The debate over the Puhoi-Wellsford holiday highway seems to have reached fever pitch today, with a million different interpretations of what Len Brown and John Key discussed regarding the project over dinner yesterday floating around the internet. Added to the mix, the Green Party seem to have come across the “Operation Lifesaver” that I helped put together as a more cost-effective alternative to the holiday highway.
It seems to me as though the government recognises the project doesn’t stack up in the way that projects normally do. The time savings benefits aren’t particularly great (because the number of vehicles using the road isn’t very high), the safety benefits could be achieved for a fraction of the price (effectively what Operation Lifesaver tries to do) and so forth. Now this isn’t necessarily a problem – as I’ve noted previously time savings benefits are pretty debatable. What it seems is that the government has become convinced that building the Puhoi-Wellsford Road will, for some reason, revolutionise Northland’s economy. You can see this in what John Key says about the project in the NZ Herald article:
Mr Key said he made it clear that certain things were important to the Government, including the Puhoi-to-Wellsford roading project.
It was something National campaigned on, it was important to Northland as well as Auckland and it fitted into the Government’s national plan, he said.
To some extent I can see how you might perceive it to make a big difference, in that a big straight four-lane road would seem to bring areas north of Wellsford much closer to Auckland, and therefore Northland generally being more connected to the country’s economic powerhouse. But when you look at the actual analysis, the time savings are only about 10-15 minutes, and most of the freight that is shifted between Northland and Auckland (aggregate and logs) is incredibly suitable for transportation via the supposedly underused North Auckland railway line.
Indeed, back in 2008 NZTA took what I might call a “more objective” look at analysing what to do with the roading network north of Puhoi. The 2008 study makes for interesting reading, as you can tell it was written in a far more objective and reasoned manner than the 2009 study of pretty much the same road, which sought to justify a decision that had already been made. Perhaps the most interesting part of the 2008 report was the analysis of these “regional economic impacts” that the project is meant to have:
Let’s just repeat the important thing here: regional economic issues are unlikely to make a significant contribution to the viability for implementing the strategy. In the end, probably the only real economic benefits will be to trucking firms – as the North Auckland Line is killed off for good (really smart killing off your own rail business) – and also to developers who will start building more and more urban sprawl in areas that the Puhoi-Wellsford road will bring within a realistic commuting distance of Auckland.
Processing...
The problem, Josh, is that the current crowd have no buy-in to rail, seeing it purely as an inconvenience foisted upon them by Labour. They’d rather let it wither and die, thus reducing competition for their trucking mates (and getting rid of a bunch of traditionally-heavily unionised jobs), and in keeping with that they’re quite happy to push marginal lines into terminal demise by increasing the competition from trucks.
What’s really unfortunate is that the NAL is in such woeful condition that it cannot compete with road in any form. I think I read somewhere that much of the line is so poor that trains are reduced to little more than walking pace. Even if it’s irrelevant to the cargo (it’s not like logs and aggregate will spoil if it takes a day rather than a few hours to do the trip south) it’s psychologically disconcerting to consigners, especially if the cost isn’t compelling compared to road freight.
Remember: National are looking 12-15 years out, when they’ll doubtless be in power and in a position to flog KR off to their mates, again, for rock-bottom prices. If KR has failed before then, all the better, but if it’s flourished they’ll sell it on the argument that the State has no business running commercial operations that could be run more cheaply and better by the private sector. A lot of voters may even believe them, given the apparently short collective memory of the NZ electorate: look at the surprise and outrage when National ’08 turned out to be no different to National ’90 except for the smile at the top.
The irresponsibility and imprudence of this government in committing the country to needless additional debt in building this monument to profligate hydrocarbon use is astounding. The previous govt. wasn’t great but the threat is much much clearer now… to spend billions to achieve so little except to prove their point that rail can’t compete with road is unbelievable. Perhaps only the next oil shock might dent their blinkered view? But the damage that will do to this hopelessly road dependent oil importing country is very scary. Still, it will clear the roads nicely, shame it will still further harm our productivity.
I’m extremely skeptical that the holiday highway would save 10-15 minutes, I am a regular user of this road and I drive at or just below the speed limit and I have only twice been caught in traffic, once on Boxing Day on the other Labour weekend
The report that calculated average time savings of 15 minutes between Puhoi and Wellsford estimated that the current average speed of vehicles was 60 kph!
If the current average speed was higher than that, then the improvements would be far less and the “time savings benefits” of the project as a whole would be much reduced. As I have noted previously, I think even a BCR of 0.8 for this project is vastly overstating its benefits.
I’m extremely skeptical that the holiday highway would save 10-15 minutes, I am a regular user of this road and I drive at or just below the speed limit and have only been caught in traffic twice, once on Labour weekend and the other on Boxing day, even then I doubt it would save me 15 minutes.
This is so true.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news-cartoons/news/article.cfm?c_id=500814&objectid=10681050
The North Auckland rail line has been uneconomic for some time, it is simply a matter of running it into the ground. It has not generated enough revenue to fund replacement and capital renewal for around 30 years or so, it by and large has survived because trains can operate revenue positive, but that’s about it. Not enough is generated from the trains to sustain the line.
It will close, it is inevitable, and even if SH1 is never upgraded, it wont make a slightest difference to the railway. It is sad, because it is quite a scenic and quaint network of lines, but they don’t meet the needs of most the timber industry (distances too short, track and bridges too weight limited) and the distances aren’t sufficient to meet the needs of inwards goods.
So let’s not pretend SH1 upgrades north of Auckland have anything to do with the rail line. It, like the Napier-Gisborne line and the Rotorua lines, have no sustainable future for freight. Sadly, the Stratford-Okahukura and the North Wairarapa lines look not far behind. I’d like the lines mothballed, but in truth the climate and topography of NZ make mothballing a death sentence, compared to Australia and the US both of which have areas that can withstand a line being mothballed for long periods AND cheaply brought back into service.
Is that you, Steven? Sure sounds like Joyce.
If money was put into upgrading those various lines, and it wouldn’t have to be the stupid sums that Joyce wants to throw at Transmission Gully or the Holiday Highway, they could carry significant quantities of freight, at speed. That would take a lot of trucks off the road (reduced maintenance costs) and make rail more attractive to consignors. Look at Fonterra, who’re committing to putting a lot of their product over rail. That core customer makes it viable to put money into infrastructure upgrades on the lines they’ll use, and that will probably include the ones you want to see mothballed. Similar things are possible for Napier-Gisborne with a logging company, but that won’t happen until 2012 and Joyce will probably have the line closed before then.
The problem, Scott, is that you want money back right now rather than allowing rail to be treated like the long-life capital item that it is with a long return time. The financial and economic benefits of viable rail infrastructure, especially as oil prices increase and trucking becomes more expensive, are enormous. However, it’s a lot more expensive to rehabilitate a closed line than an operating one, as you have observed. Stop looking at a five- or 10-year life, and look at 20 to 30. Suddenly those investments look very attractive, so long as your mind is more open than Joyce’s.