NZ | Public Transport Projects + Development

[sensible]

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.

[KIWIKAAS]

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.

[habagatzentral1]

hello?

[KIWIKAAS]

He didn't last long

[KaneD]

Originally Posted by KIWIKAAS

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.

[KIWIKAAS]

Originally Posted by KaneD

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.

[jarbury]

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.

[KaneD]

Originally Posted by KIWIKAAS

Tongue in cheek right?

But of course -

Originally Posted by KIWIKAAS

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?

Originally Posted by KIWIKAAS

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.

[kegan]

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

[KingKong1]

50 year exclusivity.. Yeah right.

[sensible]

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.

[Milan Luka]

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.

[KaneD]

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.)

[jarbury]

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.

[Moveax]

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.

[jarbury]

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.

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by jarbury

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.

[KaneD]

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?

[metroman]

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. 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.

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by metroman

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. 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.