Yesterday Transport Minister Michael Wood and Waka Kotahi released the latest ingredient in the transport acronym soup, the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) for 2021-24. The NLTP sets how much will be invested in transport system over the coming three years and needs to give effect to the Government Policy Statement for Transport (GPS) which was confirmed about this time last year.
Since the formation of Waka Kotahi back in 2008, one phrase that appears in every NLTP has been the claim of a record level of investment. In the 2009-12 NLTP it was $8.7 billion. That was raised to $12.3 billion for 2012-15, then was upped to $13.9 billion for 2015-18. Most recently the 2018-21 version jumped to $16.9 billion. With this latest NLTP we see the biggest jump yet, increasing a whopping 43% to $24.3 billion thanks in part due to investments like the NZ Upgrade Programme and the government providing a $2 billion loan to Waka Kotahi..
Michael Wood said the NLTP will drive the economic recovery by supporting thousands of jobs around the country.
“With local government, we’ll be investing a record $24.3 billion into transport services and infrastructure over the next three years – a 44 per cent increase compared to the last three years and 75 per cent more than the previous government.
“Our Government has listened to the concerns of local government and communities and we have stepped in to provide $2 billion of financing to boost road maintenance and public transport. We couldn’t accept our roads deteriorating.
One of the reasons Waka Kotahi needed the loan is there are a lot of big projects with future funding commitments, such as paying the Transmission Gully and Puhoi to Warkworth PPPs which will suck up hundreds of millions each year for decades to come. And with that in mind it’s not clear how Waka Kotahi will pay back that $2 billion loan and what implication that will have on future NLTPs.
At a very high-level, this is where the funding for the NLTP comes from and where it’s going. One thing worth noting from it is that the amount of money being spent on roads ($16.8b) is more than the amount of revenue that comes from road user charges, fuel taxes and registrations ($13.4b). This is important given the frequent claims that drivers are subsidising other modes – even if that investment in other modes is to make it easier for drivers.
As mentioned above, the NLTP gives effect to the GPS, in which the government outlines the overall transport policy and sets funding ranges for each activity class. The NLTP sets where the actual funding levels sit within those ranges. The chart below shows the funding ranges for the GPS and where the funding coming from the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF), which is made up of road user charges, fuel taxes and registration fees, sits within that.
A couple of things from that graph that stand out.
- This is the first time that state highway improvements hasn’t been the single biggest category and this time both State Highway Maintenance and Road to Zero trump it.
- Perhaps the biggest disappointment is that Public Transport Services is near the bottom of the funding range. During the announcement I asked about this and was effectively told that other than some service improvements tied to the delivery of infrastructure e.g. more train services once the City Rail Link opens, we won’t see a general increase in funding for services. This is disappointing as improving services is going to be critical to making PT more useful and having it play a much greater role in improving mobility and reducing emissions.
- The budget for walking and cycling is above the funding range which is great to see. However, that funding includes things like $190 million to complete Auckland’s Urban Cycleway Projects, that were meant to have been completed by the end of 2018. This highlights that a big part of our (lack of) cycleway problem is not due to a lack of funding but a lack of the ability to deliver. Even so, the increase in funding is welcome though it still represents less than 4% of our transport budget while the United Nations environment team suggests active modes should make up 20% of transport budgets.
- Perhaps as an example of how much Waka Kotahi are funding improvements to rail and coastal shipping because they have to, both have funding ranges right on the minimum the GPS allows.
Next I took a look at the amount of funding per region from the regional summaries provided. It’s worth noting with these that they are only committed funding and the NLTP contains space for new projects which may alter this.
In terms of projects that are being funded, there’s nothing particularly new as it’s all stuff that’s been in other documents such as ATAP and the Regional Land Transport Programme. There are however breakdowns of some of the key things by region. Here’s the one for Auckland, though the government are still not quite funding Auckland to the level agreed in ATAP with there being about a $300 million difference.
There’s a lot more detail on the Waka Kotahi website.
10% each for public transport services and infrastructure seems pathetic considering we’re meant to be fighting a climate emergency, especially with Nicholas’s recent post showing how much extra bang we could get from our bus network with a modest uplift in PT funding
Presumably the govt stiffing Auckland means the eastern busway is still at serious risk of delay beyond 2025?
Yep. If you look though the page outlining the projects for Auckland they say all the right projects but with the phrase, “this funding will progress planning and consenting”. Including for the second half of the eastern busway.
It seems to include penlink though full funding, and a busway station at redvale. Thats news to me.
If they made it a pure public transport improvement and not a more lanes for cars project they could almost certainly complete it with current funding. The flyover is just going to make it more unpleasant while accomplishing very little and the road widening at Gossamer is my favorite case of using PT money to add car lanes.
Yes, all the non-PT parts of the project should be shifted to the roading budget, and then delayed by endless business cases.
If I’m not wrong then the $281 million in the NLTP should be enough to undefer the busway? Can someone else who knows more give more detail on this.
Improving Canterbury’s transport system is a real missed opportunity of this government.
Canterbury is the second largest region in NZ. It has the second largest vehicle kilometers travelled – 45% of Auckland’s total.
If there is not mode-shift in Canterbury I cannot see how NZ will achieve carbon emission reductions in the transport sector.
I have written a long piece about Canterbury’s transport system – titled Christchurch the Chicago of NZ – here. It makes the case for a 30-year investment programme in the mass transit era.
P.S if anyone has a suggestion for where this piece can be republished I would be interested – it is too long for the likes of GA.
Canterbury’s low walking and cycling budget is also outrageous.
It is bigger than that Heidi. In my opinion WK and the NLTF as an infrastructure investment model is not fit for purpose. It is not investing in my and my families future down here in Canterbury. I think it is a very expensive waste of resources that is doing the opposite of future proofing the country.
I agree. We’re at crisis point. This is investment in an unhealthy and unsustainable transport system.
Each person involved in this needs to examine their professional and ethical responsibilities.
I too have got to point of questioning decision makers conscience because their actions are unprofessional and frequently unfair ethically.
Brendon, I agree. It is a tremendous waste of resources at the expense of other parts of the economy that are in crisis; top of mind being health, housing and power. It is tragic that we hear that NZ has the second worst number of ER beds in the OECD per capita. Forty covid hospitalisations in Auckland seem almost to overrun the DHBs capacity with medical staff coming from around the country to help. How would we cope with a NSW type outbreak? Twenty thousand elective surgeries have been cancelled already.
The more I think on this the more I believe that the Italian system of extensive road tolls would help here. For a start it would push more freight to rail. Secondly the main users, the freight companies would pick up much of the tab. They of course would pass it on to the largest consumers and that obviously is not the poorest sector of the community. It is questionable whether it would have any impact on the cost of our export goods given we have such a small manufacturing sector.
It is likely to push travellers away from long distance car trips and it may make a rail network viable again.
Most of all I like the equity of it, because the poorest sector of our community will benefit the most, because funds that they rely on to provide government services are not siphoned (yeah I know that’s the wrong word because it has become a torrent) away to build roads.
When we ask Waka Kotahi to do some minor improvements on Brougham Street in Christchurch – such as an electronic speed sign, better road markings, safer median refuges for pedestrians – we get told “There’s no money for that unfortunately.” Now I believe them. We’ve had great engagement from the WK staff, and appreciate it. But Canterbury needs the resources to make the changes required for Road to Zero (emissions and injuries!).
“a very expensive waste of resources that is doing the opposite of future proofing the country”
Totally agree. The organisations involved, their planning processes and the outcomes they propose are not even remotely fit for purpose.
Incremental change is not what’s needed.
I think Christchurch got a bunch of money for cycleways in the first round of covid stimulus, hence why they appear to get little in this round.
Yeah nay. Canterbury is down billions of dollars. Cycle lanes are not in that league.
Seriously good read.
I mean, I should be working from home.. but fascinating
Still saddens me as somebody working off and on in Christchurch before and after the 2012 quake, that no great urban plan emerged to put in light rail or something similar, cycleways and encourage Hobsonville style medium density housing.
The last time I visited Rolleston I remember sitting on the motorway passing vast swaths of new housing that looked like a 1960s dream of suburban utopia
Didn’t they de facto cancel the rebuild in the city centre in favour of building new suburbs?
I seem to remember that an entire quarter or so of the city centre got eminent-domained and given to one developer.
Yes Fletchers got 7 city blocks. Still building really slowly. Another Brownlee era mistake…
And Fletcher’s are under-developing. They’re building suburban townhouses in the middle of the city – complete with plastic grass!
There’s one apartment building but dense inner city living this is not. The 6 storey NPS-UD was purpose designed for this area and should be implemented for all new developments. Without density this precinct may become a windblown ghost town, lacking in street-life, that people will to reluctant to walk in.
Well to be fair 3 storey townhouses are more than enough to get a lively city centre. They’re called *town*houses for a reason.
NPS-UD won’t necessarily fix this problem, it only permits this type of density rather than mandating it. Often for developers like Fletcher suburban townhouses are the most profitable development node even when the zoning permits more density.
There’s a large NPS-UD site in Grey Lynn, Auckland that already has NPS-UD compliant zoning. A developer is putting up 2 story townhouses with courtyards and surface parking.
Thanks for the positive feedback Grant. Apologies for disturbing your work…
I agree re the plan – what a missed opportunity. Also post earthquakes when the city centre was closed down for 2 years a central transit route could have been built. Or at a minimum a corridor free from under ground services could have been protected.
The big increase in vkt has funded the increase in previous NTLF budgets from increased fuel taxes. 🙁
Good News for Hamilton
‘Eastern Pathway School Link shared path … this $22 million investment will provide a safe cycling network for local schools and improve public transport priority … implementation of public transport infrastructure improvements throughout Hamilton …
continued investment in Te Huia inter-regional rail services between Hamilton and Auckland, with $2 million to introduce an off-peak service’
The Walking and Cycling budget shown on the column graph includes both
– the state highway project Ngā Ūranga to Pito-one which should never have been counted as a walking and cycling project as it is a seawall project to protect the state highway, and
– the Auckland Urban Cycleways Programme that was supposed to be completed in 2018. It has now managed to “feature” in three different NLTF’s: 2015-2018, 2018-2021 and now 2021-2024.
Neither of these genuinely count as new “Walking and Cycling” budget. Therefore the actually funding drops to $249m, which if you compare to the GPS band, is way, way below.
Funding for Walking and Cycling should be AT LEAST 20%, ie for the total of $23.4 billion, there should be at least $4.9 billion for W and C.
Yet if I scale that $249m up to include the local shares it becomes $367 m, which is only 1.6% of the total.
Or 7.8% of what the UN recommends.
This doesn’t provide the modeshift and safety required by the GPS. It’s not climate-appropriate. It won’t save children from being hurt. It’s just nasty and immoral business as usual continued investment in an unsafe system.
One sees this mixing in local transport budgets as well. So when one looks at the data carefully the amount spent on cycling and walking goes down. Its well short of the changes needed.
$4.9B for W and C – im guessing Wkt wouldnt know how to deliver on that one. Everything you could lift a bike onto or walk over would be a cycling project. if you could do it safely – it would also be vision zero.
I will be interested if we can see a massive increase in a cycleway in Auckland without the AT and AC sparring at each other. This is this a sore point and these need to be addressed straightaway.
Does there need to be greater accountability? I.e. if a road controlling authority receives funding to invest in cycling they should have to meet specific outcomes to ensure that the money is spent, and is spent properly.
Matt maybe the reason “This is the first time that state highway improvements hasn’t been the single biggest category and this time both State Highway Maintenance and Road to Zero trump it” is because WK categorise Puhoi to Warkworth as a safety project…..
That’s ‘road safety’ remember, upgrades to state highways there too, this is a massive, biggestest ever, road spend. No transition here.
Puhoi to Warkworth is funded from the State Highway Improvements activity class. It’s the Dome Valley safety improvements that’s funded from Road to Zero.
“Road to Zero safety improvements” does not sound like what it is
Lol. “Road to Zero” always had that potential, didn’t it? It’s poorly worded for the good state highway work that they’re doing. Something like, “Safety Improvements for the Road to Zero” would work better.
But the government’s work on urban safety has been so dire that maybe “Road to Zero safety improvements” is a good name for it.
“Road to Zero” always had that potential, didn’t it?
Heidi it was worse than that surely – it was always going to happen. As you regularly point out around Auckland, how many road projects happen in the name of safety?
The whole transport system is broken in respect of adapting to emissions changes. The only discussion can be its degree of brokenness. I think that it is at the “stuffed” end of the scale.
covid saved more lives than our renamed vision zero
Even though I keep lowering my expectations to ever lower and lower levels, this is still disappointing. Light rail was supposed to be finished by 2020 (City to Mt. Roskil), yet it won’t even start building until 2024 – am I really supposed to believe that? I suspect it is vaporware.
Does anyone have any idea why rail electrification from Pukekohe to Te Rapa and Hamilton to Tauranga is still absent from the RLTP? Zero carbon long-distance logistics in the upper North Island. What’s not to like?
Two reasons: the high costs; and the lack of benefits.
It’s funded through NZUP, so not from the NLTF. Is underway. Don’t know why they sometimes jumble these things together and sometimes not. And Miffy is wrong. You want low, or negative, value for money, it’s the new State Highways you’re looking for.
I am wrong a lot, but not this time. If you want to electrify goods trains you could do it as part of a programme of national development. Throw in a power station at Marsden Point that never gets turned on, a plant that wastes natural gas turning it into petrol and a high dam that only generates the same power as a cheaper low dam- call it Think Bigger and stand for Parliament. Simple fact is the NIMT electrification last time wasn’t worth turning on and Kiwirail would love to just use diesel electrics. But then why not promise it together with a cycle bridge, a unicorn, Kiwibuild housing, an MIQ system that works.
What about when the cost of carbon fixes everything? (your words, not mine) I note that the spot price has gone from $50 to $63.50 in only two weeks.
OK Boomer, go back in time and fight the 1970s with your time machine, the rest of us have a future to try to live in. Extending AKL electrification, and ideally not stopping till it joins the existing wires at TeRapa is valuable now and it’s great we’re doing it.
I don’t think it is helpful for an attack based on disparaging Boomers. The latest research in NZ shows that boomers are second only in their concern about climate change to young people.
As a boomer I wholeheartedly agree that change needs to come now and the cost should not be born only by future generations. I also absolutely agree with you about the electrification of rail. We need to take a forward looking approach – not whether it will stack up tomorrow, but in 5 or 10 years.
Remember it was a boomer who famously said, I don’t see things as they are and ask why, rather I see things as they might be and ask why not?
Kennedy wasn’t a boomer. Boomers are named for being born in the post-war baby boom, Kennedy was 28 years old when WWII ended. He isn’t even from the generation before the boomers, he is from two generations prior.
Point taken. He was one of the strong influencers for a young generation of boomers. Somehow his message and others such as Martin Luther King was lost.
Why cant we run diesels into Britomart.
I know they let the required upgrades slip, and the thing will have to have some re-commissioning phase that costs a surprising amount.
But physically all the right stuff is there, or could be reinstalled right?
It cant be that hard to be considered impossible, or that hard that its cheaper to install wires to Hamilton.
Don’t run diesels, please. We have wires, lets use them.
Not many wires here
If we want to run an attractive short term, short running, regional service then there has to be better access to downtown.
I don’t think that anyone will convince anyone to electrify all the necessary sections, and bi-mode d/emus would be a bitter pill to swallow.
5 – 10 years of ridership building on some refurb diesels, freight growth and duplication, I think then we would stand well politically to get a complete akl to ham electrified corridor and new EMUs.
Well you can, because it was designed for that in the first place. But it was a dumb idea then, and its still a dumb idea now. “The world’s first and only underground diesel loco train station” they said. “Kiwi ingenuity at its best” they said. The truth is more like, actually, no one in their right minds would build a trains station for Diesel engines underground and then bring them public into the same space, where the air cannot be cleaned out, and the diesel particulates abound. Diesel train sheds overseas, like Paddington, Kings Cross, Euston, Waterloo etc – all of them feature vast open air arches that keep the rain out but let the air through to blow the evil diesel dust away. Doing it deliberately in the modern era, underground, knowing that diesel dust shortens people’s lives? Just one word: No.
I think it would be worth it for the usage we require of for the next 10 years.
1 or 2 trains regional trains per hour max, that would be in and out of the Britomart bay platforms from waiting in the wings at the strand. Minimal time in the station. Plus if we used somewhat newer locos, they would be much better engines.
Yes we could have an interchange at Puhinui as the regional hub, Diesels go no further, but thats just as bad as the strand. And the strand is just as bad as well… we all know how bad it was.
It was a clever idea then because under the political conditions of the time, it was either that, or nothing.
I would say given the revitalisation to the network usage that Britomart provided, to then go on to enable DART, electrification etc, one word. Yes.
Diesels could run into Britomart if the exhaust fans were reinstated, From memory, that’s neither easy nor cheap.
And to confirm what a retrograde step it would be, out of step with the rest of the world, diesels no longer operate into three of the four London termini mentioned – all London termini are (or will soon be) diesel-free except for Marylebone (100% diesel) and a very limited number of diesel trains at Waterloo and London Bridge.
Extending the wires from Pukekohe to Te Rapa is an organisational issue – who will pay? AT won’t, KiwiRail is not interested, and Te Huia’s frequency doesn’t justify it. To make sense, it needs to be bundled in with electrification to the Mount, so that the major freight flows can operate under the wires throughout.
Maybe its not that hard have a look at these batteries mounted in a 20 foot container. 2000 KW hours would just about get a train from Hamilton to Pukekohe or Papakura. So take 2 emu’s and place a container wagon with two of these battery containers between them. Alternatively use an electric locomotives with a battery wagon tucked in behind. Charge off the overhead in the electrified section. There would be no special charging stations required as the train could just be parked under an unused electrified siding. Or they could just be swapped as they are doing with the inland shipping. Love the idea of electric transported beer.
George, for the $2b price tag of electrifying Pukekohe-Tauranga you would gain absolutely nothing. Same trains, same customers, just a small carbon emission reduction because you replaced diesels with electrics.
$2b could buy thousands of new wagons and dozens of new diesel locomotives to enable huge mode shift of freight from trucks to trains, delivering a much greater reduction in carbon emissions.
In other words, electrification wrongly targets trains for emission reductions instead of trucks. That’s just stupid considering trucks emit much more per tonne of freight than trains.
That’s why you don’t see many of the world’s rail freight networks electrifying. Diesels deliver more environmental benefits than electric do.
KiwiRail isn’t keen either. Remember when the government announced in October 2018 it had “saved” the NIMT electrics and would be refurbishing them? Well it’s now September 2021 and the only work completed was a repaint of one for a photo op, before pushing it into a storage siding where it has sat for the past year or so. The project just isn’t a priority at all, and the NIMT remains 90% diesel-hauled.
“In China, the electrification of railways has proceeded at a remarkable rate over the last 20 years. In 2016, 75% of all rail activity (passenger and freight combined) was on electric trains. This is a more than 3-fold increase compared to 1995 when this figure was only 21%.”
On the contrary, GCNIR: except in the USA, which has a unique railroad structure, reduction/elimination of diesel trains is seen as a priority – for example, the UK has said no new diesel trains after 2040.
“Diesels deliver more environmental benefits than electric do” is clearly completely the wrong way round, but it is true that trucks currently emit more than trains do. However, with the rapid development of alternatives to diesels for road use, a railway that isn’t looking to replace diesels will get left behind in the race to zero emissions, with dire consequences.
TBF electrication benefits surely depend heavily on high frequency of trains. Low frequency means the costs of electrification probably outweigh the benefits.
Can’t we just buy some battery electric locos or MUs for Te Huia that can charge when they get to Hamilton?
It would probably be possible to provide non-diesel traction for Te Huia without electrification, though of course TH is a trial relying on the use of modified existing equipment.
Freight trains, the primary users of the line, are a different proposition, where because of the high power output required the only current practical non-diesel option is electrification. Non-diesel options like batteries or hydrogen will have to have advanced a long way before they become feasible for freight trains, and that situation is not yet on the horizon.
As much as I would like to see ECMT electrified, it is a completely separate issue to the relatively small gap on the NIMT (once Pukekohe is done). I think the NIMT should definitely be done to allow all electronic running from Auckland to Palmerston North thus saving an engine/driver etc change in Hamilton and around 30 minutes of travel time. This of course also benefits Te huia and could still have some benefit for Auckland-Tauranga trains.
I think it will happen and the reasons for delays to engines etc and extensions is dependent on the outcomes of the electricity sector investigations (NZ battery project, Tiwai, etc). If these go ahead then we will have excess clean renewable power available for more electrification (from both hydro and increases in wind etc).
As has been noted above, electrification is linked to the frequency of trains. Currently the majority of trains on the northern NIMT are heading to/from the ECMT (Tauranga/the Mount), so would only be able to take advantage of an electrified northern NIMT if locos were changed at Te Rapa/Hamilton, adding cost and delay – this would increase the number of loco changes rather than reduce them. Without these loco changes, most trains would be diesel hauled under the northern NIMT’s extended wires, clearly not a satisfactory state of affairs – electrifying a railway only for most trains to continue to be diesel hauled makes little sense.
So, like it or not, the economic and operating reality is that the northern NIMT and ECMT electrifications are closely linked. It would, of course, be possible for them to happen at different times, but they would still effectively be two stages of the same project.
Actually the first EF is at Hutt as we type, being completely rebuilt and modernised.
“$10 million for the National Ticketing Programme (Project NEXT) detailed business case.”
How many “business cases” does it need? Integrated ticketing is standard world wide.
And another business case to ‘look’ at a obvious, long overdue, high benefit project.
“Under the Rail Network Investment Programme, a business case will be completed to look at double tracking between Amokura and Te Kauwhata and on Ngāruawāhia Bridge, the last remaining areas of single track line between Hamilton and Auckland on the Main North Island Trunk line. This will support growing freight and “
Mirror politics” We are looking into it”. Seriously though,politicians can only think in three year cycles, “What do we have to do,or get away with not doing,to get re elected”. The trick is to string enough of these together,before the whole lot crashes and burns.
The world requires long term solutions to its issues,maybe the greatest change we could make is having longer term electoral cycles,e.g Paris,6 year cycle for mayor,who then is emboldened to make meaningful change
‘Business case’ is often used for something that’s actually ‘detailed design’ or similar. I assume this is what the national ticketing is about – actually designing all the systems, rather than someone writing a “should we do this” document.
“We’re providing $20 million for the continued investment in Te Huia inter-regional rail services between Hamilton and Auckland, with $2 million to introduce an off-peak service.”
Is this $20 million capital expenditure or opex? A new station in North Waikato would be very useful in getting the patronage up after all the “ghost train” stuff.
I kind of expected more focus on our important climate change responsibilities given we have a new minister in charge who sounds from interviews like he gets it.
Then again, I had hopes that Patrick Reynolds joining the board at WK would result in positive change too. I guess I’m just naive about how difficult it really is to make change in these large organisations. Either that or they are making change and its so incremental that its tough to notice from the outside.
One good Cabinet member, or one good Board member, is unable to stand up to a Cabinet drenched in Labour Party car dependence or a Board drenched in National Party car dependence.
When what is required is the overhaul of the political economy of car dependence, the Prime Minister needed to lead Cabinet to achieve this, including requiring an overhaul of the governance practices in this country. She didn’t do this. She could have, as she has the skill and the humanity to do so. But she is not modern enough to understand her role in this.
I suspect that a fundamental reset is necessary just as the government has undertaken with the health system and disestablishment of the DHBs, and the proposed amalgamation in the three waters area.
It was amazing to learn on the weekend that Watercare cannot raise capital to improve water outcomes because Auckland Council has borrowed against their assets. In the transport space active modes are neglected because of the spend elsewhere.
Boards operate as a collective and often are dominated by the chair. He has one voice, but an important voice.
This is one of the challenges with the “corporate governance” model for public entities. Reduced transparency.
“Thanks in part due to investments like the NZ Upgrade Programme and the government providing a $2 billion loan to Waka Kotahi.”
The government’s tax policy is not to increase the fuel tax. Had such a policy not been in place much of the additional taxpayer subsidised payment would be available from road users directly.
A better form of direct payment from road users is road pricing, offsetting (at least to some extent) the negative externalities that are imposed on the community as a whole and providing funds for rational transport expenditure.
Bring it on!
We’ll get there one day.
Singapore was going down that track but backed off and have limited GPS based charging to the existing congestion tolls as a start.
Yes it’s definitely interesting to note that the National Land Transport Fund makes up only just over half the total spend in this NLTP, with nearly as much coming from various Crown spends and local government.
I guess in an age where the government doesn’t really care much about debt levels, shovelling more general funds is an easier political sell than increasing fuel taxes and road user charges.
Yes, ratepayers should not be cross subsidising road users.
Is it any wonder our cities continue to sprawl when road users are subsidised (taxpayers & ratepayers) and pay only a small fraction of the “externalities” as well.
But any attempt to change the situation brings guys like this out of the woodwork.
Haha, so much for ‘Transformation’.
Bunch of phoneys.
In a way I long for the Nats, at least you know what you re getting and there’s no room for being let down…
I really wanted a new flag.
i had hoped this was minister woods opportunity to shine.
Looks like NZTA owns this one.
Skip all the nice words in the document – the investment priority section says “continuous projects” eg highway stuff gets priorities over BCR – so forget active transport or mode shift – we’ve got highways to maintain.