Today we’re just 75 days away from the next election and the parties are about to start pumping our their various transport policies. With that in mind, I thought I’d lay out our thoughts on what a good transport policy might be. Sadly, much of this is is similar to what we said in 2020.

Public Transport

In order to meet ambitious, but very much needed, emission reduction goals it is imperative that we help give people better options for how they get around. The places it will be the easiest to do that is in our cities and rapid transit networks are likely to be one of most effective ways to achieve that change.

As such, there is an urgent need to provide rapid transit options in cities all across Aotearoa. However, full rapid transit lines like rail improvements, busways or light rail has been slow and expensive to deliver.

While certainly not perfect and no substitute for a proper rapid transit line, the idea behind the Northwest Bus improvements in Auckland does provide a useful template for the delivery of interim rapid transit lines would be useful to replicate.

Auckland Transport have already indicated they’re interested in the idea for between Manukau and Botany. We think it would also be useful for routes in Auckland, such as Upper Harbour, as well as other cities across Aotearoa.

These routes and networks would help to build ridership and encourage housing development around the stations, helping to justify further investment and upgrades over time towards fully separated rapid transit routes in the future.

There is still a need for larger rapid transit investments though.

As well as delivering on rapid transit, the next government should be looking to provide funding for towns and cities to improve the quality of normal bus 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
  • faster conversion to electric buses
  • improvements to the quality of bus stops and bus lanes

These kinds of improvements can have big impacts on PT use even outside our biggest cities, as Whanganui and Queenstown have shown recently.

Light Rail

Light Rail has been a source of huge frustration over the past six years. At present, it appears that Labour have turned it from a shovel ready project to a shovel never project. Had they not let themselves be distracted by metro fantasies, at the very least a line from the City Centre to Mt Roskill would be operating by now.

There may well be a case for tunnels in the future but in the short term we need quick to deliver, realistic options that can help improve access, help reduce emissions and build the case for those more expensive, longer-term investments.

With that in mind, we would revert light rail to a cheaper, faster to deliver surface option along Dominion Rd like was originally proposed. This would provide a substantial improvement in quality and capacity over the existing bus routes and deliver much needed town centre upgrades.

PT improvements and town centre upgrades are needed regardless of whether we tunnel light rail so even if we built a tunnel in the future, this would not be a wasted investment.

A base network we should consider before we get to talking about tunnels or metro style services would be something like this.

It’s not just Auckland that has been interested in Light Rail either, with both Wellington and Christchurch wanting light rail lines too. With that in mind, we would establish a national light rail delivery team – this could either be an independent agency or team within Waka Kotahi.

They would be tasked with developing and delivering a pipeline of light rail projects across Aotearoa, starting with our major cities. This would also help in building local knowledge and capacity in the design and delivery of light rail, helping to make future lines or extensions faster and easier and could make it easier to roll out to other NZ cities in the future.

Rail Network


The delivery of the City Rail Link will be transformational for the Auckland rail network, however, it’s full potential will be limited due to the historic underinvestment in our rail network. The most urgent issues to address are Auckland’s numerous level crossings and the need to share limited tracks space with freight trains.

The next government should provide the bulk of funding needed for a programme to remove level crossings on the Southern and Western lines – Auckland Transport are currently working on a business case for this. This should see level crossings systematically removed and help to enable more frequent, more reliable and faster train services.

In addition, a third main is currently under construction between Westfield and Wiri. This will help in providing much needed capacity to support more freight and metro services. Planning and design work is now needed to extend that line at least as far as Papakura, ideally so that the deliver of it can start as soon as the Westfield to Wiri section is completed.


Wellington has already completed a business case for future improvements to its rail network. This includes both infrastructure and service enhancements. The next government should look to start funding this.


Despite initially being written off, ridership on Te Huia, the rail service between Hamilton and Auckland, was steadily increasing and was exceeding its targets. We think here’s a huge opportunity for the next government to expand on the order of new regional trains in Wellington to provide trains for other regional/inter-regional services like Te Huia as well as between Auckland to Wellington.

To support this, as well as expand the ability to use electric freight locomotives, the next government should provide funding for an ongoing programme of rail electrification. Like with other programmes mentioned already, establishing this as an ongoing programme helps to build the knowledge, capability and supply chains needed within NZ and will lead to more efficient delivery. The initial task should be to ‘close the gap’ between Pukekohe and Te Rapa, with the next target being to get to Tauranga.

Active Modes

Cycleway Delivery

We’ve written many times about the need to invest in our walking and cycling networks. While more funding is absolutely needed, the biggest barrier right now is political, with Auckland Transport and many local councils too scared to change our streets. The next government need to unblock active mode delivery.

One option for this could be replicate what was done with housing but for our streets e.g. a National Policy Statement on Streets. This could require councils to deliver cycling infrastructure on some streets by prioritising it ahead of on-street parking

We’d also like to see something similar to the cycling policy introduced in the UK a few years ago. As well as higher standards, this introduced an independent review of projects and even potentially delayed or cancelled government funding of other projects if local authorities don’t deliver on cycling.

Expand the clean car discount to e-bikes

We believe the efforts to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles should also include providing e-bikes. This is especially the case as drivers switching to e-bikes both reduce congestion and overall have better health outcomes.


Transport Funding

There is a growing need for the next government to address transport funding. Increasing costs of delivery are putting significant strain on the National Land Transport Fund and that will only get worse as more people shift to electric vehicles (currently exempt from Road User Charges) or to other modes of transport. These aren’t the only things needed but a couple of key things they need to incorporate into the mix include:

  • Road Pricing – The discussion around road pricing has been going on for many years and the idea has the potential to help significantly ease congestion and reduce emissions in our cities. Yet, even though Parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee unanimously supported the idea, it’s still waiting for approval.
    The next government should pass the legislation needed for cities to start the process of designing and establishing road pricing schemes.
  • Parking Fines – While they’re at it, hopefully the next government can update parking fines, which have been unchanged for nearly a quarter of a century.

Road Building

Much of the discussion/focus for new roads over the last decade or more has been on large motorway/expressway scale projects, often costing billions of dollars each. We’ll undoubtedly see many more proposed this election cycle. Despite them encouraging more driving, the opposite of what we need to be doing to reduce emissions, most of these projects simply don’t stack up.

But that doesn’t mean all roads are bad and the government should focus on a programme to deliver some good ones. This should include things like a programme to add additional passing lanes, supported by much longer stretches of median barriers. There are also a lot of towns around NZ that could potentially be bypassed with fairly simply roads, helping to get traffic out which will improve safety and air quality. Examples could include towns like Wellsford – addressing most of the justification for a multi-billion motorway, SH2 around Maramarua, KatiKati, Tirau and Putāruru. I’m sure there are many more out there.

These programmes could help in providing road and safety improvements all over Aotearoa and could easily cost less than a single mega-motorway project.

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. Surely with buses we need to focus on their prioritisation?

    How can it be good design to allow a left turn at Fanshawe and Halsey city bound for single cars when you have every single North shore bus travelling straight through in that bus lane having to wait?

    Are there actual design guidelines around this?

  2. Well unfortunately it looks increasingly likely we will see 3 years of road building, increased emmisions and nothing else.

    1. Its not quite nothing else:
      “National will also introduce congestion charging as a new tool to help reduce travel times in our congested cities”
      “A rapid transit network for Auckland, with public transport corridors in the North West, Airport to Botany, and completion of the Eastern Busway”
      “begin or progress investigations into the following transport projects: Level crossing removal on Auckland’s rail network, A fourth main rail line for Auckland”
      “National is also committing to continuing with the following projects that have already been funded: Rail – Whangārei to Otiria, Papakura to Pukekohe, Wiri to Quay Park (Third Main Line), Drury Railway Stations”

  3. Sadly, it seems, National will form the next government and embark on another expensive round of vanity projects at the expense of any public transport initiatives and the road maintenance programme.

    1. It might be best if National do win. LR will be killed off and National will have to do some public transport in Auckland, although it will be buses no doubt. So with National we may get something now instead of the possibility of a gold plated LR in 20 years time under Labour.

      1. Given it sounds like they have an announcement about the NW busway and Airport to Botany this afternoon you may well be right.

        1. National’s future plan focuses on public transport which will include a rapid transit network in Auckland with transport corridors in the North West, Botany to the airport and the full Eastern busway.

    2. National would be hard pressed to exceed the Labour vanity project that was The Northern Pathway. A billion dollars on a bike bridge that the majority of New Zealanders would never use. That has to take the biscuit for dumb vanity projects.

      1. How many New Zealanders will use any motorway anywhere in the country. Pick anyone of them and there will be a large percentage of the population that will never use it.
        I don’t have to live in any given city to know we need to make changes that reduces congestion and allows people to leave their cars at home.

        1. Dr Hu, dont tell me you fell for the bridge idea.

          It was a deflection by WK, designed to fail, from the obvious solution of liberating a lane on the bridge. A proposed $700m subsidy to cars (to not give up a lane) which no one ever actually asked for.

          And it went the way WK wanted; no bridge, no lane, status quo.

  4. The third line has been held up for too long at Middlemore station because of Te Whatu Ora/Health NZ’s appeal against the project, purportedly out of concern about the potential loss of staff parking at Middlemore Hospital. ref Darren Davis
    Te Whatu Ora surely must understand PT is good for our health. But yesterday I received this good news from Patrick Reynolds.
    It is resolved, work starts in August i believe, which is, like tomorrow.

    1. I was out that way and the 3rd main earthworks were almost up to the platform on the Southern side , like KR was saying screw you .

  5. Well, you have draw up a beautiful picture. What about the key elements? Money? Can you also put this key elements into your pictures AND compare with how much ability the NZ Government has.

    Like to has dreams but at the same time you must understand it’s a dream or it’s a wishes. A dream is nice to has, but a wishes is within the ability. Many NZ people already pooor enough to save their pocket for food and daily expenses, please don’t make a your dream to let the Authorities to has more chances to increase tas!

  6. Looks like the only major works in any city centre are going to be Wellington. There’s plenty of money for a second tunnel in the capital on an urgent basis. There isn’t any mention of any transport projects in Auckland at all that I can see.

    1. Update: There’s a North Western Busway costed at $2.3b! Some possible caveat around rail there too, but hey, it’s better than seatless bus shelters and some paint on the emergency shoulders on SH16.

      1. Will be interesting to know if it includes widening the causeway so they don’t have to remove any car lanes.

  7. Looks like the only major works in any city centre are going to be Wellington. There’s plenty of money for a second tunnel in the capital on an urgent basis. There isn’t any mention of any transport projects in Auckland at all that I can see.

  8. Well, you have draw up a beautiful picture. What about the key elements? Money? Can you also put this key elements into your pictures AND compare with how much ability the NZ Government has.

    Like to has dreams but at the same time you must understand it’s a dream or it’s a wishes. A dream is nice to has, but a wishes is within the ability. Many NZ people already pooor enough to save their pocket for food and daily expenses, please don’t make your dream to let the Authorities to has more chances to increase tax!

    1. I would suggest to look into why Australia fuel price is currently $1.7 and NZ currently $3! Why Australia fuel price can go back to per Russia Ukraine war level but NZ has increased by 50%. Are NZ people more stupid? We must understand this before we can say NZ can compare with other countries, if NZ cost structure is different than others than how can the cost come down.

      1. There is no free lunch.
        If petrol prices in Australia are lower then:
        a) AUDNZD = 1.08, i.e. 8% is exchange rate
        b) Revenue is coming from elsewhere, e.g. taxes rather than fuel tax
        c) Costs are being paid elsewhere, e.g. monopoly Sydney road tolls

        1. You has stay away why Australia has already gone back to two years level but NZ has gone up by more than 50%! Don’t hide your mind !

      2. NSW, Queensland and Victoria also have a number of toll roads. No road comes for free. They are one of the most cost inefficient forms of transport that we have.

        1. Reminds of the quote (paraphrasing), “NZ has a Scandanavian attitude to services (and infrastructure) and a US attitude to tax.”

          We want everything world class, but don’t want to pay for it.

    2. But apparently the NZ government can afford $20 billion for National super. Increasing by $500 million every year.

      1. Zippo with that $$20billion 17.5% plus goes back as income tax and don’t forget the GST pensioners pay also with everything they buy.

  9. Have just seen the National Party transport manifesto. Seemingly written by a bunch of climate clowns and criminals.

    1. Wonderful line I heard yesterday:
      (with condescension) “Farmers don’t have a union”
      “Yes they do, it’s called the National Party”

  10. I can’t vote for Labour again after their failures on transport over the last 6 years. I voted for them twice because of their promises on light rail. I don’t pretend another party will do it any better but I don’t expect them to do worse either.

    1. I was feeling the same way about voting for Labour again. They promised so much and delivered so little. But then I saw the National Transport Policy. The only thing worse than Labour failing to do what they promised, is National succeeding.

      1. Greens and TPM are both off their rockers.

        TOP could be a feasible alternative with some common sense policies…

        1. Everyone should review TOP’s policy before voting. The only evidence and science based party, for mine. As close as we get to a Teal party, too.

        2. Or NZF as they actually stand a chance unlike TOP.
          TPM and Greens are nuts, Labour has had failings of policies and of actual accomplishments, but where it has really let the entire country down is its abandonment of reason with its agenda of co-governance and social engineering.
          I don’t like National and ACT even less but to most people I know they are a better option now than L/G/TPM

    2. Really? I don’t think I have ever met anyone who wanted light rail.

      In previous years when a Labour Government had passed their use by date I swapped to National for one election. But this time I can’t bring myself to vote for Uncle Fester so I plan to not vote as an active choice.

      1. > I don’t think I have ever met anyone who wanted light rail.

        Personally I wanted the surface rail option as is so common in various European cities.

        I lived for years in a city with more than a dozen light rail/tram lines and getting around was wonderful.

        1. I feel that the tunneled option was presented as the surface option would have created too much backlash from NIMBYs.
          Surface is short term bad for business as it passed and great after.
          George Street Sydney created the backlash during construction, however it is thriving after the construction pain.

        2. Judging from Transport Minister David Parker’s comments on RNZ Checkpoint tonight , brace yourselves for Labour dropping tunnelled Light Rail at least . In fact he said they won’t commit to commencing the Light Rail project until a ( another) report comes back next year as to its viability.

        3. If light rail is there I am sure it is great. But I have never met anyone who wanted it to the airport and thought it was so great they wanted to drop $20 billion on it. It always seemed like a solution looking for a problem.

        4. Not so much a red herring as a fermented herring or surströmming that made the whole project stink.

    3. If National/Act get elected they will take all the money planned for PT improvements, rail upgrades/overdue maintenance and cycleways and spend it on motorways. I would also expect the community card concession and free travel for under 24 year old gone by lunch time. Luxon has already said he wants it to “stand on it’s own feet”, so expect substantial fare increases.

    4. Can I just point out that under national, more cycleways were delivered than under labour?

      But I personaly advocate to vote for anyone but national/labour, vote for a minor party you most agree with.

      1. A vote for NZ First is a vote for National. Winston Peters has ruled out forming any coalition with Labour, should he yet again find himself in the position of king-maker. He would usher in a National-led government. You have been warned!

        1. Oh didn’t hear that, normally it’s the other way around. I guess it’s who ever is (not with) the current government.

        2. Yes, and while I dislike National, at least NZF would be a social conscious to National. Without NZF National is going to win with ACT only so NZF is the best option to keep things in the centre.

        3. He ruled out working with a Jacinda Ardern let party but all bets are off now.

          I think National would be a lot more likely given he holds a number of grudges, many now with members of the current cabinet.

          Either way I don’t think they will get 5 % and anyone voting for NZF should by now go in with eyes wide open that they could get a government of either colour.

  11. The big problem is that every time we change the government, the transport policy get changed too often.
    This is really frustrating because we do not have a clear policy of how to improve the transport situation for the next 10 years without the interference of the political parties.
    No wonder the railways lines are falling apart, roads are falling into disrepair, ferries is becoming unreliable.
    We should have a neutral transport agency and have a clear goal to improve the transport situation in NZ, that is for roads, rails and ferries.

  12. Don’t vote National unless you want wall to wall, coast roads everywhere, because the way they have it mapped out there won’t be any money for anything else in the Waka Kotahi budget!!!

  13. Do National have a mole working inside them? Every time Labour has a bad week (which is reasonably frequent), National releases another time warp policy to help keep Labour in the race.

    It leads me to think Nicola Willis is setting things up to become PM in 2026.

    1. Watch out for Luxon getting rolled just weeks out from the election and Erica stepping up with Nicola and trying to replicate that Jacinda moment from two elections ago.

      1. I don’t think there’s much chance of that, Luxon has done enough to grow National’s vote to a point where no-one’s job is under threat.

        Those with ambition wouldn’t take the risk, better to let Luxon go under the bus and be in pole position in 2026.

  14. Jezza, most people won’t join the dots though. Very few will think that the billions to be spent on roads will be at the cost of our health and education system, and parts of our welfare system. And the ones who do join the dots won’t care, as long as they don’t have to spend more on roads. What’s the point of a tax cut if you have to spend it on something that you don’t want to spend it on?

    1. People love roads and are selfish. Everyone is raving about the Warkworth one – i admit it makes things quicker, I also complain a lot about roads but also about PT . For example AT have ruined the usage of Birkenhead ferry with timetable changes.

      So roads will appeal to most people.

  15. On the AT website they have the Onehunga-Penrose connection project is on hold pending rescoping by NZTA following ATAP funding provision of $1 billion plus.
    National will bring on this very divisive project, environmentaly unfriendly and the highest cost per km road in the world

  16. I didn’t want it to be political but it clearly is, there need to be a Climate Change party without the baggage of other more contentious policies. It needs to be the number one focus of change in this country. I would vote for them hands down. Given what’s happening in Europe with the weather and the multiple cyclones this year and the East Coast disaster I can’t see how any logically thing person would think it would be a good idea to just build more roads and discourage public transport use. Total idiots.

    1. Steve D, yes.
      And don’t forget the good news story from last year. Two thirds of Pakistan wasn’t flooded. And now their economy is a basket case, and they are 99th on the list of world poverty.
      Does anyone imagine that climate change won’t make us all poorer? Fruit and veges aren’t more expensive because there is a war in Ukraine, or that there are worldwide supply chain issues. Potatoes only come from Pukekohe.

    2. “there need to be a Climate Change party without the baggage of other more contentious policies” – often requested, but if there was a green party whose only policies were environment based, would you give them your only party vote or would you prefer to use that vote to decide between the major parties? With the current setup you can effectively vote both Labour and Green by voting Green with the knowledge that Labour won’t allow them to do anything too nuts.

      1. But if I vote for the Greens, I’m also voting for TPM, and Labour needs both of them and neither of them will work with National. It becomes a fool’s errand and Labour isn’t going to be in a position to dictate terms.

        1. I have to agree with this statement, the sad thing it is seems that National and Act as much as their transport policies suck, seem to actually be aligned. The left is all over the place and I can see them being in a stalemate with the Greens. It will the Labour party NZ First handbrake situation all over again (and to be honest Winston putting refusing to back the Light Rail Canadian retirement fiasco was actually a good call).

      2. …you can effectively vote both Labour and Green by voting Green with the knowledge that *they will actually make Labour do something.

        1. Will they? I don’t recall a whole heap of action on Auckland transport issues when Genter was Associate Transport Minister, or with Shaw overseeing Climate issues. They’ve had next to nothing to say about the ongoing issues with Light Rail in Auckland. So yea, at this point it’s getting near [Citation Needed] territory, because other than the odd mention from Chloe, it seems to be out of sight and out of mind.

    3. In other words a real Green Party not this current lot that are pretty much a bunch of communists/treaty-ites with a green splash of paint.

  17. The Nats numbers for roads are out by several billion dollars,l get that ,most people don’t care,but under decent scrutiny, it will look bad. The traffic numbers don’t warrant it and the true cost will make the BCR look awful too.
    There will be plenty of push-back from WK,and. the courts will be involved as well, it will be a vote pleaser,but like GST off “fresh” fruit and veg,poorly thought through.

  18. Utterly predictable from the National Party this morning. But, all they are really trying to do is claw back party support from Act rather than sway more people from Labour their way with a transport policy completely devoid of climate change consideration.

  19. So depressing to read what any sane government should be doing. This post should make a lot of sense regardless of political ideology

    Then reading these headlines:
    “National to axe Let’s Get Wellington Moving, promises ‘four lanes to the planes'”

    National unveils transport policy: Four-lane motorways from Whangārei to Tauranga

    If the media had any sense, they would be nailing any National/Act spokespeople on this emission creating nonsense. The stupidity hurts, but I have been posting repeatedly over time that Simeon Brown is a real liability to the country; like a character out of Utopia, he seriously doesn’t believe or understand induced demand or any of the basics of his portfolio

  20. Is anyone else… uh… surprised… at the quality of the Auckland package from National today?

    A busway in the North West is… good? And there’s some open-ended question about whether it should be ‘rail’. And it seems to extend well into the areas already being developed for housing.

    Like it’s a far better deal than just trying to avoid talking about the light rail we were promised six years ago and pretending that gets cars off the road in any meaningful way.

    1. There is some truth in this. Maybe we shouldn’t let best be the enemy of better.

      Labour has delivered nothing. I am not sure they even promise much now, aside from flogging tunneled LR which no one wants.

      1. “Labour has delivered nothing” except reversing the cuts to the CRL( Beresford entrance, 9 car platforms), got the third main underway, Pukekohe electrification underway, given Kiwirail the money it needs to correct the decades of non-maintenance including the Auckland rebuild, 2 new purpose built rail ferries on the way restoring the integrity of the national rail network, new planes for the air force after 20 years of dithering by previous governments, record house building, record KO house building including the first new state houses in the Wairarapa in 20 years, Northland line upgrade and on and on. But by all means, keep repeating the line that “nothing has been delivered”.

        1. Most of that was actually NZF in the first term that Labour was forced to go along with, we’re just lucky they’ve continued on with it.

      2. They’ve failed to deliver a lot but it not correct to say they’ve delivered nothing.

        – capacity improvements to CRL
        – Eastern Busway
        – Airport link
        – Te Huia
        – New trains for Wairarapa and Manawatu

        1. New electric ferries on the way, national ticketing system finally underway, law changed to allow councils to own and operate PT services again, 57 new locomotives for the South Island, Hillside workshops rebuild.

        2. National, of course, after stating Labour has done nothing, then proceed to include new trains for Waiarapa and Manwatu in their own transport announcement.

    2. As always the devil is in the detail a busway on the NW will be good but will rely on improved access so will the likes of Lincoln Rd and Te Atatu Rd get any true PT priority ? Noone seems willing to make that happen.

    3. Buttwizard, it’s a quality piece of 100% pure climate denial bullshit. Believe me, I’ve been wanting to seriously consider National’s good points, given Labour has not exactly proven itself to be a Climate party.

      But this? This is the NZ National Party going “Look at Meeee!” on the race downhill to a terrible future. They’re pathetically trying to keep up with the Denial Monsters. If they don’t watch out, they’ll get trammelled under the boots of the UK Tories.

      (Labour’s in the race too, ‘though to be fair, I think they think it’s a march for workers’ rights or something. Perhaps they’ve believed what’s written on each others’ t-shirts? I’m hoping they’ll find a leader who understands climate, what needs to be done, and how to do so soon. As they haven’t actually gone very far in any consistent direction, maybe they’ll be able to claw their way back up the slope to a liveable planet.)

  21. I guess we all live in a false economy, most people drive their fancy new Japanese import that was sold by its previous owner because the Japanese government deemed it too old.
    Also most of our retail outlets stock the cheapest crappy products made in china. And our government can’t build a decent transport network like a 3rd world country we can only afford to build roads, even they fall apart. We also have the poorest housing standards for a developed country, so guess i can understand why our governments can’t deliver rapid transit, maybe we should become a state of Australia, or just move to Australia, but many of us love living in this backward country, it’s a bit like living in a holiday resort.

  22. “We’ve written many times about the need to invest in our walking and cycling networks…”

    Auckland Transport has decreased funding for Active Transport.

    The more we write, the less we get. Time for direct action.

  23. Liking the commitment from National to actually finish the Eastern Busway and take it to Botany. The current plans to have it end at Burswood are crazy.

      1. No. From the article you linked. It’s clear that there’s no funding or timescales for the stage 4 which actually goes to Botany. Right now construction is due to finish about 1.5kms from where it should end.

        “What is definitely not included is what they call stage 4 which is the route from Ti Rakau Dr to Botany as well as the Botany Station. It’s also notable that AT have yet to even share any designs for what the Botany Station may look like and it may be some time before we do.

        In the original press release, they said Stage 4 has been delayed “due to the re-prioritisation of current government funding following the extreme weather events of early 2023“.

        However, they later corrected that saying “AT has not yet sought funding for Stage 4 of the project, and no funding for the project has been re-prioritised“. Whatever the reason, this is a project that has been well over a decade old. That they still haven’t got the design sorted and funding requested is is incredibly concerning.”

        1. I stand corrected. Just the way you said it sounded like the plan ended there.
          Hardly an earth shattering transport policy to just get something finished quicker.

        2. “Hardly an earth shattering transport policy to just get something finished quicker.”

          Auckland Light Rail has entered the chat.

        3. The AMETI project was stalled all through the years of the Key government. Supposedly in the plan but never financed so it languished.

    1. If only it had been right-sized at the beginning. Would’ve been finished a long time ago.

      Or even if the AT Board had required it be scaled back when they were being asked to approve the nutty Burswood Deviation last year. Would have saved a lot of money.

  24. Well looks like all the funding will be sucked into big highway projects under any National led government. Do not be deluded by their out of date costings for this. Surely publicly available costings but out of day for sure.

  25. Also Wellington:
    Meanwhile Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau blasted National’s “flaccid vision” to scrap the capital’s transport plan after leader Christopher Luxon said the party would “absolutely” kill the capital’s long-awaited transport plan ‘Let’s Get Wellington Moving’ (LGWM) if elected.

  26. As well as these transport projects, National is promising four big roading projects.

    Warkworth to Wellsford – $2.2b and to start in the next four to 10 years.
    East-West Link – $1.9b and to start in the next one to three years.
    Mill Rd stage on – $1.3b and to start in the next one to three years.
    North West bypass highway – $2.3b and to start in the next four to 10 years.

    1. So really just East-West and Mill Rd unless they get more than one term. I guess that’s why they chose the stinkers first. I just hope they all include buslanes and we don’t make the SH16 mistake again

      Right now, if I judged it on PT alone, I’d have to go with National rather than give Labour another chance on this. How many busway kms on SH’s have they added in 9yrs?

      While its clearly the poorer cousin, the busways will prove the case for more RTNs.

        1. SH16 was upgraded when the tunnels were built but they never included a busway or bus lanes and so now are having to retrofit them costing big $$

  27. I think the best way to deliver an e-bike subsidy is to have it apply ONLY to cargo bikes. These things really do get fossil fuelled vehicles off the roads.

  28. Hey do you reckon the planned Warkworth to Wellsford motorway will cost more than the $2.2B forecasted by Waka Kotahi? The previous 16km stretch from Puhoi to WW was $1.2B, so even this seems like a fair bit of cost increase for what is essentially a carbon copy project; same distance, similar topography etc.

    1. Yes it is now estimated to cost $4b and hearing possibly even more. And while it may seem similar, it’s not. It is about 8km longer, includes an 850m tunnel and my understanding is the ground conditions are worse. Plus in recent years there’s been substantial cost escalation in all projects.

      Also, please use a different name for you comments.

      1. I have to say that I was confused. I thought that you were just asking yourself a “patsy question.”

  29. National plan to build a north west rapid transit line using a public private partnership model, and have pointed to the CDPQ rem project and Canada line as an example.

  30. I think some of the transport changes across NZ have made it alot more efficient to travel and safer, drove down the country from Auckland recently and it was alot of fun! Really smooth, good signage etcetc also the efficiency of buses in Chch that’s has just been announced will be great. Welldone Michael! Great work from a small world cup soccer game.

  31. Despite some suggestions that the CRL Day One budget for the Southern Line level crossings would fall well short of the mark (about $500 million versus the $220 million allowed in the ATAP) it now turns out that there will be a surplus available to re-prioritise to addressing the Western Line level crossings. However, this will require the funds (roughly $150 million) to be explicitly assigned to make a start on the Western crossings. I presented this information to the Transport and Infrastructure on 20th July in the hope that Councillors will give funding for the Western Line level crossings their urgent attention as they begin the lengthy process of drawing up the next iteration of their Long Term Plan which must be signed off by June 30th next year. There are 15 road level crossings so the total bill is likely to exceed another half a billion dollars – even if this is going to stretch over the next decade there should be some urgency given to making a start soon, else the full potential of the new CRL will not be delivered.

    1. Clearly we need walking and cycling bridges or overpasses at each location on the Western Line that they’re closing, and at a few more locations too. The severance is currently preventing us Supercharging Walking and Cycling, as per the Council-approved pathway to meeting our climate commitments. $150m should cover these, particularly if we can manage some standard designs.

      I’ve not heard that there’s any planning for a Low Traffic Neighbourhood Plan for the entire area, though, which is a pre-requisite to planning the crossing closures in any competent way.

      Have you, Graeme? Or do you think this is continuing to be approached in a car dependent way?

      1. Reply to Heidi – it does surprise me that AT is planning to simply close 7 pedestrian level crossings – as you rightly point out this will exacerbate community severence. Any thoughts of re-prioritising existing funding will require a conscious directive, following a business case for whatever alternative may be proposed. Unfortunately, in each case the affected local residents are left to fight their own battle in isolation – there appears to be no co-ordinated consideration of minimising severence, so local opposition is doomed to fail. There are also several locations where overbridges of the motorways should also be considered for exactly the same reason.

        1. Thanks, Graeme. There are certainly some outraged communities… and you’re right, they’re being left to fight it alone. This would probably be a topic where some fresh volunteer energy to coordinate a constructive, innovative response could really get some traction.

          I can help provide good guidelines for Low Traffic Neighbourhood designs if there is anyone wanting to step forward for this…

  32. I don’t think you understand politics at all well. You certainly do not know anyone on the inside. Labour worked very hard on climate change policy, but much of it was killed off by the Greens. NZ should have had a GHG reduction mandate on all road fuels by now and one on aviation fuel for 2024. Both were recommendations from the Climate Change Commission and both pushed to the back burner by the Greens running scared of the significant loopy percentage in their own ranks. FFS, making James Shaw – the most qualified politician on Climate Change apply for his own job – what a bunch of idiots.
    Add to that the people at MBIE who insisted that cleaner fuels would be unaffordable and of course Labour got nervous.
    Now because too many New Zealanders are internet experts in global pandemics, NZ is very likely to see a National/ACT Government that will be much worse than the current Labour administration. The only alternative will be a weak Labour Govt that is held to ransom by the lunatic hard left of the Greens and TPM.
    PPR just isn’t working for NZ. If it were, the next Government would actually be a Labour/National coalition with Chippy as PM. It won’t happen, so the best alternative would just be Labour or National under a FPP system.

    1. “Labour worked very hard on climate change policy, but much of it was killed off by the Greens.”

      citation needed

    2. “The current Labour administration” that doesn’t build anything isn’t a huge upgrade over a National party that does the wrong things, but still actually does something.

      At this point, one party has a credible plan for rapid transit in West Auckland. The others do not. And that party is neither Labour and the Greens.

      1. I think you are being too kind describing the plan for rapid transport in West Auckland as credible. The plan says ” National will run a competitive tender process for the delivery of a rapid transit solution to Auckland’s fastgrowing North West using an equity financing model. Key decisions about the design of the rapid transit
        solution, including route and mode (i.e., rail or busway) will be made as part of this process. The National
        Infrastructure Agency will be responsible for soliciting bids to deliver this major project.” And that is it. No more credible than any other suggestions offered for us in the West.

        1. for sure this will be smoke and mirrors. All the roading projects will get built and the PT projects will get mired. Just like what has been happening for the last 20 years.

        2. How is it any less credible than the solution we have now; which is paint on some bus shoulders instead of the Light Rail we were actually promised (only for no actual work to be done on that at all?) – and then just deciding to not talk about it again?

          Like come on, at some point you’re just arguing that your personal brand of inaction is better than someone else’s. That’s pure copium. If West Auckland rapid transit actually mattered enough to do something about, Labour would have actually done something. They haven’t.

          Remember when it was as Decade One ATAP priority? Chris Hipkins hopes you don’t.

      2. A vague anouncement is not a credible plan. And their record on delivering improvements in the NW is terrible, ie the causeway fiasco.

        1. Looking at their roads policy, there’s no suggestion they will value a NW busway created through actual road reallocation, which is the only responsible way to deliver it affordably and in line with climate goals. If they do anything it’ll be to get the planning underway for yet another road widening project on the NW, which would soak up any PT funding available.

          Like the Eastern Busway has soaked up PT funding and allows the various AT CEOs and Board Chairs and senior staff to keep rabbiting on about most of the spend being on sustainable projects, when the truth is anything but.

        2. I’ll take a busway that soaks up a bunch of money for projects we probably aren’t going to get, if it’s all the same. Given the total lack of action from Labour, that sounds like a really, really big improvement on the status quo.

          And given that Labour’s rapid transit to the North West turned out be a ‘vague announcement’ and nothing more than that, I’ll take the wrong solution that actually gets built over the lofty, aspirational one that never happens.

    3. Can you provide some sources for what you are saying about the Greens and those policies put on the back burner? I am very curious about that.

        1. It was a terrible policy in your head.
          You don’t have a clue about how it would be implemented nor do you have any experience of how biofuels are produced or the sustainability criteria audited.
          This was a critical piece of legislation needed to reduce CO2 from transport emissions. It was supported by the Ministry of Transport, the climate change commission and scion.
          It’s exactly what is done in climate change leaders around the world (Sweden, Denmark, California etc) and yet a few nerds on an internet blog think that they know better. Rather sad really.

        2. How does the Green Party stance here affect Labour? Labour has majority rule in parliament and are not in a coalition with the Green party. If they were committed they could have seen it through.

    4. Very happy to see the biofuel grifters seething. You must have come so close to a payday buddy, but the greens technocratic wing saw through it.

      It wouldn’t have reduced ghg a single kilo, someone else would have brought those NZUs instead and polluted all the same. Reduce the number of credits available, raise the price caps, (as has just been done) and watch emissions fall as vastly cheaper abatement measures are taken before any biofuel makes it into the general supply.

      1. There are no technocrats in the Greens when it comes to fuels. The most qualified MP is Julie Anne Genter, but her expertise is in transport movement and not the reduction of GHG in transport.
        It is obvious that you are not an expert either, so let me explain.
        Advanced biofuels give GHG reductions of 95% (vs fossil fuel) and they are a superior fuel that is a simple ‘drop in solution’, meaning you can use them to replace fossil fuel up to 100% in the blend. The only thing wrong with the proposed mandate was it was not bold enough. I believe from memory it would start at 1.5% whereas the the Climate Change Commission were pushing for 10%, which is the general rule in Europe. Some countries the Mandate is as high as 30%.
        NZ’s CO2 emissions were 78.8 Million tonnes in 2020, of which 17% came from transport. Even a modest 1.5% mandate would have removed 190,000 tonnes of CO2.
        The ETS is a mechanism to punish and reward polluters/abaters of emissions, but it’s a grossly flawed system. Firstly as you point out, the cost of carbon is too low. Secondly the biggest polluters have been given credits where they should be paying them (leaving NZ with a 1B hole in the system) and lastly, the ETS allows for polluters to buy offshore credits. Instead of cleaning up the CO2 in NZ, companies can pay for mangroves to be planted in Nigeria. Your ‘vastly cheaper abatement measures’ are not exactly a great solution.

        1. the ETS allows for polluters to buy offshore credits. Instead of cleaning up the CO2 in NZ, companies can pay for mangroves to be planted in Nigeria

          This is false. Offshore credits haven’t been accepted for many years.

          You never addressed nor denied the true statement that biofuels mandate would result in increased emissions from other sectors for the exact amount biofuels decrease. You can claim ‘it’s flawed’ all you like, it caps emissions. Any change you propose to the ETS to try account for biofuels could be done independently and achieve the exact same resultant emissions with no fuel mandate.

          If biofuels were a superior solution then every fuel company and their dog would be chomping at the bit to add them in and avoid their massive carbon bills. They don’t because it isn’t. Instead other sectors cheaply reduce their emissions, geothermal generators re injecting co2 into the ground, thermal generators wrapping up their plant when it comes up for major renewal works and instead putting that capital into new renewable projects. Process heat switching to electric etc etc.

          What price would carbon have to be to make it worthwhile switch to biofuels? I’m guessing that the implicit admission that you need a mandate, pretty damn high.

        2. Well Jack, it is hard to know where to start as there are so many incorrect assumptions you have made.
          Before I tear you arguments to bits, ask yourself if you are actually prepared to learn, or like many internet experts, are you comfortable in your own ‘knowledge’, stupid enough to think you know better because you can type into google.

          On offshore credits:
          Through regulations, the NZ ETS sets sub-limits on auctioning and overseas units and while Given Aotearoa’s relatively small market, higher-cost domestic mitigation opportunities and interest in
          international cooperation, the NZ ETS was fundamentally conceived as an internationally linked ETS. It
          was designed to operate nested within the international Kyoto cap and use the Kyoto market to supply
          units and set the domestic price. This was to let NZ ETS participants access least-cost mitigation options
          globally in a manner consistent with the Kyoto Protocol — and to make efficient domestic production and
          investment decisions influenced by the international price of emissions. Operating with an unconstrained international linkage left the NZ ETS market
          fully exposed to international emissions prices through mid-2015. As those prices declined from 2011, so
          did emissions prices in the NZ ETS. This price decline removed the incentive to reduce domestic emissions
          and led to the purchase and surrender of offshore Kyoto units accompanied by stockpiling of NZUs. The
          New Zealand Government ended the first Kyoto commitment period (2008–2012) with a large surplus of
          Kyoto units. The Government carried those units into the 2013–2020 period and used some of them to
          help meet its 2020 target under the UNFCCC.44
          Over time, New Zealand officials have explored bilateral linking options with other ETS. No ETS linking
          agreements have been reached to date. ****. Aotearoa continues to support the development of global
          carbon market mechanisms and advancement of longer-term emissions trading opportunities through
          multilateral, regional and bilateral initiatives*****

          On ‘Biofuels mandate would result in increased emissions from other sectors for the exact amount biofuels decrease”
          This is nuts, it doesn’t even make sense. A biofuel mandate was designed to require a percentage of GHG reduction in our transport fuels. That means that less fossil fuels would be imported as the bio content is a direct 1-1 replacement of the petrol, Kerosene or diesel fossil fuel. Yes, there is certainly a carbon cost to produce biofuel, but that is why it gives a 95% GHG reduction (the missing 5% is the GHG emitted in the production process). Less fossil fuel imports means less fossil fuel burnt and less CO2 emissions.

          On ‘If biofuels were a superior solution then every fuel company and their dog would be adding them in’.
          Of the EU refining sectors Euro 39B in planned investments for alternative fuels up until 2030, almost 75% will go towards increasing biofuels production. Global demand for biofuels is growing rapidly. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that growth at 41 billion litres over the 2021-2026 period. Shell, BP, Repsol, Total, Neste, ENI have all built or are building advanced biofuel refineries in Europe. In Asia new refineries for these fuels are being built in Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Korea, China and Japan. In Australia the Queensland Government is funding the investigation into a new Bio refinery and in Western Australia, BP is pushing ahead with re purposing their Kwinana oil refinery to make Bio diesel and Bio Jet. In the US Marathon, Chevron and P66 have all made significant investments in bio refineries.

      2. @Henry F – ‘Advanced Biofuels ™’ have made much progress over first generation products, but the problem remains that there’s no free lunch.

        The biomass you convert into fuel is being diverted away from the soil that produced it.

        Natural grasslands, forests and wetlands retain and accumulate biomass. By increasing the extracted biomass, you eventually move from sustainable income to liquidation of your asset.

        Soil without biomass is called dust.

        I’m sure there is plenty of research going on to find the sweet spot, but biofuels are never going to replace the accumulated billion year windfall of fossil fuels.

        Per capita contraction in energy demand is the painful conclusion that nobody wants to face.

        1. I agree that there needs to be multiple solutions in the efforts to replace fossil fuels, but advanced biofuels are a critical part of the solution, especially for aviation and heavy transport.
          Also the feedstocks that were to be permitted to meet the proposed NZ mandate were from waste and residue streams, they were not replacing food crops, they were often solving another problem by creating a circular economy. Advanced biofuels are not made from edible crops but from novel feedstocks like lignocellulosic waste, municipal wastes, waste oils, sewage waste, non-edible oil seeds, forest residues, microalgae, aquatic weeds and others. China alone produces 20 million tonnes of waste cooking oil every year. Instead of it being poured down the drain, it can and is powering aircraft (including our own Air New Zealand) and heavy transport all around the globe.
          The bio mandate is absolutely needed for NZ to meet its GHG reducing obligations. I can understand why Labour got scared of introducing this in an election year as the oil companies told them lies about how much it would cost, however it is absurd that a ‘Green Party’ would turn against it based on the fear and ignorance of some of its voters.

      3. @Henry F 02/08/2023 noonish

        Agree biofuels are a handy tech for reducing the impact of some use cases, like spill-sensitive environments, and applications not yet suited to EV, such as remote haulage and aviation.

        The problem is attempting to use that hammer on problems that aren’t nails.

        Long range haulage? Train, ship.

        Urban transport? PT, bike and EV in that order.

        The fryer oil example is a good illustration of my point, because at least in Europe, that waste stream is collected by commercial operators to make animal feed.

  33. Some one comment that fuel price in Australia is much lower than NZ, yes, that is correct! I come back from Melbourne last week, their fuel price already gone back to two years level. What about NZ? We are paying 2.9 today or 1 dollar more than two years ago! Why NZ fuel price increase by so much?

  34. Some NZ people just like a small school child crying his father for a new I Phone 14, but his father already no works for years and bending for foods. Haha, wish the child never growth!

  35. I believe I heard National Deputy Nicola Willis on First Up this morning say that a National Government would take money from median barrier and traffic calming measures in order to build more “Roads of National (Party) Importance”.
    This is not only an attack on the climate, but on health and safety. How can a political party make a statement like that? That moving people quickly is more important than preservation of life?

    Adding to Luxon’s “parents should be teaching sex ed” you have to wonder which century they are living in? As a teenager my parents’ knew nothing about my arguably non existent sex life, and I don’t believe that will ever change. And given that the Automobile is largely lauded as the freedom provider for the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s, the war on cars is not going to be a simple one.

    But we as the educated advocacy class need to keep the mahi respectful, mostly for the sake of the generations that will follow us.

    Boomers will not give up their perceived romantic freedom and while our political scene is dominated by pale stale males we must do our best to maintain our science and research based opinions:

    Precociously and Atrociously louder than the Fragile-Super-Cali-Fossil-Fueled-Overdoses!!! (to steal a line from Julie Andrews)

  36. Heidi: The choice for me where I live is this, or apparently, nothing at all.

    I don’t think I can put into woods the incalculable rage I feel at the family time lost to congestion and commuting while the rapid transit projects to the West have stalled, at the same time as the rail line we have falls into disrepair.

    It’s not even a case of ‘perfect is the enemy of good enough’ either, there’s not a ‘perfect’ solution being worked on. There’s just nothing.

    To be blunt, that’s not good enough, and appalling breach of the social contract that underpins the fuel taxes lumped only on Aucklanders as well as the actual ATAP agreement that we have as ratepayers. If Labour is going to offer something else, then they’re going to have to explain why they’ve pushed it back decades compared to what they campaigned on in 2017. Otherwise it stinks of bait-and-switch.

    I literally just want access to the same network features that other parts of the city already have, some of which for over a decade now. I’m fed up with waiting.

    1. Yeah, the lack of action on the NW is outrageous. But… National’s roads obsession will strip the coffers dry for this generation and the next, and there’ll be nothing for the NW because of “fiscal constraints”. Their plans will impoverish us all, and sooner rather than later.

      The thing is, both Labour and National are being stupid on climate, even from a purely economic perspective. You can’t ignore the benefits of transport transformation and rapid emissions reductions and expect the country to respond well economically.

      I just wrote to my local Labour Party candidate, quoting today’s Newsroom piece:

      “When asked about the climate impacts of the new roads in National’s plan, Transport Minister David Parker didn’t answer the question and instead said he liked some of the roads proposed by National. His issue was more with what he described as botched costings of the policy. Chris Hipkins acknowledges road-building comes with a climate cost, but isn’t prepared to do without more of them.”

      I said:

      “This is regressive and destructive on the part of both Parker and Hipkins. They are not serving New Zealanders, current or future… Labour’s current stance on transport and climate is not tolerable or supportable.”

      Labour should have upskilled on transport and climate before now. If they’re going to do so before the election, they need to make the switch now, with enough time before the election so climate-aware and transport-focused voters respond. Labour could still get in. If they don’t, it’ll have to come after the election when they rebuild themselves from a defeat.

      1. Sorry Heidi but I’ve run out of patience. They had plenty of understanding when they wanted to get elected and portray National as a do-nothing out-of-touch administration in 2017. And they managed to get their head around the need to add the extra bits of the CRL that we’d been nickel-and-dimed on. There was some vague glimour of hope.

        But suddenly they can’t brain so good when it comes to other regions paying fuel taxes to fund infrastructure like Auckland is expected to, and it’s become a total mystery, and the supposedly environmentally-conscious party (even with climate and associate transport portfolios) have been criminally silent and ultimately complicit.

        It’s been six years. Multiple transport Ministers. No clear decision on route or even Surface vs Tunneled. Other than some artistic impressions, we have literally nothing to show for it. Enough is enough.

        1. Agreed. Six years is more than enough time to decide on a route and the location of the tram stops. That’s putting the threshold for success very low, and they didn’t even achieve that.

  37. Basically, if you want to see good transit closest to NZ you need to goto Aus.

    Things progress there despite who’s in government.

  38. “The initial task should be to ‘close the gap’ between Pukekohe and Te Rapa”.

    The rumour is that both parties support this. Not sure why they aren’t mentioning it yet though. Maybe because planning work is still underway.

  39. The choice this election appears to be co governance or motorways to everywhere. I’ll stay off shore and take citizenship in Australia now it’s available to me.

  40. Looking in more detail at National’s plan, its frustrating.

    Congestion charging to manage peak demand – yes.

    Funding the NW RTN with private money but freeing up lots of government cash for the roads…treat them both the same, for goodness sake.

    I’m not generally a fan of PPPs but I think its the only way to catch up on our infrastructure deficit.

    1. We have an deficit not of infrastructure but of clever use of that infrastructure. Fixing this is nothing like as expensive as National and Labour’s road building plans.

      For the NW we need road reallocation, not widening. Proper stations will still take money, and if Waka Kotahi and Auckland Transport could drop their road building and traffic flow fetish we could establish an ongoing programme for repurposing motorways and major arterials.

      Debt should only be used to even out the payments for a steady stream of projects basically funded by us – not by our children. Our children will have their own projects to do, and it is unethical to load them up with debt to prevent them from being able to do so.

      Financing with debt is premised on the idea that economic growth will make it easier to pay it off later. This assumption is no longer appropriate, given climate change. Whatever problems we think we face are nothing compared to the problems in 10, 20, 30 years.

      1. “Whatever problems we think we face are nothing compared to the problems in 10, 20, 30 years.”
        I am an eternal optimist but I am not sure that the starting point is 10 years hence. The consensus amongst climate scientists seems to be that the rate of climate degradation is quickening. Most of these 100 or 200 year floods have only occurred in the last two or three years. When you look at international news channels there seems to be almost daily events. Currently rivers of cars are floating around Beijing.
        I struggle to see how any policy that delivers unlimited driving between our major cities, more housing along those roads so that more people will drive them, and less spent on public transport is in any way helpful.
        I don’t get angry because politicians are screwing my grandchild’s and kid’s future because they have no show. Selfishly perhaps it’s all about me.

  41. Source:

    Looks like the National Party propose cleaning out almost all PT infrasture funding In the NTLF to pay for their plan. Of course, Road to Zero is goneburgers as is the Marsden Point rail line.

    Funding information
    New Zealand has an infrastructure deficit which will require increased investment over a sustained
    period to eliminate. To achieve this, we need to utilise a range of funding sources, from reallocations
    within existing funding and additional Crown capital contributions to more innovative solutions like
    value capture tools and equity finance. National’s Transport for the Future programme will utilise the
    following funding sources to deliver a modern transport network that will reduce congestion, drive
    economic growth and lift incomes.
    1. National Land Transport Fund reprioritisations
    National will allocate $7.5 billion over ten years from the National Land Transport Fund towards the
    Transport for the Future programme, including:
    • $3 billion from the Public Transport Infrastructure activity class for specific public transport
    • $1.5 billion reallocated from the Public Transport Infrastructure activity class for Roads of National
    • $3 billion reallocated from the Road to Zero activity class for Roads of National Significance. Road
    policing funding will be maintained at existing levels.
    National will also shift NZTA’s National Land Transport Programme from a three-year to a ten-year
    investment horizon, to provide more certainty around long-term transport funding commitments. This
    change will align NZTA transport funding commitments with local councils, which are already required to
    produce ten-year plans.
    2. New Zealand Upgrade Programme reprioritisations
    National will reallocate $1.5 billion from three existing New Zealand Upgrade Programme projects that
    National’s Transport for the Future programme will supersede:
    • $874 million from upgrades to the existing Mill Road corridor (to be replaced with the full Mill Road
    Stage 1 project).
    • $270 million from safety improvements to the existing Whangārei to Port Marsden highway (to be
    replaced with a new Whangārei to Port Marsden Expressway).
    • $410 million from the Port Marsden Rail Spur (we will continue to support the designation of the spur
    as a future option).

    1. National seem to know where to invest to save lives, reduce emissions and stabilise the climate, and are choosing the exact opposite. A load of populist crap.

      1. Just doubling down on car dependency and congestion. And at war with the horrible idea that people might dare to make other choices some of the time, if given options.

      2. KR Should get shovels in the ground for the new branch Line before the Election so Fester cannot take the money away .

        1. The problem is they’ve got their hands full fixing up the existing Northland rail line, the Auckland foundation rebuild, the huge destruction north of Hastings and on it goes.

    2. Vision zero is brilliant – and saves lives
      Road to zero is a placeholder – and consumes budgets.

      the lack of action requried to reduce DSI by 30% by 2030 ties in with the lack of action its generated. Our fleet will be much safer by then, so no change needed.

      Nats raiding the resilience fund to build more roads – will get many votes.

Leave a Reply

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