We’re now fully into election season and politicians are keen for attention an we’ve already seen National start to roll out a hugely expensive and likely unachievable transport policy.

We’ve been thinking about some of the things we’d like to see in a transport policy so here goes:

Plan and start the rest of the Rapid Transit Network/s

Auckland’s fledgling Rapid Transit network has been a standout public transport success story, accounting for nearly half of all the growth in the use of PT over the last decade. Further improvements and some extensions to the network already underway but if we’re going to meet our goals, such as those agreed in the Auckland Climate Plan, we’re going to need a lot more of the RTN network in place.

Thankfully, through ATAP, Auckland has an agreed rapid transit plan, the basic structure of which has been largely unchanged through successive governments and revisions. The arguments have instead focused on the exact mode and timing but even the current plans have some elements of it more than a decade away before even being considered.

We believe the aim should be to have, in some form, the rest of the network in place by the time the City Rail Link is completed int 2024. By this, we mean that via a series of short term projects we’d put enough infrastructure in place to enable some form of RTN service to start operating on all currently planned routes.

This would be something similar to what was announced last month for the Northwest RTN where as part of the government’s ‘Shovel Ready’ projects, up to $100 million was put towards starting the route. The improvements there will likely be in the form of some stations and extended bus shoulder lanes on the motorway. These changes will enable Auckland Transport to reorganise bus network to make it more legible and frequent. This is a similar approach that was taken to start the Northern Busway where the Albany and Constellation stations were built first and services started in advance of the busway itself being built.

Based on the ATAP map, we’d expect this kind of process to apply to:

  • The Upper Harbour route
  • New Lynn to Onehunga
  • The rest of the Airport to Botany (Airport to Manukau is currently underway)
  • Parts of the Dominion Rd/ City Centre to Mangere route.

As well as putting some early infrastructure in place and starting services, we believe detailed planning should start on what the long-term designs for these corridors are. Put another way, we should be getting them ‘shovel ready’.

This would could then be combined with the new National Policy Statement on Urban Development to upzone surrounding areas further adding to demand for these corridors.

I am aware that some of this work is also happening outside of Auckland but this same approach needs to be taken in other cities in NZ, particularly those that have high growth and or are larger such as Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington and Christchurch.

Fix the funding for Rapid Transit

The Rapid Transit is for PT what state highways are for the road network and funding should reflect that. Yet our current system is a confusing mess.

On some projects, such as the Northern Busway extension, the route gets fully funded by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport agency out of the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) – other than the stations which they half fund. But on other projects, such as the Eastern Busway the route is only half funded. This puts increased pressure on local authorities who may struggle to fund their share of these nationally significant projects, especially now with things like the Council’s Emergency Budget.

We believe government should fully fund all rapid transit projects in the same way they do with State Highways.

An alternative to this might be that we stop fully funding state highway projects out of the NLTF so that locals have some ‘skin in the game’, thereby helping to prevent them from demanding big flashy highway projects that are not needed because they’re “free”. Doing this would potentially allow overall funding assistance rates for councils/AT to increase above the about 50% they are now.

Turning up the PT Network

While the Rapid Transit network has been, and will continue to grow in importance, our bus networks are also important and could do with more love.

As part of the wider response to providing better transport options, addressing climate change and improving safety, not to mention the response to COVID-19, by employing people who can’t/don’t want to be holding a shovel, we believe the government should provide funding to significantly up the quality of non-RTN services.

In Auckland this would mean something such as:

  • upping the headway all frequent routes from a minimum of every 15 minutes to every 10 minutes
  • extending the hours of frequent service to earlier in the morning and later at night
  • increasing the number of frequent routes
  • the conversion to electric buses
  • improvements to the quality of bus stops and bus lanes

Effectively looking to implement AT’s aspirational network for 2028 within the next year or two.

The exact standards may vary but we’d expect something similar in those other cities too.

Commit to Road Pricing

With public transport vastly improved within the next few years it would become a realistic alternative to driving for many people. This would be the ideal time to introduce some form of road pricing to:

  • lower demand for driving at peak times (reduced congestion)
  • reduce the number of overall vehicle trips (reduced vehicle km’s travelled and frees up more space on roads for alternative modes)
  • further encourage uptake of the improved PT as well as walking and cycling options
  • provide a more reliable source of income to the NLTF as improved fuel efficiency and conversion to electric vehicles becomes more prevalent

The projects set up to look at this have been spinning their wheels as politicians have shied away from making a commitment. The exact way this would be implemented needs to be decided but having a commitment that it will happen by a set time period in place will enable that work to progress.

Better workplace transport options

There are two small workplace related policies we think the next government should implement.

  1. Remove FBT from PT – currently in most situations vehicles and carparks provided by employers are exempt from Fringe Benefit Tax but FBT would apply if an employer instead wanted to provide a public transport pass. Applying FBT to carparks is politically difficult but an easy way to level the playing field would be to remove FBT from employer provided PT passes. This was suggested by the government’s Tax Working Group but the work appears to have stalled. This should be a quick win to change
  2. Require cash-out policies for parking – essentially this would require employers who provide staff with free or subsidised parking to offer staff the value of that parking as a cash equivalent. You can read more about this idea here.

The great electrification programme

We clearly need to rapidly decarbonise our transport system. Here are a few of the changes we would like to see in this space:

  • Rail Network Electrification – rail electrification has been a piecemeal process with individual projects set up and then there can be substantial gaps between them. This results in projects costing more as we’re not able to the efficiencies from a constant pipeline of work. We would like to see a guaranteed, long-term appropriation for electrifying the network. This would enable Kiwirail to build that pipeline and deliver a set amount of km’s of wires each and every year.
  • Encourage E-Bikes – both the current and former governments have had policies aimed at encouraging the uptake of electric cars. But even if subsidised these will continue to be very expensive and out of the financial reach of most consumers. We believe the efforts to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles should shift to providing e-bikes. This is especially the case as drivers switching to e-bikes both reduce congestion and overall have better health outcomes.
  • Electrify the buses and ferries – As mentioned earlier, the government should look to providing funding to rapidly replace at least public transport services with electric vehicles.

Build the bike networks

This should perhaps go without saying but if we want more people out and about on bikes, we need to build safe bike networks. Funding should be considerably increased towards implementing these – for example let’s take a leaf out of Ireland’s book where they’re going to spend 20% of their transport budget on cycling and walking.

But even good intentions and funding isn’t enough to ensure these get built, as we’ve seen in Auckland. We’d like to see something similar to the new cycling policy in the UK introduced in NZ. As well as higher standards, this could introduce independent review of projects and even delaying/cancelling funding of other projects if local authorities don’t deliver on cycling.

On a related note, we’d also like to see a nationwide Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme rolled out to make it easier to walk and cycle in local areas and cut out rat-runners from what should be quiet streets. This could/should start focused around schools.

Fix the consultation and business case processes

Many good projects have washed up on the rocks of consultations or suffered agonising delays after being put through business case hell.

We need to fix our consultation processes so that timid politicians and/or staff don’t delay or stop projects just because a few noisy people complain about things such as on-street carparking.

Likewise with business cases we need process that enables faster and more transparent decision making instead of the current situation that only seems to benefit consultants who get paid big money to endlessly rewrite reports.

I don’t know the exact answer to these but we would like to see parties commit to overhauling these processes.

Combined these policies would help towards transforming out New Zealanders get around and in doing so have significant benefits across multiple policy areas, for example: It would benefit our economy, not least of which by getting cars out of the way of trucks. It would improve our overall health, reducing strain on the health system. Happier and healthier kids learn better, improving education outcomes. Better transport choices will help those on lower incomes. And of course it will help meet our commitments towards climate change.

Share this


  1. Waiting for the rail network to become ‘frequent’ rather than the current ‘frequent sometimes’.

        1. I’m picking they might be using some more advanced equipment, although I’m sure they’ll be a few shovels as well.

        2. I see they have pulled up the track into the Peter Baker Transport siding. Maybe they are going to do the line from Westfield Junction to Sylvia park first.

        1. Would make sense to incorporate it where possible while they’re in the area so that gantries etc only need to be modified once.

        2. It was stated some time back building the Fourth Main at the same time as the Third would be far more cost effective than building it later – Build it now you will need it.

    1. Rail services in Auckland could soon become less frequent and much slower. There is word from train staff and the RMTU that KiwiRail is soon to make a big announcement about rail in Auckland. Apparently after recent inspections it has been found that the tracks across the Auckland metro area are in much worse condition than has previously been identified, and a blanket 40km/hr speed restriction across the network could shortly be imposed, which may be in place for some time. If this comes into effect, the Auckland metro timetable will likely be reduced to the extended Sunday timetable which was in place during lockdown.

      1. Please tell me this is inaccurate whisper. Sounds like that older news & hence all the track maintenance. I could believe some New small sections may have been discovered.

        1. What on earth have Kiwirail been diddling around doing for the last 15 years of Christmas/New Year shutdowns!?

  2. It seems pretty arbitrary at times as to who funds what. For example Taupō is currently consulting on its draft Transport Strategy and this includes a mention of its substandard long distance bus interchange. But avoiding wanting to upgrade it to the sort of good facilities seen in New Plymouth or Hamilton they state “Operators and users appear unwilling to pay for new or improved facilities. It is unclear if there are wider benefits to Taupō or the district from an improved bus hub that justify a large investment.” In contrast, they are using both ratepayer money and the Provincial Growth fund to upgrade their airport. If we are recreate a high quality low carbon National Public Transport network we cant rely on small town ratepayers to fully fund facilities.

    1. Taupo had a purpose built off road long distance bus terminal built in the 1970s. The council disposed of it in 2012 as a “debt reduction measure” because it was “unnecessary”. It provided good facilities similar to those in New Plymouth or Hamilton. Maybe someone should ask the Taupo District Council to explain why they sold off a perfectly good facility which they are now whinging about replacing.

      1. And here is the real estate ad for the perfectly adequate Gascoigne St Taupo long distance bus depot sold off by the Taupo District Council in 2014. It’s replacement being a couple of bus shelters on the main street with a 200m walk to the nearest toilets and zero heating.

        1. Wow. And remember, no-one in government is tracking where the bus stops are, who owns them, what value they have, what maintenance costs… nor ridership numbers… nor revenue…

          So no-one in government is able to make an informed decision about investment and benefits.

          Yet they make decisions all the time, uninformed.

      2. The Taupo District Council should use either the land on the site of the former council offices on the corner of Lake Terrace and Rifle Range Road, or some of the wide road corridor in Rifle Range Road adjacent to the fire station to build a new coach terminal for Taupo.

    2. Taupo really ought to be linked to the rail network via Rotorua and provided with a passenger service through to Auckland.

      1. In case you haven’t noticed Rotorua is no longer linked to the rail network, the station was removed and the lines pulled up. It will take a lot of work to bring Rotorua back let alone continue the line to Taupo.

    1. If there were no car journeys then there would be no need for “pet projects” (PT and active mode improvements) cause we could just use the roads like our ancestors did prior to the early 20th century.

      The reality is that no-one is proposing the end of all car journeys. Just the large proportion in urban areas that could be substituted with walking, cycling or public transport. This mode shift would be of enormous benefit to those who continue to drive because they need to (tradespeople, delivery drivers, emergency services, rubbish collectors etc.).

      1. Yes it isn’t car users paying for these projects, it is car users paying to provide separated corridors for the modes that existed well before cars so that cars can have exclusive use of the roads.
        Much cheaper alternatives include significantly lowering speed limits so that cars and people can safely use the roads together, and/or closing off a small percentage of roads to cars.

        1. Still slightly incorrect on a technicality, it is cars that receive significant a significant subsidy from other taxes like gst and income tax. Really it’s a correction, and a reallocation of funds that is more fair than before. And on top of that, car users will benefit too. Cities like Amsterdam are a model, where there’s next to no congestion and cars are used by people that need them.

        2. Also bob, they might as well have. Just because it’s not illegal to ride a bike on the road, doesn’t mean it makes any sense. I live a half hour cycle from work, and I would if I could, but I value my life too much.

        3. “cars that receive significant a significant subsidy”

          Jack, cars are the LEAST subsidised transport mode. The owners pay 100% of their operating cost.

          Trains, buses, trams, etc all require subsidy to operate, even with all those people onboard contributing to the cost. And who pays that subsidy? The same people who have already paid 100% of their own vehicle operating cost.

        4. Geoff can you please explain why a significant portion of my council rates pays for transport provision, much larger then the amount spent on public transport, cycling and footpath provision?

        5. Geoff, good one, all you have to do is ignore the cost of infrastructure and the massive value of externalities that society has do bare as well

        6. Geoff, why do you continue to say this? Drivers don’t pay the full costs of the roads even if you look at it in a very narrow way – rates and taxes prop that up, and even people who don’t drive much subsidise people who drive more. But once you open it up to all the costs drivers impose on society, what you’re saying is a joke: they aren’t paying for the infrastructure required to keep other people safe from their dangerous mode, they aren’t paying to mitigate the regulations that exist in their favour which inconvenience other users, nor for the public health costs or climate change costs they are imposing. Driving is the most subsidised land-based mode.

          I’d like you to provide evidence for your statement, please.

        1. A lot of kiwis a simply to large to ride most of the bikes sold today, they have a weight limit which most people don’t realise.

    2. Are you implying that car users are paying for bike lanes? Or that everyone will die if we all ride bikes? In reality subsidy for cars is absolutely massive compared to the subsidy for other modes of transport. I don’t own a car but I help fund every massive car project in the country. Fuel and registration taxes don’t even come close to paying for maintenance or construction of the countries road network, most of the money comes from other government taxes like gst and income tax. If bikes or pt infrastructure saw a remotely close subsidy to cars we wouldn’t have nearly so much congestion. These public transport benefit everyone, as evidenced overseas (the Netherlands for example) and doubling down on cars has been evidenced time and time again to fail completely as cities grow, eg every city in the us.

      1. That’s the problem with subsidies though right? Everyone moans about subsidies they disagree with and shouts ‘we need a more subsidies’ for things they do agree with.
        Personally I’d rather all costs were covered by the users of public or private transport.
        We can leave aside cycling and walking.

        1. It’s also such a tangled web of subsidies, cross subsidies and various charges and taxes that I’m not really sure you can point an accurate finger at either mode.

        2. Of course you can. The differences are so stark. Driving imposes costs overall; cycling provides benefits overall.

        3. If people driving cars were directly made to pay for all the costs of their chosen form of transport, there would be serious economic repercussions. Many people could not afford to operate a vehicle. That’s how big the subsidies are.

          As we have created a system where most people have no choice but to drive a car to their destination, that would mean most people couldn’t travel.

  3. I love the idea of completing the RTN by 2024. Maybe bus RTN isn’t the best long term solution, but its a pretty good short term solution. It is also a good way of confirming the level of demand.
    For example they could run large articulated electric buses from airport along bus lanes on southwestern with a couple of new stops along the way then down 24×7 bus lanes on Dominion then down Upper Queen Street (currently only used by cars so not clogging Symonds Street) then terminate in a new bus depot in the Civic carpark. Total cost is bugger all and it would probably give at least 50% of the benefits of LR.

    1. “For example they could run large articulated electric buses from airport along bus lanes on southwestern with a couple of new stops along the way then down 24×7 bus lanes on Dominion then down Upper Queen Street”

      Why? Only a small percentage of visits to and from the airport start in the CBD, plus SkyBus already provides a CBD to the Airport 24/7 bus service. New electric buses have already been ordered to create the frequent AirportLink service from the Airport to Puhinui Station. See: https://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/articles/news/2020/06/airportlink-jumpstarts-with-electric-buses/

  4. It must be quite difficult to be a politician at the moment. Everybody knows they are not going to do even a fraction of what they promise so they have to lie but only lie enough to put forward a credible scheme. Promising free flying cars to all is too much of a lie but promising light rail on Dominion Rd is now a lie that is too little.

    1. “…but only lie enough to put forward a credible scheme”
      Unless you’re Chris Bishop. Then you lie too much and put forward an outrageous scheme.

      1. Or promising to reduce poverty.

        Or building 100,000 houses.

        Or building light rail.

        Or reducing state housing waiting lists.

        Or planting one billion trees.

        Or introducing CGT.

        Never mind. At least after saying the third main would be built “urgently” it looks like it’s finally happening after 3 years.

        1. “Tu quoque” seems to be the only argument that conservatives have left these days: “we’re crap, but so is everyone else”

        2. …and singling one person from one party out for inaction while turning a blind eye to the incumbents who do the same thing is arguing your personal flavour of failure is somehow better than everyone else’s. It’s still failure.

        3. Yet I would still prefer them over the religious fundamentalists that have taken over the National Party.

    2. If you promise flying cars and metro rail in 20 years time you don’t need to sort out the current issues and you won’t be around when it doesn’t happen (unless you are Winston Peters).

  5. The plan to build 6 or more level apartments near to stations and town centers is excellent. So then many more will be using PT, won’t need a car, save commuters $thousands for transport costs and greatly reduce congestion

  6. Its just as well I am not running but this is my policy for the election. Its Called Public Transport For Significant Intercity Corridors.(PTSIC)
    So this would apply for Auckland Hamilton, Hamilton Tauranga and Wellington Palmerston North. So the basic premise is there would be services throughout the day connecting these major cities. Off peak services could be a connecting service between existing public transport services while peak services could be direct. Auckland Hamilton off peak would have a bus leaving Papakura and travelling via the Motorway to connect to Huntly where a connection could be made with the Hamilton Huntly bus. Initially there could be a Pukekohe Mercer bus which it could connect with. In time electrification to Mercer could allow train instead. Of course peak services would be train running to wherever it is allowed to stop on the Auckland network initially we have being told its Papakura .
    A Tauranga bus could run to a connecting train at Morrinsville or maybe Matamata if train travel through the Kaimai tunnel wasn’t possible. Waikato Council has announced they want to run trains to Morrinsville in the future. Initially I suppose it needs to be a direct bus.
    Wellington Palmerston North would be a Bus from Palmerston to wherever the Wellington suburban train network is running too. Peak would be the capital connection of course.
    The idea is to leverage off existing services including rail buses etc when work is taking place on the rail network so there will always be a service between cities and to point on route which will be available without the need to pre book. So start now build over time.

    1. Mercer is under in the Waikato Regional Council, so any public transport south of Pukekohe would come under the council’s Busit regional services. The council would need to apply to NZTA for funding to make the current 21 Norther Connector Hamilton to Pukekohe service more frequent.

      Then you have to factor in the 2 ‘tap n travel’ payment ticketing systems, as Waikato Regional Council uses Beecard and Auckland region uses AT Hop. Its is the same issue with any train services between Hamilton and north of Papakura.

      This is why NZ needs a national public transport agency to plan, fund and procure all urban, rural, regional and inter-regional bus, rail and ferry services across all 16 regions, operating a national ‘tap n travel’ payment ticketing system and travel/information websites instead of the the current wasteful and uncoordinated regional based system we have at the moment.

      1. You are right Kris I didn’t see that once daily Northern connector which gives passengers the option of having an early trip home if they have arrived on one of the morning trains. Still its not much use if you want to travel to Hamilton for the day so maybe a service leaving Pukekohe about 9.00 am and returning about 3.00 pm would be useful. I wouldn’t have thought having both a Bee cart and a HOP card is too much of a problem though because any users of the Hamilton Papakura train will need that anyway if they want to use public transport in Auckland.

        1. We have got to start somewhere. I am worried the Hamilton Papakura trains will fail to attract sufficient customers we need to get people used to being able to move along this corridor on public transport. Maybe you have a better idea I would like to here it.

        2. In my opinion, a better idea would be a bus from Pukekohe/Papakura to Hamilton that leaves after the last train to Hamilton so people aren’t stranded if they miss the 5.30pm departure. Maybe 7- 7.30pm from Britomart.

        3. How about the radical idea of running the trains more than once a day? Outrageous I know, but why not run the existing trains to existing stations using existing track. You could offset them to do a service every two hours throughout the day. Then it would be far faster than the existing intercity buses and reliable for people who can’t guarantee their departure time.

  7. I would add a few to the list:

    – Reform CCO (such as AT) with better accountability, performance and efficiencies
    – Improve journey time, dwell time, and off peak frequency for Heavy Rail.
    – Fix various PT customer usability issues.

  8. This: “An alternative to this might be that we stop fully funding state highway projects out of the NLTF so that locals have some ‘skin in the game’, thereby helping to prevent them from demanding big flashy highway projects that are not needed because they’re “free”.

    We see this e.g. with the Otaki & Levin expressways, which the locals are all for – they’re not paying for them. Even if the BCR were 0.1 they would support these roads. An alternative would be to make it easier to toll new expressways. There was a huge fuss over the proposal to toll Puhoi-to-Warkworth at $2.40 a trip when it’s costing the taxpayer $20. (No decision on that yet.)

    On the wishlist, as far as I know no party (or ministry) has a plan yet to decarbonise land transport. Someone has to make a start on that. Perhaps it’s too early to forsee a complete route, but $500m a year each for e-buses, cycleways, and the low emission vehicle fund would be a good start.

    1. “We see this e.g. with the Otaki & Levin expressways, which the locals are all for – they’re not paying for them. Even if the BCR were 0.1 they would support these roads. An alternative would be to make it easier to toll new expressways. There was a huge fuss over the proposal to toll Puhoi-to-Warkworth at $2.40 a trip when it’s costing the taxpayer $20. (No decision on that yet.)”

      This is part of why I so hate Transmission Gully: It set a precedent for pork-barrel politics. The media and lobby groups can convince people that a road is needed and they demand it with no consideration of how much it will cost and politicians can use it as a political football.
      Most supporters of Transmission Gully either have no idea just how much it’s cost the nation or they don’t care as long as the rest of the country pays for it with no consideration of the wider consequences of that. Nor do the vast majority of them have any clue about the sorts of gradients the road will have, they just think it will be some shiney new highway without the 2 lanes of the centennial highway.

    2. The stick will decarbonise the transport system much quicker than the carrot. Any party who’s says they are green but aren’t advocating for a large transport emissions tax are fooling themselves.

  9. I assume not including encouraging transition to electric cars was on purpose…
    Surely despite GA’s anticar stance, moving the car fleet to electric should still be a priority.

    1. Labour & Greens still support the Clean Car Plan and the feebate, so the question is whether more is needed & feasible. As I read things, anyone proposing e.g. a 2025 or 2030 end date for petrol vehicle sales, as has been adopted in some other countries, would be crucified in the election. There needs to be much more leadership from local & central government & others before people realise and support what needs to be done.

      1. I would not be surprised if there were more National supporters than Labour or Greens who own electric cars. That might be more to do with them being more likely to be able to afford them than ideology.
        But still people’s choice so yes banning petrol cars in 5 years would not go down well for most of the population

    2. It’s implied I think but more emphasis on the e-bike and “At least” PT electrification. “As mentioned earlier, the government should look to providing funding to rapidly replace at least public transport services with electric vehicles.“

  10. Good list. I guess all the parties have already decided their policies well before even announcing them though this forum has mentioned all these items previously and multiple times. Hopefully one day they will get picked up on properly.

  11. A key action central government objective should include the establishment of hydrogen distribution for powering transport. Getting the framework established may require this support due to up front costs but, offers the potential for far more rapid decarbonising.
    Auckland public transport could also be the perfect starting point due to large fleets requiring large amounts of fuel.

    There is consistently a push for electric, but the batteries for electric while reducing carbon ultimately are not great for the environment. Recharging batteries is also less familiar to drivers than filling up with a fuel.

    On a seperate note hydrogen creation to replace Tiwai Point could also be an option.

    1. Maybe, but right now hydrogen is much cheaper when produced from fossil fuels. So the whole clean hydrogen is a bit of a myth.

  12. I know most of Greater Auckland doesn’t approve of ride base apps public transport but have a look at this from the UK. Maybe you can look at it in a different light.

    1. The costly Devonport AT Local “on demand” minibus trial was a failure. It encouraged existing local cyclists and walkers, to use the shuttle van to reach the Devonport Ferry, thereby creating more congestion on Lake Road.

    2. This looks like it has potential for low population density areas where it’s hard to justify services that are frequent enough to be useful. Like NZ’s towns and smaller cities. Maybe even the rural fringes of Auckland.

      For most of Auckland’s urban area things like DRT are a distraction. AT needs to focus on improving the basics like increasing bus priority measures, increasing frequency, improving bus stop amenity, making transfers easier etc.

  13. Thank you great thoughts to ponder and for putting to polies when they accost you.
    Like the early start on bus routes using the NW and and early start on link between Westgate and Constellation.
    Another thing i’d like to see is an immediate increase in AT parking charges throughout the area with an emphasis on the Parking building and the elimination of on street parking where they cause congestion eg Mt Eden.
    This is another interesting point with suggested questions for Polies:

  14. There really needs to be a nationwide public transport agency established by the Government, which should take ownership and responsibility for the Auckland and Wellington metros, KiwiRail’s long distance passenger services and take over Dunedin Railways assets, and build and run new combined rail-coach stations across the country.

    It could be formed in conjunction with a much-needed restructure of KiwiRail, where KiwiRail should become just a commercial SOE rail freight operator business, and everything else such as the infrastructure, mechanical, passenger services and the Interislander should be split off and vested in the NZ Railways Corporation to be run as a Government agency.

  15. Need to add that we need to make it compulsory to give way to buses changing dorection or moving from bus stop or from one lane to another.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *