By Ross Clark

​Credit: New Zealand Parliament 

​As we rethink the provision of transport, both in infrastructure and in services, we also need to think about whether our transport administration, designed in an earlier time, is capable of delivering what we want it to. In this paper, I go through the structure of our transport administration, explain how it got to where it is, and what we now need, and don't need, to change. 

​Credit: Richard Young

​By Suraya Sidhu Singh

The Inquiry into Passenger Rail long-awaited recommendations, released on 4 July 2023, ask for many reforms. But not enough.

After decades of pleading with successive governments to please not smash up our critical national rail infrastructure, last year’s Inquiry into Inter-Regional Passenger Rail came as a surprise to many rail advocates. But with the impacts of climate change now widely felt and rising costs of living, not a moment too soon.

The Inquiry sought to understand if claims of sensible reasons for New Zealand’s lack of passenger rail stack up, and if not, how do we go from today’s shriveled rail travel options to reviving these once-popular routes?

All change, please

Those who tuned in to the select committee heard a startling array of experts, from economists to engineers to public health specialists (and of course, the armchair type,) illuminate inter-regional rail travel’s benefits – from reduced transport emissions to reduced road accidents to greater mobility for disabled people.

A huge 97 percent of the 1,752 submissions backed expanding affordable, inter-regional passenger rail. It’s rare to see such strong public support for anything.

Inter-regional public transport authority to be established

The report recommends establishing a body responsible for system leadership around all inter-regional public transport, including rail, ferries and coaches. It would identify inter-regional public transport gaps, and work with regional councils and presumably the private sector to fill these.

They’ve certainly identified an obvious problem. Compared with state highways – a co-ordinated network by one central government organisation – inter-regional public transport is piecemeal with no national coordination. It’s even exempt from regional councils’ public transport planning responsibilities, but some still operate it because they think it important.

Strangely, the report doesn’t name KiwiRail among those who will need to work with this body. Hopefully that’s an oversight.

Funding system review

The government is also advised to reconsider funding arrangements for inter-regional passenger rail to better reflect the benefits of these services. The prospect of change here is encouraging.

Funding is another area where State Highways are the Ugly Sisters and rail, Cinderella. State Highways are 100 percent centrally funded while inter-regional public transport must be 50 percent regionally funded. This is a problem because regional councils have very low revenue-raising abilities.

Multiple regional councils would also have to agree any proposed service was a priority and there’s no way to make sure councils contribute fairly, leading to eye-roll results like Auckland Transport contributing no funding to the Auckland to Hamilton train, Te Huia.

Scoping new inter-regional passenger rail services

The report asks the government to scope new Auckland–Wellington, Auckland–Tauranga and Napier–Wellington passenger rail routes. It also suggests looking at extending the Capital Connection train (Wellington–Palmerston North) to Feilding as intact infrastructure would make that straightforward. They say further routes should be scoped, including the South Island, to identify best-value options.
​
Some submitters pointed to a strong case for sleeper trains, particularly Auckland to Wellington, as overnight journeys in a comfy bed make long travel times less important. Proponents say sleepers must be carefully designed around customer experience – something we’ve failed at in the past.

Credit: Richard Young

KiwiRail survives another apocalypse

The report notes many submitters, including the infrastructure commission, Te Waihanga, pointed to conflicts in KiwiRail’s structure harming rail. It says, “KiwiRail’s commercial mandate means investment decisions are often made based on the economic viability of services, rather than… wider societal costs and benefits… even if a rail service would be worthwhile from a public-value perspective, investment is still unlikely.”

Recent Kaitaki Ferry and track evaluation bungles support this.

Submitters were also concerned that KiwiRail controls rail infrastructure while also running freight and passenger services on it. KiwiRail must in theory allow other operators access, but it’s hard to say if their access conditions are fair when any new operator would reduce their profit.

Meanwhile, everywhere in the world, freight is more profitable than passenger rail, meaning one enterprise running both is heavily incentivised to make passenger play second-fiddle.

Despite having heard of avoidable problems created by KiwiRail’s structure, the committee didn’t recommend change. This is part of a pattern where somehow every well-reasoned criticism of KiwiRail runs off them like water off a duck’s back.

Passenger rail a deflating political football

At the recent Future is Rail conference in Wellington, an overarching theme was the struggle caused by passenger rail being a political football in New Zealand. Given it delivers provable economic, social and environmental benefits, it should tick boxes for all major parties. But both National and ACT included statements disagreeing with the report's recommendations.

At the recent Future is Rail conference in Wellington, National infrastructure spokesperson Chris Bishop said the case for inter-regional passenger rail doesn’t stack up economically. Yet, rail developments funded in recent years have demonstrated strong positive returns on investment, like the lower North Island hybrid trains. The same can’t be said for some motorways green-lit under National.

It’s telling that the message from these parties isn’t that we should only fund infrastructure that returns best on investment, but rather, declaring passenger rail doesn’t stack up, despite what business cases find. Rail proponents cross the political spectrum, so National and ACT would benefit from revisiting their stances by actually looking at the benefit-cost ratios.
​
It’s hard to say whether the Inquiry into Passenger Rail’s proposals will bring more transport choice for New Zealanders. Nationwide inter-regional public transport co-ordination and a review of its funding are long overdue, but a huge opportunity was missed in failing to see that KiwiRail’s structure absolutely must be changed if we’re to bring back affordable, long-distance passenger rail. 

Source: Michael van Drogenbroek's presentation at The Future is Rail conference

​By Paul Callister and Robert McLachlan

Each day we read news about the increasing local and global effects of human induced climate change. In Aotearoa New Zealand, we know travel by cars and planes is an important source of emissions. We have adopted a ‘shift, avoid and improve’ framework to analyse pathways for reducing overall transport emissions. So how do we apply this when thinking about trains versus planes?

Three other issues are relevant in any debates about trains versus planes.

One is how we power transport. Electrification of domestic travel is critical. There is a steady stream of reports being published on how best to provide the scarce and valuable renewable electricity to underpin the transport transition.

A second issue is resource use. This affects both the provision of renewable electricity and transport choices. For example, there are debates about the availability of key minerals such as copper and lithium.

A third is the carbon needed in investing in either train or aviation infrastructure. Expanding and building new airports requires major civil engineering works as does upgrading rail infrastructure.

There are many important, and far reaching, discussions taking place this year.  For some, public input is being sought. For example, in April this year, the Climate Change Commission released its draft advice to inform the strategic direction of the Government’s second emissions reduction plan, covering Aotearoa New Zealand’s 2026–2030 emissions budget. The Tourism Environment Leadership Group, supported by MBIE, are currently seeking feedback on a draft Tourism Environment Action Plan. One goal in the draft is to ‘leverage tourism to advocate for rapidly decarbonising domestic transport used by visitors.’
​
At a regional level, Queenstown airport is seeking public feedback on its plans to increase passenger numbers by one third in the next decade.

​In Auckland, there has been debate about council ownership of airport shares. But in an increasingly tangled and often contradictory world of growth aspirations versus much needed emission reductions, the airport is embarking on major expansion plans while Auckland council’s own emission reduction plan calls for a 50% reduction in domestic aviation emissions by 2030.

Adding to the discussion, at the end of June is the passenger rail conference being held in Wellington, with the theme “The Future is Rail”.

The decline of inter-regional passenger rail in Aotearoa New Zealand is well documented. In fact, many delegates to the rail conference cannot conveniently get to the conference venue and back home by train. Once, it would have been possible to arrive on the morning of the conference by train from Auckland or Hamilton and leave that evening again by overnight train. Or arrive from Whanganui, New Plymouth or Napier. Now people have to drive, bus or fly.

It is therefore no surprise that we rank 4th in the world for per-capita domestic aviation emissions. On a per capita domestic basis, New Zealanders emit 7 times more aviation emissions than people living in the UK and 9 times that of Germany.
​
Trains are at the heart of a goal to ‘shift’ domestic inter-regional travel
The global data show clearly the energy and emission benefits of train travel. 

​But these gains will be only achieved if there are trains available and people use them. Who might we attract onto trains?

There will be a group of people who are currently unable to drive or fly who will have their travel options opened up by the provision of trains. Increasingly, this includes people who wish to reduce their carbon footprints. There are young people without cars, not old enough to drive or perhaps without driver licences. Previous blogs have outlined a range of potential passengers, including those who can use the train as their office or who wish to enjoy some of New Zealand’s cycleways.

But it also includes many people who could be classified as transport disadvantaged due to poverty, where they live, or perhaps physical disabilities.

If we are to reduce emissions, we have to get a significant number of people to shift out of cars and planes. And to do that we need a policy environment that fully supports the shift to trains, including the large investment needed to upgrade the rail network. We do not have this in Aotearoa New Zealand. Instead, the playing field, through subsidies and a raft of other policies, supports the building of roads and the aviation industry.
​
Such change will not come quickly. While low emission trains are now available on the world market, getting an extensive frequent network up and running in Aotearoa New Zealand will take many decades. But some changes could come quickly, such as the reinstatement of a night train between Auckland and Wellington.  Or adding an affordable backpackers carriage on the Northern Explorer. It would have been so much easier if we had started this revival two decades ago. This map shows a scenario of rail services we would now be operating in Aotearoa New Zealand if we had invested in the same way as Victoria.

Source: https://twitter.com/doublelineblock/status/1669608033276817408

In our series of train blogs,  various rail experts and public transport enthusiasts have set out their visions for reviving passenger rail.

But will the promise of ‘zero emission’ flights derail a shift to trains?

Aviation relies on a goal to ‘improve’
In order to decarbonise, the aviation industry relies almost entirely on promises of future technological breakthroughs.  These promises are announced almost weekly.
​
There are three key promises.

1. Electric planes are coming and will provide fast and convenient regional travel options.
2. Longer domestic flights will be powered by Sustainable Aviation Fuels
3. A new market is also emerging for electric powered air taxis.

​Source: Queenstown airport masterplan

Recently we have had two journal articles published considering the future of aviation. These are:

Callister, P. and McLachlan, R. (2023) Decarbonising Aotearoa New Zealand’s aviation sector: Hard to abate, but even harder to govern. Policy Quarterly, 19(2): 9-18. (online)
 
Callister, P. and McLachlan, R (2023) Managing Aotearoa New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions from aviation, Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, DOI: 10.1080/03036758.2023.2212174 (open access)

Our conclusions are:

1. Even if the promised technological breakthroughs come about, none will come fast enough, or have sufficient uptake, to make a real difference to emissions in the crucial next couple of decades.
2. Growth plans will swamp any gains through technology.
3. The renewable electricity requirements for electric planes and Power to Fuel SAFs are enormous and if biofuel is the preferred option there are also huge technical and environmental challenges in providing such fuels.
4. We need to fly less until we see a demonstrated and significant reduction in aviation emissions.
5. We need to shift travel to trains wherever possible.

 
We very much favour on-going research into low emission aviation. But to be sure to reduce emissions we need to now invest in the technologies that will give us certain, long-term reductions in both energy use and emissions. Rail is one.
​
We cannot rely on the aviation industry on its own to develop the pathway to decarbonise the sector. We need an overall plan. This needs to be led by government and needs to involve all the levers of ‘shift, avoid and improve’. 

By James Llewellyn

​After many years as a Cinderella of the New Zealand network, there is evidence that inter-regional passenger rail may finally be coming to the ball.  Whilst Auckland and Wellington metro networks have significantly improved over recent years, the same cannot be said for the rest of the country.  Aside from the lonely flag bearers of Capital Connection and Te Huia, inter-regional passenger rail is limited to iconic – but infrequent – Great Journeys operated primarily for tourists and nostalgia hunters.

The recent budget announcement of funding for replacement rolling stock in the lower North Island comes hot on the heels of business cases being commissioned for further development of Te Huia.  The Parliamentary enquiry into inter-regional passenger services has generated sufficient momentum to make June’s Future of Rail conference a potentially seminal moment in history.  There is a huge opportunity to reach something that has hitherto been missing – an in-principle agreement that inter-regional passenger rail can and should make a significant contribution to enabling safe and environmentally sustainable longer distance travel across the whole country.

The acid test, however, is what comes next.  A challenge which has bedevilled the country’s rail network is any kind of long-term development strategy; and this remains a major gap.  The current NZ Rail Plan looks ahead only ten years, which is relatively short term in an industry which requires multiple decades of relative certainty around investment levels, project pipelines and development of key technical capabilities.  Other than Capital Connection and Te Huia, investment proposals for inter-regional passenger rail are conspicuous by their absence in the NZ Rail Plan.
​
In defence of the authors of that document, where would they even start?  There is no national strategy for transport as a whole, never mind rail.  Successive governments – beholden to a three-year election cycle – have failed to take a long-term whole-of-system view and instead focussed either on the blindingly obvious – asset renewals, infill electrification and a few targeted capacity improvements – or transformational investments such as City Rail Link which then spawn the need for further upgrades elsewhere on the network to realise the full benefits.

Public Transport Authorities (PTAs) outside of Auckland and Wellington have been given precious little encouragement to consider either local or inter-regional passenger rail seriously and have their work cut out to make it a priority.  Similarly, as a commercial state-owned enterprise KiwiRail focus on their core business of running freight services.  They have enough on their hands to keep the current network operational, especially in the face of historic under-investment in maintenance and successive severe weather events.  Rebuilds of damaged rail infrastructure are mounting up.

The current combination of piecemeal improvements and crisis management results from New Zealand having no effective framework for rail planning / investment in long term improvements or understanding the capability of a resilient network to accommodate additional demand.  Aside from a multi-modal national transport strategy (which is way beyond the scope of this blog), there are several other key ingredients which are needed if inter-regional passenger rail is to progress much further.

Firstly, forthcoming Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) will need to identify and develop significant travel corridors, which provides an opportunity to understand the role that passenger rail could play in meeting future travel demand.  An absence of robust origin / destination and forecasting data means that it is all too easy for sceptics to claim that there won’t be enough passengers before they lobby for new roads in the next breath.  Being very clear on which markets passenger rail best serves, and full integration with local bus and ferry services, should be linked to locating regenerative development adjacent to stations.  Regional planning assessments (RPAs) should take at least a 30-year view and set out the passenger rail services which could credibly deliver mode shift from car and air travel.  If every region undertakes an RPA in partnership with its neighbours, a whole-of-system view for an integrated medium and long-distance passenger rail network can be established.

For their part, local councils need to ensure that their future Natural and Built Environment (NBE) plans provide the tools and rules necessary to deliver on the ground.  The role of local communities – including iwi – is critical.  Rail planning cannot simply be a “take it or else” approach - it must be grounded in the kinds of sustainable and socially cohesive places where people want to live, work, and play in the future.  Economic opportunities presented by rail – especially for sustainable residential, employment and commercial development – should be identified and developed locally within an enabling and supportive planning framework.

On the supply side, route capability assessments (RCAs) should consider options for meeting demand identified by planners.  These assessments would include both required service frequencies / capacities through new rolling stock, and infrastructure improvements needed to deliver them – including electrification, signalling, linespeed, double-tracking, level crossing removal and accessible stations.  It is, of course, essential that passenger rail and freight co-exist in a modern high-performing network. 
​
The RCAs would need to establish whole-of-life costs and benefits, based on critical success factors such as maximum journey times between different towns and cities, as well as seat capacity, resilience, safety, and environmental performance.  As current owner of “below track” national rail network assets, KiwiRail should be in a pivotal position to lead this work.  Establishment of a joint strategic planning and delivery unit for long term investments - across all layers of government and industry - would enable the brightest minds to focus on what the future system should look like, and how it can be implemented.

​Taken together, RPAs and RCAs should aim to establish an integrated and prioritised long-term 30-to-50-year investment programme which could be considered for funding, most likely from a mix of government, passenger, and third-party sources.  At present the national rail system as a whole has little to offer the domestic or overseas investor - but this could be very different if the Government, KiwiRail, PTAs, local councils, businesses and key stakeholders work together on delivering system-level change.  Furthermore, the current situation – where expensive overseas capability is required to plan and deliver many rail projects – could be addressed through an industry strategy to develop the future workforce in the myriad of required technical skills for building an inter-regional passenger network.  A long-term investment programme would give confidence to start this process in the schools and colleges.  Businesses and investors would then have opportunities to support local design, production, testing and installation of everything from signalling control software to Overhead Line Equipment (OLE).  Developing a New Zealand-based manufacturing capability for rolling stock would also be transformational.

System change requires more than a failure to think differently, and then complaining that transformation is just too hard.  New Zealand is a truly innovative country whose people are more than capable of delivering what is required.  With a strong sense of purpose and commitment to long-term planning / delivery, inter-regional passenger rail could play a strong role in a low emission transport system.  If we really want it, Cinderella will have truly arrived at the ball.
​
James Llewellyn is Managing Director of Taith, a specialist public transport consultancy.  James has previously worked for the UK Department for Transport, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, and Bay of Plenty Regional Council.  He currently advises a number of Public Transport Authorities across the country.

​

By Darren Davis & Malcolm McCracken

The business case had a benefit cost ratio of 1.5 to 3.1, compared to the very low benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 0.22-0.37 for Ōtaki to North of Levin Expressway, originally estimated to cost $817 million. At its new cost of $1.5 billion, this BCR will most likely have slipped further. Construction cost inflation means that the Ōtaki to North of Levin Expressway project is once again being rescoped to fit within budget. 
 
The benefit of the recommended investment is not limited to regional rail. The infrastructure investment would benefit freight and Kiwirail Great Journeys train services, without those services picking up any of the cost. The business case did include significant investment in Wairarapa Line infrastructure to enable more frequent service. However, much of this investment is now underway as part of a separate Wairarapa Line upgrade programme, which means that the benefit of the new rolling stock is even higher, given that much of the infrastructure cost is already covered. In an irony, that is frequently repeated in New Zealand public transport planning, the Wairarapa Line infrastructure improvements enable, but don’t provide for, improved rail services to use the improved infrastructure.  If a future decision were taken for electrification of the Manawatū or Wairarapa lines, investment in dual mode sets is not a sunk cost as it would enable those services to be extended further beyond any future electrification, for example to Whanganui.  

Despite this compelling case for investment, the 2022 budget bid for this rolling stock was refused while investment continued in the Ōtaki to North of Levin expressway, whose costs vastly exceed its benefits, continued. The failure of this bid took everyone, most particularly the Greater Wellington and Horizons regional councils, by surprise, given its high benefits, support for transport choice in growth areas and its role as effective climate change action. The two regional councils have resubmitted the proposal in the 2023 budget, to be made public on 18th May.  

Instead, Government decided to implement an interim solution for the ageing Capital Connection fleet with the refurbishment of 1970s era ex- British Rail Mark 11 carriages which have been quietly rusting in Taumarunui since Auckland electrified its rail network in 2015, making these carriages redundant.  

While this may provide a stop gap solution for the Capital Connection trains for a few years, it means that a more extensive refurbishment of the existing Wairarapa Line rolling stock will be required to enable them to operate until 2032. This would be avoided if they are replaced by the bi-mode trains proposed in this business case as well as making much earlier use of the much-higher service frequency enabled by the already committed Wairarapa Line infrastructure investment. ​

It also kicks for touch the urgently needed longer-term regional rail rolling stock solution, which could provide a template for similar regional rail solutions in the Upper North Island and Canterbury.  

Given that there is at least a four-year time frame from funding commitment to new rolling stock being in operation, a decision is required now in order to have the new rolling stock running for 2028.  

Put simply, our ask is that:  

• Government funds the Bi-mode Lower North Island rolling stock in the 2023 budget so that a sustainable, long-term regional rail solution is in place within the lifespan of the interim Wairarapa Line and Capital Connection rolling stock.  
• Use the opportunity presented by the Ōtaki to north of Levin Expressway rescoping to make rail improvements to slow sections of the North Island Main Trunk Line in this area to enable rail speeds that are competitive with road speeds. This would help this project provide a modicum of transport choice instead of an exclusive focus on roading. 

While the current impetus is on addressing the Lower North Island rolling stock, the story we share today is not unique in New Zealand. In Waikato, Kāinga Ora is supporting the development of 1,650 new homes in Te Kauwhata, which the Te Huia Hamilton to Auckland service runs through twice in each direction each weekday without stopping, even though the former station platform still exists. In Canterbury, there is huge growth in the Selwyn and Waimakariri districts which have rail lines running through them but no urban services to provide transport choice. Similarly, the majority of the well-advertised $98.03 million cost of Te Huia is capital ($68.7 million) and $29.3m is operational costs (includes mobilisation costs of $2.19m). This infrastructure investment is a sunk cost, which we should seek to make the most of by funding improved frequency. Yet in 2021, Waka Kotahi refused to use already allocated funds for Te Huia on a third return service on weekdays. 
  
So, if you believe that passenger rail has a crucial role to play in securing sustainable, inclusive, carbon-friendly mobility for Aotearoa, the time to act is now.  

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 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.