Auckland’s draft Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) 2024 is open for feedback – and you only have until Monday 17 June to submit. Do it! Join the thousands of Aucklanders who are speaking up for wise strategic investment that will dig us out of traffic and give us easy and healthy options for getting around our city.

Why is this so important?

Auckland’s RLTP outlines the region’s transport investment over the next 10 years. The programme is partly funded by Auckland Transport – primarily through Auckland Council – and partly by Waka Kotahi (NZTA) through the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF).

So the RLTP aims to set out Auckland’s transport challenges, and then the investment priorities, to arrive at what projects should be delivered – and when – in the coming decade.

The final RLTP will inform the National Land Transport Plan (NLTP), which is developed by Waka Kotahi and allocates funding from the NLTF to transport projects. The NLTP is also informed by the policy direction of the current government via the Government Policy Statement (GPS).

Given how radically the central government’s transport priorities diverge from Auckland’s, it is vitally important that you have your say to ensure Aucklanders get the transport investment we need and want.

We’ve put together a quick guide to detail our thoughts on the RLTP, below. Feel free to take inspiration from us when you make your own submission.

Here are the key links:

Physical copies of the draft RLTP document are available at Auckland Council libraries. Also, if you would like to present your views in person or via an audio-visual link, you can email to book a time slot. Public hearings will be held 26 & 27 June 2024 at 20 Viaduct Harbour Ave, Auckland.

And here are a few other handy guides to giving feedback:

Our general thoughts

We’ve previously noted that the gap between the government’s road obsession and Auckland’s own multimodal ambitions could mean the RLTP shaping up to be a debacle – and that Auckland will need to exert some local authority to get better outcomes in the coming decade. The graphs below demonstrate the gulf between central and local government thinking:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Update: overall, while the draft RLTP contains some good projects, there are also some very large and expensive projects being imposed by central government that Auckland really doesn’t want or need right now – aka More RoNs.

There are also a lot of gaps that are not being addressed – chiefly in active and public transport – and some huge missed opportunities, like leveraging the spending on renewals and maintenance to get better outcomes and give more people more transport choices.

Moreover, the RLTP needs to be fully aligned with (what should by now be) the overriding policies and directions from Auckland Council, such as the Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway (TERP) and Vision Zero for safer streets. An Auckland plan, that follows what Aucklanders have repeatedly asked for, and that delivers what Aucklanders want and need, in this most critical of climate decades.

Now let’s address the feedback survey questions, in order…

Q. Have we correctly identified the most important challenges facing Auckland?

Funnily enough, yes. The RLTP clearly and persuasively outlines the challenges – as below. It’s how these challenges are addressed that’s the big issue.

  • Access and connectivity Easy and equitable access to work, education, and fun leisure locations is made more difficult by weak spots in our transport system and increasing demand as our population grows.
  • Asset condition Cost increases and past under-investment in renewing our roads and other assets is leading to the deterioration of our existing transport assets, which impacts levels of service and leads to greater costs over time.
  • Climate change and the environment Greenhouse gas and pollution, particularly from private vehicle use, are contributing to climate change, and creating air and water quality issues.
  • Safety Transport-related deaths and serious injuries remain unacceptably high, and there are limited opportunities for Aucklanders to support better health outcomes through walking and cycling.
  • Travel choices A lack of options and high levels of car dependency as the city grows makes it difficult for Auckland to grow as a city and a region.

Q. Are we missing anything from the draft RLTP priorities?

The priorities are also mostly good, too. The “five criteria to prioritise the additional projects and investments that can help keep Auckland moving forward over the next decade” are:

  • Fast and connected
  • Resilient
  • Productive
  • Safe
  • Sustainable

But Bike Auckland makes a good point about something that should be in there as its own priority:

Bike Auckland says: Yes – Transport Choice

Despite identifying Transport Choice as a problem to be solved, they have not included it as a priority. They hint at it within the priorities listed, but it is not listed as a priority in-and-of itself. Since having a diversity of viable transport options is a key part of solving all the other challenges they have listed, it should be its own priority. Remember: if the only viable choice for a given journey is to drive, then everyone will drive, and our roads will be full of so many cars that they can barely move.

Q. Which priority is most important to you?

Here, you have the choice of the five priorities (plus an extra one of your choosing), and you can also choose to say they’re all equally important. Your call. Prioritising projects that are “Sustainable” will naturally lead to other important priorities, like resilience, and fast and connected public transport – but the choice is up to you.

Q. Which priority is least important to you?

Again, over to your personal preference. Choosing “equally important” is fine.

Q. How would you rank the kinds of projects?

When ranking the types of projects for investment, in our view it is very important that state highways are ranked the least important (5), with local roads ranked just above (4).  The top 3 are more interchangeable, and up to personal preference.

Here’s how we think they could be ranked.

      1. Public Transport Improvements
      2. Walking & Cycling Improvements
      3. Safety Improvements
      4. Local Road improvements
      5. State highway improvements

Q. Are there any projects that are not in the draft plan that you feel should be included?

We think yes!

Firstly, there’s a variety of walking and cycling programs that are being “considered” for inclusion but are not currently in the draft RLTP.

We say the draft RLTP should include the Walking & Cycling Connections Programmes, Wayfinding investment, and the Urban Cycleways Waitematā Safe Routes (to complete the Inner West) – check out  Bike Auckland’s guide for a strong list with lots of good suggestions.

There’s also a variety of work that integrates active transport modes with rapid transit and public transport, such as the Rosedale Station, which should be prioritised or receive funding.

Secondly, there needs to be more investment and priority given to traffic calming and safety measures such as raised pedestrian crossings, and projects like the Residential Speed Management and City Centre Access for Everyone programmes, which would create incredibly beneficial and widely popular low traffic neighbourhoods as are seen overseas.

Thirdly, the RLTP has some glaring gaps when it comes to major rapid transit projects. It’s good NW rapid transit is prioritised, but there is nothing that replaces the scrapped ALR project in the City Centre to Māngere corridor, where it has been long agreed between Auckland Council and the Government that rapid transit is needed. It’s a great line to start light rail in Auckland, and there should be some work towards eventually getting surface light rail running down Queen Street and Dominion Road.

This is not an exclusive list of suggestions for additions. Check out the map of the currently proposed projects here – so you can see what’s missing along your daily travels and in your neighbourhoods.

Q. Which planned project could be removed to pay for it?

Take your pick of these state highways/ RoNS & RoRS. Your call. (Note that the SH1 Warkworth to Wellsford is highest on the list, so we’d go for that).

      • East-West Link
      • Mill Road
      • SH1 Warkworth to Wellsford

Q. Do you have any additional comments on the draft RLTP?


While the GPS is attempting to constrain the RLTP, it is vitally important that Auckland’s needs and priorities should take precedence.

Auckland doesn’t need the proposed Roads of National or Regional Significance, as these will do nothing but induce more congestion and raise our transport emissions, and take away funding from far more useful projects.

Major investment is better directed towards public transport improvements that provide real transport choice on major corridors, like Rapid Transit for the NW, and options like surface light rail.

The general priorities outlined in the feedback survey are good in theory, but the funding prioritisation does not necessarily reflect meaningful action. For example: if large scale funding for renewals and maintenance is essential, this shouldn’t result in a return to the current status quo. As we’ve said before, Auckland’s huge recurring investment in maintenance and renewals must be leveraged to encourage mode shift – by including cycling, walking, and public transport improvements. That way, every time a street is fixed or repaved, we also “build back better” to make it safer and diversify people’s transport choices.

Using the Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway, adopted in late 2022 by Auckland Council, will naturally produce these outcomes. So the whole RLTP needs to be underpinned by the TERP – it must guide all transport investment for the coming decade, to reflect and mitigate our climate crisis.

The RLTP also needs to reflect what Aucklanders want, as seen in the Long Term Plan. There is a legal case that shows the RLTP doesn’t have to blindly follow the GPS – and this should certainly be the case here. Investments in public transport, walking, and cycling are vital for Auckland’s future and have to be prioritised in this RLTP. Otherwise, the stated aims simply will not be achieved.

Let this be the decade where actions match words – and where Aucklanders get the real transport choice we all want and deserve.

You have until Monday 17th of June to have your say. Over to you!

We also warmly encourage younger people to add their voices – they have to live the longest with the outcomes (and costs) of these decisions. Children and young people are also woefully underrepresented in these consultations – something AT has been publicly pointing out as well.

So if you can, reach out and help younger Aucklanders to speak up and use their influence. We’ll all be better off for it.

Spotted at the mall, y’all – and on bus shelters everywhere: billboards encouraging feedback on Auckland’s 10-year transport plan. It’s important.
Share this


  1. Te Whau pathway project linking the Manukau and Waitematā harbours providing important links through New Lynn, Kelston, Glendene and Te Atatu should be included.

    1. Agree- particularly now that the once proposed Cycle Facility on Te Atatu Road has been replaced by T2 Bus Lane ( and with no enforcement that is just another general traffic lane)

      1. Yes it is so much more treacherous now along that stretch of road. I think a lot of people don’t realise the pathway isn’t funded as they see a small section being built. There looks to be no intention by the current council to complete the pathway as it has not been put on any plan. It makes sense to continue building as the machinery and knowledge is there to be used.

  2. Light Rail from Mount Eden to Maangere is a must have! Forget about Queen Street. We will have the CRL soon enough (considering that Mayor Robbie proposed it some time ago RIP).

    A light rail link from the new Mount Eden Station, to Three Kings and Mount Roskill.

    If Heavy Rail is still possible between Onehunga and Avondale, this should be top of the list also.

    And remember South Auckland…Maangere is the worst served, most over-populated region in the entire country! Light Rail from the Airport to Mangere Town Centre, then to Mangere Bridge Town Centre. It is an easier walk / bike between Onehunga and Maangere Bridge now; so let us make use of that beautiful arch in our infrastructure, and integrate as the official connection (but only for pedestrians and mobility wheels; bikes; as it is now).

    These projects should all meet ESG standards and reduce some of the postcode lottery / racism in our fair (pale skinned?) city!!!

    bah humbug

    1. So you have light rail transferring hundreds of people to trains at Maungawhau where they are at the highest loading point (i.e. no capacity). With ideas like this you could work at AT, lol. We need increased PT capacity through the city centre as bus corridors near their limits. The focus of ALR should have remained on that.

  3. The whole thing seems weird to me. Imagine:
    – Pharmac using a survey to choose which drugs to fund
    – The reserve bank using a survey to set the OCR
    – The council using a survey to choose what chemicals to add to the water

    Shouldn’t these decisions be made by experts?

    1. I mean… it’s not like the processes we have around those things are super great ambassadors for expert input given recent outcomes in those areas.

      At some point, however, you wait so long for an outcome that populism is a useful force to make something happen, although by that stage people are usually in the ‘something, anything’ phase and not prepared to wait around to see if the ‘best option but faster’ ever actually eventuates.

    2. Well said experts have mostly be trained to improve traffic flow at the expense of other peoples lives. Lots of people around with strong opinions about whether that is a good idea or not. So leaving it to experts is not a neutral choice either.

    3. exactly. I’m baffled by those consulatations and then more consulatations on every individual parking space in the city. And in the end they glean only what suits them and ignore the rest anyway. What is the point? Oh wait someone has to make money. makes sense.

  4. Problem is people tend to focus on how bad things are right now and end up voting for change for changes sake. And somehow end up actually voting for something much, much worse.

    Maybe instead of proposing actual details, we should vote on whether we want Fast and connected, Resilient, Productive, Safe, Sustainable, and freedom of choice. But then instead of actual details should be just evidence based best way to achieve that and with good BCR. Its my opinion (but I think pretty well backed up by plenty of international evidence) that more RONS and RORS deliver none of those things, so why are they even a survey option?

  5. I find it incredible that AT is advertising to try and get Aucklanders to adopt the transport position that AT wants to adopt. In most countries they call that corruption.

    The amusing thing is that AT doesn’t listen to Aucklanders. For example, I’m aware of the installation of paid parking meters in an area of Auckland where reportedly 90% of the feedback was against. AT went ahead and installed them anyway!

    So AT is spending ratepayer money trying to skew it’s own consultation process which it doesn’t listen to. Wonders never cease!

    1. People are getting something expensive for free from the council (parking), and now they won’t be getting it for free anymore.

      I mean it is kind of obvious to expect people to be unhappy about it.

      Meanwhile, I have no idea how much extra ratepayer money we are pissing away by keeping streets 8 – 10 or even 13 metres wide instead of 6m. (that would be enough if people wouldn’t be parking all over those streets)

      Judging from the crappy chip seal used these days, I think it is a lot.

      1. “Meanwhile, I have no idea how much extra ratepayer money we are pissing away by keeping streets 8 – 10 or even 13 metres wide instead of 6m.”

        New road designs tend to be a lot narrower. Making the old roads narrower likely is changing something that generally is literally cast in (blue)stone – or at least concrete. It costs a lot to move kerb lines, so in the SHORT TERM it is always cheaper for the poor maintenance folks with their stretched budgets to just seal it all over again “like for like”.

        Of course in the long term this means all the old bad decisions are kept, and we don’t get more space for walk and cycleways and slower, cheaper roads even where there would be absolutely no downside (not even car parking loss). We. Just. Keep. Doing. It.

        The tragedy of short-termism is that you pay for it over. and. over. and. over.

        1. I guess drainage gets, um, interesting.

          It can be done though, recently they moved the kerblines on Birkenhead Avenue.

  6. Thanks for the post, will feedback soon,

    BTW is it just me or others who have had their WordPress subscriptions not delivering email since yesterday afternoon? Then I think while it was faulty I had a look and have lost the settings I had with it. Thought the GA blog was rather quiet.

  7. what you gotta do the survey 100 times on 100 different gmail accounts to support walking, cycling, public transport investments

  8. What AT actually wants is some real public support for what Auckland people have already said are their priorities. You need to say it again, loudly, to be heard in Wellington. Or Pakuranga, at least. The projects are all listed with AT/AC priority ranking, so you can see the missing projects and the queue jumping horrors foisted by the minister. And you may want to add projects that you don’t see there. 15 years of planning, design and nothing happening on Do-minimum Road and still no cure for the impending bus sausage.

  9. Relevant to today’s post and yesterday’s is that in the list of projects: 4 tracking Westfield to Pukekohe is ranked 17.
    “Investigation and design, route protection and initial construction of additional track, to increase capacity for expected
    growth, resulting in competitive and reliable services for freight, regional, and metro passengers along the Southern
    corridor and at the Westfield Junction bottleneck.”

    Ranked 1 equal is “CRL Day One – ETCS Level 2 – Business case”

  10. Ideally for any young person (future generation) these out there, Auckland needs more at least two ‘EMU Heavy Rail’ lines by 2035 to grow housing, jobs, more shopping centres in underdeveloped suburbs where they got potential to be elevated, instead of just constructing on Greenfield’s.

    Generically property development investors look for cultural features in growing existing suburbs, currently as of now Panmure, New Lynn, Mt Eden feature as perfect place to develop and elevate an existing suburb, to a better suburb for better experience for people. Only happened due to EMU Heavy Rail infrastructure upgrades and extensions of rail lines. However if there was presence of a suburb which currently doesn’t feature Heavy Rail, be similar story but different. If Heavy Rail was promised and guaranteed, property development investors would see a reason to invest into suburbs, would bring more convenience, better experience, more shopping options in suburbs with Heavy Rail Stations. We wouldn’t facing here current issues of convenience and lack of adequate mode of travelling!

  11. Kia Ora for linking to the ChangeGear Replanetizer tool in there. As for previous consultations, I created this to help more people participate in the least amount of time. This tool is a lot more than a guide: just choose a few settings – like your main concern: climate / cycling / walking / rail / H&S / car dependency, Length, Tone – and it will draft comments in seconds.

So while many GA geeks here may be already well sorted, The Replanetizer is the submission assistant for The Rest of Us. As skewed as AT is on this one, I think if we can get an extra large number of submissions in, it’s got a count for something, so do share to anyone you know might care to submit if its not too onerous. And of course if you yourself are down to the wire Monday night, The Replanetizer is your friend.

    The tool works on mobile but ATs Have Your Say format means its much easier to do on desktop/lappy.

    I’ve spent weeks working on this baby and would love to see it put to good use. (also… Urbanist swag!)

  12. Thanks Greater Auckland, and anyone who reads this far down the comments.
    Im in semi rural Franklin. No public transport, trains are offline for a bit, and in a “drive or leave coastal village” with zero public tranport. I love it here, but regularly its an hour to drive 25km to Papakura. For the first time people are leaving our little coastal paradise. Cant pay mortgages if you cant get to work. Simple really.

    So RLTP people – im certain council folks and AT folks peruse these comments…

    1. If the RLTP process has resulted in gridlock, stop doing it. Its hurting us.

    2. As councillors put it – who’s in charge of Transport in Auckland?
    Answer – Wellington. Evidence, what Auckland wants vs what Wellington will fund.

    3. Consultation. Where i live is not on the map. Literally. Franklin has been replaced by an insert of central Auckland. While the CBD is important, we pay rates… Taxation without Representation leads to pointy words in transport blogs. I note Future connect consultations left Franklin off its (printed) maps. Points for consistency.

    4. Cr Mike Lee said of the Draft RLTP – it makes no allowance for coming transport disruption. Mobility as a service, robo-taxi’s, micromobility, Electric everything. He’s not wrong, and didnt glance toward the recent disruptions of “Atmospheric Rivers”. Cr Mike gets it. RLTP, not so much – which leads me to

    5. TERP – a plan not so much in the plan. Lots of positive change falls out of TERP, including congestion charging. Mode Shift works miracles overseas. No TERP in this plan, and our 64% emissions reductions by 2030 will only occur if the petrol ships from Asia stop arriving. Maybe thats the plan ? 1 week of petrol supply in NZ im told.

    6. If the Manukau Harbour was on the RLTP Project map (its not), then the Manukau Harbour Ferry Service could show not just increased resilience (Awhitu roads!) but also carbon reductions. Yes there is a fleet of commuters who drive Awhitu to City.
    That the RLTP hides my Auckland, and ignores Manukau commuters talks to the true power of the plan. If the project isnt in the RLTP then funding cannot be allocated to it. Catch 22. Cant get on the plan, because scoping work wasnt in the plan…

    7. Mandarins of this Great City. Its 2034 ; is todays plan worthy looking back on?

    8. Franklin, the Greatest of all of the supercity districts is mentioned in the RLTP but once. Franklin Paths Plan. A targetted rate to deliver walking & cycling into our region. Kids on bikes safely. We’re paying for it directly, so no RLTP required, so for Franklin Aucklands Southern Growth Region, apart from a few bus extensions is missing from Aucklands Transport Future. Important to know if you are heading our way. Slowly, in a car. Franklin 2034 = Franklin 2024, but with 70,000 more population. The eTrains should be up and running by then. Thats a plan.

    9. The RLTP isnt a transport plan. Its an eyes down recognition that Auckland is unable to deliver on the City we aspire to. Yes funds are limited, which is a scheduling and funding challenge. We’ve left our dreams off this list. Walking or eScootering across the harbour bridge? Not this decade.

    Thanks, i feel better now.

Leave a Reply

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