A decade later, it's conceivable the relative numbers will come much closer together. Project forward a few more decades, and the iconic harbour bridge (built in 1959) could be in the process of being decommissioned.
Maybe a tunnel will be built to replace it. That tunnel might be for cars, trucks and trains. That's another big and expensive project (costed at $8 billion currently).
In a world facing increasing energy and materials costs (imagine a tunnel costing way more), there's a question of value for money in a post-oil era. Perhaps in 2060 cars and trucks won't be crossing the Waitematā at all.
In that case, the cycling and walking bridge should be built with the capacity to add a rail line at a later date, maybe even a lane for electric buses. Build it with those conditions and it makes a lot more sense.
Carriage Two: Scrapping the four-lane highway between Whangārei and Port Marsden
Building major roads and maintaining existing ones is getting very costly. Budget blowouts are the norm.
Building rail lines is expensive, too. The difference is, rail will be relevant a century hence. Well before then, highways won't be transporting goods or people in the same numbers they do now.
Any Government can more easily maintain the existing roading infrastructure if they don't build major new roads. That thinking may be starting to take hold within the NZ Transport Agency, Waka Kotahi.
Shane Reti and National, however, have seized the opportunity to condemn the Labour Government for axing the 22km four-lane highway between Whangārei and Port Marsden. The rail line connecting the port to the main trunk line will go ahead.
It's possible that prioritising rail over the highway will eat into Labour's vote in Northland. It's not inevitable, though.
If Emily Henderson and Willow-Jean Prime want to hang on to their seats, they'll have to do the hard work of promoting an alternative vision of transport in Northland. One that's genuinely sustainable and equitable.
Carriage Three: Feebates for electric vehicles
This policy is where Labour, and the Greens, have got it wrong.
Subsidising well-off people to buy electric vehicles while poorer folk pay a tax on used petrol cars, on top of existing petrol taxes and GST, is morally dubious. The policy is effectively a regressive tax that hurts the less well-off and benefits the richest among us.
But that's not the only issue. The feebates scheme assumes prices for EVs will come down due to improved battery technology.
Otherwise, when does the subsidy stop? And where will the funding come from if fees on imported petrol cars are insufficient to cover the scheme? There are more than 4 million petrol-fuelled cars in New Zealand. Importing one million used EVs would require the feebates scheme to access $3.5b of funding.
A recent report by the International Energy Agency warned that at least 30 times as much lithium, nickel and other key minerals may be required by the electric car industry by 2040. The costs and logistics of this upscaling could see batteries, and therefore electric cars, continue to be expensive longer than politicians hope.
Then there's the message that the policy gives, that our car-driving culture is sacrosanct. We don't have to radically change our behaviour. We just need to get in a new kind of car, the environmental footprint of which is hardly benign.
There are better strategies for reducing the country's carbon emissions.
In 2005, the short-lived political party RAM (Residents Action Movement) launched a campaign for free and frequent public transport in Auckland.
Since then, many cities worldwide have realised the best way to get people out of their cars is to make public transport free. Christchurch is actively considering a two-year trial of free bus services. Simon Wilson, writing for the Herald, is a prominent supporter.
Of course, it wouldn't be "free". Our taxes and rates would be paying for it.
But driving a car isn't free either. There's the purchase and maintenance cost of the vehicle, the price we pay at the pump (or charging station), the insurance bill, and our taxes and rates to maintain roads and fund new ones.
Free and frequent public transport throughout the country would allow more of us to give up cars, whether petrol-fuelled or electric. Or at least reduce our usage drastically.
The personal savings would be substantial and the path to reducing the country's carbon emissions much clearer and immediate than subsidising a few well-off buyers of electric vehicles.
