Manawatū Tararua Highway Should Open As A Toll Road
However, the decision not to toll the route is disappointing, says Infrastructure New Zealand.
'Not tolling the Manawatū Tararua Highway is a missed opportunity to help fund the ongoing maintenance and future resilience of this critical transport route through a 'user pays' approach,' says Chief Executive Nick Leggett.
'Tolling a new highway isn't about penalising the users of that road or the communities in the area. It's about being honest about the ongoing costs required to ensure the responsible management of the asset and ensuring that those who benefit from the road are making a direct contribution to its delivery and maintenance.'
'New Zealand's problem is that nobody thinks about maintaining a new road when it's nice and new, other than those who are responsible for building it. Those people don't control the money, though.'
'New infrastructure such as the Manawatū Tararua Highway comes with significant ongoing costs. Choosing not to use tolling doesn't make those costs disappear, it simply shifts the burden onto all New Zealand road users, including those who will never use the road,' Leggett says.
'If we want high-quality, modern infrastructure that is well maintained and resilient, we need to be smarter in how we manage and fund it. Having an annual amount of money generated from the road, means that New Zealanders can transparently follow that the money goes back into maintaining the road which generates it.'
'Tolling is one of the few tools we have that can directly link use with funding. It also helps protect the sustainability of the National Land Transport Fund so further investments can be made in critical transport projects into the future.'
'We need to be more inventive with how we fund and maintain infrastructure. Nothing should get off the ground without pricing road usage properly,' Leggett says. 'If New Zealand wants better infrastructure, it's going to need to do things differently at every stage of design, build and operations. That includes funding through tolls.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Surcharge ban a win for consumers but will it save them money?
But will it ultimately save shoppers money? This is the question, after the Government revealed its proposed surcharge ban this week. The Retail Payment System (Ban on Surcharges) Amendment Bill is expected to be introduced by the year's end, and the change made by May. The proposed ban follows the Commerce Commission's decision to reduce bank interchange fees that businesses pay to accept credit card payments. This change is expected to save businesses about $90 million a year. Surcharges at the till allow businesses to recoup additional costs associated with providing certain payment methods, such as credit cards and contactless. New Zealanders are paying up to $150m in surcharges every year. The Government says this includes excessive surcharges of up to $65m. Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson describes them as 'a hassle and an unwelcome surprise' for shoppers at the till, and says consumers will be able to 'shop with confidence knowing how much they will pay for their purchases'. The Commerce Commission will oversee enforcement. Consumers will be entitled to a refund if a business applies a surcharge. Consumer NZ welcomes the change, describing it as 'a no-brainer'. Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young is pleased changes are being made but warns that retailers will continue to face costs to accept debit and credit card payments and 'these costs will likely be added to product prices in future'. Hospitality New Zealand agrees, saying the move could result in higher prices because margins are tight. There was strong criticism from Dairy and Business Owners Group chair Ankit Bansal, who argues the proposed changes unfairly target small retailers instead of fixing the real problem – the banks. 'The reality is that large retailers enjoy significantly lower banking fees, while small businesses – with no power to negotiate – are left paying inflated rates.' The Government deserves praise for tackling the wider issue of costs associated with people using certain credit cards and contactless cards in shops. The reduction in interchange fees will help businesses. The surcharge ban will be positive for consumers and mean a more transparent process. But it's a fair bet that most businesses, especially those under pressure, will be unable to absorb any extra cost. Some consumers may well ultimately end up paying higher product prices at the till to compensate. Sign up to the Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Why we should appreciate the hidden and often undervalued benefits of art and architecture to our communities
Let councils work hard to save money on providing basic services so they / we can afford a few architectural gems that lift the spirit, boost the economy generally, and leave something special for all to enjoy. David Hopkins, Remuera. Power to the people Too many New Zealanders are paying too much for food, water, electricity and housing, essentials for life of every person. New Zealand produces these 'essentials' abundantly and cheaply to meet legitimate needs of the people. Why do New Zealanders pay so much? Your Power To The People article series provides analysis about people unable to pay high-cost power bills, disconnection/reconnection fees plus company responses. Every home needs basic lighting and power for cooking and heating at minimal cost, which requires cheap electricity. People in huge luxury houses, profitable businesses and high-tech data centres using massive amounts of water and electricity should pay market rates. The modest majority of New Zealand citizens and ratepayers want an equitable system, good wages and affordable essential services. This requires the Government and multinational corporations to do better act in the interest of our people and the environment. Laurie Ross, Glen Eden. Get housing right It seems that Housing Minister Chris Bishop thinks Auckland's main purpose is to boost the economy and he knows just how to achieve it – by building lots of high-rise apartment blocks next to railway stations without any consideration for the environment. Forget good design, volcanic views and character areas. He is driven by a mindless economic imperative that will allow developers to throw up the slums of the future. He portrays himself as a housing warrior but he will find that Aucklanders disagree. We want more housing but not at the detriment of this beautiful city. Margot McRae, Devonport. A bilingual world worth striving for Your editorial (July 30) sums up the continued opposition of some of our leaders to all things Māori. Changing the position of the words on our passport – puting New Zealand above Aotearoa – is a symbolically significant, but petty and ridiculous decision, which sadly may gain support from those who firmly believe English, and all things English, should forever come first. We have a unique culture in this country, thanks to the courage, persistence and generosity of the indigenous people, and we should treasure it, not fear it. The language, still at risk, is essential to the culture, so its status should always be recognised, and its wider use ecouraged. The English language, on the other hand, faces no such threats. It's always going to be dominant. A bilingual, bicultural country would be a goal worth striving for. I, for one, would rather live in it rather than in a colourless, defensively monolingual world. J.A. Mills, Whangārei. Passport to discovery New Zealanders travel. A lot. Most who travel as tourists do so to experience other cultures. How proud most of us are of our bilingual passport cover which acknowledges we are a forward-looking country that respects the indigenous culture of those who were here before. How embarrassing it is that our Government is changing this as if it's a good thing. Samantha Cunningham, Henderson. A unique bicultural society I enjoyed the irony in your editorial (July 30) on the proposed switch in the order of name on the cover of the Aotearoa New Zealand passport. Like, is this what is exercising our Government while our country suffers from the major effects of climate change? While house prices are out of reach for many families and homelessness is increasing? While healthcare access and treatment is limited? And the impact of inflation steadily bites the most disadvantaged citizens? Aotearoa New Zealand has a unique bicultural society which increasingly embraces the original indigenous culture whose language has sound and meaning which English, the second culture, does not. Nobody knows where 'Zealand' even is, do they? Christine Keller Smith, Northcote Point.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Oil And Gas Bill Passed, Taxpayers Left On The Hook For Decommissioning Gas Wells
31 July 2025. Climate campaigners say the government's Crown Minerals Amendment (CMA) Act is a 'golden parachute for big polluters—and a lead weight for the rest of of'. The Act clears the way for new fossil fuel exploration while gutting safeguards that ensure existing oil and gas companies pay for their clean-up. While the Act passed through the house, climate climbers took action at the largest coal mine in the country, and are still there (five days in) as this goes to print. 350 Aotearoa Co-Director Alva Feldmeier says, 'This bill is a legislative match tossed into a climate tinderbox. It doesn't just open New Zealand up to new climate-killing oil and gas drilling — it strips away financial safeguards, leaving taxpayers on the hook for future decommissioning costs. Without these financial securities and trailing liability, the government is at a higher risk of having to pay to decommission – or plug – a failed oil well. This is no hypothetical - the fossil fuel industry previously left the taxpayer with a $443 million bill to decommission the Tui oil field. The oil lobby is clearly writing the script— the Government is just reading their lines.' 'As floods and storms ravage across the world and climate scientists run out of adjectives to describe how urgent the situation is, Luxon's Government is forging ahead with reckless plans to search for new oil and gas, dig up more coal and shelve every initiative to reduce emissions that they can. It's another time we can peek through the drawn curtains of this government - a government run by shady lobbyists writing policy and being appointed to key positions.' Shane Jones said in Parliament on Tuesday that 'only the oil and gas industry was an 'affected party' that needed to be consulted on this bill'. Nelson local and 350 campaigner Adam Currie responds, 'We put it to him that those of us in Whakatū Nelson, cleaning up from the last climate-fuelled storm are an affected party. How dare he claim we are not an affected party, the very same week we were working together as a community to clean up the silt and the mess from climate-fuelled storms driven by the very gas drilling this bill would enable? We put it to him that every New Zealand taxpayer is an affected party, for the public will now hold increased liability for cleaning up oil companies' mess.' Feldmeier says, 'This bill does nothing for New Zealand's energy security. We know that new oil drilling would take over a decade to come online, and the International Energy Agency tells us that global demand for oil, gas, and coal is on track to peak well before then. It doesn't have to be this way. The people of Aotearoa have a historic opportunity to move away from fossil fuels to a clean energy future powered by wind and solar, which would mean more affordable, cleaner and reliable energy for New Zealanders. Instead of fiscally irresponsible false solutions, the government should be focused on creating a long-term energy strategy that charts a path away from this broken, fossil-fuelled system that is responsible for rising energy poverty and workers losing their jobs.' Fenton Lutunatabua, Pacific Interim Team Lead says, 'Instead of securing a safe future for all countries in the Pacific, the New Zealand government has decided to hammer nails into our coffins. Many will feel this bill is a betrayal to Pacific neighbours, but it is in fact a betrayal of their own future generations as well. We see the increased flooding in New Zealand, and we mirror that pain in our own storm surge and coastal inundation. How the Luxon government thinks that repealing the oil and gas ban is the right decision for any of our futures is absurd.' Feldmeier says, 'This bill repealing the oil and gas ban has forced NZ out of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) - an alliance that we were part of creating. Aotearoa once claimed to be a climate leader—today, we are an international embarrassment. Aotearoa helped build the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. Today, we've walked out on our own future—and become an international embarrassment. If climate destruction were a crime, this Government would be caught red-handed.' 'The Government is also jeopardising fresh trade agreements with the UK and EU, for MFAT advice confirms that restarting oil and gas exploration likely breaches these agreements.'
