A few weeks ago, I wrote a post extensively detailing the scandal of what happened with the Upper Mercury Lane part of the Karanga-a-Hape Station precinct integration project (also known by its cool title, Project K). It was a prime example of Auckland Transport’s habitual failure to follow through on well-supported and widely-consulted projects that improve the status quo.
But I didn’t want my post to be yet another “grumble about AT” – after all, we have our Mayor for that. Instead, I proposed a list of things AT’s leadership could learn, in order to prevent this kind of failure from happening again and again. The lessons were:
- Senior leadership needs to back their staff – and commit to progressing their mandate
- Run the process with a firm hand – mitigations are fine, but destroying the core part of a project is not
- Stand up to bullies from the vocal minority – even to court if you have to
- Have the courage to speak up and communicate with the public – tell the story of why this project is happening
- Stick to the plan, stick to the strategies, and stick to the timeline – DELIVER instead of DELAY
- Disruption and turmoil is inevitable, and it’s also an opportunity to excel and go further – so do it once and do it well
You will be amazed (and I’m sure totally surprised) to hear that Auckland Transport has wasted no time in continuing to do exactly what they always do – undermine good projects
Yesterday, the Project K team gave an update on the project at a workshop with the Waitematā Local Board. Their presentation (from page 81) outlined a number of design changes to Project K – all of which prioritise road traffic over people, all of which are in opposition to the results of the public consultation on designs in 2023, and all of which are an absolute indictment of Auckland Transport’s leadership.
This post, like all our work, is brought to you by the Greater Auckland crew and made possible by generous donations from our readers and fans. If you’d like to support our work, you can join our circle of supporters here, or support us on Substack!
Cross Street
Let’s start on Cross Street, where Auckland Transport has decided to preserve on-street carparking, which means choosing not to expand the pedestrian zone. They’re also removing from the design the promised raised tables and traffic-calming elements, the planter boxes, and the proposed separators and surface-level footpath buildout on the south side.
In other words, they’re doing pretty much nothing to change the street and make it a suitable realm for what will be one of the busiest subway entrances in the city. The “Cross Street design” now essentially locks in the status quo. The only saving grace is these are no-dig works… but it still makes zero sense not to improve anything.
What is that status quo? Well, I took a walk yesterday and took some photos. It looks like this. Notice the giant carparking building?
Yep, this is clearly a very pleasant walking environment that needs no changes. Certainly it’s great the south side of the street won’t be getting improvements! It’s a good thing the thousands of people drawn to the city by this $5.5 billion rail project will be shoved to the skinny footpath on the north side. Excellent planning.
Here’s a couple of sketches for potential (and supported) footpath expansion from the 2023 community engagement workshops:
Right, so what else has AT suddenly changed in this well-consulted design?
East and Canada Street
On both East Street and Canada Street, Auckland Transport plans to return two-way vehicle traffic… by deleting the cycleway between the Lightpath and South Street. And by removing/ shrinking proposed planter islands.
Currently, East St looks like this. But Auckland Transport is choosing to remove the interim stretch of cycleway (past one of the city’s busiest bike shops) to replace it with a traffic lane, and NOT a proper cycleway, as was consulted on.
Worse, as you’ll note from the fine print above, the cycleway is being replaced with the dreaded “sharrows”, to indicate “shared use of the road by motorists and cyclists.” How on earth did that make it through a safety audit, or past expert quality control for cycling facilities? Did it make it through a safety audit, or expert quality control for cycling facilities?
But wait, there’s more! On Canada Street, Auckland Transport is removing planned pedestrian space (“a reduction in the green area”, including potential tree removal) to make way for… a roundabout, to manage the two-way traffic. Note the lack of safe crossings on two of the roundabout approaches, as well.
I appreciate there may have been a need for adjustments to the plans for this part of the project, but these are not small adjustments. This is a major reset of priorities, with impacts on safety and access for what will – I repeat – become one of the busiest foot-traffic areas in the city from day one of the CRL opening (which is a $5.5 billion project).
Design whiplash: compare the way Auckland Transport described the plans in 2023 and 2024
Something I want to make very clear is, Auckland Transport had a good project and were doing the right thing.
In consultation, public feedback supported the original project, its aims and its design principles. The feedback report indicated that those concerned with vehicle access (i.e. parking and loading) mostly just wanted some options for loading areas and passenger drop-off. But somehow, in the space of a few short years, this knowledge has been lost.
If you go back to July 2024 (thanks to the Wayback machine) this is what the project webpage, said regarding Cycleways, Pedestrian Spaces, and Parking and Loading:
People supported the original plans! This bears repeating: up until 2024, Auckland Transport had a good project that people supported. And then they changed it. Why? Who? And for what reasons?
This is a disgraceful switcheroo
The Project K that’s being built should be the one that was publicly consulted on in 2023.
Yes, there were small kinks to work out. Yes, some adjustments could be made on loading zones, access etc.
But nothing justifies these significant changes, on this scale. Nothing justifies steamrolling over space for people walking and cycling to create more space for vehicles. And nothing was in the public-facing consultations about this.
City Rail Link is the biggest infrastructure project in this country’s history, a $5.5 billion investment. It’s at the heart of a reimagined city with an improving public realm, wide and welcoming footpaths, and an increasingly connected bike network. Tens of thousands of people live in the central city and tens of thousands more will move through this area each and every day, on foot and on bikes.
How on earth does reducing the transformation of the area around the stations maximise this value?
Remember, the overarching vision for the City Centre is the City Centre Master Plan, which is supposed to guide Auckland Council and the CCOs. This is Transformational Move 5:
Access to Auckland city centre is being transformed by regional public transport investment, including City Rail Link, the new bus network, ferries and proposed light rail. A better environment for walking, cycling and micro-mobility will increase connectivity within the centre. Thousands more Aucklanders will have increasingly easy access to the city centre and city fringe via public transport. The city centre’s role as a regional transport interchange will also become stronger. This move will shape planning and development in the best-connected areas of Auckland, maximising the benefits of investment in public transport and associated public realm.
How exactly does the gutting of Project K create a “better environment for walking, cycling and micro-mobility“, that maximises “the benefits of investment in public transport and associated public realm“?
Consider too the transport part of the Master Plan – Access for Everyone, which aims to remove through-traffic from city centre neighbourhoods.
How does the gutting of Project K, by removing pedestrian streets and bringing back vehicle access, align with that?
What about the Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway (TERP), the only pathway for Auckland to reduce its transport emissions.
How does removing cycleways and pedestrian space to allow for two-way vehicle access ‘supercharge walking and cycling’?
What about Vision Zero, the overriding safety aim of Auckland Transport.
How does removing raised crossings and other safety measures achieve Vision Zero?
Did I mention already this is the complementary street upgrade to a game-changing $5.5 billion public transport project?
This change of plan is a complete indictment on the leadership of this organisation. It’s an inexplicable refusal to change the status quo, in spite of political and public support, in spite of funding, and regardless of common sense.
While this is only one project, we see, ad nauseam, this same walking back, reducing, removing, and undermining good projects and plans. I want to highlight what the TERP said in 2022, highlighting the risk of recalcitrance in organisations like Auckland Transport.
Organisational conservatism. All the agencies involved in Auckland’s transport system have strategies stating the importance of reducing transport emissions. However, this strategic intent is not always reflected in their investment priorities, detailed project implementation or their supporting policies. There are several reasons for this including:
- objectives that are often poorly defined and not prioritised
- legislative mandates that do not explicitly cite emission reduction as a key objective
- organisational structures and processes that reinforce the status quo or deliver only incremental change
- entrenched ways of working amongst transport and land use planning professionals
- political, stakeholder and public pressure that often makes change on the ground difficult.
Agencies are therefore incentivised to maintain the existing transport system which tends to be reflected in risk averse cultures and thinking that fails to adequately account for climate change impacts and adaptation costs.
Project K is a prime, glaring, high-profile example. And as with last time, it’s almost certainly not the project team who made the call – they’ve been at the front lines of design and consultation, and know what people want and need. But they’ve been sent out to front yet another grand retreat.
Now we can so clearly see this problem, can we fix it? Because if a $5.5 billion project is not enough to overcome the organisational conservatism of Auckland Transport, what will?
We reached out to AT with a fair few questions about these changes, you can find their response here in our weekly roundup.
Processing...
100% – it makes no sense. The workshops included everyone including those with reservations about the project and it landed in a good place. How the hell did this happen?
workshops ! – I’d ask for my money back, and the consulting $ required to run and capture the workshop value.
How does this happen – Welcome to Auckland….
Here is how the project was delayed and changed: See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXUlxeKQuGo
Firstly, thanks for your ongoing monitoring and great work on this. This is absolutely unacceptable and more proof AT needs to be disbanded. People who live in the area have waited years for this to become a great public transport centre with better access for cyclists and pedestrians as well. You can’t rely on the local board to help. Their councillors’ appalling success in stopping the development near the corner of K Rd and Ponsonby – a great looking building for 400 employees which is exactly the difference CRL should bring- shows next election there also needs to be a cleanup of the Waitemata board. Judging by what I hear locally, that will happen. Great to see Mr Reynolds is going to stand.
“AT needs to be disbanded”
“the councillors’ appalling successs in stopping things…”
There’s a contradiction there; dismantling AT will give all power to the very councillors who are really to blame.
It’s not either or, it’s both.
There’s been a longstanding issue with elected reps not backing AT when it is doing what they want due to vocal opposition.
HOWEVER, there are deep seated issues with Auckland Transport as an organisation, it’s culture, and with individual staff – particularly in leadership.
There are so many projects with political and public support, AND funding, which AT delays, waters down, and often cancels after a whisper of opposition (or even hallucinated opposition), because of these organisational issues. Many of the same people at AT who do this, are still employed and in leadership positions.
It is 100% true that elected reps need to front for the decisions they make. It is equally 100% true, that the culture and leadership of AT have let down the many wonderful, passionate, and dedicated professionals they have in their organisation, have let down Aucklanders, and prevented real improvements to Auckland.
When the people of Auckland and NZ spend $5 billion on the CRL and $billions on the network I would think they would be doing their best to make public transport a great service and maximise the number of customers using it. Always finding ways to increase patronage such as thanking customers.
They are constantly studying the farebox recovery and adjusting prices up. Finding ways to incentivise customers living in distant places such as Pukekohe by giving discounts.
This government is making decisions in reducing waste, cutting the bureaucracy and encouraging our businesses. Mayor Brown has been making good management decisions. AT should become more business like, employ some more service skilled people, listen to the public and do what reports recommend.
To the bullet points highlighting AT’s Organisational Conservatism should be added
– Numerous AT staff are actively opposed to walking and cycling as a transport mode
“1.Senior leadership needs to back their staff – and commit to progressing their mandate”
Seriously? AT staff don’t have any mandate, they never have had. That there is the real problem. The AT all gets dumped back into a Council with elected officials the better.
Not true. Every project has a mandate. The project teams who design and build these should be backed. They deliver to the mandate given to them by others but take the heat and aren’t backed up. Makes it very hard to manage a project without leadership support and confidence.
I recently had an appointment at an office at the corner of Cross Street and Mercury Lane and was astonished at the poor pedestrian environment in Cross Street. At the time I was the only person on the narrow footpath (for some distance the South side footpath is non- existent) so I seriously wonder how it will cater with the expected crowds of people moving through in both directions. A slightly late April fool’s prank!
I would assume that anyone walking on Cross Street is lost.
Faceless upper managers at AT making executive decisions that leave a disastrous legacy for the city. Those roads look abysmal and really unsafe. Anyone walking out of that station will take one look and say “no thanks, I’ll go somewhere else” — maybe that was AT’s intent. To dissuade people from exiting through there. Even more ridiculous as there are parking buildings right next door to the station. It’s amazing the incompetence from Auckland leadership on display here.
But where are the people visiting the carpark going to park?
We could always, like, do some research in the area to clarify whether beliefs people hold about a need for on-street parking has any basis in reality.
Even better – and much more efficiently! – we could use the research already done on the topic. Here. In this area.
Man, the state of it. What an embarrassment of an organisation.
Let me guess. “People like getting expensive or scarce things for free. They will complain or get angry if you stop giving it for free.”
No Shit Sherlock.
Seriously though, what are the chances that this is what happened, and the wrong person at AT got surprised anyway.
This AT example is just another example of NZ’s bureaucracies being useless.
Decades of the right attacking the state from the viewing of closing it down while the left never critically looks at how to make the state more effective have left us with organizations not fit for purpose.
Some sort of reform is required. Something like the Abundance Agenda being in articulated by the progressive left in the US.
Eh, those Abundance guys think that building more housing is a vote loser, they mean well but they’ve got some screws loose
The Abundance guys are just Neoliberals trying to save to Neoliberalism.
No I have the Abundance book written by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson in front of me. They dedicate an entire chapter on ‘Grow’ which is primarily about allowing cities to grow their housing stock.
I don’t think the Abundance guys are trying to save Neoliberalism. I think they are a synthesis of left and right to create a movement that is pro building and inventing the stuff we need for the 21st century.
They do not want to continue with past battles. To quote. “Over the course of the twentieth century, America developed a right that fought the government and a left that hobbled it. Debates over the size of government obscured the diminishing capacity of government. An Abundance of consumer goods distracted us from a scarcity of homes and energy and infrastructure and scientific breakthroughs. A counteroffensive is emerging, but it is young yet.”
I think we have different understandings of what Neoliberalism is. Mine is believing in free markets, and trade, preference for market solutions over non-market solutions, generally supporting deregulation or light touch regulation in most cases.
I don’t see anything from Abundance that challenges that. My understanding when it comes to housing is they talk zoning and increasing supply, nothing on non-market housing solutions.
Labour to their credit supports state housing and KO built a lot, and the UP helped by allowing higher density.
I’m not against all their policy solutions, but I’m not going to trick myself into thinking they aren’t trying to save Neoliberalism
I think the misunderstanding is what the Abundance Agenda is about. You seem to want to pigeonhole it into some sort of right-wing Neoliberal category. I say it is something different.
My critique is that NZ has multiple state organisations that are not fit for purpose, meaning we can’t rebuild our cities, can’t build affordable infrastructure, can’t build affordable housing, can’t electrify our energy systems at the pace needed, etc. I believe organisations like AT are fast losing their social license because they are delivering scarcity not abundance. We need a series of reforms befitting the challenge we face.
As far as I can see, Labour under Jacinda Ardern tried the approach “let the state try to build homes, while cities are still strangling supply with their rules and procedures”. This of course fails, with the strangling still going on the government would haemorrhage hundreds of thousands of dollars for each home. And also would it not just cannibalize the potential supply from private developers?
An alternative idea is, let developers build, and let people pay. Of course homes for rich people will be built first, but then at least rich people also pay for those homes. That system may not be as fair, but it can plausibly scale up to a meaningful number of homes.
Auckland lost a bunch of population in its inner suburbs in the past years. That seems like a signal of extreme distress. I was frankly quite surprised this didn’t already show up in the 2018 Census, given that this Villa Belt was already a thing.
In the end, the important bit is stop strangling your housing supply. I am not sure what you call a movement promoting that (‘abundance’ would be a sensible term), or how you imagine housing supply will grow. Or are you more in favour of depopulating Auckland?
There is a multitude of issues and things going on with solutions being done or tried etc. A think a lot of it under Labour was goals & expectations set to high and not being more patient for things to scale up. We did have a little thing called COVID. Things did improve a lot & we have a lot more housing as a result. We also still have the limited ability to scale where we need to the most in the Isthmus areas etc. The market alone won’t deliver what we need when trying to deal with homelessness and low ownership due to inability to save for various reasons. Restricting foreign ownership and other such rules helped NZ a lot, was way to open to world investing for capital gain. Our other big issue for decades is a lack of meaningful capital gains tax & even Labour is too scared to tackle that when it comes to the family home. If you are in the ownership club then you are lucky indeed otherwise you miss out.
Roeland showing I didn’t misunderstand just that Brendon didn’t like that I might of indirectly called him a Neoliberal. I apologise for that.
Welcome to the world of “do minimum”.
I can only see an outcry once CRL opens and humans flood the area.
this example isn’t even “do minimum” in so many ways, removing the cycleway on East Street is actually “go backwards”
Taking out a successful bike lane demonstrates a deep-seated antagonism to safety, to cycling, to evidence, and to the process of trialling changes.
We already know these senior staff are so entrenched in a worldview of resisting any reduction in car domination that they comfortably express ideas anyone else would see as hate or stupidity. But I think each individual who’s participating in this intentional dismantling of progress could have real personal problems (whether pre-existing or created in NZ’s transport sector.)
They need help. And we need them to be removed from their positions.
We need to be sharing their names in public, so people see the pattern – and lobby Council not to employ them.
Replacing a cycleeway with…sharrows? SHARROWS???????
.. should be a crime.
Having lived on East Street back in the day (and cycled it most weekends) sharrows on hills don’t cut it. There is no need for East Street to be bidirectional for cars if you stop rat running the full length of Mercury Lane (which needs to happen given the foot traffic the station will generate).
Why you need onstreet parking outside a parking building I will never understand.
You can’t assume thousands will get off at the Mercury Lane exit if there’s a hostile environment for them to enter. People need a reason to take a rail trip. There’s no reason to go to the super ugly car sewer AT seem to want.
I think most people will use Beresford exit as avoids the steep climb to K road.
LGOIMA the project control group agenda, minutes and personnel involved.
A design decision this big will have been made by someone very senior, probably ELT level. There will be a paper trail
I could guess the names now. There’s no accountability because so few people act professionally at senior levels of management and governance that the remaining ones are scrambling to achieve anything.
The people I would write to are Richard Leggat, Dean Kimpton and Murray Burt.
Because in addition to unearthing the paper trail, it’s always good to create a new one.
Richard Leggat the avid cyclist is part of the problem. But yes the names are easy to guess.. the insidious, obstructive, destructive layer of clay.
Yes. That’s why people need to write to him.
And we need to start naming names and posting photos of the people who make these decisions. Pictures up in that street of the people who are holding back progress. People acting against the consultation outcomes.
They need to own them. Name and shame.
Snap. Name and shame these smug agents of regression.
This is what is forever frustrating. Why do drivers believe that they have the right to park on the street? We all pay for that street, and even paid parking does not anywhere near cover the real cost of that piece of tarmac.
The formula is so simple…where there is an existing driveway or parking building, access should be maintained for vehicles. Where there is not, pedestrians should always be the priority, and they should be protected from the vehicles that are always bigger and more dangerous than any singular human.
I live close to Te Hā Noa and Victoria Street is turning into a children’s playground. It is truly wonderful seeing my kids negotiate their way up and down the areas that have been made safe for them.
This could be the reality around Karang a hape also, and AT needs to concentrate on humans, not machines. We are the ones who catch the buses, crash our cars, and attempt to not be run down by trucks. Humans. And many humans love Karang a Hape. I do not want to go there and have to be concerned that my five year old cannot run as freely as all of our children should. And also when their rock n roll addicted dad exits a venue minorly inebriated, it would be amazing to have no risk of walking into danger!
bah humbug
Why the surprise ?
Design, community engagement, workshops, feedback – Cool project ! – wow !!
Delivery – “…In response to feedback from local stakeholders, we have made the following amendments to the Cross Street design…”
LGOIA the “feedback from local stakeholders”, and find out why they cancelled the cool parts of Project – K
“A CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) assessment was carried out in January 2025. ”
Looks like the CPTED added and repaired the street lights, then put in $150K of cameras.
Cameras in no way are crime prevention. They are after the fact, nonenvironmental.
Dummy cameras $1500 may have a slight impact. If CPTED is funded for environmental design – then please do environmental design,
Thanks Connor, for your ongoing work. You’re wonderful.
As a nearby resident (and former AT manager) I’m absolutely outraged. What I want to say is unprintable so I’ll have to stop here, but . . . I’m seething.
Kia ora David, if you haven’t already, please send your thoughts to the AT execs – I’m sure you know who they are but emails included here just in case 😉
https://www.bikeauckland.org.nz/east-street-cycleway-needs-you/
These actions are extremely discourteous to those that AT itself encouraged to make submissions and who then took the time, and effort to do so.
They are discourteous to their own staff, who diligently reviewed and summarised the submissions for presentation to those entrusted to take account of them in their descion making.
By treating submitters with such arrogance AT is trashing it’s reputation.
And damaging the reputation of the Council, and raising legitimate concerns about the integrity of public consultation systems everywhere.
And in this case it’s even giving giving us very poor urban design.
“prioritise road traffic over people, all of which are in opposition to the results of the public consultation”
This maybe so as the vast majority of the public never give feedback but then vote with their feet (cars) and go elsewhere due to anti-car groups who are a small minority of ratepayers but are organized and swamp public feedback. Virtually everywhere anti-car changes happen retail businesses decline, and congestion increases. Look at the first weekend of soccer – Meola Road was a total cluster – virtually no bikes, no one takes their kids to sport on the bus. The fight back against the anti-car zealots can’t come soon enough
https://wsafc.org.nz/latest-news/bike-to-football-a-huge-thank-you
Little point providing any sort of evidence or logic to this “reckons” boomer. I always wonder when do people lose their childhood sense of fun and magic – like cool maybe loads of kids and families in the nearby area will actually ride a bike/ good warm up for the game. Or have a fun trip on the bus. We all rush around too much now and the negative effects are everywhere.
“if i don’t get my way it’s not democracy and it’s a conspiracy!!!1!!”
– old boomers
This is extremely disappointing. I expect some thing to go backwards and allow more car access from AT, but this is on a whole other level.
Reading this is indeed deeply troubling and depressing. There seem to have been some new hires in the upper echelons of AT who are of a very different mindset to those that went before. Worse, it has given some of the “grey men” who still manage to remain in newly created roles to have a resurgence of energy. This decision and the one to make the Pt Chevalier Road bus lane a T3 lane at the stroke of a pen are not grounded in evidence or vision, but rather in a deliberate attempt to bend Auckland back towards the car.
I wish you the best of luck in unearthing the decision-making processes that resulted in these eleventh-hour changes, but suspect redaction of the names will be part of anything that you receive.
The sooner that transport policy and project design / objective setting is taken away from AT the better. If they are “given” a project to deliver, then their mandate for arbitrary, late in the piece changes to scope will be severely restricted. Hopefully, any “requests for change” can be better daylighted in the public space.
Many questions arise.
How much two way traffic can you possibly need in those streets? This is a tiny corner with a few small streets.
I live in the George Courts Building and we’ve been eagerly awaiting our new station and bike lanes. Unfortunately, some of our neighbours are ultra-nimby, anti literally anything to do with AT and politically connected. They are also vociferous in their complaints about literally everything to do with the ongoing works. I presume that ‘stakeholder feedback’ is coming from the noisiest, squeakiest wheels in the room while people who were all good with the plan haven’t said a word because they (myself included) were expecting it wasn’t even threatened. Gutted I didn’t turn up to shout “keep doing exactly what you planned’ at the various meetings. My bad – sorry everyone.
Thanks for writing. And don’t blame yourself. Everyone should be able to expect straightforward delivery without projects being stopped undemocratically.
Thanks Robert, if you haven’t already, please write your thoughts on this to AT – emails here:
https://www.bikeauckland.org.nz/east-street-cycleway-needs-you/
This is so unhinged I don’t even know what to say. Who are these mysterious stakeholders giving all this feedback? Are they ghosts? I am a K road resident and business owner and I haven’t heard about them (ok maybe a couple of anti everything building owners), but not the majority of the community! This is mind blowing.
If you haven’t already, please write in your support
https://www.bikeauckland.org.nz/east-street-cycleway-needs-you/
It is really sad and frustrating seeing AT’s self-sabotage in action.
The transport CCO that was meant to deliver without political meddling can only deliver with political meddling (and ironically the Mayor is blowing up AT for “being out of control” using the examples of AT’s attempts to deliver as a CCO without giving in to his political meddling )
The same men undermining Project K and Cross St (and it does appear to be all men at the heart of the problem) are responsible for meddling in the design of the Garnet Rd roundabout and changing the height of the raised tables on Great North Road – despite repeated reassurances the project was going ahead as designed and consulted.
At least when the decision making comes back to council the process will be transparent and once a decision is made it will need to be followed through (even if the decision is terrible at least we will know who is responsible! )
Is that the ped tables across the side streets, Pippa? Didn’t they already try to remove those from the project completely?
Why is it always AT’s fault. We have a government and potentially a mayor who want more roads, AT are just doing as instructed. Likewise if we voted in a left leaning government and mayor, wouldn’t you expect them to adjust accordingly?
That is a good question. Don’t we elect these people called Councillors? Do they have any say in this?
You might be right, you might be right
I’m left but I’m right.
At the end of the day we’re just getting democracy. Unfortunately it means this will all be ripped out again in a few years time as it’s obviously a moronic thing to do, based on the ideals of an old man and an ahole.
Interestingly if you look at controversial shared spaces etc, very few get reverted to roads again. For example Emerson Street in Napier was largely pedestrianised over 30 years ago, no one wants it to go back to a road. The supposed conservatives are wasting our money here, but that’s what we voted for.
Interesting points Jimbo, I wonder what will happen with this one it seems to be a lucky draw whether the public accept change. Recent examples of the public rejecting change include the lower speed limits on main roads (now reversed) and that stupid low traffic neighbourhood in Onehunga which even I admit was funny when someone took a forklift to it. I don’t see how reducing access was ever going to be popular or even remotely acceptable. I would’ve thought this project would’ve been more popular given its location but I guess not. We’d better not mess with Democracy as it yields bad results and ultimately almost everything gets undone anyway.
oh good, so if “democracy” means using up all the planet’s natural resources and its capacity to sustain human civilisation, we should do it if a majority of unintelligent, easily-misled oafs want to keep on driving and consuming? spit in the face of future generations just because “muh democracy?”
if that’s the case then as a species we deserve what’s coming to us.
The funny/sad thing is that the new layout actually reduces access for all people not in cars. There might not be many now but there COULD be a ton of people once CRL is open. If the place remains this hostile or boring, then naturally fewer people will go there and AT can say that not going ahead with pedestrianisation was the right thing.
Burrower, if you don’t follow democracy everything will get undone but more extreme and turn more people anti govt. People are going to keep driving and consuming at an ever increasing rate nothing can stop it.
Early 2023 saw some events that temporarily stopped driving and consuming in Auckland and there are more of those to come.
If AT had followed the directions of previous Councillors and Ministers, you might be right.
Correct John, there’s pretty much nothing we can do to stop it though so I’m not going to stress it iz what it iz.
Fassifern/Mount Colah you must be some old fuddy-duddy who’s going to shuffle off the mortal coil before the worst impacts of your generation’s greed hit. it’s my generation, Gen Z, who’s going to have to suffer YOUR consequences. if you had a milligram of empathy in your brain you would easily understand why i am so pissed off at the thought of suffering heat, droughts, the loss of all creature comforts you take for granted… hell, even my own life. So you will forgive me for finding your “nothing can be done so we might as well accelerate the damage done” mentality absolutely disgusting.
Nelson the latest district to push back on speed increases.
National campaigned on less blanket speed rules and more listening to communities when making any decisions, so good to see that.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/544405/consultation-coming-on-controversial-speed-limit-increase-nzta
Hi Burrower, I’m GenZ and I know that there’s nothing we can do that’s going to change the climate we are too small a country to do that. I know more extreme weather is coming but I’ve got a survival pack ready and that’s about all I can do apart from help others prepare which I’m doing. Until China and India take 90% of their emissions off anything we do is pointless. However there is other pressing environmental issues we can act on… use less single use plastics, ban smoking in public, increase fines for littering etc. I don’t know why you arrogantly assume just because I’m not going to revolve my life around a few extreme weather events that makes me somehow old. You’re the selfish one who only wants to push your agenda through. Btw did you consider the emissions of building speed bumps or the emissions of making and running new traffic lights? What about the emissions from making new speed signs? BTW NZTA FOUND “Speed bumps resulted in additional emissions of 9% for CO, 20% for HC and 19% for NOX” that’s right speed bumps not only cause heaps of emissions they also INCREASE emissions once built. Still support them now or are you not concerned about MY generation dealing with YOUR consequences.
Again, no empathy, but i suppose that’s typical of carheads who want nothing more than to hoon around at 60-70km/h in residental streets.
I don’t know what establishment croneys fooled you into thinking climate change is survivable. We are looking at mass food shortages by mid-century and there’s credible speculation that would cause millions of deaths from famine. Don’t fall for the individualism narrative, of course our lives will be affected by starvation – unless of course you’re in the elite caste and have a bunker or space station to flee to.
Also – and I know this is a big and INCREDIBLY difficult piece of advice for you, but maybe you should read the reports you cite instead of cherry picking. It is low traffic streets where speedbumps cause more pollution, high-traffic city streets; and the act of slowing down and speeding up. Of course, if drivers kept to sensible speeds of 30km/h in areas with high pedestrian traffic, we wouldn’t need speed bumps, now would we. But I do apologise that the mere concept of slowing down cars and letting pedestrians and cyclists have more than just a narrow footpath is so offensive and personally discriminatory to you.
“My consequences?” B*tch, PLEASE. I’ve used public transport, WALKED 2 hour round trips to go food shopping far more in my lifetime than I’ve driven. I’ve been forced to suffer or conform by your car-centric ideology. But that’s the nonsense I expect from speed freaks.
They can adjust openly rather than in the shadows like these scum do. Their decisions affect thousands of people for decades. That’s a privilege.
It may not be the project team’s fault, they may have been leant on by someone. However, that makes the matter worse not better. This is a funded project that has gone through considerable community consultation, it has been supported by the local board, it has been recommended by staff, and signed off by the GB and AT board. It has been fully funded and it is about to begin. It is absolutely shoddy to make such a massive shift without getting formal input from the local board, or the governing body for that matter. This is so shortsighted and not fair on Aucklanders who want this to happen and have contributed time, money and effort to make it work as well as possible.
And it was/is a very good project. They should reverse the reversal.
It must be upsetting to be an elected member and see all the work undermined by shadowy officials who believe they are immune to all accountability.
Senior Leadership in Auckland Transport are making this decision. It isn’t all of AT (ie the project team is good).
This is a project which has had extensive community engagement, local board input, and was consulted on in this last term (ie 2023-present).
It isn’t ‘democracy’, because it is specific senior leadership being backroom lobbied by a small number of vocal opponents leading to last minute changes – all without going back to local reps/the wider community.
This is a good question. The problem is the strategy and direction from council didn’t alter that much after the local government election just the amount of funding available from government (WRT Project K even before the change in government AT failed to bid for all the Waka Kotahi funding on offer).
The Mayor thinks he can meddle without going through any process and senior leaders at AT are happy to oblige even when he has no mandate. (presuming that is what happened behind the scenes but AT may have even watered down the plans without any political direction or meddling at all )
The Great North Road project is a good example of AT (eventually) following council’s direction and resisting interference from Mike Lee and the Mayor https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/23-01-2025/the-great-north-road-upgrade-is-a-triumph-for-at-whether-the-mayor-likes-it-or-not
When transporting 10,000 + people per hour extensive pedestrian facilities are needed. London and Hong Kong show this.
No response from AT yet?
I guess spin takes a few days. Even though it’s usually cut and paste from the last one.
I did send about 10 questions in, a fair bit more extensive than perhaps other requests for comments would be so I understand if they are taking time.
This central government issued a nationwide directive against funding any kind of raised table or safety features, not only on the state highway network but also on half-funding local contributions. Stop thinking Auckland is special.
Before you breathlessly slag off AT staff, just follow the money.
Auckland is special. AT’s stats about application for (and thus receipt of) walking, cycling and innovation funding are unique. This is not about the current government, as the problem was rife under the last two governments. What active mode funding AT did get, was often wasted on reconsultation and redesign.
AT’s leadership needs to stop denying the validity of the criticism and realise their part in all this: The poor delivery and excuses continued even as advocates and councillors brought it to the board and management’s attention.
And each restructure was like a simmering pot. Leadership skimmed off innovation and progressive thought, while concentrating and thickening the problem regressives.
Rather than being defensive, what do you need to help you see the big picture? I’m sure you could be helping shift AT’s culture.
This is a political decision made at a nationwide level that AT are only one small part of. Neither AT nor AC have any bearing on it.
Also why do you guys not keep up with the structural shift that’s occurred? AT has been deliberately gutted to a shell as almost all functions are pulled into AC. So Waitemata Board moaning about AT is misplaced when they in reality need to with the AC bureaucracy if they want anything done.
The big picture is that it’s a nationwide decision.
Talk to the Minister.
Careful saying “talk to the minister”. It’s a current ‘thing’ RW elected members are using in order to deny their responsibility to write to him. Eg the AELB Board Chair used it recently as she gutted an evidence-based motion by the AELB chair and forced through a pile of ideological wankery.
In a similar way, AT should talk to the minister on our behalf.
AT has always used colourful excuses. Even under a new AC/AT structure, professional ethics requires the leadership of a transport organisation to refuse deliver unsafe, undemocratic changes.
Don’t forget how skilled AT is in ignoring ‘nationwide decisions’. GA has exposed hundreds of times AT directly ignored the GPS during the last two terms of government. It doesn’t reflect well to now claim their hands are tied.
The only thing special about this ‘national direction’ is that it aligns with the clay layer’s purpose of ensuring continued car domination of our city.
If Bishop is the moderate he is being painted as, AT can simply appeal to him that it is ‘Insanity’ that the GPS is gutting this good project, and to intervene. If Bishop is not a moderate, and will not intervene, a responsible transport expert organisation would ensure his refusal is in the public eye, through simple attention to the matter at hand.
Making progress isn’t rocket science. It just requires all of us to play our part.
Error in my first paragraph. It should say, “Eg the AELB Board Chair used it recently as she gutted an evidence-based motion and forced through a pile of ideological wankery.”
Hi. This was a funded project, this was a supported project. I am well aware of central governments fanatical war on safety funding and walking & cycling, but this has nothing to do with that.
I have specifically made mention in this post and previous ones, and will reiterate now, that the Project Team in AT for this work is wonderful, they were doing things correctly, they cared and wanted to create good outcomes that work for the K’ Road area. Many people in AT are passionate professional people who make this city better.
The issue with AT, is they do not change. Under the last government with hundreds of millions available for walking, cycling, and safety, we got the exact same thing, projects were delayed watered down and stopped.
Projects funded under the Urban Cycleways Programme from the John Key Government have taken a decade to eventuate – despite persistent widespread community lobbying and support.
This is because specific people in AT leadership have failed this city again and again. It was true in 2022 when this Metro article was written and it is true now.
https://www.metromag.co.nz/city-life/city-life-transport/the-trouble-with-auckland-transport
It is not about breathlessly slagging off AT staff, its to try and fix the persistent and fundamental issues with an organisation which grinds out good people while failing to address the city’s needs, because after years of this I don’t think being quiet about this will lead to change – the only thing will be sunlight.
There’s almost no one left at AT.
That’s the AC structural decision.
You need to redirect your effort.
Also put your mind at ease: for the most part AC is not a democracy.
Has AC hired the same senior managers from AT who have been the problem for many years?
LGOIMA sent today
https://fyi.org.nz/request/30676-karanga-a-hape-station-precinct-integration-project-changes/new
Thanks.
You guys definitely have a right to carry the cross for AT after a decade of advocacy. Respect.
But AT is dead. There’s no resurrection. It’s a PT contractor with a few maintenance contracts.
The very, very last of the urban upgrades with a safety focus is central Wellington. And for that WCC got carpet bombed by this government ever since they got in,
Auckland’s success 2015-2023 is the completion of Wynyard Point all the way through to POA. IT was a fun set of projects. But with that axis done, there’s no more.
Not only is the AT era done, the NZ downtown urban streetscape rebuild era is done.
ChatGPT tells me the councils, representing ratepayers and other groups, which have requested for lower speed limits to remain Re:
Auckland
Christchurch
Marlborough
Tauranga
Horowhenua
Timaru
Kapiti
West Coast
Selwyn
Wellington
National campaigned on listening to local communities when making decision on speed limits, so here’s their chance.
I believe there are grounds for the the senior AT exec who made the decision to be dismissed for waste of ratepayer funds.
I would 1st LGOIMA the following things: how much has been spent on developing the design up until the point it was supposed to be
built. In particular broken down into consultant designs and engagement costs.
Given the consultation process as described in the engagement material has not been followed and instead a senior executive, in private conversations with some stakeholders has made a decision to undo all the previously engaged and consulted decisions, it is fair to say that the executive has wasted 100s of 1000s of dollars of ratepayer
money on a fake process and this is 100% a waste of ratepayer money. The exec should have been upfront in the engagement material that the decision-making would be made based on stakeholders conversations behind closed doors, instead of wasting ratepayer $$$$$ on a sham engagement process.