Yesterday Prime Minister John Key gave a speech outlining the government’s priorities for 2011. Of relevance to this blog is what he said about transport. Starting with what he said about State Highways:
We will continue building New Zealand’s transport infrastructure.
It is vital that New Zealand exporters and producers can move their goods efficiently throughout the country, and that New Zealanders can get efficiently from A to B. That requires a solid transport network that anticipates future needs.
In 2011 work will progress on developing New Zealand’s State Highway Network with priority accorded to progressing the seven Government-designated Roads of National Significance.
Construction on four of these is already underway, and this year construction is scheduled to begin on projects such as the Waterview Tunnel, the Ngaruawahia Bypass and the Rangiriri Bypass.
I must get around to asking NZTA what the cost-benefit ratios of the Ngaruawahia and Rangiriri bypasses are.
And public transport gets a mention too:
The Government will build the effectiveness of New Zealand’s public transport networks.
We want public transport networks that are efficient, affordable and future-proofed. To achieve this we will work particularly closely with the Auckland and Greater Wellington Regional Councils on plans to build improved metro rail and bus services. It is important that these cities pay their fair share for the infrastructure their ratepayers need. The Government sees itself as an important partner in their plans, provided they are realistic and necessary.
The formation of the Auckland ‘Super City’ Council provides a significant economic opportunity for New Zealand, and the Government will be working to maximise this opportunity in 2011. We will be working closely with the Auckland Council as they develop their strategic vision for the City through the Auckland Spatial Plan.
This year we will support efforts to build financial durability for Kiwirail, by shoring up its capacity to operate commercially-viable freight operations. We want Kiwirail to be able survive on its own two feet, and that means ensuring it can provide a competitive service that Kiwi businesses want to use and pay for.
The AKT blog interpreted what Key said somewhat negatively, a sign that the government would only reluctantly look at ‘realistic’ rail plans. I’m not sure whether I have the same interpretation – as I actually think there are a number of positives here:
- There isn’t specific reference to “we’ve paid for Project DART and electrification so now shut up” as has been the case previously.
- There’s a commitment to working closely with the Auckland Council to help give effect to the spatial plan. The fact that this paragraph is surrounded by rail discussions suggests that the CBD tunnel might be in mind.
- The government does accept it’s a partner in rail projects that make good sense.
I just wish the government would apply the same scrutiny to its roads of national significance. Is Puhoi-Wellsford efficient, affordable, realistic and necessary? I think not.
Processing...
realistic and necessary
so, apparently it’s a given that all of these RoNS meet these criteria.
only in some Tui’s-billboard parallel universe.
ratepayers
it is not only ratepayers who should fund this stuff. how about… i know, a regional petrol tax! brilliant solution.
conclusion: a Clayton’s PM
I’m the same – didn’t see it as negatively as some (most?).
My impression was:
1) “OK. We know we’ll have to fork out something for the CBD Rail Link”
2) “We realise (perhaps relunctantly) that isn’t where rail spending is going to end in Auckland”
3) “But pick your battles and forget about unrealistic (i.e.North Shore) rail”
North Shore Rail wasn’t proposed to be built for around another 15 years, by that point Joyce and co. will thankfully have been replaced by a transport minister and prime minister with some clues transport wise. In that respect, I honestly don’t care if they don’t think rail to the shore is ‘feasible’ as they won’t be around to do anything about it, and Joyce will be remember along with Maurice Williamson as one of NZ’s most incompetent transport ministers for a generation.
I kinda wish the whole North Shore Rail thing had never surfaced, as you say no one was really considering anthing before about 2030, so to talk about it in the same breath as the CBD tunnel and SW line just creates a major distraction for the public and policy makers.
It’s almost like the whole ‘package’ gets written off because of the one unrealistic inclusion.
It needed to be included in the package, otherwise you’d have a revolt on the Shore when people find their rates have doubled (or they’re paying an extract 50c/l on petrol or something) to pay for a railway on the other side of town. After all, that was what brought down the Greater London Council in the 80s. Now it has to go ahead because it was an election promise.
Well they got handed a brand new busway on a plate for nothing… although I suppose saying “you’ve had your turn, now share it around a bit” doesn’t win political points.
Meanwhile in America…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10705199
Surely Obama isn’t serious?
We’ve discussed the cost of high speed rail here before. The Channel Tunnel rail link cost around $NZ150m/km. The cheapest high speed lines are constructed in Spain because their standards are cheaper and they don’t have any sort of public consultation. But for arguments sake you might pay $NZ100m/km.
A US system for 80% of the population is going to look something like the interstate highway system which has 75,000km of road.
75,000km x $NZ100m/km = $NZ7.5trillion. The $NZ70billion that Obama has allocated for the project is only about 1% of what it will need.
Obama hasn’t proposed building the whole network for $70 billion, if you actually read the article the money is for technology development and improvements to existing lines. It is seed money to get the ball rolling.
And in terms of access, I would suggest that they have a a fairly loose definition akin to having access to a major airport. So not high speed rail to every town and village, but within a hour or two drive (or by bus or conventional rail).
To provide access 80% of the population would need nothing like 75,000km of route. Amtrak has less than half of that and connects all major population centres in 46 states… and this network was based around existing freight railroads, if they are building a new network there is the the potential to be a lot more efficient with the routes.
For example, a single line in the east coast corridor from Boston to Miami (2,200km) would join together around 36% of the American population (120 million people) for the cost of around 200 billion. A similar west coast line from Seattle to San Diego (1,700km) would join together another 18% or so (50 million people) for about 160 billion.
So that gives about half the population high speed rail access for about a third of a trillion.
I liked “…a solid transport network that anticipates future needs.”
So… they close railway lines. I think what he meant to say was “a solid road network…”