The Coalition Government’s land transport plan contradicts its commitment to bipartisan infrastructure decision-making and a reliable construction pipeline by investing heavily in state highway upgrades that lack broad support.
Transport Minister Simeon Brown said his $33 billion investment plan was a repudiation of the previous government’s policies which resulted in non-delivery and too many speed bumps.
He said the new National Land Transport Plan prioritised 17 so-called ‘Roads of National Significance’ to create a pipeline of roading infrastructure across the country.
Construction and infrastructure companies have been virtually begging governments to create a steady stream of projects they can plan around. A recent report said both left- and right-leaning governments have cancelled existing projects once taking office.
This contributes to New Zealand’s eye-watering infrastructure costs. Not only are resources wasted by repeated planning and design work, but also construction firms cannot scale up and invest in things that would make building projects cheaper and more efficient.
Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has begun to tackle this problem by restructuring Crown agencies and asking the Infrastructure Commission to create an independent pipeline. He wants cross-party support for a list of highest value projects over the next three decades.
But barely a week later, Brown was announcing an enormous infrastructure investment plan based around partisan policy goals, which critics say restarts the pipeline yet again.
Timothy Welch, a senior lecturer in urban planning at Auckland University, said the plan committed billions of dollars to do preparatory work without delivering any improvements.
“These projects could easily be sidelined by future budget constraints or changing political priorities,” he said.
Not shovel-ready
Matt Lowrie, a transport and urban planning commentator, said funnelling money towards state highway upgrades would result in many smaller projects being scrapped.
“And as it’s going to be some time before the big new roading projects are ready, in the next few years we’re likely to lose a lot of people and talent to other industries or overseas,” he wrote in a blog post.
“Meanwhile, in order to deliver on these promised big roading projects, that money will instead need to be spent on huge numbers of consultants writing business cases – which is exactly the kind of thing that the Minister accused the previous government of doing too much of.”
The National Land Transport Plan sets aside almost $18 billion for roads, $6.5 billion for public transport, $1 billion for rail, and just $460 million for footpaths and cycleways.
Brown told reporters that New Zealanders were “sick and tired of the amount of money” being spent on bike lanes and that active transport was in the “nice-to-have” category.
This was not talk that would win cross-party support from the opposition benches, where MPs are keen for more climate-friendly projects and public transport investment.
Press releases from the Labour and Green parties both criticised the Coalition for putting the majority of investment into roads, while neglecting rail and cycling.
Because none of the Roads of National Significance will begin construction until 2027, these parties could have a chance to scrap them after the next election and restart the pipeline all over again.
Some conditions apply
Even putting politics to one side, the construction industry may not want to count on building all these roads — as Waka Kotahi/NZTA may not be able to fund them all.
A projection of investment intentions shows annual expenditure ballooning to $12 billion, while road-related revenues only rise to $6 billion. That gap would need to be filled by taxpayer money, and is roughly double the Crown contribution over the next three years.
Waka Kotahi/NZTA said this forecast was “indicative only” and in practice investments will need to be prioritised based on available money and delivery capacity.
“Further additional funding or financing will be required outside of the NLTF to deliver on the aspirations of GPS 2024, as well as reform of legislation to allow for road pricing initiatives such as time of use charging, and the transition of all vehicles to road user charges,” it said.
Brown has asked the transport agency to consider tolling all the Roads of National Significance to help meet the costs and will support any recommendation it makes.
He also wants to impose road user charges on petrol cars from 2027 and has already planned to lift fuel excise taxes by 12 cents that same year.
Waka Kotahi also said the Government was expecting public transport fares and other “third party funding” to increase.
86 Comments
"...risks politicising infrastructure..."
That happened a while back, and seems to require picking sides as imaginatively following data seems to be beyond us.
I hope to god that the new infrastructure agency manages to create some kind of usable consensus in the future, as in the past it's all been adversarialism and agency self interest.
"New Zealand officials notified their Korean counterparts they were scrapping the Interislander ferry project via text message less than an hour before the public announcement.
That's despite the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) earlier warning ministers cautious talks with Korea would be required.
"Careful and deliberate communications with the Korean Government would be required in advance of any public announcement," the Ministry said in an 8 December memo."
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/526974/korea-ferry-cancellation-ta…
The ferry project - so desperately needed - was an inept dog's breakfast from design that had gigantic holes, to a budget that quadrupled, and finally cancellation in a way that'll make any other builder leery of dealing with us.
But is there going to be any accountability for a failure of this scale?
And while it's becoming ever more obvious the government wants to deliver the message that the days of vague, cost-plus projects are over, this is not the way to do it.
Note that it was Mfat that sent the texts , not Kiwirail. Who will get the blame anyway.
I'm slowly getting through the documents , turns out Kiwirail did not want to build at Kaiwharawhara , for the earthquake and resislence problems that have ended up blowing the cost out of the water . Wellington council , bluebridge and Centre port all decided it should be built there. This was in 2019.
"Rail is proven to be the most efficient,..."
Source ? Not everyone agrees with that.
https://transporttalk.co.nz/news/road-trumps-rail-industry-report-says
https://nzae.substack.com/p/rail-link-north-sound-islands-essential-hea…
https://nzae.substack.com/p/wither-rail-freight-in-nz-crump-heatley
those are all NZ links. Try looking internationally for stats on land transport efficiency. Rail is a lot better and more ecologically friendly.
In NZ the transport lobby carries a lot of weight, so having them not agree when they operate a subsidised industry is not a surprise.
That makes sense, but where on earth else would you put it? The whole area is a bit of a nightmare for infrastructure, access and land stability. Move it up the coast somewhere?
And who was responsible for signing off on the creation of such an ill-conceived plan? And will they or their advisors be made accountable? I suspect not.
Not sure where King's wharf is - Queens Wharf? That's awfully central for road transport.
Doesn't the harbour get a bit shallow in Seaview - which would mean dredging?
A Ngauranga location would mean road vehicles would drop straight off the motorway to a staging area and wouldn't wind up being decanted in to what is essentially the down-town area, while the rail line in to the city would have reduced traffic. That, at least to a layperson, makes sense.
The joys of agencies being fixated on their goals only. :-(
kings wharf us the current Bluebridge terminal.
Cant find the original report now , this Mot briefing contains the conclusion at the end.
https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/1_KiwiRails-Interisland-Fe…
I can't see logic in expanding roading given that it is a crude oil-intensive matter that requires yet more crude oil to maintain long term. Why not simply flag it and pump the money into public transport infrastructure to remove our reliance on cars. As populations grow, traffic grows, space becomes more and more at a premium e.g land for motorways to be built etc etc. I'd far rather have great public transport for lifestyle opportunities, as it will still cost maintenance, but be far more useful long term than ever-crumbling roads that people seem to have an insatiable appetite for.
I think you're ignoring human nature. Humans have always travelled and they have always done using the best technology available. To deny or neglect roads is to ignore this basic need. Roads are economically vital, but they are also psychologically and socially necessary too. To properly future proof them they should be the best standard possible to facilitate the most efficient travel. Your comment "...a crude oil-intensive matter that requires yet more crude oil to maintain long term" is too shallow. No matter the source of energy, fossil fuels, electricity or hydrogen, roads will still be required. Fossil fuels are only the current dominant source of motive energy, but that is changing. Will you have the same opinion if fossil fuels are no longer available but hydrogen is, in quantity?
Psychology is the main issue here more than anything which I've considered. I'm always open to new opinions, technology and viewpoints, and I never insinuated that we don't need roads, only that we don't necessarily need to continuously spend on the expansion of roads. Yes there will always be some need for them, but how do you propose we shift generations of families living relying on roads to adopting, promoting and utilising the raw efficiencies and lifestyle opportunities afforded by efficient public transport. We already know what many foreign cities have done and see the benefits of this vs our current and historic preference for the consistently-applied temporary fix of building more and more roads, only to have them hit capacity in 10 years etc. It's a vicious cycle. It is well and good wishing for new sources of fuel and technology to keep the status quo, but it isn't sustainable in the long term and is very very costly to maintain roading. I'm open to hearing what you suggest could be used in place of crude oil based bitumen, tar, fossil fuel derived gravel (diggers, crushers etc to process), in place of roads. Sure you could look at concrete slab, but again it is fossil fuel intensive to make.
NZ doesn't have large cities. By International standards Auckland doesn't even rate as a medium sized one. We live in a country where the population is widely dispersed. How can you make public transport work in that scenario? I think your paradigms are blinkering your arguments. I don't disagree that Auckland seriously needs a decent functioning PT network. I think Singapore provides a brilliant example. Politically though how would you get that through? My view is it is always cheaper to have started it yesterday. But we are not just talking about Auckland, Christchurch or Wellington. There is a lot of other parts of the country that needs roads.
Another thought; big trucks are most efficient when all their freight is sent by rail.
When the Fourth Power Law says that damage to roads by trucks is orders of magnitude more than light vehicles...
He also wants to impose road user charges on petrol cars from 2027 and has already planned to lift fuel excise taxes by 12 cents that same year
Why not adjust RUCs proportionally first?
They'd have been ok if they simply left the railway in Nelson and didn't rip it up in case of future opportunities. Alas, now were a great railway stood we have a walking and cycleway, which although useful, pales in comparison to the opportunities the region could have had if they had kept the rail network.
They already get overcharged on RUCs according to the MOT. Or at least they did when RUCs were last changed, inflation might have brought the actual costs up to meet the 20-30% overcharge on most classes of heavy vehicle RUCs
https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Cabinet/cabinet-paper-RUC-…
Points 23, 24 and Appendix A that shows how much over the calculated rates that heavy vehicles were paying.
Strangely enough that's exactly what the RUC Cost allocation method calculations do. But yet again as shown in this comments section, 90% of the population don't have a clue how they are calculated and sucks up the noise that is generated that tries to blame the heavy vehicles, when even by the govts calculations heavy vehicles are paying more than their calculated share.
Roads are heavily subsidized, but it's the light vehicles that are the most subsidised, as it is them that creates most of the cost. One more lane.. it's not for trucks, its for SUVs, Utes and people movers.
I disagree it is the light users who are subsidised, but your last comment is questionable on tone. Single lane rads make for very inefficient travel. Trucks have to travel at different speeds to light vehicles, and the speeds where they are most efficient varies too, so yes those extra lanes are for other vehicles and for good reasons.
Let's see your figures that show that light vehicles aren't being massively subsidized then, otherwise it's nothing but 'feelz'.
https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Cabinet/cabinet-paper-RUC-…, appendix A shows that light RUC vehicles were underpaying by about 7% at $76/1000km.
Petrol excise at 70c +gst (80.5c incl) means to pay the same $76/1000kms you need to burn 95L per 1000kms, (9.5L/100kms but modern cars do not do this, Priuses and the like are under 5L/100km, so paying about half the RUC rates.
And that's all at the 2020 prices, with 4 years of inflation and the extra weather damage to the roads of the last few years the rate probably needs to be raised to about $100/1000kms to actually cover costs.
Let's see your justification of how light vehicles are not being massively subsidized from general taxation.
It's also amazing when you overlay the places where they are spending with the location of cabinet ministers electorates.
South Island & NZ's 2nd biggest city - only 1 cabinet minister. So naturally significantly underfunded and overlooked.
We all know National only pay lip service to bipartisanship. What they really want is complete endorsment of their plans by all other parties.
The fact that the South Island, and Canterbury in particular was overlooked in this announced transport pipeline also shows National is lying about its transport spending being laser focused on the economy. For instance, there is no economic argument for providing 50% less funding to Canterbury versus the Wellington region. And there is certainly no rationale for why Canterbury gets the least transport funding per capita and in effect subsidises other economically less successful regions.
The below linked article shows that Canterbury is missing out on $billions. It is essentially political theft. Even worse, the previous government did the same thing. It seems the only bipartisan issue in transport that National and Labour agree on is they must shaft Canterbury!
Canterbury’s missing transport billions | The Press
"Justification for raising speed limit on motorway is ‘nonsense’"
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/09/03/justification-for-raising-speed-limit…
Great link.
The problem is that the GROWTH that Brown is wittering on about, is compound.
Doubling-time applies.
And they're down to teensy speed increases. Not even a drop in the bucket. Desperation territory. Bankruptcy comes in multiple forms; intellectual being one of them. What we are seeing with LG, health, universities/polytechs, the decreasing list of supported social networks - is all sheetable-home to the same thing; growth has plateaued. I guess they could point to the increased use of EDs via the higher-speed crashes, as an increase in GDP - they'd probably get away with it because no journalist ever criticises GDP's validity.
The biggest problem is that the length of road is too short and there are only 4 lanes (2 x 2).
Only multi lane highways truly accommodate the speed variations that are legislated as well as chosen.
Engine efficiency for many engines increases as their speed increases.
Ever heard of streamlining PDK. You're over simplifying. Flat plate drag is what you're talking about and that can be heavily influenced by managing shape. Many vehicles do exactly that. So no it is not bollocks. For big trucks that drag is huge. For light vehicles is can be very low. Think about it.
The $ 1 billion for rail is $ 800 m for Wellingtons new trains , and $ 200m for finishing the CRL. No new spending. We will lose that entire workforce trained for the CRL , and northland rebuild.
The Wellington trains were approved by Labour , this will be the fourth time Brown has reannounced them. Not a cent of new spending.
The logical way would be to continue building the overhead form Pukekohe to Tuakau , or Pokeno . but no , we will have to wait for the teams and equipment to be disbanded , and then pay to set it all up again .
As some of the commenters point out politics seems to be the fly in the ointment here.
While I think, based on the info I have seen, National screwed up when they cancelled the ferries. We still need them. It seems it was the terminals that were the problem, not the ships themselves. Too extremist.
But I am still concerned that this government is trying to fund the bulk of their roading infrastructure plans through taxes. It has been pointed out that roading is partially funded through deficit funding. I believe it should be fully funded by that means. Tolls at the end of the day are just another tax. But a fully funded project should require Kiwi owned and operated companies doing the work and building the expertise, and international conglomerates not being able to ship truck loads of profits off shore.
Perhaps what they are doing, despite the consternation, is to get things moving before they run out of time because politics will delay it all?
Just a little comment
Brown is calling funding for walking improvements (footpaths, street lighting, signals to let people cross the road, pedestrian crossings) as nice to haves. Whereas massive road building for roads that carry less traffic than a typical Auckland arterial is back to basics.
I don't like attacking politicians at a personal level as I understand that they are not all-powerful and are also constrained by public opinion but I am very confident in saying that Simeon is moron, he has no experience whatsoever working in the real world and is the worse transport minister this country has ever had, not just in living memory, full stop.
Yes, it's rather depressing. I didn't vote for the coalition but was quite ready to support them where I agree with them, and I didn't think all their ideas were terrible.
Unfortunately, the execution has been pretty awful, particularly in transport and health. Noting also the link between the two - forcing people back into their cars and off their legs is only going to make health outcomes worse in the future.
When I lived in Wellington Central and worked in Seaview, I noticed a big difference in shopping habits between those who shopped at supermarkets near the CBD and those who shopped at the Pak'nSave out in Petone.
Nobody was buying 2 litre bottles of Coke when you have to walk it back up Mt Vic.
“Meanwhile, in order to deliver on these promised big roading projects, that money will instead need to be spent on huge numbers of consultants writing business cases – which is exactly the kind of thing that the Minister accused the previous government of doing too much of.”
Yes, they seem to be a kick-the-can-down-the-road administration.
Just got a newsletter from MFE yesterday on their RMA reform program. It's not a reform program - it's an RMA amendment program. There is no work whatsoever on a re-write of the legislation. Just more (and I mean LOTS of more) tweeking. They don't seem to understand all that achieves is further complexity - as if the complexity wasn't OTT as it is. Seems like a make-work program for greater bureaucracy; more lawyering and more expert consulting needed.
I asked myself, how many amendments and new NPSs and NESs does it take to change a light bulb?. We've been through all the years of the reports/consultancies/submissions/legal drafting/select committee considerations before. They should never have dropped the earlier draft legislation - we should instead be amending IT, not the 1991 act. Sheesh. .
yes, pork barrelling at its finest, and more money for Beca et al to keep them going until the next election. No spades or diggers will hit the ground in any meaningful way between now and then, and the lack of concrete work this year is already leading to an exodus of experienced road workers to better money and prospects in Australia. In terms of trying to lock these in to avoid a change of government scrapping it, I can see them signing quite a few of these as PPP and making the out clauses suitably horrendous that it wouldn't be possible to cancel without some Venezuelan-level nationalisation.
Of course that also means that the treasury must lock in the future emissions as liabilities in the national accounts.
"But the total $8 billion price tag doesn’t actually buy new highways. The roads are several years, if not decades, away from becoming a reality. Instead, these funds will be dedicated to extensive planning, design and preparatory work, rather than actual construction."
8 billion dollars for no sod turned? Makes the three waters and ferry spending look cheap in comparison.
Brown has asked the transport agency to consider tolling all the Roads of National Significance to help meet the costs and will support any recommendation it makes.\
Tolling is pretty insignicant. For most projects it barely covers the interest on the loans, let alone paying back the principal or paying to maintain the road. Tolls would need to be like $30 each way if you want them to make a meaningfull contribution to the construction cost.
For about the first 10 years the toll on the northern gateway in Auckland didn't even cover the interest on the loan that was taken out to bring construction forward (and the loan only covered part of the cost). The size of the loan was actually compounding as the interest charges accumulated.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.