SH18 Auckland – Upper Harbour Bridge duplication project – includes a new 3.6m wide cycle/walkway due to open at the end of 2007. It is clearly signposted for safety to ensure cyclists use one side and pedestrians and anglers use the other.

SH3 Te Awamutu to Kihikihi – 1.2km footpath link – a joint project with Waipa District Council. Phase one is finished with the second half planned for completion early 2008.

Upper South Island – Awatere Bridge near Seddon – due for completion early 2008. Cyclists will benefit from the 1.5m wide sealed shoulders each side of the traffic lanes and a handrail.

Dunedin – SH1, cycle lanes have progressively been introduced with further lanes coming into use in March on the southern section of Cumberland St.

SH88 Transit has widened three sites in Ravensbourne with the last location currently under construction. Transit also contributed to a new pathway developed by the Otago Regional Council between the Leith stream and Ravensbourne to ensure a safe cycle alternative to the highway. Transit is currently investigating the extension of this off road cycle route
through to Maia.

SH88 Transit has widened three sites in Ravensbourne with the last location currently under construction. Transit also contributed to a new pathway developed by the Otago Regional Council between the Leith stream and Ravensbourne to ensure a safe cycle alternative to the highway. Transit is currently investigating the extension of this off road cycle route
through to Maia.

This really needs to be done. It's bloody scarey cycling out that way. They need to put in a cycle way all the way to Port Chalmers. They could use the rail causeways.

Just came across this on Transits Northshore BRT (http://www.busway.co.nz/) website...

Who is allowed to use the Busway?

The Busway will be restricted for use by buses of over 25 seat capacity, emergency vehicles attending to an emergency, and authorised maintenance and security vehicles only.

So that's settled then. Until further notice this means;

NO...
Motorcycles, HOV's, taxis, or small (less than 25 seats) buses and SHUTTLES!

So this is real bad news for those of us who want to drive it with our inflatable sex toys! :lol:

So this is real bad news for those of us who want to drive it with our inflatable sex toys! :lol:
LMAO!!!!! :lol:

Ratepayers' rail share cut

ADAM RAY - The Dominion Post | Thursday, 19 April 2007

A dramatic boost to government subsidies for rail improvements will slash ratepayers' contributions for much-needed transport upgrades.

Funding agency Land Transport NZ has increased its subsidy for Wellington rail improvements to 90 per cent from the previous 60 per cent.

The announcement comes just a week after thousands of commuters were stranded when a rotting pole came down on the Hutt Valley line south of Ngauranga.

The boost will save ratepayers tens of millions of dollars, with these funds likely to be used for further public transport spending. It comes as a Greater Wellington transport budget review calls for more money to be ploughed into improving bus and train services.

Greater Wellington regional land transport committee chairman Terry McDavitt said LTNZ had "come to the party".

"We have negotiated that we are going to get extra work done for extra money."

The council's passenger transport committee has already called for more than $70 million to be spent improving Kapiti Coast rail services, including double tracking and two new stations.

Council officials are also working with government track firm Ontrack on a $200 million list of rail upgrade projects.

If these projects are approved, the council's share would be up to $20 million, instead of up to $80 million under the previous subsidy rate.

"The bit that we have saved, we have to make sure it applies to get public transport improvements elsewhere," Mr McDavitt said.

LTNZ central partnership manager Ian Hunter said the boost in the subsidy to 90 per cent would "make a huge difference to ratepayers".

The new subsidy will also be applied to a fleet of 70 new electric units being ordered by the regional council, though funding has already been agreed.

"This, combined with Ontrack saying, `These are the things we need to do', has given things a real lift."

The subsidy increase does not cover operating costs, which are funded through fares, rates, and government subsidies.

Mr McDavitt said a subcommittee that reviewed Greater Wellington's draft land transport strategy found strong public demand for more public transport spending.

The public transport network was already under pressure and this was likely to get worse, said Mr McDavitt, chair of the subcommittee.

"Accordingly, we want to see acceleration of investment in public transport capacity and reliability beginning this year not next."

The subcommittee wanted the regional council to work with Government to draw up a funding plan for improving public transport.

---- EOL ----


Awesome! I'm looking forward to the anouncement of a major Chch govt PT funding increase. Hang on - that'll never happen.

What New Zealand needs is about $5 billion spent on a rail. That would include linking up many of the regional centres in the North Island and probably the South Island including Christchurch having a suburban network. Nelson would be connected while cities like Timaru, Ashburton, Oamaru, Dunedin and Invercargill would also have efficient services. Possibly Central Otago aswell and the West Coast. It would ease pressure on overcongested roads, aswell as open up many of our smaller regional centres. A modern efficient rail system would probably have the same effect on New Zealand as when rail opened up the country in the 1880s and 1890s. What is probably needed is some kind of private venture or public float to do this. What it would do is significantly drive economic growth. :bash:

For $5 billion you could 4-lane SH1 from Picton to Invercargill among others. At an average of $3 million per km for expressway and motorway standard highway = about 1650km worth.

Car dependency is not what is needed. I have seen how successful rail is in Queensland and it a large reason:banana: :bash: why the state is growing so fast not to mention it facilitating growth. TOD is what New Zealand is timidly moving towards, but needs to fully embrace. Transit Oriented Development.

Now that the Govt owns the railway tracks again it's likely that eventually there will be some key upgrades. I've heard that a link to Marsden Point is quite likely, which may necessitate building the Avondale-Southdown link to keep freight trains out of Newmarket.

The nature of the beast is we will have some means of personal transport well into the future.

Maybe a transitory period of hybrid/electric/hydrogen fuelled and then later, hopefully, air mobile personal transporters (AMPT's).

But mass rapid transit is the logical option which I dream and hope for. I for one would prefer taking a train or ferry into the city for an excursion, work or the airport, but getting the groceries, I find PT or walking just too much of a pain.

Used to flat just 500 metres from Countdown Birkenhead, and we'd walk to the supermarket. Not just awkward carrying the shopping but actually quite pain fall :ohno: .

The nature of the beast is we will have some means of personal transport well into the future.

Maybe a transitory period of hybrid/electric/hydrogen fuelled and then later, hopefully, air mobile personal transporters (AMPT's).

But mass rapid transit is the logical option which I dream and hope for. I for one would prefer taking a train or ferry into the city for an excursion, work or the airport, but getting the groceries, I find PT or walking just too much of a pain.

Used to flat just 500 metres from Countdown Birkenhead, and we'd walk to the supermarket. Not just awkward carrying the shopping but actually quite pain fall :ohno: .

This mentality is something that pervades the "new world" far more than the old. Did you know that IKEA's success actually hinged on the ability of Europeans to carry flagpack furniture back home on public transport after purchase (with the exception of stupidly large pieces of course)? Public transport usage figures for mainland Europe far outstrip every "new world" country simply because provision and use of these services was seen as of the utmost importance. It is for this reason that across Europe public transport services are expanded annually.

People in cities in Europe take their shopping on public transport. Even in our small town of Northampton, the route 27 (now 26 I think they renumbered them) used to go to Tescos at Mereway from our area of West Hunsbury, and Mum used to do the shopping with my sister, and I would meet her at the bus stop and help her carry the shopping home. It isn't too difficult to do, especially with those new "green bags" that Foodtown and Countdown offer as they are far more comfortable to carry than the plastic variety. I know it might not seem as "convenient" as using the car, but it is without the hassle of parking, without the worry of your car being pranged by some brain dead loser throwing his car door open into the side of your car (I have had SO many fights with people who I have seen doing this). I would say that taking public transport to the supermarket and shopping in general is by far the least stressful way of shopping. I hate having to drive to the supermarket and I swear the lack of walking that I do here compared to what I did in England is having a detrimental effect on my health. No wonder so many Kiwis come and clog up my road with their cars and then walk across the road to the gym to exercise (though it doesn't occur to them to jog or cycle to the gym then home again saving them both gym membership and petrol).

Hehe. When I USED to go to the Gym in Highbury, I always ran to it! And that was when I moved to Birkdale, so a good couple of km's before, and after my work out.

Speaking of gyms I pressume you guys have heard of Fitness First and Virgin Active. At the moment both these chains are on a drive to open new gyms worldwide. Interesting to know how long it will be before the New Zealand fitness industry is dominated by large chain gyms.:banana:

Speaking of gyms I pressume you guys have heard of Fitness First and Virgin Active. At the moment both these chains are on a drive to open new gyms worldwide. Interesting to know how long it will be before the New Zealand fitness industry is dominated by large chain gyms.:banana:

That would be my personal hell. I loathe gyms at the best of times, especially in a country like NZ which is known for its "great outdoors". People need to be less lazy and get on bikes and start running in the streets. The country isn't THAT dangerous and nature won't bite people! We're not Australia where every creepy crawly turns out to be venomous enough to kill 500 elephants in a single glance.

^^^ So true ....well said ;)

I doubt any big multinational gyms would get far against the likes of NZ's international Les Mills.

Might end up going the same way as that big multinational coffee house - Star Bucks, which just can't catch up with that kiwi firm Robert Harris.

I tend to agree with Svartmetall about gyms, I think I lasted 2 or 3 months, then just went back my cycling - 2001 did the 160km Round Taupo, then had kids, so ended up just pounding the streets of the North Shore.

Did last years Auckland (Half) Marathon.

I doubt any big multinational gyms would get far against the likes of NZ's international Les Mills.

Might end up going the same way as that big multinational coffee house - Star Bucks, which just can't catch up with that kiwi firm Robert Harris.

I tend to agree with Svartmetall about gyms, I think I lasted 2 or 3 months, then just went back my cycling - 2001 did the 160km Round Taupo, then had kids, so ended up just pounding the streets of the North Shore.

Did last years Auckland (Half) Marathon.

The gyms in South Africa are fucking INCREDIBLE .... VIRGIN ACTIV (I would join just to say that I am a Virgin Activ member ;) The Tepid Baths scared the living daylights out of me ..... however I must say that Body Tech is good (especially the new one in Mt Eden).

The gyms in South Africa are fucking INCREDIBLE .... VIRGIN ACTIV (I would join just to say that I am a Virgin Activ member ;) The Tepid Baths scared the living daylights out of me ..... however I must say that Body Tech is good (especially the new one in Mt Eden).

But in South Africa you guys needed to go to a gym because it was unsafe for you to cycle or to go jogging at night... That is a different market force. In NZ there isn't this pressure.

But in South Africa you guys needed to go to a gym because it was unsafe for you to cycle or to go jogging at night... That is a different market force. In NZ there isn't this pressure.

EXACTLY but it doesn't mean that the gyms have to be 2nd grade here :nuts: Never settle for 2nd best ;)

I firmly believe that GYMS are BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH!!!!:bash: :)

I firmly believe that GYMS are BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH!!!!:bash: :)

^^ 100% absolutely and wholeheartedly agree. It doesn't help that my road becomes plagued from 17:00-20:00 by Gym Junkies and their 5L SUV's or 4x4's.

^^^ LOL

You'll be happy to know that I WALK to my gym after taking the Link Bus. BodyTech represent! lol

You'll be happy to know that I WALK to my gym after taking the Link Bus. BodyTech represent! lol

FANNY-TASTIC ... I wouldn't expect anything less from you :cheers:

People call for convenient public transport - govt builds motorways

Green media release 20-2-08 (via Scoop (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0802/S00320.htm))

A new Ministry for the Environment report shows that New Zealanders find sustainable transport options such as cycling and public transport are not convenient, and that is why they are continuing to use their cars.

So why, asks the Green Party, is the government focussed on making it easier to drive a car to work instead of putting our focus on improving sustainable transport?

"It is reassuring that the report finds the majority (53%) of New Zealanders are deeply concerned that we are not doing enough to protect the environment. We agree with them," says Dr. Russel Norman, Green Party Co-leader.

"But it also shows that only 22% of New Zealanders regularly use public transport and only 23% regularly have car-less days. This result reinforces the conclusion of Chapter 13 of the State of the Environment report that increased car use is one of the key drivers of environmental decline.

When asked why they weren't using sustainable transport options such as public transport, 39% said it was because of the inconvenience (time and 'hassle').

"This report shows that people want more convenient sustainable transport options. This means fast, cheap and comfortable public transport as well as safer cycling and walking.

"However the Government still prioritises spending on making it easier to drive a car to work, as witnessed by the billions being poured into new motorways. It is trying to improve the convenience of unsustainable transport options, the exact opposite of what this study says is needed.

"The report is welcome because it shows that most people want to make our environment better and are doing something about it. However, when it comes to transport, a move towards sustainability is dependent on the government making it easier to leave the car at home and the government still has its priorities back to front."

^^ I'd expect nothing different from the green Keith Locke is really starting to annoy me. No one has a worse accent than Sue Bradford too (Im on board with her bill but).

So I love motorways and think they are hot. I dream of the day when I can zoom on a 6 lane highway from Auckland to Wellington. Ive also mentioned that we in Christchurch deserve a motorway linking us to Ashburton and probably further. This doesnt mean I wouldnt like to see high speed rail between these centres as well.

They arent mutually exclusive people. And please dont anybody dare mention lack of funding means neither will happen. There is about 78 gazillion dollars in the entire world. Kiwis just need to work smarter at getting our hands on it.

You are exactly right. Sitting on $86 billion worth of potential resource wealth from 16 minerals alone does not help either. This is an issue most politicians seem to either want to avoid or ignore.

I'm sorry Milan, I'm going to disagree. I can understand your viewpoint having lived in So Cal extensively recently, but I have to say that having motorways everywhere is my worst nightmare.

Take a look at the statistics for PT usage in NZ cities that I posted on the Auckland photo thread in response to that American who wanted to know about car domination. These are incredibly low usage statistics on a worldwide front. It would be much MUCH better for NZ simply for our health to invest heavily in PT and then see what the state of the roads is.

I agree that some urban centres need to be linked by duel carriageway or even by three lane motorway in places, however, I reckon this should also be supplemented by a decent train line too during the inception of the road (if not before the road is completed) so that the mentality of driving everywhere doesn't become too engrained.

I need not begin to tell you about the abhorrent levels of carcinogens present in exhaust emissions and the deleterious effect that these said emissions have on health.

And oil bumps up to $100 a barrel...

A good motorway replacing a shoddy 'national highway' at least between our major cities will have many benefits; transporting of goods in a quicker time (not all businesses use airline or rail cargo) will help many businesses. Also a safety issue, the state of SH1 between AKL and Hamilton, SH2 between Auckland and Tauranga in relation to the traffic flows they take have been incredibly dangerous for many many years.

I maintain that we should have excellent roading infrastructure along side excellent PT. Once again, it would be good to see a high speed rail link between our main cities but consider that in the last few years with cheaper air travel (in the 90's you could easily pay $600 for a CHC-IVC fare) though that long distance rail will continue to struggle.

A good motorway replacing a shoddy 'national highway' at least between our major cities will have many benefits; transporting of goods in a quicker time (not all businesses use airline or rail cargo) will help many businesses. Also a safety issue, the state of SH1 between AKL and Hamilton, SH2 between Auckland and Tauranga in relation to the traffic flows they take have been incredibly dangerous for many many years.

I maintain that we should have excellent roading infrastructure along side excellent PT. Once again, it would be good to see a high speed rail link between our main cities but consider that in the last few years with cheaper air travel (in the 90's you could easily pay $600 for a CHC-IVC fare) though that long distance rail will continue to struggle.

In some countries much larger than NZ in land area, trains manage to compete for distances of 100 - 500km quite happily with aeroplanes. True that above that it is slightly more contentious as to the benefits of train travel, but there is still a decent share of travellers. In some routes in Europe over that distance the train actually operates as a code share with airlines!

^^
Between large urban areas(or atleast highly populated regions)

^^
Between large urban areas(or atleast highly populated regions)

I'd not say that all routes are between large areas - some cities are rather small that are on high speed routes, especially in France. Sweden has a high speed line running between Stockholm (Auckland size) and Gothenburg (Wellington size sort of) with not that much inbetween! Wellington with 450,000 in the catchment would be a decent enough size to justify a high speed line - especially with cities like Hamilton and Palmerston North on the line too.

The amount of flights between Wellington and Auckland would justify a decent speed train between the two and people do largely prefer train travel to flying - I know I do! I HATE airports! The only reason the Overlander doesn't work is that its speed on average is between 50 and 60kph.

Also, it would be quite concievable to put a 160kph train between Auckland and Tauranga via Hamilton too, but this is as much of a pipe dream as a 6 lane motorway linking those cities.

Despite very massive public transport infrastructure, the French are often locally renowned for their car travelling. Especially famous is the now disserviced route from Paris down to the South. Highway infrastructure in France is quite present and very much frequented.

On the freight front I can see what you mean.

They run a tilt train between Stockholm (1,942,233) and Gothenburg (890,956) over a distance of 470km.
Thats a little different to Auckland (1,300,000) and Wellington (379,000) over a distance of 650km.
The topography is also far more severe between AKL and WLG than between Gothenburg and Stockholm. Even a tilt line would require huge works and tunneling to make it work. Without a mega investment I think a 200kph line is out of the question. With alot of work on the line you might reduce the travel time from 12 to 7 or 8 hours but still totally no contest with flying. A TGV could do the trip in 2½ hours but that would mean an entirely new route at a cost probably in the vicinity of $8-10 billion (conservative estimate considering all the tunnels and viaducts)

Auckland to Tauranga via Hamilton could eventually be a good route for a tilt should Tauranga break the 250,000 at some stage.

In the mean time I think upgrading the existing highways and building more expressway / motorway grade routes (ië: Auckland - Hamilton - Tauranga or Wellington - Palmerston North) is the best course for now.

Developing urban rail is another story and I think this should be further developed in Auckland and Wellington. Christchurch is more of a lightrail type of city in my opinion.

What MA said about France is true. Despite all the hoopla about the TGV system the fact is that it's losing money and new routes have been largely put back in teh drawer for now.
For the meantime atleast the aircraft and car are king. Certainly in NZ and most other countries.

Oh I know about the French and their car centrism - but they at least are not as bad as the Spanish, if we take Hull (2000) at his word, the Spanish experience the highest volume of car travel of any European nation.

I agree that SNCF have culled a load of regional routes and their network is nothing like as comprehensive as other Euro nations (even the British). But I used France as an example of using high speed rail to link smaller urban areas.

Careful about minimising urban area size Kaas, Auckland is well within the 1.4 million threshold and Wellington has a catchment of 450,000! I agree that the topography is a problem and therefore the route would be problematic at best, but then the same could be said for motorways and motorway building! Don't forget that similar arguments are used for and against motorway building across NZ!

I know you're a little more pro-road than me, though even I can see the sense of linking urban centres by Duel Carriageway, I still say that the train is a viable alternative if investment is put in. Short term cash injection for long term gain IF DONE RIGHT! Airports are a nightmare, always out of the city, check ins are a pain in the backside, waiting around for an hour after check in... Ick! Getting to and from airports in NZ is also a pain and is very expensive! A taxi from Auckland Airport to the city will set you back a lovely $60 if you're lucky, so multiply that each way if doing a return trip from Wellington to Auckland! It all adds up to the cost of air travel and if people sit down and break down costs, an attractively priced railway service that might take three or four hours longer in journey time (oh so detrimental) can end up saving money and stress in the long run. You can work on a train with a lap top, you can use your mobile phone, you can effectively do your business whilst travelling, unlike on an aeroplane.

If Milan can dream about erecting 6 lane motorways across NZ, let me dream about my high speed rail and public transit alternatives. :D

^^
I hate being in airports too.
In the ideal world should NZ win the lottery it would be great to step in at Britomart and watch the world wiz by to arrive in Wellington 2½ - 3 hours later.

The big cost draw back with high speed rail is that it can't handle the gradients a road can and a road can make tighter (100kph) bends. That makes road construction somewhat cheaper in a rough landscape.
My highway visions are a little more modest than Milans admittedly

The thing is though is that every person has a right to travel how they want without feeling as if they are morally inferior and being a horrible person. Cars, in all their forms (the oil-sucker to the hydrogen :D) exist and if people want to use them, they should be allowed. Thus the infrastructure should be provided. I am of the opinion that instead of the scare-mongering moral high ground way of coaxing people out of their cars or into more efficient ones, it is better to see it in a way that shows how humans are progressing in that they can create "healthy cars", they can make possible "healthy modes of transport", that we can all take advantage of such innovation... Therefore encouraging (and not nannying!!) people to change their ways. I (am about to) scooter, take the bus, walk/run -- not because I believe it will lessen my "carbon footprint" -- I hate buzzwords..., I am doing it because a. scooters are cool, b. I want more people on buses because it will encourage more people on it which will bring on more elaborate public transport options (like rail..which is cool) c. because I care for my fitness. I'm not selfish, I just prefer freedom. :D

By the way, I LOVE airports!!!

And if one is really scared that the world is going to explode, which it isn't, just be thankful that you'll be dead in several decades or so.

The thing is though is that every person has a right to travel how they want without feeling as if they are morally inferior and being a horrible person. Cars, in all their forms (the oil-sucker to the hydrogen :D) exist and if people want to use them, they should be allowed. Thus the infrastructure should be provided. I am of the opinion that instead of the scare-mongering moral high ground way of coaxing people out of their cars or into more efficient ones, it is better to see it in a way that shows how humans are progressing in that they can create "healthy cars", they can make possible "healthy modes of transport", that we can all take advantage of such innovation... Therefore encouraging (and not nannying!!) people to change their ways. I (am about to) scooter, take the bus, walk/run -- not because I believe it will lessen my "carbon footprint" -- I hate buzzwords..., I am doing it because a. scooters are cool, b. I want more people on buses because it will encourage more people on it which will bring on more elaborate public transport options (like rail..which is cool) c. because I care for my fitness. I'm not selfish, I just prefer freedom. :D

By the way, I LOVE airports!!!

And if one is really scared that the world is going to explode, which it isn't, just be thankful that you'll be dead in several decades or so.

It's not just about moral high ground, it's about the health implications of exhaust emissions. No offence mate, but you really don't know as much as me about this subject (unless of course you have studied in my area of study and I know you not to have). It's not about carbon footprint per se for me, it's about the horrific effects that cars have on the environment relating to US too! Are you trying to tell us that smog is a nice side effect of car-centric cities? I hope not! Concrete monstrosities of highways bisecting neighbourhoods, making walking anywhere difficult? No thanks! One thing Taryn said over all else about being in San Diego was that you simply couldn't walk a lot of the suburbs because the roads were not designed to be walked at all! :ohno:

Run an Ames test or a micronucleus assay using just ONE of the hundreds of nasties produced by your average car and you will be frightened too. This is exactly why I'm not keen on buses too as inefficient diesel engines are just as bad! Hybrid buses, CNG buses and hydrogen buses are much better, but CNG is still not perfect, which is why I support electric rail based transit til I am blue in the face. As for airports and air travel, I'm indifferent, I just hate using it and thus I (like you) feel my transport preference (rail) should be catered for, but guess what? It's not!

Also, about the world exploding I like to think about the fact that my family will still be around in the form of grandchildren, nieces and nephews and the such like, so I want the world to be a good place for them to grow up in.

Agreed. I do not doubt your experience regarding exhaust emissions and I, too, dislike them intensely because of the adverse health ramificiations. I'd give anything for cleaner cars (preferably not emitting anything that ravages a human's health.) I'm just saying though that not everybody, (I do though) wants to always be on a train to get to where they want. Some people like their cars. Some love flying and other prefer the good old one foot in front of the other. One day, the money, resourcefulness and technology will all come together to provide efficient and rapid alternatives to our transport 'fuelling'.

No, I don't advocate car-centric cities, they're usually the ugliest. No, I don't advocate smog-filled cities, they are not healthy. I think we should all take steps to keep encouraging human innovation to create other means. Humans are creatures of habit. That's why we still rely on oil because it's just so easy..so far.. and has been the way we have done it for so long. I just want we, as humans, to use the same ways of moving without deadly emissions on the side. One day, it will come. And as time progress there will be radically new ways of moving.

And if so much money weren't tied up in the oil industry, things would go so much faster in this direction. Bloody Exxon!

San Francisco is an example of a city which has really embraced Transit Orientated Developments, that's what they call them in Queensland. Some places are even ripping up parts of highways because they are not being used.

^^
They set up a bus depot at the old interchange where a double-deck freeway connected with the Bay Bridge (using the old on and off ramps). After the 89 earthquake they dismantled a number of unsightly 1950s double deck freeways, the most notable of which ran along the waterfront at the CBD.
Further there is BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) that has been operating for over 30 years now and ofcourse there are a few cable car and tram routes in and around the CBD.

They run a tilt train between Stockholm (1,942,233) and Gothenburg (890,956) over a distance of 470km.
Thats a little different to Auckland (1,300,000) and Wellington (379,000) over a distance of 650km.
The topography is also far more severe between AKL and WLG than between Gothenburg and Stockholm. Even a tilt line would require huge works and tunneling to make it work. Without a mega investment I think a 200kph line is out of the question. With alot of work on the line you might reduce the travel time from 12 to 7 or 8 hours but still totally no contest with flying. A TGV could do the trip in 2½ hours but that would mean an entirely new route at a cost probably in the vicinity of $8-10 billion (conservative estimate considering all the tunnels and viaducts)

Auckland to Tauranga via Hamilton could eventually be a good route for a tilt should Tauranga break the 250,000 at some stage.

In the mean time I think upgrading the existing highways and building more expressway / motorway grade routes (ië: Auckland - Hamilton - Tauranga or Wellington - Palmerston North) is the best course for now.

Developing urban rail is another story and I think this should be further developed in Auckland and Wellington. Christchurch is more of a lightrail type of city in my opinion.

What MA said about France is true. Despite all the hoopla about the TGV system the fact is that it's losing money and new routes have been largely put back in teh drawer for now.
For the meantime atleast the aircraft and car are king. Certainly in NZ and most other countries.

simply righting off rail because, at best it could only be reduced to 7 to 8 hours between auckland and wellington, is insane. if a train. with cheap fares and good travel options, would do auckland to wellington in 7 hours it would certainly be a contest... saying it isnt one is just silly and its views like that which mean we have had no investment in long distance passenger rail since the 1970's. For a start rail could certainly compete against buses and cars which you neglected to mention. For another, the difficult topography will cause problems for any dreamt of highway as well... and you know what? im all in support of a world class sh1! i think an improved highway would be magnificent. But that doesnt mean i aint open to first class rail connections as well! Its annoying when people arent open, and close their brain up to ideas rather than brainstorming and assessing all options properly.

also comparing auckland to wellington (rail wise) with sweden is a little off... queensland would be better, especially the Brisbane - Rockhampton route.

^^
The Sweden comparison came from Svartmetall.
I have had a really good look at this and I am still failing to see how a large investment in this route will pay off. The main trunk line dosen't pass a single main centre (or city of any size for that matter) between Hamilton and Palmerston North. This makes it very much an A to B (Auckland to Wellington and surrounds) route which in turn puts it straight into direct competition with airlines.
The investment required to cut the journey time to 7 or 8 hours would be huge (the topography being far more severe than between Brisbane and Rockhampton) requiring alot of tunneling, new viaducts and realignments meaning without a massive subsidy that tickets will not be cheap and will most likely be far more expensive than air travel.
Maybe I am totally wrong but I just don't see anyone jumping to make the mega investment required. Certainly as long as NZ has frequent and affordible flights and that these are done free of subsidies.
The upgrade of SH1 becomes more attractive as the vast majority of traffic is travelling short to medium distance. Relatively few vehicles on SH1 are doing the full trip from Auckland to Wellington. As well as running the length of the N.Island it connects a large number of towns and cities along it's route. Basically the point I'm trying to make is that an upgrade of SH1 serves multipule travel patterns. Local, regional and long distance. The use thereof is garanteed. The use of a tilt train or the likes on the Auckland - Wellington route isn't.

Apparently more people die in Auckland each year prematurely from effects caused by car exhaust fumes than die through car crashes throughout the whole country.

That's an interesting statistic isn't it?

San Francisco is an example of a city which has really embraced Transit Orientated Developments, that's what they call them in Queensland. Some places are even ripping up parts of highways because they are not being used.

San Fran only has a very small comparitively low capacity network when taken as a whole city metropol rather than just San Fran central.

BART is small and goes to very few locations. Caltrain is an American styled commuter rail which barely runs throughout the day. Muni metro offers a very good service IN SANFRAN CITY! Once you get outside of San Fran CBD, you'll see the usual motorways galore. Look next door to Oakland which is technically still part of San Francisco - loads of motorways and a huge crime rate, lovely. My friends got back from there recently and said that it was fairly easy to get around, but it wasn't that wonderful.

Traffic jams across San Francisco metropol are just as serious as across the rest of the United States.

Apparently more people die in Auckland each year prematurely from effects caused by car exhaust fumes than die through car crashes throughout the whole country.

That's an interesting statistic isn't it?

That exactly right, and that is why we should reduce congestion and bring in more efficient and smaller engined cars. :)

Im with you on this one sensible

"i think an improved highway would be magnificent. But that doesnt mean i aint open to first class rail connections as well! Its annoying when people arent open, and close their brain up to ideas rather than brainstorming and assessing all options properly."

Topography as you say in some parts of the country might be tough when building my dream SH1 HOWEVER... the Austrians have delt with it, Japanese deal with it ok, the Swiss do also. And have you travelled on the Otira Viaduct near Arthurs Pass. Worthy of a million design engineering awards!

"i think an improved highway would be magnificent. But that doesnt mean i aint open to first class rail connections as well! Its annoying when people arent open, and close their brain up to ideas rather than brainstorming and assessing all options properly."

Agreed but I seem to be the only one actually assessing the options though.

Others just say ''I dream of'', ''I want a'' etc but don''t actually look at whats involved or at whats practical

I think a 4 lane highway from Auckland - Hamilton and Auckland - Tauranga is not only practical, but as far as I know it's just about already happening. We have the Waikato Expressway which will create a 4 lane highway from Auckland to Cambridge, and then there's also the SH29 upgrade which will result in a very high standard link between Hamilton and Tauranga.

As a long-term project it would be good to see the Northern Motorway extended up to Warkworth, but the terrain in this area is pretty nasty so I imagine that would be a hugely expensive project. As far as I know there are also projects to widen SH1 north of Wellington.

Agreed but I seem to be the only one actually assessing the options though.

Others just say ''I dream of'', ''I want a'' etc but don''t actually look at whats involved or at whats practical

well for a start... you havnt proved anything youve said is actually practicle... nor have you come up with any solid reasons why rail wouldnt be. That is the only contention i have, that you seem to be listing anything that makes rail unnatractive... even if what you list makes no sense (for example claiming that all viaducts and tunnels will have to be rebuilt... which just simply isnt true). Your not assesing options at all.

and as for myself im not even writing off an improved auck-well highway... infact i think that section of SH1 is a joke and a better highway should be developed. I actually agree with you on many points you have raised re. roading.

well for a start... you havnt proved anything youve said is actually practicle... nor have you come up with any solid reasons why rail wouldnt be. That is the only contention i have, that you seem to be listing anything that makes rail unnatractive... even if what you list makes no sense (for example claiming that all viaducts and tunnels will have to be rebuilt... which just simply isnt true). Your not assesing options at all.

I never said that all viaducts and tunnels will have to be rebuilt.
For a TGV line yes but thats not even a remote option.
I also went to the trouble of addressing your posts

It's not proof but it's an assesment have had a really good look at this and I am still failing to see how a large investment in this route will pay off. The main trunk line dosen't pass a single main centre (or city of any size for that matter) between Hamilton and Palmerston North. This makes it very much an A to B (Auckland to Wellington and surrounds) route which in turn puts it straight into direct competition with airlines.
The investment required to cut the journey time to 7 or 8 hours would be huge (the topography being far more severe than between Brisbane and Rockhampton) requiring alot of tunneling, new viaducts and realignments meaning without a massive subsidy that tickets will not be cheap and will most likely be far more expensive than air travel.
Maybe I am totally wrong but I just don't see anyone jumping to make the mega investment required. Certainly as long as NZ has frequent and affordible flights and that these are done free of subsidies.
A TGV could do the trip in 2½ hours but that would mean an entirely new route at a cost probably in the vicinity of $8-10 billion (conservative estimate considering all the tunnels and viaducts)The upgrade of SH1 becomes more attractive as the vast majority of traffic is travelling short to medium distance. Relatively few vehicles on SH1 are doing the full trip from Auckland to Wellington. As well as running the length of the N.Island it connects a large number of towns and cities along it's route. Basically the point I'm trying to make is that an upgrade of SH1 serves multipule travel patterns. Local, regional and long distance.


But that doesnt mean i aint open to first class rail connections as well! Its annoying when people arent open, and close their brain up to ideas rather than brainstorming and assessing all options properly.

What do you think the above posts are?

It'll be interesting to see how things stack up in 15 years time if (when) petrol is 5 times its current price and there's some sort of carbon tax. I imagine rail would be a lot more attractive!

It'll be interesting to see how things stack up in 15 years time if (when) petrol is 5 times its current price and there's some sort of carbon tax. I imagine rail would be a lot more attractive!

The problem with rail is that even for a 7 hour rail trip - it is still far too long when a drive to Akl airport for an hour, check in lead time of say another hour, a half hour delay, fly for an hour, get bags for 15 mis, drive/taxi to destination in WLG of say half hour.

People catch PT for 3 key reasons:

1) Convenience,
2) Price
3) Speed

Rail from AKL-WLG is certainly not going to be cheaper than flying

Rail from ALK-WLG is certainly going to be slower

Rail from AKL-WLG is unlikely to be more convenient... though the only slight exception to that is that rail terminals are usually in city centres, airports are usually on outskirts of cities, so the transport mode shifting does make for a drag of a trip.

In London, if you live lose to central london, it is actually QUICKER (home to hotel) to go to Waterloo (now St Pancras) station, get on a Eurostar train service to Paris Gare-du-Nord station, and taxi/metro to central paris hotel than it is to tube to heathrow, wait, wait, wait, get on plane, fly to Charles de Gaule airport, and rail back into paris.

For AKL-WLG, that convenience factor is also unlikely.

And the eurostar is still losing money hand over fist.

So, for NZ, its plane and automobile i'm afraid... at least until petrol hits $10/litre

Bart and Muni sound like something off the Simpsons. But feasibility studies on successful networks like these and others is a great step in moving in the right direction. I believe Auckland is a few years away from experiencing Brisbane like growth. Best to prepare for the future.

I never said that all viaducts and tunnels will have to be rebuilt.
For a TGV line yes but thats not even a remote option.
I also went to the trouble of addressing your posts

It's not proof but it's an assesment





What do you think the above posts are?

mate settle down... look at your posts... yes you assess... with your OWN KNOWLEDGE... but that doesnt mean you can draw a conclusion. i respect your views but im not going to shut them down totally... i can disagree (which i do) but im not gonna state im the be all and end all and that my opinion is correct etc... im not saying thats what you are doing but you are shooting other people down and are not assessing THEIR options that they have bought to the party.

seriously i dont have time to do a 15 min slideshow presentation on here for you (which is what you seem to demand), i have too much of a life for that. its just some friendly discussion. take a breath. i dont hate you. i dont want to make me look smart and you dumb and id appreciate it if you would do the same... its just decent politeness.

I largely agree with you on a number of your points... just dont think your justifications stack up for throwing our eggs in one basket. Your basis for not supporting an improved NIMT rests on a bunch of "facts" you list... many of which are either wrong or over exaggerated. for example "The investment required to cut the journey time to 7 or 8 hours would be huge (the topography being far more severe than between Brisbane and Rockhampton) requiring alot of tunneling, new viaducts and realignments meaning without a massive subsidy that tickets will not be cheap and will most likely be far more expensive than air travel.". How do you know this? Im no expert but i know that for a 7 or 8 hour journey to be achieved on the NIMT you wouldnt have to do too much realigning, certainly no new viaducts and the only replacing of tunnels would be needed anyway for freight, which leads to another point. Any improvements to the NIMT would benefit freight as well and which would suck up a large amount of the cost (which wouldnt be near as much as you make out). Im not saying you are wrong, just "brainstorming".

The problem with rail is that even for a 7 hour rail trip - it is still far too long when a drive to Akl airport for an hour, check in lead time of say another hour, a half hour delay, fly for an hour, get bags for 15 mis, drive/taxi to destination in WLG of say half hour.

People catch PT for 3 key reasons:

1) Convenience,
2) Price
3) Speed

Rail from AKL-WLG is certainly not going to be cheaper than flying

Rail from ALK-WLG is certainly going to be slower

Rail from AKL-WLG is unlikely to be more convenient... though the only slight exception to that is that rail terminals are usually in city centres, airports are usually on outskirts of cities, so the transport mode shifting does make for a drag of a trip.

In London, if you live lose to central london, it is actually QUICKER (home to hotel) to go to Waterloo (now St Pancras) station, get on a Eurostar train service to Paris Gare-du-Nord station, and taxi/metro to central paris hotel than it is to tube to heathrow, wait, wait, wait, get on plane, fly to Charles de Gaule airport, and rail back into paris.

For AKL-WLG, that convenience factor is also unlikely.

And the eurostar is still losing money hand over fist.

So, for NZ, its plane and automobile i'm afraid... at least until petrol hits $10/litre

good points but... why would rail not be cheaper than flying?

The problem with rail is that even for a 7 hour rail trip - it is still far too long when a drive to Akl airport for an hour, check in lead time of say another hour, a half hour delay, fly for an hour, get bags for 15 mis, drive/taxi to destination in WLG of say half hour.

People catch PT for 3 key reasons:

1) Convenience,
2) Price
3) Speed

Rail from AKL-WLG is certainly not going to be cheaper than flying

Rail from ALK-WLG is certainly going to be slower

Rail from AKL-WLG is unlikely to be more convenient... though the only slight exception to that is that rail terminals are usually in city centres, airports are usually on outskirts of cities, so the transport mode shifting does make for a drag of a trip.

In London, if you live lose to central london, it is actually QUICKER (home to hotel) to go to Waterloo (now St Pancras) station, get on a Eurostar train service to Paris Gare-du-Nord station, and taxi/metro to central paris hotel than it is to tube to heathrow, wait, wait, wait, get on plane, fly to Charles de Gaule airport, and rail back into paris.

For AKL-WLG, that convenience factor is also unlikely.

And the eurostar is still losing money hand over fist.

So, for NZ, its plane and automobile i'm afraid... at least until petrol hits $10/litre
I've chosen to travel on the Eurostar for that very reason when I go from London-Paris in a few months time. I definitely see your point that rail has a long way to go to be competitive with plane and cars. In fact, I can't really ever see rail on the Auckland-Wellington service stacking up against flying.

However, I think the situation could be very different for Auckland-Hamilton and Auckland-Tauranga trips.

For example: Wises maps has the Auckland-Tauranga route as 204 km with a driving time of 2 hr 21 min. If the rail line could be upgraded to something which could handle 150 kph trains then this would become much quicker than driving. Whilst I have flown to Tauranga for business, for many people this would be too expensive. For Hamilton the situation is even more obvious, and commuter trains have even been trialed in the past.

I'm not sure what upgrades would be necessary to allow this speed of train, but surely in the long-run it will become viable. I can see places like Pokeno, Te Kauwhata and (god forbid) Huntly becoming commuter suburbs in the future, which would ease growth pressure on Auckland. Throw in a higher speed train and it could take less than an hour to get into downtown Auckland. It might be necessary to quadruple the tracks from Britomart to Papakura though...

mate settle down... look at your posts... yes you assess... with your OWN KNOWLEDGE... but that doesnt mean you can draw a conclusion. i respect your views but im not going to shut them down totally... i can disagree (which i do) but im not gonna state im the be all and end all and that my opinion is correct etc... im not saying thats what you are doing but you are shooting other people down and are not assessing THEIR options that they have bought to the party.

seriously i dont have time to do a 15 min slideshow presentation on here for you (which is what you seem to demand), i have too much of a life for that. its just some friendly discussion. take a breath. i dont hate you. i dont want to make me look smart and you dumb and id appreciate it if you would do the same... its just decent politeness.

I largely agree with you on a number of your points... just dont think your justifications stack up for throwing our eggs in one basket. Your basis for not supporting an improved NIMT rests on a bunch of "facts" you list... many of which are either wrong or over exaggerated. for example "The investment required to cut the journey time to 7 or 8 hours would be huge (the topography being far more severe than between Brisbane and Rockhampton) requiring alot of tunneling, new viaducts and realignments meaning without a massive subsidy that tickets will not be cheap and will most likely be far more expensive than air travel.". How do you know this? Im no expert but i know that for a 7 or 8 hour journey to be achieved on the NIMT you wouldnt have to do too much realigning, certainly no new viaducts and the only replacing of tunnels would be needed anyway for freight, which leads to another point. Any improvements to the NIMT would benefit freight as well and which would suck up a large amount of the cost (which wouldnt be near as much as you make out). Im not saying you are wrong, just "brainstorming".

ok

As pointed out, the road trip characteristics for the SH1 are lots of short-haul trips, so would be the same for the train, how many people would actually do the whole thing from Ak-Wgtn? Air travel wins easily fot the Ak-Wgtn trip at the moment whereas road and rail can do all the hops in between. A four lane SH1 disenfranchises all the land uses along it, become impossible to do right hand turns off, and right hand turns on to the road, but this is ignored as being to the benefit of all other users, so the same process happens all the way along it until no one on the route and enter or leave it. That is the usual problem of roading engineers with a fixation on speed and perpetual motion, rather than origin, transit and destination. Train trip characteristics need to be for 'regular and reliable' along the winding rail route, rather than flat tack along expensive straight rail route through unstable clay hill country.

A four lane SH1 disenfranchises all the land uses along it, become impossible to do right hand turns off, and right hand turns on to the road, but this is ignored as being to the benefit of all other users, so the same process happens all the way along it until no one on the route and enter or leave it.

Eh?
I really have no idea where you plucked that from
Look at your own 4-lane highways in Australia if in doubt. Plenty of right hand turns.

for rail to be competitive it needs to be the following

1) cheaper than air travel
2) faster than car/bus

if this is possible, well it remains to be seen. personally i believe so, with few MAJOR alterations to the NIMT. Lets face it, we dont know if it can be cheaper than air travel and that is what id like to see some sort of investigation into rather than simply writing it off on assumptions.

Personally i see improved NIMT rail (passenger and freight) mostly aiming at easing road congestion... cos i find a rail upgrade (by that i mean 'upgrade' not 'total rebuild') far more likely to be carried out in the near future than anything else. Just trying to put it in perspective.

I don't think the NIMT between Hamilton and Palmy is ever going to be much more than useful for Freight and Tourists. North of Hamilton there's huge scope to improve it to a commuter standard and so that higher-speed trains can run on it.

for rail to be competitive it needs to be the following

1) cheaper than air travel
2) faster than car/bus

3) frequent


if this is possible, well it remains to be seen. personally i believe so, with few MAJOR alterations to the NIMT.

Double track all the way (see frequent) = lots of new tunnels and viaducts on top of the realignmints etc = $ $ $ $


Lets face it, we dont know if it can be cheaper than air travel and that is what id like to see some sort of investigation into rather than simply writing it off on assumptions.

Air travel has the advantage of an existing infrastructure.
The NIMT line needs to go through a huge investment first which means that without massive subsidies it won't be cheaper than air travel (certainly not for the tax payer)


Personally i see improved NIMT rail (passenger and freight) mostly aiming at easing road congestion... cos i find a rail upgrade (by that i mean 'upgrade' not 'total rebuild') far more likely to be carried out in the near future than anything else. Just trying to put it in perspective.

An upgrade of some sort would seem reasonably likely.
Freight is the big potential money spinner. Passenger rail will most likely remain in it's novelty role as the frequency and speed will not be in the same league as air travel.
Another possibility is a roll on roll off train (ie: you drive your car/ truck on and drive it off at your destination) with sleepers.

i certainly should have added '3' (frequency) in yes, i agree, but TOTAL double tracking and all the associated new tunnels, viaducts etc etc is overkill! more along the lines of increased passing loops etc. i dont know what scale you are thinking KAAS but who says you actually need to add all that infrastructure? you?

the biggest problem with speed on NZ rail is poor rollingstock and track condition. i dont mind you 'writing off' rail but to exagerate the costs and scope of work needed (ridiculously) and use that to claim it wont be competitive is not only untrue but also a tad convienient. Furthermore your argument that the air infrastructure is 'already in place' as opposed to rail is slightly contradicted by your statement that freight will be a moneyspinner from 'some sort of reasonably likely upgrade'. My argument is such an upgrade could (and should) be utilised by passneger rail at the same time.

Interestingly your idea for a roll-on/roll-off car train is half interesting. Not for the car bit (i dont see that working at all, even im not that optimistic) but certainly i would imagine the only way rail in its present run down third world form could compete would be for a night train (maybe ten hours, with dining facilties and at seat entertainment with sleeper options) but i doubt we will see anything like that anytime soon.

Train link to Milford proposed
ODT, 28th February 2008

A TRAIN capable of carrying up to 500 people, running through a 13.5km tunnel, is the latest proposal to reduce travel time from Queenstown to Milford Sound.

The Milford Sound Link Rail Ltd proposal would ferry vehicles on a roll-on, roll-off electricpowered train under the Humboldt Mountains from beside the Dart River bridge in Routeburn Rd, to Gunns Camp in the Hollyford Valley Rd. Passengers would remain in their vehicles while the train travelled through the tunnel.

Milford Sound Link Rail Ltd chief executive and director Greg Harris, of Christchurch, said the project had been four years in the planning, and it would be three to five years, provided the company got approval, before the project could start operating.

Mr Harris, an electrical engineer, is the principal electrical designer in the Christchurch Tramway project.

The other director of the company is Colin Jenner, a civil engineer, who works overseas, but has a house in Queenstown.

The departure site, beside the Dart River bridge, was outside a national park, so was not bound by national park laws.

The site at Gunns Camp was in Fiordland National Park, but Mr Harris said it was not insurmountable to get approval for this area.

Facilities would be basic at each departure point, and there would not be a large car park.

There would be one 300m-long train, with locomotives at each end, and the entire trip from Queenstown to Milford Sound would take about two hours, with 12-15 minutes on the 600-tonne train, he said.

The train, which would travel between 50kmh and 60kmh, would be a Swiss-designed electric unit, which was used extensively in Europe. Fare prices had not yet been decided.

‘‘Trains are far safer than cars and buses. People have to stay inside their vehicles and the operators can have more control over them,’’ he said.

The train would work at peak times a maximum of about 12 hours a day and be able to take all Queenstown/Milford tourists.

‘‘Numbers have levelled out in Milford Sound. But instead of people sitting on a bus for 12 to 13 hours, they can do it in half a day and go somewhere else.

‘‘This can give the industry a real boost.’’

i certainly should have added '3' (frequency) in yes, i agree, but TOTAL double tracking and all the associated new tunnels, viaducts etc etc is overkill! more along the lines of increased passing loops etc. i dont know what scale you are thinking KAAS but who says you actually need to add all that infrastructure? you?

the biggest problem with speed on NZ rail is poor rollingstock and track condition. i dont mind you 'writing off' rail but to exagerate the costs and scope of work needed (ridiculously) and use that to claim it wont be competitive is not only untrue but also a tad convienient. Furthermore your argument that the air infrastructure is 'already in place' as opposed to rail is slightly contradicted by your statement that freight will be a moneyspinner from 'some sort of reasonably likely upgrade'. My argument is such an upgrade could (and should) be utilised by passneger rail at the same time.

Interestingly your idea for a roll-on/roll-off car train is half interesting. Not for the car bit (i dont see that working at all, even im not that optimistic) but certainly i would imagine the only way rail in its present run down third world form could compete would be for a night train (maybe ten hours, with dining facilties and at seat entertainment with sleeper options) but i doubt we will see anything like that anytime soon.

I suppose what it all boils down to is for a competitive niche the average speed needs to come up to around 100kph. That's a 60% increase on the current speed. The scale of the upgrade would be dependent on the desired / practicle frequency that trains would be running.
The roll-on/roll-off car train is a concept which has been used in Europe for quite some years. They typically run at night with sleeper accommodation onboard. But I do agree with you that it would most likely not work on the AKL - WLG route

good points but... why would rail not be cheaper than flying?

Easy... Cost of construction to upgrade the route to be suitable will make it prohibitive.

Please bear with my rather lengthy personal analysis on where I think problems are. I am no expert on such engineering matters but if I am to use a recent headline that it might cost 3 billion bucks to build a harbour tunnel in auckland, then logic suggests that it is going to cost an awful lot of dosh to provide a good AKL-WLG rail service on some kind of resemblance to even a medium speed european service, let alone a high speed one.

So here we go:

The line is 680km in length. The fastest time a passenger service ran the route was in 1969 (before the Mangaweka Deviation opened in 1981) which it took 8:45 mins of actual running time (9:30 in total time). Of the running time, thats an average speed of 80km/hr roughly. Presumedly the other 45 minutes was taken up by stops at stations to pickup and unload, and waits at passing loops.

Whether a current train could do it faster is debatable. The mangaweka deviation improved a small section of line. The record run was done by a single 'railcar' vehicle. Most major rail lines from memory have a line speed of 80km/hr maximum with the canterbury plain section south of Chch having up to 100km/hr. I would guess that this is mostly due to the curve sharpness and the natural inability for a 20 wagon fully laden train to randomly power around corners and gun it on straights like we'd do in a car for example.

So to better this and get the line running at something like 170km/hr which is what a typical medium speed long distance line would be in say the UK, we would need to massively improve the route's dynamics.

Assuming the general route alignment remains and that there will be no large major total deviations, we first have a lot of curve easement works to do. That is a lot of slithers of land from neighbouring properties. This has to be purchased under land acquisition laws and paid market rate for.

In other areas where curve easements aren't practical, say where the line skirts around the side of a hill, then tunnelling and bridging would be needed. This may need additional land on the approaches. Tunnels and bridges come at a rather high price.

To add to that, since our line speeds are currently low, we'd have to upgrade ALL of the existing track to support higher speed trains. Track systems that support higher speed trains are built to a MUCH higher standard, especially if they are also passenger carrying trains. This includes track bedding, sleeper strength and frequency, steel strength, expansion jointing systems, points.... everything.

Most of the NIMT is also Single Tracked. This is a bigger problem than you might think. For a start the passenger services will have to wait at a passing loop occasionally. Sure, this could be minimised by giving passenger trains higher priority and tweaking freight train schedules etc but the fact remains that passing loops don't necessarily exist exactly where one is needed to guarantee that a passenger train won't have to wait a moderate amount of time.

Added to the single track problem is the mixed mode nature of the track. Freight trains don't run as fast as passenger services would, so you would need to add a lot more loops in probably. Typically, high speed trains run on lines used exclusively by high speed trains. The same goes, but to a slightly lesser degree for medium speed trains. It simply isn't efficient to run mixed speeds on the same line - let alone a single tracked one.

Lastly, a single track does nothing to provide redundancy when a minor problem occurs such as a signal failure, breakdown of another train vehicle on the line ahead etc.

So since we cant justify having a whole new route dedicated especially for our passenger services, we'd really need to double track pretty much the whole line, with maybe even triplicate track in some busier section say between Auckland and Frankton Junction in Hamilton.

In addition, we also need to revamp the signalling system. Most NZ lines use TWC (Track Warrant Control) and some busier sections use CTC (Centralised Train Control). For example, the Midland line between Rolleston and Greymouth uses TWC, the Main South Line out of Chch uses CTC, but how far down the line I don't know.

TWC is inefficient and if we are to have higher speed trains then TWC isn't going to cut it. CTC needs to be used, but with all its protective and fail-safe systems, it's not cheap.

Rolling Stock? Well we don't really have anything but they don't come cheap. There isn't much point in getting some second hand old cast off since if we are to sit in a seat for 5 hours, you'd at least want it to be a reasonably enjoyable 5 hours - complete maybe with airline style entertainment systems and the like. People are happy to sit in a cramped seat for an hour by plane, but probably not for 5 hours by train when the 1 hour option is available.

So now you might get some idea of just how expensive it is likely to be to upgrade our NIMT line to realistically support a medium speed passenger service. With all that taken into account, I can't really see it being viable.

If it was to say cost $20 billion, which I think is VERY conservative, then unless there are some very serious cross subsidies from air an levy or fuel tax surcharge on petrol or similar, then I fail to see how the costs stack up in favor of building it.

For $20 billion, I think it would be far more worthwhile building a cook strait tunnel or bridge.

Thanks KaneD. That's a pretty good analisis of the situation.

Suppose that SH1 would be upgraded to expressway standards (combination of 4-lane and 2-lane expressway). My rough guess would be about $2 billion from Cambridge to Paraparumu (add $900 million for Transmision Gully and $500 million for the Waikato Expressway = a total of aprox $3½ billion). That's my guess

Suppose that SH1 would be upgraded to expressway standards (combination of 4-lane and 2-lane expressway). My rough guess would be about $2 billion from Cambridge to Paraparumu (add $900 million for Transmision Gully and $500 million for the Waikato Expressway = a total of aprox $3½ billion). That's my guess

I think the latest estimate that I heard is that the TGM ut of Wellington might cost as much as $1.3b. The Waikato Expressway was originally thought to have cost $700m when it was first proposed so taking cost increases etc into account, I would say that too will be somewhere around $1b mark.

As for the rest of the route - Hard to say what the cost would be. It would depend on how much of it is four laned and the prevailing terrain etc. I think 2-3 billion might do it as long as much of it was left as 2 lane, but with key intersections upgraded and windy and hilly sections eased. 4 laning the whole thing would be somewhat more.

Back on the train idea - there is an interesting read on this link at the ministry of economic development which is a report on the state of NZ's rail assets which certainly highlights just how bad our rail infrastructure is here. On Track has made progress upgrading some key routes, but my impression from this document is that this is really just the tip of the iceberg:

http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentPage____9035.aspx

Sadly, NZ has, and will continue to pay the high price of failing to invest in our transport infrastructure during 80's and 90's.

If the rail report is as bad as it sounds, then some serious money is going to be needed to bring it back to a first world network. And due to the massive costs, it almost seems hardly worth it for all but the most trafficked lines.

We are currently seeing the effects in Auckland now. While funding for land transport has gone up significantly in the last few years, it still hardly seems like enough? Why? This is because much of the extra funding is being soaked up by massive (and expensive) Auckland projects that probably could have been built for a quarter of the price had they have been built 10 years ago. This applies not only for the motorways, but also for rail too.

The result of that is that many other areas of the country will suffer. Projects all around the country are struggling to compete on the funding assessment schemes being used (Benefit Cost Ratios etc) because the Auckland ones drown them out. The result of this is that once Auckland get more up to speed, we'll have the same problems in Wellington, then Christchurch and elsewhere.

The sad fact is that for years and years... NZ authorities have always tried to either "do it on the cheap" all the time, or, they have progressed with ill conceived options, or, have chosen to only build infrastructure well after the need was there.

See in many countries, say the US and Australia for example, they will proactively build a freeway from an urban area to the fringe rural areas when it isn't necessarily needed now? Why? Because it enhances growth. It opens up more land for development... economic development. Here in NZ, we wait until it's needed, then have a few studies to find the best option, and usually will go for a cheap half assed option, or, in the rare event we go for the proper solution, we won't have reserved land or anything and because the area is already built up and developed, we'll pay high land acquisition costs for it. It is a vicious circle that we won't get out of if we keep thinking like this.

Really, more serious money needs to be spent. OK, where from. This is a hard question to answer. But we do have an imminent minerals boom? Maybe that will help generate the cash needed.?

It's amazing how the costs have skyrocketed. Back in 1999 the Transmission Gully project was to cost about $350 million I beleive and the entire Waikato Expressway for about the same price. In 1993 the Waikato Expressway was budgeted at $150 million.
Auckland is indeed a big problem and is indeed slowing development on a national level.
As it is NZ's transport infrastructure is running to stand still. A quater of a century of neglect is really showing.

that is a rather nice thought out analysis kaneD...but like you said you are no expert on such matters... there are a few things i must point out. you have over concentrated on track rebuilding (basing your reasons on god knows what) and certainly on track signalling etc which are largely trivial matters (trivial for online discussion on the merits on inter city nz rail travel anyway). like why yack on about TWC and CTC? its certainly an issue down the line (excuse the pun) but as far as this discussion goes just doesnt really have anything to do with it. CTC is only used to Rolleston i believe and i agree TWC is inefficient but what a silly thing to bring up in an argument against rail. Its so trivial i thought it was a joke.

However the most important point, apart from the fact that none of this can even be construed as accurate (except, perhaps, for the use of an example from a 1969 record run between auck and wlg... which is rather pointless as the railcar in question is 1950's, or earlier, technology) is the failure to indicate or illusatrate anything positive. Its all negative after negative which isnt really a good, or indeed proper, analysis at all. it just makes you look like you are looking for anything at all to blow the idea out of the water.

Im going to just concentrate on cost here... It all depends on who pays for an upgrade, who benefits from it, and who operates any potential faster train service. For example, if a new four lane SH1 were to be built the full length from Auck - Wlg would it become completely uncompetitive because no one would use it because the costs would trickle down to the user? would it? Would people stuff trucks and send by rail and sea and people use alternative roads and abandon cars in favour of air travel for the longer distance traveller? no of course not. Surely, then, rail should be no different? Oh no wait, rail must pay it own way, screw any benefits and lets use that as an argument so as to shoot it down.

It's amazing how the costs have skyrocketed. Back in 1999 the Transmission Gully project was to cost about $350 million I beleive and the entire Waikato Expressway for about the same price. In 1993 the Waikato Expressway was budgeted at $150 million.
Auckland is indeed a big problem and is indeed slowing development on a national level.
As it is NZ's transport infrastructure is running to stand still. A quater of a century of neglect is really showing.


^^Commercial Trucks run 24/7 in the fast lane in order to keep up with National/International deadlines.Private commuters have to leave for work at 6.30 a.m and there is now "serious" congestion on SH1 both directions ex Auckland City...... around 2-3 p.m time-frame.

Lack of investment and neglect from the narrow-mindedness of the original 3 lanes either side, is now a very "ugly" process with which to negate on a daily basis.

^^ I don't think you quite get it sensible.

I wasn't trying to write off any idea of having rail - I actually quite like the idea of being able to get around the country long distance by rail.

If our rail network was generally up to standard, then I might say yeah sure, go for it. But the reality is far from the silver lined tunnels that you seem to think we have. Even the ministry of economic development report says as much about our network.

I get the impression that you think we can run medium speed trains on our current network or can otherwise do it for a rather modest sum of cash.

My costing figures were by no means accurate, but Transits costing of $3b for a new harbour tunnel and associated approach works clearly suggests that upgrading a 600-odd kilometre rail line is clearly going to cost a lot of money. This seems logical by anyones stretch of the imagination.

Upgrading a track system just by throwing a few sleepers and bits of steel on a pile of ballast isn't the way to build a railway either. Issues such as double tracking, curve alignments, bridging and tunnels, signaling are very real issues, and very expensive ones.

I didn't even make any mention about costs associated with Resource Management Act costs, Environment Court costs, Stations and associated facilities, Staffing costs to run, ability to recruit enough staff to perform the massive amount of work, timeframes and effects of inflation and so on.

I also didn't take into account that since we only have a set pool of money for land transport, if the govt did divert massive sums of money from roading, then what would happen to our roading network? As it is, the funds allocated to it are barely able to keep up with the demand to complete major projects, let alone if we divert half of it.

I might not be an engineer, or finance minister etc, but I've read enough reviews, media releases and other general background information regarding rail among other transport issues to be able to make a fair and reasonable 'personal' judgement on the matter. My comments are on the topic of the forum and am happy to share those with other interested parties - hopefully I'll hear some of the other members ideas and thoughts on the issues back.

As for your comments about the four lane road from AKL-WLG. This is pathetic. If the road was tolled (which it would have to be to support your argument of people maybe not using it) and I had a choice of buying a bus ticket to go for 10 hours on an existing road for say $50 or on the 7 hour four lane road for $150, then I'd probably choose the $50 one. So yes, the road would be uneconomic. Maybe this is exactly why we don't have have one.

If you disagree (which you are of course entitled to), then fair enough, but I'd like to hear your constructive thoughts and opinions as to how it might be done rather than just making non-constructive criticism.

okay settle down. i see your points but you dont quite get it either. i dont think we have "silver lined tunnels" etc etc. To suggest so is silly and assuming the worst of me. I only have one real issue, are you saying that the cost to get our railways back up to standard (i.e first world standard, capable of moving passengers and freight) is so costly you dont think it is worth it/possible? or are you merely pointing out costs for the sake of it?

Please dont try make me look stupid either, i certainly dont think we could simply throw " a few sleepers and bits of steel on a pile of ballast" to have an adequate passenger rail system. I certainly dont think so and to assume im that stupid is offensive.

to simplify, my main point of concern is that perhaps you and others are making over exaggerated claims and conclusions because like you said... you dont really know for sure about anything. Claims are fine, its the conclusion part which is my main concern. Im not gonna claim to be an expert either, but like you i know a bit and read up on things but im not going to use evidence from unrelated media releases and forty year old records to back me up.

Also im not gonna suggest how it should be done, im not an expert (just like you, so we have something in common) but i suggest A) it COULD be done B) SOME reasons given for it being impossible are not actually legitimate reasons C) in reference to 'B' this is the attitude of most NZers of late to a number of things and shows we are killjoys and unimaginative and defeatist.

Of course 'C' is largely me just taking the micky to brighten up this post. Seriously, im sorry if you felt i was having a jab at you KaneD, i dont have a lot of time on the net at the mo to post so iv been trying to post quick and hence it comes across as a bit brash. Im not having a go at you, just looking for some balance.

If you are writing rail off (which it seems to me with your "if the govt did divert massive sums of money from roading, then what would happen to our roading network? As it is, the funds allocated to it are barely able to keep up with the demand to complete major projects, let alone if we divert half of it." I could be wrong) i dont think you reading media releases qualifys you to state with conclusion that rail will cost X amount of $$$ and that its unjustifiable. Your reasons are rather 'apocalyptical' and suggest that investment in NZ rail infrastructure will create mass social and economical problems, such as the deterioration of our roading network!!! To suggest that is silly and misleading. Perhaps i should point out that im not anti-roading and for one second do not believe in neglecting the State Highway network!!! Because that seems to be what you think im getting at... which im not. Anyway... wanna go for a beer?

^^ Good call sensible - The beer that is. Which Pub?

Yes, I do agree with some of your points - We should not write off anything just for the sake of it. And I wouldn't suggest that the government authorities should do such things at all either.

I am just saying that from using some good old common sense and logical analysis based entirely on my own perceptions and interpretations of the information that we're fed (by media, govt, etc), then I don't see how it would be practical given our current economic climate.

Maybe in 5 years time and NZ strikes it big in the Southern Basin and we become a big oil producer, or if fuel prices continue to escalate to say $10 a litre then perhaps the economic landscape will somewhat change and that of course would contribute to making rail a more attractive option.

I would welcome the government to at least upgrade our rail progressively over the next 5 to 10 years to bring it back in line with where it should have been before it was privatised in the 90's - This should be done as a matter of necessity whether we choose to run passenger services or not since freight is still and will always be the major user of rail. This is something I am definitely an advocate for.

Personally I think our government has terribly undervalued the importance of our rail systems and while it might not be immediately obvious today the day will come where we will look back and say "Why did we ever close down that rail line from XXX to YYY?"

To put in a couple of small examples specific to canterbury, everyday dozens of milk tankers do the run to Clandeboye from around the south island. I'd like to see 'inland port' type loading facilities around the south island so that tankers can do short runs to a nearby rail port, where their tank is unbolted and transferred to a rail wagon before being run to Clandeboye or Edendale.

Another one is the trash trucks that do the run from Chch to Kate Valley - I cant see whats wrong with having a short rail spur at kate valley and having wagons load up at a rail siding in Chch - surely it can't be that hard or expensive? Or maybe like most other rail related problems this country has the governemtn and local council just look at it and think... "nah.. too hard"

But those two suggestions are probably outside the scope of this forum...

No hard feelings sensible, nothing beats good banter and debate. :-)

The oil supplies are hanging by a thread, very much based on Saudi's Ghawar oil field and the compliance of the disfunctional over sized Saudi Royal family. Others supplies also reside under the auspices of some very flakey regimes. At the moment they are all pumping pretty much to maximum capacity but even one going out of action can send the oil price sky high. The last big disruption was the Prudhoe Bay pipeline going out of action because 12 barrels of oil leaked from it.
Under such circumstances, we may get a real jolt in the energy supplies, which could shove rail up the priority categories in a lot of governments.

Blah blah blah....

Oil hits new record due to weak US dollar
New 2:00PM Tuesday March 04, 2008

The price of oil hit a fresh record high today as the dollar continued to fall against other major currencies and on expectations that Opec will remain stubborn on its output policy.

The dollar tumbled to lifetime lows against the euro and a basket of major currencies on Monday before regaining some lost ground after better-than-expected US manufacturing data.

US crude oil for April delivery was up US$1.72 at US$103.56 a barrel at 1838 GMT, after an earlier record high of US$103.95.

London Brent crude was up US$1.62 up at US$101.72 a barrel.

"There is no top in sight yet for crude futures because hedge funds are looking at how far the US dollar will fall," said Phil Flynn of Alaron Trading in Chicago.

"They are buying commodities to hedge against inflation because hanging on to the dollar means they lose value."
Let's get going on that rail upgrade!

certainly nothing wrong with the dux kaneD... your right about the kate valley land fill trucks too... i used to live at Leithfield beach and counted eleven coming back in on one commute, which i thought was ridiculous (about a forty minute period over that one stretch of SH1 heading into chch)... i certainly agree with what you say.

certainly nothing wrong with the dux kaneD... your right about the kate valley land fill trucks too... i used to live at Leithfield beach and counted eleven coming back in on one commute, which i thought was ridiculous (about a forty minute period over that one stretch of SH1 heading into chch)... i certainly agree with what you say.

Yeah - In the old days there were certain rules that if you had goods to ship, and you produced it less than X kilometres from a rail line, then if you were shipping it a greater distance than Y kilometres, then you had to by law, ship it by rail.

Not suggesting that they should do exactly that kind of thing again, since I'm no great fan of increasing tarriffs and imposing seemingly strict regulations like that to support something that can't stand on it's own two feet, but perhaps there should be some scheme in place - Maybe taxation rebates for companies that use rail could be a start.

The Dux is a great pub... maybe we can catch up are you in town late afternoons? Or lunchtimes if it doesn't mess around with work commitments to much?

^^ If rail lines are electrified and fuel prices keep skyrocketing then it should become cheaper to transport via rail again.

$175m power windfall may buy back rail
5:00AM Wednesday March 26, 2008
By Paula Oliver

A $175 million windfall in power company profits could help the Government buy back the national rail service.

Finance Minister Michael Cullen said yesterday the special dividend from Meridian Energy would be used for capital purposes - potentially the purchase of the rail and Cook Strait ferry operations of Toll New Zealand.

The state-owned company announced the dividend on top of a $60.9 million interim dividend.

The extra money comes at a good time for the Government, which is in negotiations buy back Toll's rail and ferry assets.

Dr Cullen said the Meridian money would be used for capital expenditure of some kind - such as "trains and boats and planes".

It is not the first time Meridian Energy has come forward with a big sum of money for the Government at an opportune time.

In 2006, the Government used the proceeds of an $800 million special dividend from the power generator to help pay for a big transport package in that year's Budget.

Dr Cullen said the Government and Toll were closer to agreeing a price for the rail and ferry business.

He confirmed a fortnight ago the Government had made an offer for Toll's rail and ferry business, but the Crown and company remained more than $200 million apart on agreeing a fair price.

Dr Cullen said negotiations at the weekend had seen the two parties move closer together.

"We're not as far apart as we were a week or so ago, by quite some margin," he said.

"I wouldn't want to say it's imminent, but as I say I think we're a lot closer than we were a week or so ago."

Dr Cullen said he expected to discuss the issue on the sidelines of a function he and Toll's chief executive would attend on Thursday evening.

The Government is expected to make Toll start paying the full price of access to the rail track network, which the Government owns.

Toll has been paying about $48 million a year since an access deal was struck in 2004.

The Government has been picking up the shortfall of about $10 million needed to maintain and improve the tracks.

Improving the rail system is central to the Government's plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

- NZPA

Government buys back rail and ferries

http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/train430.jpg
Photo / Kenny Rodger

The Government has bought back Toll's rail and ferry business for $665 million.

The Crown has been in negotiations with Toll over a buyback for several months.

It comes against a backdrop of wrangling over Toll's access agreement to the rail tracks, which are already owned by the Crown, with the Government saying it has been failing to pay its fair share.

Prime Minister Helen Clark today said the deal would pave the way for the modernisation of the rail network, which formed a key part of the Government's sustainability agenda.

"Modernising our transport sector is central to transforming our economy and making it truly sustainable," the PM said.

"With rising fuel prices and growing awareness about the challenge of global climate change, many nations are looking to rail as a central part of 21st century economic infrastructure."

She said a modern rail system could reduce the emissions of the overall transport network, take pressure off our roads and allow trucking and shipping to operate more efficiently.

The Government will pay a purchase price of $665 million for the rail and ferry business with settlement on June 30.

Finance Minister Michael Cullen said buying the rail operating business was the best way to increase investment in the industry and make it more responsive to customers' needs.

Rail assets had been run down after the sale of the public rail system in the early 1990s and the Government would now look at upgrading rolling stock.

The New Zealand First party will welcome the announcement, as their transport spokesman Peter Brown called for rail to be nationalised last December.

"The failure (of negotiations between the Government and Toll) is yet another chapter in the sorry history of our rail services. Sold for a song in 1993 by the National Government to its rich mates Fay and Richwhite, rail has been run into the ground by a succession of owners. It is time to face facts - privatisation has failed.

"Government ownership could open the door to improved flexibility, innovation, efficiency and service, which are currently lacking," he said.

Dr Cullen said Toll had done a good job increasing freight volumes and streamlining the operation of terminals, but it had struggled to run a "commercially viable" business without government support.

"The Government will now avoid paying subsidies to third parties and we also avoid the on-going disputes over the implementation of the National Rail Access Agreement that had the potential to destroy value in the business and erode the morale of the people who work in it."

The negotiations reportedly took place against a backdrop of the Government manoeuvring to make Toll start paying the full price of access to the rail track network.

Toll has been paying about $48 million a year since an access deal was struck in 2004, with the Government picking up the shortfall of about $10 million needed to maintain and improve the tracks.
Great news! I wonder if we'll see a return of inter-city trains (beyond the Overlander) from this?

Seems like good news, would the government contract the services out like ARTA does with Veolia I wonder ?

I'll be watching this one with interest. I remember I didnt approve when we sold our rail network to the Australians- I think they paid us the sum of a single solitary $1! Not a bad profit on their behalf.

Note that this sale isn't about the tracks - they were bought back a few years ago when ONTRACK was formed. This is about the rolling stock (largely freight trains, except for the Overlander) and also for the Cook Strait Ferries.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

Note that this sale isn't about the tracks - they were bought back a few years ago when ONTRACK was formed. This is about the rolling stock (largely freight trains, except for the Overlander) and also for the Cook Strait Ferries.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

Tranz Scenic was purchased back by Tranz Rail/Toll rail a few years ago after the diminished operations were sold to Australian buyers around 2001. so id imagine the sale actually also includes the Overlander, Capital Connection, Tranz Coastal and Tranz Alpine rolling stock and engines. It will be interesting to see what other infrastructure is included although workshop and maintenence facilities appear to be doing quite well in their current state. I would imagine Toll Rail will become a state owned enterprise type beast and be renamed something silly like 'KiwiRail' and be kept seperate from OnTrack. hopefully the govt works with the entire transport industry i dont think it should either monopolise nor strip for full on competition.

This is excellent news and is good for everyone, but shows how extreme and hurtful the 1980's/early 1990's political reform were for some sectors. In many places they simply went too far with neo-liberal thought being applied ideaologically rather than on a case by case individual and independent basis.

I can't see passenger rail expanding at all in NZ due to this sale, however, freight rail I see expanding immensely due to the positioning of the trunk railways. Hopefully now that freight is going to be overseen by the Government there will be a few less lorries on NZ roads!

Yes it seems like the main changes will be increased rail freight. Wonder if we'll see the Avondale-Southdown planned line getting back on the drawing board.

I can't see passenger rail expanding at all in NZ due to this sale, however, freight rail I see expanding immensely due to the positioning of the trunk railways. Hopefully now that freight is going to be overseen by the Government there will be a few less lorries on NZ roads!

i dont wanna open a can of worms again but it would be nice if eventually some adequate long distance pax. services got up and running again. Speedy railcars trundling along at least at 120km/h... cheaper than flying, more comfortable than bus, more enviro. friendly and with food & beverages plus audio and/or video entertainment... its so sad that its a dream cos it shouldnt be... we should have it now really. It would cost $$$ though BUT it would really be an investment i believe... for now though they will just concentrate on freight & commuter rail. Ill hve to fly and drive everywhere.

i realy hope the government works WITH transport company's to get trucks off the road rather than against them (by this i mean offering inentives to company's like Mainfreight to shift more by rail). oh yeah just so you know big logistics company's 'double handle' as well which is something many mistakenly see as a negative about rail against road transport)

I think an Auckland-Hamilton-Tauranga triangle of high-speed passenger trains might be viable in 20 years time. If Auckland's up to around 1.8 million, Hamilton around 250,000 and Tauranga possibly 150,000+.

Yes, we had this discussion in the past and almost everyone decided that it was an excellent idea, but misplaced for now. It's highly unfortunate as I'd love to be able to zip around NZ by train. I know I'd see far more of the country if I could do so, but til then I'll continue to be confined to my little area around Auckland (at least til I can afford air travel, not that I enjoy flying at all...).

At the moment 16,000 people per day use commuter rail in Auckland while the figure for Wellington is around 35,000. The truckies could get a little worried that the road user taxes they pay are used by government to form a freight company which is in opposition to them. I think it is great that government have finally bought back rail. Lets hope something gets started in Christchurch in regard to commuter rail.

I'll be watching this one with interest. I remember I didnt approve when we sold our rail network to the Australians- I think they paid us the sum of a single solitary $1! Not a bad profit on their behalf.

our network wasnt sold to the Australians... it was sold to those crooks Michael Fay and David Ritchwhite and some Americans... plus it was the tracks that were sold for a token $1 NOT rollingstock etc. The NZ Government bought back the track for another token $1 some time ago and TOll (the Australians in this story) bought the rolling stock and the right to operate the frieght dervices and later bought back the passenger services so as to stop any back door entry into the rail freight market from other company's such as Mainfreight. It is the later that has been bought back by the Government yesterday for $665 million. Im not sure what it was all sold for, although in the first place it was sold for peanuts...

our network wasnt sold to the Australians... it was sold to those crooks Michael Fay and David Ritchwhite and some Americans... plus it was the tracks that were sold for a token $1 NOT rollingstock etc. The NZ Government bought back the track for another token $1 some time ago and TOll (the Australians in this story) bought the rolling stock and the right to operate the frieght dervices and later bought back the passenger services so as to stop any back door entry into the rail freight market from other company's such as Mainfreight. It is the later that has been bought back by the Government yesterday for $665 million. Im not sure what it was all sold for, although in the first place it was sold for peanuts...

sold I think for $200 odd million, by ruth rat-shit-son

Just received an email back from Nationals transport spokesman



Thank you for your email addressed to the Hon Maurice Williamson MP. He has asked me to let you know that National’s transport policy will be announced later in the year.



Yours sincerely

Bridie Wilkinson

Umm, isn't the election later this year ????

Sadly looks like pie in the sky to me ...

‘Profit’ in southern passenger rail link
ODT Tuesday, 6th May 2008

THE Government can expect early pressure from southern interests to reinstate some form of passenger rail transport between Dunedin and Christchurch now that it has renationalised the industry.

‘‘There definitely is a good future for passenger transport in this region if the Government is prepared to pick up the capital cost,’’ Taieri Gorge Railway chief executive Murray Bond said when contacted yesterday.

He was responding to the Government spending $655 million to buy back the rail and ferry business from Toll New Zealand, with settlement on June 30.

When the Southerner rail service ended, it was carrying an average of 72 passengers a day between Dunedin and Christchurch, which was not enough to sustain the service, Mr Bond said.

However, Taieri Gorge had been investigating the use of light rail cars between Dunedin, Palmerston and Oamaru. The Government could use similar rail cars for the extended service. Luxury rail-car sets were available overseas, were not overly expensive and could be reintroduced on main routes, he said.

‘‘Every day we are asked by people wanting to travel to Christchurch by train and I tell them government policy encourages road transport. That philosophy must change now the Government will be the owner. If the Government looks after the capital cost, someone can make a profit from a rail service.’’

Owning the rail network, as well as the rail and ferry business, would let the Government decide how best to ‘‘grow’’ the rail business, Mr Bond said.

Otago Chamber of Commerce chief executive John Christie said an integrated road, rail, air and port network was critical to a well-functioning economy. Since the demise of the Southerner, the economy had changed. Air fares and fuel prices had risen and the attitude of people towards using public transport had become more positive.

‘‘Delays in shifting people and freight cost time and money. You only have to look at the cost to Auckland of vehicles sitting in traffic gridlocks. There are lots of opportunities now the Government has the rail and ferry network again.’’

Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said strengthening the freight network should come first to help build a viable rail network.

‘‘Once the Government has invested in the infrastructure and freight can be moved off the road, then we can develop new passenger services.’’

The passenger rolling stock had been run down and ‘‘cannibalised’’, so new stock would be needed. That was not cheap to buy, she said.

People cared about how long it took to travel from point to point. Having a top-class system would allow faster rail travel. As air fares kept increasing, along with fuel costs, travelling by rail would become cost-effective for many, Ms Fitzsimons said.

A statement by Prime Minister Helen Clark and Finance Minister Michael Cullen focused only on the freight aspect of the deal. Miss Clark said modernising the transport sector was central to transforming the economy and making it sustainable.

‘‘A modern rail system can lessen the carbon footprint of our wider transportation network, taking pressure off our roads and allowing our trucking and shipping businesses to operate more efficiently.

‘‘Combined with an increase of almost 1100% in public transport investment since 1999, today’s announcement marks a major step forward in building a truly sustainable transport network.’’

Dr Cullen said the selling of the public rail system in the early 1990s, and the running down of the asset afterwards had been a painful lesson for New Zealand.

‘‘In the months ahead, I will explore options for significant investments in new, modern rolling stock. These will be presented to Cabinet and full details will be made available as soon as possible,’’ he said.

national has always been in danger of leaning too far towards ideological policies, in this case transport, and has often put little common sense towards formulating policy in specific areas.This has really let them down recently, if they are gonna nail labour they need to be trusted and not let people think they will take us back to the 'bad old days' of the 1990's. They need to fix this which i believe they will, already they are keeping very tight lipped on the renationalisation of the railways. I believe they will 'wait and see' and then come up with an attitude that largely reflects what the public wants... and hopefully makes sense

uglybob the only reason that revitalisation of passenger services is 'pie in the sky' right now is because they were alowed to be run into the ground in the 70's and 80's. TGR chief executive Murray Bond is right in that if the Government creates the right conditions then someone will def. look at investing. However it really isn't a priority right now. this is a fantastic opportunity to put things right again and make them even better and freight and inestment in the network are the clear priority. however things like improved intercity passenger rail may well be a spin off of all this some time further.... down the 'track' ;)

uglybob the only reason that revitalisation of passenger services is 'pie in the sky' right now is because they were alowed to be run into the ground in the 70's and 80's. TGR chief executive Murray Bond is right in that if the Government creates the right conditions then someone will def. look at investing.

I can't see passenger trains on the South Island main trunk in the foreseeable future unless air travel becomes really prohibitive. The purchase is possibly a big boon for Hillside Railway Workshops in Dunedin with potential new rolling stock production but that's all I'd expect at that end of the country in terms of change other than rail freight.

^^ From memory NZ Railways Corporation was sold to Wisconsin Rail (US) and Fay and Co for $175 million in 1993.

^^ Also, from a discussion I had a few years ago with an ex railway worker was that general line speed for the NIMT and SIMT lines is 80km/h for freight trains and up to 100km/hr for passenger services. Asked if trains could run faster than this and was advised that the problems with increasing line speeds were:

1) Rail Construction standards - Higher speed tracks are VASTLY different in construction standards than our current low speed tracks. Spacing and strength of sleepers, tie down components, rail joint methods, track foundations etc are all built to much higher standards.

2) Route geometry - Self explanatory really. Going around that short radius curve at 160km/hr just isn't going to happen... let alone 80km/hr. Much of NZ's rail network is on original alignments dating from the late 1800's. Curves aplenty!

3) Track Gauge - Yes, there are higher speed narrow guage rail services in other countries, but the narrower the guage, the greater the consideration towards route geometry and rail construction standards - In short, the tolerances are a lot finer with narrower gauges. This is kind of like comparing walking on a builders plank on some scaffolding with say a gymnast's beam.

4) Locomotive limitations - You've heard this on the radio in the last few days no doubt. Our newest locomotives are 30 years old and some are over 50 years old. In short we need some more modern and more powerful locomotive power. Electric engines are much better but only two parts of our network are electrified - and using two different systems (DC and AC). Dual power locomotives are more expensive.

5) Track capacity - Running faster passenger trains is one thing, but to run them on the same physical line as freight trains that are always slower is a recipe for trouble. This issue is more pronounced when you're running on a single track line.

Despite this - hopefully the govt will at the very least invest plenty of money to restore the network to where it was before privatisation - And then add plenty more cash to upgrade it to a more modern system. I'd love to see long distance rail services restored to key urban and tourist locations... along with commuter services in Chch.

First... Restore the Southerner service Chch-Invercargill.
Second... Chch Commuter (Rangiora/Rolleston) service
Third... Auckland to Hamiltom/Tauranga/Rotorua services
Fourth... Wellington to Napier/New Plymouth.

^^ its going to take a lot of work but it as to be done really... i dont think NZers actually truely realise how badly run down our railways are and how important they are for this country. I hope we dont blow this opportunity.

It's such a damn shame that transport infrastructure was put on the back burner for 25years. The list of required improvements has become so large now that's it makes me dizzy thinking how on earth this can all get funded.

hello?

He didn't last long:lol:

It's such a damn shame that transport infrastructure was put on the back burner for 25years. The list of required improvements has become so large now that's it makes me dizzy thinking how on earth this can all get funded.

Time to dig for that good oil in the southern basin and sell it offshore for heaps.

It is probably a good thing in this respect that oil prices have increased so much. It will make it more worth the effort to mine it given the extra profits the government stands to make from royalties - which can be spent on upgrading all our highways to 4 and 6 lane motorways. Yeehah... Oh... and high speed rail services.

Only problem is that now we have a conundrum with what to do about global warming, our clean green image, carbon footprint etc.

Time to dig for that good oil in the southern basin and sell it offshore for heaps.

It is probably a good thing in this respect that oil prices have increased so much. It will make it more worth the effort to mine it given the extra profits the government stands to make from royalties - which can be spent on upgrading all our highways to 4 and 6 lane motorways. Yeehah... Oh... and high speed rail services.

Tongue in cheek right?:)
I would like to see the highway system improved but I wouldn't advocate upgrading all NZ's highways to motorway standard.
NZ currently has about 250km of motorway/expressway/4-lane highway. Looking at the routes and areas I would want upgraded then you'd be looking at a total of about 1000km of motorway/expressway in NZ.
I am more of an advocate of a good quality, safer road transport system. I am also an advocate of severe penalties for thoes who abuse their driving privaliges.

High Speed Rail? On a few routes (Auckland-Hamilton-Tauranga. Auckland-Whangarei. Wellington-Palmy).


Only problem is that now we have a conundrum with what to do about global warming, our clean green image, carbon footprint etc.

NZ's ''clean green image'' is just that. An image, not a reality. Compared to many developed countries NZ is very un-enviromentaly friendly.

I was thinking yesterday that perhaps it's actually a good thing, in some respects, that Auckland's roading policy has generally (if you ignore the mass motorway building of the 1950s and 1960s, along with recent upgrades) revolved around the idea of holding out and doing nothing for as long as possible until it's desperately needed. OK I know this sounds illogical, but stick with me for a little bit here.

If Auckland's motorway network had been completed in the 1960s then one can assume that it would be a lot easier to get around the region from areas far and wide. The city could have sprawled a lot further before sustainability became an important theory and we came up with the metropolitan urban limits. If this had been the case, we could have ended up like Phoenix, Houston, Detroit or many other US cities where the city core was largely abandoned for office parks, large lot subdivisions and strip malls on the urban periphery.

The fact that our transport corridors are tightly constrained by under-investment in roading, plus a natural geography that creates bottlenecks on bridges across our various harbours, has meant that in order to stay within close proximity of a variety of services we've had to maintain a functioning city core, our inner suburbs have become hugely more popular in the last 30 years (remembering that Ponsonby was the Otara of the 1970s), and the city has intensified, at least within the isthmus, a lot over the last 30 years.

While more recent developments in the Howick, Botany, Flat Bush area, as well as around Albany, have tried their hardest to create an auto-centric American type city, but if you look on the Auckland isthmus the place was largely built out by the 1970s, yet since then the population of the isthmus has close to doubled through infill and intensification. This may not have happened if we'd funded our roading system better in the 1970s-1990s, and we'd be in an even worse position regarding trying to create a public transport based future.

Under-investment in our rail system during that time though, is totally unforgivable. Even those who drew up the grand plans for Auckland's motorway system in the 1950s categorically stated that it should occur in conjunction with a transit system.

Tongue in cheek right?:)

^^ But of course - :lol:

I would like to see the highway system improved but I wouldn't advocate upgrading all NZ's highways to motorway standard.
NZ currently has about 250km of motorway/expressway/4-lane highway. Looking at the routes and areas I would want upgraded then you'd be looking at a total of about 1000km of motorway/expressway in NZ.
I am more of an advocate of a good quality, safer road transport system. I am also an advocate of severe penalties for thoes who abuse their driving privaliges.

Agreed - NZ doesn't need much in the 4 lane highway department. Plently of passing lanes are sufficient in most areas. Perhaps the 20-30km run leading into each of the cities (such as Rotorua, Whangarei, Napier/Hastings, Nelson, Christchurch, Palmy, New Plymouth etc) should be upgraded to 4 lanes

More importantly however, I think that not enough money is spent on fixing many of our highways route geometry. The Rimutaka hills are a joke - In most western countries, they would tunnel through it (Look at Iceland, Norway, Austria, Switzerland, Italy etc). There are dozens of other highways that simply are inadequate for the purpose in this regard.

Not only is it slower to get from A to B, it increases fuel consumption dramatically which leads to more greenhouse gasses and the like. While a number of studies have shown how much traffic jams in Auckland cost the economy, I wonder if they've done studies on how much our highways poor route alignment costs?

NZ's ''clean green image'' is just that. An image, not a reality. Compared to many developed countries NZ is very un-enviromentaly friendly.

Yes, NZ still has a way to go before we are truly clean and green. The problem is that NZ has to often rely on standards [already] introduced into other countries. Take "RoHS" for example. This 'green' standard is aimed at reducing the dodgy chemicals used in electronic circuitry for goods such as computers, tv's and the like so that when they are eventually disposed of, they don't cause as much of a problem in landfills etc.

Now this RoHS standard only came about because it was driven by the European Union - Manufacturers have an obvious incentive to agree to the standard as they are a large economy - If NZ was to try and introduce a new standard like this on its own, most manufacturers would simply tell us to jam it.

Our Clean Green Image doesn't so much occur because of our own human practices, it exists because of our human non-existence. This is because compared to most other countries, NZ has a much larger area of land that is generally free from human development, and still be relatively accessible to us to visit and immerse ourselves in. Our image doesn't have much to do with our own government policy or people's general attitudes towards being clean and green. Suffice to say that if NZ were to have a population density similar to that of say Japan or the UK, then it is possible that NZ would be well down the list of perceived 'clean and green' countries.

Interesting, but I don't know if giving out long term concessions are a good idea - isn't that what Toll has? And what has stopped anyone else running a service? (Minimal three day a week service keeps the monopoly.) Maybe a concession that doesn't guarantee a monopoly ...

$6.5m plan for faster Overlander
By HANK SCHOUTEN - The Dominion Post | Tuesday, 20 May 2008

The Government's rail buyback has sparked renewed interest from a consortium with plans for new trains to operate the troubled Overlander service between Wellington and Auckland.

The consortium, led by the Manning Group, is asking the Government for a 50-year main trunk passenger rail concession to run new Chinese-built luxury trains to replace the Overlander service from 2011.

...

Manning Group governing director Thomas Manning said the consortium's plan proposed new trains - dubbed the Green Arrows - powered by electricity on electrified sections of the main trunk and diesel engines elsewhere.

The units would be quieter, smoother and able to do the Wellington-Auckland trip, with eight stops, in about nine hours - three hours faster than the Overlander.

Mr Manning said the consortium was looking to buy three trains at a cost of about $6.5 million each. They would be 51 metres long and made up of three articulated carriages with seating for 140 passengers. Two would be used on the main trunk line and the third would be available for special charter services.

Standard fares would be about $100 each way - comparable with the present fares - and premium business class seats would cost about $180.

...

more (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4553836a11.html)

50 year exclusivity.. Yeah right.

^^ apparently this is one of about three proposals for the NIMT being shoved at the government right now. Even im surprised by the amount of attention towards long distance passenger rail right now (and ive always been an optimist!!!) but, like i said before, any improvements to the rail network for freight will have the spin off effect of making passenger services more attractive to potential investors ESPECIALLY now its all in GOVT. hands and considering the investment being earmarked for the future.

Im not really too concerned about details like 50 year exclusivity etc just the interest in it says a lot to me. Good shit, just one route could serve as a good concept that could be spread to other routes. Now that the interest is there its at least a good opportunity to get it right.

Potentially upgrading the service between NZs two major cities is a very big thing. And the outlay is not that big considering. Im all for it as would plenty more be- and at least it's a step in the right direction.

Up and running by 2011? Well lets wait and see..... not holding my breath but.

Good shit - A good service that is competitive that runs on the NIMT can only help improve the perception of long distance rail travel. This is turn will make introducing similar services on other regional lines more attractive too.

Bring back the night service with sleeper cars too and you can leave AKL on Friday night, get to WLG for Sat morning and return Sunday night - And you have two nights accomodation included. I'd do it. (and have done so in China 3 times on both their soft-sleeper and hard sleeper services.)

Government: We paid top dollar for rail
5:00AM Wednesday July 02, 2008
By Audrey Young


Engineer Mike Gillum with a new-look diesel-electric locomotive in Wellington yesterday. Photo / Mark Mitchell

The Government admitted it paid a premium price to buy back the former state railway company, and says further huge investment will be needed in the newly named KiwiRail company.

But Prime Minister Helen Clark justified the deal, saying rail could not have survived without substantial Government subsidies.

She also cited the fuel efficiencies rail offered freight haulers over road, saying these would lessen the "carbon footprint of our transport network" and take trucks off the road.

One locomotive could pull as much as 65 trucks could carry, she said.

The Government paid Toll Holdings $690 million for its company, $25 million more than was announced in May.

The extra covers transition costs such as payments to senior Toll staff to stay on and help in the handover to new owners.

The Government has renamed the company KiwiRail, following the pattern it set with the state-owned Kiwibank and the Government-subsidised retirement savings scheme KiwiSaver.

Former National Prime Minister Jim Bolger accepted the role of chairman of the board in a move that has stung National, which opposes the deal, and angered New Zealand First leader Winston Peters.

Mr Peters made a rare criticism of Finance Minister Michael Cullen yesterday over the appointment because Mr Bolger headed the Government in 1993 that sold New Zealand Rail to a private consortium, including Fay Richwhite.

Dr Cullen said at least $80 million would have to be spent over five years on KiwiRail rolling stock.

But he suggested that the cost would be more than this.

He would be taking a paper to the Cabinet in a few weeks with a "longer term, more aggressive investment programme".

That is thought to mean an investment plan for hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars that would need to be raised by borrowing.

It's separate from the $400 million already earmarked for a five-year upgrade of the tracks, which the Government bought back in 2003 for $1.

Pressed by Mr Key, who accused the Government of paying too much for the latest acquisition, Dr Cullen said: "There is no question the Government has paid a premium price.

"But the alternative is continuing to subsidise a foreign-owned company failing to invest sufficiently in basic infrastructure, increased expenditure required on roading, increased accidents on the road, and increased greenhouse gas emissions at a direct cost to the taxpayer."

On Mr Bolger's appointment, Mr Key has said he was glad to have someone strong at the helm of KiwiRail, but it would not stop National holding the Government to account over the costs.

Mr Bolger acknowledged the irony in him accepting the job of heading the company he sold in 1993.

"My life is full of ironies."

But he said life was dramatically different from 1993. One difference was that oil was then US$25 a barrel and was now about US$150.

He hoped that if National became the Government it would invest heavily in KiwiRail.

It was very clear the system had been under-capitalised for many years.

"If there is any regret I see looking at it from the time it was in private hands ... it is that the capital injection necessary to maintain a modern rail system hasn't happened."

Mr Bolger, who also chairs NZ Post and Kiwibank, will be joined on the board by Brian Corban, Mark Franklin, Ross Wilson, Brian Jackson, Linda Constable and Ross Martin.

Yesterday's announcement is the first of two big Government moves this week that Labour will hope gives it momentum to close in on National before the election.

An announcement on a new tertiary institution in South Auckland is expected tomorrow.
* What the money bought

Through its Ontrack company, the Government already owns the rail system, which includes 4000km of track, six million sleepers, 1787 bridges, 150 tunnels, 12,000 culverts and signalling infrastructure including points, railway level crossing alarms, electrification and communications systems.

Ontrack also controls the trains on the network. It has a staff of 900.

After yesterday's sale, the Government, through the KiwiRail company, will also own 180 mainline locomotives, 4200 wagons, two railway workshops - in Dunedin and the Hutt - one rail ferry and leases on two other ferries.

The company employs about 2300 people in its rail and ferry operations.

If anyone seriously considers voting national this year, you are an idiot. John key will just sell off the railways again and screw it over for a second time.

Whilst I'm definitely no National supporter, they have stated they won't sell it back. However, I doubt they'll invest much in it either.

Whilst I'm definitely no National supporter, they have stated they won't sell it back. However, I doubt they'll invest much in it either.

Yeah I get the feeling that is the case too.

My dilema is that Labour appear to have out-lived their usefulness and are merely complacent, but the alternative is a shocking thought! It's a rock and a hard place.

Go National!

Now here is my thought. How many governments, including Labour, would have basically forked out 1.3b of taxpayers money on buying the rail system months before an election in their FIRST term in power?

I'm picking NONE.

I get the feeling that Labour pretty much know that they are out of the election race this year and that they might as well let Cullen play with his train set before he bows out - interestingly leaving National to run it. Hmmmm.

I think it was the right idea though - Cullen is correct that if Rail is going to ever get back to being a fast, efficient and modern transport system, it needs MASSIVE govt funding - and I agree it is probably better for a government to fork out for something it owns, that it is to fork out for something it doesn't.

We'll just have to wait and see how National want to operate it? Or Not?

Details on what sort of investment is likely to go into KiwiRail as it has been named are being kept under wraps. Indications are that the South Island doesn't feature in this. This is an issue which looks set to be a major election issue.:ohno: It will be interesting to see what happens. I am very pro rail so the party which is against this in any form will not get my vote.

Details on what sort of investment is likely to go into KiwiRail as it has been named are being kept under wraps. Indications are that the South Island doesn't feature in this. This is an issue which looks set to be a major election issue.:ohno: It will be interesting to see what happens. I am very pro rail so the party which is against this in any form will not get my vote.

The South Island is a bit challenged on the railway front due to its incredibly low population density and the fact that it simply doesn't have the same level of infrastructure in place that the North island does.

It'll be interesting to see whether or not either major party is committed to bringing the South Island up to the level of the North Island in terms of rail connection.

I reckon there could be enough demand in ChCh to run commuter rail services. Particularly from the north where there are a few "satellite towns". Heck ChCh ain't much smaller than Wellington.

I reckon there could be enough demand in ChCh to run commuter rail services. Particularly from the north where there are a few "satellite towns". Heck ChCh ain't much smaller than Wellington.

last estimate (mid 2007) less than a thousand difference... CHCh is growing faster too so will be interesting to see 2008 results. I dont see how rail has any 'difficulty' in the South island.... it only has three major lines now, the density issues wouldnt effect them...

Chch-Dn-Invgl service ...

Train whistle blows for Southerner
DScene 4 Jul 2008

Talks are on track for a Southerner railcar comeback.

There is every chance the Government will take another look at passenger rail in and out of Dunedin now that it has bought back the railways, says one of Finance Minister
Michael Cullen’s senior advisors on rail, Chris MacKenzie.

The service everyone seems interested in is the Southerner, which did the Invercargill-Dunedin-Christchurch run until it was stopped in 1992.

“I have had some contacts from a couple of private operators who would be interested in reinstating the Southerner and people within the industry itself who would like to see it given another go,” says Mr MacKenzie.

He says two private overseas operators are among those who approached him before the KiwiRail announcement.

He says the operators are companies more than capable of managing rail operations. Asked what country they are from, he says: “I’d rather not say, as you would get too close.”

An Australian company ran the Transcenic operation in 2002, he says.

“This is the sort of company I’m talking about. There are companies like this around which are interested in niche passenger rail.”

Dunedin’s Taieri Gorge Railway boss, Murray Bond, says staff received an offer of a railcar lease from KiwiRail this week.

KiwiRail is looking to lease out its Silver Fern railcars based in Auckland, he says.

Taieri Gorge will consider the offer because it hopes to have a proposal together to buy a railcar in the next year or so, he says.

Meanwhile, it is looking for other options.

“We looked at Japan and China. We’ve looked second-hand and new. We’ve done internet searches.

“We’re interested in contacting manufacturers.

“One of the problems we have is that our lines are not electrified so we have to go for diesel and there’s not many made now.”

Second half on passenger transport.

Rail network being improved and extended
Stuff July 7, 03:33 PM

The movement of containers on rail from the east to west of the North Island is being improved by a one kilometre long deviation around the narrow Kai Iwi tunnel near Wanganui.

Government-owned railtrack operator Ontrack said the bypass would allow trains to carry larger 2.9m containers on the Marton to New Plymouth line.

"These containers are increasingly being used to transport freight from ports and from Fonterra's Whareroa dairy plant in south Taranaki," acting general manager of engineering Walter Rushbrook said in Ontrack's newsletter.

New Plymouth-based construction company Hurlstone Earthmoving Ltd has help move almost 327,000 cu m of earth to create the deviation.

"The Kai Iwi deviation is a major step forward in making rail more competitive," said Mr Rushbrook.

The cut over from the tunnel to the deviation took place over the weekend of June 21-22.

The Kai Iwi tunnel is about 9km northwest of Wanganui.

Ontrack has also been protecting rail corridors for potential new rail lines.

It is giving priority to three types of rail corridors, the newsletter said. These are small spur lines connecting to major industrial sites. Examples of these include a proposed line to Fonterra's Clandeboye dairy factory in South Canterbury and the former Weston Line to the proposed Holcim cement plant in North Otago.

A second area of interest is creating connections between main lines and ports and airports. Examples of these include designating a rail link from the North Auckland Line to Northland's port at Marsden Point and the protection of a future rail link from the North Island Main Trunk Line to Auckland International Airport.

A third area of interest is protecting a route for future urban passenger services such as the talked about tunnel linking Britomart and Mt Eden in Auckland.

"In Christchurch, we would like to protect a route for bringing rail back into the centre of the city as part of an urban passenger network," Ontack said.

The Ministry of Transport targets increasing rail's share of the transport market from its current 18 percent of volume to around 25 percent.

The amount of freight being moved around the country is expected to double by 2020.

"If rail is to grasp the opportunities offered by climate change and road congestion, we need to plan now for the future expansion of the network," Ontrack chief executive William Peet said.

The last significant expansion of the rail network was the development of the Murupara branch line in the 1950s.

"In Christchurch, we would like to protect a route for bringing rail back into the centre of the city as part of an urban passenger network," Ontack said.


Talk about closing the stable door after the horse has bolted!

Any ideas if they will try and get rail back to Nelson again? It must by now be our biggest city without a rail link. Most of the line was built to connect up to the existing West Coast line but it has all been ripped up. I guess most of the earth works are still in place and it looks (Google Earth) like most of the corridor into Nelson city has been preserved. It is one of our fastest growing centres.

^^
Hmmm. I think that old link would be a very,very low priority. It goes to the west where as most most people will travel east.

^^
Hmmm. I think that old link would be a very,very low priority. It goes to the west where as most most people will travel east.

AFAIK the midland line is the most profitable in the country. 7 x 24 car coal trains running round the clock make it so. It is a much shorter trip to the port at Nelson than it is all the way over to Lyttelton. I don't for a second think a passenger service will see this line rebuilt - freight perhaps? Getting away from the PT nature of the thread I guess.

MP wants new train-trip to keep going north
5:00AM Wednesday July 16, 2008

With the price of petrol continuing to soar, Green MP Keith Locke wants the Auckland-to-Whangarei passenger rail service re-opened as an alternative to road travel.

It last operated in 1976, but the list MP says it is time to reinstate the Northland line.

Mr Locke's call has the backing of Northland Regional Council chairman Mark Farnsworth.

Speaking at the re-opening of the Auckland-to-Helensville line - the first section of the Northland line - Mr Locke said the time was right to look at extending the service through to Whangarei.

"With the price of oil rising, people are looking more and more at alternatives to car travel. Sure, there are buses, but a lot of people, including myself, like train travel - it's smoother and more sociable, plus rail travels a different route to the highway."

Mr Locke said that if the Greens were in the next Government, the party would push for the line to be reinstated.

But a feasibility study would be needed. The route could re-opened for a trail period, like the Auckland-to-Helensville service, which is running three times a day for a year.

The track to Whangarei carries freight, but Mr Locke said work was needed on it to bring it up to passenger standard.

An upgrade of the Auckland-Whangarei track would be welcomed in many circles in Northland.

Mr Farnsworth said it was vital to the regional council's plans for a 16km link to Marsden Pt.

"But I don't think you need to polish your crystal ball to understand that with the escalating fuel costs, and the predictions for those costs to continue to rise, that public transport will come back into its own."

The council is working with rail infrastructure agency Ontrack to secure land for the 16km rail corridor to the port at Marsden Pt.

I'm hoping that many proposals from the past that were sunk will come back, such as extending the Gracefield Industrial Branch in Lower Hutt to Wainuiomata as well as reinstating the freight depot and rail yards at Gracefield which was closed in 2002 by you guessed it privately owned asset stripping Tranz Rail. I just hope that national doesn't get voted in because you bet they will sell of what they call "surplus land" so that the line can never be reinstated.

I also think it would be a very good idea to reinstate as many as possible of the private rail sidings that have been closed over the years. For example the Dominion Post was delivered from the printing press directly by rail into Wellington. Just a few years ago they started trucking it in. Pure idiocy. If you look in google maps you can see so many industrial sites next to the rail line, some still have the track for the private siding in place, but are unused.

... reinstating the freight depot and rail yards at Gracefield which was closed in 2002 by you guessed it privately owned asset stripping Tranz Rail.

I'd like to see part of the site developed as a secure rail served inland port (with containers railed to/from CentrePort Wellington). I read somewhere (forgot source) that quite a high percentage of import/export containers come from/go to the Seaview-Gracefield industrial area.

The rest of the site could be used for domestic containers and general freight.

I'd also like to know how much rail-freight handled in Wellington is destined for that area too - could further help the case for reopening. And if a significant proportion of freight loading and unloading can be moved to the Hutt this might allow a reorganisation of the railyards in the city.

A survey amongst 1000 voters, shows that New Zealanders are overwhelmingly in favour of the rail and ferry buyback despite the $1 billion plus pricetag. Whether National help in modernising rail should they get in remains to be seen. It is obvious that to modernise, a price tag of upwards (() of $5 billion would deliver New Zealand a world class rail system. The benefits for New Zealand's economy could be enormous, particularly considering our reliance on exports to our economy.

Just a quick question. Where did you get the $5 billion price tag from? Also, I very much doubt that even $5 billion could buy a "world class" railway system based upon the difficult engineering that would be involved, the electrification of main trunk routes that would be involved, the purchasing of rolling stock, the re-connection of old lines (Auckland to Whangarei, Rotorua, Tauranga, Taupo, Napier/Hastings etc etc).

It'll be very difficult to get a decent rail system going in New Zealand, as much as I would love there to be one. I can't help but feel that it might be an almost insurmountable task with huge government subsidies required to keep basic levels of service going as seen in NSW, Australia with Countrylink - and they don't have half of the problems we do with terrain and money!

^^ He says upwards of $5 billion. I think that's fair enough.

There's probably a lot of smaller improvements to the rail network that can be done. Out of the main urban centres, and perhaps a few inter-city passenger routes (150 kph trains in the Auckland-Hamilton-Tauranga triangle) I think most rail improvements will be for freight. As deisel gets more and more expensive, it will be in freight movers' best interests to shift cargo via train rather than truck. Especially along the electrified parts of the system.

$5 billion is an estimate. $242 million was quoted in the Press as how much would be needed to start up a commuter rail system in Christchurch which would eventually recquire upwards a billion to be invested.

Govt details KiwiRail investment
10:00AM Tuesday July 22, 2008

Improvements for Auckland and Wellington commuter train services, an overhaul of the Trans Scenic service and urgent repairs at the Wellington and Picton ferry terminals have been announced as part of the Government's initial investment in rail.

Finance Minister Michael Cullen said the initial $80.2 million over five years was the first step since the Government purchased the rail assets of Toll Holdings and launched KiwiRail.

Dr Cullen said in the next few weeks he would be taking a paper to Cabinet looking at expanding the role of rail in the economy and the investment necessary to do that.

The $80m allows the current programme of locomotive upgrades to continue as well as:

* Upgrades to the diesel electric DC class locomotives on the Auckland and Wellington passenger service and the re-commissioning of two more electric locomotives for freight service in the Wellington area;

* The replacement of the Tranz Scenic fleet with newly refurbished cars over five years;


* Urgent repairs and safety issues to be addressed at the Wellington and Picton Interislander ferry terminals; and

* Funding to evaluate whether locomotives could be assembled in the Hutt Valley and elsewhere.

At the moment it is all about doing a patchup job to get everything up to scratch. It will be a big undertaking and will take a long time to get things progressing towards having a world class network. As long as it is moving in the right direction. This has the potential to boost New Zealand's Gdp should they get it right.:)

Very interesting with the electric locomotives being used for freight in Wellington. I thought there were going to be 2x 6 carriage passenger express services hauled by the electric locomotives (Eo class (confusing, there are two locomotives that use Eo class designation, we're getting the newer ones)), with one locomotive at each end of the train. I think whats now happening is there will be just one six carriage passenger express service hauled by 2 electric locomotives and using 2 other locomotives for freight and the remaining one used as a backup in case one breaks down.

There haven't been any electric locomotive hauled freight trains in Wellington since 1988, 20 years ago. This is excellent especially because it is making good use of otherwise useless locomotives as they can't be used anywhere else on the rail network since the electrification was removed from the Otira tunnel section in the south island, where they came from.

If we are going to get new locomotives hopefully they will be diesel electric/electric locomotives and dual voltage. In other words they would use diesel where there is no overhead wire and where there is it can use either the 25kv AC system on the NIMT or the 1500v DC system in Wellington. That way you don't have to replace all the wiring and make the brand new commuter trains, the existing multiple units and the Eo locomotives useless.

In my opinion the ideal way to do things to make the most use of existing infrastructure would be to initially purchase diesel electric/electric dual voltage locomotives that can be used anywhere on the rail network using any electric overhead wire where possible while allowing the use of the existing rolling stock as much as possible too. Once the existing Wellington Em/Et units have reached the end of their useful life and the really old (1940's) English Electrics are long gone and only the yet to be delivered new unnamed electric multiple units are still around give them a mid life refurbishment including conversion to dual voltage. That way the electrification in Wellington can then be transitioned to 25kv AC. After that the entire rail network would be electrified with 25kv AC with all rolling stock being dual voltage at that time. From then on only 25kv AC rolling stock would be purchased with dual voltage phased out as old rolling stock is withdrawn from service leaving a pure 25kv AC system nationwide.

Just a quick question. Where did you get the $5 billion price tag from? Also, I very much doubt that even $5 billion could buy a "world class" railway system based upon the difficult engineering that would be involved, the electrification of main trunk routes that would be involved, the purchasing of rolling stock, the re-connection of old lines (Auckland to Whangarei, Rotorua, Tauranga, Taupo, Napier/Hastings etc etc).

It'll be very difficult to get a decent rail system going in New Zealand, as much as I would love there to be one. I can't help but feel that it might be an almost insurmountable task with huge government subsidies required to keep basic levels of service going as seen in NSW, Australia with Countrylink - and they don't have half of the problems we do with terrain and money!

thats a tad exaggerated... for example 'countrylink' is only the long distance passenger network in nsw/eastern oz and is hardly representative of a 'network' as such.

also what 'old links' are you talking about? I dont get it. Auckland is already connected to Tauranga and Whangarei and the rotorua connection is still in place, if mothballed. There never was a connecion to napier/hastings (it was never built) nor taupo (and even then it would probably be one of the cheapest 'missing link' conections to construct in nz)... if you are talking about 'passenger service connections' then you are correct but are exaggerating the cost and effort to reinstate those passenger 'links'... and besides im sure thats not the priority right now, the whole NZ rail thing needs to be kept in context.

thats a tad exaggerated... for example 'countrylink' is only the long distance passenger network in nsw/eastern oz and is hardly representative of a 'network' as such.

also what 'old links' are you talking about? I dont get it. Auckland is already connected to Tauranga and Whangarei and the rotorua connection is still in place, if mothballed. There never was a connecion to napier/hastings (it was never built) nor taupo (and even then it would probably be one of the cheapest 'missing link' conections to construct in nz)... if you are talking about 'passenger service connections' then you are correct but are exaggerating the cost and effort to reinstate those passenger 'links'... and besides im sure thats not the priority right now, the whole NZ rail thing needs to be kept in context.

I disagree, the countrylink network (look up the definition of network) in NSW is no different to the network in New Zealand. It supplies rail connections to rural communities and regional cities, just as our current rail service does.

As for old links - are you trying to say there has never been freight to Napier/Hastings from Auckland? I bet there was at some point. Yes I am talking about passenger rail since we're in the public transport thread and not the "freight" thread. ;)

(PS: I don't know much about how the NZ rail network was, it's a rail system that never interested me in the slightest)

I think there's a Wellington-Napier-Gisborne rail track, but that doesn't actually link with the NIMT at all. The only way to get a train from Napier to Auckland would be via Wellington. There's some pretty harsh terrain between Napier and Taupo: it's probably the most isolated drive you can make in the North Island on SH5.

I think there's a Wellington-Napier-Gisborne rail track, but that doesn't actually link with the NIMT at all. The only way to get a train from Napier to Auckland would be via Wellington. There's some pretty harsh terrain between Napier and Taupo: it's probably the most isolated drive you can make in the North Island on SH5.

Via the Manawatu Gorge. So from Auckland the Napier would need to go via Palmerston North.

I did learn from that Marcus Lush programme that they got partway through constructing a rail link between Gisborne and Whakatane before abandoning it.

^^ Ah that's right, I've only been through there once and that was when I was 11. I do think I remember the train line though... now I think about it. It's still a pretty long way around to get to Napier.

I disagree, the countrylink network (look up the definition of network) in NSW is no different to the network in New Zealand. It supplies rail connections to rural communities and regional cities, just as our current rail service does.

As for old links - are you trying to say there has never been freight to Napier/Hastings from Auckland? I bet there was at some point. Yes I am talking about passenger rail since we're in the public transport thread and not the "freight" thread. ;)

(PS: I don't know much about how the NZ rail network was, it's a rail system that never interested me in the slightest)




Let me explain what im trying to point out;

remember that just because a passenger service doesnt operate anymore doesnt mean that the route isnt used at all... Christchurch-Dunedin-Invercargill, Wellington-Napier, Napier-Gisborne, Welly-New Plymouth, Auckland-Tauranga and Auckland-Whangarei are all routes that previously had passneger services up till the last 20 years or so. All these routes still exist and are in operation physically for freight (some routes are infact very busy). Auckland-Rotorua still exists with the final short section into Rotorua being mothballed. Perhaps you understand this, perhaps you dont, but from what you were saying it seemed you were grossly exagerating the state of the entire NZ Rail network (which is completely relevant to a passenger network) and misunderstanding the history and operation of rail in NZ (see below). Metroman seemed to be talking about the whole shebang, upgrading of the entire network to a world class standard. By this i take it he meant the physical network (not a passenger network such as 'countrylink') which is completely relevant to passenger operations. So hopefully you can see why i felt what you were saying was exaggerated and how i felt references to countrylink were irrelevant and confusing.

Also there has never been a direct passenger or frieght service between Auckland and napier/hastings because physically the link has never existed. The Hawkes Bay and Gisborne are linked to the NIMT but in a southerly direction, i.e towards wellington. All frieght and passengers using rail would have to go a circutious route via Palmy and ALWAYS HAVE DONE. There has NEVER been another link to the north(although one was proposed but never completed).

There were actually quite a few inter-city train services until 2001:

Auckland - Tauranga: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaimai_Express
Wellington - Napier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Express
Auckland - Rotorua: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geyserland_Express
Auckland - Wellington (night train, ran until 2004): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northerner_(train)
Christchurch - Invercargill (ran until 2002): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southerner_(train)

With decent marketing and upgrades to these routes (which were in use until relatively recently) I would think that these services would be the first to resume if there was to be any expansion.

An interesting wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_New_Zealand

Map of the NZ rail network:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/NewZealandRailNetwork.png

the system is in place... it just needs a shitload of upgrading to make freight and thus passenger services better. Sounds like theres a lot of interest in the meantime anyway from potential passenger operators (particularly auck-well and Chch-Dun) it would be interesting to see how the government approaches this (of course they will mostly be worrying about upgrading the system).

What do you guys/girls favour? I see three ways, first selling the rights on individual routes to the best bids (eg. NIMT, Rotorua, South Line etc) or selling the rights to operate in regions (e.g North, Central and South) or selling the right to operate the entire network to one bidder. Personally i favour either the last two...

Or you just run it yourself. I thought the whole point of buying back the railways was that you won't have to subsidise other people any more. Inter-city passenger trains will require a subsidy in the short to medium term at the very least, but it's well worth it if you take vehicles off the State Highway system, and also if you reduce congestion at airports.

Or you just run it yourself. I thought the whole point of buying back the railways was that you won't have to subsidise other people any more. Inter-city passenger trains will require a subsidy in the short to medium term at the very least, but it's well worth it if you take vehicles off the State Highway system, and also if you reduce congestion at airports.

nah, i doubt that would happen (i could be wrong though!!!) There is a lot if interest from the private sector in buying rights to operate services already on behalf of the government... subsidies would be built into the tender process just as it is for the tender of bus routes in Christchurch for example. I dont see a problem with that and isnt very different if they operated it themselves. It wouldnt go to the highest bidder but the BEST bidder. That is the bidder that meets a number of requirements for the betterment of NZ pass. rail. I just dont think the Govt would want to get involved directly in passenger rail transport and they seem to have already made this clear. They would prob rather regulate it and allow the private sector to play within that field...

Govt's already involved to some extent - they have annouced (& funded) replacement of all Tranz Scenic carriages. (Probably by ex British Rail carriages, but I've also heard rumors that consideration is/was given to complete new builds from the Hillside workshops in Dunedin. Number I've heard mentioned was 30 carriages total either way.)

Some figures are mentioned in The Press (http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4627321a24035.html): $25.54m for The TranzAlpine and $27.5m for The TranzCostal and The Overlander (combined).

Maybe the Govt will own the rolling stock and contract an operator (like ARC & Veolia or GWRC & TranzMetro). Who knows ...

^^ Good that some progress is being made, pretty quickly too. Train construction is a pretty good industry to encourage too: if we're going to be spending half a billion dollars on new rolling stock for Auckland over the next 10 years I'd rather that money didn't go to China.

Well, I was suprised when I first found out that wellington's new buses are made in Timaru, which I think is somewhere near Guangzhou ......

But welly's new trains are coming from Korea, I think.

They are from Korea and will come into service in another 2 years. They look great. :banana::)

^^ Good that some progress is being made, pretty quickly too. Train construction is a pretty good industry to encourage too: if we're going to be spending half a billion dollars on new rolling stock for Auckland over the next 10 years I'd rather that money didn't go to China.

Excellent point - that is got to be better surely?

Quite a one-sided piece in favour of nationalisation but interesting nonetheless! :)

New Zealand is in tune with the times; Britain's lagging (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/03/newzealand.transport)

New Zealand has long had a record of being ahead of the political game. It was the first country in the world to accept women's right to vote, in 1893. In the 1930s, it emerged as a pioneer of the modern welfare state. Fifty years later, in the 1980s, it was the first state to declare itself nuclear-free. Less creditably, during the same decade, New Zealand became host to the first social democratic government to embrace a free-market programme of wholesale privatisation, liberalisation and deregulation.

Named after New Zealand Labour's then finance minister, "Rogernomics" was all the rage on the global new right for a time - and laid the ground for neoliberal social democratic governments like Tony Blair's - until it finally imploded amidst a litany of social and economic failures: stagnation, unemployment, bankruptcies, crime and rampant inequality. Two decades on, another New Zealand government, this time a more progressive Labour coalition headed by Helen Clark, is again at the forefront of political change - leading the revival of public ownership.

On Tuesday, Clark's government renationalised the country's railways and ferry services, privatised in the early 90s and subsequently run down and asset-stripped by the Australian owners. Launching the new, publicly owned KiwiRail, finance minister Michael Cullen declared that privatisation had "been a painful lesson for New Zealand". Nor is this the first renationalisation by the Clark government, which took over Air New Zealand after it nearly collapsed in 2001 and has also built up a successful state-owned retail bank - named Kiwibank, needless to say.

And unlike Gordon Brown's government, which strained every nerve to avoid nationalising Northern Rock to avoid seeming "old Labour", Clark has championed the takeover of rail as exactly what is needed to build a modern, environmentally sustainable transport network. Against a background of global warming and rising fuel prices, she argues, rail is a "central part of 21st-century economic infrastructure".

Given Britain's similarly disastrous experience with rail privatisation, you might think that taking a leaf out New Zealand's book would be just the kind of popular policy to help dig Brown's government out of its hole. Despite the modest improvements achieved by putting the lethal Railtrack out of its misery, Britain's railway system remains a byword for bewildering fragmentation, unreliability, overcrowding, delays and exorbitant cost - which has only now completed a high-speed link to the Channel tunnel, 15 years after its state-owned French counterpart.

Fleeced by the private train companies and rolling stock contractors (some of them pocketing 30% rates of return), it is now the most expensive, opaque and inefficient rail system in Europe. As the Campaign for Better Transport reported yesterday, walk-on fares are on average nearly five times those booked in advance - and all ticket prices are set to spiral in the next few years. Meanwhile, renationalisation is strongly supported by the public and is in fact official Labour party policy.

But far from planning to end what has been a disastrous experiment, the rail minister, Tom Harris, last month insisted that if the Tories hadn't privatised the railways, New Labour would have sold them off when it came to power in 1997. In a surreal aside that will baffle most UK train passengers, he insisted that "the private railway has provided a level of investment, innovation, imagination that wouldn't have happened if BR had stayed as it was".

This is nonsense. Investment in the railways comes from farepayers and government subsidy, now around three times the level before privatisation (£2bn a year goes to the train operating companies alone), while the leakage of cash from the industry to private investors and lenders is estimated at £800m a year. The rise in passenger numbers is simply the product of economic growth, and the case for a reintegrated, publicly owned rail system - at the heart of a national investment programme to encourage more people to move off road and air travel on to rail - is overwhelming. It has the added advantage that most services can be taken back at no cost as franchises expire.

But the government is still in the grip of an ideology that sees privatisation as the only way to reform the health service, and nationalisation as a throwback to be avoided at all costs. As global economic conditions increasingly undermine the credibility of free-market economics, however, real life is pointing in another direction. The revival of public ownership in countries as diverse as New Zealand and Venezuela reflects a wider disillusionment with the neoliberal experience of the past decade.

As the writer and Work Foundation chief executive Will Hutton recently argued in a BBC programme on nationalisation, the takeover of Northern Rock, Railtrack and Metronet has begun to force a mainstream reappraisal of what had become a political taboo - just as academic research has been rehabilitating the productivity and costs record of Britain's postwar nationalised industries.

But it's also clear that, if there is going to be an effective new role for public enterprise and intervention, it will have to be about more than bailing out the failures of the private sector in traditional industries, and engage with the cutting edge of the economy. In Britain, the credit crisis has exposed the dangers of the reliance on finance, the rundown of manufacturing, and the chronically low rate of investment in the economy. The case for a national fibre-optic network, for example, giving universal fast broadband access to the home is a powerful one, both on economic and social grounds - countries such as South Korea are far ahead of Britain. But the private sector won't deliver the necessary multibillion pound long-term investment. A publicly owned network, on the other hand, could do - perhaps funded by service providers as part of a universal service obligation, as the Communication Workers Union argues.

What is certain is that the Brown government's kneejerk resistance to public intervention and ownership will have to end if it is to have a hope of riding out the crisis and dealing with the new economic reality. By making a stand for progressive common sense, New Zealand has at least helped break the spell that privatisation is somehow the natural order of things in the modern world.


:cheers:

Very one-sided even from my left-wing standpoint! New Zealand is an oddity in many ways. In some ways it is, as the article says, ahead of the political game. However, in other ways (in terms of the reserve bank of NZ for example) it's a bit behind the times.

As for the railways themselves, well... I'd hardly start comparing investment into the NZ rail system and the British rail system even on a per capita basis. Despite re-nationalising the rail system, there are still assets that have been sold off by the government here and there are more on the cards for National to do so again. Also, there is no concrete guarantee that the nationalisation of the railways will result in a net benefit overall. The results of nationalisation have yet to be seen. Whilst it might work in the British context (as British rail was highly successful in many ways before privatisation), it doesn't mean that a re-nationalised NZ Rail will be successful.

Time will tell whether or not this move really was "ahead of the game".

PS: for those that don't know British newspapers, the Guardian is notoriously left leaning which means they generally support more socialist policies - hence the article. :)

PPS: I like the Guardian generally.

^^

It is really chalk and cheese comparing rail in NZ to rail in the UK; even when considering that NZ has a larger land mass at its height the NZ rail network comprised just under 6000kms of track. Right now in the UK I believe the rail network is something along the lines of 33,000-35,000 Kms; which I believe is similar to Australia's network length.

This in a country about one 30th the size!

Obviously rail investment is going to be pretty high in a country (UK) that has such a fantastic core infrastructure.

I also remain dubious of Kiwirail although I hope it is well thought out; well managed and has some long-term strategic goals; i.e. a good provision of reasonably high-speed commuter rail services between the main centres at some distant point in the future.

If it is to remain rudderless and directionless the same way it has for decades then the investment could be one of the worst made in recent memory.

I also like the Guardian too; my current routine is read that at breakfast; the times on the train (as I have recently moved to where there is pretty much only overland provision) and the FT at work; although a lot of the time I am sick to death of all of them and try and stare off into space a bit more! :lol:

Why do you say that the Reserve Bank is behind the times? It follows almost the exact same framework as the Bank of England; ECB; the Fed and the RBA; granted it could use some tweaking but it has the fundamentals right...

Just remember that most the time it is fiscal policy and legislative conditions rather than monetary policy that results in the conditions that we currently face...:cheers:

Wow, interesting but extremely biased article.

I know this is the Public Transport thread but it does get confusing when people mention KiwiRail's liklihood of success.

KiwiRail will be a success, NZ Rail is currently a success. It carries more freight than it has ever done (Thank's Marcus Lush).

However, KiwiRail's passener network will be a risk, it is probably a long way down the track anyway, and ironically is quitely likely to be franchised out to a private operator.

The reason for buying back the railway IMO are threefold;
1) Toll are a cynical asset stripping operation. While they can operate a profitable railway they have absolutely no interest in investing anything in track maintenance and rolling stock. The government already owned the network that they bought back for $1 a few years ago - investing billions into this when the rail operator have showed there true colours made no sense.
2) The Auckland commuter rail's upgrade, electrification and expansion will require huge investment from the government. Again Toll's example must produce doubts that anyone in the private sector has the stomach for this.
3) Rising oil prices has almost forced their hand.

BTW. Britain's overland passenger rail system really is an expensive mess, when compared to the publicly owned tube.

It is crying out for re-nationalisation, or if you can't stomach nationalisation it at least needs to be consolidated into 1 company with extremely tight monopoly controls.

BTW. Britain's overland passenger rail system really is an expensive mess, when compared to the publicly owned tube.

It is crying out for re-nationalisation, or if you can't stomach nationalisation it at least needs to be consolidated into 1 company with extremely tight monopoly controls.

The tube isn't publically owned, only segments are. The tube is also very expensive as well.

Also, many European nations are privatising their networks to encourage competition and starting a rolling tendering process with limited fixed time contracts. It's resulted in re-opening of mothballed rail lines in Germany and has also made DeutscheBahn cut their monopoly and streamline their business to make them competative. Good stuff if you ask me. They used Britain as an example of "how not to privatise railways". Japan also has fully privatised railways and look at their system! People seem to think that privatisation doesn't work, yet there appears to be plenty of examples where it has worked quite nicely around the world. The key thing is that the Government owns the infrastructure in Europe and that gives them enormous power over the running.

Also with regards to the Reserve Bank of NZ, I thought the ECB followed the DeutscheBundesbank model rather than the NZ model? I also thought that the bank of England has changed recently (since 1997) more to that model as well.

BTW - Just why does a government owner of the rail track and rolling stock HAVE to privatise the operations of services on the tracks?

In theory, a government entity should not be operating as a monopoly in the same way a private company does because unlike private companies, which have the utmost obligation to return a profit for shareholders, the same isn't strictly true for a government department - All it needs to do at least is break even or make a profit for the purposes of reinvesting back into the department. OK, sure the government could just make shit-loads to siphon off into the consolidated fund, but that then is income the govt gets which it doesn't have to tax us separately elsewhere.

Why I ask is that if we have say 10 companies all vying for business (passengers or freight) on their trains, those 10 businesses still have 10 boards of directors, umpteen shareholders who all want a cut of the cake from the proceeds of that business.

That surely is less efficient than a single government operator, especially in a country of only 4 million where continual government subsidies are going to be required. And if the govt is continually fronting up with taxpayer dosh to subsidise the rail network etc, isn't it a smack in the face to the taxpayer whose money is ultimately just going to line the pockets of those train operating companies shareholders?

I liken it a bit to the old Electricity Corporation of NZ. This was in the days when the government owned and operated all the electrical infrastructure and supply. Now, we have a deregulated electricity industry, which was supposed to make electricity for consumers cheaper and more competitive, but the market is really played out by handful of generators/retailers - the three big ones of which are owned by the government anyhow. But look how all the extra layers of corporatised crap has done nothing for the consumer but give them higher prices? I'd favour the government renationalising the electricity sector - OK, we couldn't chose our electricity company (Remember the old MED anyone?) but at least power was cheap and generally reliable.

You need to ask yourself whether that significant capital investment the taxpayer has made into KiwiRail, could have produced better investment dividends elsewhere?

Besides, using your argument that it is more efficient for the taxpayer to own and operate the rail network, could you not apply this to other items of "infrastructure" such as the Banks, Electricity, Water supply, Supermarkets, Petrol stations etc.

In terms of efficiency, we will have to wait and see. Bureaucracy and the concept of efficiency are as contradictory as military intelligence :lol:

You need to ask yourself whether that significant capital investment the taxpayer has made into KiwiRail, could have produced better investment dividends elsewhere?

Besides, using your argument that it is more efficient for the taxpayer to own and operate the rail network, could you not apply this to other items of "infrastructure" such as the Banks, Electricity, Water supply, Supermarkets, Petrol stations etc.

In terms of efficiency, we will have to wait and see. Bureaucracy and the concept of efficiency are as contradictory as military intelligence :lol:

Yes you could have taxpayers (the govt) owning and running any business unit including banks, supermarkets and so on. Fundamentally I guess that is the whole principle of the Communist system which of course would not be in anyone's interest.

What I was kind of getting at is that since railways generally require significant taxpayer subsidisation to run competitively anyway, would it not be better to have taxpayers money going to a taxpayer owned govt department rather than to a private entity since at least a moderate percentage of that is only going to line the pockets of it's executives, directors, shareholders and the like. Sure, government owned companies have CEOs, directors and so on, but at least they are more directly accountable to Joe Public than their private counterparts are.

Ultimately, if the rail operator goofs up big time and squanders lots of taxpayers money, then the government has more direct ability (and incentive) to sort it out under the watchful eye of taxpayers. Once you give money to a private company, it gets very bureaucratic.

I don't see it worthwhile for governments to get involved with supermarkets or other general business operations since those operations operate quite adequately on their own and without govt help.

^^ govt operation and ownership is certainly the most efficient way, at the present time, for the railways to be rebuilt. I base this on the awful state of NZ rail (which has to be improved) and the need for accountability while this takes place over the next whatever years.

The argument is that rail is a special case. Sure other important infrastructure may need improvement too but there is no rule saying you must respond the same way to evrything. Thats why im not a fan of neo-liberalism... its too general and ignores common sense by applying an ideology over everything. Trouble is everything is different and operates and benefits in different ways, and what may be good for one sector may not be good for another. This is why its perfectly logical to support a govt owned/operated railway but oppose govt interference in other areas. In short KaneD makes sense.

I think the point is that the benefits of a good rail system can be quite indirect. This includes reduced congestion on the roads, potentially lower carbon emissions, a greater accessibility for the general population and other similar stuff. It's pretty difficult to directly measure these benefits, and private companies just don't have the ability to look at the 'big picture'.

You need to ask yourself what price have we paid for the removal of subsidisation of a private company? An $800m initial capital investment, with no doubt further billions of dollars of investment in the network equipment to come, all in addition to depreciation costs which the taxpayer is now liable for.

By any measure, we have overpaid for the asset and will continue to do so. These unquantified intangible benefits that are touted, need to outweigh the significant cost of this investment.

As for the Government being a better investor in infrastructure, let's not forget the mess that Ontrack have made of the rail network through chronic underinvestment.

Overall I am highly sceptical of the deal and the future of Rail in Government ownership, especially given their poor track record. Let's hope I'm wrong.

Since ONTRACK reacquired the network (in about 2004 I think) they've made some significant improvements. Double-tracking the western line being the most obvious.

ONTRACK certainly weren't the ones who ran down the system. That was TranzRail.

^^ Yep. Between 1993 and 2004 the New Zealand Railways Corporation (now branded as ONTRACK) owned the land that the railway occupied. Tranz Rail owned all track and structures and was responsible for maintainence (or lack of it).

Wrong ^^

Ontrack have had a significant part to play in the lack of track maintenance. You need to read Auditor-General Kevin Brady's report on Ontrack.

You need to ask yourself what price have we paid for the removal of subsidisation of a private company? An $800m initial capital investment, with no doubt further billions of dollars of investment in the network equipment to come, all in addition to depreciation costs which the taxpayer is now liable for.

By any measure, we have overpaid for the asset and will continue to do so. These unquantified intangible benefits that are touted, need to outweigh the significant cost of this investment.

Yes, we have paid a high price but it is virtually impossible to calculate the overall benefits. You have to remember that most countries governments heavily subsidise their rail networks - and for good reason. Not all of those governments can be wrong.

As for the Government being a better investor in infrastructure, let's not forget the mess that Ontrack have made of the rail network through chronic underinvestment.

Overall I am highly sceptical of the deal and the future of Rail in Government ownership, especially given their poor track record. Let's hope I'm wrong.

I don't think Ontrack have necessarily underinvested - Since they took ownership of the track, they've been largely in the unenviable position where they are having to tidy up the previous owners mess. Unfortunately the condition of the network has proven to be somewhat worse than expected. The government has recognised this and has obviously shown us by the recent big spend-up that they are now serious about getting rail back to where it should be.

But I can't quite work out what your point is - You say in one sentence that they have "underinvested"... that is, not enough taxpayer funds have been spent on upgrading and repairing the network. In another sentence, you say that we've paid too higher price for it which I take to mean that "We've put too much taxpayer money into it"

While I certainly understand your reluctance to have the government own and operate the rail network due to their past experience with it, you have to remember that the government pretty much didn't run any of their departments that efficiently before the time that they originally sold it off. Nowadays, the NZ government is actually pretty good at running businesses through their SOE model. NZ Post and Solid Energy are two such examples.

The reality is that our rail network is in very bad shape - so bad that it isn't likely to get back on track (pun intended) until someone invests serious cash into it - Private business isn't likely to do it given the relatively large network in a sparsely populated country with difficult terrain. Guess who that leaves to fund it? ... Yep .... taxpayers.

Nowadays, the NZ government is actually pretty good at running businesses through their SOE model. NZ Post and Solid Energy are two such examples.

The reality is that our rail network is in very bad shape - so bad that it isn't likely to get back on track (pun intended) until someone invests serious cash into it - Private business isn't likely to do it given the relatively large network in a sparsely populated country with difficult terrain. Guess who that leaves to fund it? ... Yep .... taxpayers.

pretty good summing up there (except the overemphasising of the 'large network over the sparsely populated, difficult terrain etc' cos i believe thats open to a wide range of view points, although you nevertheless emphasise further why the private sector isnt going to do it).

pretty good summing up there (except the overemphasising of the 'large network over the sparsely populated, difficult terrain etc' cos i believe thats open to a wide range of view points, although you nevertheless emphasise further why the private sector isnt going to do it).

I think the points about having a relatively large network in a sparsely populated country with difficult terrain are very valid indeed.

While this isn't to say that it is impossible for the private sector to invest, the point is that these factors have a cumulative effect which will only contribute in discouraging investment by private business. They will simply look for bigger fish in bigger ponds.

Most businesses will put their money where they see they can get the biggest return. In short, a Christchurch to Dunedin service might be worthwhile as it passes through a number of sizeable towns - A Hokitika to Westport service would not be for example.

I think the points about having a relatively large network in a sparsely populated country with difficult terrain are very valid indeed.

While this isn't to say that it is impossible for the private sector to invest, the point is that these factors have a cumulative effect which will only contribute in discouraging investment by private business. They will simply look for bigger fish in bigger ponds.

Most businesses will put their money where they see they can get the biggest return. In short, a Christchurch to Dunedin service might be worthwhile as it passes through a number of sizeable towns - A Hokitika to Westport service would not be for example.

oh yeah i guess i see what your getting at. actually ive always thought a tourist railcar linking with the tranz alpine running from hokitika to westport and back and linking with a second running of the tranz alpine (prob summer only) would work... but thats just me skipping stones.

the only prob i have if the govt decides to operate passenger services is if better and newer services could be achieved faster with a private partner. What i mean is if the govt decide to let passenger rail sit on the back burner for a while yet the private sector is wanting to jump onboard then why not? provided the govt regulates it and sets standards and goals that have to be achieved by any private operator then i dont see why not? Though unlike others on this issue i dont have an ideology of private=better so if the govt can and want to operate it better than a private firm could then im all for that too.

oh yeah i guess i see what your getting at. actually ive always thought a tourist railcar linking with the tranz alpine running from hokitika to westport and back and linking with a second running of the tranz alpine (prob summer only) would work... but thats just me skipping stones.

the only prob i have if the govt decides to operate passenger services is if better and newer services could be achieved faster with a private partner. What i mean is if the govt decide to let passenger rail sit on the back burner for a while yet the private sector is wanting to jump onboard then why not? provided the govt regulates it and sets standards and goals that have to be achieved by any private operator then i dont see why not? Though unlike others on this issue i dont have an ideology of private=better so if the govt can and want to operate it better than a private firm could then im all for that too.

I think the government's first and foremost reason for buying back rail was really to shift more freight by rail rather than by road - This helps to reduce congestion on highways (which leads to possible savings in road construction and maintenance costs) and also contributes to us meeting out Kyoto obligations etc.

Eventually, I think we'll see more long distance rail services - though until the trackwork is heavily upgraded to support a nicer ride and higher speeds, it might be some years before we see big improvements. Perhaps the most likely new services initially might be more of the novelty services such as those provided by the Taieri Gorge Railway, Weka Pass, Kingston Flyer and so on, but using existing government lines, not just private lines.

BTW - An interesting idea on the railcar for the west coast. While I think it would be well down the list, it would be a much nicer way to travel from Hoki to Westport... The roads are so winding and twisting, and all that rain makes the ground soft and causes the roads to subside comparatively quickly compared to those in canterbury. Despite the hilly topography, the west coasts rail lines are relatively straight and well aligned.

Ontrack have had the tracks for a little over 4 years, give them time please!

Why did tranzrail sell up - with truck cartage getting so expensive now due to deisel costs?

Why did tranzrail sell up - with truck cartage getting so expensive now due to deisel costs?

Do you mean Toll Holdings? Or Tranzrail who sold to Toll several years ago?
Because no one has spent a cent on track maintenance since it was privatised 15 years ago. Asset strippers both of them.

Just a quick article on a PT initiative being investigated in Palmerston North City - free buses for all.

Horizons explores free buses for all
By KATIE CHAPMAN - Manawatu Standard | Tuesday, 26 August 2008

We already have free bus rides for Massey students and staff, but what if it was free for all?

That's what Horizons Regional Council is looking into.

Universally free bus rides are being investigated as part of a review of Palmerston North's urban bus services.

Currently the cost for adults is $2, or $1.50 with a GoCard.

Yesterday, Horizons' passenger transport subcommittee agreed staff could do further work to establish the feasibility of a universally free service.

The big question is how it would be funded. At this stage, nobody knows.

Transport services manager Anne Redgrave said the success of a free week promotion in July had shown how popular such a service would be.

"We were very impressed by the response and certainly the numbers have carried on, certainly through July and anecdotally we have heard they're well up in August as well."

The number of passengers that week was 22,876, compared with 9960 the year before.

The monthly figure was also up to 96,800, compared with 67,000 in July 2007 - a 50 percent increase.

But more buses would have to be put on to cope with the numbers, which would require more funding, she said.

A thorough investigation into the option had to be carried out, beginning with talking to the New Zealand Transport Agency (a merger of Land Transport New Zealand and Transit New Zealand which came into affect this month) about funding a free service, she said.

Another future plan discussed at the meeting was the possibility of an Airport bus.

Once the Railway Road-Airport Drive route was completed, an airport service could be combined with the Feilding service, Ms Redgrave said.

But Palmerston North City Council representative Bruce Wilson said an entirely separate service, scheduled to match flight departures and arrivals, should also be explored.

For many people, taxis to and from the airport were too expensive.

"This committee should be providing competition for the taxis."

The committee agreed to research pick- up and drop-off numbers at the airport.

From time to time they run free buses in Noosa and it is very popular with tourists.:)

I think the dominant reason for free buses currently - limited to Massey staff and students - is that traffic can be horrific in the mornings heading out to the campus. Its pretty much one road in/out and while its two lanes in either direction, there is a bottle neck at the bridge heading over the Manawatu river. They are building a second bridge (on the western side of the city I think) to counter this.

But this would be a major extension of the policy to everyone, anywhere in the city.

Suprising as it might sound, Palmy does get its traffic jams - around Massey, particularly around the square, while it also used to be awful heading out to the suburbs around the airport around 5:30pm at night, after work.

A few years back they toyed with the idea of a free tram or bus navigating the square, a jump on/jump off one, but nothing eventuated.

I never thought of bus travel as being that big in Palmy - I think I took only a couple the first 19yrs I lived there. But clearly there is demand. Anything to get cars off the road I guess.

It sounds like a step in the right direction. I only hope, like you obviously do, KLK, that something does eventuate this time unlike past experience shows.

This is an issue which is worldwide, governments that are really serious about public transport are going to have to do these sort of things. There are numerous examples and places where this applies. Auckland's rail network, is going to need initiatives to get the public using trains. Whether it is trialling free services, off peak fears, vouchers. :)

This is an issue which is worldwide, governments that are really serious about public transport are going to have to do these sort of things. There are numerous examples and places where this applies. Auckland's rail network, is going to need initiatives to get the public using trains. Whether it is trialling free services, off peak fears, vouchers. :)

Some good initiatives would be off-peak family passes whereby one adult pays and in an off-peak period they can also take two children (up to age 14) and another adult for free! This would greatly increase modal share at the weekend making public transport more viable for leisure travel.

Some good initiatives would be off-peak family passes whereby one adult pays and in an off-peak period they can also take two children (up to age 14) and another adult for free! This would greatly increase modal share at the weekend making public transport more viable for leisure travel.

On Sundays in Vancouver you can take up to 5 friends with you when using a farepass.

In NZ seems that PT is largely used by those that typically cannot drive (eg: school students, elderly, infirm, disqualified), or those that are in the poorer socio-economic bracket (eg: a poorer family that only has one car which dad takes to work).

In my opinion, this is largely because using a private car is:

1) Usually cheaper - As worst, it might be slightly more expensive depending on how you calculate exact car running costs.

2) Faster - In NZ at least, Public Transport is rarely faster when you time it "door to door" which includes any waiting times, walking to/from bus stops etc

3) More Convenient - We all live busy lives so the thought of waiting at a bus stop in the rain for 20 mins when you could be at Starbucks having a latté with a friend doesn't help PT's cause.

While some might be swayed by a slightly cheaper ride to work , or wish to benefit from the extra exercise walking to the bus stop, the reality is that most people will just look at the cumulative effect of the above three factors and compare it to their private car - Unfortunately, the facts speak for themselves and the Private Car wins hands down.

But now that the fuel prices are starting to bite, and with ongoing fears about where fuel prices might end up in the medium to long term, I think people are starting to get swayed... just based on the Palmerston North trial, the increase in patronage following the trial just shows how more appealing modern public transport services are compared to years gone by.

I remember many years ago, about the mid 1990's when the city council was just recognising the desperate need to revitalise the city's bus network, they offered staff "Bus Vouchers" as an incentive scheme instead of "Paid Car Parks"... Needless to say, they ditched it since the very staff that would have been mostly disadvantaged were the more senior staff that would have lost their car parks when they would have no intention of catching busses.... Dumb dumb dumb.

Maybe it is time that central government needs to step in and provide some kind of tax rebate or fare subsidy incentive to companies who exchange company car based perks with Public Transport based perks... This of course should start from the TOP down which means that Auntie Helen would have to catch a bus too...

On Sundays in Vancouver you can take up to 5 friends with you when using a farepass.

'Tis the same in many European countries as a whole too, hence my suggestion.

If we take the example of Vancouver and Euro cities we can see that there is a large proportion of leisure trips as well as commuting trips on PT, hence schemes like this must work somewhat.

I remember many years ago, about the mid 1990's when the city council was just recognising the desperate need to revitalise the city's bus network, they offered staff "Bus Vouchers" as an incentive scheme instead of "Paid Car Parks"... Needless to say, they ditched it since the very staff that would have been mostly disadvantaged were the more senior staff that would have lost their car parks when they would have no intention of catching busses.... Dumb dumb dumb.

That seems like a good idea. I know that certain Univerities in Britain and other countries not so far away from us offer perks for staff members such as reduced PT fares or even free tickets to help encourage people to take PT rather than drive and park.

Maybe it is time that central government needs to step in and provide some kind of tax rebate or fare subsidy incentive to companies who exchange company car based perks with Public Transport based perks... This of course should start from the TOP down which means that Auntie Helen would have to catch a bus too...

I actually think that greater regulation of PT operators needs to occur with the foundation of government managed companies as seen in Switzerland, Austria and Germany (three Euro countries with, in my opinion, the most efficient and integrated PT). Private operators bid to run the system and then everything, including route designation, fare levels and service integration is mandated by a government body. Increased regulation will lead to less profiteering and "running the service for a profit" as we see now. Despite low patronage, Auckland was a cash cow for the Stagecoach group for a very long time. The attitude that PT makes direct money needs to change.

Plus, we can't change the mentality of people until service quality is greatly improved. Without adaquate provision, no matter how much you subsidise it, you'll not get riders. This is seen in the US where PT is often absolutely dirt cheap, however, there is no way in a month of blue Sundays that the provision, coverage, frequency and quality is up to scratch.

Svarty what you're proposing is something that ARTA have been seeking for a long time. There is a bill some way through parliament that would give authorities such as ARTA much more power over regulating public transport than what they have at the moment. However, the clearly self-interesting Bus & Coach Association has been fighting against it tooth and nail.

Another factor to consider is population density. PT has traditional performed better in centres with high population density, which in NZ means Wellington. Indeed Wellington enjoys a higher per capita PT utilisation rate than any other city in the country.

Another factor to consider is population density. PT has traditional performed better in centres with high population density, which in NZ means Wellington. Indeed Wellington enjoys a higher per capita PT utilisation rate than any other city in the country.

well of course, which is why future development in cities such as Auckland and Christchurch should be concentrated in higher density zones along existing or planned transport corridors.

Auckland's population density will definitely increase in the future. I don't necessarily think our density in Auckland is significantly lower than Wellington's? We both have apartments in the inner-city, townhouses in the inner-suburbs and stand-alone houses further out? I think Wellington's public transport usage comes from the way the city is structured along two main arteries, which can fairly easily be well-served by rail.

Auckland's population density will definitely increase in the future. I don't necessarily think our density in Auckland is significantly lower than Wellington's? We both have apartments in the inner-city, townhouses in the inner-suburbs and stand-alone houses further out? I think Wellington's public transport usage comes from the way the city is structured along two main arteries, which can fairly easily be well-served by rail.

Wellington's population density within the urban fence is probably overall not a lot different to that of Auckland or Christchurch.

What appears very different between the three cities which perhaps makes PT more attractive are: (at least with rail anyway)

1) Settlement patterns - A very large amount of Welly's residential areas is spread along two long and narrow corridors which are well covered by rail lines. In addition, most of the rail lines run through the middle of residential neighbourhoods. In Auckland and Christchurch, urban spread is pretty much everywhere in all directions. Further to that, what rail lines there are mostly go through industrial and commercial areas rather than residential areas.

2) Communter Patterns - Where Wellingtonians live relative to where they work is pretty straight forward in Wellington and it helps to make Welly more PT friendly. A large percentage of Welly's workforce is employed in the CBD which means that most peoples passenger trips to work are achieved by a single train. Compared to Auckland and Chch, more people live everywhere and work everywhere. For example, although Christchurch and Wellington have a similar metropolitan area population, there is seven times more people working in Wellingtons CBD than there is working in Christchurchs CBD. This means that a trip to work for many people in Chch or Auckland might require more than one train ride thus making the whole process just a little more complicated and time consuming.

As for buses, I've never used buses in either Auckland or Wellington but from what I have heard, Wellingtons system is excellent mostly, Christchurch's is fairly close behind while Auckland's is considered to be mediocre at best.

As for buses, I've never used buses in either Auckland or Wellington but from what I have heard, Wellingtons system is excellent mostly, Christchurch's is fairly close behind while Auckland's is considered to be mediocre at best.

From my experience, the Wellington buses were excellent - but then, I never really had to travel very far. I lived in Mt Cook, and worked on Waterloo Quay :)

(and I used the car on weekends....)

But its a great summary of Wellington KaneD. And now I think about it, very few people I worked with drove to work. Most took the train because they were living out in the satellite suburbs, or, if they were on the CBD fringe (like me), buses were reliable and cheap.

In Auckland and Christchurch, urban spread is pretty much everywhere in all directions. Further to that, what rail lines there are mostly go through industrial and commercial areas rather than residential areas.


:yes::yes::yes:
Most of Auckland's rail lines go through abandoned industrail areas such as Westfield etc..No wonder train usage is so high :|

Actually im sure Christchurch has the lowest density out of all three. And the highest car usage (or ownership or something like that). If anyone is interested then check out the Greater Christchurch Urban Strategy (www.greaterchristchurch.org.nz) basically has all the councils working together to 'shape' the city into something more efficient. One example is they are going to stop sprawling commercial estates propping up all over the suburbs in a bid to make commuting more efficient as well as make more efficient use of land. There was an article in todays Press if anyone interested can get copy, apparently its the first strategy of its kind undertaken in NZ.

Except for the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy published in 1999 I guess? I wrote a thesis one it ;)

^^ was this actually put in place though? and is it s far reaching?

This strategy is to be put into gear next year and will actually place a cap on development in areas (such as Rangiora, kaiapoi, Rolleston etc) and will almost put a stop to urban sprawl altogether. All future development will be regulated by a new plan which will mean higher density developments located on transport corridors etc etc and will be applied to retail, comercial etc as well as residential. This isnt a proposal but the culmination of many years work and will likely be implemented mid 2009. Its actually hugely revolutionary because it will require a massive shift in thinking amongst citizens in terms of how they live. Complete black to the previous white.

and its gonna happen, its a done deal and will completely change the way the city grows .

what you are describing sensible is exactly what is contained in the auckland regional growth strategy that came out in 1999 as jarbury said,

there are metropolitan urban limits, which prevent any intensive development outside the urban area, and promote intensification along public transport routes including bus and rail corridors

^^ well thats kewl, sounds like the same sort of thing i guess and its good to see it nationally. im only striking thin air here but i think the soon to be released Chch strategy may be a bit more regulating, im all for this sort of thing but it did come across a bit er too hard, like i said check it out although most of the recent in-depth info isnt online yet (i think)...

hehe Auckland may have come out with some sort of strategy but I don't seem to see many results. After all, all we hear aboutis the constant bickering between councils. Hopefully ours doesn't end up like it.

Auckland's strategy was to stop sprawl just happening everywhere, and to encourage intensification in particular growth nodes. I would agree that these goals haven't really been implemented to full extent yet: just look at greenfield areas in Flat Bush, Hingaia and Takanini being developed recently while very little growth node intensification has actually taken place comparatively.

However, this is a long-term strategy (until 2050) and as the Metropolitan Urban Limits (MULs) are pretty strongly enforced, once the last remaining greenfield areas have been used up, it's going to be interesting to see what happens. The regional council has done a good job by enforcing the MULs and encouraging the city councils to intensify. However, I think the city councils have been too worried by the negative perception of intensification to actually do much: just look at Auckland City where only a tiny area has actually been rezoned Residential 8, even though Residential 8 is meant to be the city's main method of implementing the growth strategy.

i know this is getting woefully off topic but did Auckland ever have a huge 'green belt'? I presume it did as most Aus/NZ cities have had. Most have been destroyed or are being destroyed. What remains of Chch's will be protected but some of it will still be developed in future as they already have the rights etc.

As far as I know Auckland didn't within the city limits. The MUL kind of imposes a greenbelt for the remainder of the Auckland region that's not within either city limits or near existing small towns.

the only 'green belt' that Auckland had was the Domain/Grafton gully, Albert park, Victoria park but it was hardly a belt

as for the MUL, north shore and waitakere city have both taken action against the ARC to have the boundary moved, north shore succeeded with long bay (i'm not sure about waitakere - it was around whenuapai airbase i think) and the MUL was moved, so i expect a lot of litigation once the current greenfield sites are used

as for how regulating the Auckland or christchurch strategy can be, these strategies are created under the RMA which is a permissive statute, meaning anyone can argue that an arbitrary line, or plan on paper is irrelevant with respect to the Act

I don't expect the ChCh strategy to be any easier to implement than the Auckland one

The Auckland Regional Growth Strategy was actually created as a result of an amendment to the 1974 Local Government Act (which has been replaced by the 2002 LGA for those who care).

I think Long Bay was actually included within the MUL, or was an area that the ARC expected the MUL to be extended to include. Regarding the Westgate extension of the MUL, I think with the construction of the Hobsonville deviation a new logical urban edge (the new alignment of SH18) would naturally lead to the MUL being extended there. Waitakere City is pretty unlucky with its lack of commercial land in any case.

this guys got some interesting ideas..



http://www.pango.co.nz/?p=9



plus you gotta love this pic

http://www.pango.co.nz/images/hsnz2.jpg


our very bullet train..:lol: too bad it doesn't look as super sexy as this..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Shinkansen_500_Kyoto_2005-03-19.jpg

The idea is great only I get tired of these people grossly underestimating the cost of construction. $280-$350 million my arse. More like $1-1.5 billion for the link to Hamilton if you don't build any extra track between Drury and Auckland. If the required line within the auckland urban area were added then it would skyrocket to $3+ billion possibly.

I think Long Bay was actually included within the MUL, or was an area that the ARC expected the MUL to be extended to include.

Regarding the Westgate extension of the MUL, I think with the construction of the Hobsonville deviation a new logical urban edge (the new alignment of SH18) would naturally lead to the MUL being extended there. Waitakere City is pretty unlucky with its lack of commercial land in any case.

what I meant by long bay, was actually the land adjacent to the Okura inlet, it was a quite important case concerning the MUL

I think they will move the MUL after the hobsonville deviation is built, but waitakere were trying to get more land, since this is the only direction they can expand, especially now that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Act has been passed,

this argument is tied up with the airbase which Waitakere wants developed into a commercial airport, which will provide more commercial land, and further economic development for the city, although I imagine the extension of the westgate shopping centre will provide a significant amount in the meantime

Waitakere does have a pretty decent argument that compared to other districts it has very little business land. One of the problems of the current local government structure I guess.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0809/S00331.htm


Rail buyback ended years of stalemate
Monday, 15 September 2008, 1:59 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Government

15 September 2008

Rail buyback ended years of stalemate

The Labour-led government’s buyback of New Zealand’s rail system ended years of stalemate that prevented the modernisation of the network, papers released by Finance Minister Michael Cullen show.

The papers – from late 2006 through to the 1 July launch of KiwiRail – show that a huge range of valuations for Toll’s rail asset existed. They also show that the government was at one stage within hours of announcing the collapse of the negotiations.

“With rising fuel prices and growing awareness of the threat of climate change, the restoration of New Zealand’s rail system is now an economic necessity,” Dr Cullen said.

“After 15 years of failed private ownership, New Zealand rail is now back in New Zealand hands. KiwiRail is going to be a huge success for our economy.

“While the government came to hold an opinion that continued private ownership would result in the further deterioration of the rail system, we were simply not prepared to write a blank cheque to buy back the trains. I came within hours of announcing the collapse of the talks and the strict enforcement of the National Rail Access Agreement.

“A huge range of valuations existed. By ignoring some important factors – like Toll’s monopoly operating right – it was possible to argue that the rail system was worth less than what Toll paid for it.

“Toll believed, however, it was worth over $1 billion. As the government had to take national interest factors into account and as the existing owners of the track itself, we were always going to have to pay more than commercial rail operators who did not have an interest in keeping services open.

“In the end roughly half of the price the Crown paid was to buy Toll out of its long term monopoly right.

“We paid a reasonable and fair price. Having KiwiRail in Kiwi hands will allow us to protect rail services for provincial economies, move more freight off roads and onto tracks, and help make our economy a truly sustainable one.

“The government expects to make major announcements about funding for KiwiRail in the weeks ahead.”

A number of documents relating to the purchase are available on the Treasury website at www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/rail/purchase

ENDS



I know what a part of this major announcement might be. But I'm not sure if I should say because I could be wrong.

just say it, your behind the veil of the net for christs sake.

Alright. But I cannot confirm 100%. As far as I know we will be getting new locomotives. 3300hp diesel electric. Possibly assembled here in collaboration with General Electric. Similar to current Dx class except with double ended sloped cabs. That's all I know.

^^I've heard something similar too.

This is the story I got a while back (which was being evaluated):

- Engine, generator, traction motors - GE
- frames & bogie castings (new) - Hillside
- cabs, etc - Hutt
Assembled at Hutt shops.

Haven't heard anything recent on the NZ Made / assembled aspect of it though, so that could go either way.

^^ I think your on the money there, weve needed new locos for years. Ill be interested to see how many are ordered as Toll wanted just 25 which is completely inadequate. The DC's are ancient and all need to be replaced asap while the DX class at 30+ years are pushing it too. Even the DF class is pushing 30, just shows how much investment this railway needs.

Personally id like the see the older (1972) DX locos taken out of service along with all DC. Extending the NIMT electrification to auckland and down to Welly with a new dual voltage electric loco would free up a huge amount of Diesels for elsewhere. The old EF electrics could then haul suburban trains in Auckland and bank trains on the central NIMT. Alternatively id like to see the EF's work a re-electrified Midland Line :)

While im dreaming all long distance passenger services to be worked by 150-200km/h railcars with video and audio sets at each seat, again freeing up more locos for freight.

Single SOE for state-owned rail companies
New 2:02PM Wednesday Sep 24, 2008

The country's rail operator and tracks will be overseen by one state-owned enterprise, Finance Minister Michael Cullen announced today.

Dr Cullen said from October 1, KiwiRail and Ontrack would report to the board of the New Zealand Railways Corporation, which would be chaired by former prime minister Jim Bolger.

Mr Bolger currently chairs the establishment board of KiwiRail, the Government's name for the rail operation business it bought back from private company Toll in July.

At the time Dr Cullen said it was likely that Ontrack - the state-owned railway track company - and KiwiRail would become separate operating units of a single SOE.

Today he confirmed that arrangement.

He said the current members of the board of the NZ Railways Corporation, essentially a holding company for remaining rail assets from the sell off in the 1990s, had resigned with effect from the end of the month.

Dr Cullen said he would announce the next tranche of capital funding for rail upgrades and expansion next week.

The Government initially injected $80 million into KiwiRail after its purchase to keep operations at their current level in the immediate future.

But Dr Cullen has previously signalled an additional upgrade package of around $300 million would be likely.

- NZPA

Govt to spend extra $121m on rail this year
1:25PM Wednesday Oct 01, 2008

An extra $121 million will be spent on improving the rail system in the current financial year, Finance Minister Michael Cullen said today.

The Rail Development Group had recommended that more than $1 billion be spent over five years on the replacement of locomotives, rehabilitation of key parts of the network, upgrading information technology and creating freight hubs, Dr Cullen said in a speech at Auckland.

"I am delighted today to announce that as a first instalment, the Government has committed $121 million for rail industry improvements in the current fiscal year over and above previously forecast spending," Dr Cullen said.

The Government initially injected $80 million into KiwiRail after its purchase to keep operations at their current level in the immediate future.

The KiwiRail Board will be expected to report early next year on their view on their investment and funding needs for the remainder of the five year capital programme.

- NZPA

Govt to spend extra $121m on rail this year
1:25PM Wednesday Oct 01, 2008

An extra $121 million will be spent on improving the rail system in the current financial year, Finance Minister Michael Cullen said today.

The Rail Development Group had recommended that more than $1 billion be spent over five years on the replacement of locomotives, rehabilitation of key parts of the network, upgrading information technology and creating freight hubs, Dr Cullen said in a speech at Auckland.

"I am delighted today to announce that as a first instalment, the Government has committed $121 million for rail industry improvements in the current fiscal year over and above previously forecast spending," Dr Cullen said.

The Government initially injected $80 million into KiwiRail after its purchase to keep operations at their current level in the immediate future.

The KiwiRail Board will be expected to report early next year on their view on their investment and funding needs for the remainder of the five year capital programme.

- NZPA

As much as I like a fair and just free market; now that rail has been bought and that I am accepting of the fact - I would like to see exactly what this $121 million will go towards. If spent properly (which I will optimistically trust happening), it would be exciting to see the advances that will arise from such an investment.

It will be wisely spent because so little has gone to rail there isn't really anything to spend on that could be considered unnecessary. $1 billion over 5 years is nothing when you consider the amount of money being spent on roads. I don't think people fully realise how important this money is. We don't have enough rolling stock and the rolling stock we do have is very very old. Most of our locomotives are from the early 60's and the rest aren't much better. How many trucks do you see driving around that date from then? We need more locomotives, more powerful locomotives and above all they have to be new.

Yeah I was kinda hoping to hear what the money was going to be spent on, rather than it just seeming to disappear into a black hole. I guess if it's freight locomotives then that's all good as rail freight does turn a pretty reasonable profit along many lines these days, so it'll be an investment that should make back some good returns.

Heard John Key on the radio say it was wasted money..... gah!

It's not wasted money, that man is an idiot. There are many many areas where rail is simply the better choice and road is simply out of the question. I'd like to know how national plans on dealing with an increase in the amount of timber products and logs being transported over the rimutakas to Wellington to the port. That is one area which even the most brain dead idiotic person would realise that rail is the far superior option, maybe even maurice williamson would see why.... actually no I don't think so he's that ignorant of reality.

^^ For the most part, I think National will do a fine job running the next government but there are a couple of areas where they have missed the mark..

Rather than try and undo Labours good work at renationalising the rail system and the creation of Kiwibank, National seem to be somewhat keen of ditching both...

There is an old line.... If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

That phrase certainly holds true with Kiwibank which is working very well and since that bank has little involvement with the offshore fuckups of the financial system in the US etc, why in this current climate would we sell it?

As for Kiwirail - Well, yes that is broken and severely so. The recent injection of cash from the govt is a great start and hopefully the benefits will start paying off over the coming few years. Hopefully National sees some light at the end of the tunnel from Labours decision and doesn't wreck it. The last thing we need is National selling it (again) for a bargain price, only for Labour to bail it out again in another 5 or so years.

if it is sold again, we wont have a railway network when labour eventually return to power...

right now i dont think its about getting direct $$$$ returns. with NZ committed to a future of sustainable development the focus should be investing in rail and ensuring it can be used as efficiently by everyone as possible in the future. Obviously you dont want to throw money down the drain, fair enough and if you can get a return from it excellent, but you need to think about how rail will be used in the next 20-50 years not what routes/services will return profit now. Why? Because otherwise we will only have roads to rely on when petrol hits $15 a litre. If the bulk of our freight is moved by truck our living costs will go through the roof. If railways were privatised again routes would be closed, new stock wouldnt be bought because the gains would be for the short term interest of shareholders and not for the long term interest of NZ citizens.

Exactly. Rail investment is for the long-term future of our country. National just don't get this one little bit. Their attitude towards KiwiRail really is making their neoliberalism return to the fore.

Oh pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease I don't want to go back to the 1990s.

For the most part, I think National will do a fine job running the next government but there are a couple of areas where they have missed the mark..

Hopefully National sees some light at the end of the tunnel from Labours decision and doesn't wreck it. The last thing we need is National selling it (again) for a bargain price, only for Labour to bail it out again in another 5 or so years.

This is what National has told you they will consider doing, I'd be more afraid of what they aren't telling you

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0810/S00063.htm
Peak oil and public transport: Cullen's revelation
Thursday, 2 October 2008, 3:21 pm
Press Release: Green Party

2 October 2008

Peak oil and public transport: Cullen's revelation

The Green Party have challenged Labour to redirect the billions of dollars earmarked for New Zealand's largest ever roading programme into public transport, following Dr Cullen's admission yesterday that people will choose public transport if it is provided and that Peak Oil is real.

In a speech yesterday, Dr Cullen admitted both that "we have to come to terms with a new set of circumstances - the emerging reality of Peak Oil," and that "we can get people out of cars and onto public transport."

Green Party Co-Leader Jeanette Fitzsimons says: "This is a significant turnaround from Cullen's comments to me in the House just last year that "One thing I do not share with the member, I suspect, is a view that higher oil prices will lead to an
abandonment of the private motorcar".

"The Greens - and most of New Zealand - welcome the extra $121 million for rail, but this figure is peanuts compared to $2 billion going on a single tunnel in Auckland, and the $1 billion going on a new motorway in Wellington - as Dr Cullen himself admitted yesterday.

"I challenge Dr Cullen to be consistent in his views and actions on transport. He must redirect the billions about to be flushed away on new roads into the affordable, reliable public transport system people desperately need, and which he now admits will alleviate the traffic problems around the country.

"It is a significant breakthrough for Dr Cullen to admit that expensive new motorways won't be needed in an oil-scarce world, and that better public transport and rail will.

"Now he needs to change his behaviour to fit his better-informed views," Ms Fitzsimmons says.


ENDS

^^ so im picking there is an election coming up???

im surprised its taken Labour this long to find an area National cant/wont match/beat them. This is definately Nationals weakness (their neo-liberalism and focus on the 'individual' wont allow them to embrace PT to such an extent) and Labour havn't touched it with a barge pole... yet... probably far too little too late for them by now though.

One would think that putting some serious effort into supporting the CBD rail loop would be a popular policy for Labour to have. It would probably differentiate them from National too... as the only CBD loop Maurice 'what's a train' Williamson would ever consider would need 8 lanes of high-speed car traffic.

It is quite interesting that this is the 3rd time in the last 2 years that either Clark or Cullen (twice) have brought this up. Obviously this is starting to play on their minds increasingly.
What's amazing is how the maintream media keep missing these hints coming from the top.

It's interesting that the Greens have seen this all along, yet Cullen has only just cottoned on to the idea. Just last election he espoused the views of the road lobby rather extensively as shown in the documentary "Auckland City of Cars" as when he was interviewed he pretty much parroted their rhetoric.

As with most issues, the greens are a number of years ahead of the rest of the parties.

Saw on yesterdays news that the NZ First generated initiative of all over 65s plus those under that age who are superannuatents and war vets getting their free local bus travel has kicked in. Just in time for that election.

Any one know if it extends to trains?

Yup it does. All trains except inter-city ones. Also includes all Ferries for non-tourist routes. Of particular awesomeness is that it includes the Waiheke Ferry.

Best thing NZ First have come up with for ages....

And cablecars.

On weekdays it excludes peak services though.

From Metlink (http://www.metlink.org.nz/story29082.php?):
Free off-peak travel will be offered to card holders from 1 October.

When is ‘off-peak’?
Weekday off-peak travel is between 9.00am to 3.00pm, and after 6.30pm until the end of service. All day weekend and public holiday services.

What services will be free?
SuperGold Card holders can access free travel on scheduled off-peak bus, rail, harbour ferry and cable car services.


Be interesting to see what the uptake is like. GW/Metlink will be monitoring Gold Card usage as part of the usual passenger count and I assume other regions will be doing that too.

In Auckland it's all services after 9am, including the evening peak. Just for clarification. Apparently ARTA drove a hard bargain.

Cheers for the correction.

It's Friday and it's been a hard week. :sleepy:

Hamilton - Auckland passenger train. Will something finally happen? Or will KiwiRail take the railcars south ...
New bid for train link north
(+isay)
By GEOFF TAYLOR - Waikato Times
17/06/2009

Attempts are being made to fast-track a new-look Hamilton to Auckland commuter train service.

Hamilton local body politicians have been in talks with KiwiRail and say they are on the verge of getting a final concrete proposal on which to base a decision.

The deal is far from done but a rough proposal is for a service leaving Hamilton between 6am and 6.30am and departing Auckland at 5.30pm. A suggested route is from Frankton with stops at The Base in Te Rapa, Huntly, Papatoetoe and stopping at either Britomart or Newmarket.

Suggested fares are $24 from Hamilton and $17.60 from Huntly.
more (http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/2508086/New-bid-for-train-link-north)

I hope it goes all the way in to Britomart. If it doesn't I think it will be a failure.

Though in saying that, I hope there are enough slots for it to arrive at Britomart!

Hamilton - Auckland passenger train. Will something finally happen? Or will KiwiRail take the railcars south ...

Is that $24 one way? If so that seems pretty expensive. Can't see many taking that up. You can catch an inter city bus for cheaper than that.

I hope it goes all the way in to Britomart. If it doesn't I think it will be a failure.

Though in saying that, I hope there are enough slots for it to arrive at Britomart!

The problem apparently is not Britomart, but getting slots at Newmarket.

ARTA are convinced there is not enough space in schedules for the service to run via newmarket, and have said it should use the eastern line into britomart.

The backers of the service need to have new market as a stop to make the thing viable, so I suspect this idea is doomed to fail.

Does the Overlander go via newmarket or the eastern line?

The Overlander goes via the Eastern Line.

The new Newmarket station and trackworks should open by the end of the year, so I would imagine there would be much more capacity through Newmarket at that point. I'd suggest running it via the Eastern Line until the Newmarket works are completed, and then shifting to via Newmarket after that point.

Is that $24 one way? If so that seems pretty expensive. Can't see many taking that up. You can catch an inter city bus for cheaper than that.
Its not much more than Palmy - Wellington on the Capital Connection ($22). Also, I don't think there are any Hamilton to Auckland buses that arrive in Auckland in time for a days work (i.e. arriving between 0730 - 0830).

Something I wonder about is the proposed stops - they are relying on Hamilton for most passengers, whereas I think there should be more emphasis on intermediate towns. The Capital Connection (which is often suggested as the model for a Waikato service) gets most of its patronage from intermediate stations rather than Palmy (even though Palmy is the biggest population wise).

Yeah true, however that's $960 a month or approx $11,000 a year if you are commuting every week five days a week. A fair chunk of change.

I guess we'll see how good the uptake is if it goes ahead. Hoepfully it works.

Yeah true, however that's $960 a month or approx $11,000 a year if you are commuting every week five days a week. A fair chunk of change.

I guess we'll see how good the uptake is if it goes ahead. Hoepfully it works.

Although, I would imagine there may be some form of discount, the Palmy-Wellington has a monthly pass of $528

Yeah that's a good point. Didn't think of that. That would make it more worthwhile.

I'm sorry Milan, I'm going to disagree. I can understand your viewpoint having lived in So Cal extensively recently, but I have to say that having motorways everywhere is my worst nightmare.

Take a look at the statistics for PT usage in NZ cities that I posted on the Auckland photo thread in response to that American who wanted to know about car domination. These are incredibly low usage statistics on a worldwide front. It would be much MUCH better for NZ simply for our health to invest heavily in PT and then see what the state of the roads is.

I agree that some urban centres need to be linked by duel carriageway or even by three lane motorway in places, however, I reckon this should also be supplemented by a decent train line too during the inception of the road (if not before the road is completed) so that the mentality of driving everywhere doesn't become too engrained.

I need not begin to tell you about the abhorrent levels of carcinogens present in exhaust emissions and the deleterious effect that these said emissions have on health.

Exactly. I think that the Green Party is simply telling us its one or the other. Why can't the politicians take a leaf from Europe and develop cities with motorways and have efficient, and reliable, public transport systems with bus and rail combined into a single company owned by the city council rather than the government mainly because the government seems to think that what is happening must be happening everywhere else in a one size fits all solution. I also think that Auckland is being prioritised with the funding that the government hands out. I know that it has a quarter of the population of the country, but there are other cities rapidly expanding in New Zealand that have little or no public transport development or funding whatsoever.

Life in 2030: Public transport and battery power set to be way of the future
By Mathew Dearnaley

Dwindling supplies by 2030 will put pressure on indigenous transport energy sources - notably hydro-electricity, wind power and biofuels - to keep us moving.

Liquid fossil fuels will be increasingly reserved for high-priority uses such as wholesale food distribution, meaning a greater reliance on public transport for longer urban trips and "personal mobility" vehicles such as battery-powered Segways, bikes or small electric cars for neighbourhood errands.

Some overseas capitals will even have driverless electric taxis running along magnetic or laser-guided pathways - as are already being introduced to Abu Dhabi's new "carbon neutral" Masdar City and London's Heathrow Airport.

The cost of building dedicated guideways will be too prohibitive for New Zealand to develop such "personal rapid transit" systems over the next 20 years, given the hefty capital needs of expanding rail and busway networks to move larger numbers of people.

Auckland faces tough enough challenges raising the billions needed for the CBD rail tunnel and links to the airport, let alone a third Waitemata Harbour crossing, as its population builds to about 1.8 million by 2030.

But if petrol and diesel get too costly for too many household budgets, there could be plenty of space left on many roads for the addition of lower-cost light rail tracks in the middle for carless commuters.

Wellington "futurist" consultant Robin Gunston says New Zealand should follow the example of many United States cities, led by Portland in Oregon, in providing easements for light rail through motorway corridors.

He says cabling conduits should also be laid under roads when they are resurfaced to provide for future public charging points for electric vehicles, whether they be cars, power-assisted bicycles or Segways.

That is already happening in London, where thousands of small Indian-made electric "G-Wiz" cars are roaming the streets and Mayor Boris Johnson is promising 25,000 public charging points by 2015 to meet European air pollution standards.

Although batteries needed to give electric cars enough range on a single charge remain too costly for most New Zealand households, a report commissioned by power generators Meridian and Contact suggests their prices will drop by around 2024 to about the same as for petrol and diesel vehicles.

The Hyder consulting group report predicts that about 60 per cent of new vehicles entering the New Zealand market will be electric by 2030, as long as there are enough available to import, even without Government incentives such as a new four-year exemption from road user charges.

That date could be brought forward to about 2025 with some form of Government intervention, for a net estimated "present value" benefit to the economy from electric cars over 50 years of more than $8.5 billion.

But although the report predicts 30 per cent of the vehicle fleet will be electric by 2030, Green Party transport and climate change spokeswoman Jeanette Fitzsimons doubts there will be many second-hand versions available by then for average households.

Meanwhile, she says even the International Energy Agency agrees oil will be "in serious decline" by 2030, very expensive and not readily available for private consumption.

Ms Fitzsimons predicts only modest biofuel supplies by then, which may have to be reserved for vehicles such as trucks delivering food to supermarkets "which is probably the first thing to cause complete social chaos if oil is not available".

"One thing I can predict is, whether we build facilities for them or not, a lot more people will be cycling in 2030 and they'll be healthier for it," she said.

She also sees sail-assisted ships as essential for carrying Kiwi goods to distant markets and helpful for combating consumer resistance to products with high "food miles".

German company SkySails is already equipping merchant and fishing vessels with high-flying 160sq m kites for fuel savings of 10 per cent to 15 per cent and is working on cutting energy consumption by up to 50 per cent.

Mr Gunston is more optimistic about the development of electric vehicles, which he believes will be hastened by the necessity of dwindling fossil fuel supplies, but agrees personal private transport over long distances will become increasingly unaffordable.

That will heighten the importance of public transport, although he believes an enduring human desire for freedom of movement will see a range of small vehicles being used for short trips of up to 10km, possibly including motorised skateboards or even personal jetpack hovering machines for the better off.

Difficulties in distributing liquid fuels are also likely to see rural communities growing and refining their own biofuel crops for local transport needs, while fuel costs are likely to put air travel out of bounds for many people.

All that article's credibility went out the window with "personal jetpack hovering machines".

Personal jetpack is going in the opposite direction to what we need to do, seriously impractical.

What will be more interesting to see is what will happen to NZ's economy when we get to this point in time.

Firstly, we rely on a large amount of incoming tourists to prop up many tens of thousands of jobs in the tourism sector. As the article points out, most air travel will go back to being a service available only for the very wealthy.

Secondly, much of our economy relies on exporting a lot of primary products - timber, dairy, coal, meat etc. With dwindling and expensive remaining oil supplies, along with our long distance to our export markets, will we be able to remain competitive with others?

Of course all countries will be in the same boat as us, but NZ's relatively unique position of being so geographically separated from the rest of the world will mean that NZ really needs to rise to the challenge BEFORE other countries do to ensure that this country remains at the forefront of being an ecologically and economically sustainable country - A massive task by anyone's standards.

What will be more interesting to see is what will happen to NZ's economy when we get to this point in time.

Firstly, we rely on a large amount of incoming tourists to prop up many tens of thousands of jobs in the tourism sector. As the article points out, most air travel will go back to being a service available only for the very wealthy.

Secondly, much of our economy relies on exporting a lot of primary products - timber, dairy, coal, meat etc. With dwindling and expensive remaining oil supplies, along with our long distance to our export markets, will we be able to remain competitive with others?

Of course all countries will be in the same boat as us, but NZ's relatively unique position of being so geographically separated from the rest of the world will mean that NZ really needs to rise to the challenge BEFORE other countries do to ensure that this country remains at the forefront of being an ecologically and economically sustainable country - A massive task by anyone's standards.

Yes you make some very good points there. We do need to be looking this now, however the signs are that we are not. It looks like our government thinks it will be business as usual.

Wasnt' that the argument mounted for AirNZ running on biofuels - that it would be hit first by a price increase in jetfuel?