This is a letter we will be sending to Auckland Transport to ask they return to the original consulted and endorsed plans on the Karanga-a-Hape Station precinct integration project, after they released significant changes to designs last week.
If you would like to be added as a signatory, please reach out to us at admin@greaterauckland.org.nz
Let us know if you live or work in the Karangahape Road area as well (but anyone is welcome to sign on).
Kia ora koutou katoa,
We are writing this letter to ask Auckland Transport to reverse their recent and unconsulted changes to the designs for the Karanga-a-Hape Station precinct integration project.
This project’s stated aim from the start has been to maximise the value of the City Rail Link, a $5.5 billion project which will transform this city and the Karangahape neighbourhood. Over 2023 and 2024, this project followed a good process, with excellent and regular community engagement.
There have also been a number of design adjustments and additions along the way. Many addressed people’s genuine concerns without compromising the project, while others met local aspirations to enhance the project’s outcomes. In general, Auckland Transport’s project team has done a fantastic job.
However, as only became evident at the end of a workshop presentation to the Waitematā local Board on the 8th of April 2025, Auckland Transport has changed the supported and consulted designs for the Karanga-a-Hape Station precinct integration project, with drastic impacts for the designs on Cross Street, Canada Street, and East Street. This follows the recent reversal of well supported plans to implement a pedestrian mall on Upper Mercury Lane citing the threat of legal action from a persistent vocal stakeholder.
None of these changes were consulted on with key stakeholders and the wider community who participated, in good faith, in workshops and consultations throughout 2023 to arrive at a well-supported design. What’s worse is that all of these changes are in direct opposition to the results of that careful and considerate work with the community – thus undoing public confidence in the process, and in Auckland Transport.
People supported a pedestrian mall on Upper Mercury Lane, under the special consultative requirement set out in the Local Government Act. Auckland Transport has removed this from the design.
People supported removing car parking on Cross Street in favour of loading zones and wider, more accessible footpaths with attractive planters. Auckland Transport have removed these from the design.
People supported keeping the protected cycleway on East St. Auckland Transport has removed this from the design to allow two-way traffic, and has replaced a safe cycleway with painted sharrows – a clear downgrade of safety and accessibility.
People asked for more green space, trees, and planters, Auckland Transport have removed these from the design to enable increased traffic access.
The widely consulted plans were unanimously supported in 2023 by the Waitematā Local Board and approved by the Auckland Council Governing Body and the Board of Auckland Transport. Where further work and adjustments were needed, the project team engaged with community stakeholders to contribute to the design of the project, who showed support for enhancing the consulted plans, removing parking for more people-friendly space, and more street amenities like planters.
The original plans are well-aligned with the broader vision and strategy for the City Centre, as outlined in the City Centre Masterplan, City Centre Action Plan, and Access for Everyone.
Auckland Transport has not yet publicly given a satisfactory rationale for this extraordinary last-minute U-turn. We are deeply concerned that it is the result of backroom lobbying by a vocal minority who are unhappy with the intended changes, and that AT’s leadership has changed the project at the last minute, when it is already well under construction.
We ask that Auckland Transport returns to implementing the consulted and agreed upon plans that were highly supported by those who engaged in good faith with the project. Ignoring that public support not only undermines public confidence in consultative processes, but risks loss of social licence for any future such projects.
By returning to the plan you do have social licence for, Auckland Transport will deliver the street environment as promised, maximising the value and impact of the CRL on the Karangahape Road Area while honouring both the consultation process and the aspirations of Aucklanders.
Ngā mihi
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!
Processing...
Tragic that an organisation can be corrupted by a few vested interests
Taking out traffc access to Mercury Lane impacted residents having vehicular access to their building on Mercury Lane. That access has been there for decades. There are plenty of shared vehicle and pedestrian spaces around rail entrances overseas. Mercury Lane as pedestrian only is not necessary.
Pedestrians only on Mecury Lane would turn it into “dealer corner”
Hardly, making it pedestrian only isn’t the contention, it’s whether mercury lane should go back to being a through road for traffic after years of being closed at one end.
Local residents will still have vehicle access to Mercury Lane and their carpark via Cross Street. They don’t need through traffic coming down from Pitt Street to do that. You might ask those resident’s if they have “not had vehicular access” this last year while I has been closed at one end.
The Pitt/K Rd intersection is a critical delay point for all modes, especially the many bus routes that pass through there. Is very pedestrian rich too. By keeping upper Mercury Lane closed to vehicle traffic as it is now, and has been for a year now, meaningfully improves the productivity of the intersection, freeing a whole leg for active modes, and simplifying the phasing.
The plan now is to add a phase for cars coming up from Merc lane? Really? Which will need its own phase in the signal cycle, delaying every driver, bus user, deliver person, pedestrian and bike user? Just avoid a simple drive around a block for a few drivers? Obviously this is bad for safety, but what about efficiency?
If the reply here is, oh it won’t be that often, is only a few drivers from one building, then that also surely shows what a small inconvenience it would be to require these drivers to use Canada St instead.
The fact is that traffic will continue to use East street as it remains a far better option than turning left onto Karangahape road from mercury lane even for the people living there. The only traffic likely to use this intersection are service vehicles (so that they don’t have to execute a U turn in a pedestrian area) and anyone who has accidentally turned right from Cross street.
It feels like people expect Mercury lane to become the rat run it was when the flow was north to south. This won’t happen because the new configuration takes is slower than the available alternative.
hahaha best reckon yet! ‘Dealer corner’ how are those straws you’re clutching at…you know most drug deals are done quickly from a car window ay..not outside one of the busiest stations in the country.
Moral panic much? Who is buying the drugs on ‘dealers corner’? Where do K rd residents who want to buy drugs go then? Bring back the ‘good ole days’ of a dealer on every floor?
Stuff like this makes me wonder if we’ll be better off once AC retakes many of ACs functions of it.
We don’t always love AC, but at least we can change councilors. We can’t change unelected bureaucrats…
Could work both ways. For all we know Auckland could elect a far right council for the next decade.
The fact that both the left and the right hate AT makes me think they have done a reasonable job of sticking to the middle which is where they probably should be.
I can’t see it ending well. Transport will simply become more of a political football than it already is. You’ll end up with councillors becoming either rabidly anti-car or anti-bicycle depending on which voting block they are trying to appeal to leaving far less room for the middle ground.
* once AC retakes many of _ATs_ functions of it.
Fat fingers, poor mobile interface, on the bus…
This is the relevant GPS 2024-34 quote that will IMHO have tilted all of this AT spend away from this set of safety upgrades:
“Funding toward road safety will be focused on safer roads, safer drivers, and safer vehicles. This includes on initiatives necessary for reducing barriers for private sector investment into road safety, and on activities necessary to support the Government’s approach to the setting of speed limits. The Government expects that investment from this activity class will not be made in traffic calming measures such as raised pedestrian crossings, raised platforms, speed bumps, and in-lane bus stops on state highways and local roads.”
This has been taken very seriously within the Agency so AT get it told to them once they put up a plan for funding. I’m sorry for K’Road just as AT are wiped out, but unlike Wellington they didn’t get a Crown observer and a full-on political attack by the government for it.
This project was already funded, its literally in construction, the GPS doesn’t matter.
In fact given how different the project will be if they actually try to change the design and plans it might have to be reviewed for funding which would then risk this under the GPS.
This is all on leadership in AT for making this way more difficult and complicated than it needs to be, instead of just delivering the project that has been supported and consulted on.
Good news is they can just go ahead and do the right thing, nothings stopping them except for themselves.
Why do these groups have such disproportionate influence? a handful of likely boomer residents scupper plans for something that will last for decades to the benefit of thousands.
Genuinely asking why even consult on something like this.
From experience you pick your fights. There is huge pressure to align the completion of anything in K’Road near the station with the opening of the whole CRL station and the new rail system itself. As soon as you lose a chunk of programme with Appeals, you’ve lost your alignment with the CRL opening.
It’s really hard to describe how big the CRL impact has had on the whole of the CBD for a decade now. Everyone has just got to their limit and need their lives back, so it’s really easy to kill something when it’s extra and doesn’t align with CRL programme.
How does this not align with the CRL programme?
Passengers have to get to and from the trains and they will not be using magic carpets or fire engines to do so.
I for one have Consultation fatigue. Pretty much every Consultation I have participated in has either been disappeared or I believe deliberately delayed for years and years. These include separating bikes from general traffic on Ponsonby Rd and other safety improvements for pedestrians ditto Gt North Rd, Richmond Rd through West Lynn shops down to Westmoreland Rd , Old Mill-Garnet Rd
You and me both Kerry B I barely bother. Apart from some areas of PT I’m jokerfied when it comes to AT
Here’s the structural problem as I see it. AT are trying to please conflicting groups, and have got into a pattern of either flip-flopping between approaches, or staying the overall course, but undermining it in execution to try to please opponents.
The problem here is that this pleases pretty much no one. It may seem mature to compromise and meet in the middle, but not when that means expensively achieving little.
Obviously there are a range of opinions about how streets should be managed, and like so much these days, polarisation in these opinion seems ever more extreme. So how should AT (or AC, or NZTA) manage this process in this difficult context?
To me it seems clear that street management needs to rest firmly on two solid pillars, followed by democratic process of engagement and consultation, from which an agreed plan emerges, which is altered only in very minor ways through delivery.
The two solid foundations are:
1. Technical evidence: On safety, efficiency, and effectiveness. There are mountains of well evidenced papers on what works and what doesn’t in road and street design for all contexts, whole design manuals, well understood ways to build a safe and thriving urban context. There is not massive disagreement within this canon.
2. Plans and Strategies. Are the proposed changes (including: the do nothing option) consistent with the kaupapa, the spirit and aims of higher order plans and strategies?
So, for example, for Project K. The relevant plans are the Auckland Plan (quality compact city), the City Centre Master Plan, and the Rapid Transit Plan. The later two give effect to the former, and strongly emphasise improving walkability and station access as means to that end.
Critically the CCMP is a change programme, it is clearly about transforming city centre streets away from its 20thC vehicle-first hierarchy to a people first priority. Specifically through cutting off rat-running opportunities, and significantly increasing the appeal and safety of non-motorised and public transport modes, through street re-design, in accordance with the universally accepted streets hierarchy.
Once the decision to build the CRL was made, it was obvious that this transformation of city centre streets should, with some urgency, focus on the streets surrounding station entrances.
This has been done downtown around Waitematā station, transforming a vehicle street into our now premier public square, the hugely successful Te Komititanga (as well as the new improved Quay St and Te Waihanga, etc.)
It is happening now too in midtown with Te Ha Noa, and Wellesley St.
And it must also be properly done around both entrances to the third city Station: Kaianga-a-Hape.
Any late change to the plan that undermines either the higher order strategies, or solid evidence about how to effect to these strategies, has to be resisted. No matter how tempting it is to try to please a very vocal or even compelling sub-group. Especially if this is after formal consultation processes.
Otherwise the whole process and the agency in question loses mana, trust, and support.
I also know this is very hard for staff, cos people can be extremely angry and without self-control or perspective. It is unfair for staff to have to bear that in the course of trying to do their jobs.
My answer to that, is that they need to be supported by the people at the level that make the higher order decisions, including up to elected members, who vote for these plans (but don’t necessarily fully understand technicalities – it requires both).
This is very common overseas. The Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and cycleway system rolled out in London – to outrage from the usual groups (but clear support of most) are constantly fronted by elected members, right to the top.
After nearly 15 years of CRL design and delivery (and since 2017 as its own separate Crown entity) you can probably imagine why staff just go “too damn hard” when they hit yet another major resistance. You’ll probably be aware of the internal contest to scale back the Victoria linear park projects for example.
Also none of those plans and strategies, nor local elected members, will protect staff if the Minister starts to take notice. Just ask Tory Whanau what a political carpet bombing feels like.
Re Te Hā Noa. It didn’t help that we have an anti urban councillor who has gone down the culture war rabid hole. And worked behind the scenes to corrode and undermine. And is also doing so for Project K.
That’s a good list. Who ‘owns’ the project? AT are clearly responsible for the implementation but who are the stewards? What are the objectives and principles that AT are responding to? If we change our mindset to believe that the City is the client we change our response. One of the powerful things that the ADO offered was to be an intelligent client for Council. ADO took ownership (to the extent that it could) and carried out the reference design, negotiated with the interested parties and used imaginative procurement means to get the project right from the start. Most of the officers at Council / AT are trying to do a good job but they’re caught in providing outputs not outcomes. Process over Progress. Too often we define a successful outcome as one that responds to a budget line or creates a plan: an output, not an outcome. A project of this scale ought to catch the attention of the AT Board, have a champion locally and in council. There should be a governance structure to include local community (including but not solely business), Senior staff members, representative from CRL, and a politician ALL on equal terms. Let’s treat the City as the client.
āYes. The City Centre Master Plan, conceived by the council’s own Auckland Design Office, and voted into policy by the Council twice, is a change programme. It is explicitly about updating the street fabric of the city. Wherever we have forced AT to deliver it it is working spectacularly. Anyone want walls of buses back between Commercial Bay and Waitematā Station?
Key parts of AT have either never accepted this, or keep forgetting it. It is not their job to relitigate it, kill the whole intent little by little, as we see here, but to deliver it.
I can’t emphasise enough. This is explicitly a change kaupapa, so to achieve the outcomes in the plan the previous condition needs to be substantially replaced. It therefore makes no sense, as AT continually do, seeking out examples of how these streets were previously used as an argument to undermine the plan.
Some key words from the 29/4/2022 Metro article linked in your previous post on this:
“Those community members with time to submit on council projects are generally older, whiter and more conservative than the general population… And when councils commission polling, it generally shows strong support for cycling and pedestrian investment. “The fear of the backlash is not evidence-based,” a former AT staffer says. “It’s based on people listening to a small number of really noisy individuals.”
This is blindingly obvious. “Consultation’ in the traditional sense (invitation to submit, town hall meeting etc) is good public relations, but if you really want to know what the community *as a whole* thinks, you MUST do a statistically valid random sampling survey of the whole population.
Surely they must understand this. I’ve never understood why elected representatives allow themselves to be cowed by a few noisy individuals. At the end of the day the noisy individuals, like everyone else, only have one vote each.
Unless they own property, then they have one vote plus one vote in the area where they own.
The issue may be that the noisy individuals are actually more likely to vote.
The Councillors should probably give themselves some cover by putting in a regulation requiring that statistically valid polling and making it hard to deviate from it.
Yes I was forgetting that in NZ you don’t have compulsory voting.
If I had to do something, I would say make the City Centre car free.
You can park near a train station and ride in, drink what you like and go anywhere safely, we can start destroying the carparks and turn them into apartment buildings, as Precinct will do with the Downtown Disaster.
When the CRL opens, the West and South and some of the East will have no reason to drive into town. North Shore can learn to drive to a Ferry Terminal.
This will make the most important area of our city amazing for everybody, and from there we can make the South and West amazing for everybody, then later East, then much later North Shore, as they never bothered to sort out a track for a train so clearly deserve the Lake Road Trauma they enjoy these days.
Ride a bike and be happy, take your kids on public transport and enjoy their happiness, and stop living in houses. Cities are created from buildings, and we need to start believing that we can be a city.
Apartment life is as easy as life could be, or will ever become.
bah humbug
Park near a station, drink what you like and then…..drive home from the station?
Will the Councillor for the area speak out on this?
I’ve seen Richard Hills actually meet iwth AT, I know Chloe is across it as an MP but yeah, not sure who the councillor is, scarily I think it might be Maurice Willaimson which kinda says everything.
Mike Lee; which says more.
That’s who I meant lol, same same.
Funnily Mike Lee WAS pro trains but he also doesn’t have the ability to link the fact that people use trains so you have to cater for them.