Last Wednesday, Greater Auckland sent an open letter to Auckland Transport about last minute U-turns on designs for the area around Karanga-ā-hape CRL station. Our letter was co-signed by over a hundred people including many local residents and businesses, Auckland Central MP Chlöe Swarbrick, and organisations such as the City Centre Residents’ Group, Bike Auckland, Campaign for Better Transport, and more.
(We also provided some more context for the widespread disappointment in a follow-up post.)
I’ve been waiting for an answer from AT before writing an update, but it’s been a week and we are yet to receive a direct reply. In the meantime, there has been an indirect response… in the form of a very public doubling-down on AT’s backwards move.
In the last week Auckland Transport’s director of infrastructure and place, Murray Burt, has popped up in the media to offer explanations. Yesterday, AT sent out a Project K newsletter update. And at least one person who individually contacted AT got an email in reply (see here).
All of AT’s communications have defended their drastic last-minute changes to this project. For example, here’s what the Project K newsletter said:
Project design
Some aspects of the project design have recently been discussed in the media and among concerned individuals. Here’s what you need to know:
- Auckland Transport developed changes to the design in response to feedback from business owners and residents during and following public consultation on the design.
- We could have done better at managing this process, and explain the rationale for proposed changes more clearly.
- AT must balance the needs of visitors, residents, and business owners – creating streets accessible by all modes of transport.
- The design includes significant pedestrian priority while maintaining smooth access for vehicles and maximising the benefits of CRL.
- Where vehicle access has been added, features have been included to maintain pedestrian safety. We continue to optimise the design, balancing support for the original design with the specific local feedback.
- Future improvements will be possible after City Rail Link opens in 2026, including footpath and accessibility enhancements on Cross Street. We will continue to involve stakeholders and the Local Board in this work.
This smooth, faux-reasonable language is flim-flam. The thing is:
- There is no justification for AT to unilaterally throw out a design supported by the public and by its co-funders
- This represents a considerable breach of trust, as well as a flouting of the strategies and principles AT is meant to be guided by.
- Senior leadership shows a complete misunderstanding of how to make a good city, to the point where you have to wonder who’s calling the shots here.
We’ll dig into all three of these issues, but let’s start with the mention of co-funders in point 1: AT’s actions could risk this project’s funding.
The total cost of Project K is approximately $18.3 million. Around a quarter of that, $4.5 million, comes from the City Centre Targeted Rate, which is conditional on alignment with the City Centre Masterplan and Access for Everyone. The investment of this targeted rate is guided by the City Centre Advisory Panel. And from my understanding, they have not been consulted on any of AT’s unilateral last-minute changes.
So yeah…
On Trust and Consultation
As previously covered in detail, the Project K team consulted extensively on this project, revealing strong support for their plans. In 2023, AT’s team held community workshops to shape the plans. And while there were minor issues to resolve, the overall design was well supported. Additionally, the original designs matched the guiding vision outlined in Access for Everyone (A4E) and the City Centre Masterplan (CCMP).
This was a good project.
And it’s currently being gutted by senior leadership in Auckland Transport using a small number of voices who are vehemently opposed to the core direction of the project as an excuse.
We’ve obtained a response from AT to someone who contacted them about the changes to Mercury Lane and Cross Street. AT justified the Cross Street changes by saying:
The changes to the design on Cross Street have been developed following feedback from businesses located on the block between Cross Street and Karangahape Road, and the Karangahape Business Association.
From our understanding, only two businesses are pushing for these recent changes. We’ve seen nothing along these lines from the Karangahape Road Business Association – not from KBA, or via AT, or in the media.
Meanwhile, our open letter attracted over 130 people and organisations. And as AT itself reported, hundreds of people engaged in the public consultation in 2023:
We received 349 responses to our online survey, 391 individual comments on our Social Pinpoint site, 45 postal responses, 11 email submissions, and one in-person submission.
The majority of people loved this project and the direction it was going.
So why would senior leadership at Auckland Transport throw away a funded and popular design that fits the official strategies for the City Centre?
I want to be clear. Businesses and residents have understandable concerns. These can be addressed. George Court residents want access to their building, so AT’s original design enabled that with retractable bollards and loading zones, while keeping Mercury Lane as a pedestrian mall. Cross Street businesses want loading zones for delivery and servicing, and again, the consulted designs provide for this, with minor adjustments always possible.
These genuine needs and proportionate design responses should never have led AT to essentially ditch the whole Project K design and purpose.
The current outcome of the changes is not, as AT, puts it, a “balanced” design. It prioritises through-traffic in an area that should prioritise walking, cycling and local access. AT is literally pulling out an existing protected cycleway on East Street, to enable two-way traffic.
If AT refuses to return to the consulted plans, I would ask why anyone would trust future engagement from Auckland Transport. If senior leadership can pull the rug from under a project while it is under construction, what is the point of spending time and resource on asking people what they want?
On design and the failure of imagination
What’s conspicuously missing from AT’s responses and media comment so far is vision. Specifically, the core vision for the City Centre, which is underpinned by strategies that should be on every desk in the building.
The City Centre Masterplan, plus its transport aspect Access for Everyone (A4E), specifies clever traffic circulation plans that remove busy through-traffic from the city, while maintaining access for delivery and servicing.
The plans put people first, creating places Aucklanders will want to go to. We already have great localised examples of how this works: Te Komititanga square, Freyberg Place, Vulcan Lane – tantalising tastes of the overarching vision for the whole city centre.
The Karangahape Precinct is scheduled for the same glow-up. As the Karangahape Road Plan 2014-2044 lays out, the CRL works will result in:
a more pedestrian and cycle friendly, accessible and vibrant place that caters to the needs of the community and is a prosperous part of the city
And as the 2020 CCMP notes: Cross Street will become a vibrant secondary laneway linkage in the future, complementing the main street status of Karangahape Road.
So what gives? How has AT so badly lost the plot?
Conspicuously missing from all of AT’s responses so far is any mention of Access For Everyone, the underlying movement plan for Project K. Have they forgotten it exists? Is this why the last-minute design changes they’re trying to ram through so drastically unbalance the priority, away from the people who’ll be pouring in and out of the new CRL station, and back towards pouring non-local traffic through these narrow streets?
Look at some of the claims the latest comms are making:
- “AT must balance the needs of visitors, residents, and business owners – creating streets accessible by all modes of transport”.
But the already-supported designs provided access for all modes of transport! What kind of transport planning “balances” a busy station plaza with free-flowing through traffic? Have these people travelled anywhere else in the world?
- “The [re]design includes significant pedestrian priority while maintaining smooth access for vehicles and maximising the benefits of CRL.”
But the original designs enabled local vehicle access while prioritising the thousands of people who will be coming from the CRL station. AT fails to mention their latest move is drastically reducing pedestrian priority on Cross Street.
Besides, “smooth access” for which vehicles? They’re also removing cycleways on East Street and replacing them with sharrows to enable two-way traffic, binning existing infrastructure and putting people on bikes in the same space as rat-runners.
- “Where vehicle access has been added, features have been included to maintain pedestrian safety. We continue to optimise the design, balancing support for the original design with the specific local feedback.”.
What does that mean? It means they’re replacing funded, best-practice infrastructure with paint, as confirmed in their reply to the individual who enquired about Cross Street:
“Speed humps have been replaced by other traffic-slowing measures (surface painting and narrowing the entrance to the street), due to concerns about damage to goods during deliveries”
Oh so ‘generously’, AT is offering to create a deck over the horrid “trench” alongside the parking building. But they’ve decided not to expand the southern footpath on Cross Street, so they can keep loading zones. The original plan was to have loading zones on the north side of the street – where the major businesses are. So far, there’s been no reason put forward why this suddenly doesn’t work.
But cheer up, folks – here’s the ‘good news’:
- “Future improvements will be possible after City Rail Link opens in 2026, including footpath and accessibility enhancements on Cross Street. We will continue to involve stakeholders and the Local Board in this work.”.
Sure, the original designs on Cross Street and East Street were always intended to be no-dig low-cost solutions. However, nowhere does Auckland Transport explain what’s preventing them from immediately implementing the funded and well supported design that would remove through-traffic and create the future precinct now. Low-cost, cheap-and-cheerful solutions can have a huge positive impact, and Project K’s design was set to do exactly that!
Ya know, the design that was a result of engaging with stakeholders and the Local Board in 2023…
So what’s the justification for ditching the agreed design?
Auckland Transport’s latest update says they “could have done better at managing this process, and explain[ed] the rationale for proposed changes more clearly” – while failing to explain how the changes deliver the agreed outcomes for this area.
AT has never explained why they are prioritising through-traffic despite all the technical work showing that’s illogical in this particular space.
AT has never explained why they are prioritising a few loud people over the hundreds of people who support this project and who engaged in good faith – let alone the hundreds of thousands of people the CRL will bring to the area.
AT has never explained how this last-minute watering-down delivers the politically-agreed, publicly-supported, partly CCTR-funded vision for the area.
The reason they haven’t, is because there is no justification for their actions.
In an interview with Simon Wilson a few weeks ago under the headline “Auckland Transport sabotages its own City Rail Link plans at Karanga-ā-hape Railway Station”, the senior leader in AT who is driving these changes said Federal Street (presumably the block alongside SkyCity) is a good example of a ‘shared space’. As Simon Wilson stated: “He couldn’t have chosen anything worse. Federal St is not a proper shared space, it’s a street for cars that doesn’t have clearly marked footpaths.”
If that’s the vision now for Mercury Lane and Cross Street, it’s not good enough. It’s not a “balanced plan”, it’s a return to rat-runs.
What’s most worrying is that such senior leaders have such little understanding of both transport and place, let alone how to earn and build trust by delivering on promises. Is it any wonder that public confidence in AT is so low?
Project K can still be saved… if we keep up the pressure
The most insidious part of AT’s response to the individual’s email was this:
“We will provide an update on the design to the Local Board and the community next month, and will not make further design changes after that, as construction is already underway.”
How conveniently this glosses over the fact that unilateral design changes have already been made while construction is already underway! One rule for me and another for thee. In other words, AT hopes to lock in these awful changes and prevent a return to the original designs. This is egregious nonsense, and people can see right through it.
These firm protestations tell us we’ve made a dent. AT has received a lot of feedback on this, and is under a lot of pressure to return to the plan. We believe this project can still be saved. With our open letter in AT’s hands and still awaiting a reply, there is still plenty of room to write personally and let AT know you want the original design.
Bike Auckland has a great guide on who to contact – we recommend you also cc in Auckland Councillors Richard Hills (who has been pushing to return to the original plans) and Andy Baker. Keep your emails polite, but be resolute because we need AT to return to the original course – especially given concerns around funding.
If they get away with evaporating the soul of Project K, what else is next?
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...
Thanks for the ongoing updates.
Why exactly do these plans change so easily on any small minority feedback? Just don’t change the plans, nothing is going to happen if you push on – what the old nimby George Court residents are going to chain themselves to their beautiful street parking?
At this point it must be some sort of corruption happening.
It’s not just any ” small minority feedback”. It’s a small minority of business/property owners who have the ear of Wayne Brown, and Bernard Orsman, and can make life difficult, personally, for AT managers. Like, “death threat” difficult.
Can you elaborate, Daphne, or is you can’t give specifics for privacy reasons, confirm there have been death threats? I am well aware of the barriers good staff face in AT, but I hadn’t heard of death threats via a pathway that involves Orsman and Brown
You’re 100% right Daphne – I wish AT would push through the changes like they are doing all around Glen Innes right now. They did not seem to really let the feedback change the core of the projects like they have here
It’s not about that – AT consulted on a design that could not be built because they failed to talk to local building owners before developing the design. They based the design on false information. They assumed George Courts Building can be managed from Cros St. That is not the case. They have had to concede that they can’t create a safe pedestrian space whlle also retaining essential building access….
Why can’t we still close Mercury Lane to through traffic? You can retain entry and exit to George Court from Mercury lane, but only have access from below i.e. up from the Cross St, Mercury Lane intersection.
Hi Oscar – the steep, narrow and tight corner between Cross St and Upper Mercury Lane does not enable safe, 2-way traffic. Larger trucks would have to turn left from Cross into Mercury, then reverse uphill, around the blind corner to our entrance. Not safe for pedestrians
“These firm protestations tell us we’ve made a dent. AT has received a lot of feedback on this, and is under a lot of pressure to return to the plan. ”
Surely everything you’ve said means the opposite?
I think dent is correct. If there wasn’t a dent, AT wouldn’t feel the need to make any statements.
I thought they spent mega millions to add a rail entrance at Beresford St so presumably the pedestrian numbers on Mercury Lane won’t be so large now.
Already answered in the comments of a previous post on the topic, miffy. Different people coming from different directions have different needs.
As an example lot of people heading out to Newton/Uptown will use this, entrance. Many of those emailing to sign on to our open letter pointed that out.
There’s also a big point about process here – you don’t make major changes when a project is in the delivery stage.
The original design included Beresford. When National finally agreed to fund it, they tried to value engineer it out, ignoring the fact that they still had to dig the hole there to build the station in the first place, and “eliminating” the entrance simply meant just not lining it at the end, saving only a paltry $30m.
And link to Spinoff article here https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/01-05-2025/the-changes-to-plans-for-the-streets-around-the-karanga-a-hape-crl-station-explained
i gave the the leadership team couple packs of timtams to make the change
Tim Tams! You must be rolling in it can’t remember the last time those were even remotely affordable lol :((.
What hasn’t really been mentioned is the amount of traffic, including trucks, that use Cross street for deliveries and access. Also the carpark has a high volume of traffic entering , also the apartments from the old George Courts building. This is a massive failure from AT as due diligence would have revealed the pedestrianisation of cross street was a non starter, it would have left AT open for numerous law suits, class action or individual.. only a very small percentage of business (delivery companies, people that use the car park) affected were asked to take part in the consultation.
Unmentioned is the amount of traffic, including trucks, that use Cross street for deliveries and access. Also the carpark has a high volume of traffic entering , also the apartments from the old George Courts building. This is a massive failure from AT as due diligence would have revealed the pedestrianization of cross street was a non starter, it would have left AT open for numerous law suits, class action or individual.. only a very small percentage of business (delivery companies, people that use the car park) affected were asked to take part in the consultation.
Nobody has ever proposed pedestrianisation of Cross Street, or Mercury Lane. What are you arguing about?
AT was proposing to pedestrianise upper Mercury Lane and remove loading/service vehicle space on Cross St in favour of wider footpaths
One can only think that democracy has already died here. A few loud voices and our entire city can be sent backwards when the City Rail Link will finally catch us up to the real cities of this planet.
It is sad, and we have a right to be furious about it.
As the old reggae classic goes, “one step forward two steps backwards (war in babylon)”
AT was founded by Rodney Hide. David Seymour is attempting to implement Project 2025 on our shores.
Evil men doing evil things because they had useless parents, and want the rest of us to suffer from the bullying they obviously received because of their stupid names and ugly faces.
bah humbug
shhh! there’s a certain troll-under-the-bridge who will start b*tching about democracy the minute anyone points out that people do want safer, more pleasant walking and cycling environments, don’t wake them!
Democracy is alive and well thanks to Seymour and Brown. It’s back to basics democracy 51%> is a majority and that’s how decisions are made. Note how I FULLY support the 6 lower speeds in the areas where 51%> or higher asked for slower. Why don’t we put it to a referendum so we can stop having this debate. Of course people want that stuff but does a majority want that stuff? That’s up for debate (not on this blog I guess) but luckily this blog does not set policy (luckily speeds are being reversed where people want them despite the jumping up and down from certain individuals).
and there’s the troll! run off to america, i’m sure you’d fit in very well with the orangutan fascist and the emerald mine nepo baby, and their favoured ”debate” tactics
Borrower I am trying to prevent a trump style govt from getting elected but by frustrating people you make it more likely. The left have gotten very greedy causing a shift to the far right. We need to bring balance back to decision making.
NACT were elected because Jacinda went spineless centrist hack and abandoned the left trying to appease a right that was never gonna vote for her. Same with Kamala.
Try again.
The right did vote for her that’s how Labour won the largest majority this century. Let’s be honest it was the vax mandates and endless draconian lockdowns that was her undoing. As someone who suffered from Long Covid I still think the additional lockdowns on Auckland were a mistake and of course telling everyone to take the barely tested vaccine or lose their job or livelihood was never going to play out well long term. I do feel sorry for her the NZ public gaslighted her into doing these measures then turned on her once she did. If Jacinda lost because she abandoned the left the greens would’ve picked up the votes but that didn’t happen so stop lying and we can actually have a debate.
Ohhhh, you’re a “pick me” long covider! if you’re telling the truth (which i doubt. strangers on the internet and all.)
sorry pookums, the democratic consensus among those with chronic illness and long COVID health issues is that the abled nutjobs rushing reopening everything and not wearing masks are the actual draconian ones, pushing a subversive agenda of eugenics to passively kill off anyone who is disabled and needs society’s support.
Actually, we should be led by people who aren’t the privileged able-bodied tyrants who think thousands of deaths are worth it if they get to go back to the bars and give themselves liver poisoning.
MODERATOR: Is this discussion getting off-topic?
It’s not really practical to have a referendum on every little thing.
In voting for a government you have to vote for the whole package.
There is no implication that every or any voter supports everything that the got then proposes to do. The details are a matter for subsequent debate in the appropriate forums.
That’s why we gave an ongoing parliament; we don’t just elect a government once every three years and allow it to rule like a dictatorship until next time.
Apart from automated system received replies I have had no response to the email I submitted
Send another email. It all helps.
OMG you guys still arguing about minor streetscape upgrades.
The country is about to face the worst and meanest national budget since Bolger in a few days, with a further $1b pulled out this week.
The NLTF is pretty much dry. And no one in Council or NZTA has ANY sympathy for wanting more after having over $7b dropped on less than 4km of new rail and network upgrades.
FFS let it go.
Every single major project in the country is having a monthly ruler over it from tier 3 NZTA staff while they hold on to to the deckchairs. And worse, stop blaming largely powerless regional bureaucrats for central government direction.
Prepare to celebrate CRL’s opening. Otherwise get real.
Everyone here is missing the point – AT is unable to go back to the plans because the plans had fatal flaws. They did not account for local access needs – not wants, needs. There’s not much point in creating a pedestrian mall that still has 2-way traffic into it, including trucks reversin uphill and around corner into the edge of the mall area – that’s the reality. I know you don’t like it, but that doesn’t change it. The Geourge Courts Building has a legal access at 2 Mercury Lane that serves the building’s substation, rubbish, mechanical/electrical, lift servicing plus delivery/removals trucks and about 70 car parks. Our Cross St entrance only services some regular vehicle carparks and can’t take trucks.
Sorry – we do need to be able to operate our building!
The problem isn’t just Mercury Lane, but Auckland Transport’s last-minute modification to reopen East Street to two-way traffic.
The overall idea of Project K is to remove through-traffic from this area, prioritising pedestrian amenity, local access, servicing, etc. Access for Everyone and the City Centre Masterplan are similarly clear about this.
It is very hard to enjoy the benefits of a major new rail station if the surrounding streets are dominated by traffic taking shortcuts from Upper Queen Street to Karangahape Road.
I agree. The station location is not ideal! I’d love to ensure through traffic is removed. The station construction led to a huge reduction in traffic using Mercury Lane. With a super slow zone and no entry from Pitt St/Karangahape I expect very few vehicles will use the Lane. Unfortunately at night it will go back to being a magnet for bad behaviour. Keen to ensure Police can patrol by car
Lol you’ve hit the Nimby bingo.
Station not in a good location – tick
But love to remove through traffic ie I “support” non-car transportation – tick
Undesirables will move in – tick
Policing by car – tick
I reckon traffic will be low – tick
We get it, you don’t want change to your area unless your god given right to drive is unimpeded.
Interesting, I was just reading this old Metro mag story:
https://www.metromag.co.nz/city-life/city-life-transport/cycleway-saboteurs
And this section stuck out to me:
AT executives emerged with several potential courses of action, including “descoping” parts of the projects and going back to local boards to reaffirm their support. The option of retaining the projects in their current form wasn’t listed.
A reply email from Adrian Lord betrays a level of alarm. “I’d be cautious about descoping unless there was a very substantial cost saving from doing so,” he wrote on 17 November. “We’ve gone through six years of adding scope into these projects to satisfy concerns from local stakeholders and create a ‘dig once’ package. If we go out with a compromised scheme we will inevitably just upset everybody, lose all political and stakeholder support, and all trust from Waka Kotahi and other partners that we can deliver what we promise when we next apply for funding.”
Yes, good point Adrian Lord made there.