With a contract due to be awarded in the next few months and construction starting later this year, at the most recent estimate of $3.5 to $4 billion – though possibly higher now – the Warkworth to Te Hana motorway will be the single most expensive roading project NZ has ever built (so far).
It’s a project we’ve been critical of for a long time – ever since it was first proposed back in 2009 as a Road of National Significance – in part because it is so expensive and there’s just not the traffic volumes to justify it. The government are pushing ahead with it as part of their more RoNS policy – and they’ve talked up using tolls to help pay for the over $50 billion in roads they want to build.
This week NZTA have kicked off consultation on tolling to help pay for Warkworth to Te Hana and as the numbers show, despite the proposed toll being higher than that on any of the other current or confirmed toll routes, it’ll barely touch the sides when it comes to paying for this mega project.
NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) will be seeking public feedback on the proposal to toll Warkworth to Te Hana, the first Road of National Significance (RoNS) to be delivered as part of the Northland Corridor project.
Warkworth to Te Hana will connect to the Pūhoi to Warkworth motorway and is the second stage of the Ara Tūhono project, which opened in 2023.
The new 26 kilometre, four-lane route will start at the northern end of the Pūhoi to Warkworth motorway and continue north to rejoin State Highway 1 near Waimanu Road in Te Hana. It will provide a safer and more resilient route to improve accessibility for Northland and boost the national economy as a strategic connector.
From 16 March, consultation material will include details on the potential toll rates for light and heavy vehicles for Warkworth to Te Hana as well as expected travel time savings for drivers and freight vehicles, explains NZTA’s National Manager System Design, Jess Andrew
…..
The proposal is for two tolling points (or gantries), one to the north and one to the south of Wellsford at the future Wayby Valley interchange. The proposed toll price for travelling the full length (those who pass through both toll points) is $4.50 for light vehicles and $9.00 for heavy vehicles.
“This first section of the Northland Corridor will be delivered as a Public Private Partnership (PPP). Any tolling revenue will contribute to the annual amount we need to pay the PPP following the opening of the motorway. It will free up money in the National Land Transport Fund to invest in other important transport infrastructure projects,” Ms Andrew says.
Public consultation on the proposed tolling scheme will begin on Monday 16 March and run through to Wednesday 15 April 2026.
…..
“The National Land Transport Fund is under increasing pressure to fund transport improvements and increasing road maintenance costs across the country. Tolling provides an opportunity for an additional source of revenue to supports major infrastructure projects, bringing efficiency, safety and resiliency benefits to the transport network,” Ms Andrew says.
The proposed toll prices are
| Section | Light vehicle toll | Heavy vehicle toll |
| Northern toll point only ($2025) | $1.50 | $3.00 |
| Southern toll point only ($2025) | $3.00 | $6.00 |
| Both toll points ($2025) | $4.50 | $9.00 |
Tolling a road is never popular and there are already plenty of misunderstandings being shared about the impact of tolls.
One common misconception is that tolls will pay for the project. In reality, they only ever cover a small proportion. For example, the existing Northern Gateway toll road opened in 2009 and the toll is paying back a loan to cover just a third of its $360 million cost.
But the numbers for this road are a lot worse.
The road is being paid for by a PPP. Modern PPPs are essentially just a more expensive way of financing a project that allows a government to pretend the costs aren’t directly on their books. As such, that $3.5-4 billion is kind of like a home loan, where private organisations will lend the money to build the road but we pay it back at a higher rate than if the government just funded it directly. This means we’ll end up paying significantly more for the project over the life of the loan.
As Connor highlighted recently, the government is chipping in some money, taking advantage of their lower cost of capital, so that the amount needing to be covered by the PPP isn’t quite as high. But they’re also looking to sign up for a longer term, too – noting it will be at least 10 years longer than any other PPP New Zealand has undertaken.
As an example, this is the payment profile for the Transmission Gully PPP, back when it was originally estimated to cost less than $900 million. And yet, we were estimated to be paying at least $125 million annually for this.
Given how expensive the Warkworth to Te Hana project is, it’s quite possible we could see annual repayments well north of $300 million per year.
The papers attached to the tolling consultation give us an idea of just how much (or how little) those tolls will raise to help pay for this project.
It’s not clear if this revenue is net, after collection and enforcement costs which can be significant. In other words, if you deduct the cost of collecting and enforcing tolls, you may see a lower number there.
In any case, under the recommended option – even with that expensive toll of $4.50 – it will raise less than $400 million over 35 years (i.e. the length of previous PPPs + the extra ten years already signalled), and just under $600 million if the toll was in place for 60 years.
In other words, it’s quite possible that all of the money collected by a toll might only pay for one or two years of the costs of a PPP that runs for a minimum of 35 years (i.e. beyond the year 2060, and maybe even longer).
That’s better than nothing – but it’s certainly not “paying for the project” like many people assume a toll does.
People may grudgingly accept a toll it if it means you get a significantly shorter and more reliable journey. The motorway from Orewa to Puhoi is a classic example, where the new highway was significantly faster the the old route – about 12 minutes over the 5km the road traverses.
But those kinds of savings are not as evident here, with NZTA estimating just 7-10 minutes of travel time savings over 26km. It’s not surprising, then, that their modelling suggests that 35-40% of traffic will divert and use the existing route.
We shouldn’t be building this project now, at all. But if the government is going to do so, it should absolutely be tolled.
The consultation is open now through to Wednesday 15 April.
Greater Auckland’s work is made possible by generous donations from our readers and fans. We’re now a registered charity, so your donations are tax-deductible. If you’d like to support our work you can join our circle of supporters here.
Processing...
These tolling consultations are always funny. What are they hoping to achieve.
“Hello, yes. For this road we are committed to building anyway, would you like the rest of the country to pay for it all, or would you like to pay for a little bit of it”
Gee I wonder what the answer will be.
Has there been any calculations on how much could be saved without having the worlds biggest interchange at Warkworth or even officially why its been designed like that?
A pity the “consultation” only asks whether tolling is supported, or not. It should set out the costs and costs of alternatives, such as upgrading the rail line.
Any idea how much the Toll charges would be if it had to cover the full (real) cost of this road?
There is no toll that could achieve that level. NZTA have recommended a revenue maximizing toll, so if you increase it any further, you get so much trip diversion to the free route that you actually make less money overall. The only way to achieve cost recovery would be to close or substantially slow down alternative routes and drive traffic onto the motorway. Im not saying that is a good or bad idea, just that the idea is miles outside of our Overton window in New Zealand.
Thanks Sailor Boy. Pardon my ignorance but what is an Overton window?
mainstream agreement
The concept is it moves. What was once considered a left wing position can become mainstream if the overton window moves to the left. Spending such a huge chunk of the governments budget on a single road with little traffic would be considered insane in a country with a more balanced transport system, but has mainstream acceptance here. If you can shift the overton window, i.e. mainstream view
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
In this instance the Overton window would be our expectation that a toll road maintains the previously existing free route.
To be able to charge decent tolls we would need to remove the old highway and have the only free option to travel down SH16.
I always thought the opening of transmission gully should have meantma serious road diet along the old route as part of the revocation process. It didnt seem to happen but hopefully it will before traffic volumes build right back up along the old route.
Luke, it should have happened, but this is the repeating pattern around the country. Councils often argue for the old road to be improved before they get handed back, but NZTA is opposed to it. It’s a deliberate way for them to increase capacity for trucking and long distance traffic without the cost of restoring safety and liveability to local residents.
“There is no toll that could achieve that level.”
Yes. It’s one of those mathematical equations with no solution: the higher the toll, the lower the traffic volume, but the lower the traffic volume, the higher is each trip’s share of the costs of the project, thus the higher the toll.
Conclusion: we can’t can afford these roads. Note, too, that these ‘costs’ don’t include externalities, like all the pollution and climate damage from the induced traffic.
A transport system requiring the ongoing expansion of the roading system is unavoidable and unsustainable. And frankly, stupid.
Its not stupid. Northland needs this motorway. Lets build it.
Well said Carl, Heidi forgets we live in a demomcratic society and we are not forced to follow evidence or best practice we don’t even need a positive BCR for this to go ahead. Just build the thing anyway no matter what a small minority think problem solved.
it’s a sad, sad world where rightists are so idiotic that a statement like “we don’t need to follow evidence or need an economic case” is most likely to not be parody. The kakistocracy madness that fat orange dolt over in the states has allowed to infect the world.
let no right winger who supports a $20 billion highway to a region of 200,000 people just so some rich w@nk can get to his bach a minute faster in his compensating-for-something ute (and probably run over some native birds on the side of the road while he’s at it) ever claim to uphold “fiscal responsibility” ever again.
Burrower there is nothing insane about not following evidence, people can get evidence to prove almost anything they want.
I don’t really give a damn about what the evidence says and I’m sorry for that but at the end of the day this will make the journey to Whangarei quicker and safer.
The thing you don’t get Burrower is it’s a 4 lane highway or nothing at all so just build the thing stop being selfish Northland needs a more reliable road connection.
“Stop being selfish and give us 10% of all government capex for the next 25 years for a single corridor”
That said it is refreshing to hear someone say the quiet part out loud. The even more tiresome thing is where people pretend they are very serious money managers, small government, good asset management practice people, and somehow delude themselves into thinking this is a good and serious project.
Give me a nice road, pay for it, and apologise to me for taking so long is more honest at least.
“people can get evidence to prove almost anything they want”
See, you really can’t. You can make bad faith arguments and ignore data to try and underline your position, but that is not evidence. Same as doing one’s own research does not consist of reading facebook posts and messages in Telegram groups.
“I don’t really give a damn about what the evidence”
That’s abundantly clear, whatever name you post under.
Good question. “What would the toll charges would be if it had to cover the full (real) cost of this road?”
If the motorway was built to budget (and it will overrun), then repayments might be as high as the $300m. The $4.5/$9.0 tolls returning $13.9m per year, multiplied by 10, would give you $45/$90 tolls returning $139m.
That is nonsense of course; facing a $45 or $90 toll, the numbers using it would decline to near zero, so classic case of an economic demand/price curve that means that it can never pay for itself.
The $4.50/$9 is probably selected as modelling shows that gives peak revenue before people start opting to use alternatives
If that sounds like it makes no sense – tolls raising to absurd levels and still not going anywhere near cost of running it, then that is the point; the road does not make any economic sense.
Hopefully an election issue; those ‘hard working average farmers and tradies’ that National bangs about as not having to pay fees for high emission vehicles, are going to get slammed with higher RUCs to pay for non-economic roads.
Are we ever going to see consultations based around the status quo. We can build a massive road but it will mean tolls and increased RUCs and that won’t even cover the loan payback so we will have to take more money from health, education etc – or we could just leave the road as is ( with ongoing small scale safety improvements as required) The choice is yours!
I think that if asked, the general public consensus would be to spend few hundred million on a couple extra lanes up/down the Dome Valley pinch point, rather than a gold plated new multi billion dollar highway…
So the case already concedes that tolling will only make a token contribution to the humongous costs of providing and running this road. At a time when even current road user charges and fuel taxes are providing a decreasing portion of roading funding, and general taxes an ever increasing portion. Surely health and education spending are higher current priorities for our tax spending, then faster trips to Northland baches on holiday weekends.
We are expected to make a submission about a road, when current rapidly escalating fuel prices make all previous project costings, and therefore cost benifit studies absolutely meaningless.
All at a time when we don’t actually know whether we will have any fuel for our tanks in only 50 days time.
No further decisions should be made on this road at all, until fuel prices have stabilised, at whatever level, after this current fossil fuel inspired war is resolved.
Could trucking industry lobbiest be involved too? It’s reading like John perkins, economic hitmen…arrange a huge loan to the country for projects thst benefit a few (incl those involved in construction) that can’t be paid… Do we have anything left to flog off that hasn’t already been asset stripped or driven into ground to sell at fire sale prices to cover the debt?
Or a US led replica of the Chinese Belts and Roads initiatiative?
To keep us locked into buying US made, or engined, trucks to move our freight
The majority of HGV’s sold in Nu Zild are European or Japanse brands. A handfull of Kenworths ( assembled in Mexico ) are still used in the forestry sector.
Does this project operational costing also include the costs of maintaining the current SH1 route as the ‘toll free’ option. It’s not like they will go away.
I wouldn’t think so, they will become Auckland Council’s problem.
50% NZTA’s problem too, they cover half of local road maintenance.
But yes, Auckland Council will likely inherit the old sh1.
As a non-Aucklander and a non-Northlander, I am unlikely to ever use that road, so I feel I have no right to comment on it – but as a taxpayer of NZ having to fork out on it for the next 40 years of my life, I feel that I’m perfectly entitled to send feedback. Should we be getting ALL NZers to comment on it and say No thanks?
You have to accept that sometimes, your tax dollars go to pay for stuff you don’t/won’t use. Part of the democratic system isn’t it? I’m not obese, so why should i pay for diabetes drugs, etc etc.?
The question wasn’t whether it’s good for average human, though. The question was whether it’s appropriate for average human to submit on a road that is in a different region.
I believe the question of whether the country should build and toll extravagant roads is a national one, and the consultation for any one of these boondoggles presents an opportunity for all citizens to comment.
not all of us diabetics are obese and if you were intellegent you would know that .Comments like that are low class
You do raise a valid point about users from other regions commenting on projects they would never use. For years Auckland road users paid for other regions projects at the expense to our needs on the grounds it was for National Development and we had to support the poorer regions. Northland definitely fits this criteria, and having routinely traveled through the dome valley for years – there is no economic way of improving its capacity or safety – infact it is likely to become unusable due to climate change induced weather events in the not to distant future and we already know the Brynderwin path is reaching its end of usable life.
The choice is to continue spending more and more money to maintain not fit for purpose roads until forced to do an emergency replace on failure or make a new secure route now.
For those who don’t know the road, it is a tight sided valley with the road cut into a side for most of the route alongside a river with multiple low bridges over it as the road winds along it. It has a very high crash rate even after the last multimillion ‘safety upgrade’
Yeah its time for a new motorway!
So the road is going to bypass Wellford that will be negative for the town Where will I stop for a coffee and a toilet break. Hope it won’t have to be a dreary BP or shell station on a huge roundabout that takes as long to get off and back on again as you would save on driving on the new route. Have people noticed that prices at those so called service stations are elevated.
I doubt the people of Wellsford will be dissapointed to see the regular stream of vehicles and trucks, and the holiday traffic gone.
There is always the option of continuing to go that way if you want.
I don’t think that holiday spend is an insignificant amount of income for retail and food businesses in Wellsford. If there is a bypass which most people will use then it is very likely that the businesses in Wellsford will suffer.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360668288/bypassed-small-towns-transformation-after-major-highway-reroute
That is a nice outcome, but by no means guaranteed. The US interstate famously lead to the decline of many small towns that relied on through traffic. In any case, I am not making a for or against argument – just noting that as a possible consequence.
The govt of all flavours needs to get out of transport projects.
Govt is meant to be for governance and making sure an agency is doing what its meant to be doing and meeting its performance requirements, not picking pet projects.
Its one boondoggle after another and PPPs are just so expensive and subject to multiple forms of failure.
NZTA should be a non -profit SOE so it and the Infrastructure Commission can decide which projects to build based on the net wellbeing improvement per capita.
PPP’s hack me off ay. Surely Govt’s are best placed to finance projects, with their ready access to the cheapest borrowing/financing anyone can get…The PPP structure makes life on the ground for contractors pretty complicated. Alliance model seemed to work better, less likely for cost blowouts and contractual wrangling as people more on the same team.
yes ,sovereign debt is a way better option as was the case last century when NZ built thousands of homes ,hospitals ,schools ,bridges and roads to every where along with power lines and dams
Tolling until 2045: nobody over the age of 20 should be allowed to respond to the consultation. I will say no more, being a little over this age limit.
Public Private Partnerships are just a fancy form of hire purchase.
And just like hire purchase agreements they carry a considerable price premiums.
And just like hire purchase they are an indicator of financial irresponsibility.
They hide the true costs. Costs, like other soveriegn debt, we are loading onto our children.
What gets measured gets counted. PPP debt is far more expensive, but technically isn’t core crown debt so it’s easy to ignore and push onto future taxpayers
Well the current measurement system is flawed and needs changing.
The lack of visibility of this type of debt has enabled government irresponsibility. Nobody can say that the Transmission Gully procurement has produced a good, or even just a remotely accountable result. A substandard road was delivered at a much greater cost and delay then Covid alone could account for.
At least raising our conventional Crown debt is visible on Government books, and thus there is a degree of publicly debated accountability.
I’m surprised we can’t find a billion dollars worth of truly high benefit projects to support development in the North; and a half billion or so of cheaper, easier improvements to the existing highway alignment.
The Northland Regional Council and NZ Government between them only seem to be funding in the tens of millions for projects encouraging tourism and in Northport (supplying aviation fuel to Auckland).
Outside the box a bit, but wouldn’t it just be cheaper, and less socialist, to develop domestic flight?
Far too damaging of climate.
What’s needed is:
– A proper regular bus network to all towns, with priority at pinch points,
– Tolling of the existing SH1 and roads like Matakana Rd on any day that congestion would otherwise disrupt the bus network.
– Tactical safety measures to boost access by active travel. First within each town. Then, between them.
– Resurrection of passenger rail.
” A proper regular bus network to all towns”
NuZild already has a regular intercity bus service:
https://www.intercity.co.nz
Have you used it?
You still need to move freight efficiently
Have I used it? Yes. Intercity goes to many towns but there are also many towns it does not go to.
I also use many and various Council-run buses.
Indeed, this is how I travel.
Some towns have no bus. Sometimes there is a bus once a week. Sometimes twice. Or perhaps one or two every work day. I plan my travel around these inadequate timetables.
Bus driver, what about you? Do you take the bus between towns?
Double to toll cost if thats whats required.
I completely understand the concerns people have about building a new motorway — environmental impact, cost, and change to communities are all real and valid issues that deserve careful thought.
But as someone who travels this road regularly in Northland, I think it’s important we also consider the current reality. The existing route is not just inconvenient — it can be dangerous, and it’s increasingly unreliable with weather-related closures. When that happens, it doesn’t just delay a few trips; it disrupts livelihoods, isolates communities, and puts real pressure on businesses and emergency services.
This isn’t about dismissing concerns — it’s about holding both perspectives at once. We can care about the environment and recognise the need for safer, more resilient infrastructure. We can ask for smart, responsible planning while still supporting progress.
If we take a long-term view, the question becomes: what kind of future are we building for Northland? One that remains vulnerable and cut off, or one that is safer, more connected, and better able to withstand challenges?
Surely the best path forward is open-minded discussion — not shutting ideas down ideas for the sake of it.
If you’re concerned about reliability and safety, you build a 2 lane, median divided, 80km/h bypass for $500m, not a four lane 110km/h motorway for $5,000m. You could make it access controlled to remove all driveways and have a few simple interchange like the Taupo bypass.
Amazing but I find myself agreeing with you SB.
You could even have a few passing lanes where it is most economical to do so. Build it so that there is little to no disruption or extra additional costs from it for a future duplication (ie 4 lanes).
You could then have the road all the way through to Whangarei for less than the price of this one section.
But 100k please, 80k is a joke.
Four lane motorway is the best option
Why?
Isn’t it obvious John? Upsides: Significantly Safer, More Passing opportunities, Quicker journey times, Reduced inclines for trucks, No congestion through towns, better mental health, upsets wokies, takes funding away from other stuff most don’t want like speed bumps oh and of course provides a much more resilient route.
Downsides: Cost and a little bit of climate change (so what China isn’t cutting back). And if anything exactly the reason we need a new road that can handle weather changes.
It’s incredible how many on this blog feel they are justified to ignore the majority of people who want this thing to get built. We can keep using cost as an excuse not to build everything or CRL never would’ve got off the ground. So glad it was announced the Waikato expressway also getting extended when are some people going to admit the truth the old road network simply doesn’t work as an inter-regional connector anymore. It’s time for something new and “better”. That is why a 4 lane motorway is better.
James, thanks for confirming your ideology is nothing but hedonism, spite and cruelty. Mammon’s got a spot waiting for you down there, and at least before that you might have to confront that you can’t blame the “wokies” for the crop failures and heat waves that are coming.
It really doesn’t matter whose ideology says what. What matters is the majority of people agree the current road is bad and out of those people the majority want a 4 lane motorway, what is so difficult to understand about that?
I agree with you about the climate stuff but it’s past the point of no return now so we need to prepare for the inevitable like building a more resilient road before Northland can only be accessed by air. Sea level rises could render the main alternative to the Brynderwyns SH12 unusable some of the time.
The road is going to get built as a 4 lane motorway or not at all (start being honest), so suck it up because it’s going to get the green light, no government wants to lose all those votes. As with most things Votes > Evidence. Simple as that.
“It’s incredible how many on this blog feel they are justified to ignore the majority of people who want this thing to get built”
I am sure if we asked people if they wanted the government to buy them a Ferrari, most would say yes. Wouldn’t make it a good use of money when a Toyota would deliver largely the same benefits.
any chance “James” is that user from australia who kept coming back with usernames of different sydney suburbs, advocating for kakistocracy?
Ok…
To your upsides: Safety could be improved with some corner easing and median barriers. Passing opportunities: When you look at the stretch Silverdale to Warkworth and find it empty most of the time, do we really need that many more passing opportunities? Journey times are forecast to be reduced by what, 12 minutes once the whole thing to Whangarei is built? Do these 12 minutes make a difference whether you go to Northland for a holiday? I will give you the reduced inclines for trucks but it would be interesting to know if electric trucks struggle less with them. I honestly don’t know. This blog has argued for some bypasses, e.g. at Wellsford, which would definitely increase mental health. With the money saved from not building this monstrosity, we could build bypasses around a bunch of other places and improve mental health even more.
If you want to build this to “upset wokies” there is really no point in arguing (yet I do). The funding going into this will not be taken solely from speed bumps, but hospitals, schools and some other rather important functions. Road resiliency is indeed an issue. Smaller scale improvements could have a similar effect on this stretch of road and the saved funding could go into other much-needed projects – ask the people of Gisborne if they have any suggestions. Or New Plymouth. Or anyone north of Whangarei. Or in Nelson.
To the downsides: China is strongly pushing renewables. And there seems this perception that climate change is a binary thing. While we likely won’t limit warming below 2 degrees, it will make a huge difference whether we get to 3 or 4 degrees. And a huge difference are billions in damages in NZ alone as well as very real lives lost.
Finally, I have driven the road on a long weekend recently and I honestly don’t see the need myself, but could get behind some safety improvements and a Wellsford bypass.
You’re probably right in that it will get built but I have a feeling it will be the last extension north for a few decades as the bill for this section is going to be hanging around for a long time.
Not sure I agree about the majority though. 2/3rds of the countries drivers would probably be quite happy to not see it built as it would free up a lot of money for improvements in their respective regions.
Ok John a few fair points however…..
Firstly yes sure safety could be improved but many of these roads will be considered dangerous even with millions of $ worth of upgrades (Dome Valley and Brynderwyns are still considered dangerous even with safety improvements and a reduced speed limit).
Secondly, YES WE NEED MORE PASSING OPPORTUNITIES, it’s nice you don’t have to travel the route outside of holidays but some days in the dome there is a very long line of trucks that can’t be passed.
Thirdly, 12 minutes is MASSIVE that is life changing and we know for many it’ll be much much more than 12 minutes saved, many on the blog here would agree given how much people moaned about the train doors being open for a few seconds too long.
Finally, I’m not saying by building this you can’t have other road safety improvements you have come to that conclusion yourself, the truth is if we really wanted to we already would have made safety improvements. Also you’re trolling if you drove the route and thought it wasn’t an issue. A road designed to connect people inter-regionally is supposed to be MINIMUM 100kmh the fact that the road is so crap that it’s stuck with a sluggish 80k speed limit says it all.
Also there is no way that smaller improvements could deliver the same resilience as a brand new road prove it.
Sorry someone needs to speak up for the North it’s often overlooked and you can really feel it’s like what the Waikato used to be like before a decent road was put in. Yes it’s expensive, but the north absolutely deserves a chance. If you won’t build it for the north Auckland is a major city and should have a motorway connection end to end simple as that.
I appreciate your perspective but we do not get the opportunity for an open minded discussion -this is being fast tracked where as a number of safety elements and cullvet improvements etc would answer your issues at a fraction of the cost in $$, environment and community.
No one is saying there isn’t a need for a solution, just that this cost isn’t justified. An open minded approach would be to consider cheaper alternatives, not just jump to the gold plated option.
In fact, this should never even be one of the options given its cost and the size of our (and Northland’s) economy. Its absurd.
It’s not just the size of our population and current economy that needs consideration. We had visitors from England wanted to visit the Bay of Islands (before the Puhoi to Warkworth
extention) but turned around just north of Orewa (over 190 kms short of destination) as they thought our narrow, winding roads with oncoming traffic were death traps.
Oh great. So they spend their holidays between Orewa and Cambridge? Sounds like fun!
Have they never driven in their own country? Outside of the A roads it’s much the same if not worse.
The difference between driving on the British A roads and here, is the drivers and the polite in smaller cars – love to see two Holden Commodores driving on an A Road let alone in opposite directions and needing to pass each other with a kiwi driver in each. And yes, have been on those A Roads so know what they are like, our style of driving scares most European drivers for good reason
The argument goes that there are more efficient ways to buy more reliability. Not just on this corridor but over the whole network.
Ie: What good is a highway if there are 50 no-name bridges and culverts blown out from flooding between where people actually live and the on-ramp.
We cant fund it all.
Thanks for that helpful comment, Gracie-GPT. Really gives that human perspective.
“Double to toll cost if thats whats required”
If you look at the comments above including from me, the point being made is that just doesn’t work.
You can double the proposed toll road cost to $9 for private vehicles and $18 for trucks, but some people are going to find that too expensive and just opt to take the free road, so less revenue overall
With the $8/$16 option in the paper, the amount of money raised is still only $15m (vs $13 for tolls half the price), so still not even enough for a gold plated highway
You want a less dangerous and more reliable road; I don’t think there is any disagreement there. But you can get those things for far less, by building improvements and sections of road in critical area; not a super large expensive motorway
Since it is a development road, land value capture should help fund it as well.
For example, all land value increases, due to zoning changes, north of Puhoi should be taxed upon sale.
There shouldn’t be any zoning changes, though, which just invite sprawl, and cement extra traffic and car dependence.
That is the pathway we’ve always followed, but it has led to our undoing. Time to change.
Land value capture is useful in the right place. This is not the right place.
Agree that the expressway isn’t worth extending.
I wanted to point out that the RONS enthusiasts want user charges and public handouts to finance, instead of taxing the windfall to landowners and developers.
I remember Transit NZ stated in the late 1990s that they wanted an expressway from Warkworth to Cambridge within 20 years.
They have actually built it (with a little delay). It isn’t full and won’t be fully utilized for a long time.
Now is the time to build the up public transport links, to complement and extend that connectivity.
Instead they want to simply continue extending an expressway away from the country’s centre of population through terrible ground conditions.
Absolutely Kevin lets overcome the ground conditions and get it built!
Carl do you have reading comprehension issues?
Motorway bad. Too expensive. Hurts nature. No support here.
We can only really hope that this second Great Oil Crisis may leave Simian Simon high and dry among his cabinet colleagues.
Amen to that.
I bet they are big time regretting scrapping the clean transport initiatives.
This really couldnt happy to a better (useless) political party/coalition.
That would require them to have a conscience though. You know, Luxon is, you could say, sorted.
Hopefully Trump and Netenyahu nix this in the but.
Not needed, overblown white elephant.
I wonder how many pointless car journeys have already been crossed off thanks to the middle east?
Now is the time to look past the private ICE motor vehicle.
No tolls should be on petrol to pay for all roading in New Zealand and everyone gets to benefit, from safer roads
DO NOT build this road. Not needed. Put in some more passing lanes.
Do build this road. The Dome Valley has 80 km speed limits, its unacceptable
you know that old Goofy cartoon ‘Motor Mania’ was right: people really do turn into impatient, selfish speed demons when they get behind the wheel
Why would 3 million people be ok to pay for a road they will never use. Where I live there are just as desperately needed road upgrades however we have a govt not prepared to invest in the future, rather one who spend minimal and blame past governments for an inherited problem. $4.5b would also go a reasonable way into improving our diabolical healthcare facilities, the Nelson one resembling a public toilet at 2am Saturday morning
We have to start somewhere, Northland has historically been the hell hole of the pacific and been left behind every other region in the country – even the East Cape gets more development than Northland. A good road to Whangarei like we have South to Rotorua/Taupo/Tauranga will give them them improved access to tourism and business opportunities. The current road is at its limit for development and likely to become unusable in a severe weather event and not be economically viable to repair. The argument that 3 million people won’t use it can be used for any roading project to justify not doing it – Auckland collected road taxes have been used for Southland roads in the past on the grounds that we all should support other regions development needs and Northland is a lot closer to home then the bottom of the South Island! We also paid for the Waikato Expressway to be built early and look at what that has done for the Waikato travel and road safety, they were a lot better than the route North is before they were upgraded and the plan looks like down to Taupo being done, so why not to Whangarei with a good future proofed road?
Yep lets get started!
Did you mean to post this comment on the ‘Worse Auckland’ blog? Common mistake
Just so so so so Dumb. And yet hardly any debate in the mainstream media. People dont realise what a massive ripoff this is sadly. PPP’s add to the boondoggle normally increasing the cost 250%
Text book example of PPP costs is transmission gulley – was meant to be $900M capital. Under PPP we are paying $3.5B in payment over 25 years (25x$125M p.a.). Please stop and understand this ripoff $900M becomes $3.5B. Sure there are some interest costs and maintenance costs as well but here the government got caught and had to chip in additional $400M with capital overruns and covid costs. Its so stupid and costly that it points to possible government corruption – this should be commented on in the media (acting against the public interest).
Query – is the quoted $4B cost for walkworth to te hana include the PPP coz if it dont we are going to get taken to the cleaners.
What can be done to stop this being built in the first place?
Could a new government still cancel it or would the penalties be prohibitively expensive.
The secrecy and the rush to get started on this have a smell of corruption.
A others have pointed out, there seems to be little media coverage, what gives?
Nothing gives, its happening. A great investment.
$5 billion more expensive than a cancelled mass transit project that would have served hundreds of thousands more people – yep, that’s “a great investment”
people are upset about tolls but it is a user pay system same as the auckland underground shold be user pays , other countries have tolls on motorways and a lot employ people to collect tolls which is great for inemployed . the fee is not big , we visit Thailand and there tolls are much bigger but the bennefit is you have a centre lane that is 120kph go slow and get a ticket the bennifts outwy the tolls
We could spend that money on the education system though where it is badly needed.
It’s not a user pays system when any tolls barely pay 5-10% of the cost of construction, that’s why the fact the road is even being built is such a joke
Disclaimer: I live in Tomarata, off Wayby Valley Road. I also recently returned here after 14 years in Sydney, which is arguably the Toll Capital of the world.
My 2c –
1. NZ needs better infrastracture. The current traffic volumes are not indicative of future traffic volumes should there be a motorway all the way to Whangarei.
2. Yes Dome Valley is expensive per km. However, along with the Brynderwyns, it’s the most challenging part of the entire motorway to Whangarei. I would expect that costs for the next two stages would be significantly cheaper per km (but I’m just guessing tbh)
3. I drive Dome Valley a few times each week. It’s dangerous and frustrating – it’s not unusual to be crawling behind a truck doing 20-30kmh up either side. It’s a productivity killer. I would happily pay $3-4 to avoid that. The toll would be offset somewhat by less wear & tear and petrol used if I was just carrying on along a motorway.
p.s. trips across Sydney can cost anywhere from $10-$40 in tolls depending on route taken.
You’re dreaming if you think the petrol saved will provide any meaningful offset of the toll. Perhaps when petrol is $20/litre
Finally someone who understands the issue with Dome Valley – a murderous piece of road that is restricted to the crawl of the slowest vehicle on it.
Have regular travels on the road, long history of family in Wellsford – not unusual to have regular reports of serious to fatal accidents on that stretch of road – doesn’t need poor weather, just the normal driver minor whoops and you if unlucky another vehicle in the same space – or a very near miss if lucky.
Remember for four decades of the road needing to be upgraded as it is not safe and can’t be made safe for the level of use – even after 80 million just being spent on it – still classed as dangerous to drive on.
I think we can all agree Dome Valley needs some serious attention. Pondering – would NZTA consider a new tunnel for this section, and then integration into existing road for the rest, i.e. widening to two lanes each direction. Project costs could be massively reduced while still providing a more efficient road corridor.
Do you have examples where a tunnel has been massively cheaper than the other options?
We absolutely need a new motorway. Aucklands population will be reaching 2 million people soon!
and yet those people will be living within the existing urban area – so, actually, we need better (and more) rapid transit.
Just as well we got the CRL opening soon!
that’s not all. Airport to Botany busway should be accelerated, and the cancellation of light rail leaves a void in the isthmus and for Mangere where buses will not be able to handle intensification. Urban Auckland needs more public transport far more than Northland needs a $20 billion motorway. a $20 billion package of mass transit projects would do far more good for far more people
Burrower busses will be able to handle intensification because the vast majority in Mangere will choose to drive just like every other suburb in NZ where intensification just brings more parked cars on the road and almost zero mode shift (unless that’s what you mean the busses can’t get through).
“Urban auckland needs public transport far more than Northland needs a new road” Bulls**t.
If we have bad weather and the Brynderwyns and Dome Valley close due to slips and Northland gets cut off versus some more people drive their cars in Auckland just like the vast majority already do anyway. Pretty sure it’s not hard to figure out what the greatest “need” here is.
it is such a pity that dolts like James will only learn they’re wrong when they get their way, and get stuck in traffic because cars are just inherently space-wasteful and inefficient at moving people. A 2-lane busway can move the same number of people per hour as an 8-lane motorway in a fraction of the width. A 2-track railway can move the same number of people per hour as a 14 lane motorway.
The Northland roading problem can be solved for far less cost with a programme of simple and practical upgrades to the existing roads. More benefit across more of the road network.
But “rightists” have always been hypocrites. They don’t care about fiscal responsibility, they’re just selfish jackasses who get a hardon for going fast and probably have fantasies about running over people they don’t like
The Labour Party borrowed $66 Billion dollars during the Covid era, google it. It makes the motorway from Warkworth to Whangarei seem cheap?