National Land Transport Programme

Waka Kotahi Transport Agency just released the National Land Transport Programme for 2021-24. This lays out what they’ll be spending money on over the next 3 years. Greater Auckland did a brief summary here.

This blog highlights a few observations that stood out to me.

Waka Kotahi is still coming to grips with the transition from a road-building organisation to a more holistic public agency that influences all sorts of other wider societal areas. In some areas they are making good progress. The CEO and Board Chair both seem to get it, saying that this programme is:

an ambitious programme of transformational change… that will support the transition to reduced emissions, keep people safe and ensure our communities are better places to live.

To make our cities better places to live and reduce carbon emissions, we need to give people better options than travelling by car. The GPS prioritised funding to support people using shared transport options such as buses, trains and ferries, and walking and cycling.

They specifically say this programme can help with housing affordability:

The 2021–24 NLTP contributes to addressing pressures on housing availability and affordability by enabling us and our partners to:

– increase housing supply and improve housing affordability and choice through sustainable development with central government, local government and mana whenua in our main urban areas

Chair Sir Brian Roche, CEO Nicole Rosie

Government have invested a lot in Auckland and Wellington over the last few years to comprehensively plan out their investments for the next few decades (ATAP and LGWM, which even get their own sections of the website), with the result that those cities get the lion’s share of the funding.

Christchurch hasn’t had this investment in planning in recent years, and as a result has largely missed out in this programme. Greater Auckland did this graph up showing just how disproportionate the current funding system is.

I wonder how much Canterbury’s missing out is due to the local leadership in Waka Kotahi. The press release for the Canterbury region is here. It’s got a very different tone to the introduction from the CEO and Board Chair. There’s no mention of enabling housing supply, no mention of impacts on urban liveability, and only a brief mention of climate change. Instead, local Waka Kotahi leader James Caygill starts the article with this summary:

This investment in our transport system will help support the Canterbury economy, make it easier to get around and save lives on our roads. It will deliver the best results for our transport dollar,”

It seems that in Canterbury it’s all about making it easier to get around, road safety, and bang-for-buck. This is very much a business-as-usual attitude rather than the “ambitious programme of transformational change” that the CEO and Board Chair are wanting.

This is reflected in the spending:

$1.2 billion forecast total investment

Over half the expenditure is just business-as-usual maintenance and operations. The $246m for public transport looks big until you realise that’s mostly just running the bus services same as we do now. $221m is for operations, currently we spend around $200m, so an increase of about 10%. The remaining $25m is for bus lanes on Lincoln Road and Colombo St south, buying land next to the bus exchange to future-proof for later expansion, park and ride site in Waimakariri, and a host of smaller miscellaneous items like bus shelters, real-time displays, and a new ticketing system.

Road to Zero is the next biggest item, which is mostly investment in rural state highways.

Then comes NZUP, which comprises the Rolleston flyover, Brougham Street improvements (most likely adding a third lane in each direction exclusively for freight), Halswell Road bus lanes, and more rural state highway safety improvements.

Brougham Street

$14 million for walking and cycling makes up 1.2% of the budget, which largely comprises the cycleways.

Overall this is a business-as-usual programme for Canterbury. We’re getting basically the bare minimum – enough to keep the existing systems going, a reasonable chunk to make our rural highways safer, and very little else.

This is very different to what Auckland and Wellington are getting. To me the most obvious difference is that they have ATAP and LGWM respectively. Central government has helped those cities come up with comprehensive plans for how they want to develop, and how transport systems will enable that development. Central government has never helped Christchurch do this, not even after the earthquakes. As a result Greater Christchurch has no spatial plan, nor any long-term transport plan.

Three years ago, then Minister of Transport and Housing Phil Twyford told us that central government would not invest in Christchurch until we had:

A joined-up and credible housing and transport and urban growth plan.

It’s got to be supported by all of your elected leaders and it’s got to be prioritised through your regional land transport plan, but I would like nothing better than to talk to you about what this plan would look like for Canterbury and how central government can work with your local government leadership to achieve it.

If central government refuse to invest in Canterbury due to the lack of a joined-up-plan, then they need to help Canterbury develop that plan, as they have already in Auckland and Wellington. That’s the only way Christchurch is going to grow into a 21st century city.

14 thoughts on “National Land Transport Programme

  1. Is the transformational change what the long suffering ratepayers and taxpayers want? Or is it just another academic exercise being driven by theorists using other people’s money, to do the opposite of what they want? The maxim, ” Two wheels good, four wheels bad, ” springs to mind.


    1. Yes, no, and not sure what you mean but you’re dangerously close to fulfilling Godwin’s law that whoever makes the first reference to Hitler/nazis automatically loses the argument.


      1. Not a show. One only uses Orwellian comments after already having won the moral victory. Your reply is actually the first mention of Hitler. Therefore I win!!!


  2. Excellent post! The investment in Christchurch seems a pittance. I wonder whether the lack of investment is a direct consequence of not having a shared local vision on transport and housing in our region. The three local councils and ECan are not able to articulate a shared vision for the Greater Christchurch area because they pursue their own agendas. I have a feeling that we will not make a lot of progress until this is addressed, maybe by implementing a regional authority for Transport and Housing.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Dyno – totally agree. It’s a nonsense to have three councils for effectively the same city. The two satellites have different priorities to Christchurch – and it’s hard to reconcile. We need to have a SuperCity created – or even a resurrection of the old Canterbury Province so that the entire region can be better considered as a single entity.

      With nearly a third of ‘Christchurch’ living outside the bounds of the CCC it’s all a bit of a nonsense. A single voice and structure makes more sense.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Yea it’s exactly that. I’m not sure of the best way to improve it though. There are a few different governance models have been looked at previously but never implemented. The RMA reforms coming soon might help, but I don’t know enough about them to really comment. All that is the long-game though anyway, we do also need to think short-game and work as best we can with the governance structure we have right now.


  3. a) There has been quite a bit f spending in Chch recently – Nothern & Southern Motorways, Accessible City and the major cycleways.

    b) Its up to the Greater Chch Partnership Committee to get a transport plan in place.

    c) NZ has far too many local and regional authorities for 5m. They should all become unitary authorities. One for Greater Christchurch and perhaps 1 for the rest of Canterbury

    d) If they are going to split the water authorities off then all the boundaries or NZTA, water authorities and unitary authorities should align. (may be 1 or 2 unitary authorities within a larger boundary e.g. Canterbury


    1. Cycleways and accessible city are both peanuts. Even if you include the motorways, Canterbury has still received less than welly and Auckland. I don’t buy the second argument. In both welly and Auckland central govt had a massive role in developing their plans (atap & lgwm). These plans need central government resources, it’s virtually impossible for a pile of local councils to develop these to the standard treasury requires without any help. Central govt has treated canterbury very differently to how its treated Auckland and welly.


      1. It almost seems like willful indifference in fact. Auckland is the biggest, so gets a slice of the cake. Wellington is the Capital so gets a slice of the cake. Christchurch is in the 2nd biggest region and has the 2nd biggest city but gets crumbs. Why? Because we are largely seen as being irrelevant to the country as a whole. This is the only conclusion I can reach…


  4. I should also say that the perception around the rest of the country (and presumably government) is that there are no significant transport problems in the Christchurch area. This completely ignores the climate change issue of course.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s