Technofreak:
Ok, let's, for a minute, stop arguing the relative merit of fixing the problem. What about NZTA just doing the honourable thing and handing back the road in the same state as it was when they took it over?
It's more complicated than the mayor's lawnmower analogy. If we are relating the road to a lawnmower, it's more like your neighbor saying 'can I borrow your old rusty lawnmower (which might be worth $1 on Trademe), you can still use it and I'll take care of all of the maintenance'. After 10 years of the arrangement, both of you benefiting from use of the mower, the motor blows up and your neighbor walks away from the problem. You've had a good run, with use of a mower for 10 years with no maintenance costs, and all you did was chipped in a rusty old mower worth $1 ten years ago.
In the context of roads they are a liability rather than an asset - they cost more money than they bring in (unless they are tolled, which isn't the case here). To be clear, I don't think roads are a bad thing, they have a huge benefit for society. But from a council's point of view, they either own the road and Waka Kotahi covers 50% of the upkeep, or Waka Kotahi owns the road and Waka Kotahi covers 100% of the upkeep - one of those is a lot more advantageous for the council!
In an alternate scenario, where the road was never loaned to Waka Kotahi, and the crossing started facing problems in 2022, I think the council would be even stingier than Waka Kotahi in stumping up to fix the crossing properly, and more likely than Waka Kotahi to close the crossing. This reflects that the cost of fixing the crossing is a much bigger share of the council's roading budget than Waka Kotahi, even if the council was only on the hook for 50%. Also, if the council went to Waka Kotahi saying 'we want to do a big upgrade of the level crossing, are you happy to pay 50%' they would probably say no on the same basis as they are now. So, whether it was loaned to Waka Kotahi or not, is a red herring.