Mayor Wayne Brown has spent much of his time in office bemoaning the role of Wellington in how Auckland plans for the future often saying “Wellington needs to stop planning Auckland“. But on Friday he happily handed control of the city’s transport future over to Wellington, labelling it “a major victory for the people of Auckland“.
Late last year, the Mayor and then-Minister of Transport (and still Minister for Auckland) Simeon Brown announced a shake up of Auckland Transport that would, among other things, see the policy and planning functions of Auckland Transport shifted back to the council. The council would also become the local Road-Controlling Authority (RCA), while AT would continue to exist as a council-controlled organisation focused on delivering transport projects and services.
Friday’s announcement and the release of accompanying legislation stepped the changes up a notch, with the delivery of projects and maintenance also now shifting back to the council – leaving AT solely focused on the delivery of public transport. Under the headline “Restoring democracy to Auckland’s transport“, the media release says:
The most significant reforms to transport in Auckland since 2010 will restore democratic accountability and ensure Aucklanders can hold their elected representatives responsible for transport policies, Transport Minister Chris Bishop, Auckland Minister Simeon Brown, and Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown say.
“Late last year we committed to this significant change to transport governance and delivery arrangements in Auckland. It will deliver better outcomes for Aucklanders and help to restore confidence in Auckland Transport,” Mr Bishop says.
“Auckland’s transport system needs strong, appropriate governance to ensure people and goods can move across the city efficiently and safely, while ensuring value for money from every dollar spent by central government and Auckland Council.
“Responsibility for most transport functions will shift from Auckland Transport to Auckland Council, including all policy and planning work. The Council will become the road controlling authority and deliver transport capital projects while maintaining transport infrastructure,” Mr Bishop says.
“Auckland Transport will become a smaller transport council-controlled-organisation so it can focus on its core role of delivering high-quality public transport services for Aucklanders.
“These changes mean that Auckland Council’s elected members will be directly accountable to the public for most transport decisions that affect the daily lives of Aucklanders.
“The Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill establishes the Auckland Regional Transport Committee, which will comprise an equal share of Auckland Council elected members and Ministerial appointees anlongside [sic] an independent chair.
“The Committee will prepare a 30-year transport plan for Auckland, building on the previous Auckland Transport Alignment Project started by the last National Government, which will steer investment and shape the future of transport in Auckland.
“This aligned approach between central government and Auckland Council is critical for delivering the transport system Aucklanders deserve.”
The Auckland Regional Transport Committee (RTC) is how the mayor has handed over control to the government. The government will get to appoint three of the six voting members, and along with the mayor gets to pick the independent chairperson. The Minister also has to sign-off the key output of the RTC – a 30-year transport plan. In no other region does the government do this.
As a thought experiment: had this system been in place in 2010, I wonder if we would even be close to having the City Rail Link completed. Thinking back to those times, I can easily imagine the government appointees on an RTC just blocking the project from having any priority. And as to whether all three locally appointed members would think the same way, and which way the independent chairperson leans, that’s quite a roll of the dice.
At Friday’s announcement, Minister of Transport Chris Bishop said that Auckland will for once have a 30-year transport plan and as noted above, says it will build on ATAP (the Auckland Transport Alignment Project which was designed to bring central and local government together around the larger, long-term aims for transport in the region – with varying effect over the years).
The reality is, we’ve had plenty of 30-year plans before. That’s exactly what the Auckland Plan is: it was created in 2012 and updated in 2018. Alongside this, ATAP was an attempt to get evidence-based alignment between the government and council – but despite the agreement, the government never stepped up for its share of the funding, and government agencies like Waka Kotahi/ NZTA largely ignored it.
There doesn’t appear to be anything to prevent this outcome being repeated again. And given this new 30-year plan is required to be aligned to government policy of the day, a key question is could the 30-year plan change each time there’s a new government? And should it?
Local Boards get some* power
Another major aspect of the change – although the devil and/or angel will be in the detail – is handing power back to Local Boards when it comes to decision-making on many local roads. Back to the media release:
“The Bill also gives local boards some new powers to ensure local accountability and that local communities have a say. They’ll make decisions on local and collector roads including setting speed limits, closing roads for events, managing parking and creating cycleways.
“Arterial roads, and the city centre, will be the responsibility of the Governing Body of Auckland Council, consisting of the Mayor and 20 Councillors.
“This is great news for Auckland. This Government is committed to improving transport in Auckland and putting decision-making back in the hands of Aucklanders. This will boost productivity and economic growth by providing for better accessibility, reduced congestion and increased urban density.
Simeon Brown seems hopeful this will mean our roads will be less safe, with (in his vision for our city) local boards ripping out “speed bumps and cycleways”. But there are many local boards who will want to do the exact opposite, and many communities who will be happy to be able to choose safer streets.
As I highlighted back in December, the risk here is ending up with a bit of a post-code lottery on fundamental things like whether it’s safe for your child to be able to walk to school.
The legislative constraints (e.g. the current Speed Rule’s effective prohibition of 30km/h as a speed-setting option for neighbourhoods) will be one issue. There’s also a major issue around budgets (see also the deeply ideological GPS of the current government, which we’ve described as a disaster for local government, and which Auckland Council itself identified as a barrier to desired outcomes). And then there’s the question of local board expertise in transport matters.
So yes, local boards might get decision-making powers – but will they have any money to actually do anything meaningful on the ground? Could we end up in a situation where local boards get bullied by (central and local) government in much the same way councils are bullied by the government – where money is only available if local boards are doing things the council approve of?
How will council and local boards ensure they get the expert advice to make effective decisions – and what will determine whether that advice will be consistent across the region?
From AT to APT: Auckland Transport as a Public Transport-only Organisation
My main concern with AT being left as a PT-only organisation is that the separating out of public transport creates risks around being able to properly align public transport service and infrastructure. For example, who’ll be in charge of the delivery of bus lanes that could help improve bus services or the number and location of bus stops? And the outcome is that this separation of powers could slow services down.
It is worth noting here that Transport for London (TfL) – which looks like a bit of a model for this change – is similarly a dedicated PT operator. The key difference is that it also has control of arterial roads with bus routes. TfL also fully controls the Underground, Overground, and Crossrail rail services and infrastructure in London.
Whereas here in Tāmaki Makaurau, AT will still be hostage to KiwiRail to operate their rail services.
Also: TfL’s board has no central government appointees, and is a wholly London creature, chaired by the mayor with one other councillor on a very diverse board of 17 members.
On the plus side, I do wonder if this new structure will mean AT will be able to drop its shackles when it comes to public transport. Currently, the need of the organisation to be everything-to-everyone gives the impression that AT can’t go as strongly as it could or should on both its plans and desires for public transport. This even trickles down to things like its marketing of services.
An old advertising campaign from Los Angeles Metro – an independent PT delivery organisation for the LA area
Many in the public and media have loved to blame Auckland Transport for everything they see wrong, and there are certainly many times that AT hasn’t showered itself in glory. I think AT has failed – but in the opposite way that someone like Simeon Brown does.
It didn’t do anywhere near enough to change our streets and deliver agreed-upon strategies when it could have, even and especially when it had the wind at its back. Even the most minor changes became mountains to climb. It regularly undermined council and even its own policies, often to appease a small number of people opposed to change – or even just because someone within the organisation apparently didn’t like it.
AT was very poor at the politics of change – will council, with government appointees in key positions, be better?
And, for all its faults, will we miss AT once it’s gone?
Processing...
The structural issues that have prevented good governance are being worsened, when we needed then to be fixed.
Why has the media been full of shallow articles simply quoting the Browns, etc, instead of discussing the implications of ministerial control on Auckland? The draft governance arrangements have been available for months.
Thanks Matt – a lovely obituary.
Wellington engineering this outcome, so is clearly more capable politically, and bringing along the people (howick?).
Removal of the regional fuel tax for transport infrastructure and a GPS that made funding of “not cars” near impossible, meant Brown the elder had no choices but to cede control or raise taxes more.
” Had this system been in place in 2010, I wonder if we would even be close to having the City Rail Link completed. ”
NZTA have monopoly control the harbour crossing, and have a large transport planning budget. Maybe removal of Auckland from our transport planning is for the best. Councils new role in the Regional Transport Committee may be approving Wellingtons changes, and presenting them – flanked by central government minders as great for the nation. Mayor’s not wrong in Aucklands importance to GDP etc
Regardless of the mechanisms – we seem to be swinging more to the freedom of cars to rule our newly uncalmed streets to generate RUCs for highways. VKT’s for PPP’s with TERP but a sooty spec in the rear view mirror.
Is it time to end Climate Action Targeted Rate farce, which is currently funding the diesel for Aucklands bus and ferry fleet ?
I think on balance this is a net step in the right direction, but for the opposite reasons as per the post.
The ARTC and the joint 30 year plan are actually the strengths of this change. This isn’t “Wellington” taking over Auckland, it’s “Wellington” needing to agree with Auckland what the plan for the region’s transport system is. At the moment govt can (and is) completely ignoring Auckland’s priorities for transport. There are new legislative hooks added here, which essentially even give Auckland Council some control over what the GPS can say about transport investment priorities for Auckland – a huge improvement on where things are now.
On the flip side, I think this post might underestimate the mess that having local boards as RCAs might create. RCA status is basically just a veto button. It doesn’t create more money for good local boards to do good things. It just means they can now say no more often.
Yep, local boards going from “who’s AT, to we’re now the RCA” is going to be interesting, and a bigger job than they’ve budgeted time for im thinking.
Being the RCA means budget for road maintenance – thats gazillion$, and a whole new scale of financial management, and vendor engagement that neither parties are ready for. How many RCA’s does Auckland now have ?
But im sure its RCA “lite” and that AT will be gone in name, but the folks who hand out the contracts will still be in the back room, or the 18 back rooms.
Wellington calling out Aucklands “infestation of speed bumps” speaks to a brave new age without traffic calming, and kids being driven to school, not walking or cycling.
NZ may be a shockingly backwards car-centric place, but it’s not ENOUGH of a shockingly backwards car-centric place, dammit!
As I’ve noted in the past, the fact that one side thinks AT have made too much change, and the other think AT have not done enough, implies AT have been somewhere in the middle, which is where they need to be in a democracy.
However the good part about these changes is that democracy can be more local now instead of being Auckland wide. Let the likes of St Heliers and Botany have their carparks / roads / high speed limits and stop complaining, while the rest of the city can have the good stuff and enjoy it. I think over time those places will realise that their area kinda sucks compared to the rest and vote differently…
Excellent piece. The mayor may have paid a big price for ‘fixing’ Auckland Transport.
Off topic a bit – but out of interest has anyone been in a Maioro Street bus that uses the new dynamic bus lane? I would be interested if it has made an ounce of difference (other than making the road obviously more dangerous). If so, why not just make the median strip a lane at all times and have a 24×7 bus lane?
Other than these dynamic bus lanes, I am not sure I understand what Wayne Brown stands for.
Seems like the worst of all worlds.
– Local boards that only have the ability to stop stuff from happening, but not do anything.
– Politicians who can control decisions that will have a lasting impact for decades even if they get voted out.
– People in Wellington having control of things that don’t impact Wellington
– No consistency over time or region.
I feel like Wayne’s legacy will probably be one of leaving Aucklanders worse off than he found it.
Yes. He’s reverted priorities to those of a dying generation with no clue.
Wayner’s legacy is being the personification of Dunning-Kruger, combined with just generally being a person who is desperate for attention.
A 30-year plan is fine in theory, but requiring alignment to the priorities of the government of the day means everything gets put on hold and re-evaluated after each change of government.
We need cross party alignment on a pipeline of major projects out to 2050, with both sides being willing to swallow some dead rats, for National that might mean signing up to some form of metro light rail, for labour making peace with east-west link and Mill Road.
If it was only major projects that got affected by GPS and government whims then I’d probably be ok with it.
The fact that Cent Govt changes then have massive influence on small local issues (ie – a raised pedestrian crossing outside a school) is absurd.
That’s the thing.
I’ve been thinking about the historic legacy of the kind of local street improvements that can be delivered by a determined local authority with a spirit of just cracking on with it.
A couple of obvious examples: the heritage cycleways of Waitākere City Council; and the neighbourhood network that’s been steadily built over the last couple of decades by various iterations of the Puketāpapa Local Board.
So, one immediate question re local board capacity to improve local streets: how many kilometres of cheap-and-cheerful cycleways/ footpath improvements/ neighbourhood traffic calming could you build for [insert a given Local Board Transport Capital Fund here]?
Because not everything needs to be, nor should be, a full-noise road rebuild. We have tons of good examples of tactical installations, from here and elsewhere, over the last five years.
But at the same time, the current culture-war prohibition on government co-funding for these kinds of projects is making them less attractive and affordable for local authorities.
So, expect to see inequitable and discontinuous delivery of any aspirations to connected, citywide networks and safer streets for everyone outside of a vehicle and most people inside vehicles too.
Plus, with low-key/ piecemeal delivery by willing local boards, you’d lose the economies of scale you get (theoretically, anyway) from broad and ongoing programmes of these kinds of projects. Plus the loss of learning – on things like improving delivery methods, public engagement, quality of results, communicating successes, etc.
So yeah, swings and roundabouts. But also a really big risk of backwards sliding on the little things with huge impacts.
Unless – and it’s a big unless – Council picks up the Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway it enthusiastically adopted not so very long ago, and runs with it. Now, that would be real leadership.
Yes, transport transformation via human-scale improvements is our only hope, but how fucking sad, given the work Council did before these nasty destroyers came on the scene.
I hope the Council Transport Strategy Team now studies and reports on the impact that AT and Council’s resistance to delivering good policy is what led to the political undermining of critical transport transformation.
Probably a good move to let Auckland Transport focus on public transport. At the same time could we charge them with coordinating inter regional public transport as well. The various district councils would retain their local services but Auckland Transport could provide connecting services within the golden triangle and through to Whangerai. It would get rid of the artifical boundaries which is impeding the rollout of Te Huia for instance. So rail where it makes sense and connecting coaches to smaller destination.
A new era of Auckland Provincial Government may be hard to sell in Hamilton and Tauranga. Especially hard to sell to regular Te Huia passengers.
Royce – They better change their attitude about Te Huia.
There are informal discussions to terminate Te Huia at Pukekohe, as AT and AOR do not want Te Huia accessing the Auckland Metro rail corridor and help in subsidising Te Huia services.
I’ve been thinking about this. Clearly Auckland Council should be helping fund Te Huia.
Yet with Auckland ratepayers queueing at onramps while Waikato ratepayers have priority on the motorway to come and make use of Auckland economy or amenities… is there not some way to raise revenue from these vehicle trips to pay for the train? Central government would be opposed to motorway tolls, but what about parking levies and higher rates on car parking land, with differentiation for ratepayer address?
Well, when I pay them they’re called Road User Charges. What the government uses that money for is of course a different question.
You know a lot of people say the only reason I have a car is so I can go and visit Aunty in Matamata or words to that effect having a viable regional public transport network would help congestion. Heidi I am watching the new Station build at Drury with interest. How many of the constant stream of cars over the Bombays will be diverted onto the train network. Time will tell I suppose.
I suppose only the drivers and passengers will be diverted onto the trains the cars will park up and fill up the park and ride which could be used by Auckland ratepayer.
Public Transport only – yes, but dont remove any car parking from arterials, or slow down any cars around kids.
Expect how many new buslanes ? how many new cycleways ?
Lets run with less than before.
Where are the Climate Action Targeted Rate (CATR) bike networks Auckland council?
The govt appointment positions are the main problem. Local govt will now have the excuse (real, or figleaf) of just saying “Well, Wellington doesn’t want that”.
A future mayor who doesn’t want the same as Wellington will have to rage against them – with no ability to change things.
A future mayor who has the same priorities as Wellington will have no incentive to change things.
This won’t end well. Its a bad case of overreach by Simeon and Luxon in the end, agreed to by Brown because he thinks he can live with them (or even agrees with them). But it won’t make things better except for a very small crowd.
Unfortunately, generational issues are the most hurtful for us at the moment. Our mayor’s generation cannot understand why people drop their rubbish everywhere, my mother’s generation climate change light (with an EV and council collecting what used to be compostable in the backyard); my generation with a few trying, but most of us withdrawn to concentrate on saving our own children from our childhoods.
We know the earth is dying, we know we are a tiny little rural-suburban-urban town (the biggest Pasifika city in the world of course, which we should lean into a bit more).
Climate change denial has shifted to…we cannot afford to alter our habits because we do not have the wealth to do so.
This reminds me of Bill Hicks, who used to joke about sovereign debt, and how it was a complete fallacy. A great comedian who died young from smoking, but in his day he was as honest as any of our current arts, comic, theatre, music communities.
I don’t drive, because it is a very stressful activity. I walk too much, so my legs are often sore, but I know why. With my kids we move exclusively on public transport, despite other children at their school expressing their wishes that “dad” will one day own a car.
There are many of us, who choose to live the lives that alleviate our consciences, in at least knowing that we are not causing obvious harm; but as some educated persons point out, capitalism relies on disregarding some groups of humans, and we who do not drive in this country, are often one of these groups.
With local elections this month, we are presented with one side promising to maintain weekly rubbish collections, and the other side promising to promote a city that is more futuristic, more aware of itself, and perhaps thinking about producing less waste, as we have all been asked to do.
The problem with being a good citizen, is that sometimes you need to engage your cerebral capacity to do good things, rather than swim upstream in the rat race, mowing down kids on the rat runs, and forgetting that time itself was constructing by humans, so slowing down will not offend anyone, or any deity!!!
I always appreciate your signature combo of poetry x philosophy x pragmatic personal action, Matiu! If everyone moved a little bit along these lines we’d be in a better place, slightly sooner.
Except he missed his signature line, “bah humbug” at the end this time.
Ha, well spotted!
Setting up a Board with 3 from us and 3 from them and we’ll agree on the chairperson is a power grab by stealth by central government. I would far rather see some honesty from them and have the board stacked 5:3 or whatever from the get go. That way we’d know exactly where the power lay and don’t need to play pretend democracy charades.
One thing is that “Wellington” central govt does have MP’s from Auckland of course but who is actually going to be appointing these? The minister of transport I guess?
Making Local Boards RCAs will be a hilarious disaster leaving Auckland looking like a half-finished puzzle with some areas having quality infrastructure and others being even more carbrained than they already are. Get ready for Auckland to resemble American cities… and not even the good American cities that people actually enjoy visiting.
taking the super out of city
Going to be fun having lots of speed bumps and cycleways in some areas and none in others. May give us interesting statistics on deaths and serious injuries of pedestrians and cyclists after a few years. This will make it clear to all whether they work as intended or not. Perhaps the 10 secs they save in Howick will then be lost by the police blocking the road for 6 hours attending to yet another fatality.
the stats and the modelling tells us this today, we dont need to wait a few years to count the dead and injured, they are walking amongst us now, maybe you, maybe me.
Statistical value of life tells us the cost to society those dead and injured will rack up in costs, and taxes not payed on earnings not earned.
Sadly, voters chose politicians on other metrics, such as removing infestations of speedbumps and roadcones.
I have my doubts if the widespread assumption that speed-bumps improve safety is actually valid. I know from personal experience that they have taught me to be less focused on what is going on around me (people crossing the road etc) and more focused on what I’m about to drive over. This hasn’t been a deliberate choice on my part, but a constant influence to change what I’m focused on. Furthermore the placement of many speed-bumps raises questions about what is actually the intention and if they are merely there to be a nuisance.
Lower driving speeds to survivable and safer crossings for vulnerable pedestrians. That has always been the intention. Nothing more, nothing less. They are highly effective at achieving this. This is not mysterious. It’s proven stuff. People just don’t like driving slower.
Council has not had a debate on the new scheme despite it being signalled in December 2024. Wayne Brown keeps claiming that this will put Aucklanders in charge of our transport planning but it will achieve the exact opposite. Wayne was so invested in his vision of an “integrated transport plan” [what exactly does that mean?] that he allowed himself to be played by Simeon – I have had that confirmed by an insider who was in the room during discussions. As Matt points out, no other region has such a lopsided arrangement under the Minister’s thumb. I presented on this to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee in February, making the point that ever since the Land Transport Act of 1998 every region in New Zealand had its own Regional Land Transport Committee (with zero Ministerial appointees) charged with formulating its own Regional Land Transport Strategy, refreshed every three years after consultation with interested parties and members of the public. Auckland had exactly that system up until 2010 when the Super City was established, along with AT. I implored the Councillors at the TRIC meeting to investigate the well established RLTC system as a model for Auckland rather than accept the Minister’s new system but nothing much happened. Now the Minister has launched his new Bill just as Auckland Council goes into recess for the election period (what is known as the interregnum) which will last until early November when the newly elected Councillors are to be sworn in. I know that quite a few Councillors are not at all happy with the proposed scheme but have never had a proper debate about it or the alternative (which already exists and doe not require new legislation other than making a tiny change to allow the Land Transport Act to apply in Auckland as well as everywhere else). Hopefully Councilors will have the opportunity to have a proper debate and signal their rejection of Ministerial control of our transport planning.
But Graeme we were told that Council voted to support the Mayor’s vision for this legislation change.
Ironically in the month when a Judicial Review stupidly criticises AT for not complying with the judge’s view of what counts as sufficient evidence of considering whether a thing that everyone accepts as being true without the need to say it we are no remembering that Council absolutely failed to comply with the decision-making sections of the Local Government Act 2002 when voting to support this change. There is nothing in any report to the council Governing Body showing what the pros and cons were for all the practical options to deal with the perceived issue of Auckland Transport. Heck there has never even been a clear statement of what was wrong with AT that needed to be fixed.
This is all just change for no purpose other than letting Brown tell voters he crushed AT because he knows a lot of his boomer voters hate that AT tried to do anything to make the roads safer and more efficient for buses and cycles. It is now clear he has sold us all to central government for a handful of silver. If he gets elected this time the problems won’t show up again until the next election when he will be too old to bother standing so he won’t give a damn.
What the hell do we want a 30 year transport plan for? All that means is doing nothing but saying it will be delivered in 30 years. You’ll get ALRs and AWCs that are designed for what we might need in the year 2055, not what we need next year. How many transport projects from 1995 and we on track to deliver this year?
I’d like a five year transport plan please, maybe ten tops. One that actually gets done. If you can deliver the projects then you get to start a new one.
30 year plans do sound a lot like a secure job for life plan for bureaucrats.
Where we are very deficient is in both the skills, and systems in implementation. We are hopeless in actually getting things done, even adequately.
Too many projects end up way over time, way over budget, and then deficient.
The Transmission Gully project. Way over budget, Way late, and now the seal is totally lacking durability, and requires a rebuild.
And that was after being planned for decades.
Our best projects, like the post earthquake Kaikoura transport link rebuilds seem to be those with the least pre project planning but with competant implementers largely unrestrained by planners and politicians.
have you considered the possibility that a 30 (or any) year plan could have things to say about years other than the last/titular year?
Well done Wayne Brown. Auckland council in partnership with Auckland MPs, local decisions, quicker results. No more outrageously expensive speed bumps and unused cycleways.
The next step is to bring the entire bus network back under council operation to save the millions of profit given to private overseas companies.
In addition all regional transport councillors and senior management staff should be required to use public transport for travel to meetings and work. Using the product they want every one else to use will quickly result in improvements.
Glorious.
My neighbourhood can probably look forward to 80kph, residential streets marked for four lanes, and berms paved for infinite convenient parking. Useless ideological fetishes like street trees can make way for thousands more cars.
Whatever crumbs are left can serve the motorless, so long as they irk not the chosen.
But it is not enough.
The Omniroad demands the Earth be paved and all upon it be cast into motion.
A million milling motorhomes will ensure not one unnecessary step is taken.
At the governance level the Government appointees to the Auckland Regional Transport Committee should also be on the NZTA Board.
I don’t mind Matt’s skepticism about ATAP’s history, but it was the right effort done too early. A new version of it is still the right thing to do.
When you put together this government’s enforced housing density policy with its more direct governance of transport, you get what should have happened in 2010 instead of the incoherent corporate hybrid Rodney Hide left us with.
For 40% of our population and energy use and car use and economy, this is finally a set of changes that starts to wake government up to Auckland.
Good reform. I want to see more of this integrated governance with and across Auckland, including in education, housing, health, and energy. It simply reflects New Zealand as it is and will be.
Is this move getting reed of bureaucracy or adding more. Also are we trusting the same council with more power and money who build a few steps for more then $300k.
What is the problem that the council is trying to solve? The purpose of AT is to provide public transport and do it efficiently. Is there a specific measurable improvement changing the governance of Auckland public transport will achieve? If so, what is it? The article is full of fluff and light on details.
a) Agree that AT shouldn’t be left with PT. It should all sit with AC.
b) I’d go further and have NZTA delegate control of the SH network within AC area to AC. NZTA would set the policies and rules for the SH network. That way all transport and land use planning would be under one roof.
c) Further down the track, amalgamate other LGAs (noting many are not financially viable) and apply the same model.