Behind the curtain of AT's Project K switcheroo
On Tuesday this week I watched AT present to the Waitematā Local Board about the Karanga-a-Hape Station precinct integration project (otherwise known as Project K).
The same day, I received information in response to my LGOIMA request for documents about the last-minute decision to drastically change the project in March & April of this year, as well as an early return yesterday of documents regarding resolutions from the Traffic Control Committee. I'm going to dig into these below. You can find the first set of LGOIMA files here and the TCC ones here.
But first, some important context.
One thing that sticks out in both instances is the near total lack of understanding in AT leadership about the immense transformation on the way when the City Rail Link opens. As a consequence, AT's leadership has no vision – and no strategy – for what needs to happen to get ready for it.
Envisioning CRL's impact on our city
If we go back to the 2nd of June 2016, to the CRL groundbreaking ceremony, here's what Matt highlighted from the speech by John Key, the prime minister at the time:
Second thing I think is that ultimately, what we’re seeing in cities around the world that are doing well and progressing, is that they’re places where people want to work, obviously – but they’re also places where people want to live and people want to be entertained.
And what we’re seeing as Auckland grows up and indeed grows out, is a lot more apartments being built. And I think over time, you’re going to see more and more people live in the CBD. They’re not going to own cars, they’re going to get on the City Rail Link, they’re going to get on the train for transportation, they’ll get on the bus, and frankly they’ll probably take a taxi or Uber. And they’ll have their living, working and entertainment happen here in the CBD.
And that’s really what this is about: it’s an investment in the future, it’s an investment in Auckland, it will make a great difference in transforming the city, it’s a very futuristic project.
In other words, CRL will change this city, and so the city needs to hurry up and change with it. The good news is that Auckland Council has done some visionary work to develop the vital area-wide strategies, like the City Centre Masterplan, and Access for Everyone. We can see some results already in the thriving areas along the Waterfront and places like Te Komititanga square.
When did the wheels fall off for Project K?
Fast forward to 2023: when Project K first went out for public consultation, those in AT's Project K team seemed to understand all of this. They had a positive direction for improvements around the Karangahape CRL station, linking the project to the wider vision and strategies for the City Centre as a whole. Above all, they understood the aim was to change the area, to remove through-traffic in order to prioritise people.
Cue a pretty comprehensive period of community engagement - not perfect, but pretty good, and working toward compromises that preserved the core intention of Project K.
Unfortunately, starting with last year's decision by AT senior leadership not to proceed with a pedestrian mall, this good work has been chipped away. As of now, all that work – years of work, supported by consultation, fully funded, and with political approval – is being thrown into the scrap.
More importantly, why did the wheels fall off?
In my LGOIMA response letter, I was told these last-minute changes were due to two factors:
a) The necessity to balance the needs of various stakeholders, particularly concerning access, loading and servicing.
b) The interim nature of the proposed work for Cross Street and East Street. There are development opportunities within the Karanga-a-Hape Station precinct, and as the area evolves following the opening of the CRL station, further stages of improvement will be feasible. This includes footpath and accessibility improvements on both sides of Cross Street
Starting with the first point, on "balance": it boggles the mind that a tiny number of people are being prioritised over the wider community and the huge transformative results of CRL. This isn't something to "balance." Project K is supposed to change the area to prioritise the thousands of people the new station will pour into its streets.
Reasonable compromises can be, and were, made to address genuine stakeholder needs. These last-minute changes are not that.
To the second point: we need to understand how long 'interim' means, to understand why the last-minute switcheroo is such a disgrace.
According to AT, 'interim' means 10-15 years. That's almost a generation.
Why the last-minute changes, when, and by whom?
Note that while AT has made a few changes to the "April surprise" 'Plan B' over the last month, all of it builds on that secretive April 'Plan B' rather than the original widely consulted 'Plan A'. What this means is the core premise of the project has been thrown away and what's being designed now is all over the place in terms of priorities.
This goes to a fundamental issue with AT and engagement - whose voices get prioritised in decisions, and how. The minutes of the 12 March 2025 meeting of the Project Control Group (PCG) reveal a lot about who AT thinks is more important.
First, we can see where the design amendments came from:
"Some key stakeholders" sought changes to the project, which are listed in a presentation I was not provided. These changes, which would only be revealed publicly a month later, at the 8 April workshop with Waitematā Local Board, made drastic changes to the core direction of the project (i.e. the plan to remove through-traffic and prioritise people).
According to the minutes of the 12 March meeting, one member of the PCG expressed concern about changing a project that had already been approved and had undergone extensive consultation:
Referring to the changes (removal of proposed footpath, loading zones, etc) proposed to Cross Street and bearing in mind that the project has undertaken extensive consultation and been for TCC [Traffic Control Committee] resolution in December last year, have we consulted with all stakeholders such as the Local Board? We need to be clear how we have agreed to make these changes.
This was acknowledged by one AT manager, who said:
We have engaged with a group of local stakeholders that have given feedback. That is where the changes have come from. They are the ones who are most affected by what is proposed. But you're right, there does need to be a level of engagement with the wider community about these changes again. And I acknowledge that this has gone through TCC already. And the designs have already been widely publicised to the community.
Another representative from AT further explained:
To answer your question, I met with [an ELT member] on this yesterday. My understanding is the project team have done consultation. This includes the design team and other SME's [subject-matter experts] across the business [i.e. within AT]. It may not yet have been formalised through TCC but has been through a process. Politically and for a whole raft of other reasons, it would be unwise of us not to proceed with these changes now. [Emphasis added]
This 'process' referred to was not the extensive public engagement and consultation over 2023 and 2024, but the backroom discussions with a tiny number of stakeholders to produce drastic last-minute changes. All indications point to senior management, in the executive leadership team, as the ones driving these changes within AT based off demands from these 'key stakeholders'.
It appeared to this PCG member that these changes were now inevitable: "Politically and for a whole raft of other reasons, it would be unwise of us not to proceed with these changes now"
As the next minute confirms, AT's decision to amend this project at the last minute was not to align with the vision for the neighbourhood, not to maximise the benefit of CRL, not even to address wider community concerns:
These amendments have been done because of feedback that has been received through consultation and while not everyone agrees with the changes and as we all know, this is a very contentious area, the changes are meeting the concerns of those that are immediately affected and have perhaps been the most vocal. [emphasis added]
Some examples of design changes are absurd on face value. One of the intentions at that March meeting was removing any footpath work on Cross Street to remedy the trench alongside the parking building.
The trench in question:
Additionally, the decision was made to wind back safety improvements, including a speed hump protecting the Upper Queen St cycleway as it crosses Cross Street. One email stated that this change was "suggested and endorsed" by an exec, in order to avoid any "unpleasant experience or damage" to delivery trucks in particular.
The response (from a subject-matter expert in the road safety engineering team) to this incredible claim of speed bumps damaging trucks was blunt: "Not sure where 'vehicle damage' comes from if the hump treatment is as per guidelines," with a visual example of the option.
Additionally, as outlined clearly in this email thread, it was stated that proposing to remove any element needed to take into consideration the wider context of Cross Street. A subject-matter expert in active modes design noted that footpaths are important especially if speed humps are to be removed, and the kerb buildout must stay.
However, all of this would be removed in the April design.
In the 12 March 2025 PCG meeting, one member raised a question about safety audits to ensure community buy-in:
I would like to know if we have done the design checks. Have we got buy in from the community? Have we done the appropriate safety audits, et cetera, that's what we need to hear. And if that's happened, I don't have particular concern about these things moving forward. If we are doing that, that's what the PCG would like. That gives me confidence as a PCG member.
The response:
To answer your question, the draft design has been developed since late last year and during the last few months we have engaged with the relevant internal SMEs, including the road safety engineer, traffic engineer, CCNO [City Centre Network Operations] and the parking design team. We have also engaged with our active mode specialist in the design and standards team. A few revisions have happened already, and comments taken on board. This is the revision we have presented. The road safety engineer also suggested the project team to undertake a SSA [Safe System Audit] addendum for these changes, which our project team will do once we agree the final layout with you and the local board, then we will proceed with the detailed design.
Action – Project team to confirm changes with SME’s, consult with local board and community. Outcome of this engagement to be shared back to the PCG next month and decision.
Let's be clear. The revisions did not have buy-in from the community. The original plans, as stated, had been widely publicised, and had social licence. This mess did not, and does not.
Everything developed from these changes is fatally flawed, because the core premise of the project has been ditched. And none of this had to happen. It only happened because a handful of vocal people, who stand to be the biggest beneficiaries of CRL pouring thousands of people into their area, got the ear of senior execs in AT – who chose to not only ignore the common sense compromises the Project K team was developing to prioritise their concerns, but to use them as an excuse to gut the project.
Making a mess on East Street
Alongside the changes to Cross Street, a number of last-minute changes were enacted on East Street. Discussions on this are outlined here, here, and here.
To pick just one moment: while scrambling to try and fit two-way traffic back into East Street, on 17 April 2025 AT emailed consultants, stating "This is an additional & urgent piece of work that will need to be costed, AT will pay. to advise cost but work to proceed in the meantime."
Rack it up, money no object - and no need to check with the project's funders?
What sticks out most in these emails is how safe separated cycleways are thrown to the side to accommodate two-way traffic. Not just robbing Peter to pay Paul, but cramming in rat-running while removing safe cycling space and "just add sharrows":
I have sympathy for those working on this at AT, they are really trying to fit a square peg into a round hole here.
Of course, there is an easy way to enable two-way traffic, and keep people on bikes relatively safe despite removing the cycleway, and stop rat-running - the core points of this project – all while aligning with the wider strategies for the City Centre.
It's "snipping" East Street to vehicle traffic, and implementing traffic calming measures. Essentially, create two cul-de-sacs in the area – as seen elsewhere in the city, Westmoreland St in Grey Lynn being an example.
Yet, nowhere is this option discussed. To be clear, I don't blame the staff for not suggesting it; there's clearly no way the senior leadership would approve it. But it's another signal that strategy, core vision, was nowhere in the room. Strategy keeps at top of mind the why – the reason you are doing a project, what you are trying to change. And this room had lost the why.
What's happening now?
Discussions with the Waitematā Local Board on Tuesday confirmed AT is still seeking to implement watered-down designs for Cross Street, with some 'generous' additions such as building a platform on that trench.
However, they still intend to change the roundabout at Canada St/ Mercury Lane to reduce green space, apparently including not going ahead with, according to earlier plans, planting three Pōhutukawa trees, in favour of creating a right-turn slip lane from Mercury into Canada Street... at the behest of those who own the car parking building.
A vehicle slip lane, in a busy public-transport precinct, in the 21st Century, after spending $5b on a rail project.
Although there was a mix of views from the Local Board regarding East & Cross Street designs it was interesting that several members, including the Chair Gen Sage, pushed AT on ensuring the Mercury Lane pedestrian mall is implemented before CRL opens. So we will see what happens there.
At the end of the meeting – and having read through these documents – I still have no clue what Canada and East Street will look like. I do know that it will probably be a complete mess, because AT is trying to do mutually exclusive things, enabling two-way rat-running while trying to keep pedestrians and people on bikes safe.
How does this get fixed?
There's no way round it: AT needs to return to the consulted plans, which have social licence, and are still the only ones currently approved by the Traffic Control Committee.
Minor adjustments can of course be made to address genuine concerns from local stakeholders. But they cannot dictate or destroy the core premise of this project.
If this doesn't happen, we will see potentially another decade of no meaningful change to this area. And given CRL is opening this time next year, that would be a huge embarrassment.
The meddling by senior leadership at AT in Project K is an utter perversion of process. I know serious questions are being asked to Auckland Transport about why senior executives in the organisation can show up and throw out years of good work by a project team. It goes against all standard project management principles, as well as public consultation, official strategies, and good transport planning and urban realm design.
Not to mention the job of this project is to serve the $5 billion project of CRL.
I don't know where Project K will end up. But I do know it would be in a much worse place right now, without the efforts of everyone who reached out and added their voices. So, thanks to everyone who has done so.
However, it's still very bad and, as of now, the core goals have been thrown away.
Tuesday's discussion at the end of the Local Board workshop seemed to indicate AT is done with seeking or listening to feedback... which is convenient timing, now the project has been gutted.
A community reference group meeting is being held this evening (Thursday 15 May). You can sign up here to come along (you may have to email AT for details). Although the group is orientated for local residents and businesses, it appears to be the only opportunity AT is providing for the wider community to ask questions and actually give direct feedback on these changes.
Given the internal legal processes to approve the changes for construction have yet to happen, there is still hope it can be returned to what had been consulted on. So I would encourage anyone who's free to come along tonight, and anyone else to send AT an email with your thoughts.
One last thought: this whole situation certainly makes the case for taking strategy and vision away from AT – no more watching our dreams of a better city be chipped away, watered down, and gutted by the people in that organisation who cannot imagine changing the status quo.
But we will need real leadership in the future, both politically and institutionally, to hold onto that vision, and persevere in delivering it.
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!