This is a guest post by Tim Frank
In June 2025 the Infrastructure Commission published a list of infrastructure projects that it had considered and endorsed as part of the Infrastructure Priorities Programme. Included in that list was the Greater Christchurch Mass Transit project. It also issued a list of 31 proposals that it had considered, but which did not progress to endorsement. Proposals were triaged out because there was insufficient information, was not mainly infrastructure or spoke to local rather than national need. Some proposals were withdrawn by the proponent; some were considered but not endorsed.
In my personal capacity I submitted 7 of these proposals that did not progress to endorsement. All of them were part of a wider vision of a unified national public transport system for New Zealand. I divided them into several initiatives, such as Canterbury Regional Rail and South Island (long-distance) Bus Services. Most of these were not progressed as the information provided was not sufficient, though one was considered local rather than national (the Chaneys Multimodal Interchange). That was not unexpected, as I had completed the proposals fairly quickly during a busy time in December 2024.
I was therefore in contact with the Infrastructure Commission on the kind of information required for such a proposal to be considered. It would require a fairly comprehensive assessment framework with clear monetary or quantifiable values. Significant research to quantify the problem was required. The potential solution and alternatives had to be clearly outlined, with well-supported costings and benefits. It was expected that proponents had a high degree of organisation. Clearly this was beyond one person, though well-informed, putting something together in a few hours. This required considerable work by specialists to put a business case together. The notion that anyone can submit proposals to the Infrastructure Priorities Programme is clearly not true. Considerable work and expense is required to put together a proposal that could be considered as part of that programme.
In June 2025 the Infrastructure Commission Te Waihanga also published the Draft National Infrastructure Plan in which it set out how to achieve better infrastructure decisions and implementation. As part of that it recommended that all Crown-funded infrastructure proposals pass through a transparent, independent readiness assessment before funding. That would ensure good practice and is likely to ensure better investment decisions. However, there is one big issue with that, the same issue that also plagues the Infrastructure Priorities Programme. New Zealand’s capacity to propose and assess infrastructure projects is heavily skewed. In particular, the expertise and money allocated to road proposals is far greater than public transport proposals. While the NZTA has considerable resources for assessing road projects, there is little for public transport projects. Planning for public transport is splintered between many organisations and it is very localised. There is no agency at all that is considering inter-regional and national public transport. This is a major flaw in New Zealand’s infrastructure planning and assessment.
The current Roads of National Significance programme clearly accentuates that problem with millions being poured into the planning and assessment of road projects without considering alternatives and no equivalent investment into investigating public transport infrastructure. Even Nick Leggett, the chief of lobby group Infrastructure New Zealand, which traditionally has focused on and supported road building, has stated that we don’t know whether spending so much money on these Roads of National Significance is the best use of money, because we don’t know what the options are, what the opportunity costs are and what else we could invest in. Without the capacity to investigate those options, we can never know.
That lack of resources allocated to public transport planning and investigation is even more remarkable as many reports indicate that significant investment in public transport will be required
in New Zealand. The Draft National Infrastructure Plan states: “Decarbonising our economy has implications for investment within land transport, reducing the need to invest in more roads while increasing it for public transport and active modes.” The Report Age-Proofing Aotearoa published by the Helen Clark Foundation and WSP states: “Local authorities should invest in alternatives to driving, such as more frequent, accessible public transport, community shuttle services, and better pedestrian and cycling infrastructure.” Generally, it recommends more focus on public transport and better urban form.
Overall, many reports emphasize the need for New Zealand to support public and active transport and to move to a transport system that is more focused on those modes rather than on private vehicle transport.
In the light of a clear need to support public transport and build additional public transport infrastructure, a first step would be to establish the capacity and dedicate resources to an agency that can investigate and plan public transport infrastructure and concepts. I would far prefer for public transport proposals to be thoroughly investigated, rather than floated by a few advocates, who do not have the ability to develop thorough proposals in a few hours of their free time.
TALKING TRANSPORT 