Moral equivalency again?

Israel withdraws from Gaza - leaving it to the Palestinians to govern and manage.

Palestinians choose a government committed to engaging in aggression against Israel and destroying it - Hamas

Palestinians engage in a small scale civil conflict splitting the government between Gaza and the West Bank, leaving Hamas in Gaza.

Hamas decides to make Gaza not a haven for peace, development, economic growth and freedom, but a base to wage war against Israel - indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel proper (you know the country that is internationally recognised, not occupied territories) killing and injuring Israeli civilians.

Israel puts up a blockade against Gaza to stop entry/exit of citizens across the land border, and stops selling electricity to Gaza as retaliation. Gaza still has an open land border with Egypt.

Israel is accused of being unreasonable, against those who wish to destroy it and attack it.

Hamas continues its bombardment, Israel responds by attacking bases in Gaza from where rocket attacks continue, killing 120.

Hamas sends a gunman in to shoot children at a school in Jerusalem.

So who wants to defend those who execute children for political purposes again?

So where IS rail viable?

Now despite all the doom and gloom about the rail network, the truth is that SOME of it is commercially viable. To show this I wanted to link to a map of the network on Ontrack's website - Ontrack being the state owned enterprise responsible for the railway network, but it doesn't have one.

Wikipedia does though here >>>>

Now of that network, you can split rail into five main businesses: Coal, logs/wood products, containers, milk and commuter passenger rail. The long distance passenger rail services by themselves could never sustain any of the lines. There is other freight, but it also is of a far smaller scale than any of the others, worthwhile on a marginal basis but not on its own in most cases.

Coal is predominantly West Coast to Lyttelton, but also some from Southland to Timaru and within Waikato (Rotowaro to Mission Bush). The West Coast line is viable for coal and that's it. The other services rely on other freight to bear the cost of the lines.

Logs/timber traffic is carried predominantly Murupara-Kawerau-Mt Maunganui or Auckland. Also Kinleith to Auckland/Mt Maunganui. There is some activity in Northland and Wairarapa to Wellington. However, it is the Bay of Plenty timber traffic that matters. Despite popular misconceptions, logs are not important freight on the Gisborne line (nothing really is, despite some forecasts in recent years). There is certainly insufficient log traffic for any of the Northland lines to be viable, with only the Murupara-Kawerau-Mt Maunganui/Auckland, and Kinleith lines really retaining enough traffic to be viable.

Container traffic is essentially movements between main centres and ports. The viable routes here are the North Island Main Trunk line, and the main southern line from Picton to Christchurch/Lyttelton and down to Dunedin/Bluff, with worthwhile flows between Waikato and Mt Maunganui. Beyond that, there really isn't enough freight to Taranaki or Napier to sustain those lines for this traffic.

Milk traffic forms the last major freight traffic on the lines. These movements are mainly southern Hawke's Bay - Manawatu - South Taranaki, Southland-South Canterbury. Again, these largely use routes carrying other freight, but do help sustain them.

As far as commuter rail is concerned, in Wellington it has a future, although the Johnsonville and Melling lines are not at all viable, money is being poured into it all so is really a sunk cost. In Auckland it is a major waste of money, but again partly a sunk cost.

So what is left? Well surprisingly quite a lot of the network is probably commercially viable, but frankly there are quite a lot of lines that have no economically viable future, unless some major freight customer wants them:
- All lines north of Waitakere in Auckland (expensive to maintain, low capacity)
- Rotorua and Taneatua branches (simply no viable freight)
- Napier-Gisborne (with big questions to be asked about Napier south to Oringi).
- All lines in Taranaki except south of Hawera (some expensive to maintain)
- Masterton to Woodville (mainly useful as a diversion for the main trunk line!)

The reason others are worthwhile comes down to either a single major customer, or having enough general freight. The latter is really just the north-south main trunks in both islands. Now if the government could only swallow those closures (or simply opening lines Toll doesn't want to operate to others if they wish), then there might be a viable railway for the trunks and the few bulk commodities that rail can handle well.

What does THAT network look like? Well this:

Not so bad really, with dotted lines where lines probably should close in the next few years (Napier, Southland and New Plymouth). Beyond that if Solid Energy, Fonterra and the forestry sector want rail, they should buy it - since all of the lines outside the main trunk are almost entirely about them. There is no reasons for the state to subsidise their freight movements.

Certainly the track is not worth the nonsense "replacement value" capital worth on the Crown's books of NZ$10.648 billion as listed in Ontrack's annual report. Now this DOES include some prime real estate, like Wellington railway station. That is where there certainly is some value, but $5.4 billion book value for railway infrastructure is simple accounting sorcery. No one would pay that for it, not in scrap and certainly not to charge someone to use it. If the government offered it for sale, that is not what it would go for, nothing close. The $4.9 billion for the land is similarly so, given that most of the land is a sliver of a corridor.

Oh yes I did forget one thing, the ferries. They ARE worth a good bit of money - the only consistently profitable part of the railway system for decades.

Not the UN's approach to drugs

Camilla Cavendish in The Times today writes that instead of tightening up on drugs, they should be legalised and available through pharmacies like Boots and Superdrug.

Why?

She points out that part of the glamour of drugs is not with users, suggesting that those who go overboard like Amy Winehouse may put as many off it than otherwise, but with dealers. Those who can afford flash clothes, jewellery, cars and a relatively easy get rich quick lifestyle. That is the new ambition for all too many young people living in poorer British neighbourhoods.

Teenagers are being attacked and killed as the drug culture flows through much of British youth culture. She suggests that legalisation will achieve three goals at once, with only the one side effect to deal with.

Firstly, it gets rid of the drug dealer. No longer is a fortune to be made selling drugs at street corners or outside schools, but by being behind the counter in pharmacies. The link between crime and drugs ends - not only significantly reducing the violence involved, reducing pressure on prisons, but also recognising that drugs are no longer "special".

Secondly, those who are addicted could more easily and readily seek treatment without fear of persecution by the law. Many drug users are occasional recreational users, for relatively short periods of their lives - the true problem addicts are a minority, but they are the ones who need to feel free to access help.

Thirdly, as pharmacies would be responsible for what they sell, incidences of drugs diluted by other substances, anything from talcum powder to cleaner to ground glass, would end. People would get pure drugs, which would be less toxic than the black market offerings.

Yes there would be the issue of it being cheaper, increasing the opportunity to use it. However now, the price isn't a tremendous barrier. For starters, dealers are known to employ cunning techniques offering freebies and discounts, and they market heavily and directly. This would all end under legalisation. Those who want to take drugs find ways to do so, but once it is no longer forbidden or glamorous, without the criminal profits being made from it, the remaining problem could be far more manageable.

Alcohol for all of the problems arising from overuse, and use by those too young, is far more manageable than drugs. Laws can focus on supply to children, which should remain illegal.

However there is one huge barrier to any of this - it is the UN.

The UN, led by the US on this one, is adamantly opposed to legalisation. It is fighting a losing battle, but the war on drugs is lost. It is about time to switch the tables on dealers, and make life easier for those who want to use safely.

Sadly New Zealand is going in the other direction, despite the evidence, thanks to the efforts of the one man party, Jim Anderton.

Besides as I have said before, it is my body thank you.

Is "racism" the cry of the scoundrel?

Sadly, it appears to be the case in respect of Ken Livingstone's former chief race advisor - Lee Jasper. The litany of evidence building up about alleged conflicts of interest is serious damning, damning against him and Mayor Livingstone. While it is only one factor, it has certainly contributed to the narrowing of the London mayoralty race into what appears to be a dead heat between Livingstone and Conservative candidate Boris Johnson. The Financial Times now reports a recent poll showing a 5% lead by Johnson over Livingstone. So what has Jasper been up to?

Firstly, there have been allegations of Lee Jasper's improper involvement in approving funding for organisations that involve friends or associates of him, that include companies that are dormant or have gone out of business, or in one case funding a group that largely appears to put out press releases supporting Ken Livingstone.

Following that Ken Livingstone claimed the Evening Standard was embarking on a "campaign targeting black and ethnic minority organisations" - the race card to defend a scoundrel.

Now emails have emerged whereby Jasper (a married man) appears to be engaging in a very friendly relationship (sexually charged) with Karen Chouhan, a woman who runs community projects that Jasper has been responsible for approving Greater London Authority funding for. At the least this is failure to declare a profound conflict of interest. According to The Times the email informed Karen Chouhan "of his unbridled passion for her “feet, ankles, legs, thighs, bum and belly, arms, head and brain”. His feelings were particularly strong during “the first gentle dew on a golden summer morn”". He was involved in approving a £100,000 funding grant to the trust she is secretary for.

This is why he resigned, but he has also pleaded "it's a racist campaign". Apparently Lee Jasper thinks it is his race, not his behaviour that is at question - as if his race excuses what is an allegedly corrupt practice.

The Times also reported on how Lee Jasper, on £120,000 a year, lives in "state subsidised social housing at £90 a week for a four bedroom house in Clapham". This is utterly outrageous for a city and most importantly a Mayor that has spent so much attention and time on supposedly caring for the poor - when taxpayers are paying for highly paid officials to have bargain rentals. quick look at Find A Property shows weekly rents for a 4 bedroom house in Clapham start at £236.

Sorry Mr Jasper, taxpayers' money is not for you to dish out to your friends, associates or those who support Ken Livingstone. It is not racist to want transparency, no real or apparent conflicts of interest or accountability in how funds are spent. In fact, when you defend yourself by throwing such words at it, it is no defence at all. It's not YOUR money, it is Londoners money you got through force.

When Robert Mugabe is criticised for decimating Zimbabwe's economy, rigging elections, killing, destroying property, confiscating land and oppressing opponents, he calls it racism.

It's about time that such allegations were clearly seen for what they are - worthless cries in the dark by scoundrels.

Greens worship at the altar of rail with your money

Worshipping at the altar of a railway line. The Greens are advocating forcing taxpayers to pay to bail out a foreign company that owns the provision of railway services - Toll. A party that tends to be at best sceptical of capitalism and loathes foreign companies is seeking to give it a free ticket out of New Zealand with a big hand out of taxpayers' money. What an incredible sell out all to worship the altar of the railway.

The Greens love railways more than any other mode of transport. So even in an age when oil prices are at a record high, when rail cannot compete for most freight efficiently, there are major problems with rail freight being competitive for most freight in New Zealand. This puts paid to notions that "we need" railways in an age of expensive oil - it seems that it STILL isn't cheaper to send most freight by rail for all sorts of reasons (e.g. double handling, speed, inefficiency of compiling trainloads of wagon or less than wagon load lots).

Sadly the Greens are woefully ill informed about the railways at all. Jeanette Fitzsimons claims there isn't the revenue to pay for upgrades and “Nowhere is this more apparent to the public than in the state of Wellington’s commuter rail services". What rubbish. For starters, the Wellington commuter rail services get around half their revenue from taxes - whether road taxes through Land Transport NZ, or rates from the Wellington Regional Council. Secondly, with comparatively new trains recently introduced on the Wairarapa line, and all of the older electric units recently refurbished (and a major upgrade of the track, signal and electrics infrastructure underway), the Wellington system is hardly in a poor state. Toll Rail's revenues are about freight, not passenger services. So she is either poorly informed or lying to get the public's sympathy.

She claims Toll "cannot afford to pay the track access fees that were always part of the deal with Government". Really? Does she have access to Toll's accounts? Could it just be gameplaying with a government that is soft on rail?

The government is already spending hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars on upgrading the rail network, but even that isn't enough. Why?

Well that is the question the Greens should answer. It isn't because trucks are underpaying to cover road maintenance costs, generally they aren't. It isn't because trucks have far higher environmental costs per tonne km than rail, because the government's own study points out that it varies considerably by route (in some cases rail is lower in some cases road is lower).

I suspect it quite simply is because - notwithstanding the low cost of RUNNING a train to carry a lot of freight, the handling of freight to load and unload a train, the time/cost of warehousing freight (effectively) in assembling/disassembling a train, the high capital cost of railway equipment, the limitations on the NZ railway network placed by many low tunnels (and almost always a slower alignment than roads), rail can't compete for most freight. It can compete for hauling bulk commodities, such as coal and milk, and to a lesser extent logs. It can compete for long hauled containers, but that's about it. Rail is a very heavy, capital intensive mode with its own corridors that, by and large, get little use compared to roads. For example, the Napier-Gisborne railway on average has one train each way every day. Imagine the road having one truck (or even the dozen or so that would replace the train). That one train would have to carry the full cost of maintaining and operating the line, whereas the road has many vehicles to spread the cost over.

Passengers are a peripheral activity, unlike the UK, in NZ long distance passenger rail is about scenic tourist trips by and large.

So the Greens might have to look beyond the altar of rail and dispassionately ask why it isn't working to do what they want. Given the very high cost of diesel, the notion that rail can "save the day" when it clearly is failing to do so, seems spurious. Similarly, as the environmental costs of road and rail freight are not that dissimilar, the alleged "green" benefits of rail freight seem equally spurious.

so when will the Greens stop worshipping rail, and start supporting evidence?