Howick Local Board feedback on Pakūranga Road and Rā Hihi intersection

🚧 Pakūranga Road and Rā Hihi intersection update

Since the Rā Hihi flyover opened in October 2025, there have been concerns raised about the performance of the intersection with Pakūranga Road. The Eastern Busway Alliance have been working on some options to address the issues. See my earlier post here: https://www.damianlight.co.nz/en/blog/2026/4/20/eastern-busway-pakranga-road-and-r-hihi-intersection-update

At our meeting on 23 April 2026, the Howick Local Board provided our formal feedback on the proposed solutions.

The following is the feedback that we provided - it's important to note that this was discussed, debated, and voted on by the whole Board. It doesn't necessarily represent our personal views (I disagreed with parts of it as noted) but we listened to public feedback and followed a democratic process to finalise it.

The Eastern Busway will review the feedback and consider next steps. You can find out more about the busway project on their website (www.easternbusway.nz) and contact them with suggestions or queries - info@easternbusway.nz or 0800 BUSWAY (0800 287 929).

Resolution number HW/2026/72
MOVED by Deputy Chair Zeng, seconded by Chair Kendall:

"That the Howick Local Board,
a. tuku / provide the following feedback on the Pakūranga Road and Rā Hihi Flyover intersection options provided by Eastern Busway Alliance. The board:
i. notes that this project is led and delivered by Auckland Transport and the Eastern Busway Alliance, not a Howick Local Board project,
ii. there are concerns regarding the design option drawings that have been provided are not clear with regards to the impact to the cycleway location and impact on traffic,
iii. that the options presented are based on technical transport modelling and expert operational analysis, and:
iv. the design options were not provided in a timeframe that enables full and considered input.

b. timely provision of information is essential to support effective Local Board feedback and informed decision-making, and we request earlier engagement in future processes. The Howick Local Board is not a transport authority and cannot validate or endorse the technical design, however, are willing to provide feedback on local impacts, including community access, safety, disruption, and communication. Therefore, the formal Howick Local Board feedback provided is not an endorsement of any of the options, rather a preference of design. The Howick Local Board formal feedback is not to be utilised to endorse the technical expertise of transport engineers.

c. the Howick Local Board expresses concern at the limited public consultation undertaken for changes that have a direct and ongoing impact on road users, residents and businesses outside the immediate local area. Whilst we acknowledge the constrained scope of the options and timing, we expect that clear, proactive, and accessible consultation with the wider community is prioritised to provide opportunities for public input where possible. We note that responsibility for final decisions, including technical feasibility, cost, and performance outcomes, remains with Auckland Transport and the Eastern Busway Alliance, and that this accountability is clearly communicated to the public.

d. On the question, ‘Do options 4 and 4a optimise the intersection for all users?’
i. the board did not get to see options 1, 2 or 3 so cannot appropriately comment on these options in good faith.
ii. acknowledge the feedback from the technical experts, including ATOC.
iii. a solution that supports the flow of, and prioritises, daily commuter traffic, particularly that coming from Panmure bridge is important. In most cases cyclists seldom have a “continuous route” unless the width of a road can accommodate this. A cycle lane under Rā Hihi could be achievable.
iv. Cycleway considerations should be secondary to improving traffic flow given the massive cost of this project which was designed with the goal of improving traffic flows and minimizing travel times. Cycleways should only be included if they don’t impede these objectives.
v. A cycleway crossing at the Rā Hihi intersection from the south side of Pakūranga Road to the north side of Pakūranga Road or across the Rā Hihi onramp intersection will cause interruption at a very busy, high traffic-volume intersection and attract public push back. A cycleway under the Rā Hihi bridge would be less disruptive to the heavy traffic flow and safer for cyclists.
vi. A cycle crossing across Pakūranga Road near Ti Rakau Drive will be less disruptive to traffic and will link well to the Pakūranga Bus station and Ti Rakau cycleway and the cycleway to Panmure.

e. On the question, ‘Do you see any construction risks or mitigation opportunities?’
i. servicing the underground infrastructure currently located under the traffic island is a challenge with option 4a with traditional road surfacing systems.

f. On the question, ‘What are the community impacts – both positive and negative?’
i. support the intention of providing greater flow of vehicles through the intersection in response to concerns raised by the community.
ii. concerned that the increased flow of traffic through the intersection will not solve the congestion issues as community might be expecting, as traffic will still bottleneck on Pakūranga Road (north of Rā Hihi).
iii. 4a allows 3 lanes to flush through an intersection in a straight line allowing faster acceleration and smoother traffic flow than option 4.

g. On the question, ‘What else should we (EBA) consider to successfully deliver this for the community’?
i. note potential reputational impacts for the Eastern Busway, Auckland Transport, and Auckland Council if the solution does not “solve the issue”. This could be partly mitigated by clear communication about the limitations of any solution and the need for a wider conversation about congestion and traffic, although it may be too late to shift public expectations.
ii. it is positive to see Eastern Busway, Auckland Transport, and Auckland Council are listening to their community and making best efforts to solve the issues, responding to the strong negative public feedback about the traffic island on Pakūranga Road / Rā Hihi intersection impeding traffic traveling east on Pakūranga Road.
iii. cycling needs to be kept separate from busy roads without loss of road space to motor vehicles and reducing traffic flows at intersections. 2-wheel vehicles (including cycling) are always more vulnerable than 4-wheel vehicles. Multi-modal electric transport use can reduce greenhouse emissions and can relieve road congestion but should not be to the detriment of safer and more versatile options, such as a car.

h. That the board support option 4 for an immediate solution and support proceeding to option 4a.

Under Standing Order 1.9.7, Member D Light requested their dissenting vote against part d) iii) ,d) iv) and g) iii) be recorded."

See the official minutes here: https://aucklandcouncil.resolve.red/portal/Meeting/12498?agendaFile=3