​By Paul Callister and Robert McLachlan 

​Air New Zealand has a problem. The national airline needs to be profitable and, traditionally, this has involved increasing passenger numbers. In the past, this growth has been one of the many factors leading to the demise of passenger rail in Aotearoa New Zealand. But, like the whole global aviation industry, the airline is now under increasing pressure to reduce emissions. Guided by the Science Based Targets initiative, Air New Zealand has a stated goal to reduce carbon intensity by 2030 by 28.9%, from a 2019 baseline.

Air New Zealand’s biggest challenge is to reduce emissions from its international network. This will not be easy. There are likely to be small ongoing efficiency gains. But large reductions rely on the hope that so called Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs) will be produced in sufficient quantities to allow the significant replacement of fossil fuels. Further in the future, hydrogen may also play a role.

But the airline also needs to reduce emissions from its domestic flying. Again, SAFs are seen as part of the solution. But, here, there is hope that electric planes will eventually replace many regional flights. Worldwide, there are currently a plethora of projects endeavouring to produce electric planes that could replace the current regional fleet of ATRs and the smaller de Havilland Q300. But there are significant challenges to overcome, including battery density and safety certification. So it is highly unlikely that we will see significant numbers of people using electric planes by 2030.

By contrast, regional and long-distance electric passenger trains have long been operating safely throughout the world, primarily through the use of overhead wires. Some passenger networks are fully electrified, for example in Switzerland. Now, overseas, battery-operated trains are beginning to fill the gaps in electrified networks. New Zealand is ordering 18 of tri-mode trains that can use both existing overhead lines and batteries. These will run in the lower North Island. But the order could now be expanded so further services could be started in other parts of the country.

Not only do electric trains create very low levels of emissions, but they are also extremely energy efficient as they require only a fraction of the renewable electricity needed to power an electric or hydrogen plane. Their added advantage is their ability to link isolated communities that are located next to railway tracks but are far from airports . Currently, with no trains, and a poor inter-city bus network, people who are young, old or disabled face major transport challenges. As our population ages, this older group that is unable, or unwilling, to drive will expand.

Rather than competing with trains, could Air New Zealand achieve some of its required emission reductions, while also gaining new customers, by working with rail operators? Could Air New Zealand even become a rail operator itself? Its mission statement specifies that its concern lies with people, not specifically with planes:

“Our driving purpose is all about people. We're here to 'Enrich our country by connecting New Zealanders to each other and New Zealand to the world'.”

Air New Zealand’s Mission Statement goes on to say:

“Our aircraft's tails all proudly bear the Māori symbol of the Mangōpare, or hammerhead shark. The Mangōpare represents strength, tenacity, and resilience. The symbol is also known as the koru, the sign of new life, renewal, and hope for the future.”
​
If Air New Zealand really cares about the planet and the future of the people who live on it, it could provide hope to future generations by showing innovative thinking through teaming up with rail in order to bring down transport emissions.

Such partnerships overseas are starting to become more common, especially in Europe. In North America, examples can be found where routes use a mix of planes and buses.
​
A number of possible arrangements come to mind. One is code sharing. But could Air New Zealand actually run a train, perhaps in partnership with KiwiRail or potentially a private operator such as Transdev? Transdev, which runs the Wellington Metro network, also operates night trains in Europe. Auckland to Wellington is a perfect distance to run a night train. Then, emission conscious travellers could choose to use the night train for both legs of the trip between Wellington and Auckland or perhaps for only one leg. 

Increasingly, companies and other organisations, such as universities, are under pressure to reduce emissions. A night train would offer their staff a low emission travel option on the busy Auckland-Wellington route. Other routes could also be considered, such as Auckland to Tauranga, and, especially for tourists, Auckland to Rotorua. Unlike the magical solutions proposed, trains could be delivered and be operating well before 2030.

Currently, the government fully owns KiwiRail and has a majority shareholding in Air New Zealand, potentially facilitating the development of a partnership. Partnerships are not without precedent. In 2012, under the Key led National government, Air NZ established a partnership with the Department of Conservation.

If there was code sharing, and one leg was an international flight, this would raise an interesting question. Currently, if someone uses a domestic flight to join up to an international one both are exempt from paying GST.  But even without direct code sharing, why if someone uses the train instead, or perhaps a bus, should this not also be exempt? Or better still, in order not to provide unnecessary incentives for flying, both forms of travel should be treated equally and this tax loophole could be closed. The additional revenue raised could help support the revival of rail.
​
With the level of transformation to low emission travel needed, we can no longer treat transport modes in isolation. We need to use all the tools within the avoid-improve-shift framework and Air New Zealand should demonstrate corporate leadership and responsibility by teaming up with rail.

By Paul Callister

Consultation on the Draft Tourism Environment Action Plan 2023 has just closed. Save Our Trains put in a submission.

As cited in the draft Tourism Strategy, the Decarbonising Transport Action Plan 2022-2025, released in December 2022 notes, “transport is one of our largest sources of emissions and we have a goal to reduce [domestic] transport emission by 41% by 2035. Currently international aviation and shipping emissions are outside these targets. However, others have argued that we need more ambitious transport decarbonisation goals. 1Point5 Project research suggests mitigating the risk of a delay in the decarbonisation of farming requires transport to aim for almost full decarbonisation by 2030. I agree with this assessment.

First, some background about the draft report. The report was overseen by the Tourism Environment Leadership Group. This included industry representatives, unions and, potentially speaking up for the environment, Forest & Bird and the Department of Conservation. Aviation interests were overrepresented. Some land transport interests were also represented, in the form of car hire and campervan hire companies. Missing were the voices of the two lowest emission land transport operators, KiwiRail and InterCity. The ability for trains to reduce emissions – and provide a high quality, enjoyable way to travel - has been set out in several of our blogs.

As further background, the Department of Conservation has a partnership with Air New Zealand. Forest & Bird, at its national conference has a session called “Courageous Leadership in the time of the Climate & Biodiversity Crises”, has a speaker from Air New Zealand but no one representing low emission passenger rail.

There were no sustainable travel experts from academia or climate change on the Tourism Environment Leadership Group. Trains, as the potential backbone of sustainable tourism travel, were on a back foot right from the start.

There is another issue that potentially divides train enthusiasts. That is what overall level of international tourism is sustainable? Some see international tourists as a vital income earner and an important market for domestic train travel. But in a climate emergency, should we be marketing New Zealand to the world, flying people long distances to New Zealand knowing aviation has no realistic short- or medium-term decarbonisation plan? Research carried out with my colleague Robert McLauchlan suggests that we should pause growth and, ideally, cut back levels of international arrivals until the industry can demonstrate that it can substantially cut emissions. Bringing international aviation and shipping into our carbon budgets will bring more focus to this issue.

Whatever the level of tourism, in almost all industrialised countries, these travellers arriving at major airports will have the option of journeying into the nearby city by light or heavy rail.  Especially in Europe, a key international tourism destination, travellers then have the option of travelling regionally and inter-regionally by fast and not so fast rail. In New Zealand, most tourists turn to hired cars, camper vans or, the budget conscious, buying a second-hand car to travel around. If we are to reduce emissions this has to change.

Equally, New Zealand families have little ability to use good quality affordable and frequent rail to reach main tourism centres. For example, they can no longer travel to tourist town Rotorua by train. It is impossible to organise a weekend visit to Ruapehu from either Auckland or Wellington by train to go mountain biking. Or a beach holiday at Mt Maunganui by train.

As we well know, Aotearoa New Zealand only retains a mere skeleton long distance passenger rail service. The day train service between Auckland and Wellington is infrequent, expensive and only has limited stops. It is aimed at a small group of high-end tourists and is not affordable for most New Zealand families going on holiday, also an important part of tourism.
​
Unlike most industrialised countries, there are no night trains operating in New Zealand. These are important tourism services in Europe.

​Credit: Richard Young

With the bias in the Tourism Environment Leadership Group, it is not surprising, but nevertheless disappointing, that the draft tourism strategy repeats myths about rail.

On page 44 it states “[c]ompared to other countries, tourism transport between destinations in Aotearoa New Zealand depends on aviation to a greater extent, due to the distances and complex geography between our major cities.”

Save Our Trains member Suraya Sidhu Singh tackles these myths. The myths have also been exposed by Making Rail Work.

There are many examples of countries that have very challenging geography but also have well developed rail systems. An example is Switzerland, a very popular European tourist destination. Others are Japan and Norway. While it has a larger population than New Zealand (just under 9 million people), Switzerland has a fully electrified rail network with 92% of electricity from renewable sources, and just under 800 passenger train stations.

New Zealand has few operating railway stations, many very run down. Wellington station has no heated waiting room, no showers, and no dedicated parents’ room. Given Wellington station caters for the few remaining longer distance passenger services, as well as InterCity coaches, its facilities are substandard and would not be accepted in an airport.
​
Longer distance passenger trains throughout New Zealand could cater for a range of tourists. This includes those using bikes. Many North Island bike trails begin near current and former stations. But current trains are not well set up to carry bikes. We discuss this on another of our blogs.

Cycle tourism could really increase and improve options for local people at the same time. Ideally, we would make both cycling and walking pleasant with appropriate and safe infrastructure. Together, these would go a long way to creating nicer places. Our countryside, towns, and cities, linked by trains, would become lovely places to visit, if we reduced how much the car dominates them, to make them safe to walk and cycle.
​
Reviving passenger rail has to be a key strategy of the tourism industry to give it any hope of becoming a truly regenerative model. 

​By Paul Callister and Robert McLachlan

Every transport-related conversation should start with the question, ‘how will this give us hope to stay within 1.5 degrees of warming?’. But there remains a big gap in thinking. Motorway and airport expansions are still being promoted despite the clear evidence that they will increase emissions.
​
The need for rapid and substantial emission reductions was in the background in many of the presentations given at the Future of Rail conference. But it was only Roman Shmakov, representing Generation Zero, who specially asked why long distance and regional passenger rail is absent from the Government’s transport policy documents. These come primarily from the work of the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of the Environment, and the Climate Change Commission. They include the 2021 Rail Plan, the Emission Reduction Plan and advice to government on how best to reduce emissions.

This is despite the overwhelming evidence that trains are substantially lower emissions than planes. In addition, trains’ energy use is substantially lower, an advantage that will continue even if passenger electric planes shift from prototypes to actually flying commercially. Power to fuel as an alternative to fossil fuels would also require huge amounts of renewable electricity, as would the direct use of hydrogen.

Now the Inquiry into the Future of Inter-regional Passenger Rail in New Zealand has released its report. Clearly many submitters saw trains as a key means for reducing emissions and the report acknowledges this.

But the gains will only come about if:

1. We quickly rebuild our passenger rail network.
2. We have a substantial modeshift from cars and planes to trains.

We can rebuild the network. But will people use the trains?

The presentations at the conference presented a wide range of potential train revivals, from linking up the golden triangle of Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga, relinking South Island towns and cities along existing rail tracks, through to more aspirational ideas such as a train/ferry link to Queenstown. There was also recognition of the first/last mile problem to make trains easier to access. Housing intensification around rail hubs was also touched upon creating a potential market to draw upon.
​
Pre-conference blogs highlighted the untapped markets for train travel, such as the transport-disadvantaged with limited regional travel options and teenagers. The high cost of the current tourist trains, along with their infrequent schedules, makes them impossible for most families.

​Source: KiwiRail booking system

But missing from the conference day were many other aspects of the sweeping, systemic changes that the IPCC repeatedly finds are necessary for a safe future.

Models of Growth

There is an emerging debate between traditional economic growth, green growth and degrowth. In the decarbonisation model of Avoid/Shift/Improve, traditional growth relies almost entirely on ‘improve’. It may pay lip service to planetary boundaries but assumes that innovation and productivity will solve the problems. Road building and expansion of airports will stimulate the economy and lift standards of living. Trading schemes, such as the ETS, will solve emission challenges. If there is an impending shortage of particular minerals to support this growth, pricing and science will ensure that we swap to new alternatives.  Unfortunately, these views, unsupported by science, are behind the view that in Aotearoa New Zealand long-distance trains are as part of the past, not the future. This was the view of Treasury as it drove restructuring of the economy after 1984. Treasury was not present at the conference.

Green growthers also rely heavily on technological innovation, but focus on both ‘Shift’ and ‘Improve’. For them, new types of trains, planes, and fuels lead the way for long distance mobility. Degrowthers focus primarily on ‘Avoid’ and ‘Shift’, placing a much higher weight on the efficiency of resource and energy use and the social purpose of travel. Trains are a key part of future mobility.

These discussions were not a key part of the conference. Yet if the conventional economic model is doomed to failure, we need to explore the alternatives.

Urban design, roads, and sprawl

Many of the talks at the conference provided a vision of how we can grow our population and housing stock along rail corridors. In fact, the word ‘growth’ – economic and population growth – was heard repeatedly as part of arguments for investment in passenger rail. It was cited as a key reason for getting the improved services in the lower North Island over the line. But growth is a double-edged sword. Taking the Capital Connection as an example, do we really want 150 km of sprawl and strip development from Wellington to Manawatū, even if the old town centres are linked by improved passenger rail? This becomes even more problematic when combined with the present push for continued expansion of the road and motorway network, further encouraging long-distance commuting and sprawl.
​
These are essential issues, even if they are too much for the humble train to tackle all by itself. There was mention at the conference of the overall car bias of the transport system. But the underlying question – can we achieve a high-quality passenger rail network without addressing car bias – remained unanswered.

The Future Is Rail: Reconnecting Aotearoa 2030 Conference will be held in Wellington on 28 June. The conference aims to get all the key decision makers in one room to envisage the future for regional, inter-regional and long-distance passenger rail in New Zealand.

Conference Chair and former Greater Wellington Regional Councillor, Dr Roger Blakeley says, “the conference provides an opportunity to develop a shared vision for rebuilding passenger rail across New Zealand that encompasses the diverse markets of regional, inter-regional, and long-distance trains. These services can help create a resilient and sustainable future.”

“While there is currently a focus on rebuilding connections within devastated communities, passenger rail is vital in reducing carbon emissions, promoting economic development, and increasing mobility choices for all New Zealanders. Emission reductions brought about by new mobility options in our largest cities are important, but we also need to cater for those living in regional New Zealand,” says Dr Blakeley.

Nationwide passenger rail requires coordination between central government, local government, business, and communities served. The conference on 28 June will include key players in forging a strategy for expanding rail in NZ.

“We are delighted to be able to bring together a rich agenda and an excellent line up of speakers. We hope that this event will mark the beginning of a comprehensive strategy for the future of passenger rail in New Zealand,” says Dr Blakeley.

​Contact:
Dr Roger Blakeley, Conference Chair
roger.blakeley@outlook.com
021 229 6928

By Lindsey Horne

​Earlier in March, thousands of people took part in the nationwide strike, calling for more action on climate change. Failure to act will cost us billions and will put us further at risk of more extreme weather events, similar and worse to what we’ve seen this last summer. So where and how can we start to act? After agricultural emissions, transport is one the major contributors to New Zealand’s emissions.

Transport is a major contributor to NZ's greenhouse gas emissions footprint, and it’s evident at all levels. Nationally, road transport contributes to over 15% of all gross emissions. In Auckland alone, road and air transport together represent over 36% of emissions. And domestic emissions have increased too, with transport now accounting for 37% of the average household carbon footprint; up 1.6% on the previous year.

Rail, on the other hand, is one of the most efficient modes of transport available, alongside walking and cycling. Data from the UK suggests that taking a train instead of a domestic flight could reduce your emissions by ~84%. Similarly, using a bike instead of a car for short trips reduces travel emissions by three-quarters. It’s not surprising that a growing proportion of New Zealanders are calling out for low carbon alternatives to flying and driving.

There is a crucial opportunity with a national passenger rail service. One that is frequent, affordable and well connected to major hubs in New Zealand. Not only would this help us towards lowering our emissions, but there are many other benefits to New Zealanders as well. From travelling in a more tranquil way with young children, to a safe and social journey through to a productive, work-as-you-go journey.

As part the recent parliamentary enquiry into inter-regional passenger rail, Women in Urbanism sent out a simple survey to New Zealanders, asking them to share their stories of what long distance trains mean to them. They received more than 330 stories, submitted by 130 individuals and the stories highlight what we’re currently missing out on by not having national passenger rail.

This included stories and experiences from:

1. Those who had previously caught long distance trains in New Zealand
2. Those who had caught long distance trains overseas
3. Those who currently take long distance trains in New Zealand (e.g. the Capital Connection, Te Huia)
4. Those who would like to travel by long distance trains in New Zealand

​The sample was diverse, and included a spread of (1) different ages (from under 18 through to over 75), (2) geographic regions around New Zealand, (3) ethnicities, and (4) household structures.

Taken together, these stories paint a picture of a different – but achievable – New Zealand. One which doesn’t always prioritize the private car. One in which transport is more equitable and affordable, comfortable and safe, sustainable and future-proof. Have a look at the 12 key themes that we found in our analysis of these stories.

• Providing an alternative option for those who cannot or prefer not to drive

For many, driving or flying is not an option, therefore, trains open up new opportunities to get around. 

“I went from Christchurch to Greymouth on the Trans Alpine on my first ever solo bikepacking journey. It allowed me to solo travel and feel safe. I also felt like I would have never visited the West Coast because I'm not a confident driver crossing the Pass. It was a peaceful journey where I felt I enjoyed a new part of New Zealand I'd never seen before.”
35-39 Female, Wellington

“My preference is always to avoid driving because I loathe it.”
40-44 Female, Auckland

• A comfortable experience

Access to toilets, dining carriages, bringing food on board, comfortable seats, smooth journey.

In 2009 I travelled around Europe with my mother on a six-week Eurail pass. For a New Zealander, this was a revelation…Above all my strongest memory is how pleasant the journeys were, and how we were able to arrive in a city after a rail journey of several hours feeling refreshed and relaxed, ready to explore. If we had been travelling by car or bus, the trip would have been much more stressful and I would have needed time to rest after each leg of the journey.
30-34 Female, Wellington
 
In the early 2000s, when I worked in Salisbury, I regularly caught the train to London and points in between to see friends, visit theatre, etc. I love train travel as it is fast, convenient, has services on-board such as food & drink and toilets.
75+ Female, Otago

• Stress-free and efficient journey

Especially compared to driving (dangerous, stressful, uncomfortable) and flying (checking in, difficult with children).

For me, being a train passenger compared to driving or flying is much more peaceful, relaxing, and safe, as well as being less likely to induce anxiety, as I don't have to worry about traffic, hazards, or falling out of the sky!
25-29 Female, Wellington
 
…No one was exhausted by experience of the train travel, no stress of driving, finding routes (navigating one-way streets), the stress about parking, security of the vehicle, driver fatigue and safety. The hassles of flying everyone knows, no matter how seductive the 10 Euro fare from Ryanair, the hours queueing and camping out at the airport and the security!
70-74 Male, Auckland

• Affordable

It’s perceived that trains used to be affordable or are affordable overseas and there is a real desire for affordable long distance trains in New Zealand.

I love the train! I used to live in DC and the train network around there was so affordable and accessible that I was able to regularly visit family. It was cheaper than driving and took the same amount of time.
30-34 Female, Auckland
I'd love to go all sorts of places on a train in NZ.  Auckland to Wellington would be most convenient, with all stops, but also down the South Island, Picton-Chch-Dunedin-Queenstown maybe?  It would be great if it were frequent and affordable - not geared solely towards tourists with lots of money, but a pleasant affordable everyday experience.
40-44 Female, Auckland
 
I would love a train to take us to the capital. To Tauranga/Mt Maunganui, Taranaki. So many kids sport events take place in Tauranga/Mt Maunganui and Taranaki. Do you know the cost of flying a school sports team to those places??? Much easier for everyone to just travel by train.
45-49 Female, Auckland

• Safe way to travel

The freedom trains afford is very important to me as a woman. Planes or cars still feel relatively unsafe. I get tired of driving out of Wellington and seeing the same landscape when we go to Napier or Whanganui so trains would keep domestic travel interesting and affordable.
35-39 Female, Wellington
 
Safer and more pleasant than driving.
40-45 Female, Auckland
 
When I was a child in the 1990s the family would regularly take the train from Kapiti to Hawkes' Bay, where we had a holiday property. We would meet my Dad who had driven up by himself at Waipukurau station for the final drive. I always enjoyed the train much more than the car journey, which was often nauseating and scary.
30-34 Female, Wellington

• Easier way to travel for caregivers

People looking after small children found train travel a much more convenient and comfortable way to travel compared to driving or flying. 

We travelled Auckland - Wellington - Auckland. It meant we could travel as a family with young babies (at the time). Walk up and down. Look out windows etc, without some air hostess telling us to sit down or to stop loitering around the toilets. So much easier to feed the children too.
45-49 Female, Auckland
 
When I was a child, we once caught the Southerner from Dunedin to Oamaru to visit my grandparents. My mother wasn't so keen on driving with two young children at the time, and presumably my father was busy, so it gave us another vital transport option. It was interesting for children, and much more comfortable than the bus. 
35-39 Female, Canterbury

• A fun experience

People can read, sleep, play games, work, chat etc. while they travel. 
I regularly caught the Napier - Wellington train for work and pleasure. I prefer it to flying and don't want to drive. The amount of work I could complete really gave me great opportunities to get stuck into my job as soon as I arrived.
Sometimes I caught the Wellington - Auckland train, just for pleasure. I prefer it over flying/ driving less carbon footprint. Also by the time you've got to the airport, waited for the plane, and luggage, it seems so much more pleasant, and fun to catch the train.
65-69 Female, Hawkes Bay
 
My first overseas experience on a long distance train was on the TGV in France. I was 13. My younger brother and I found it thrilling. I loved the romance of the stations and the multiple carriages including a dining cart. We would run through them all finding empty carriages to play in and shoot movies.
…It far more comfortable than flying or driving but maybe it's also that feeling of trains physically connecting one place to another through tracks. The brain can conceptualize the feeling much more than flying. I think many people would resonate with that in New Zealand and we have the added advantage of a truly beautiful landscape.
30-34 Female, Wellington

• Connecting New Zealanders and visitors to new locations

Visiting parts of the country they wouldn’t normally visit. Seeing the beautiful scenery and connecting with New Zealand

Passenger rail helped us spend more time and dollars in rural New Zealand towns. We used to take a day time train to Taihape, stay the night there, then cycle for a couple of days to Napier, then back by train to Wellington. A lovely low-carbon, low-stress mini-break.
55-59 Male, Wellington
 
My family are lucky to have access to a bach in the far north. A train going north would mean we could finish work and catch a train to the nearest station, without having to drive, be stuck in traffic and contribute to emissions.
35-39 Female, Auckland

• Sustainable and low carbon way to travel

​
Especially compared to flying and driving.
 
It would mean that I could reduce my carbon emissions further.
50-54 Male, Canterbury
 
It would be so great to have the opportunity to use a low carbon travel option. I fully support long distance trains becoming more efficient so that our cities are connected across New Zealand.
25-29 Female, Wellington
 
It would be so great to have the opportunity to use a low carbon travel option. I fully support long distance trains becoming more efficient so that our cities are connected across New Zealand.
25-29 Female, Wellington
 
Sustainability and climate change wise it is a no brainer to have alternatives in NZ to flying or driving, whether for work, tourism local or international.
75+ Female, Canterbury
 
I wish I could travel by train in Aotearoa!  I've chosen to live without a car, mostly because of the environment, which is fine within the city - there is plenty of public transport to get me around.  But when I want to go anywhere else, I either have to fly (which is expensive, and the emissions make my reason for not having a car pointless), catch a bus (which are slow, uncomfortable, and make me motion sick), or hire a car (expensive again, incredibly wasteful if it's only me travelling, and all the stress of driving).  On a train I could read a book without feeling sick, get up and walk around to stretch my legs, and relax and watch the scenery go past. 
50-54, Canterbury

• Easy to travel with bikes

People can bring their bikes to connect them to other parts of their destination. 

Trains + bikes = low-carbon tourism.
NZ Cycle Trails are booming in popularity, but let's not force people to drive or fly to them.
Passenger rail services will enable people to travel to Te Kuiti, ride the Timber Trail to Taumarunui, then train home.
Passenger rail to Rotorua will enable mountain bike tourism to grow.
E-bikes are super-popular but you can't fly with a lithium battery. Passenger rail will enable people to access trails without flying.
Here's an easy win - add luggage space for bikes. The Northern Explorer has a paltry two bike limit.
55-59 Male, Wellington
 
I travelled throughout western Europe and Eastern Europe by train, and travelled in the UK by train, bringing my bike with me for weekend adventures. I once moved house via train from the south of England to Scotland, with my large backpack and bike in tow.
40-44 Female, Bay of Plenty
​

• Making social connections on board and travelling as a group

A friendly environment that allows for people to connect and socialize. 
I trained from Auckland to Dunedin to attend Otago University. It was fantastic and gave me an appreciation of our geography as well as providing new friends made en route.
60-64 Female, Canterbury
 
When I was a teenager, my parents and four siblings travelled on The Ghan through the middle of Australia…This Christmas, three of our family members are travelling to Australia to join my parents and do the long distance train trip from Adelaide to Melbourne. One day, we’d like to do the train trip to Perth, too.
My parents, my own family and my sisters have travelled on trains all around the world - sometimes for fun, and sometimes as the most efficient way to get somewhere - and our fascination never ends. Trains are a great way to travel!
40-45 Female, Wellington

• Connecting New Zealanders through social visits

Visiting friends and whanau. 

I returned from a trip to Europe (visiting family and holiday with friends and family) yesterday - 19 October. None of the great experiences and time with people would be possible without train travel.
70-74 Male, Auckland
 
I would love to have some long distance trains here in the South Island. I live in Christchurch and have family in Invercargill who I rarely visit because the trip is so long. I would happily take a train instead of the car to visit them more regularly if they were cost effective and comfortable. I’d probably take more trips to visit other family in Timaru etc if there was an enjoyable train trip to take.
35-39 Female, Canterbury

By Paul Callister

​In his book review blog ‘Still can’t get there from here: A review of André Brett’s history of passenger rail in New Zealand since 1920’, Ross Clark sets out some of the reasons why we no longer have a long distance passenger rail network in New Zealand. The rise of car ownership and the introduction of cheap flights were key reasons. But while these are very important, this was also happening in countries that kept and improved their passenger rail networks, such as Switzerland and Norway. Ross also sets out the institutional factors that influenced the decline of rail. In a neo-liberal political environment, decision makers decided that passenger rail was a transport idea that had passed its time and that cars and planes were the future.
 
These decisions were made when there was still relatively little understanding or acceptance of climate change. The floods in Auckland over their anniversary weekend and now the major impact of Cyclone Gabrielle show the clearly the impact of a warming climate. While thoughts turn to adaptation rather than mitigation, including more road building, it is even clearer that we need to reduce emissions throughout the world if we are to prevent the climate crisis becoming even worse.
 
Various studies suggest that globally we need to reduce our individual annual CO2 emissions to below 3 tonnes. As a guide, the Toitu travel calculators suggest just one return flight from Auckland to Queenstown followed by an Auckland to Wellington flight gets one near the first tonne. A return trip to London doubles the budget. Flying is very emission intensive. Driving in fossil fueled cars also quickly uses up our allocation. And while having ‘zero-tailpipe emissions’ even electric cars have lots of embedded carbon through the manufacturing process. While it is a challenge for individuals to stay within the emissions budget, many New Zealanders already do. We now need many more to reduce their emissions.
 
Other studies look at energy budgets. Globally, there are suggestions that the well-off need to significantly reduce their energy consumption while the poor can increase theirs. Research using 2020 estimates suggest a decent living energy to be about 15 gigajoules annually for each person. This is just one-tenth of the average American’s annual energy consumption.
 
As shown in our first blog, passenger rail helps reduce emissions using very small amounts of renewable energy. It is not possible to make a direct comparison between equivalent uses of aviation and trains, but Ministry of Environment data allows us to compare emissions of all train travel in new Zealand, mainly freight, and all flying domestically, mainly passengers. Between 1990 and 2020, domestic aviation emitted between 5 and 8 times as much C02 as did rail operations.
 
With more widespread electrification of the rail network these emissions will get even lower. While these types of studies tell us about the past and our current day conditions, much is uncertain especially when projecting out to mid-century, a date used in many emission reduction scenarios.
 
As we know from the past, decision making is often carried out within a framework of ideology and beliefs. This is especially important for considering investments in long distance passenger rail.
 
Consider two quite differing frameworks for decarbonisation and energy descent, “degrowth”
and “green growth”
 
What might the ‘green growthers’ say?
 
Growth in demand for fast and convenient aviation is a natural response to economic growth and society should plan to accommodate it. Material and energy use can grow and be allocated in response to demand. Electric, hydrogen powered or biofuel powered planes are the future and such technological breakthroughs are just around the corner. For batteries, there are enough minerals, especially as we switch to newer and cheaper processes (e.g. away from cobalt and rare earths). We can build enough renewable energy to replace fossil fuels. Biofuels, from waste, wood, algae and corn are the answer for long distance flying and can be quickly scaled up.
 
What might a degrowth framework tell us?
 
There are not enough minerals to build either renewable energy nor batteries and other technological advances needed for green growth projects. We cannot build and maintain enough renewable energy to supply ever-rising demand. We will not have breakthroughs in battery technology any time soon that will allow large, longer distance regional electric planes. Biofuels are an environmental disaster taking away valuable land for fuel production, relying on feedstocks that are unsustainable (e.g. palm oil) or in short supply such as used cooking oil. Aviation fuel made from trees is hope rather than a reality any time soon.
 
Green growth is the dominant policy position around the world, at least insofar as efforts have been made to reduce emissions at all. To degrowthers, the green growth agenda – even if it could be realised – would still not constitute true sustainability. Yet Green growth risks sliding into the extremist fringes of eco-modernism and techo-optimism, the belief that technology and economic growth will solve all environmental and human development challenges without fundamental change to society or affluent lifestyles.
 
There is a fundamental difference between land transport, where low-emission alternatives from walking to electric trains already exist (but fast enough adoption is still difficult), and air transport, where low-emission alternatives do not yet exist.
 
There is also another framework that is very important. This could be characterised as ‘freedom of choice’ versus ‘collective responsibility’. At one extreme, the market would decide on future investments with little government intervention, at the other the government has a responsibility to influence or directly fund investments. Three yearly elections tip us collectively in one direction or the other.
 
An additional uncertainty is future population size in Aotearoa New Zealand. Might it be 10 million or even higher if we take in a significant number of climate refugees? If 10 million people were living in large but compact urban centres then inter-regional rail becomes even more viable
 
Decisions to invest in passenger rail is a very long term investment that goes well beyond political cycles. It has to be made within a range of frameworks and uncertainties.
 
As a researcher, with an economics background, I hope technology will keep providing us with new breakthroughs, including advances in rail technology. But overall, through my research I am more influenced by the degrowth philosophy. And while markets are good at allocating many resources, government needs to set overall directions and to invest in key areas of infrastructure. This leads me to the conclusion that it is wise for us to now invest in restoring passenger rail in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is why I became involved in the Save Our Rail campaign.
​
In future blogs we will examine why many other New Zealanders want to see a revival of passenger rail.

By Paul Callister & Laurie Winkless

The devastating flooding in Tāmaki Makaurau in late January and now the impact of Cyclone Gabrielle should provide a wakeup call that we cannot keep pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Travel in fossil fuelled cars and planes represent a significant part of our gross domestic emissions in Aotearoa New Zealand. Recently-introduced targets to reduce transport emissions aim to change that. One goal, set out in the 2022 Emission Reduction Plan, is to reduce total projected kilometres travelled by the light fleet by 20 per cent by 2035. This is mainly to be achieved through improved urban form and by providing alternative travel options. While this plan focuses on travel within our largest cities, it is important to also cut travel between centres. Currently in New Zealand, these journeys overwhelmingly happen by road or air. As yet, we’ve seen far less focus on reducing the country’s aviation footprint. But Auckland’s Transport Emission Reduction Plan aims to reduce domestic aviation emissions by half by 2030.
 
This transition will be a very steep one, considering where we’re starting.
 
New Zealand stands out internationally in terms of car ownership and use, with one of the highest motor vehicle and car ownership rates per capita in the world. According to data from Waka Kotahi, there were almost 700,000 more vehicles on the road in 2022 than in 2017 – that’s a 14% increase in just five years.
 
New Zealand also ranks 6th in the world for overall per-capita aviation emissions, at 1 tonne CO2 per person, about 10 times the world average. It ranks 4th for per-capita domestic aviation emissions.  on a per capita basis, New Zealanders emit seven times more than people living in the UK and nine times that of Germany. Part of the reason for the difference is their extensive rail networks and our lack of them.
 
The significant emission and energy benefits of using inter city and regional rail rather than driving or flying are well established. Steel-wheels upon steel-rails provides low friction and therefore low rolling resistance, resulting in reduced energy usage. A fully electrified passenger rail service uses a fraction of the energy needed to drive or fly people over the same distance, while also creating a fraction of the emissions. In relation to freight, the Value of Rail study published in 2016 showed that even diesel-powered rail freight services offer 70 percent fewer emissions compared to heavy road freight transport. Railways also use far less space than roading networks.

Yet, pushing back on this view are those who see rail as old technology. Why invest in rail when we are told electric planes, or planes fuelled by biofuel or hydrogen, are just over the horizon? Perhaps the answer is more widespread adoption of electric cars?

Various studies show that such ‘zero emission’ planes are not yet rolling off production lines. In fact, aside from small demonstrator models, electric passenger planes exist only on the drawing boards of designers. Larger planes suitable for regional connections, and those powered by hydrogen are even further away. The latter comes with the complexities of storing and using hydrogen in large volumes. And while ‘sustainable aviation fuels’ are being used in a very small number of flights, scaling up production of these fuels is proving to be a major challenge. Biofuels not sourced from true waste products, such as forestry offcuts, are especially problematic. Unfortunately, they also currently represent the majority of today's commercially-available biofuels; produced from potential food crops, such as palm oil, or ‘used cooking oil’.

In addition, today’s train technology has advanced far beyond the ‘old fashioned’ ideas held by some critics. In countless countries across the world, rail networks have been powered by electricity for decades – initially via overhead wires, many are now using batteries. Since 2017, the electricity that powers all Dutch trains has been generated from wind power. While the use of hydrogen is subject to much debate, hydrogen trains are already in operation, with new versions in development in China.

Since 2021, KiwiRail has been developing high-level feasibility cases for electrifying the remaining segments of the North Island Main Trunk and East Coast Main Trunk. The vast majority of the North Island rail freight traverses the two mainline routes. These routes provide for freight connectivity between the largest North Island cities of Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga and Wellington and can easily be leveraged for passenger rail operation.  

There are significant reasons to support such mode shift in New Zealand. For example, two-thirds of GenZers who say that they “think about their environmental footprint” would consider taking a train instead of a plane to travel. And we’ve seen through submissions to our campaign that tens of thousands of New Zealanders support rail, and see it as an attractive alternative to driving and flying. But without a mix of incentives and disincentives that work for our population, such a shift may not happen. The most effective incentives are often very simple – as our fellow campaigner Suraya Sidhu Singh wrote in The Spinoff, “frequency is one of the biggest drivers of public transport uptake, especially in winning over those who currently drive.”

We cannot use 1990 or even 2000 thinking when considering the role of passenger rail in Aotearoa. Decisions made back then should not be determining how we will live in 2030, 2040 or 2050. 

Organisations also have a significant role to play in achieving the required emission reductions. Businesses, including universities, increasingly have to account for their transport emissions. Following the declaration of a climate emergency in November 2020, the government released the cabinet paper Leading the way: Establishing a Carbon Neutral Government Programme (CNGP). The paper states that the government “must show leadership to reduce its own emissions, in order to demonstrate what is possible to other sectors in the New Zealand economy.” The emissions footprints of the main government agencies are due to be published soon. Based on earlier data, it is expected that domestic flying will be a major contributor, and to meet the goals of CNGP, will need to be reduced. The general manager for sustainability for Vector, Prageeth Jayathissa, has ‘walked the talk’ by demonstrating the climate benefits of using the train between Auckland and Wellington.

Transport mode shift similarly requires a mode shift in imagination and vision by the tourist industry and how we ourselves holiday. Kirsty Wild has written how we need to change how work is organised so we can move away from short breaks that often involve flying. And to reduce emissions, we need to holiday more locally.

Living a "1.5 °C" lifestyle – about 2.5 tonnes CO2 a year until 2030 – is challenging. A key element to achieving is adopting low-emission, high energy-efficiency approaches to domestic mobility. As we say, The Future is Rail.
​
For more on the  emission and energy benefits of rail, read Terms of Reference #5 in our submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry on Passenger Rail and Why restoring long distance passenger rail- makes sense in New Zealand for people and the climate.