A version of this piece appeared as an op-ed in The Sunday Star-Times on 2 August 2026, and in The Post online. It has been lightly updated to reflect events. (See also last Monday’s post: What will Warkworth to Te Hana cost us? And other burning questions)
Of all the candidates for worst intersection in New Zealand, Warkworth’s notorious Hill Street is right up there. A chaotic tangle of local and regional roads, for decades, it’s been a congested and unsafe mess.
Over decades, solutions have been cancelled and delayed. Throughout the 2010s, NZTA deferred any fixes until after the completion of an 18.5km four-lane expressway from Puhoi to Warkworth (one of the so-called “Roads of National Significance”, aka RoNS) at the cost of close to a billion dollars.
That expressway was completed in mid-2023, but three years on, the Hill Street upgrade remains on ice. Why? Because the community-endorsed design enhances safety for people walking and cycling from new housing to the local school and township.
Unfortunately, in 2024, then Minister of Transport Simeon Brown decreed that funding for local roads and state highways can only be used to improve driving, and gutted funding for walking, cycling, and general safety.
So, down the plughole went Hill Street, again, to the enormous disappointment of one of the bluest electorates in the country. Dozens of long-awaited and shovel-ready projects all over the country suffered the same disheartening fate, for similarly baffling reasons.
Meanwhile, the government charged ahead with plans for more billion-dollar RoNS. Under Brown’s direction, NZTA paid consultants to draw up designs that may never be used, and bought land that may never be needed, sucking away at least $323 million over the last three years from more urgent and frankly more deserving projects.
The RoNS have now been “reprioritised” by Brown’s successor Chris Bishop. But we are still barely starting to add up the huge opportunity cost of fixating on a fantasy never-never while neglecting to fix the basics in the here and now.
To put it in context: over 2024-2027, NZTA expects to spend $4 billion on new capital works for State Highways, largely RoNS – which is still well under Brown’s astonishing $7 billion ceiling. By contrast, local road improvements like Hill Street get a tenth of that: just $450 million to cover the whole country.
Clearly, Bishop understands how unrealistic the RoNS always were. Which makes it a mystery why he raced to lock in a multi-decade contract for “one more RoNS”, set to be New Zealand’s costliest ever road?
What on earth could possibly be worth so much to the entire nation?
Apparently, it’s 26km of brand new four-lane expressway from Warkworth, slicing through hills and forests in the Dome Valley. It’s being sold as essential to Northland, but stops on the fringes of Auckland, in the tiny town of Te Hana (pop:130), with no plausible hope of continuing beyond there.
The sticker price for this opulent duplication of a stretch of SH1 is $3.65 billion, of which $1.6 billion is covered by a Crown loan to NZTA; the rest via a Public Private Partnership. The Minister says a PPP is “like getting a mortgage to buy a house”. And just like a mortgage, the payments over time will drastically increase – and may even triple – the overall cost to the purchaser (aka the public).
For one truncated expressway.
Astonishingly, this would still be theoretically “affordable”, if the government imposed the fuel tax increases it campaigned on (12c/L in 2027, 6c in 2028 and 4c in 2029). Regardless, it will soak up the vast majority of all transport funding for any new projects for the entire country, for a generation.
That’s an atrocious opportunity cost, especially given traffic modelling confirms there’s no need for four whole new lanes anytime soon. Worse, the project doesn’t even touch the Brynderwyns, which desperately need resilience.
Meanwhile, safety improvements to SH1 through Dome Valley have radically reduced harm and disruption, a bargain at $80m. But instead of continuing nimble safety wins, NZTA has spent over $120m acquiring land for the Warkworth to Te Hana RoNS.
Auckland Council is sceptical, saying it’s seen no evidence any RoNS should be a priority. Mayor Wayne Brown expects Warkworth to Te Hana to blow out like Penlink, as “just another example of a gold-plated mega-project where decisions are made by unelected NZTA officials, and nobody gets fired despite their near-perfect record of cost overruns.”
Worse still, responsibility for maintaining the old SH1 – including safety upgrades and repairs after extreme weather damage – will now fall to Auckland Council, at great cost to ratepayers. So much for localism, and capping rates.
None of this makes sense.
Minister Chris Bishop showed some sense and bravery in walking back some of the RoNS delusion. But by signing this PPP for Warkworth to Te Hana, he has doubled down on the recklessness of his predecessor, shackling the whole country to one ridiculous road.
A Minister looking to leave a laudable legacy, let alone “fix the basics”, would have steered us in a more rational direction.
Processing...
Well if a community wants a design enhances safety for people walking and cycling from new housing to the local school and township. They can pay for it themselves can’t they.
Replacing a critical connection to Northland is a non- negotiable we know the existing state highway is not fit for purpose is one of the few inter-regional connectors with an 80k speed limit.
Yes the project is gold plated and I know it’s a waste but I also know Northland will get this or nothing so it’s this.
About time other modes paid their own way. There should be no more subsidies for any modes including cars/roads. Let’s see who
Are you suggesting all road funding comes from fuel tax and RUCs? Since everybody walks, we can take out the active mode budget just from rates and taxes. Didn’t know you were such a greenie, interesting.
@John of course I’m a greenie we’re the only people who read this blog come on.
@craw yeah it’s convenient but we know drivers will pay for it anyway so it doesn’t really matter.
So you’re saying I don’t have to pay for this road if I don’t drive? Oh wait the government doesn’t want to give me the option to not drive
What I’m saying craw is that we need to take the road portion out of rates and make it entirely RUC based, because (almost) everyone walks footpaths and walking infra such as bridges can come out of rates, roads should be maintained by NZTA so there is consistency nationwide and the added bonus there’s no funding for traffic calming rubbish which just ruins suspensions and causes more emissions. Projects like W2TH are just replacing the old state highways no longer fit for purpose like Dome Valley or the Brynderwyns.
Now I suppose the roads crowd could argue that if people want access to Ambulances, Fire, Police who also use roads should have to pay an additional fee towards their upkeep. Given we know most damage is caused by trucks they will need to chip in a larger amount too.
Speed bumps don’t cause emissions cars do
@craw that’s a blatant lie you know full well BOTH cause emissions. Just the concrete or ashphalt required to make the speed bump already did some major damage to the climate!
No need to build speed bumps if there are no cars?
Convenient how you waited until after the government signed off a $1.6 billion crown loan for this road to have the opinion that cars/roads should not be subsidised
“James”, all you have to do is look at a map to realise how insane Warkworth to Te Hana RoNs is.
This is not a project for Northland. It does not reach Northland. Te Hana is in Auckland.
It is barely a quarter of the distance from Warkworth to Whangārei.
I think GA and it’s readers would much prefer that, if anything, a Brynderwyns bypass was the first priority.
What’s the point of building a $4b road that reaches the Brynderwyns and has to close every time there’s a slip? That’s not very beneficial for Northland, because Northlanders, and everyone else, will be paying the tax bill for a road that doesn’t fix the problem, for a road that doesn’t even reach them.
If you actually read the article rather than jumping straight to the comments you might be able to form better arguments.
The problem here is that this person – and I use that term loosely – is a flamebaiter.
They’re not here to contribute, they’re here to disrupt and derail conversations. And they are succeeding in that.
In other words, they are poisoning this blog from within.
The best way to handle them is to simply ignore them.
What worries me is the role of admin in this. I obviously don’t know their reasoning for letting this person stay on but it goes against their own rules.
Maybe they think that it’s better to have a known troll on board instead of having to find out over and over again.
Maybe they have this (false) sense of ‘freedom of speech’ – I don’t know.
What I do know though is that they’re the host and, as such, have a responsibility to other contributors and the wider community of this blog. By letting this person disrupt conversations over and over again, they are, in my view, not meeting these responsibilities.
Very true Wilbert, I mean the fact that his comment above states “yes I know it’s a waste and gold plated” (compared to the drivel cope he was coming up with a few weeks ago) tells you that this is nothing more than an unemployed NEET with nothing better to do. He has entirely given up on any justification (because there is none) and is resorting to whatever mindless barb he can come up with next. Which is now apparently making people pay to walk.
Maybe if he keeps reading GA articles he’ll come round to the light side.
I’ll continue to advocate that the govt starts governing and stops managing.
NZTA or Infra Commission should control the portfolio, program and projects and must seek to get the best socioeconomic bang for every buck at a low financial cost
The govt role is to make sure they are doing so.
BCRs and FYRRs NTZA achieve would be comparable against other infrastructure projects and help determine the overall level of funding that goes into transport.
Voters get no say over infrastructure? Sounds a bit like AT before the council pulled it back in.
When politicians make decisions that make no sense to most of us we have to ask who is the decision benefits by either following the votes or following the money;
If we follow the votes;
The Mill Rd intersection cancellation makes no sense at all as it is a poke in the eye for a community that has consistently voted National. At the last election National’s Chris Penk won 58% of the Kaipara ki Mahurangi electorate vote and National won 48% of the party vote. I think we can safely say that f…ing Warkworth over with yet another delay to fixing Mill Rd will not impact either number sufficiently to be of concern to National. No significant vote loss or gain here.
Excluding the Maori Electorate, Te Tai Tokerau, there is one electorate north of Kaipara ki Mahurangi and that is the Northland electorate. At the last election National’s Grant McCallum won 36% of the Northland electorate vote and National won 36% of the party vote. Shane Jones also stands in the electorate and pulled 18% of the vote, just behind Labour’s Willow-Jean Prime at 22%.
The 4lane expressway to TeHana is probably best seen as a way to shore up National’s vote in Northland. Sure the road doesn’t get out of Auckland and it doesn’t fix the Brynderwyns but it can easily be sold via the glib arguments that the Brynderwyns are next and look all the money National are channeling into Northland. There are definite vote gains here.
Will this decision harm National’s vote in other electorates where this spend prevents other infrastructure projects getting off the ground. I also doubt this unless there is a concerted campaign to educate all those other electorates about what they are missing out on. It would be nice to see a billboard alongside the most congested part of the Hastings-Napier expressway saying something like: “The reason this road will never get de-congested is that National have just mortgaged the Land Transport Fund for the next 25years to build a road to nowhere* north of Auckland. (* ‘nowhere’ being Te Hana; population 130)”
As for following the money I have no facts to hand but I understand developers and the construction industry are strong financial supports of National so maybe this is the payback. Possibly someone with access to the details could chime in on this.
It is Hill St in Warkworth, Mill Rd is South Auckland.
Other than that, I agree.
I have lost alot of respect for Bishop on this (not that he will be losing any sleep over that, lol).
He was one of the better performing ministers and seemd to bring a level of urbanism others can’t manage to do. But this road is non-sensical and it gets worse the deeper you dig (e.g. total cost 10x budget for national maintenance).
It’s nice to talk bipartisanship on infrastructure projects but when you saddle future governments up to this millstone – and sign it mere months before the election – it just seems disingenuous.
And I’ve never got the preoccupation with Northland each election (not that this goes there).
I think the difference is Northland people holiday to, it’s a bottom 3 region of NZ but unlike Gisborne/West Coast it’s relatively easy to ‘fix’ due to its proximity to Auckland.
Plus politicians/wealthy have golf courses/business interests up there, and the region has come up with a unified wish list from central gov that’s fairly achievable unlike other regions.
I think both the major parties are trapped in a cycle of seeing major infrastructure projects as examples of ” Growth”. The lobbyists tell them it will employ x number of people and add x to local economy – and we can start building right now. Unfortunately the alternative idea of building hospitals or schools means they would also need to employ more staff and that always seems to hard for them to consider.
That’s what I never really understand (except by assuming it’s mainly large-company-lobbiyists doing it): Doing 15 x 100 million dollar projects is likely to be employing more people and creating more NZ-based spending than 1 x 1.5 billion project. So why not flog that argument? And it would mean you could do a lot more ribbon cuttings and show completed progress before the next election. Sigh.
GA please please go back to covering matters Auckland Urbanism related as opposed to this road. I have been deleting all of these newsletters in my email without reading them and I miss the stuff that I actually subscribed to GA for, cool urbanism and transport coverage of Auckland. PLEASE
Matthew, it’s a pity that you wish GA to give up its activism against this road as the spend on this road is very much going to negatively impact infrastructure closer to the centre of the region. Think north west busway, next harbour crossing, 4th main, etc. GA’s advocacy got us a much better outcome in Mercury Lane and I’m sure it will eventually have an impact on the expressway. Continue to delete if you wish but also how about creating a list of those things you’d like to read about or writing a post yourself on the urbanist topics you are passionate about.
Agree, it is getting a bit much.
If we are talking about government / elections / ministers, does anyone know what Labour are campaigning on in terms of transport? Still the unaffordable underground metro that is now even more unaffordable? Their obsession with “cost of living” implies to me they are too concerned with the current and not the future.
This is very much important for Auckland and Transport. Greater Auckland is very much about those two things. If it’s not for you, fine. But I certainly want GA to continue exactly doing what they are doing. It’s not an urbanism glossy ideas blog.
Hi Matthew!
We have a lot of exciting stuff planned for the next few months, so there will be coverage of other topics 🙂
However, it’s still important for us to cover things like this project, and given how much it’s going to warp transport funding over the next few decades and how the approach that was taken is really the exemplar for bad infrastructure – especially as you never know when a post is the first time someone’s read about something (and this is a repost of what I wrote for the Sunday Star Times/The Post)
Connor
“…with no plausible hope of continuing beyond there.” – this is just wrong. Not just plausible but it’s highly probable that once the section to Te Hana is done, they’ll start the next section. Gov changes will just delay, not stop the project. GA is focusing on whether it should (in their view) happen, not about whether it will.
They can massage the BCRs to make the project stack up (which is great for other projects as makes their BCRs even better), but the two goals are nation building and votes.
Kia Kaha Northland, which was the expressway, Port Marsden rail link, Northport expansion, drydock and navy move (they’ll partially follow the drydock although I don’t see them leaving Devonport) all look like they’ll happen to some extent, which should help Whangarei become big and bad enough to subsidise the rest of Northland.
Personally I think they should be reserving a corridor beside the expressway to upgrade the rail alignment, as if it works they will need better rail links and way cheaper to plan it now, and if they don’t think it’ll work they shouldn’t do the project.
Plus there should be some airbase further north just due to the synergies our navy/air force have, and trying to recreate the Devonport/Whenuapai dynamic up there.
Votes wise, voters like RoNS. It provides jobs, sense of progress, and easier trips. Other projects can also achieve this.
Freddy, you’re living in lala land. The primary objection to this project is not that it won’t be great for Northland, it is the cost. Hiding it all in a PPP or some other financial instrument doesn’t disguise the fact that National have committed so much to this ONE project it has signed the death warrant for anything like it again starting anytime soon. On top of this we have a National Party that wants everyone to sign up for arbitrary set of Fiscal KPIs that will see capital & PPP spend further throttled. Additionally, the on-going Gulf war and heightened fuel prices are scaring the government off increasing RUC and fuel excise increases as a source of funding.
We have a way over-spec’d and unaffordable project soaking up all available funding into the foreseeable future and alternate sources of funds drying up so we can draw imaginary lines on any map and fudge BCRs in any way we like but it won’t happen. Cash is king!
GA and others want turn this around around by starting with the available funding and asking what is the best bang we can get for these bucks. I support them in this and you are right “other projects can achieve … jobs, … progress, and easier trips”
Yes this project is happening, but the issue is that:
1. There is no transparency around the cost/details of this project
2. how much doing anything else is now harder due to this misuse of our collective resources
3. ensuring we do not get decisions/projects with the same horrendous approach as this project has had to scoping and procurement
“Personally I think they should be reserving a corridor beside the expressway to upgrade the rail alignment, as if it works they will need better rail links and way cheaper to plan it now, and if they don’t think it’ll work they shouldn’t do the project.”
Agreed, but they won’t even have considered it. If Northland takes off as they say it will from all this investment, a high speed rail line between there and Auckland central would be the next logical step. But planning, investment, building for the future etc never quite includes PT or, specifically, rail.