Timothy
Welch, University
of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau
In
an election campaign, not all transport spending is talked
about in the same way. A new motorway might be presented as
an
investment in the economy, while subsidising public
transport can
stir debate about the cost to taxpayers.
This
election is no different. National is promising more
major roads, while Labour
and the
Greens are pledging public transport fare caps, among
other measures. The latter proposals have already attracted
scrutiny over how they’d be paid
for.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
Moreover, these debates tend to ignore some
obvious realities facing households in 2026. Amid soaring
petrol and diesel prices, neither new roads nor commitments
to onshore fuel reserves would do much to ease the
immediate cost pressures on motorists.
And fare
caps and subsidies can
do little to improve a public transport system that is
unreliable or simply unavailable in many places. For many
New Zealanders, driving isn’t a choice but
a necessity.
Arguably, transport decisions made
over the past three years have hardly eased that dependence.
What happens over the coming three could determine whether
New Zealanders gain more transport choices, or remain just
as dependent on their cars.
The cost of having
no alternative
On paper, New Zealand is spending
impressive sums on public transport.
The
government’s current
National Land Transport Programme allocates NZ$6.4
billion to public transport infrastructure and services over
three years, including a
41% increase in indicative funding for operating
services.
But the government also
expects councils to recover more of their public
transport costs through passenger fares and other revenue.
That could mean higher fares, making public transport less
attractive to people who already own cars.
Much of
this electoral term has meanwhile been spent reversing,
replacing or scrapping the previous transport policies,
including some
free and discounted public transport fares, the
Clean Car Discount and the
Road to Zero safety strategy.
In 2024,
transport accounted for 18% of New Zealand’s gross
greenhouse gas emissions, with road transport responsible
for 91%
of that total. Yet the transport programme forecasts $7
billion for state highway improvements and $460 million for
walking and cycling, largely to complete existing projects
and maintain infrastructure.
Its explanation for
the lack of new walking and cycling projects was notably
brief: “no available funding”. As well as carbon
budgets, a car-centred transport system can weigh
considerably on household ones, particularly when people
have little choice about how they travel.
Consider
a family moving somewhere with a cheaper mortgage, only to
discover both adults need cars to get to work. Once
repayments, insurance and repairs are included, the savings
on housing begin to disappear.
And once a household
owns a car, taking public transport may offer little
financial incentive. Most ownership costs remain the same
whether the car is driven or not, leaving bus fares to
compete with the cost of petrol and parking.
An
electric car might save on fuel, but not everyone can afford
one. For families relying on an old petrol car, a reliable
bus to schools and shops may be more immediately
useful.
What should the next government
deliver?
Aside from the immediate cost of getting
around, the next government faces difficult decisions about
maintaining existing infrastructure and funding new
projects.
Across New Zealand’s infrastructure, Te
Waihanga (the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission) expects
around 60% of future spending to be needed for renewal
and replacement. Every new road adds to the maintenance bill
taxpayers will eventually have to foot.
New public
transport infrastructure can of course make a positive
difference, provided the services needed to support it are
properly funded. Auckland’s rail network recorded
528,007 boardings in the City Rail Link’s first week,
its busiest week ever. While some passengers were simply
trying it out, the figures suggest considerable public
interest.
But attracting passengers is only the
beginning. Keeping them requires operating funding,
connecting services and affordable fares. Labour’s promise
to cap weekly public transport fares at $20 in the main
centres and $10 elsewhere could reduce costs for commuters,
but cheaper tickets alone won’t help people whose bus or
train services are over-stretched or
unreliable.
Major road projects deserve similar
scrutiny. A new lane can look like the obvious cure for
congestion. Once it opens, though, people change routes,
travel at busier times or make trips they previously
avoided. A study
of US cities found driving grew roughly in proportion to
interstate highway capacity.
That presents a
challenge for promises to build our way out of congestion,
and one that should be reflected in project business cases.
The full costs also need to be clear, particularly where
private finance is involved and investors expect a
return.
Motorists also face changes to how they pay
for using the road network.
The government is
working towards replacing petrol excise duty with road
user charges for all vehicles, meaning motorists would pay
according to distance travelled rather than fuel purchased.
It has also enabled councils to develop congestion
charges for busy roads at peak times, subject to
approval.
Both approaches have potential benefits,
but their effects will depend on how they are implemented.
Families living further from city centres need to know what
they’d be paying over a normal week. Any promised public
transport alternative needs a realistic route, timetable and
budget.
And importantly, not every improvement
requires a major new project. Councils should be able to
extend a bus lane or fix a dangerous crossing within a
three-year term. Parties promising longer-term solutions
should also explain what can be achieved
sooner.
Ultimately, the test of an affordable
transport policy should be whether it gives households more
practical choices. That means not just cheaper journeys, but
reliable alternatives that could allow more Kiwis to get by
with one car – or none.
From the
cost of living to how best to tackle climate change, the
coming election involves some big
choices.
This article is part of The
Conversation’s Election
2026 series: expert analysis of the major policy debates
and the big challenges New Zealand’s next government will
face.
Timothy
Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University
of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau
This article is republished from The Conversation
under a Creative Commons license. Read the original
article.
