Ōtaki to north of Levin highway cost doubles to $2.1b, construction yet to start
The Greens' transport spokeswoman Julie Anne Genter told the Herald that going ahead with the road after another cost escalation was an example of 'the coalition Government ploughing ahead with a highway at any cost'.
She said the Wellington region would be better served by 'rail investment, along with safety improvements to the existing roads'.
The new figure was first reported by BusinessDesk, owned by Herald publisher NZME.
The road is a link in the Kāpiti Expressway, which connects the capital with the lower North Island.
The highway began as a proposal to take the expressway to Levin and beyond. The expressway is a road of national significance project and was built in stages. It links the Transmission Gully motorway with a string of four-lane, grade-separated projects along the Kāpiti coast.
It was funded to the tune of $817m in 2020 as one of the NZ Upgrade infrastructure projects by the then-Labour Government.
That programme was fraught and most of its road projects increased in cost in the space of just months. By 2021, some of the upgrade projects were dropped, others were scaled back, while others had additional money tipped into them to keep them on track.
The Auditor-General later criticised the upgrade programme for being hurried with a focus on announcing projects quickly – in many cases before up-to-date business cases could be completed.
The Ōtaki to North of Levin highway was one of the lucky roads to get additional funding to stay on track, with Labour increasing its budget to $1.5b.
In May 2025, NZTA went out to the community with some cost-saving proposals as it had escalated to around $1.7b. Those cost-saving proposals were mainly rejected.
BusinessDesk reported these changes were rejected because rescoping aspects of the project would have required reconsenting, which could have caused significant and costly delays.
An NZTA spokesman said the agency's board opted to put extra money into the project because 'it considers it a high priority relative to other initiatives included in the National Land Transport Programme'.
'The road will be tolled, as announced by the Government in December 2024, with revenue raised and returned to the National Land Transport Fund, which will include the maintenance for Ō2NL [Ōtaki to north of Levin],' he said.
Genter, who has criticised the NZ Upgrade roads since they were announced – despite being an associate transport minister in the Government that announced them – warned that tolling would not cover close to the full cost of the road.
'This project won't get the test of paying for itself with tolls,' she said, noting a submission made by the Infrastructure Commission to the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee last month.
That submission said that for a road to completely pay for itself it needed to cost about $32m a km, save motorists 15 minutes and have about 40,000 vehicles travel on it a day.
This highway costs about $85m a km and is expected to have more than 20,000 vehicles travel on it each day by the late 2030s, according to NZTA business cases.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
2 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Labelling rules ease for genetically-modified food made without adding new DNA
Simultaneously, the Government was considering a new regulatory regime for gene technologies used outside the laboratory, after it attracted 15,000 submissions during a select committee earlier this year. GM food or GM-free: a consumer's choice? Hoggard told RNZ last week there was some opposition to FSANZ's P1055 proposal during public consultation from those who 'don't believe in [genetic engineering]'. 'There was still some vocal opposition, so that was taken on board,' he said. 'Obviously, there was support from a lot of industry and scientific groups.' Hoggard said that in removing the requirement, producers could still choose to disclose gene technologies used throughout production on the label. 'There's nothing stopping anyone who is producing food that doesn't have any new breeding technologies to label it as such. 'We're not outlawing that people don't have to put these labels on.' He said it came down to the consumer's choice. 'So if the organic sector, for example, doesn't want to allow these new breeding techniques in their production, then people who also think they don't want to consume food that's had new breeding techniques used in them, then they can just buy organic and know that 'okay, that hasn't been used'. 'If this is something you're not worried about, then just go ahead shopping as normal. 'If it is something you are concerned about, producers who will be using the old methodologies will still be able to highlight on the packaging that, 'hey, we don't use the X, Y and Z' or 'we don't do this or that'. And you just need to go and look for that food.' Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard says producers can still choose to disclose gene technologies and label items as such. Photo / RNZ, Angus Dreaver Hoggard said to the best of his knowledge, no health issues had been raised from the consumption of GMO products, such as soya bean, for example. Meanwhile, GE-Free New Zealand spokesman Jon Carapiet said the eased labelling requirements took informed choices away from the consumer. 'It's really fundamentally unethical to take away the ordinary consumer's choice in the supermarkets,' Carapiet said. 'It's all about trust, and to say 'we're not gonna even trust you to make your own decisions anymore'... is really wrong.' He said the assertion that shoppers concerned about GM food would simply buy organic food instead was 'disingenuous'. 'The average consumer certainly can't afford to go and buy organics on an everyday basis. I wish they could, but they can't,' he said. 'So to say all the ordinary people of New Zealand don't deserve the right to choose, I think that's very wrong.' Carapiet said supermarkets could ask their suppliers to disclose the use of gene technologies throughout production to ensure transparency and to inform shoppers about the product they were buying. 'I think that in the coming months, if this does go ahead, companies will have to go above and beyond the food authority standards. 'If the food authority FSANZ says 'no, you can have GM crops and GE foods unlabelled in the supermarket', then it's going to be for the supermarkets to voluntarily label it.' Supermarkets commit to compliance In a written statement, a Foodstuffs spokesperson said it took food safety 'very seriously' and complied fully with the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code, including all labelling requirements. 'Customers have the right to know what's in the food they're buying,' they said. 'As part of our supplier agreements, we require partners to disclose country of origin information, and any environmental or social claims must be accurate and substantiated.' They said the same approach applied to food made using gene technologies, including GM ingredients. 'Any changes to regulation in this space will be carefully reviewed, and we'll continue to ensure our labelling provides customers with accurate and transparent information, so they can make informed choices.' A Woolworths New Zealand spokesperson said it will make sure its retail items comply with labelling rules. 'If the labelling rules in New Zealand change, then we would ensure all products comply with labelling requirements,' they said. – RNZ
Scoop
14 minutes ago
- Scoop
Greenpeace Turns On NZ First Over Its Support For Corporate Land Grab Bill
During today's public submission hearings on the ACT Party's Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, Greenpeace took direct aim at NZ First, highlighting the hypocrisy of NZ First's support for the Bill at first reading - despite its long-standing opposition to foreign ownership. The party's sole representative was notably absent for most of the hearing. Greenpeace accused the party of abandoning its values and backing a law that would see some of the country's most ecologically sensitive land sold to multinational corporations, even if those corporations have a criminal history and have broken environmental laws in other jurisdictions. "If NZ First does bend the knee to another of ACT's ideological policies then so be it," said Toop. "The voters' cards will fall as they may, and they may very well fall under 5%, but that will be the bed that NZ First makes for itself by signing up to a Bill that would see New Zealand being sold off to the highest bidding foreign corporation." The organisation opposed the bill on several grounds including that it removes the requirement that the Government check whether a foreign buyer of sensitive land has committed serious crimes abroad, such as breaking environmental or labour laws, or evading paying taxes. Sensitive land is outlined in Schedule 1 of the Bill and includes the conservation estate, offshore islands, lake beds, the marine and coastal zone, wāhi tapu and other culturally significant sites, and land adjoining these areas. "The Bill makes it harder for the government to decline the sale of lake beds, offshore islands and the conservation estate to multinational corporate cowboys," says Toop. "If this Bill is enacted the Government will no longer be able to impose the bare minimum of environmental conditions on the sale, things like biodiversity protection, heritage preservation, and allowing ongoing public access to public lands." The organisation also condemned the move to scrap the special tests for foreign forestry investment, pointing out that much of the devastation caused by the forestry slash and erosion, such as during Cyclone Gabrielle, is caused by foreign-owned forestry companies. Toop pointed out that Global Forest Partners, the 8th largest landowner in New Zealand in 2019 was registered in the Cayman Islands and asked whether the committee thought the forest industry had paid their fair share to rebuild bridges and roads destroyed by their industry. She suggested they hadn't and "were instead metaphorically - or literally - bathing in the Cayman Islands' warm, tax-free waters while New Zealand taxpayers footed the clean-up bill." "Greenpeace believes that all corporations, whether New Zealand owned or overseas owned, should be regulated to ensure that they don't harm the environment, but the Overseas Investment Act currently provides an additional tool that enables the Government to regulate overseas corporations, in particular, to achieve better environmental and community outcomes." "It is simply not reasonable to pass an amendment bill that says offshore forestry investments - which have already brought such demonstrable harm to the country - will receive less scrutiny and have fewer conditions imposed on them," Toop said. In a pointed moment during the hearing, Toop held up a placard reading NO, referencing Winston Peters' infamous "NO" placard and stated: "If the NZ First member of the committee had shown up he might recall that sign. Or perhaps it's been forgotten - as NZ First does seem to have forgotten a few things lately, like what it is they purportedly stand for." "This ACT party bill literally removes the benefit to New Zealand test so that it is easier to sell off New Zealand to multinational corporations. You'll have to forgive me for failing to see how that, by any stretch of the imagination, puts NZ First." Toop also criticised the Government's rushed consultation process - with the Government only allowing five hours of oral submissions on the Bill, all via Zoom. "It is undemocratic, but it's not surprising - especially from a Government who recently engaged in voter suppression. Add to that the new FBI office in our capital city, and you'd be forgiven for thinking you hadn't woken up in Aotearoa - you'd woken up in Trump's America." "Is it really too much to ask that this Government start governing for New Zealanders, not governing in service of foreign corporations and their offshore shareholders?"
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Privatising Road User Charges Risks Higher Costs For Drivers
The Government's plan to privatise the collection of Road User Charges, at the same time as moving all vehicles on to the system, risks adding to the cost of living for New Zealanders, the PSA says. Fleur Fitzsimons, National Secretary for the Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi says "it is concerning that the Government is moving to privatise a key government role - revenue collection - without presenting a clear, evidenced justification. "Administration fees on Road User Charges are already low, about 1% of the revenue collected, and do not make a profit for NZTA. Putting RUC in the hands of private companies, who will need to make a profit on the transactions, is a recipe for higher fees for drivers." "Ramping up driving costs at a time when the Government is failing to control inflation makes no sense. This is another example of the Government's reckless focus on privatising provision of public services, even if it increases costs to New Zealanders. "As we have seen time and again, privatisation means less accountability to the public and Parliament. It will result in less public control over how much drivers are charged. "Privatisation is a problem masquerading as a solution. The only people who will see any benefit from this scheme are the corporates who take their cut to gather the tax," says Fitzsimons.
