelchair. Watching him, you could see the absolute joy and appreciation in his expressions about his new found freedom as he went about his daily business. Without the new technology his life would be very different.
        Sadly I also heard about a young person who suffered significant amputation, and chose to use a skateboard to get around. Despite being accompanied by a caregiver, which was required when attending a film screening, they were forced to pay full price because they were using ‘non- standard’ disability equipment.
        Normally, people living with disabilities were given a concession price and free entry for their caregiver. Legally, under the circumstances, the proprietor could have refused them entry altogether, if they had argued for their rights.
        SO; it may be a conclusion that not only do these people seek to deprive others, who are more vulnerable than themselves, of their rights to get around as best they can, some also never let a chance go by to use fake ‘compassion’ to corrupt the situation in order to take advantage of others’ vulnerability using the protection of poorly conceived and interpreted regulations and social superiority.
        I also learned from this discussion that, at that time, ILS staff had grave concerns that often, people using this equipment to meet their [disability] transport needs were being killed and injured by inconsiderate motorists who seemed to regard the footpaths as a “buffer-zone” between their driveway exit and the road, also forcing many into the road by obstructing [parking stuff on] the footpaths. Too many people using the new mobility equipment were being run over, particularly from motorists backing out of driveways without looking first.
        Few took responsibility for their actions, and when defending themselves many motorists took the attitude that “they” didn’t see the person they hit and said that “these devices were “dangerous” to use in public spaces.
        In response to calls for transport regulation and infrastructure reform, some drivers feel entitled to use the “revenge pass” to make their point. see; https://e2nz.org/2015/01/30/road-rage-drivers-own-video-is-evidence-against-him-hatred-of-cyclists-in-nz/
        Although ‘dangerous driving’ is a traffic infringement, drivers are generally, only held accountable if they kill or injure a cyclist or their actions are captured on film, and even then matters are open to dispute.
        At a time when this equipment was beginning to be seen in NZ public space, NZers opposing the use of this technology outside of a toy or sports equipment, began to organize ‘ginger groups’ to politically and socially attack the right to use these devices in NZ’s public spaces, even attacking the right of school children to use small unpowered scooters to ride to school. Children were being vilified and banned from shopping malls and school grounds for even carrying one of these devices.
        NZ motorists, in part by opposing fair examination and updates to NZ traffic regulation and infrastructure design, have already made it too dangerous for students to bike to school by making NZ’s roads too dangerous to use when cycling, and furthermore have the nerve to use the pretext of upholding the “rights” of pedestrians to be ‘safe’ to prevent authorities reforming the transport regulations to allow these devices to be used on the safer footpath and converting the spaces to ‘shared pathways’.
        These people often use their own bad behavior, and incompetence when using these devices to prove their point. They refuse to acknowledge that there are skills to learn in order to safely cycle and use a scooter, just like there are skills involved when driving a car. Much of this is created by irresponsible sales marketing of these products on the part of the toy and sports industry.
        In doing so they also trample over the rights of people to make a choice to use the new technologies, even for those people living with disabilities, by presenting arguments that people using these devices to get around are ‘hooligans making bad choices'[yadayadayada] and that “the authorities” should take action to restrict the use of personal mobility devices in public space.
        In short these people are demanding the right to exclusive personal right of way on our public infrastructure, and regard any proposals which modernize the construction/ modification of existing transport infrastructure to accommodate any transport device other than motor vehicles for which we all pay for, as a waste of public money and anyone using any other transport technology has no right to be there getting in their way… This would also include opposition to the establishment of light rail and the construction and maintainability of a integrated rail, bus and cycling/ small personal vehicle infrastructure, which could be why these proposals never got passed the ‘consultation’ process before experiencing cost blowouts…and ending up as opposition election fodder.
        Unfortunately the people who personally need these reforms the most do not outnumber those who don’t. Also, without update and integrated transport infrastructures in place, the people who don’t need a integrated Public Transport system can attend more public meetings and shout down the voices of those others without access to a motor vehicle who are able to attend in much smaller numbers.
        Too many people, mostly those who enjoy so called ‘normal’ mobility, who not only do not appreciate that this can take the form of a ‘privileged’ state; they are a social group of NZers who feel entitled to disregard the benefits this technology can bring to others, and, because they have no desire, or have no personal need to use this equipment in this way, decide to resent the fact that because of these innovations almost everyone can enjoy renewed freedoms, even those who “they” feel should not be allowed to litter the sidewalks and roadways’. It was not so long ago that in ‘western’ cultures people living with impairments, particularly disfiguring ones, were forbidden by law to be seen in public.
        I’d like to ask who do these people think they are? And, why are they allowed to dominate public conversations about moving forward with modernizing our transport infrastructures? This has resulted in fruitless wastage on endless consultations and disruptions that its even impacted the results of this election campaign….

  7. I wish they had left this named as Aotea.

    It’s an established, Maori name for the area, is simpler – always good for station names – and is reflective of the area’s features (Aotea Square, Aotea Center). And besides, the new name will just be shortened to Te Wai, which makes it a bit pointless.

    I don’t have anything against Maori names per se, and in many ways they are far more interesting and illustrative, but I would have kept Britomart as well, because of the building sitting over it, and left Waitemata (a great name otherwise) for somewhere else in future.

    1. +1 to this comment.

      Give new stations Māori names by all means but leave names that are 100+ years old out of the equation. Why make commuting more confusing?

      1. Britomart as a place name is more than 100 years old, but it refers to a headland that is a long way from the current station, and also has an even older Te Reo name. Britomart as the name of that station is only 20 years old. The station is going to develop into a major complex with all the bus stations, which are even further from Point Britomart and the ferry terminal. Waitematā is a fantastic name because it’s a really well known landmark, that most people already use in their mental map of the city centre, and it links the station to the ferry terminals.

    2. I’ve come around to the Waitematā one: it’s the name of the harbour after all.

      However the new name for Aotea is disappointing. It refers to the historic stream, the Waihorotiu, which has no relation to anything there today, unlike Aotea which relates to the major current landmarks nearby.

      Seems like they added “Te” to differentiate it from Waitemata. But now both are long, and one starts with “Wai-Te” and the other “Te-Wai”. A potential minefield for dyslexics or people unfamiliar with most place names in Auckland.

      Reminds me of my first trip to a non-English speaking country, and catching the train to my accommodation. I carefully memorised the kanji characters for my destination station, but it was a long name so I memorised two characters in particular. At about three stops into the journey I realised that all stops had those characters: I’d memorised the characters for “station”.

      Although Te Wai Horotiu is probably better than using the shorter Horotiu, I could see that becoming a “horror show”…

      1. As someone who finds learning Maori or any language for that matter not that easy my thoughts (I normally have to look up the spelling before any posts on the new names):

        I also like the Waitematā one: People are familiar with it, it’s the name of the harbour after all, pretty short, easy to say and spell. Britomart has links to the ship of that name too remember. Brief history I found from the NZ Herald below*

        Te Waihorotiu: I think this one could of stayed as Aotea, being an existing Maori name, is short, related to Aotea Square & Centre area. They all don’t relate that well to the location though I guess?

        Karanga-a-Hape: No problem will likely be spoken as K’Rd by most people?

        Maungawhau: No real problem with this, but hard to remember spelling, but good it is related to the nearby mountain. Way finding is a bit strange for getting to Eden Park in that you use Kingsland station. In the future it could be renamed to Eden Park Station perhaps?…but about that stadium…


        The Britomart Precinct was an abundant resource for the Auckland isthmus and many battles were waged for its control. A Maori pa once stood on Britomart Point and overlooked the harbour.

        The precinct was the trading heart of the city for much of the last century. It was formed in the 1880s when a large amount of city land was created through major land reclamation.

        WHY ‘BRITOMART’?

        The precinct is named for Britomart Point, which was the original peninsula lying approximately at the junction of Quay Street and Kings Wharf. The Point itself was named for the HMS Britomart.

        On 18 September 1840 Captain Hobson and his party from the HMS Britomart landed at Britomart Point, where the British flag was raised and a gun salute fired. The officers were employed on a detailed survey of the Waitemata and it was as part of this survey that the ship’s name was bestowed on Britomart Point.

        Britomart was the name given to the daughter of King Ryence of Wales. Britomart was the name of one of the Lady Knights of King Arthur’s Knights of the Round Table. The word Britomart also comes from a mythological Cretan goddess Britomartis.


        1700 – 1800
        Maori occupation before reclamation.

        Admiralty charter of the Waitemata Harbour.

        Fort Britomart established.

        Britomart Point demolished, filling used to reclaim the Britomart area.

        Reclaimed land for sale.

        Reclamation completed.

        Queen St station open on the Britomart site.

        CPO construction starts.

        CPO officially opened.

        Waterfront strike.

        First bus service to CPO.

        Prince of Wales visits.

        Auckland Railway Station opens on Beach Rd.

        Britomart bus terminal opens.
        CPO Annexe completed.

        Britomart carpark opens.

        Harbour Bridge opens.

        Britomart underground station proposed.

        Britomart underground station cancelled.
        Queen St closed between Quay St and Customs St.

        Queen Elizabeth Square opens.

        Deregulation of Auckland Harbour Board and Railways Department.

        Britomart Development proposed.
        Britomart Development cancelled with stock market crash.

        CPO closed.

        Auckland City purchases all Britomart properties.

        Auckland City purchases CPO.
        Auckland City proposes the Britomart project.

        CPO ground floor opens as Britomart display centre.

        Britomart project rethink.

        Public consultation.

        Rail tunnel completed.
        Design competition.
        Station resource consent granted.

        Stormwater project.
        Demolition of CPO Annexe, Britomart bus terminal and carpark.
        Britomart funding applications made.
        Britomart underground railway station construction begins.

        CPO restoration begins.
        Queen Elizabeth Square closed.
        Footpaths and services construction begins.

        Britomart Transport Centre completed.

        Britomart properties sold or leased with new urban design guidelines.

        1. It is shame they couldn’t have rebuilt the Bus Terminal on top of the Station complex as it was originally instead of being spread all around Auckland . Also they could have brought the Intercity buses here also .

        2. Yes, though the cost may not have been worth it, being valuable land? Been a bit messy since but I think in the end the bus integration will be OK. We should really through run most of the buses, need good priority in place though.

  8. After Finding a Fault West of the New Lynn Railway Station Kiwi Rail is now Stabilizing the Embankment after over the years with collapse happening a number of times .

Leave a Reply

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