This guest post is by Tommy de Silva, a local rangatahi and freelance writer who is passionate about making the urban fabric of Tāmaki Makaurau-Auckland more people-focused and sustainable.


New Zealand’s March-April 2020 Level 4 Covid response (aka “lockdown”) was somehow both the best and worst six weeks of my life. Spending all the free time an unmotivated arts student suddenly had on his hands doing whatever I wanted – that was fantastic. But the cabin fever, even for a homebody like myself, nearly reached unbearable heights – and I’m not the only one with mixed emotions and memories about that period. While the sourdough was great the social separation wasn’t.

However, there was something objectively amazing no matter your creed, ethnicity, occupation or shoe size – how calm, clean, peaceful and quiet Auckland’s streets became, simply because there were fewer people driving around.

My most vivid positive memory from this period was going for a hīkoi around central Auckland with my brother. We began at our family’s Newton Gully apartment where the dominant aural backdrop was suddenly birdsong, evoking the area’s past life as a lush valley, instead of the usual constant traffic drone from the nearby Spaghetti Junction. (Did you know: birds are stressed by traffic noise, just as humans are? The louder the roar, the brusquer and more boring their songs, and the coverse is also true.)

Central Auckland’s motorway spaghetti junction during Level 4 in April-May 2020. (Image Credit: Tommy de Silva)

From there, we enjoyed the only peaceful and quiet trot down Symonds Street either of us had in our lives. That peace and quiet was followed up by our first ever sighting of kids cycling down the middle of Ponsonby Road. Given how few cars were around, it seemed their posh parents needn’t fear their precious poppets might become a Pollock on their neighbour’s new Range Rover.

On our way home, we ourselves walked down the middle of a Karanga-ā-Hape Road that felt more like its car-free, pedestrianised 2024 Matariki festival than how it usually feels on an ordinary traffic-clogged day.

On that hīkoi, it felt like we’d teleported from the dirty, dystopian, car-crazed colonial city of Auckland, to the clean, sustainable paradise of Tāmaki Makaurau. Although on many other levels the lockdown sucked, having fewer cars around – because people had been asked to drive only for essential journeys – enhanced our city streets. Not only was this a respite for our ailing environment, it also improved safety for anybody outside of a car, and transformed how our streets felt.

Plus, taking unnecessary traffic off the road naturally freed up space, making life easier and more productive for for all those necessary trips, delivery runs, and essential workers who needed to drive (and less stressful for those who opted for a fresh-air alternative – like the cycling health workers, GPs, and news crews profiled by Bike Auckland).

Early 2020: a tamariki able to safely cycle down Ponsonby’s Williamson Ave without fear of cars (Credit: Tommy de Silva)

This isn’t, or needn’t just be, a pandemic response. Around the world, cities combine safety, street-feel and sustainability to produce people-focused urban spaces that ooze mauri, instead of wreaking of avoidable death as so many of Auckland streets do.

Italy’s pumping piazze to Japan’s bustling shōtengai, people are drawn to the exciting and eclectic places where they are king. Not only are people attracted to these places, but so are businesses eager to reap the benefits of all that foot-traffic. For a local example, consumer spending on Fort Street jumped 47% after it was partially pedestrianised. Conversely, attempting a stroll along many Auckland shopping streets – most of which are still under the despotic, dirty, noisy rule of single-occupancy vehicles – will at best infect anyone not in a car with a bad case of JAFA-itis, and at worst will land you in the hospital, or worse.

A Japanese shōtengai where retailers reap the benefits of pumping foot traffic. (Credit: Tommy de Silva)

It really is a great shame that it took a global pandemic to (briefly) enhance Auckland’s streets and make them safer. And it’s even sadder that afterwards, our streets quickly devolved back into being smoggy rows of traffic. Especially as many international cities we like to compare ourselves to were inspired by temporary pedestrianisation and cycling improvements for social distancing to pursue even more audacious and delightful reclamation of city streets. You’ve likely heard of the outdoor dining parklets which filled old New York City car parks (and kept tills ringing) – and Paris is perhaps the most eye-catching example.

Of course, pre-Covid, Parisian politicians were already ambitiously limiting cars and providing for alternative transport modes, but the pandemic acted as a powerful catalyst. Across Paris during the first years of Covid-19, street space was reclaimed from traffic in swathes – officially in the name of social distancing (like the pop-up bike lanes known as “corona-pistes”), but unofficially in the name of people and planet.

While not a pandemic-era measure, the reclaimed public space along the River Seine, a former motorway which Parisians lined to catch a glimpse of the Olympic opening ceremony, is one lovely example of the French capital’s people-focused policies. The streets of Paris are still far from perfect, but at least it’s genuinely heading in the right direction at pace – an epithet that could scarcely be applied to New Zealand.

Bonjour, Paris: this was a motorway, now it’s a place for people. Image from this guest post by George Weeks.

If anything, recently it feels like we’re going backwards in Aotearoa. Discounts to buy clean, quiet cars have been repealed; public transport subsidies have been watered down. Our government and the agencies it directs are ignoring evidence-based policy in favour of culture-war approaches that will cause avoidable death and maiming, like increasing urban speed limits.

Meanwhile, cycling and walking improvements – which offer people much-wanted alternatives to driving, while also reducing congestion and pollution – have had their government funding cut in half, while the Beehive intends to spend billions on motorways that induce traffic and increase carbon emissions. (This includes a promise to re-animate Auckland’s zombie East-West Link – costed as the world’s most expensive road per kilometre, even before the current inflation crisis led to ballooning infrastructure bills.)

With policies like those, we won’t get a critical mass of healthier, nicer and safer streets anytime soon. But in the meantime, the seeds already sown to improve urban spaces are beginning to sprout across Tāmaki Makaurau-Auckland. By 2026 (fingers crossed), Auckland’s most transformative transport project in decades, the City Rail Link, will be operational.

And alongside the new stations, trains and tunnels, complementary urban regeneration projects are under way. Some highlights include:

We only need to look at the recently opened new metro line across the ditch in Sydney to glimpse how transformational these sorts of projects will be.

An artist’s depiction of the Waihorotiu Station, featuring artwork by Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei artist Graham Tipene. (Credit: CRL)

While the CRL upgrades will include waves of road cones for a few more years, Aucklanders can already bask in the glory of improved urban spaces:

  • Karanga-ā-Hape Road’s renovation greatly expanded space for cyclists, diners and pedestrians amongst new planting and seating.
  • Similarly, the Waihorotiu path increased space for those visiting Queen Street on bike or foot.
  • Two new public squares, Te Komititanga between Britomart and Commercial Bay, alongside Te Wānanga outside the ferry terminal, have extended Wynyard Quarter’s people-focused vibe further along the waterfront.
  • Speaking of Wynyard Quarter, the soon-to-be Te Ara Tukutuku park will bring an urban ngahere to the popular area.

These new and improved spaces feel much more lively, thriving and just generally more pleasant than your typical Tāmaki thoroughfare. But geographically astute readers may have noticed an equity issue: these renovations are all located in central Auckland. Other areas have often not received their fair share of infrastructure investment, as seen for example in how the people of Manukau have traditionally had pōhara parks, especially compared to the “leafy burbs”.

The good news is that after decades of historical underinvestment in south Auckland, its streets and urban spaces are finally now getting some well deserved attention. For example, ambitious projects are in the works to develop or improve cycling networks in Māngere and Manukau’s city centre. While some works were thrown awry when government funding was recently cancelled, Auckland Transport found alternative pūtea to continue as planned. Nearby, an ambitious revitalisation of the Puhinui awa between Auckland’s botanical gardens and the Manukau CBD will include a shared path for cyclists and pedestrians, akin to the one which runs along Te Aunganga/Oakley Creek from Mount Roskill to Waterview.

True, urban spaces built for people are still the exception and not the rule in Auckland – most places still prioritise planet-heating but paradoxically air-conditioned gas guzzlers. But change – like a bike lane down every major road, safely walkable streets in town centres (and everywhere else for that matter) and frequent, reliable public transport servicing more areas – will inevitably come, as the realities of the climate, economic and equity crises set in.

I am certain this will happen before the next once-in-a-generation pandemic, because there is a palpable mood for change amongst Tāmaki residents. For proof, one only needs to look at the community efforts to get two-thirds of the Inner West improvements across the line – alongside the continued mahi from local leaders like Bike Auckland, school principals and the Waitematā Local Board to advocate for the final third.

The new and improved Meola Road, shown in August 2024: one part of the wider Inner West streetscape improvements package. Amongst other things this renovation provides safe cycling for the local school children who bike more than their peers anywhere else in the country. (Credit: Jolisa Gracewood)

Those Level 4 times, whilst negative in many ways, offered a brief, shining, memorable experience of how free and empowering our city’s streets become when Aucklanders just… drive less.

And the thing is: we don’t need to be told to do this: we could actually choose to do this of our own free will, for the betterment of our city, our planet and our mokopuna to come. Especially when you realise the majority of trips we make in Auckland –  63% according to Waka Kotahi – are under 5km.

Sure, on the odd occasion you’re lugging a beach tent, four children and a dog to Piha, you’ll probably want to take the car. But other outings will be the perfect length for a quick bike ride, or a bus adventure, or a fresh-air ramble on your own two feet.

So, next time you’re setting out on one of those short trips, why not dust off your HOP card, go for a walk, or hop on a bike that’s been sitting idle, and give it a go? You might find it as freeing as I did.

Share this

68 comments

  1. Aye great writing. I live in Te Atatū Peninsula – a place that has had a great deal of intensification in recent years- the streets are now virtually one lane only, “Ranger, Ranger, Ranger” blocking the footpaths- whilst the government keeps with their cars and trucks only ideology we are heading to a grinding halt in transport and life.

    1. There’s a strong argument for requiring all houses to provide sufficient parking for the number of vehicles the occupants wish to own and leaving the streets free for the transit of those vehicles (That number could be could be zero, but if you buy or rent a house with insufficient parking for your needs then don’t go complaining about lack of parking and parking on the road).

      1. I can absolutely comprehend buying house with no car parking spaces and not expecting to park my non existent car on the road and using other means of transport instead.

        What I cannot comprehend is a council that allows people to buy a house with no car parking spaces then park the 2-3 cars they wanted to own clogging up the road.

        It’s like you need to slow down and read what people are saying before rushing to hit that reply button.

        1. But here we offer houses with no parking -but critically offer very limited/non existent alternatives in terms of transport so of course we have them owning cars.

        2. People will adjust their thinking to be aware of parking needs & what they should buy. We have been used to having parking minimums in Auckland/NZ. It’s just like checking out, for eg, how long and how much it would take or cost to drive or take PT to work from your home each day.

        3. Gee, it’s almost like the system is so heavily biased towards total car dependency that incentivizing people to get out of cars and taking away the monopoly on space and infrastructure they have is necessary.

          You were arguing for parking minimums, bub, and that’s a crap policy whether residential or commercial.

        4. Again you seem to have reading comprehension problems. Yes I’m arguing for a minimum, as low as zero actually. Just don’t come crying to the council when you have nowhere on your property to park your car(s), if you even choose to own one. Similarly if you have a business, supply parking or don’t, your choice. If you feel like all your customers arrive on foot don’t provide any car or bike parking. Just don’t go crying to the council when you later decide your customers have nowhere to park.

          But also technology will soon also solve this problem. In the not too distant future you will simply get dropped off near the location of your choice and bid your car away to a distant parking lot (or release it back into the rideshare pool of vehicles, or exit from an autonomous people mover that picked you up near your house).

          We do have to make sure we don’t get too hung up on solving last Millennia’s problems with last Millennia’s solutions.

        5. Cars dropping people off and then going to a distant parking lot will double the amount of car traffic on local streets, and that is not good news for people living there. The council will not only be required to manage car parking more actively, it will probably also be required to manage driving cars more actively in a similar way.

          The root problem with parking is indeed the council allowing home owners to freeload on on-street parking. How to solve this I don’t know, we have a lot of existing houses without parking. If on-street parking becomes restricted those houses will become much less useful — there are too many things we expect grown-ass adults to do that are just not possible without a car.

          On the other hand, getting rid of all that parking will by itself make those alternatives work much better. Cycling in particular is currently almost impossible due to all that on-street parking.

        6. True car share like City Hop & Mevo are the way to go for more centrally located suburbs as we move into the future. Allow more density, transit & bike lanes etc while allowing this to increase with market demand.

          Need a lot more of them around in special parks close by to where you live for when you truely need a car. Though not that cheap per hour / km, it probably a lot cheaper than the true life time cost of owning a car that you park in your garage/carport/drive/street taking up valuable housing space.

        7. The thing about autonomy is the cars don’t necessarily need to be ‘where you live’ only somewhere within a reasonable driving time. They can be summoned to you, you don’t have to go to them. People underestimate just how much of a revolution it’s going to bring to transportation.

          And Roeland you’re probably aware most buses back load nearly empty and spend quite a bit of time repositioning empty. People also often spend time circling the block looking for a park. So it’s not exactly a new problem. Cities overseas that already have pilot programs for autonomous vehicles have had to consider the upcoming problem of people telling the vehicle to circle the streets rather than park in an expensive car park. There’s a reason free cellphone parking lots at airports were implemented, to stop human driven cars endlessly circling clogging up drop off and pick up access roads rather than pay outrageous short term parking rates. Councils will have to start thinking about having modestly priced parking lots to keep cars off the roads. But that’s likely to be easier and cheaper to do than having on street parking everywhere. The problem of getting people to pay for parking that they used to get for free is a very real one as evidenced by the pushback AT got when they recently tried to implement that in Auckland.

          Much as today you might rent a storage unit to handle the overflow of junk you can’t fit in your garage, many people will likely rent or own parking that isn’t exactly where they live. And that’ll give councils more flexibility to remove legacy on street parking since the problem to be solved isn’t “How can I park my car in front of my house” but rather “how can I have easy and convenient access to a car if and when I need one” In the old days that meant parking being quite close to the house or business. In the future that’s much less important.

          Consider a two or three car family. It may not become a zero car family but it may easily become a one car plus rideshare family. it’s not hard to justify going with a rideshare service the elimination of fixed overheads on a second or third occasionally used car.

          With autonomy repositioning your one car is much easier so it’s possible to make the car(s) you own work much harder. Once Level 5 systems are available the amount of time people can reclaim in their lives is huge. Have the car drop the kids at school then have it ferry them on it’s own to their after school activities. As you commute relax, nap, work or play with the kids that the car brought to you after picking them up from after school activities. send it off to pick up grandma and bring her over for a visit or drop by friends and family more frequently yourself now you’re relieved of the chore of driving. Eliminate drunk or drugged drivers because why would they drive if the car could do it for them. You might be more inclined to walk or bike to work if you knew your car could meet you on the way home if it started to rain or after a hard day in the office you were just over the idea of cycling home that day. Alternatively have it drive you nearer to your work, drop you off and turn around leaving you with a more modest cycling or walking commute. The revolutionary nature of the extra capabilities they’ll give you makes them a much more attractive proposition than buying a new car that does exactly the same as your old car.

  2. Nice article – I had a similar experience in 2021 jogging down Onewa Road.

    The positive outlook is great, as reality is often pretty bleak. However, pedestrianised Mercury Lane was canned already, wasn’t it?

  3. In interested to know how NZTA knows that most of our trips are under 5KM or is that just an assumption does anyone have the data for that please.

      1. The very helpful Benchmarking Sustainable Urban Mobility Report (April 2022) from Waka Kotahi/ NZTA contains specific stats for cities, of journeys under a certain length, and % of those made by driving.
        https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/sustainable-urban-mobility-benchmarking/
        https://nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/sustainable-urban-mobility-benchmarking/sustainable-urban-mobility-benchmarking-report.pdf

        Uploaded here for future reference, just in case it gets lost from the archive – one never knows: : https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/sustainable-urban-mobility-benchmarking-report-april-2022-waka-kotahi-nzta/

  4. “Mercury Lane being transformed from the CBD’s most raggedy rat-run into a pleasant pedestrianised plaza offering car-free access to the revitalised Karanga-ā-hape Road”

    Wasn’t this canned by AT? They can easily change it as they’re putting in the bollards, but they ignored both the local and wider feedback on the consultation. It’ll be an easy fix later, but atm it’s going to be a shared space.

    1. Bollards are still being installed as part of the construction. AT is just considering delaying the pedestrianisation until the station opens.

      1. Wouldn’t want to set people’s expectations from the outset. [eyeroll.gif]

        AT clearly needs people who understand psychology and change management.

  5. Great article. I loved the quiet streets of the lockdowns – it was like an alternate universe.
    The only place I’m aware of in Auckland that retained some COVID-era benefits is Cornwall Park. It was completely closed to cars and a hotbed of biking and walking during the lockdowns. Amazingly, half (?) of the park is still closed to cars, and still heaving with bike riders and people walking on fine days. As it should be.

  6. On the flip side, you should also remember the vast economic damage caused by people’s lack of ability to move goods and themselves freely. We’re only coming to the beginning of the end of the recovery from that now.

    Empty roads coupled with supply shortages and out of control inflation? Do you really want to go back to that package deal?

    1. Ah yes, here comes the automobile lobbyist strawman trying to equate wanting safer streets that incentive walking & cycling with lockdowns and prioritizing money over people.

    2. I remember the other day a car went into a store and bought a PS5. Then an 18-wheeler bought a hamburger and fries.

      Wouldn’t happen with pedestrians, those two-legged machines never buy anything.

    3. I will acknowledge the slight economic benefits of the transport model successive governments have locked us into.

      On the flip side you need to acknowledge the enormous economic damage caused by decades of New Zealand’s juvenile obsession with the private motor vehicle.

      There are now more cars in Aotearoa than there are people legally allowed to drive.
      https://www.autocar.co.nz/kiwis-own-the-most-cars-per-capita-in-the-world-new-data-shows/

      Huge capital outflows to purchase 4WD’s on tick. I look down my street and see millions of dollars worth of debt slowly rusting on the roadside.

      Now, you’re supposedly an adult, so I shouldn’t need to list all the externalities. But lets just start with one of the health impacts:

      https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/10/06/the-invisible-killer-new-zealands-air-pollution-crisis/

      “3300 New Zealanders die prematurely every year due to air pollution”

      1. Cinder, this is why the move to ZEVs is so important. The problem you mention is only an issue for a little while longer. A child born today may never own or drive an non ZEV for personal use except as a curiosity in the same way that people keep old vintage cars running today.

        1. You clearly don’t know what a ZEV is. For educational purposes it’s a Zero Emission Vehicle. Petrol is so last millennia.

          Driver Assistance Packages and autonomy are rapidly removing human error from driving. AT are already well down the track towards testing their first fully autonomous vehicles on the Northern Busway. Those same children who will never own anything but ZEVs will also consider a ‘steering wheel’ to be a quaint older device that their parent’s car had. Combine that with better, upgraded roads and you’ll continue to see that toll drop.

          The vast majority of the crashes you are concerned about are caused by intoxication, fatigue or poor judgment or vehicle control on behalf of the driver. Ever more sophisticated driver assistance packages and autonomy removing drivers from the equation completely will have the biggest effect on that toll.

          No need to eliminate the vehicles when good technology solutions for poor driving exist.

        2. Let’s look at a timeline here. The average car in NZ is well over 10 years old. So most cars that will be on our roads in 2034 are already built. And almost none of them are autonomous. Only a minority of them are electric.

          How would a timeline where self-driving is actually a thing look?

          I would expect to see it maybe first on a few carefully controlled roads. Motorways seem like a logical choice for that. NZTA could make sure their new expressways allow self-driving on that timeline. You could drive your car onto a motorway in Auckland, and you wouldn’t need to steer until you’re almost in Hamilton. Granted, in NZ that advantage is kinda small, but in, say, Europe, or in the US with their Interstates, that would be a huge deal.

          You would see it on trains. Many countries struggle with train driver shortages. Self-driving is surely much easier to solve for trains, than for cars driving through a city.

          Now, when it does become a thing for consumer cars, expect it to show up on expensive cars first. The cheaper cars will have to wait until the tech matures and becomes cheap enough for those.

          And then if it starts appearing on those cheaper cars, it still will take years for people to replace their cars, before self-driving is a thing on “most” cars.

          So, how many years in the future is that? 10? 20?

        3. Roeland we seem to be discussing When, not If.

          90% of cars currently exit the fleet before they are 20 years old and that’s up from about 15 years pre pandemic and latest economic crunch. So as an historical range we can expect 90% of the cars on the road to be replaced within 15-20 years of when they were built.

          Autonomy is more of a continuum, not a fixed day when all cars will suddenly drive themselves everywhere with no human intervention. But the benefits will increasingly accrue over time. To put a rough timeline on it, The first autonomous vehicles on public roads overseas without a safety driver were running 4 years ago. SAE Level 2 systems are widely deployed, well understood by automotive OEMs and almost every manufacturer sells vehicles with level 2 features. Basic driver assistance has been available in Japan for 15 years, relevant because we could easily mandate that importers cherry pick older Japanese imports with specific DAS features. Comprehensive ADAS features were just this year mandated in the EU for all new vehicles. SAE Level 3 systems started shipping in 2021 in Japan, 2022 in the EU, 2023 in the US. As you note this is at the premium end of the fleet, being brands like Mercedes and Honda. But the bulk of carmakers are not that far behind with their plans to ship level 3 systems. Waymo is already at level 4, but you can’t buy one of their vehicles only use it in a rideshare service. And level 5 is the final goal. But in many cases level 4 is “enough” since if the vehicle can’t proceed it’ll contact a remote operator to solve the problem for you. But around level 3-4 almost all the safety benefits are realised.

          AT will be running level 4 vehicles in test on the Northern Busway this year. In that limited domain they should perform quite well. As you note even a level 2 vehicle has few problems driving itself from the Warkworth to Cambridge. As more highways get upgraded to that standard the number of kms that those vehicles can easily handle (albeit with a safety driver standing by to take over) will increase.

          So we’re a bit behind the eight ball here in little old new Zealand, but the good news is we’re not waiting for these technologies to exist, just to be more widely deployed.

          Then as you rightly note, it takes time to flow through the fleet. Regulation can help speed that up, e.g requiring ADAS features on used imports. But given that the process of mandating ADAS is already well in train overseas even if the NZ government does nothing in that area it’s something of an inevitability that we’ll see it here on almost every used import.

      2. Ah, the two extremes of the political compass…left resorting to hysterical insults when someone disagrees with them, and right not acknowledging that some problems cannot be solved by future technology.

        Recognise that cars are perhaps our largest single source of foreign expenditure (apart from maybe the petrol needed to run them – yes, EVs are coming, I know…), and that every new car purchased in NZ is $30-40k going offshore and not being spent here on things and services made in NZ. Recognise that there are many people in NZ who do not enjoy driving and would prefer not to ever own a car again , except they cant because the current transport network makes that extremely impractical for most.

        Also recognise that private motor vehicles enable a huge number of NZers to live the lifestyles that they love – I’m talking about road trips to the beach/bach, the skifields, hiking, off-roading and wildnerness camping, launching their boats, driving for the joy of it along a beautiful twisting road, etc.

        As usual, there is an answer somewhere in the middle that isnt as simple as ‘cars bad, actually’ or ‘NOOOO cars are actually the best!!!’

        1. If you hate driving or are not capable of driving due to age or other conditions, autonomous vehicles will relieve you of that chore yet can still deliver you door to door. If you hate owning vehicles but like using one from time to time then autonomous or even not so autonomous ride-share services will enable you to do that.

          In convincing consumers that they should choose one product over another they need to be convinced it’s actually a better choice for them.

        2. Also it’a an odd world where advocating for ZEVs, separated vehicle and pedestrian infrastructure, ride share vehicles, no on road parking and the elimination of deepfaked news is a “right wing” position.

          Sometimes you need to step back from your favoured solution and remember the goal that you’re trying to achieve. e.g is your goal fewer emissions or the elimination of cars? Fewer injury accidents or the elimination of cars? Is elimination of cars the only means that you can conceive of to get to a particular end, or an end in itself?

        3. The average car in New Zealand is about 20 years old, if I remember correctly. We will not have (a significant amount of) fully self-driving cars in 5 years. Do you want to wait another 30 years?

          In addition, microplastics from tires is a real thing and won’t go away if we replace all our current cars with self-driving cars.

        4. JohnBGoode you don’t remember correctly. It’s around 15 years, 12 years for light commercial vehicles. Only 9% of the fleet is more than 20yrs old.

          There has been a recent trend for people holding on to vehicles longer but once the economic carnage and poor new vehicle availability of the last few years are behind us you’ll likely see that head back towards historical averages, maybe even overshooting a bit bringing that 90% age back to perhaps 15 yrs since there’s a lot of pent up demand for people to replace vehicles once they have a brighter future outlook.

          And obviously the benefits continually accrue over those years, they don’t suddenly kick in the day the last non ZEV car is scrapped and there’s a continuum from continually improving driver assistance packages to full autonomy.

          Also regulation can serve to help here. For new vehicles that’s easy, we could simply track global standards in that area.

          But a lot of our older vehicles are imported used. Mandating at some point all used imports meet GSR II requirements and continually tightening emissions requirements for used imports would go a long way to eliminating older and less safe vehicles from entering the fleet. For example it’s already all but impossible to register a used import in New Zealand for the first time if it’s over 19 years old due to emission standards. One could easily imagine continually tightening collision, emission and driver assistance rules for used imports at a pace that still meant moderately priced used vehicles were available but also ensured over time used imports were safer and lower emission.

          But if the nub of you argument is about slight differences in timing rather than the inevitability of improvement e.g. whether the bulk of the improvement is here in 12,15 or 20 years then I’d still be quite happy that that process is already moving faster than most New Zealand infrastructure projects do and will continue regardless of what decisions New Zealand politicians make.

        5. The used cars from Japan pipeline doesn’t work with EVs.
          With gas cars sure, but a ten year old mostly depreciated car for cheap and run it for another five or ten years, patching up the odd thing each warrant, then dump it. Cost equates to a couple grand a year.

          With EVs, the battery is already fully used up on import, so you need to spend twice the cost of the car to replace it for it to even go.

        6. Riccardo you might be harking back to the days of used Nissan Leafs on early generations of battery packs. Battery tech has come a long way in the last few years to the point where we now mostly expect the vehicle to reach the end of its service life before battery life becomes an issue. Buying a modern EV when it hits 10yrs old and running it another 5-10 years shouldn’t be an issue. And importers and consumers have easy ways to check the mileage and status of battery packs so will surely just pick the ‘good’ ones.

          You will still hear of some outliers where packs failed early. On the flip side there is a documented Tesla where the first battery reached end of life at a somewhat ominous 666,000km.

    4. Burrower, just pointing out that quiet streets came with a cost and that cost was borne by the people you seem to be so strongly advocating for. And it’s not either or. it is possible to develop separated pedestrian infrastructure while simultaneously allowing for the efficient movement of other vehicles. Where it becomes an issue is usually when somebody tries to jam all modes into one physical space to the benefit of none of them.

      And Logan how on earth do you think that PS5 got from its factory in China to the store where you purchased it? Any trucks, or ships involved?

      Did the burger and fries just materialise in the store, or was it the end result of a complex supply chain producing beef, buns, vegetables and condiments and packaging? Thats all dependent to some part on trucks. When you go back through the supply chain for all elements that make up that burger, dozens or hundreds of truck journeys were likely involved in putting that burger in your hand. But yeah, burgers good, pedestrians good, trucks bad.

      1. I mean, not really. The streets were free therefore the movement of goods were much easier. It’s people making unnecessary trips that clog them up, you don’t need to get all defensive, capitalism isn’t going anywhere…

        1. If you think movement of goods into and around New Zealand during the pandemic was better than at other times and that supply chain problems didn’t exist then I have a bridge to sell you. We don’t even make flour in this country in any significant amount (no burger buns for you and Logan, sorry, your burger bun likely began its journey as foreign milled flour).

          And who gets to decide what an ‘Unnecessary’ trip is? People don’t make trips that have no value to them. Perhaps you have friends who just do things they see no benefit in doing for some random reason? I guess that’s the difference between a free society and one where the Joes of the world want to decide how the resources are rationed and whose trip is ‘Unnecessary’ in the eyes of the central committee?

      2. Techbro can’t imagine streets being made more pedestrian and cycle-friendly in any other scenario than pandemic induced lockdowns; that tracks.

        See, this is why I don’t have a high opinion of people with your mindset and ideology. All you’re doing is defending a status quo that you benefit from.

        1. If you read anything I’ve written above there’s a lot of solutions to these problems. Locking people in their houses to allow for clear streets and hoping goods magically find themselves around the world to the store where you want to buy them without trucks and ships aren’t two of the best ways.

          Try even reading what I wrote. separated infrastructure is good but attractive as it might seem, you really really don’t want to live in a world without trucks.

        2. Actually trucks and light commercial vehicles make up about 25% of vehicle kilometers travelled according to NZTA. Not every burger bun arrives in its final destination in an 18 wheeler.

        3. Trucks are 6%. You were telling us how we don’t want to live without trucks. But they’re fine, cars and light vehicles are the problem, 94% of traffic.

        4. Not true, heavy trucks may be 6% of the fleet, but a light truck is still a truck. Add to that, you’re confusing percentage of the fleet with kms driven.

          In any case prove me wrong. Live a month without anything that was ever onboard a truck or ship or relied on a truck or ship to continue functioning. Enjoy your month sleeping unclothed in the grass outside your house eating it for sustenance (assuming your grass is a native variety and was self seeded not laid as turf or purchased as seed).

  7. Yeah, good post. I think it depended on where you lived as to how your COVID walking or cycling experience was. Live near One Tree Hill or the waterfront or a cycle track and it was great, especially if you got paid to stay at home and your mortgage or rent wasn’t too much.

    Like this in the post:
    “Those Level 4 times, whilst negative in many ways, offered a brief, shining, memorable experience of how free and empowering our city’s streets become when Aucklanders just… drive less.”
    It’s a matter of the right balance & shifting to the most human and environmentally friendly systems of travel that we can while still keeping the lights on.

  8. I returned to city centre living more than a year ago, and actually quite enjoy the different mazes around town as it becomes more pedestrian friendly.
    My two young boys love it too.
    No car is necessary, ever, I can walk everywhere, and public transport is easy.
    Having spent most of my adult life in the city centre, and a few years in Latin American mega cities and comparably populated towns, this town is definitely improving!

    We live in hetero normative, car normative society, and it is tedious. Long live the bohemian attitude, and life in all its colours.

    bah humbug

    1. Ironically the original Bohemians were a completely vehicle centric culture, literally living in them and moving place to place. For those that may have latterly culturally appropriated the term maybe that close link to vehicles and mobility was lost.

      1. Yes and no: Bohemians do indeed rove, but la vie Bohème as a modern proposition is firmly grounded in multifarious low-income communities created in affordable walkable neighbourhoods in big cities, from Montmartre to Greenwich Village.

        Also, one of the most high profile exponents of the world-travelling variety was a railroad heiress.

        So, points for historical pedantry, but Matiu’s point stands: cities in their variety offer diverse, productive and healthy ecosystems that cater to a wide range of ages and tastes, and that’s very nice and very normal.

    2. For this to be doable, en-masse, there needs to be a serious rethink of how we build and plan apartments; it shouldn’t cost as much as a house + land package to get a well-built three bedroom apartment that’s barely bigger than a hovel. A four bedroom apartment for my family is not even really an option, realistically. And that’s a shame. It should be.

      Better access to daycares, schools and safe spaces for kids need to be part of this conversation as well.

      1. Yes Buttwizard, there needs to be some serious incentive for developers to build a wider mix of infill apartments as we see the inner suburbs redeveloped. Currently they know that their best return on investment is to maximise the number of units in a lot (with some variability with target market, suburb etc) and this is resulting in a lot of very small apartments, only suitable for individuals or couples. I would say the incentive for change needs to come from some serious regulatory intervention, but in NZ and with the current local and national governments those are some bad odds. And it still doesn’t solve the price issue which is another beast entirely and there will never be motivation from our current main parties to fix.

        1. The reason they produce mostly 1/2 bedroom places is because there has been a massive historic undersupply. Singles and couples have been the afterthought of planners for decades. There used to be regulatory interventions that made it hard to build 1 and 2 bedroom places economically, minimum plot sizes, dwelling caps, minimum parking requirements especially tended to weighted against smaller housing.

          It’s pretty sad to see singles and couples finally getting housing that is ideally set up for their needs, as something that needs to be regulated away.

      2. Also people have much greater expectations today. In the past it was possible to raise a family of 8 children in a 3 bedroom house using technological innovations like bunk beds. Now it’s unacceptable to many if each child doesn’t have their own room.

        1. Yes, that’s not unreasonable given we are often paying huge portions of our incomes for arguably a lot less house. And as the last five years have shown, the ability to work from home/flexible space is also super important. Just devolving everything over and above the basic kitchen/bathroom/bedroom space into shared common areas is not a great way to live for many people.

        2. It’s not arguably a lot less house. in 1974 the average new kiwi house had a floor area of 120 square meters. By 2010 they were up to 200 square meters, two thirds more house. And now they are trending down again but will probably never again be as small as 120 square meters on average. So on average according to facts not feelings people are getting a lot more space in a new house than they used to.

          People’s expectations are greater today than in the past.

      3. I lived in apartments for 20+yrs in 3 different countries, worked through the whole range and loved it. Probably the three main ones at the key stages of my life:

        – single and in my 20s – 1bdr centrally located, about 100sqm. Walk to work
        – attached, no kids – 2bdr, 2bath, 200sqm, close to shops, bars, restaurants (MRT station being built nearby)
        – Wife, 2 kids – 4bdr, 3bath, 300sqm duplex

        All had access to gym and swimming pools etc. The last one had a cafe as well as tennis/squash basketball courts, playgrounds, etc. Lock up and leave. Facilities and gardens all tended to, for reasonable management fees. The last one had a massive community, with two dozen kids on bikes and skateboards zooming round.

        Overseas where apartment living is more common, there is something for everyone, depending on what stage they are at. I’m now in a house in NZ (which for some will always be the preference – no problem) but once the kids are gone, we’ll be back to that 2bdr apartment, for sure, especially with the MRT station going up 500m away .

        1. Man, these are HUGE! In many cities in Europe you would not be able to afford something on a slightly above-average income.

          And 1bdr and 100sqm?! My (huge) shared flat for 4 had roughly 110-120 sqm… Are you sure about these sizes?

        2. The duplex is spot on. That place was big and we didn’t really use all the space. And interestingly, it was leasehold and the ground rents didn’t increase in the 3yrs we were there.

          I checked the others again – 1bdr was 80sqm and the 2bdr was 170sqm. Apologies.

          These were in Australia and Asia. And the point was that overseas there are so many options in the apartment space such that, I think we Kiwis would really have a different view on that type of living if we could somehow get that range to market.

        3. You will not be retiring to a 2bdr apartment unless you win a million dollars with the lottery.

          But good point in general — and it will start with planning / zoning. Right now the attitude is that apartments are unsuitable for “nice” streets, so you only see them on loud and dangerous arterials. Look at for instance the separation of “nice” areas in the city centre (eg. waterfront) vs. areas with apartments.

          A positive example is Northcote, and it is as simple as actually building apartments on small local streets.

        4. The overseas models of apartment complexes with good shared facilities and gated communities with no through streets have a lot to recommend them. If you have a shared pool, tennis and basketball court, gym, bbq area, space for large parties, sauna, hot tub, bike trails, running trails, guest parking etc all on site you need to jam a lot less in your own house or apartment and you get it at at a price much better than if you personally did all that on a private estate. Additionally having all those things safe and local reduces how far you need to travel for recreation.

        5. In most large ‘regular cities’ safety is a big concern, not even close to a gated community or more insular apartment building with facilities on site. If you don’t believe me go for a jog around downtown Oakland at night or take a night ride an urban bike trail in southern California. Or for that matter in Auckland stroll around Myers park or the new Mangere cycle bridge at night. In a gated community if you see any undesirables hanging around you just call security and have them removed. When it’s just you and your neighbours using facilities the chances of bad behaviour very much reduces.

  9. “Given how few cars were around, it seemed their posh parents needn’t fear their precious poppets might become a Pollock on their neighbour’s new Range Rover.”

    You’ve missed a trick saying “…neighbour’s new Porsche” here.

  10. Let’s be honest about Fort Street, it’s success on increased consumer spending was to do with local development in the area, Britomart etc, it was previouslya dirty red light district..The timing of the pedestrianisation was coincidental ..

  11. “Sure, on the odd occasion you’re lugging a beach tent, four children and a dog to Piha, you’ll probably want to take the car.”

    Speaking of – can we finally get one measly bus route to Piha already?

Leave a Reply

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