https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has
decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the
same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! The >earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and the
larger ships that were already on order would have worked very well -
but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of
dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important
road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
This was written before the indications now that the government hasWhat utter nonsense. Rail is heavily subsidised otherwise we wouldn't have any railways at all.
decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the
same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! The >earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and the
larger ships that were already on order would have worked very well -
but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of
dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important
road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has
decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the
same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! The >>earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and the >>larger ships that were already on order would have worked very well -
but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of
dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important
road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely
because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail
transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (and
never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are where
rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be shipped
must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at least
3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs and
petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport
(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading
entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF funds.
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:01:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has >>>decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the
same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! The >>>earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and the >>>larger ships that were already on order would have worked very well -
but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of >>>dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important
road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely
because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail
transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (and
never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are where
rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be shipped
must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at least
3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
See: >https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-nz-needs-to-invest-properly-in-rail-and-ferry-infrastructure-for-the-public-good-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/NKNOGOD5VZASZMIMDDSFCVWJMM/
and >https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128602/brendon-harre-makes-case-taking-minimum-viable-design-approach-could-have
and >https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
The claim that rail cannot be profitable is often made but seldom
justified.
We know of course that running down NZ Rail when National
sold it of was hugely profitable, but that is merely an example of an
asset being bought at less than real value and then allowed to run
down as it was managed for short term profit. But we have seen
recently that storms can make rail easier to restore after a major
climate event - Gisborne and north of Auckland; but a bigger problem
is that statements of that sort are made without any equivalent
calculation of the profit delivered by Roads. Rail is much more
resilient than roads to heavy transport - many truckers are aware that >current charges are too low for the heavier loads (over about 40
tons), and that road maintenance is significantly higher on roads used
by heavy trucks, or city routes used by busses. We also tend to ignore >coastal shipping - with the rail ferries being partly legitimately
seen as part of State Highway 1, or part of our Rail system, or part
of our Coastal Shipping services. We also need to look at total costs
by both local and national government - that is becoming clearer as
our new government is putting more costs on local areas, and the mix
of road and rail restoration between Napier and Gisborne will be
interesting to watch.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs and >>petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport
(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading
entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF funds.
NZTA has responsibilities for Transport, not just Roads - why would
they not spend money to reduce excessive traffic trying to travel to
and from Wellington to the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa and the Coast
from Johnsonville to Waikanae.
I have been surprised at how little earthquake risk has been mentioned
- there was considerable work done investigating a ferry terminal near
Cape Campbell, which would have shortened the sea trip considerably -
but the Kaikoura earthquakes have been seen as making that too risky;
I understand earthquake considerations were also part of the move from
the current ferry position (which creates difficulties for cruise
liners and other large vessels) further north to Kaiwharawhara. The
existing ferry terminal used by Bluebridge is very constrained and
makes transport from the rail terminal more difficult.
If you want to claim that one mode of transport is unprofitable, it
would be good to see some evidence, such as return on capital, for all
modes - you will quickly realise that this information is not
available . . .
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:31:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:01:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has >>>>decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the
same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! The >>>>earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and the >>>>larger ships that were already on order would have worked very well - >>>>but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of >>>>dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important >>>>road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely
because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail
transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (and
never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are where >>>rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be shipped >>>must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at least
3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
See: >>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-nz-needs-to-invest-properly-in-rail-and-ferry-infrastructure-for-the-public-good-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/NKNOGOD5VZASZMIMDDSFCVWJMM/
and >>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128602/brendon-harre-makes-case-taking-minimum-viable-design-approach-could-have
and >>https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
The claim that rail cannot be profitable is often made but seldom >>justified.
It is not a claim. Rail transport in NZ has been a Government
department, an SOE, privately owned and repurchased by the Government.
It has never been profitable, even when protected by a cartage limit
of 150km or less for goods not sent be rail.
We know of course that running down NZ Rail when NationalBecause the money is sourced entirely from taxes on road transport. >Indirectly, therefore, it could be said that road taxes fund rail
sold it of was hugely profitable, but that is merely an example of an
asset being bought at less than real value and then allowed to run
down as it was managed for short term profit. But we have seen
recently that storms can make rail easier to restore after a major
climate event - Gisborne and north of Auckland; but a bigger problem
is that statements of that sort are made without any equivalent
calculation of the profit delivered by Roads. Rail is much more
resilient than roads to heavy transport - many truckers are aware that >>current charges are too low for the heavier loads (over about 40
tons), and that road maintenance is significantly higher on roads used
by heavy trucks, or city routes used by busses. We also tend to ignore >>coastal shipping - with the rail ferries being partly legitimately
seen as part of State Highway 1, or part of our Rail system, or part
of our Coastal Shipping services. We also need to look at total costs
by both local and national government - that is becoming clearer as
our new government is putting more costs on local areas, and the mix
of road and rail restoration between Napier and Gisborne will be >>interesting to watch.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs and >>>petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport
(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading >>>entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF funds.
NZTA has responsibilities for Transport, not just Roads - why would
they not spend money to reduce excessive traffic trying to travel to
and from Wellington to the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa and the Coast
from Johnsonville to Waikanae.
subsidies.
I have been surprised at how little earthquake risk has been mentioned
- there was considerable work done investigating a ferry terminal near
Cape Campbell, which would have shortened the sea trip considerably -
but the Kaikoura earthquakes have been seen as making that too risky;
I understand earthquake considerations were also part of the move from
the current ferry position (which creates difficulties for cruise
liners and other large vessels) further north to Kaiwharawhara. The >>existing ferry terminal used by Bluebridge is very constrained and
makes transport from the rail terminal more difficult.
If you want to claim that one mode of transport is unprofitable, it
would be good to see some evidence, such as return on capital, for all >>modes - you will quickly realise that this information is not
available . . .
There is no point in me taking the time required for detailed research
that you will ignore because it does not match your ideological bias.
Been there, done that, not going to be sucked in again.
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that rail was profitable >(purely on the basis of revenue and expenses) while government-owned >(including as an SOE). If you can do this I will take you seriously
enough to cite my contentions.
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 21:45:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:31:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:01:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has >>>>>decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the >>>>>same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! The >>>>>earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and the >>>>>larger ships that were already on order would have worked very well - >>>>>but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of >>>>>dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important >>>>>road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely >>>>because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail >>>>transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (and >>>>never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are where >>>>rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be shipped >>>>must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at least
3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
See: >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-nz-needs-to-invest-properly-in-rail-and-ferry-infrastructure-for-the-public-good-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/NKNOGOD5VZASZMIMDDSFCVWJMM/
and >>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128602/brendon-harre-makes-case-taking-minimum-viable-design-approach-could-have
and >>>https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
The claim that rail cannot be profitable is often made but seldom >>>justified.
It is not a claim. Rail transport in NZ has been a Government
department, an SOE, privately owned and repurchased by the Government.
It has never been profitable, even when protected by a cartage limit
of 150km or less for goods not sent be rail.
We know of course that running down NZ Rail when NationalBecause the money is sourced entirely from taxes on road transport. >>Indirectly, therefore, it could be said that road taxes fund rail >>subsidies.
sold it of was hugely profitable, but that is merely an example of an >>>asset being bought at less than real value and then allowed to run
down as it was managed for short term profit. But we have seen
recently that storms can make rail easier to restore after a major >>>climate event - Gisborne and north of Auckland; but a bigger problem
is that statements of that sort are made without any equivalent >>>calculation of the profit delivered by Roads. Rail is much more
resilient than roads to heavy transport - many truckers are aware that >>>current charges are too low for the heavier loads (over about 40
tons), and that road maintenance is significantly higher on roads used
by heavy trucks, or city routes used by busses. We also tend to ignore >>>coastal shipping - with the rail ferries being partly legitimately
seen as part of State Highway 1, or part of our Rail system, or part
of our Coastal Shipping services. We also need to look at total costs
by both local and national government - that is becoming clearer as
our new government is putting more costs on local areas, and the mix
of road and rail restoration between Napier and Gisborne will be >>>interesting to watch.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs and >>>>petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport
(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading >>>>entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF funds.
NZTA has responsibilities for Transport, not just Roads - why would
they not spend money to reduce excessive traffic trying to travel to
and from Wellington to the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa and the Coast
from Johnsonville to Waikanae.
I have been surprised at how little earthquake risk has been mentioned
- there was considerable work done investigating a ferry terminal near >>>Cape Campbell, which would have shortened the sea trip considerably -
but the Kaikoura earthquakes have been seen as making that too risky;
I understand earthquake considerations were also part of the move from >>>the current ferry position (which creates difficulties for cruise
liners and other large vessels) further north to Kaiwharawhara. The >>>existing ferry terminal used by Bluebridge is very constrained and
makes transport from the rail terminal more difficult.
If you want to claim that one mode of transport is unprofitable, it
would be good to see some evidence, such as return on capital, for all >>>modes - you will quickly realise that this information is not
available . . .
There is no point in me taking the time required for detailed research
that you will ignore because it does not match your ideological bias.
Been there, done that, not going to be sucked in again.
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that rail was profitable >>(purely on the basis of revenue and expenses) while government-owned >>(including as an SOE). If you can do this I will take you seriously
enough to cite my contentions.
You can ask all you want, but my point is that those that do not like
rail make those claims, but are never prepared to either support those
claims with actual numbers, or give corresponding calculations with
respect to Roads.
We know that the current Government is planning more
Roads of National Party significance (perhaps that should be NAct1st >significance now),
but never has there been any published analysis of
the return on capital arising from either any single project or all
roading activities.
On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 10:30:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 21:45:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:31:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:01:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has >>>>>>decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the >>>>>>same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! The >>>>>>earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and the >>>>>>larger ships that were already on order would have worked very well - >>>>>>but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of >>>>>>dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important >>>>>>road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely >>>>>because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail >>>>>transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (and >>>>>never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are where >>>>>rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be shipped >>>>>must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at least >>>>>3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
See: >>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-nz-needs-to-invest-properly-in-rail-and-ferry-infrastructure-for-the-public-good-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/NKNOGOD5VZASZMIMDDSFCVWJMM/
and >>>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128602/brendon-harre-makes-case-taking-minimum-viable-design-approach-could-have
and >>>>https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
The claim that rail cannot be profitable is often made but seldom >>>>justified.
It is not a claim. Rail transport in NZ has been a Government >>>department, an SOE, privately owned and repurchased by the Government.
It has never been profitable, even when protected by a cartage limit
of 150km or less for goods not sent be rail.
We know of course that running down NZ Rail when NationalBecause the money is sourced entirely from taxes on road transport. >>>Indirectly, therefore, it could be said that road taxes fund rail >>>subsidies.
sold it of was hugely profitable, but that is merely an example of an >>>>asset being bought at less than real value and then allowed to run
down as it was managed for short term profit. But we have seen
recently that storms can make rail easier to restore after a major >>>>climate event - Gisborne and north of Auckland; but a bigger problem
is that statements of that sort are made without any equivalent >>>>calculation of the profit delivered by Roads. Rail is much more >>>>resilient than roads to heavy transport - many truckers are aware that >>>>current charges are too low for the heavier loads (over about 40
tons), and that road maintenance is significantly higher on roads used >>>>by heavy trucks, or city routes used by busses. We also tend to ignore >>>>coastal shipping - with the rail ferries being partly legitimately
seen as part of State Highway 1, or part of our Rail system, or part
of our Coastal Shipping services. We also need to look at total costs >>>>by both local and national government - that is becoming clearer as
our new government is putting more costs on local areas, and the mix
of road and rail restoration between Napier and Gisborne will be >>>>interesting to watch.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs and >>>>>petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport >>>>>(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading >>>>>entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF funds.
NZTA has responsibilities for Transport, not just Roads - why would >>>>they not spend money to reduce excessive traffic trying to travel to >>>>and from Wellington to the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa and the Coast
from Johnsonville to Waikanae.
I have been surprised at how little earthquake risk has been mentioned >>>>- there was considerable work done investigating a ferry terminal near >>>>Cape Campbell, which would have shortened the sea trip considerably - >>>>but the Kaikoura earthquakes have been seen as making that too risky;
I understand earthquake considerations were also part of the move from >>>>the current ferry position (which creates difficulties for cruise >>>>liners and other large vessels) further north to Kaiwharawhara. The >>>>existing ferry terminal used by Bluebridge is very constrained and >>>>makes transport from the rail terminal more difficult.
If you want to claim that one mode of transport is unprofitable, it >>>>would be good to see some evidence, such as return on capital, for all >>>>modes - you will quickly realise that this information is not
available . . .
There is no point in me taking the time required for detailed research >>>that you will ignore because it does not match your ideological bias. >>>Been there, done that, not going to be sucked in again.
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that rail was profitable >>>(purely on the basis of revenue and expenses) while government-owned >>>(including as an SOE). If you can do this I will take you seriously >>>enough to cite my contentions.
You can ask all you want, but my point is that those that do not like
rail make those claims, but are never prepared to either support those >>claims with actual numbers, or give corresponding calculations with
respect to Roads.
See my earlier post. If I do this, you will ignore it as it does not
support your political rhetoric.
We know that the current Government is planning more
Roads of National Party significance (perhaps that should be NAct1st >>significance now),
A prime example of your rhetoric. Why bother responding to such
juvenile language?
but never has there been any published analysis of
the return on capital arising from either any single project or all
roading activities.
On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 12:10:57 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>You are pathetic. Anybody with a modicum of intelliuence and integrity knows that Crash is not poilitcally driven.
wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 10:30:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 21:45:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:31:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:01:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has >>>>>>>decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the >>>>>>>same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! The >>>>>>>earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and the >>>>>>>larger ships that were already on order would have worked very well - >>>>>>>but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of >>>>>>>dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important >>>>>>>road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely >>>>>>because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail >>>>>>transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (and >>>>>>never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are where >>>>>>rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be shipped >>>>>>must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at least >>>>>>3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
See: >>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-nz-needs-to-invest-properly-in-rail-and-ferry-infrastructure-for-the-public-good-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/NKNOGOD5VZASZMIMDDSFCVWJMM/
and >>>>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128602/brendon-harre-makes-case-taking-minimum-viable-design-approach-could-have
and >>>>>https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
The claim that rail cannot be profitable is often made but seldom >>>>>justified.
It is not a claim. Rail transport in NZ has been a Government >>>>department, an SOE, privately owned and repurchased by the Government. >>>>It has never been profitable, even when protected by a cartage limit
of 150km or less for goods not sent be rail.
We know of course that running down NZ Rail when NationalBecause the money is sourced entirely from taxes on road transport. >>>>Indirectly, therefore, it could be said that road taxes fund rail >>>>subsidies.
sold it of was hugely profitable, but that is merely an example of an >>>>>asset being bought at less than real value and then allowed to run >>>>>down as it was managed for short term profit. But we have seen >>>>>recently that storms can make rail easier to restore after a major >>>>>climate event - Gisborne and north of Auckland; but a bigger problem >>>>>is that statements of that sort are made without any equivalent >>>>>calculation of the profit delivered by Roads. Rail is much more >>>>>resilient than roads to heavy transport - many truckers are aware that >>>>>current charges are too low for the heavier loads (over about 40 >>>>>tons), and that road maintenance is significantly higher on roads used >>>>>by heavy trucks, or city routes used by busses. We also tend to ignore >>>>>coastal shipping - with the rail ferries being partly legitimately >>>>>seen as part of State Highway 1, or part of our Rail system, or part >>>>>of our Coastal Shipping services. We also need to look at total costs >>>>>by both local and national government - that is becoming clearer as >>>>>our new government is putting more costs on local areas, and the mix >>>>>of road and rail restoration between Napier and Gisborne will be >>>>>interesting to watch.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs and >>>>>>petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport >>>>>>(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading >>>>>>entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF funds.
NZTA has responsibilities for Transport, not just Roads - why would >>>>>they not spend money to reduce excessive traffic trying to travel to >>>>>and from Wellington to the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa and the Coast >>>>>from Johnsonville to Waikanae.
I have been surprised at how little earthquake risk has been mentioned >>>>>- there was considerable work done investigating a ferry terminal near >>>>>Cape Campbell, which would have shortened the sea trip considerably - >>>>>but the Kaikoura earthquakes have been seen as making that too risky; >>>>>I understand earthquake considerations were also part of the move from >>>>>the current ferry position (which creates difficulties for cruise >>>>>liners and other large vessels) further north to Kaiwharawhara. The >>>>>existing ferry terminal used by Bluebridge is very constrained and >>>>>makes transport from the rail terminal more difficult.
If you want to claim that one mode of transport is unprofitable, it >>>>>would be good to see some evidence, such as return on capital, for all >>>>>modes - you will quickly realise that this information is not >>>>>available . . .
There is no point in me taking the time required for detailed research >>>>that you will ignore because it does not match your ideological bias. >>>>Been there, done that, not going to be sucked in again.
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that rail was profitable >>>>(purely on the basis of revenue and expenses) while government-owned >>>>(including as an SOE). If you can do this I will take you seriously >>>>enough to cite my contentions.
You can ask all you want, but my point is that those that do not like >>>rail make those claims, but are never prepared to either support those >>>claims with actual numbers, or give corresponding calculations with >>>respect to Roads.
See my earlier post. If I do this, you will ignore it as it does not >>support your political rhetoric.
So all you have given is political rhetoric. You cannot back up your
claim that rail has not been profitable, or give an equivalent
calculation for roads. Is political rhetoric all you have, Crash?
We know that the current Government is planning more
Roads of National Party significance (perhaps that should be NAct1st >>>significance now),
A prime example of your rhetoric. Why bother responding to such
juvenile language?
but never has there been any published analysis of
the return on capital arising from either any single project or all >>>roading activities.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 12:10:57 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:You are pathetic. Anybody with a modicum of intelliuence and integrity knows >that Crash is not poilitcally driven.
On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 10:30:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 21:45:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:31:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:01:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has >>>>>>>>decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the >>>>>>>>same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! The >>>>>>>>earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and the >>>>>>>>larger ships that were already on order would have worked very well - >>>>>>>>but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of >>>>>>>>dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important >>>>>>>>road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely >>>>>>>because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail >>>>>>>transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (and >>>>>>>never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are where >>>>>>>rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be shipped >>>>>>>must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at least >>>>>>>3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
See: >>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-nz-needs-to-invest-properly-in-rail-and-ferry-infrastructure-for-the-public-good-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/NKNOGOD5VZASZMIMDDSFCVWJMM/
and >>>>>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128602/brendon-harre-makes-case-taking-minimum-viable-design-approach-could-have
and >>>>>>https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
The claim that rail cannot be profitable is often made but seldom >>>>>>justified.
It is not a claim. Rail transport in NZ has been a Government >>>>>department, an SOE, privately owned and repurchased by the Government. >>>>>It has never been profitable, even when protected by a cartage limit >>>>>of 150km or less for goods not sent be rail.
We know of course that running down NZ Rail when NationalBecause the money is sourced entirely from taxes on road transport. >>>>>Indirectly, therefore, it could be said that road taxes fund rail >>>>>subsidies.
sold it of was hugely profitable, but that is merely an example of an >>>>>>asset being bought at less than real value and then allowed to run >>>>>>down as it was managed for short term profit. But we have seen >>>>>>recently that storms can make rail easier to restore after a major >>>>>>climate event - Gisborne and north of Auckland; but a bigger problem >>>>>>is that statements of that sort are made without any equivalent >>>>>>calculation of the profit delivered by Roads. Rail is much more >>>>>>resilient than roads to heavy transport - many truckers are aware that >>>>>>current charges are too low for the heavier loads (over about 40 >>>>>>tons), and that road maintenance is significantly higher on roads used >>>>>>by heavy trucks, or city routes used by busses. We also tend to ignore >>>>>>coastal shipping - with the rail ferries being partly legitimately >>>>>>seen as part of State Highway 1, or part of our Rail system, or part >>>>>>of our Coastal Shipping services. We also need to look at total costs >>>>>>by both local and national government - that is becoming clearer as >>>>>>our new government is putting more costs on local areas, and the mix >>>>>>of road and rail restoration between Napier and Gisborne will be >>>>>>interesting to watch.
NZTA has responsibilities for Transport, not just Roads - why would >>>>>>they not spend money to reduce excessive traffic trying to travel to >>>>>>and from Wellington to the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa and the Coast >>>>>>from Johnsonville to Waikanae.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs and >>>>>>>petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport >>>>>>>(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading >>>>>>>entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF funds. >>>>>>
I have been surprised at how little earthquake risk has been mentioned >>>>>>- there was considerable work done investigating a ferry terminal near >>>>>>Cape Campbell, which would have shortened the sea trip considerably - >>>>>>but the Kaikoura earthquakes have been seen as making that too risky; >>>>>>I understand earthquake considerations were also part of the move from >>>>>>the current ferry position (which creates difficulties for cruise >>>>>>liners and other large vessels) further north to Kaiwharawhara. The >>>>>>existing ferry terminal used by Bluebridge is very constrained and >>>>>>makes transport from the rail terminal more difficult.
If you want to claim that one mode of transport is unprofitable, it >>>>>>would be good to see some evidence, such as return on capital, for all >>>>>>modes - you will quickly realise that this information is not >>>>>>available . . .
There is no point in me taking the time required for detailed research >>>>>that you will ignore because it does not match your ideological bias. >>>>>Been there, done that, not going to be sucked in again.
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that rail was profitable >>>>>(purely on the basis of revenue and expenses) while government-owned >>>>>(including as an SOE). If you can do this I will take you seriously >>>>>enough to cite my contentions.
You can ask all you want, but my point is that those that do not like >>>>rail make those claims, but are never prepared to either support those >>>>claims with actual numbers, or give corresponding calculations with >>>>respect to Roads.
See my earlier post. If I do this, you will ignore it as it does not >>>support your political rhetoric.
So all you have given is political rhetoric. You cannot back up your
claim that rail has not been profitable, or give an equivalent
calculation for roads. Is political rhetoric all you have, Crash?
You lost and now you are getting nasty.
People that do everything based on political doctrines are fools, you are one >such.
We know that the current Government is planning more
Roads of National Party significance (perhaps that should be NAct1st >>>>significance now),
A prime example of your rhetoric. Why bother responding to such
juvenile language?
but never has there been any published analysis of
the return on capital arising from either any single project or all >>>>roading activities.
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 21:45:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:31:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:01:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has >>>>>decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the >>>>>same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! The >>>>>earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and the >>>>>larger ships that were already on order would have worked very well - >>>>>but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of >>>>>dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important >>>>>road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely >>>>because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail >>>>transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (and >>>>never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are where >>>>rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be shipped >>>>must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at least
3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
See: >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-nz-needs-to-invest-properly-in-rail-and-ferry-infrastructure-for-the-public-good-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/NKNOGOD5VZASZMIMDDSFCVWJMM/
and >>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128602/brendon-harre-makes-case-taking-minimum-viable-design-approach-could-have
and >>>https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
The claim that rail cannot be profitable is often made but seldom >>>justified.
It is not a claim. Rail transport in NZ has been a Government
department, an SOE, privately owned and repurchased by the Government.
It has never been profitable, even when protected by a cartage limit
of 150km or less for goods not sent be rail.
We know of course that running down NZ Rail when NationalBecause the money is sourced entirely from taxes on road transport. >>Indirectly, therefore, it could be said that road taxes fund rail >>subsidies.
sold it of was hugely profitable, but that is merely an example of an >>>asset being bought at less than real value and then allowed to run
down as it was managed for short term profit. But we have seen
recently that storms can make rail easier to restore after a major >>>climate event - Gisborne and north of Auckland; but a bigger problem
is that statements of that sort are made without any equivalent >>>calculation of the profit delivered by Roads. Rail is much more
resilient than roads to heavy transport - many truckers are aware that >>>current charges are too low for the heavier loads (over about 40
tons), and that road maintenance is significantly higher on roads used
by heavy trucks, or city routes used by busses. We also tend to ignore >>>coastal shipping - with the rail ferries being partly legitimately
seen as part of State Highway 1, or part of our Rail system, or part
of our Coastal Shipping services. We also need to look at total costs
by both local and national government - that is becoming clearer as
our new government is putting more costs on local areas, and the mix
of road and rail restoration between Napier and Gisborne will be >>>interesting to watch.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs and >>>>petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport
(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading >>>>entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF funds.
NZTA has responsibilities for Transport, not just Roads - why would
they not spend money to reduce excessive traffic trying to travel to
and from Wellington to the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa and the Coast
from Johnsonville to Waikanae.
I have been surprised at how little earthquake risk has been mentioned
- there was considerable work done investigating a ferry terminal near >>>Cape Campbell, which would have shortened the sea trip considerably -
but the Kaikoura earthquakes have been seen as making that too risky;
I understand earthquake considerations were also part of the move from >>>the current ferry position (which creates difficulties for cruise
liners and other large vessels) further north to Kaiwharawhara. The >>>existing ferry terminal used by Bluebridge is very constrained and
makes transport from the rail terminal more difficult.
If you want to claim that one mode of transport is unprofitable, it
would be good to see some evidence, such as return on capital, for all >>>modes - you will quickly realise that this information is not
available . . .
There is no point in me taking the time required for detailed research
that you will ignore because it does not match your ideological bias.
Been there, done that, not going to be sucked in again.
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that rail was profitable >>(purely on the basis of revenue and expenses) while government-owned >>(including as an SOE). If you can do this I will take you seriously
enough to cite my contentions.
You can ask all you want, but my point is that those that do not like
rail make those claims, but are never prepared to either support those
claims with actual numbers, or give corresponding calculations with
respect to Roads. We know that the current Government is planning more
Roads of National Party significance (perhaps that should be NAct1st significance now), but never has there been any published analysis of
the return on capital arising from either any single project or all
roading activities.
On 2024-07-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 21:45:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:31:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:01:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has >>>>>>decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the >>>>>>same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! The >>>>>>earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and the >>>>>>larger ships that were already on order would have worked very well - >>>>>>but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of >>>>>>dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important >>>>>>road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely >>>>>because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail >>>>>transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (and >>>>>never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are where >>>>>rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be shipped >>>>>must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at least >>>>>3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
See: >>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-nz-needs-to-invest-properly-in-rail-and-ferry-infrastructure-for-the-public-good-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/NKNOGOD5VZASZMIMDDSFCVWJMM/
and >>>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128602/brendon-harre-makes-case-taking-minimum-viable-design-approach-could-have
and >>>>https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
The claim that rail cannot be profitable is often made but seldom >>>>justified.
It is not a claim. Rail transport in NZ has been a Government >>>department, an SOE, privately owned and repurchased by the Government.
It has never been profitable, even when protected by a cartage limit
of 150km or less for goods not sent be rail.
We know of course that running down NZ Rail when NationalBecause the money is sourced entirely from taxes on road transport. >>>Indirectly, therefore, it could be said that road taxes fund rail >>>subsidies.
sold it of was hugely profitable, but that is merely an example of an >>>>asset being bought at less than real value and then allowed to run
down as it was managed for short term profit. But we have seen
recently that storms can make rail easier to restore after a major >>>>climate event - Gisborne and north of Auckland; but a bigger problem
is that statements of that sort are made without any equivalent >>>>calculation of the profit delivered by Roads. Rail is much more >>>>resilient than roads to heavy transport - many truckers are aware that >>>>current charges are too low for the heavier loads (over about 40
tons), and that road maintenance is significantly higher on roads used >>>>by heavy trucks, or city routes used by busses. We also tend to ignore >>>>coastal shipping - with the rail ferries being partly legitimately
seen as part of State Highway 1, or part of our Rail system, or part
of our Coastal Shipping services. We also need to look at total costs >>>>by both local and national government - that is becoming clearer as
our new government is putting more costs on local areas, and the mix
of road and rail restoration between Napier and Gisborne will be >>>>interesting to watch.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs and >>>>>petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport >>>>>(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading >>>>>entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF funds.
NZTA has responsibilities for Transport, not just Roads - why would >>>>they not spend money to reduce excessive traffic trying to travel to >>>>and from Wellington to the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa and the Coast
from Johnsonville to Waikanae.
I have been surprised at how little earthquake risk has been mentioned >>>>- there was considerable work done investigating a ferry terminal near >>>>Cape Campbell, which would have shortened the sea trip considerably - >>>>but the Kaikoura earthquakes have been seen as making that too risky;
I understand earthquake considerations were also part of the move from >>>>the current ferry position (which creates difficulties for cruise >>>>liners and other large vessels) further north to Kaiwharawhara. The >>>>existing ferry terminal used by Bluebridge is very constrained and >>>>makes transport from the rail terminal more difficult.
If you want to claim that one mode of transport is unprofitable, it >>>>would be good to see some evidence, such as return on capital, for all >>>>modes - you will quickly realise that this information is not
available . . .
There is no point in me taking the time required for detailed research >>>that you will ignore because it does not match your ideological bias. >>>Been there, done that, not going to be sucked in again.
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that rail was profitable >>>(purely on the basis of revenue and expenses) while government-owned >>>(including as an SOE). If you can do this I will take you seriously >>>enough to cite my contentions.
You can ask all you want, but my point is that those that do not like
rail make those claims, but are never prepared to either support those
claims with actual numbers, or give corresponding calculations with
respect to Roads. We know that the current Government is planning more
Roads of National Party significance (perhaps that should be NAct1st
significance now), but never has there been any published analysis of
the return on capital arising from either any single project or all
roading activities.
If we step back and accept that any country needs transport for goods and >services we can then put the options on the table and start a discussion as >to the mix, if any we should use.
History has dictated that we have railways as turcks as we now then today, >did not exist as the trains powered by steam were hauling all that coal, >among other items across the country.
On 9 Jul 2024 02:53:05 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:I believe that is completely incorrect. The first part of the kapiti expressway (M2PP )was managed by an alliance of four major parties with financial involvement (including NZTA) plus the Kapiti Council (which had no financial ris). The alliance was constructed so that none of those could sue the others and they could not walk away. I think you are thinking of a different task.
On 2024-07-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 21:45:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:31:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:01:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has >>>>>>>decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the >>>>>>>same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! The >>>>>>>earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and the >>>>>>>larger ships that were already on order would have worked very well - >>>>>>>but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of >>>>>>>dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important >>>>>>>road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely >>>>>>because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail >>>>>>transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (and >>>>>>never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are where >>>>>>rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be shipped >>>>>>must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at least >>>>>>3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
See: >>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-nz-needs-to-invest-properly-in-rail-and-ferry-infrastructure-for-the-public-good-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/NKNOGOD5VZASZMIMDDSFCVWJMM/
and >>>>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128602/brendon-harre-makes-case-taking-minimum-viable-design-approach-could-have
and >>>>>https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
The claim that rail cannot be profitable is often made but seldom >>>>>justified.
It is not a claim. Rail transport in NZ has been a Government >>>>department, an SOE, privately owned and repurchased by the Government. >>>>It has never been profitable, even when protected by a cartage limit
of 150km or less for goods not sent be rail.
We know of course that running down NZ Rail when NationalBecause the money is sourced entirely from taxes on road transport. >>>>Indirectly, therefore, it could be said that road taxes fund rail >>>>subsidies.
sold it of was hugely profitable, but that is merely an example of an >>>>>asset being bought at less than real value and then allowed to run >>>>>down as it was managed for short term profit. But we have seen >>>>>recently that storms can make rail easier to restore after a major >>>>>climate event - Gisborne and north of Auckland; but a bigger problem >>>>>is that statements of that sort are made without any equivalent >>>>>calculation of the profit delivered by Roads. Rail is much more >>>>>resilient than roads to heavy transport - many truckers are aware that >>>>>current charges are too low for the heavier loads (over about 40 >>>>>tons), and that road maintenance is significantly higher on roads used >>>>>by heavy trucks, or city routes used by busses. We also tend to ignore >>>>>coastal shipping - with the rail ferries being partly legitimately >>>>>seen as part of State Highway 1, or part of our Rail system, or part >>>>>of our Coastal Shipping services. We also need to look at total costs >>>>>by both local and national government - that is becoming clearer as >>>>>our new government is putting more costs on local areas, and the mix >>>>>of road and rail restoration between Napier and Gisborne will be >>>>>interesting to watch.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs and >>>>>>petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport >>>>>>(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading >>>>>>entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF funds.
NZTA has responsibilities for Transport, not just Roads - why would >>>>>they not spend money to reduce excessive traffic trying to travel to >>>>>and from Wellington to the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa and the Coast >>>>>from Johnsonville to Waikanae.
I have been surprised at how little earthquake risk has been mentioned >>>>>- there was considerable work done investigating a ferry terminal near >>>>>Cape Campbell, which would have shortened the sea trip considerably - >>>>>but the Kaikoura earthquakes have been seen as making that too risky; >>>>>I understand earthquake considerations were also part of the move from >>>>>the current ferry position (which creates difficulties for cruise >>>>>liners and other large vessels) further north to Kaiwharawhara. The >>>>>existing ferry terminal used by Bluebridge is very constrained and >>>>>makes transport from the rail terminal more difficult.
If you want to claim that one mode of transport is unprofitable, it >>>>>would be good to see some evidence, such as return on capital, for all >>>>>modes - you will quickly realise that this information is not >>>>>available . . .
There is no point in me taking the time required for detailed research >>>>that you will ignore because it does not match your ideological bias. >>>>Been there, done that, not going to be sucked in again.
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that rail was profitable >>>>(purely on the basis of revenue and expenses) while government-owned >>>>(including as an SOE). If you can do this I will take you seriously >>>>enough to cite my contentions.
You can ask all you want, but my point is that those that do not like
rail make those claims, but are never prepared to either support those
claims with actual numbers, or give corresponding calculations with
respect to Roads. We know that the current Government is planning more
Roads of National Party significance (perhaps that should be NAct1st
significance now), but never has there been any published analysis of
the return on capital arising from either any single project or all
roading activities.
If we step back and accept that any country needs transport for goods and >>services we can then put the options on the table and start a discussion as >>to the mix, if any we should use.
History has dictated that we have railways as turcks as we now then today, >>did not exist as the trains powered by steam were hauling all that coal, >>among other items across the country.
The different types of transport have developed differently - Air is
the only one that is almost all privately owned (albeit with
occasional bail-outs!). The economics of large road projects are
relatively simple - arrange the finance, get a good design and get it
done with ongoing systems to ensure that it is built to agreed
standards. Each step is important, but the big issues are getting
each step at the lowest possible price while not sacrificing quality.
The Kaikoura highway recover from the earthquake had to be done
quickly, so it was financed using government money (at a lower rate
than can be provided by any other New Zealand organisation, it was
managed by Engineers who were on site to monitor work as it was done
while planning the next step (urgent completion was a factor there). >Suppliers were sourced competitively - as much because they did not
know what they would need for later stages, but competitive
purchasing did keep costs low. Contractors were hired for each stage
so there was competitive tendering, and the knowledge that good
service may assist future contracts.
Compare with a PPP - a single provider of finance at a higher rate
than government needs to pay. A single supplier of both labour and
materials based on a single price with escalation clauses, in some
cases with part of the cost being met by future tolls. That cuts out >flexibility, but also limits the number of tenderers, and with a big >contract, there are inevitably variations that will get fought for an >increased price - through the courts if necessary.
Most contracts are somewhere in between - but the Kapiti expressway
had an additional difficulty in that the consortium was structures in
such a way that the tenderers could effectively shut down their
organisation and walk away at any point
- it made it difficult to gain
the trust of sub-contractors, who had seen a spate of building
contracts being closed down with subbies losing both payment for work
done and a big fight for getting their working tools back.
In some countries, PPP will be accounted for by the government as an
asset as work progresses, with the cost of say future tolls not
allowed for until later - in effect the true costs gets hidden for
years; the UK Tories found themselves having to wear disappointment in
some projects as they were in government for long enough for the true
cost to be identified - Thames Water is an example of how it can all
go wrong - we should prefer the Scottish Water model that delivers
water at a significantly lower cost through a better and more
appropriate structure. Here is New Zealand the government accounting
rules require future commitments to be included as a cost (discounted >appropriately for time) in the government accounts, so our governments
cannot hide from those future commitments, but that economic reality
may not be well comprehended by those that see other governments only
having to account for these contracts as they have to make payments.
All of the above consideration apply to all governments, regardless of
which parties are involved, so the economics are more important than
the politics.
Rail offers some advantages over roads - for most routes the lines are
more stable than many of the roads; certainly the metal rails are
longer lasting than asphalt, and can take heavier loads without
significant additional deterioration. Rail takes traffic away from
congested routes, but does suit some items better than others.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Jul 2024 02:53:05 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:I believe that is completely incorrect. The first part of the kapiti expressway
On 2024-07-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 21:45:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:31:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:01:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has >>>>>>>>decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the >>>>>>>>same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! The >>>>>>>>earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and the >>>>>>>>larger ships that were already on order would have worked very well - >>>>>>>>but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of >>>>>>>>dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important >>>>>>>>road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely >>>>>>>because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail >>>>>>>transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (and >>>>>>>never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are where >>>>>>>rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be shipped >>>>>>>must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at least >>>>>>>3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
See: >>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-nz-needs-to-invest-properly-in-rail-and-ferry-infrastructure-for-the-public-good-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/NKNOGOD5VZASZMIMDDSFCVWJMM/
and >>>>>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128602/brendon-harre-makes-case-taking-minimum-viable-design-approach-could-have
and >>>>>>https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
The claim that rail cannot be profitable is often made but seldom >>>>>>justified.
It is not a claim. Rail transport in NZ has been a Government >>>>>department, an SOE, privately owned and repurchased by the Government. >>>>>It has never been profitable, even when protected by a cartage limit >>>>>of 150km or less for goods not sent be rail.
We know of course that running down NZ Rail when NationalBecause the money is sourced entirely from taxes on road transport. >>>>>Indirectly, therefore, it could be said that road taxes fund rail >>>>>subsidies.
sold it of was hugely profitable, but that is merely an example of an >>>>>>asset being bought at less than real value and then allowed to run >>>>>>down as it was managed for short term profit. But we have seen >>>>>>recently that storms can make rail easier to restore after a major >>>>>>climate event - Gisborne and north of Auckland; but a bigger problem >>>>>>is that statements of that sort are made without any equivalent >>>>>>calculation of the profit delivered by Roads. Rail is much more >>>>>>resilient than roads to heavy transport - many truckers are aware that >>>>>>current charges are too low for the heavier loads (over about 40 >>>>>>tons), and that road maintenance is significantly higher on roads used >>>>>>by heavy trucks, or city routes used by busses. We also tend to ignore >>>>>>coastal shipping - with the rail ferries being partly legitimately >>>>>>seen as part of State Highway 1, or part of our Rail system, or part >>>>>>of our Coastal Shipping services. We also need to look at total costs >>>>>>by both local and national government - that is becoming clearer as >>>>>>our new government is putting more costs on local areas, and the mix >>>>>>of road and rail restoration between Napier and Gisborne will be >>>>>>interesting to watch.
NZTA has responsibilities for Transport, not just Roads - why would >>>>>>they not spend money to reduce excessive traffic trying to travel to >>>>>>and from Wellington to the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa and the Coast >>>>>>from Johnsonville to Waikanae.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs and >>>>>>>petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport >>>>>>>(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading >>>>>>>entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF funds. >>>>>>
I have been surprised at how little earthquake risk has been mentioned >>>>>>- there was considerable work done investigating a ferry terminal near >>>>>>Cape Campbell, which would have shortened the sea trip considerably - >>>>>>but the Kaikoura earthquakes have been seen as making that too risky; >>>>>>I understand earthquake considerations were also part of the move from >>>>>>the current ferry position (which creates difficulties for cruise >>>>>>liners and other large vessels) further north to Kaiwharawhara. The >>>>>>existing ferry terminal used by Bluebridge is very constrained and >>>>>>makes transport from the rail terminal more difficult.
If you want to claim that one mode of transport is unprofitable, it >>>>>>would be good to see some evidence, such as return on capital, for all >>>>>>modes - you will quickly realise that this information is not >>>>>>available . . .
There is no point in me taking the time required for detailed research >>>>>that you will ignore because it does not match your ideological bias. >>>>>Been there, done that, not going to be sucked in again.
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that rail was profitable >>>>>(purely on the basis of revenue and expenses) while government-owned >>>>>(including as an SOE). If you can do this I will take you seriously >>>>>enough to cite my contentions.
You can ask all you want, but my point is that those that do not like
rail make those claims, but are never prepared to either support those >>>> claims with actual numbers, or give corresponding calculations with
respect to Roads. We know that the current Government is planning more >>>> Roads of National Party significance (perhaps that should be NAct1st
significance now), but never has there been any published analysis of
the return on capital arising from either any single project or all
roading activities.
If we step back and accept that any country needs transport for goods and >>>services we can then put the options on the table and start a discussion as >>>to the mix, if any we should use.
History has dictated that we have railways as turcks as we now then today, >>>did not exist as the trains powered by steam were hauling all that coal, >>>among other items across the country.
The different types of transport have developed differently - Air is
the only one that is almost all privately owned (albeit with
occasional bail-outs!). The economics of large road projects are
relatively simple - arrange the finance, get a good design and get it
done with ongoing systems to ensure that it is built to agreed
standards. Each step is important, but the big issues are getting
each step at the lowest possible price while not sacrificing quality.
The Kaikoura highway recover from the earthquake had to be done
quickly, so it was financed using government money (at a lower rate
than can be provided by any other New Zealand organisation, it was
managed by Engineers who were on site to monitor work as it was done
while planning the next step (urgent completion was a factor there). >>Suppliers were sourced competitively - as much because they did not
know what they would need for later stages, but competitive
purchasing did keep costs low. Contractors were hired for each stage
so there was competitive tendering, and the knowledge that good
service may assist future contracts.
Compare with a PPP - a single provider of finance at a higher rate
than government needs to pay. A single supplier of both labour and >>materials based on a single price with escalation clauses, in some
cases with part of the cost being met by future tolls. That cuts out >>flexibility, but also limits the number of tenderers, and with a big >>contract, there are inevitably variations that will get fought for an >>increased price - through the courts if necessary.
Most contracts are somewhere in between - but the Kapiti expressway
had an additional difficulty in that the consortium was structures in
such a way that the tenderers could effectively shut down their >>organisation and walk away at any point
(M2PP )was managed by an alliance of four major parties with financial >involvement (including NZTA) plus the Kapiti Council (which had no financial >ris). The alliance was constructed so that none of those could sue the others >and they could not walk away. I think you are thinking of a different task.
- it made it difficult to gain
the trust of sub-contractors, who had seen a spate of building
contracts being closed down with subbies losing both payment for work
done and a big fight for getting their working tools back.
In some countries, PPP will be accounted for by the government as an
asset as work progresses, with the cost of say future tolls not
allowed for until later - in effect the true costs gets hidden for
years; the UK Tories found themselves having to wear disappointment in
some projects as they were in government for long enough for the true
cost to be identified - Thames Water is an example of how it can all
go wrong - we should prefer the Scottish Water model that delivers
water at a significantly lower cost through a better and more
appropriate structure. Here is New Zealand the government accounting
rules require future commitments to be included as a cost (discounted >>appropriately for time) in the government accounts, so our governments >>cannot hide from those future commitments, but that economic reality
may not be well comprehended by those that see other governments only >>having to account for these contracts as they have to make payments.
All of the above consideration apply to all governments, regardless of >>which parties are involved, so the economics are more important than
the politics.
Rail offers some advantages over roads - for most routes the lines are
more stable than many of the roads; certainly the metal rails are
longer lasting than asphalt, and can take heavier loads without
significant additional deterioration. Rail takes traffic away from >>congested routes, but does suit some items better than others.
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 21:41:21 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo there were three distict and legally seperate tasks. The first was M2PP and that was an alliance and nobody could walk away. That is a fact.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Jul 2024 02:53:05 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:I believe that is completely incorrect. The first part of the kapiti >>expressway
On 2024-07-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 21:45:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:31:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:01:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has >>>>>>>>>decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the >>>>>>>>>same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! The >>>>>>>>>earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and the >>>>>>>>>larger ships that were already on order would have worked very well - >>>>>>>>>but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of >>>>>>>>>dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important >>>>>>>>>road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely >>>>>>>>because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail >>>>>>>>transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (and >>>>>>>>never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are where >>>>>>>>rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be shipped >>>>>>>>must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at least >>>>>>>>3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
See: >>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-nz-needs-to-invest-properly-in-rail-and-ferry-infrastructure-for-the-public-good-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/NKNOGOD5VZASZMIMDDSFCVWJMM/
and >>>>>>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128602/brendon-harre-makes-case-taking-minimum-viable-design-approach-could-have
and >>>>>>>https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
The claim that rail cannot be profitable is often made but seldom >>>>>>>justified.
It is not a claim. Rail transport in NZ has been a Government >>>>>>department, an SOE, privately owned and repurchased by the Government. >>>>>>It has never been profitable, even when protected by a cartage limit >>>>>>of 150km or less for goods not sent be rail.
We know of course that running down NZ Rail when NationalBecause the money is sourced entirely from taxes on road transport. >>>>>>Indirectly, therefore, it could be said that road taxes fund rail >>>>>>subsidies.
sold it of was hugely profitable, but that is merely an example of an >>>>>>>asset being bought at less than real value and then allowed to run >>>>>>>down as it was managed for short term profit. But we have seen >>>>>>>recently that storms can make rail easier to restore after a major >>>>>>>climate event - Gisborne and north of Auckland; but a bigger problem >>>>>>>is that statements of that sort are made without any equivalent >>>>>>>calculation of the profit delivered by Roads. Rail is much more >>>>>>>resilient than roads to heavy transport - many truckers are aware that >>>>>>>current charges are too low for the heavier loads (over about 40 >>>>>>>tons), and that road maintenance is significantly higher on roads used >>>>>>>by heavy trucks, or city routes used by busses. We also tend to ignore >>>>>>>coastal shipping - with the rail ferries being partly legitimately >>>>>>>seen as part of State Highway 1, or part of our Rail system, or part >>>>>>>of our Coastal Shipping services. We also need to look at total costs >>>>>>>by both local and national government - that is becoming clearer as >>>>>>>our new government is putting more costs on local areas, and the mix >>>>>>>of road and rail restoration between Napier and Gisborne will be >>>>>>>interesting to watch.
NZTA has responsibilities for Transport, not just Roads - why would >>>>>>>they not spend money to reduce excessive traffic trying to travel to >>>>>>>and from Wellington to the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa and the Coast >>>>>>>from Johnsonville to Waikanae.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs and >>>>>>>>petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport >>>>>>>>(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading >>>>>>>>entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF funds. >>>>>>>
I have been surprised at how little earthquake risk has been mentioned >>>>>>>- there was considerable work done investigating a ferry terminal near >>>>>>>Cape Campbell, which would have shortened the sea trip considerably - >>>>>>>but the Kaikoura earthquakes have been seen as making that too risky; >>>>>>>I understand earthquake considerations were also part of the move from >>>>>>>the current ferry position (which creates difficulties for cruise >>>>>>>liners and other large vessels) further north to Kaiwharawhara. The >>>>>>>existing ferry terminal used by Bluebridge is very constrained and >>>>>>>makes transport from the rail terminal more difficult.
If you want to claim that one mode of transport is unprofitable, it >>>>>>>would be good to see some evidence, such as return on capital, for all >>>>>>>modes - you will quickly realise that this information is not >>>>>>>available . . .
There is no point in me taking the time required for detailed research >>>>>>that you will ignore because it does not match your ideological bias. >>>>>>Been there, done that, not going to be sucked in again.
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that rail was profitable >>>>>>(purely on the basis of revenue and expenses) while government-owned >>>>>>(including as an SOE). If you can do this I will take you seriously >>>>>>enough to cite my contentions.
You can ask all you want, but my point is that those that do not like >>>>> rail make those claims, but are never prepared to either support those >>>>> claims with actual numbers, or give corresponding calculations with
respect to Roads. We know that the current Government is planning more >>>>> Roads of National Party significance (perhaps that should be NAct1st >>>>> significance now), but never has there been any published analysis of >>>>> the return on capital arising from either any single project or all
roading activities.
If we step back and accept that any country needs transport for goods and >>>>services we can then put the options on the table and start a discussion as >>>>to the mix, if any we should use.
History has dictated that we have railways as turcks as we now then today, >>>>did not exist as the trains powered by steam were hauling all that coal, >>>>among other items across the country.
The different types of transport have developed differently - Air is
the only one that is almost all privately owned (albeit with
occasional bail-outs!). The economics of large road projects are >>>relatively simple - arrange the finance, get a good design and get it >>>done with ongoing systems to ensure that it is built to agreed
standards. Each step is important, but the big issues are getting
each step at the lowest possible price while not sacrificing quality.
The Kaikoura highway recover from the earthquake had to be done
quickly, so it was financed using government money (at a lower rate
than can be provided by any other New Zealand organisation, it was >>>managed by Engineers who were on site to monitor work as it was done >>>while planning the next step (urgent completion was a factor there). >>>Suppliers were sourced competitively - as much because they did not
know what they would need for later stages, but competitive
purchasing did keep costs low. Contractors were hired for each stage
so there was competitive tendering, and the knowledge that good
service may assist future contracts.
Compare with a PPP - a single provider of finance at a higher rate
than government needs to pay. A single supplier of both labour and >>>materials based on a single price with escalation clauses, in some
cases with part of the cost being met by future tolls. That cuts out >>>flexibility, but also limits the number of tenderers, and with a big >>>contract, there are inevitably variations that will get fought for an >>>increased price - through the courts if necessary.
Most contracts are somewhere in between - but the Kapiti expressway
had an additional difficulty in that the consortium was structures in >>>such a way that the tenderers could effectively shut down their >>>organisation and walk away at any point
(M2PP )was managed by an alliance of four major parties with financial >>involvement (including NZTA) plus the Kapiti Council (which had no financial >>ris). The alliance was constructed so that none of those could sue the others >>and they could not walk away. I think you are thinking of a different task.
No. The consortium was through a new entity with four parties on one
side and NZTA / Government on the other. If the contract had looked
like creating huge losses for the consortium, they could have just
walked away, although there would have been reputational risk. I know
well one company that refused to get involved because of the risk, and
he knew quite a few other potential sub-contractors that did not get
involved for the same reason
See >https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/01-04-2022/the-true-costs-and-benefits-of-transmission-gullyThe government has just so much money, haven't you learned that yet?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/kapiti-observer/7990653/Kapiti-Express-to-be-completed-by-2020
https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=160454 >https://contractormag.co.nz/contractor/transmission-gully/ >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%81piti_Expressway >https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-post-1022/20131204/282149289110225 None of which address the Alliance issue. https://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/wellington-northern-corridor/mackays-to-peka-peka/construction-phase/
One thing is clear - it was funded through borrowed money, with the
deal being acceptable for ACC to invest in it to get commercial
returns. If you assume that the consortium borrowed at say 0.5% above
the rate that the government could have borrowed, that is quite a few
million dollars of cost that would not have been incurred had the
government funded it directly.
- it made it difficult to gain
the trust of sub-contractors, who had seen a spate of building
contracts being closed down with subbies losing both payment for work >>>done and a big fight for getting their working tools back.
In some countries, PPP will be accounted for by the government as an >>>asset as work progresses, with the cost of say future tolls not
allowed for until later - in effect the true costs gets hidden for
years; the UK Tories found themselves having to wear disappointment in >>>some projects as they were in government for long enough for the true >>>cost to be identified - Thames Water is an example of how it can all
go wrong - we should prefer the Scottish Water model that delivers
water at a significantly lower cost through a better and more
appropriate structure. Here is New Zealand the government accounting >>>rules require future commitments to be included as a cost (discounted >>>appropriately for time) in the government accounts, so our governments >>>cannot hide from those future commitments, but that economic reality
may not be well comprehended by those that see other governments only >>>having to account for these contracts as they have to make payments.
All of the above consideration apply to all governments, regardless of >>>which parties are involved, so the economics are more important than
the politics.
Rail offers some advantages over roads - for most routes the lines are >>>more stable than many of the roads; certainly the metal rails are
longer lasting than asphalt, and can take heavier loads without >>>significant additional deterioration. Rail takes traffic away from >>>congested routes, but does suit some items better than others.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:That is the contract I was talking about, and I know that some people
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 21:41:21 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo there were three distict and legally seperate tasks. The first was M2PP and >that was an alliance and nobody could walk away. That is a fact.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No. The consortium was through a new entity with four parties on one
On 9 Jul 2024 02:53:05 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:I believe that is completely incorrect. The first part of the kapiti >>>expressway
On 2024-07-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 21:45:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:31:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:01:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has >>>>>>>>>>decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the >>>>>>>>>>same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! The
earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and the >>>>>>>>>>larger ships that were already on order would have worked very well - >>>>>>>>>>but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of >>>>>>>>>>dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important >>>>>>>>>>road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely >>>>>>>>>because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail >>>>>>>>>transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (and >>>>>>>>>never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are where >>>>>>>>>rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be shipped >>>>>>>>>must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at least >>>>>>>>>3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
See: >>>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-nz-needs-to-invest-properly-in-rail-and-ferry-infrastructure-for-the-public-good-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/NKNOGOD5VZASZMIMDDSFCVWJMM/
and >>>>>>>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128602/brendon-harre-makes-case-taking-minimum-viable-design-approach-could-have
and >>>>>>>>https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
The claim that rail cannot be profitable is often made but seldom >>>>>>>>justified.
It is not a claim. Rail transport in NZ has been a Government >>>>>>>department, an SOE, privately owned and repurchased by the Government. >>>>>>>It has never been profitable, even when protected by a cartage limit >>>>>>>of 150km or less for goods not sent be rail.
We know of course that running down NZ Rail when NationalBecause the money is sourced entirely from taxes on road transport. >>>>>>>Indirectly, therefore, it could be said that road taxes fund rail >>>>>>>subsidies.
sold it of was hugely profitable, but that is merely an example of an >>>>>>>>asset being bought at less than real value and then allowed to run >>>>>>>>down as it was managed for short term profit. But we have seen >>>>>>>>recently that storms can make rail easier to restore after a major >>>>>>>>climate event - Gisborne and north of Auckland; but a bigger problem >>>>>>>>is that statements of that sort are made without any equivalent >>>>>>>>calculation of the profit delivered by Roads. Rail is much more >>>>>>>>resilient than roads to heavy transport - many truckers are aware that >>>>>>>>current charges are too low for the heavier loads (over about 40 >>>>>>>>tons), and that road maintenance is significantly higher on roads used >>>>>>>>by heavy trucks, or city routes used by busses. We also tend to ignore >>>>>>>>coastal shipping - with the rail ferries being partly legitimately >>>>>>>>seen as part of State Highway 1, or part of our Rail system, or part >>>>>>>>of our Coastal Shipping services. We also need to look at total costs >>>>>>>>by both local and national government - that is becoming clearer as >>>>>>>>our new government is putting more costs on local areas, and the mix >>>>>>>>of road and rail restoration between Napier and Gisborne will be >>>>>>>>interesting to watch.
NZTA has responsibilities for Transport, not just Roads - why would >>>>>>>>they not spend money to reduce excessive traffic trying to travel to >>>>>>>>and from Wellington to the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa and the Coast >>>>>>>>from Johnsonville to Waikanae.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs and >>>>>>>>>petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport >>>>>>>>>(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading >>>>>>>>>entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF funds. >>>>>>>>
I have been surprised at how little earthquake risk has been mentioned >>>>>>>>- there was considerable work done investigating a ferry terminal near >>>>>>>>Cape Campbell, which would have shortened the sea trip considerably - >>>>>>>>but the Kaikoura earthquakes have been seen as making that too risky; >>>>>>>>I understand earthquake considerations were also part of the move from >>>>>>>>the current ferry position (which creates difficulties for cruise >>>>>>>>liners and other large vessels) further north to Kaiwharawhara. The >>>>>>>>existing ferry terminal used by Bluebridge is very constrained and >>>>>>>>makes transport from the rail terminal more difficult.
If you want to claim that one mode of transport is unprofitable, it >>>>>>>>would be good to see some evidence, such as return on capital, for all >>>>>>>>modes - you will quickly realise that this information is not >>>>>>>>available . . .
There is no point in me taking the time required for detailed research >>>>>>>that you will ignore because it does not match your ideological bias. >>>>>>>Been there, done that, not going to be sucked in again.
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that rail was profitable >>>>>>>(purely on the basis of revenue and expenses) while government-owned >>>>>>>(including as an SOE). If you can do this I will take you seriously >>>>>>>enough to cite my contentions.
You can ask all you want, but my point is that those that do not like >>>>>> rail make those claims, but are never prepared to either support those >>>>>> claims with actual numbers, or give corresponding calculations with >>>>>> respect to Roads. We know that the current Government is planning more >>>>>> Roads of National Party significance (perhaps that should be NAct1st >>>>>> significance now), but never has there been any published analysis of >>>>>> the return on capital arising from either any single project or all >>>>>> roading activities.
If we step back and accept that any country needs transport for goods and >>>>>services we can then put the options on the table and start a discussion as
to the mix, if any we should use.
History has dictated that we have railways as turcks as we now then today, >>>>>did not exist as the trains powered by steam were hauling all that coal, >>>>>among other items across the country.
The different types of transport have developed differently - Air is >>>>the only one that is almost all privately owned (albeit with
occasional bail-outs!). The economics of large road projects are >>>>relatively simple - arrange the finance, get a good design and get it >>>>done with ongoing systems to ensure that it is built to agreed >>>>standards. Each step is important, but the big issues are getting
each step at the lowest possible price while not sacrificing quality.
The Kaikoura highway recover from the earthquake had to be done >>>>quickly, so it was financed using government money (at a lower rate >>>>than can be provided by any other New Zealand organisation, it was >>>>managed by Engineers who were on site to monitor work as it was done >>>>while planning the next step (urgent completion was a factor there). >>>>Suppliers were sourced competitively - as much because they did not >>>>know what they would need for later stages, but competitive
purchasing did keep costs low. Contractors were hired for each stage
so there was competitive tendering, and the knowledge that good
service may assist future contracts.
Compare with a PPP - a single provider of finance at a higher rate
than government needs to pay. A single supplier of both labour and >>>>materials based on a single price with escalation clauses, in some >>>>cases with part of the cost being met by future tolls. That cuts out >>>>flexibility, but also limits the number of tenderers, and with a big >>>>contract, there are inevitably variations that will get fought for an >>>>increased price - through the courts if necessary.
Most contracts are somewhere in between - but the Kapiti expressway >>>>had an additional difficulty in that the consortium was structures in >>>>such a way that the tenderers could effectively shut down their >>>>organisation and walk away at any point
(M2PP )was managed by an alliance of four major parties with financial >>>involvement (including NZTA) plus the Kapiti Council (which had no financial >>>ris). The alliance was constructed so that none of those could sue the others
and they could not walk away. I think you are thinking of a different task. >>
side and NZTA / Government on the other. If the contract had looked
like creating huge losses for the consortium, they could have just
walked away, although there would have been reputational risk. I know
well one company that refused to get involved because of the risk, and
he knew quite a few other potential sub-contractors that did not get >>involved for the same reason
The second and third were PP2O and Transmission gully, you are lumping them all
together when they were not in any way related except that they had to join >each other.
See >>https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/01-04-2022/the-true-costs-and-benefits-of-transmission-gullyNone of which address the Alliance issue. >https://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/wellington-northern-corridor/mackays-to-peka-peka/construction-phase/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/kapiti-observer/7990653/Kapiti-Express-to-be-completed-by-2020
https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=160454 >>https://contractormag.co.nz/contractor/transmission-gully/ >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%81piti_Expressway >>https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-post-1022/20131204/282149289110225
The government has just so much money, haven't you learned that yet?
One thing is clear - it was funded through borrowed money, with the
deal being acceptable for ACC to invest in it to get commercial
returns. If you assume that the consortium borrowed at say 0.5% above
the rate that the government could have borrowed, that is quite a few >>million dollars of cost that would not have been incurred had the >>government funded it directly.
They (we) cannot and should not fund everythinmg for goodness sake. >Particularly a government like the last one that put us in hock for decades.
- it made it difficult to gain
the trust of sub-contractors, who had seen a spate of building >>>>contracts being closed down with subbies losing both payment for work >>>>done and a big fight for getting their working tools back.
In some countries, PPP will be accounted for by the government as an >>>>asset as work progresses, with the cost of say future tolls not
allowed for until later - in effect the true costs gets hidden for >>>>years; the UK Tories found themselves having to wear disappointment in >>>>some projects as they were in government for long enough for the true >>>>cost to be identified - Thames Water is an example of how it can all
go wrong - we should prefer the Scottish Water model that delivers >>>>water at a significantly lower cost through a better and more >>>>appropriate structure. Here is New Zealand the government accounting >>>>rules require future commitments to be included as a cost (discounted >>>>appropriately for time) in the government accounts, so our governments >>>>cannot hide from those future commitments, but that economic reality >>>>may not be well comprehended by those that see other governments only >>>>having to account for these contracts as they have to make payments.
All of the above consideration apply to all governments, regardless of >>>>which parties are involved, so the economics are more important than >>>>the politics.
Rail offers some advantages over roads - for most routes the lines are >>>>more stable than many of the roads; certainly the metal rails are >>>>longer lasting than asphalt, and can take heavier loads without >>>>significant additional deterioration. Rail takes traffic away from >>>>congested routes, but does suit some items better than others.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 00:37:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyIncorrect - Nobody was able to walk away from it. It worked extremely well and they were contractually required to sort out any differences - they did so. That\ is a fact. You can lie your childish lies but you got it wrong.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:That is the contract I was talking about, and I know that some people >declined to work on it because it was not watertight. The consortium
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 21:41:21 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo there were three distinct and legally seperate tasks. The first was M2PP >>and
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No. The consortium was through a new entity with four parties on one
On 9 Jul 2024 02:53:05 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:I believe that is completely incorrect. The first part of the kapiti >>>>expressway
On 2024-07-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 21:45:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:31:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:01:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has >>>>>>>>>>>decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the >>>>>>>>>>>same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! >>>>>>>>>>>The
earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and the
larger ships that were already on order would have worked very well -
but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of >>>>>>>>>>>dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important >>>>>>>>>>>road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely >>>>>>>>>>because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail >>>>>>>>>>transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (and >>>>>>>>>>never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are where
rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be shipped
must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at least >>>>>>>>>>3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
See: >>>>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-nz-needs-to-invest-properly-in-rail-and-ferry-infrastructure-for-the-public-good-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/NKNOGOD5VZASZMIMDDSFCVWJMM/
and >>>>>>>>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128602/brendon-harre-makes-case-taking-minimum-viable-design-approach-could-have
and >>>>>>>>>https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
The claim that rail cannot be profitable is often made but seldom >>>>>>>>>justified.
It is not a claim. Rail transport in NZ has been a Government >>>>>>>>department, an SOE, privately owned and repurchased by the Government. >>>>>>>>It has never been profitable, even when protected by a cartage limit >>>>>>>>of 150km or less for goods not sent be rail.
We know of course that running down NZ Rail when National >>>>>>>>>sold it of was hugely profitable, but that is merely an example of an >>>>>>>>>asset being bought at less than real value and then allowed to run >>>>>>>>>down as it was managed for short term profit. But we have seen >>>>>>>>>recently that storms can make rail easier to restore after a major >>>>>>>>>climate event - Gisborne and north of Auckland; but a bigger problem >>>>>>>>>is that statements of that sort are made without any equivalent >>>>>>>>>calculation of the profit delivered by Roads. Rail is much more >>>>>>>>>resilient than roads to heavy transport - many truckers are aware that >>>>>>>>>current charges are too low for the heavier loads (over about 40 >>>>>>>>>tons), and that road maintenance is significantly higher on roads used >>>>>>>>>by heavy trucks, or city routes used by busses. We also tend to ignore >>>>>>>>>coastal shipping - with the rail ferries being partly legitimately >>>>>>>>>seen as part of State Highway 1, or part of our Rail system, or part >>>>>>>>>of our Coastal Shipping services. We also need to look at total costs >>>>>>>>>by both local and national government - that is becoming clearer as >>>>>>>>>our new government is putting more costs on local areas, and the mix >>>>>>>>>of road and rail restoration between Napier and Gisborne will be >>>>>>>>>interesting to watch.Because the money is sourced entirely from taxes on road transport. >>>>>>>>Indirectly, therefore, it could be said that road taxes fund rail >>>>>>>>subsidies.
NZTA has responsibilities for Transport, not just Roads - why would >>>>>>>>>they not spend money to reduce excessive traffic trying to travel to >>>>>>>>>and from Wellington to the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa and the Coast >>>>>>>>>from Johnsonville to Waikanae.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs and >>>>>>>>>>petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport >>>>>>>>>>(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading >>>>>>>>>>entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF funds. >>>>>>>>>
I have been surprised at how little earthquake risk has been mentioned >>>>>>>>>- there was considerable work done investigating a ferry terminal near >>>>>>>>>Cape Campbell, which would have shortened the sea trip considerably - >>>>>>>>>but the Kaikoura earthquakes have been seen as making that too risky; >>>>>>>>>I understand earthquake considerations were also part of the move from >>>>>>>>>the current ferry position (which creates difficulties for cruise >>>>>>>>>liners and other large vessels) further north to Kaiwharawhara. The >>>>>>>>>existing ferry terminal used by Bluebridge is very constrained and >>>>>>>>>makes transport from the rail terminal more difficult.
If you want to claim that one mode of transport is unprofitable, it >>>>>>>>>would be good to see some evidence, such as return on capital, for all >>>>>>>>>modes - you will quickly realise that this information is not >>>>>>>>>available . . .
There is no point in me taking the time required for detailed research >>>>>>>>that you will ignore because it does not match your ideological bias. >>>>>>>>Been there, done that, not going to be sucked in again.
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that rail was profitable >>>>>>>>(purely on the basis of revenue and expenses) while government-owned >>>>>>>>(including as an SOE). If you can do this I will take you seriously >>>>>>>>enough to cite my contentions.
You can ask all you want, but my point is that those that do not like >>>>>>> rail make those claims, but are never prepared to either support those >>>>>>> claims with actual numbers, or give corresponding calculations with >>>>>>> respect to Roads. We know that the current Government is planning more >>>>>>> Roads of National Party significance (perhaps that should be NAct1st >>>>>>> significance now), but never has there been any published analysis of >>>>>>> the return on capital arising from either any single project or all >>>>>>> roading activities.
If we step back and accept that any country needs transport for goods and >>>>>>services we can then put the options on the table and start a discussion >>>>>>as
to the mix, if any we should use.
History has dictated that we have railways as turcks as we now then today,
did not exist as the trains powered by steam were hauling all that coal, >>>>>>among other items across the country.
The different types of transport have developed differently - Air is >>>>>the only one that is almost all privately owned (albeit with >>>>>occasional bail-outs!). The economics of large road projects are >>>>>relatively simple - arrange the finance, get a good design and get it >>>>>done with ongoing systems to ensure that it is built to agreed >>>>>standards. Each step is important, but the big issues are getting >>>>>each step at the lowest possible price while not sacrificing quality. >>>>>
The Kaikoura highway recover from the earthquake had to be done >>>>>quickly, so it was financed using government money (at a lower rate >>>>>than can be provided by any other New Zealand organisation, it was >>>>>managed by Engineers who were on site to monitor work as it was done >>>>>while planning the next step (urgent completion was a factor there). >>>>>Suppliers were sourced competitively - as much because they did not >>>>>know what they would need for later stages, but competitive >>>>>purchasing did keep costs low. Contractors were hired for each stage >>>>>so there was competitive tendering, and the knowledge that good >>>>>service may assist future contracts.
Compare with a PPP - a single provider of finance at a higher rate >>>>>than government needs to pay. A single supplier of both labour and >>>>>materials based on a single price with escalation clauses, in some >>>>>cases with part of the cost being met by future tolls. That cuts out >>>>>flexibility, but also limits the number of tenderers, and with a big >>>>>contract, there are inevitably variations that will get fought for an >>>>>increased price - through the courts if necessary.
Most contracts are somewhere in between - but the Kapiti expressway >>>>>had an additional difficulty in that the consortium was structures in >>>>>such a way that the tenderers could effectively shut down their >>>>>organisation and walk away at any point
(M2PP )was managed by an alliance of four major parties with financial >>>>involvement (including NZTA) plus the Kapiti Council (which had no >>>>financial
ris). The alliance was constructed so that none of those could sue the >>>>others
and they could not walk away. I think you are thinking of a different task. >>>
side and NZTA / Government on the other. If the contract had looked
like creating huge losses for the consortium, they could have just
walked away, although there would have been reputational risk. I know >>>well one company that refused to get involved because of the risk, and
he knew quite a few other potential sub-contractors that did not get >>>involved for the same reason
that was an alliance and nobody could walk away. That is a fact.
did eventually pull out with work still to be done.
I repeat it was not a consortium, do some research. It was an alliance which has legal implications.The second and third were PP2O and Transmission gully, you are lumping them >>all
together when they were not in any way related except that they had to join >>each other.
See >>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/01-04-2022/the-true-costs-and-benefits-of-transmission-gullyNone of which address the Alliance issue. >>https://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/wellington-northern-corridor/mackays-to-peka-peka/construction-phase/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/kapiti-observer/7990653/Kapiti-Express-to-be-completed-by-2020
https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=160454 >>>https://contractormag.co.nz/contractor/transmission-gully/ >>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%81piti_Expressway >>>https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-post-1022/20131204/282149289110225
The government has just so much money, haven't you learned that yet?
One thing is clear - it was funded through borrowed money, with the
deal being acceptable for ACC to invest in it to get commercial
returns. If you assume that the consortium borrowed at say 0.5% above
the rate that the government could have borrowed, that is quite a few >>>million dollars of cost that would not have been incurred had the >>>government funded it directly.
They (we) cannot and should not fund everythinmg for goodness sake. >>Particularly a government like the last one that put us in hock for decades.
Instead of borrowing at government to government rates, the consortium >borrowed at higher rates, and yes that was all paid for by the
government. One reason for doing it was the belief that it would show
less borrowing in government books, but for New Zealand that was a
fallacy. The other reason right leaning governments like such
contracts is that they pass more money on to businesses and banks . .
- it made it difficult to gain
the trust of sub-contractors, who had seen a spate of building >>>>>contracts being closed down with subbies losing both payment for work >>>>>done and a big fight for getting their working tools back.
In some countries, PPP will be accounted for by the government as an >>>>>asset as work progresses, with the cost of say future tolls not >>>>>allowed for until later - in effect the true costs gets hidden for >>>>>years; the UK Tories found themselves having to wear disappointment in >>>>>some projects as they were in government for long enough for the true >>>>>cost to be identified - Thames Water is an example of how it can all >>>>>go wrong - we should prefer the Scottish Water model that delivers >>>>>water at a significantly lower cost through a better and more >>>>>appropriate structure. Here is New Zealand the government accounting >>>>>rules require future commitments to be included as a cost (discounted >>>>>appropriately for time) in the government accounts, so our governments >>>>>cannot hide from those future commitments, but that economic reality >>>>>may not be well comprehended by those that see other governments only >>>>>having to account for these contracts as they have to make payments.
All of the above consideration apply to all governments, regardless of >>>>>which parties are involved, so the economics are more important than >>>>>the politics.
Rail offers some advantages over roads - for most routes the lines are >>>>>more stable than many of the roads; certainly the metal rails are >>>>>longer lasting than asphalt, and can take heavier loads without >>>>>significant additional deterioration. Rail takes traffic away from >>>>>congested routes, but does suit some items better than others.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Absolutely - and they were sufficient for some, but clearly all,
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 00:37:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyIncorrect - Nobody was able to walk away from it. It worked extremely well and >they were contractually required to sort out any differences - they did so. >That\ is a fact. You can lie your childish lies but you got it wrong.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:That is the contract I was talking about, and I know that some people >>declined to work on it because it was not watertight. The consortium
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 21:41:21 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo there were three distinct and legally seperate tasks. The first was M2PP >>>and
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Jul 2024 02:53:05 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:I believe that is completely incorrect. The first part of the kapiti >>>>>expressway
On 2024-07-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 21:45:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:31:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:01:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has >>>>>>>>>>>>decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the >>>>>>>>>>>>same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! >>>>>>>>>>>>The
earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and the
larger ships that were already on order would have worked very well -
but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of >>>>>>>>>>>>dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important >>>>>>>>>>>>road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely >>>>>>>>>>>because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail >>>>>>>>>>>transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (and >>>>>>>>>>>never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are where
rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be shipped
must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at least
3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
See: >>>>>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-nz-needs-to-invest-properly-in-rail-and-ferry-infrastructure-for-the-public-good-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/NKNOGOD5VZASZMIMDDSFCVWJMM/
and >>>>>>>>>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128602/brendon-harre-makes-case-taking-minimum-viable-design-approach-could-have
and >>>>>>>>>>https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
The claim that rail cannot be profitable is often made but seldom >>>>>>>>>>justified.
It is not a claim. Rail transport in NZ has been a Government >>>>>>>>>department, an SOE, privately owned and repurchased by the Government. >>>>>>>>>It has never been profitable, even when protected by a cartage limit >>>>>>>>>of 150km or less for goods not sent be rail.
We know of course that running down NZ Rail when National >>>>>>>>>>sold it of was hugely profitable, but that is merely an example of an >>>>>>>>>>asset being bought at less than real value and then allowed to run >>>>>>>>>>down as it was managed for short term profit. But we have seen >>>>>>>>>>recently that storms can make rail easier to restore after a major >>>>>>>>>>climate event - Gisborne and north of Auckland; but a bigger problem >>>>>>>>>>is that statements of that sort are made without any equivalent >>>>>>>>>>calculation of the profit delivered by Roads. Rail is much more >>>>>>>>>>resilient than roads to heavy transport - many truckers are aware thatBecause the money is sourced entirely from taxes on road transport. >>>>>>>>>Indirectly, therefore, it could be said that road taxes fund rail >>>>>>>>>subsidies.
current charges are too low for the heavier loads (over about 40 >>>>>>>>>>tons), and that road maintenance is significantly higher on roads used
by heavy trucks, or city routes used by busses. We also tend to ignore
coastal shipping - with the rail ferries being partly legitimately >>>>>>>>>>seen as part of State Highway 1, or part of our Rail system, or part >>>>>>>>>>of our Coastal Shipping services. We also need to look at total costs >>>>>>>>>>by both local and national government - that is becoming clearer as >>>>>>>>>>our new government is putting more costs on local areas, and the mix >>>>>>>>>>of road and rail restoration between Napier and Gisborne will be >>>>>>>>>>interesting to watch.
NZTA has responsibilities for Transport, not just Roads - why would >>>>>>>>>>they not spend money to reduce excessive traffic trying to travel to >>>>>>>>>>and from Wellington to the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa and the Coast >>>>>>>>>>from Johnsonville to Waikanae.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs and
petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport >>>>>>>>>>>(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading >>>>>>>>>>>entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF funds. >>>>>>>>>>
I have been surprised at how little earthquake risk has been mentioned
- there was considerable work done investigating a ferry terminal near
Cape Campbell, which would have shortened the sea trip considerably - >>>>>>>>>>but the Kaikoura earthquakes have been seen as making that too risky; >>>>>>>>>>I understand earthquake considerations were also part of the move from
the current ferry position (which creates difficulties for cruise >>>>>>>>>>liners and other large vessels) further north to Kaiwharawhara. The >>>>>>>>>>existing ferry terminal used by Bluebridge is very constrained and >>>>>>>>>>makes transport from the rail terminal more difficult.
If you want to claim that one mode of transport is unprofitable, it >>>>>>>>>>would be good to see some evidence, such as return on capital, for all
modes - you will quickly realise that this information is not >>>>>>>>>>available . . .
There is no point in me taking the time required for detailed research >>>>>>>>>that you will ignore because it does not match your ideological bias. >>>>>>>>>Been there, done that, not going to be sucked in again.
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that rail was profitable >>>>>>>>>(purely on the basis of revenue and expenses) while government-owned >>>>>>>>>(including as an SOE). If you can do this I will take you seriously >>>>>>>>>enough to cite my contentions.
You can ask all you want, but my point is that those that do not like >>>>>>>> rail make those claims, but are never prepared to either support those >>>>>>>> claims with actual numbers, or give corresponding calculations with >>>>>>>> respect to Roads. We know that the current Government is planning more >>>>>>>> Roads of National Party significance (perhaps that should be NAct1st >>>>>>>> significance now), but never has there been any published analysis of >>>>>>>> the return on capital arising from either any single project or all >>>>>>>> roading activities.
If we step back and accept that any country needs transport for goods and
services we can then put the options on the table and start a discussion >>>>>>>as
to the mix, if any we should use.
History has dictated that we have railways as turcks as we now then today,
did not exist as the trains powered by steam were hauling all that coal, >>>>>>>among other items across the country.
The different types of transport have developed differently - Air is >>>>>>the only one that is almost all privately owned (albeit with >>>>>>occasional bail-outs!). The economics of large road projects are >>>>>>relatively simple - arrange the finance, get a good design and get it >>>>>>done with ongoing systems to ensure that it is built to agreed >>>>>>standards. Each step is important, but the big issues are getting >>>>>>each step at the lowest possible price while not sacrificing quality. >>>>>>
The Kaikoura highway recover from the earthquake had to be done >>>>>>quickly, so it was financed using government money (at a lower rate >>>>>>than can be provided by any other New Zealand organisation, it was >>>>>>managed by Engineers who were on site to monitor work as it was done >>>>>>while planning the next step (urgent completion was a factor there). >>>>>>Suppliers were sourced competitively - as much because they did not >>>>>>know what they would need for later stages, but competitive >>>>>>purchasing did keep costs low. Contractors were hired for each stage >>>>>>so there was competitive tendering, and the knowledge that good >>>>>>service may assist future contracts.
Compare with a PPP - a single provider of finance at a higher rate >>>>>>than government needs to pay. A single supplier of both labour and >>>>>>materials based on a single price with escalation clauses, in some >>>>>>cases with part of the cost being met by future tolls. That cuts out >>>>>>flexibility, but also limits the number of tenderers, and with a big >>>>>>contract, there are inevitably variations that will get fought for an >>>>>>increased price - through the courts if necessary.
Most contracts are somewhere in between - but the Kapiti expressway >>>>>>had an additional difficulty in that the consortium was structures in >>>>>>such a way that the tenderers could effectively shut down their >>>>>>organisation and walk away at any point
(M2PP )was managed by an alliance of four major parties with financial >>>>>involvement (including NZTA) plus the Kapiti Council (which had no >>>>>financial
ris). The alliance was constructed so that none of those could sue the >>>>>others
and they could not walk away. I think you are thinking of a different task.
No. The consortium was through a new entity with four parties on one >>>>side and NZTA / Government on the other. If the contract had looked >>>>like creating huge losses for the consortium, they could have just >>>>walked away, although there would have been reputational risk. I know >>>>well one company that refused to get involved because of the risk, and >>>>he knew quite a few other potential sub-contractors that did not get >>>>involved for the same reason
that was an alliance and nobody could walk away. That is a fact.
did eventually pull out with work still to be done.
It was not a consortium (which is entirely different to an alliance), nobody >pulled out and nobody who signed up declined to work on it.
You are an impossible man - your lies are all you have.
How do I know this? I was intimately involved.
I repeat it was not a consortium, do some research. It was an alliance which >has legal implications.
The second and third were PP2O and Transmission gully, you are lumping them >>>allInstead of borrowing at government to government rates, the consortium >>borrowed at higher rates, and yes that was all paid for by the
together when they were not in any way related except that they had to join >>>each other.
See >>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/01-04-2022/the-true-costs-and-benefits-of-transmission-gullyNone of which address the Alliance issue. >>>https://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/wellington-northern-corridor/mackays-to-peka-peka/construction-phase/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/kapiti-observer/7990653/Kapiti-Express-to-be-completed-by-2020
https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=160454 >>>>https://contractormag.co.nz/contractor/transmission-gully/ >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%81piti_Expressway >>>>https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-post-1022/20131204/282149289110225
The government has just so much money, haven't you learned that yet?
One thing is clear - it was funded through borrowed money, with the >>>>deal being acceptable for ACC to invest in it to get commercial >>>>returns. If you assume that the consortium borrowed at say 0.5% above >>>>the rate that the government could have borrowed, that is quite a few >>>>million dollars of cost that would not have been incurred had the >>>>government funded it directly.
They (we) cannot and should not fund everythinmg for goodness sake. >>>Particularly a government like the last one that put us in hock for decades. >>
government. One reason for doing it was the belief that it would show
less borrowing in government books, but for New Zealand that was a
fallacy. The other reason right leaning governments like such
contracts is that they pass more money on to businesses and banks . .
You know nothing about what happened. You are making shit up.project, surely borrowing at the lowest rate possible is in everyone's interests. How does it help to get a consortium to borrow at a higher
Governments should not fund everything except in your personal fantasy utopia. What are you talking about? If it is necessary to borrow to pay for a
.
- it made it difficult to gain
the trust of sub-contractors, who had seen a spate of building >>>>>>contracts being closed down with subbies losing both payment for work >>>>>>done and a big fight for getting their working tools back.
In some countries, PPP will be accounted for by the government as an >>>>>>asset as work progresses, with the cost of say future tolls not >>>>>>allowed for until later - in effect the true costs gets hidden for >>>>>>years; the UK Tories found themselves having to wear disappointment in >>>>>>some projects as they were in government for long enough for the true >>>>>>cost to be identified - Thames Water is an example of how it can all >>>>>>go wrong - we should prefer the Scottish Water model that delivers >>>>>>water at a significantly lower cost through a better and more >>>>>>appropriate structure. Here is New Zealand the government accounting >>>>>>rules require future commitments to be included as a cost (discounted >>>>>>appropriately for time) in the government accounts, so our governments >>>>>>cannot hide from those future commitments, but that economic reality >>>>>>may not be well comprehended by those that see other governments only >>>>>>having to account for these contracts as they have to make payments. >>>>>>
All of the above consideration apply to all governments, regardless of >>>>>>which parties are involved, so the economics are more important than >>>>>>the politics.
Rail offers some advantages over roads - for most routes the lines are >>>>>>more stable than many of the roads; certainly the metal rails are >>>>>>longer lasting than asphalt, and can take heavier loads without >>>>>>significant additional deterioration. Rail takes traffic away from >>>>>>congested routes, but does suit some items better than others.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:15:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyProve that - you cannot. Nobody walked away. You are lying.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Absolutely - and they were sufficient for some, but clearly all,
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 00:37:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyIncorrect - Nobody was able to walk away from it. It worked extremely well >>and
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:That is the contract I was talking about, and I know that some people >>>declined to work on it because it was not watertight. The consortium
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 21:41:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No there were three distinct and legally seperate tasks. The first was M2PP >>>>and
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Jul 2024 02:53:05 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:I believe that is completely incorrect. The first part of the kapiti >>>>>>expressway
On 2024-07-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 21:45:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:31:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:01:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has
decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! >>>>>>>>>>>>>The
earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>the
larger ships that were already on order would have worked very >>>>>>>>>>>>>well -
but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important
road link - just to pander to the trucking industry.
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . .
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely >>>>>>>>>>>>because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail >>>>>>>>>>>>transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (and >>>>>>>>>>>>never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are >>>>>>>>>>>>where
rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be >>>>>>>>>>>>shipped
must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at >>>>>>>>>>>>least
3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
See: >>>>>>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-nz-needs-to-invest-properly-in-rail-and-ferry-infrastructure-for-the-public-good-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/NKNOGOD5VZASZMIMDDSFCVWJMM/
and >>>>>>>>>>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128602/brendon-harre-makes-case-taking-minimum-viable-design-approach-could-have
and >>>>>>>>>>>https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
The claim that rail cannot be profitable is often made but seldom >>>>>>>>>>>justified.
It is not a claim. Rail transport in NZ has been a Government >>>>>>>>>>department, an SOE, privately owned and repurchased by the Government.
It has never been profitable, even when protected by a cartage limit >>>>>>>>>>of 150km or less for goods not sent be rail.
We know of course that running down NZ Rail when National >>>>>>>>>>>sold it of was hugely profitable, but that is merely an example of anBecause the money is sourced entirely from taxes on road transport. >>>>>>>>>>Indirectly, therefore, it could be said that road taxes fund rail >>>>>>>>>>subsidies.
asset being bought at less than real value and then allowed to run >>>>>>>>>>>down as it was managed for short term profit. But we have seen >>>>>>>>>>>recently that storms can make rail easier to restore after a major >>>>>>>>>>>climate event - Gisborne and north of Auckland; but a bigger problem >>>>>>>>>>>is that statements of that sort are made without any equivalent >>>>>>>>>>>calculation of the profit delivered by Roads. Rail is much more >>>>>>>>>>>resilient than roads to heavy transport - many truckers are aware >>>>>>>>>>>that
current charges are too low for the heavier loads (over about 40 >>>>>>>>>>>tons), and that road maintenance is significantly higher on roads >>>>>>>>>>>used
by heavy trucks, or city routes used by busses. We also tend to >>>>>>>>>>>ignore
coastal shipping - with the rail ferries being partly legitimately >>>>>>>>>>>seen as part of State Highway 1, or part of our Rail system, or part >>>>>>>>>>>of our Coastal Shipping services. We also need to look at total costs
by both local and national government - that is becoming clearer as >>>>>>>>>>>our new government is putting more costs on local areas, and the mix >>>>>>>>>>>of road and rail restoration between Napier and Gisborne will be >>>>>>>>>>>interesting to watch.
NZTA has responsibilities for Transport, not just Roads - why would >>>>>>>>>>>they not spend money to reduce excessive traffic trying to travel to >>>>>>>>>>>and from Wellington to the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa and the Coast >>>>>>>>>>>from Johnsonville to Waikanae.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs >>>>>>>>>>>>and
petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport >>>>>>>>>>>>(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading >>>>>>>>>>>>entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF funds. >>>>>>>>>>>
I have been surprised at how little earthquake risk has been >>>>>>>>>>>mentioned
- there was considerable work done investigating a ferry terminal >>>>>>>>>>>near
Cape Campbell, which would have shortened the sea trip considerably -
but the Kaikoura earthquakes have been seen as making that too risky;
I understand earthquake considerations were also part of the move >>>>>>>>>>>from
the current ferry position (which creates difficulties for cruise >>>>>>>>>>>liners and other large vessels) further north to Kaiwharawhara. The >>>>>>>>>>>existing ferry terminal used by Bluebridge is very constrained and >>>>>>>>>>>makes transport from the rail terminal more difficult.
If you want to claim that one mode of transport is unprofitable, it >>>>>>>>>>>would be good to see some evidence, such as return on capital, for >>>>>>>>>>>all
modes - you will quickly realise that this information is not >>>>>>>>>>>available . . .
There is no point in me taking the time required for detailed research
that you will ignore because it does not match your ideological bias. >>>>>>>>>>Been there, done that, not going to be sucked in again.
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that rail was profitable
(purely on the basis of revenue and expenses) while government-owned >>>>>>>>>>(including as an SOE). If you can do this I will take you seriously >>>>>>>>>>enough to cite my contentions.
You can ask all you want, but my point is that those that do not like >>>>>>>>> rail make those claims, but are never prepared to either support those
claims with actual numbers, or give corresponding calculations with >>>>>>>>> respect to Roads. We know that the current Government is planning more
Roads of National Party significance (perhaps that should be NAct1st >>>>>>>>> significance now), but never has there been any published analysis of >>>>>>>>> the return on capital arising from either any single project or all >>>>>>>>> roading activities.
If we step back and accept that any country needs transport for goods >>>>>>>>and
services we can then put the options on the table and start a >>>>>>>>discussion
as
to the mix, if any we should use.
History has dictated that we have railways as turcks as we now then >>>>>>>>today,
did not exist as the trains powered by steam were hauling all that coal,
among other items across the country.
The different types of transport have developed differently - Air is >>>>>>>the only one that is almost all privately owned (albeit with >>>>>>>occasional bail-outs!). The economics of large road projects are >>>>>>>relatively simple - arrange the finance, get a good design and get it >>>>>>>done with ongoing systems to ensure that it is built to agreed >>>>>>>standards. Each step is important, but the big issues are getting >>>>>>>each step at the lowest possible price while not sacrificing quality. >>>>>>>
The Kaikoura highway recover from the earthquake had to be done >>>>>>>quickly, so it was financed using government money (at a lower rate >>>>>>>than can be provided by any other New Zealand organisation, it was >>>>>>>managed by Engineers who were on site to monitor work as it was done >>>>>>>while planning the next step (urgent completion was a factor there). >>>>>>>Suppliers were sourced competitively - as much because they did not >>>>>>>know what they would need for later stages, but competitive >>>>>>>purchasing did keep costs low. Contractors were hired for each stage >>>>>>>so there was competitive tendering, and the knowledge that good >>>>>>>service may assist future contracts.
Compare with a PPP - a single provider of finance at a higher rate >>>>>>>than government needs to pay. A single supplier of both labour and >>>>>>>materials based on a single price with escalation clauses, in some >>>>>>>cases with part of the cost being met by future tolls. That cuts out >>>>>>>flexibility, but also limits the number of tenderers, and with a big >>>>>>>contract, there are inevitably variations that will get fought for an >>>>>>>increased price - through the courts if necessary.
Most contracts are somewhere in between - but the Kapiti expressway >>>>>>>had an additional difficulty in that the consortium was structures in >>>>>>>such a way that the tenderers could effectively shut down their >>>>>>>organisation and walk away at any point
(M2PP )was managed by an alliance of four major parties with financial >>>>>>involvement (including NZTA) plus the Kapiti Council (which had no >>>>>>financial
ris). The alliance was constructed so that none of those could sue the >>>>>>others
and they could not walk away. I think you are thinking of a different >>>>>>task.
No. The consortium was through a new entity with four parties on one >>>>>side and NZTA / Government on the other. If the contract had looked >>>>>like creating huge losses for the consortium, they could have just >>>>>walked away, although there would have been reputational risk. I know >>>>>well one company that refused to get involved because of the risk, and >>>>>he knew quite a few other potential sub-contractors that did not get >>>>>involved for the same reason
that was an alliance and nobody could walk away. That is a fact.
did eventually pull out with work still to be done.
they were contractually required to sort out any differences - they did so. >>That\ is a fact. You can lie your childish lies but you got it wrong.
It was not a consortium (which is entirely different to an alliance), nobody >>pulled out and nobody who signed up declined to work on it.
You are an impossible man - your lies are all you have.
How do I know this? I was intimately involved.
I repeat it was not a consortium, do some research. It was an alliance which >>has legal implications.
The second and third were PP2O and Transmission gully, you are lumping them >>>>all
together when they were not in any way related except that they had to join >>>>each other.
See >>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/01-04-2022/the-true-costs-and-benefits-of-transmission-gullyNone of which address the Alliance issue. >>>>https://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/wellington-northern-corridor/mackays-to-peka-peka/construction-phase/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/kapiti-observer/7990653/Kapiti-Express-to-be-completed-by-2020
https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=160454 >>>>>https://contractormag.co.nz/contractor/transmission-gully/ >>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%81piti_Expressway >>>>>https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-post-1022/20131204/282149289110225
The government has just so much money, haven't you learned that yet? >>>>They (we) cannot and should not fund everythinmg for goodness sake. >>>>Particularly a government like the last one that put us in hock for decades.
One thing is clear - it was funded through borrowed money, with the >>>>>deal being acceptable for ACC to invest in it to get commercial >>>>>returns. If you assume that the consortium borrowed at say 0.5% above >>>>>the rate that the government could have borrowed, that is quite a few >>>>>million dollars of cost that would not have been incurred had the >>>>>government funded it directly.
Instead of borrowing at government to government rates, the consortium >>>borrowed at higher rates, and yes that was all paid for by the >>>government. One reason for doing it was the belief that it would show >>>less borrowing in government books, but for New Zealand that was a >>>fallacy. The other reason right leaning governments like such
contracts is that they pass more money on to businesses and banks . .
potential subbies to not want to work on the project. It also did
change significantly for the later stages of the contract.
Nonsense - government cannot and should not pay for everything and anything they do not pay for might cost more - fact.You know nothing about what happened. You are making shit up.What are you talking about? If it is necessary to borrow to pay for a >project, surely borrowing at the lowest rate possible is in everyone's >interests. How does it help to get a consortium to borrow at a higher
Governments should not fund everything except in your personal fantasy utopia.
rate and charge that back, possibly with a small margin, which
increases the amount the government has to pay?
.
- it made it difficult to gain
the trust of sub-contractors, who had seen a spate of building >>>>>>>contracts being closed down with subbies losing both payment for work >>>>>>>done and a big fight for getting their working tools back.
In some countries, PPP will be accounted for by the government as an >>>>>>>asset as work progresses, with the cost of say future tolls not >>>>>>>allowed for until later - in effect the true costs gets hidden for >>>>>>>years; the UK Tories found themselves having to wear disappointment in >>>>>>>some projects as they were in government for long enough for the true >>>>>>>cost to be identified - Thames Water is an example of how it can all >>>>>>>go wrong - we should prefer the Scottish Water model that delivers >>>>>>>water at a significantly lower cost through a better and more >>>>>>>appropriate structure. Here is New Zealand the government accounting >>>>>>>rules require future commitments to be included as a cost (discounted >>>>>>>appropriately for time) in the government accounts, so our governments >>>>>>>cannot hide from those future commitments, but that economic reality >>>>>>>may not be well comprehended by those that see other governments only >>>>>>>having to account for these contracts as they have to make payments. >>>>>>>
All of the above consideration apply to all governments, regardless of >>>>>>>which parties are involved, so the economics are more important than >>>>>>>the politics.
Rail offers some advantages over roads - for most routes the lines are >>>>>>>more stable than many of the roads; certainly the metal rails are >>>>>>>longer lasting than asphalt, and can take heavier loads without >>>>>>>significant additional deterioration. Rail takes traffic away from >>>>>>>congested routes, but does suit some items better than others.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not say that anybody had walked away - I know of one contractor
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:15:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyProve that - you cannot. Nobody walked away. You are lying.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Absolutely - and they were sufficient for some, but clearly all,
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 00:37:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Incorrect - Nobody was able to walk away from it. It worked extremely well >>>and
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:That is the contract I was talking about, and I know that some people >>>>declined to work on it because it was not watertight. The consortium >>>>did eventually pull out with work still to be done.
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 21:41:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No there were three distinct and legally seperate tasks. The first was M2PP
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Jul 2024 02:53:05 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:I believe that is completely incorrect. The first part of the kapiti >>>>>>>expressway
On 2024-07-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 21:45:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:31:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:01:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely >>>>>>>>>>>>>because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail >>>>>>>>>>>>>transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are >>>>>>>>>>>>>wherehttps://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government has
decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about the
same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an opportunity! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>The
earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
larger ships that were already on order would have worked very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>well -
but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions of
dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most important
road link - just to pander to the trucking industry. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . . >>>>>>>>>>>>>
rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>shipped
must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at >>>>>>>>>>>>>least
3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
See: >>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-nz-needs-to-invest-properly-in-rail-and-ferry-infrastructure-for-the-public-good-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/NKNOGOD5VZASZMIMDDSFCVWJMM/
and >>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128602/brendon-harre-makes-case-taking-minimum-viable-design-approach-could-have
and >>>>>>>>>>>>https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
The claim that rail cannot be profitable is often made but seldom >>>>>>>>>>>>justified.
It is not a claim. Rail transport in NZ has been a Government >>>>>>>>>>>department, an SOE, privately owned and repurchased by the Government.
It has never been profitable, even when protected by a cartage limit >>>>>>>>>>>of 150km or less for goods not sent be rail.
We know of course that running down NZ Rail when National >>>>>>>>>>>>sold it of was hugely profitable, but that is merely an example of anBecause the money is sourced entirely from taxes on road transport. >>>>>>>>>>>Indirectly, therefore, it could be said that road taxes fund rail >>>>>>>>>>>subsidies.
asset being bought at less than real value and then allowed to run >>>>>>>>>>>>down as it was managed for short term profit. But we have seen >>>>>>>>>>>>recently that storms can make rail easier to restore after a major >>>>>>>>>>>>climate event - Gisborne and north of Auckland; but a bigger problem
is that statements of that sort are made without any equivalent >>>>>>>>>>>>calculation of the profit delivered by Roads. Rail is much more >>>>>>>>>>>>resilient than roads to heavy transport - many truckers are aware >>>>>>>>>>>>that
current charges are too low for the heavier loads (over about 40 >>>>>>>>>>>>tons), and that road maintenance is significantly higher on roads >>>>>>>>>>>>used
by heavy trucks, or city routes used by busses. We also tend to >>>>>>>>>>>>ignore
coastal shipping - with the rail ferries being partly legitimately >>>>>>>>>>>>seen as part of State Highway 1, or part of our Rail system, or part
of our Coastal Shipping services. We also need to look at total costs
by both local and national government - that is becoming clearer as >>>>>>>>>>>>our new government is putting more costs on local areas, and the mix
of road and rail restoration between Napier and Gisborne will be >>>>>>>>>>>>interesting to watch.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs >>>>>>>>>>>>>and
petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport >>>>>>>>>>>>>(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading >>>>>>>>>>>>>entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF funds.
NZTA has responsibilities for Transport, not just Roads - why would >>>>>>>>>>>>they not spend money to reduce excessive traffic trying to travel to
and from Wellington to the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa and the Coast >>>>>>>>>>>>from Johnsonville to Waikanae.
I have been surprised at how little earthquake risk has been >>>>>>>>>>>>mentioned
- there was considerable work done investigating a ferry terminal >>>>>>>>>>>>near
Cape Campbell, which would have shortened the sea trip considerably -
but the Kaikoura earthquakes have been seen as making that too risky;
I understand earthquake considerations were also part of the move >>>>>>>>>>>>from
the current ferry position (which creates difficulties for cruise >>>>>>>>>>>>liners and other large vessels) further north to Kaiwharawhara. The >>>>>>>>>>>>existing ferry terminal used by Bluebridge is very constrained and >>>>>>>>>>>>makes transport from the rail terminal more difficult.
If you want to claim that one mode of transport is unprofitable, it >>>>>>>>>>>>would be good to see some evidence, such as return on capital, for >>>>>>>>>>>>all
modes - you will quickly realise that this information is not >>>>>>>>>>>>available . . .
There is no point in me taking the time required for detailed research
that you will ignore because it does not match your ideological bias.
Been there, done that, not going to be sucked in again.
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that rail was profitable
(purely on the basis of revenue and expenses) while government-owned >>>>>>>>>>>(including as an SOE). If you can do this I will take you seriously >>>>>>>>>>>enough to cite my contentions.
You can ask all you want, but my point is that those that do not like
rail make those claims, but are never prepared to either support those
claims with actual numbers, or give corresponding calculations with >>>>>>>>>> respect to Roads. We know that the current Government is planning more
Roads of National Party significance (perhaps that should be NAct1st >>>>>>>>>> significance now), but never has there been any published analysis of
the return on capital arising from either any single project or all >>>>>>>>>> roading activities.
If we step back and accept that any country needs transport for goods >>>>>>>>>and
services we can then put the options on the table and start a >>>>>>>>>discussion
as
to the mix, if any we should use.
History has dictated that we have railways as turcks as we now then >>>>>>>>>today,
did not exist as the trains powered by steam were hauling all that coal,
among other items across the country.
The different types of transport have developed differently - Air is >>>>>>>>the only one that is almost all privately owned (albeit with >>>>>>>>occasional bail-outs!). The economics of large road projects are >>>>>>>>relatively simple - arrange the finance, get a good design and get it >>>>>>>>done with ongoing systems to ensure that it is built to agreed >>>>>>>>standards. Each step is important, but the big issues are getting >>>>>>>>each step at the lowest possible price while not sacrificing quality. >>>>>>>>
The Kaikoura highway recover from the earthquake had to be done >>>>>>>>quickly, so it was financed using government money (at a lower rate >>>>>>>>than can be provided by any other New Zealand organisation, it was >>>>>>>>managed by Engineers who were on site to monitor work as it was done >>>>>>>>while planning the next step (urgent completion was a factor there). >>>>>>>>Suppliers were sourced competitively - as much because they did not >>>>>>>>know what they would need for later stages, but competitive >>>>>>>>purchasing did keep costs low. Contractors were hired for each stage >>>>>>>>so there was competitive tendering, and the knowledge that good >>>>>>>>service may assist future contracts.
Compare with a PPP - a single provider of finance at a higher rate >>>>>>>>than government needs to pay. A single supplier of both labour and >>>>>>>>materials based on a single price with escalation clauses, in some >>>>>>>>cases with part of the cost being met by future tolls. That cuts out >>>>>>>>flexibility, but also limits the number of tenderers, and with a big >>>>>>>>contract, there are inevitably variations that will get fought for an >>>>>>>>increased price - through the courts if necessary.
Most contracts are somewhere in between - but the Kapiti expressway >>>>>>>>had an additional difficulty in that the consortium was structures in >>>>>>>>such a way that the tenderers could effectively shut down their >>>>>>>>organisation and walk away at any point
(M2PP )was managed by an alliance of four major parties with financial >>>>>>>involvement (including NZTA) plus the Kapiti Council (which had no >>>>>>>financial
ris). The alliance was constructed so that none of those could sue the >>>>>>>others
and they could not walk away. I think you are thinking of a different >>>>>>>task.
No. The consortium was through a new entity with four parties on one >>>>>>side and NZTA / Government on the other. If the contract had looked >>>>>>like creating huge losses for the consortium, they could have just >>>>>>walked away, although there would have been reputational risk. I know >>>>>>well one company that refused to get involved because of the risk, and >>>>>>he knew quite a few other potential sub-contractors that did not get >>>>>>involved for the same reason
and
that was an alliance and nobody could walk away. That is a fact.
they were contractually required to sort out any differences - they did so. >>>That\ is a fact. You can lie your childish lies but you got it wrong.
It was not a consortium (which is entirely different to an alliance), nobody >>>pulled out and nobody who signed up declined to work on it.
You are an impossible man - your lies are all you have.
How do I know this? I was intimately involved.
I repeat it was not a consortium, do some research. It was an alliance which >>>has legal implications.
The second and third were PP2O and Transmission gully, you are lumping them
all
together when they were not in any way related except that they had to join
each other.
See >>>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/01-04-2022/the-true-costs-and-benefits-of-transmission-gullyNone of which address the Alliance issue. >>>>>https://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/wellington-northern-corridor/mackays-to-peka-peka/construction-phase/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/kapiti-observer/7990653/Kapiti-Express-to-be-completed-by-2020
https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=160454 >>>>>>https://contractormag.co.nz/contractor/transmission-gully/ >>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%81piti_Expressway >>>>>>https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-post-1022/20131204/282149289110225
The government has just so much money, haven't you learned that yet? >>>>>They (we) cannot and should not fund everythinmg for goodness sake. >>>>>Particularly a government like the last one that put us in hock for decades.
One thing is clear - it was funded through borrowed money, with the >>>>>>deal being acceptable for ACC to invest in it to get commercial >>>>>>returns. If you assume that the consortium borrowed at say 0.5% above >>>>>>the rate that the government could have borrowed, that is quite a few >>>>>>million dollars of cost that would not have been incurred had the >>>>>>government funded it directly.
Instead of borrowing at government to government rates, the consortium >>>>borrowed at higher rates, and yes that was all paid for by the >>>>government. One reason for doing it was the belief that it would show >>>>less borrowing in government books, but for New Zealand that was a >>>>fallacy. The other reason right leaning governments like such
contracts is that they pass more money on to businesses and banks . .
potential subbies to not want to work on the project. It also did
change significantly for the later stages of the contract.
Nobody has suggested that the government should pay for everything - INonsense - government cannot and should not pay for everything and anything >they do not pay for might cost more - fact.
You know nothing about what happened. You are making shit up.What are you talking about? If it is necessary to borrow to pay for a >>project, surely borrowing at the lowest rate possible is in everyone's >>interests. How does it help to get a consortium to borrow at a higher
Governments should not fund everything except in your personal fantasy utopia.
rate and charge that back, possibly with a small margin, which
increases the amount the government has to pay?
.
- it made it difficult to gain
the trust of sub-contractors, who had seen a spate of building >>>>>>>>contracts being closed down with subbies losing both payment for work >>>>>>>>done and a big fight for getting their working tools back.
In some countries, PPP will be accounted for by the government as an >>>>>>>>asset as work progresses, with the cost of say future tolls not >>>>>>>>allowed for until later - in effect the true costs gets hidden for >>>>>>>>years; the UK Tories found themselves having to wear disappointment in >>>>>>>>some projects as they were in government for long enough for the true >>>>>>>>cost to be identified - Thames Water is an example of how it can all >>>>>>>>go wrong - we should prefer the Scottish Water model that delivers >>>>>>>>water at a significantly lower cost through a better and more >>>>>>>>appropriate structure. Here is New Zealand the government accounting >>>>>>>>rules require future commitments to be included as a cost (discounted >>>>>>>>appropriately for time) in the government accounts, so our governments >>>>>>>>cannot hide from those future commitments, but that economic reality >>>>>>>>may not be well comprehended by those that see other governments only >>>>>>>>having to account for these contracts as they have to make payments. >>>>>>>>
All of the above consideration apply to all governments, regardless of >>>>>>>>which parties are involved, so the economics are more important than >>>>>>>>the politics.
Rail offers some advantages over roads - for most routes the lines are >>>>>>>>more stable than many of the roads; certainly the metal rails are >>>>>>>>longer lasting than asphalt, and can take heavier loads without >>>>>>>>significant additional deterioration. Rail takes traffic away from >>>>>>>>congested routes, but does suit some items better than others.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:32:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou wrote
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I did not say that anybody had walked away - I know of one contractor
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:15:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyProve that - you cannot. Nobody walked away. You are lying.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Absolutely - and they were sufficient for some, but clearly all, >>>potential subbies to not want to work on the project. It also did
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 00:37:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Incorrect - Nobody was able to walk away from it. It worked extremely well >>>>and
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 21:41:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No there were three distinct and legally seperate tasks. The first was >>>>>>M2PP
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Jul 2024 02:53:05 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>I believe that is completely incorrect. The first part of the kapiti >>>>>>>>expressway
On 2024-07-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 21:45:51 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 20:31:57 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:01:44 +1200, Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>><nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:31:46 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Complete and utter nonsense as usual. Rail is state-owned solely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>because in an economy with low population in a small area, rail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>transport cannot generate economies of scale to be profitable (andhttps://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
This was written before the indications now that the government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>has
decided to replace the existing Kiwirail ships with ones about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
same size as the existing ships - what a waste of an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>opportunity!
The
earthquake risks required substantial work at both terminals, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
the
larger ships that were already on order would have worked very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>well -
but no NAct1st just had to stop them at a cost of many millions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of
dollars - and are now giving us lower service on our most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>important
road link - just to pander to the trucking industry. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Shame - putting their mates before the country . . . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
never has been). Populous countries such as India and China are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>where
rail is sustainable, not NZ. With rail transport, goods to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>shipped
must be trans-shipped at least twice (ie loaded and unloaded at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>least
3 times) versus once with goods sent by road.
See: >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-nz-needs-to-invest-properly-in-rail-and-ferry-infrastructure-for-the-public-good-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/NKNOGOD5VZASZMIMDDSFCVWJMM/
and >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128602/brendon-harre-makes-case-taking-minimum-viable-design-approach-could-have
and >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://business.scoop.co.nz/2024/06/26/the-trucking-industry-wants-the-government-to-close-down-its-more-efficient-rival-rail/
The claim that rail cannot be profitable is often made but seldom >>>>>>>>>>>>>justified.
It is not a claim. Rail transport in NZ has been a Government >>>>>>>>>>>>department, an SOE, privately owned and repurchased by the >>>>>>>>>>>>Government.
It has never been profitable, even when protected by a cartage limit
of 150km or less for goods not sent be rail.
We know of course that running down NZ Rail when National >>>>>>>>>>>>>sold it of was hugely profitable, but that is merely an example of >>>>>>>>>>>>>anBecause the money is sourced entirely from taxes on road transport. >>>>>>>>>>>>Indirectly, therefore, it could be said that road taxes fund rail >>>>>>>>>>>>subsidies.
asset being bought at less than real value and then allowed to run >>>>>>>>>>>>>down as it was managed for short term profit. But we have seen >>>>>>>>>>>>>recently that storms can make rail easier to restore after a major >>>>>>>>>>>>>climate event - Gisborne and north of Auckland; but a bigger >>>>>>>>>>>>>problem
is that statements of that sort are made without any equivalent >>>>>>>>>>>>>calculation of the profit delivered by Roads. Rail is much more >>>>>>>>>>>>>resilient than roads to heavy transport - many truckers are aware >>>>>>>>>>>>>that
current charges are too low for the heavier loads (over about 40 >>>>>>>>>>>>>tons), and that road maintenance is significantly higher on roads >>>>>>>>>>>>>used
by heavy trucks, or city routes used by busses. We also tend to >>>>>>>>>>>>>ignore
coastal shipping - with the rail ferries being partly legitimately >>>>>>>>>>>>>seen as part of State Highway 1, or part of our Rail system, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>part
of our Coastal Shipping services. We also need to look at total >>>>>>>>>>>>>costs
by both local and national government - that is becoming clearer as
our new government is putting more costs on local areas, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>mix
of road and rail restoration between Napier and Gisborne will be >>>>>>>>>>>>>interesting to watch.
The article omits to mention that transport taxes (including RUCs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
petrol taxes) are used to pay subsidies for public transport >>>>>>>>>>>>>>(including rail in Wellington) amongst several other non-roading >>>>>>>>>>>>>>entities. Use Google to find out where the NZTA spends NLTF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>funds.
NZTA has responsibilities for Transport, not just Roads - why would
they not spend money to reduce excessive traffic trying to travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>to
and from Wellington to the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa and the Coast >>>>>>>>>>>>>from Johnsonville to Waikanae.
I have been surprised at how little earthquake risk has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>mentioned
- there was considerable work done investigating a ferry terminal >>>>>>>>>>>>>near
Cape Campbell, which would have shortened the sea trip >>>>>>>>>>>>>considerably -
but the Kaikoura earthquakes have been seen as making that too >>>>>>>>>>>>>risky;
I understand earthquake considerations were also part of the move >>>>>>>>>>>>>from
the current ferry position (which creates difficulties for cruise >>>>>>>>>>>>>liners and other large vessels) further north to Kaiwharawhara. The
existing ferry terminal used by Bluebridge is very constrained and >>>>>>>>>>>>>makes transport from the rail terminal more difficult. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to claim that one mode of transport is unprofitable, it
would be good to see some evidence, such as return on capital, for >>>>>>>>>>>>>all
modes - you will quickly realise that this information is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>available . . .
There is no point in me taking the time required for detailed >>>>>>>>>>>>research
that you will ignore because it does not match your ideological >>>>>>>>>>>>bias.
Been there, done that, not going to be sucked in again. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I challenge you to find any credible evidence that rail was >>>>>>>>>>>>profitable
(purely on the basis of revenue and expenses) while government-owned
(including as an SOE). If you can do this I will take you seriously
enough to cite my contentions.
You can ask all you want, but my point is that those that do not >>>>>>>>>>>like
rail make those claims, but are never prepared to either support >>>>>>>>>>>those
claims with actual numbers, or give corresponding calculations with >>>>>>>>>>> respect to Roads. We know that the current Government is planning >>>>>>>>>>>more
Roads of National Party significance (perhaps that should be NAct1st
significance now), but never has there been any published analysis >>>>>>>>>>>of
the return on capital arising from either any single project or all >>>>>>>>>>> roading activities.
If we step back and accept that any country needs transport for goods >>>>>>>>>>and
services we can then put the options on the table and start a >>>>>>>>>>discussion
as
to the mix, if any we should use.
History has dictated that we have railways as turcks as we now then >>>>>>>>>>today,
did not exist as the trains powered by steam were hauling all that >>>>>>>>>>coal,
among other items across the country.
The different types of transport have developed differently - Air is >>>>>>>>>the only one that is almost all privately owned (albeit with >>>>>>>>>occasional bail-outs!). The economics of large road projects are >>>>>>>>>relatively simple - arrange the finance, get a good design and get it >>>>>>>>>done with ongoing systems to ensure that it is built to agreed >>>>>>>>>standards. Each step is important, but the big issues are getting >>>>>>>>>each step at the lowest possible price while not sacrificing quality. >>>>>>>>>
The Kaikoura highway recover from the earthquake had to be done >>>>>>>>>quickly, so it was financed using government money (at a lower rate >>>>>>>>>than can be provided by any other New Zealand organisation, it was >>>>>>>>>managed by Engineers who were on site to monitor work as it was done >>>>>>>>>while planning the next step (urgent completion was a factor there). >>>>>>>>>Suppliers were sourced competitively - as much because they did not >>>>>>>>>know what they would need for later stages, but competitive >>>>>>>>>purchasing did keep costs low. Contractors were hired for each stage >>>>>>>>>so there was competitive tendering, and the knowledge that good >>>>>>>>>service may assist future contracts.
Compare with a PPP - a single provider of finance at a higher rate >>>>>>>>>than government needs to pay. A single supplier of both labour and >>>>>>>>>materials based on a single price with escalation clauses, in some >>>>>>>>>cases with part of the cost being met by future tolls. That cuts out >>>>>>>>>flexibility, but also limits the number of tenderers, and with a big >>>>>>>>>contract, there are inevitably variations that will get fought for an >>>>>>>>>increased price - through the courts if necessary.
Most contracts are somewhere in between - but the Kapiti expressway >>>>>>>>>had an additional difficulty in that the consortium was structures in >>>>>>>>>such a way that the tenderers could effectively shut down their >>>>>>>>>organisation and walk away at any point
(M2PP )was managed by an alliance of four major parties with financial >>>>>>>>involvement (including NZTA) plus the Kapiti Council (which had no >>>>>>>>financial
ris). The alliance was constructed so that none of those could sue the >>>>>>>>others
and they could not walk away. I think you are thinking of a different >>>>>>>>task.
No. The consortium was through a new entity with four parties on one >>>>>>>side and NZTA / Government on the other. If the contract had looked >>>>>>>like creating huge losses for the consortium, they could have just >>>>>>>walked away, although there would have been reputational risk. I know >>>>>>>well one company that refused to get involved because of the risk, and >>>>>>>he knew quite a few other potential sub-contractors that did not get >>>>>>>involved for the same reason
and
that was an alliance and nobody could walk away. That is a fact. >>>>>That is the contract I was talking about, and I know that some people >>>>>declined to work on it because it was not watertight. The consortium >>>>>did eventually pull out with work still to be done.
they were contractually required to sort out any differences - they did so. >>>>That\ is a fact. You can lie your childish lies but you got it wrong. >>>>It was not a consortium (which is entirely different to an alliance), >>>>nobody
pulled out and nobody who signed up declined to work on it.
You are an impossible man - your lies are all you have.
How do I know this? I was intimately involved.
has legal implications.
The second and third were PP2O and Transmission gully, you are lumping >>>>>>them
all
together when they were not in any way related except that they had to >>>>>>join
each other.
See >>>>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/01-04-2022/the-true-costs-and-benefits-of-transmission-gullyNone of which address the Alliance issue. >>>>>>https://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/wellington-northern-corridor/mackays-to-peka-peka/construction-phase/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/kapiti-observer/7990653/Kapiti-Express-to-be-completed-by-2020
https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=160454 >>>>>>>https://contractormag.co.nz/contractor/transmission-gully/ >>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%81piti_Expressway >>>>>>>https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-post-1022/20131204/282149289110225
The government has just so much money, haven't you learned that yet? >>>>>>They (we) cannot and should not fund everythinmg for goodness sake. >>>>>>Particularly a government like the last one that put us in hock for >>>>>>decades.
One thing is clear - it was funded through borrowed money, with the >>>>>>>deal being acceptable for ACC to invest in it to get commercial >>>>>>>returns. If you assume that the consortium borrowed at say 0.5% above >>>>>>>the rate that the government could have borrowed, that is quite a few >>>>>>>million dollars of cost that would not have been incurred had the >>>>>>>government funded it directly.
Instead of borrowing at government to government rates, the consortium >>>>>borrowed at higher rates, and yes that was all paid for by the >>>>>government. One reason for doing it was the belief that it would show >>>>>less borrowing in government books, but for New Zealand that was a >>>>>fallacy. The other reason right leaning governments like such >>>>>contracts is that they pass more money on to businesses and banks . . >>>>I repeat it was not a consortium, do some research. It was an alliance >>>>which
change significantly for the later stages of the contract.
(Civil and electrical engineering) who declined to tender - quite a
different matter, Tony - there were others who also declined to tender
. . .I am not at all confused. You suggested that the government should pay for something just because they have better finacing arrangements. That is idiotic. I explained how that was wrong and you are still drowning in your cesspit.
Nobody has suggested that the government should pay for everything - INonsense - government cannot and should not pay for everything and anything >>they do not pay for might cost more - fact.
You know nothing about what happened. You are making shit up. >>>>Governments should not fund everything except in your personal fantasy >>>>utopia.What are you talking about? If it is necessary to borrow to pay for a >>>project, surely borrowing at the lowest rate possible is in everyone's >>>interests. How does it help to get a consortium to borrow at a higher >>>rate and charge that back, possibly with a small margin, which
increases the amount the government has to pay?
am happy to have paid for my own home for example. That is quite
different from a government agency "buying" the building of an
expressway. Who do you think should be paying for State Highways,
Tony? You are getting yourself very confused, Tony
.
- it made it difficult to gain
the trust of sub-contractors, who had seen a spate of building >>>>>>>>>contracts being closed down with subbies losing both payment for work >>>>>>>>>done and a big fight for getting their working tools back.
In some countries, PPP will be accounted for by the government as an >>>>>>>>>asset as work progresses, with the cost of say future tolls not >>>>>>>>>allowed for until later - in effect the true costs gets hidden for >>>>>>>>>years; the UK Tories found themselves having to wear disappointment in >>>>>>>>>some projects as they were in government for long enough for the true >>>>>>>>>cost to be identified - Thames Water is an example of how it can all >>>>>>>>>go wrong - we should prefer the Scottish Water model that delivers >>>>>>>>>water at a significantly lower cost through a better and more >>>>>>>>>appropriate structure. Here is New Zealand the government accounting >>>>>>>>>rules require future commitments to be included as a cost (discounted >>>>>>>>>appropriately for time) in the government accounts, so our governments >>>>>>>>>cannot hide from those future commitments, but that economic reality >>>>>>>>>may not be well comprehended by those that see other governments only >>>>>>>>>having to account for these contracts as they have to make payments. >>>>>>>>>
All of the above consideration apply to all governments, regardless of >>>>>>>>>which parties are involved, so the economics are more important than >>>>>>>>>the politics.
Rail offers some advantages over roads - for most routes the lines are >>>>>>>>>more stable than many of the roads; certainly the metal rails are >>>>>>>>>longer lasting than asphalt, and can take heavier loads without >>>>>>>>>significant additional deterioration. Rail takes traffic away from >>>>>>>>>congested routes, but does suit some items better than others.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 28:59:52 |
| Calls: | 9,796 |
| Calls today: | 15 |
| Files: | 13,749 |
| Messages: | 6,188,569 |