No future for rail freight?

I'll give credit to the Green Party Frogblog for the post "The End of Kiwirail?" which shows that someone from the party at least went to hear David Heatley from the NZ Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation talk about"The Future of Rail in New Zealand". That presentation is now on Powerpoint here.

It is well worth a read.

The presentation addresses some simple myths about rail:
1. Rail network shrinked due to privatisation. Wrong. Almost all line closures were under state ownership when rail had a statutory monopoly on long haul freight!
2. Rail stopped being viable after free market reforms. Wrong, it stopped being consistently financially viable by 1945. It short pockets of profitability since then.
3. Track Maintenance was run down after privatisation. Wrong, it was already being run down in public ownership, track was run down more, but sleeper replacement under private ownership increased.
4. Rail is worth a lot as an asset. Wrong. The NZ$12 billion book value of rail on the Treasury accounts is a nonsense, equating it to all other SOEs combined (e.g. 3 power companies, Transpower, NZ Post) which all make profits. Most of the value is based on a replacement cost if it was built today, which of course would never be done. I'd argue it is probably worth 4% of that at best.
5. Rail only needed rescuing after privatisation. Wrong. It has been rescued several times before, then the commercialisation was reversed because of political pressure. It has long had serious economic viability issues.
6. Rail is good to reduce accidents, congestion and environmental problems Wrong. "the optimal level of externalities is not zero – at some point it becomes more expensive to lower them than the welfare created by their further abatement" Rail related deaths only slightly lower than truck related. No evidence that it reduces congestion. Sea freight is twice as fuel efficient than rail, but little interest in that.

Like I said before, the presentation basically says that rail is not as fuel efficient as is quoted, and that only 30% of the current network handles 70% of the freight. It suggests concentrating on the main trunk, and lines to the Bay of Plenty and the West Coast.

Sadly, Frog doesn't think the presentation answered concerns about peak oil or climate change, or if you "think trains are cool". Let's ignore that last remark as just light hearted, not a basis for sound public policy.

In the comments I have battled a bit with most others who worship the religion of rail, and give largely highly misinformed comments. One that, to be fair, I did once believe in before I did extensive work in the transport sector, because I quite like trains. However, the overwhelming evidence sadly doesn't match my personal nostalgia to keep lots of railway lines open with trains on them - as I can hardly justify making people pay for something they don't use.

If you want a bit more, check out this two part report (Part one, part two) the Treasury received a few years on the economics of rail in New Zealand. It starkly shows that compared to the US and Australia, the volumes and distances for rail in New Zealand are small, and fuel is only a small proportion of costs.

The rail religion remains a faith not a fact based initiative. I'd just like to know why environmentalists think subsidising a dairy product exporter, a coal exporter and logging companies is good? The entire West Coast railway network is dependent on exporting a dirty fossil fuel to Asia!

Hide makes a start on local government

Kiwiblog cheers on Rodney Hide's speech to Local Government NZ. Now I saw how Local Government NZ worked with the Labour government, and it was a very symbiotic relationship. Local Government NZ wanted more power, Labour gave it more power (not as much as LGNZ wanted). Local Government NZ wanted more money from central government, Labour gave it a some more money. Labour wanted Local Government NZ to support its policy initiatives in housing, transport and environment, Local Government NZ did. Labour wanted Local Government NZ to help it rewrite legislation on local government, Local Government NZ was involved in partnership to help develop the Local Government Act 2002.

So when Hide says:

"I don't represent councils.I represent the people whose hard work and savings pay the rates"

About time!

"First, I want to keep rate rises down and encourage you to focus on core activities. On the necessities, not the luxuries" So I will be pushing for councils to accept that rates rises should be capped at the rate of inflation, or less. Sure, councils for good reason may need to increase rates faster than inflation"Well I'd cap rates permanently to squeeze local government out of non core activities, and encourage a progressive disengagement. I can't think of a good reason to increase a property tax faster than inflation, especially when property values grew beyond inflation until very recently. Nevertheless, it is a better direction than the past.

"what should be the core roles of councils ...Providing public services such as rubbish removal, road maintenance, parks, libraries, and light handed-regulatory controls."

Rubbish removal can be privately done, road maintenance of local streets could eventually be privately done, parks can be privately managed, as can libraries. Regulatory controls should only be the application of private property rights. However, if all councils just did this we would all be a lot better off.

"When I look at the expanding breadth of activities that councils engage in, the answer must surely be, "Businesses should be doing this - not the council."

Indeed!

"Even if it is a job appropriate for local government, the answer may still be "No, our ratepayers can't afford it."

In fact it may better be, ratepayers shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

"Ratepayers want to know who is responsible for council decisions - and who to hold to account"

Sadly all the transparency in the world wont get back money wasted, but it should put people in fear of losing their jobs.

"I want to see respect for private property rights. I want the freedom of individual New Zealanders enhanced."

Wonderful stuff!! When did you last hear that? Will National Party Cabinet Ministers say this?

However then he talks about changes to the RMA and the Building Act, which um aren't exactly about private property rights and individual freedom.

"It's taking nine months to get a resource consent to put in a cable car ... so that an elderly lady can get to her house easily up a steep cliff from the street."

Exactly. Sheer nonsense.

So I expect Local Government NZ is scared, fearful its members are about to get their hands tied, their petty fascist ways over and the age of nanny cities and nanny districts is over. It wont be, but it sure sounds like the tide is changing.

Now read the speech by Sandra Lee, the first Minister of Local Government when the Labour/Alliance coalition was elected in 1999.

"I believe our communities are, overall, very well served by their local authority elected members. I have yet to meet a district, city or regional councillor, or community board member, who was not deeply committed to the service of his or her local community."

Well she was one, she'd wouldn't want to say there is always some deadwood out there and blithering idiots.

"I agree with your President that the powers it (new Local Government Act) contains should, in general, be more enabling and empowering rather than just an updated version of the prescription contained in the current legislation"

Do more not less!

"One of the more unusual aspects of our work as elected representatives is that we get to spend other people's money"

Shock! Really? Unusual is it? I thought that was state socialism par excellence. Indeed the nonsense of accountability through local democracy is palpable, as most local body consultation responses are from vested interest groups wanting the loudest voice - not the average ratepayer fed up with being fleeced and pushed around.

The change in attitude is to be welcomed. If only Hide can do as he says it will help, as a first step. It is time to roll back the creeping hands of local government, and no Labour style partnership with local government will enable that. Rodney is going to have to get legislation drafted to not only cap rates, but cap what local authorities do.

The report at No Minister about how the ARC wasted $1.7 million of Auckland ratepayers' money on the David Beckham exhibition soccer game is only the latest example of why the "power of general competence" of local authorities is to many ratepayers a rather sick joke. They have the power, but how often do they have to show rank incompetence?

State predatory pricing kills business

and that means private schools.

Cactus Kate points out that if private schools fail because parents can't afford to pay for a private education, then the state sector couldn't handle the numbers.

She's right, but the solution is not to fix the state sector. The solution is to end the unfair competition of state schools, which everyone is forced to pay for, against private schools which get funding only from those using them. State schools are the French farms of the education sector, bloated, inefficient, heavily subsidised, and their output has guaranteed markets because of protectionism.

Parents sending their kids to private school pay twice. The PPTA socialists don't give a damn about that. They are ideologically opposed to competition in education, and opposed to their members ever being accountable for their performance. The PPTA would only be happy if there were monopoly state schools everywhere, centrally managed and perpetual pay increases for teachers above inflation. The PPTA thinks what parents want is not as important, after all the workers always know what's best for the consumer don't they? Lockwood Smith's biggest political mistake was not to confront this bullying labour cartel when he had the chance, and remove decisions on teacher salaries from central bargaining.

So the appropriate solution to save private schools is NOT a "bail out", but something more sophisticated than that. End paying twice for education. It can be done different ways. I'd say just give parents back their education taxes and let them spend it. That's Libertarianz policy. In fact, just letting them opt out of taxpayer funded education would do the job. They could always pay directly for a state school if they change their minds.

However, there are other approaches:
- Parents who choose private education could simply have the proportion of their income tax taken for education refunded;
- A standard amount could be refunded to reflecting the average cost of a state secondary education per student; or
- ACT's policy of allowing funding to follow the student. Private schools then get the same funding as state schools.

Whatever it is, it is crying out for radical reform. The Nats wont want to be seen to be propping up private schools, but having either a tax credit or letting funding follow students would make a positive difference to schools.

After all, education is the sector most desperately in need of reform so that those paying for it actually can exercise the power of consumers, and those wanting to provide it can make their own decisions.

Expect the left to fight it tooth and nail though, after all, without the teaching labour cartels, the Labour Party would lose a key source of funding, membership and candidates, and the Greens, who sometimes fight monopolies, embrace them when Nanny State is in charge.

Obama subsidises home owners

CNN reports that the Obama Administration is going to spend US$75 billion to rescue property speculators whose mortgages are worth more than the value of their homes. Those who didn't enter the property market, or entered it more wisely, are subsidising those who were foolish, who thought the market would ever increase. Those who didn't take out mortgage repayment insurance will be subsidised by those who did.

The Obama administration is rewarding irresponsibility and poor decisionmaking by fleecing the children of those taxpayers. Moreso, he is inflating the property market, making it yet harder for new entrants to it. An administration that ostensibly cares about the cost of housing is pushing prices up for new home owners.

Change who can believe in?

President Obama said that those who would qualify are people the bank are not interested in - which of course, makes it ok to take from the general public to help them out. He said "no sale will return your investment". Well of course not, bad investments SHOULDN'T return you anything. Governments using their fiat money have supported the inflation of the property market as a ghost prosperity allowing people to borrow against their homes, and to encourage speculation for those wanting to make gains. It caused the problem and is unwilling to let the housing market deflate to its rightful level. It is willing to offer even more credit, so presumably people can engage in subsidised bargain hunting.

So Obamaphiles, hope your children are grateful they are paying more in taxes to pay the debt of property speculators. No humour in that is there?

Even more of your money on "infrastructure"

Yep the Nats are going to spend more, following on from last week's US$484 million of "fast tracked" projects, according to Stuff.

It's your money to be used to subsidise these projects, and it basically means money to subsidise the internet, roads (given all fuel tax is already dedicated to other projects), prisons, schools and to insulate state houses.

So what to think of that?

$1.5 billion for broadband. Given that the private sector has so far built three national mobile phone networks without a cent of taxpayers’ money, why should you be forced to pay to subsidise other people’s internet access, just because they don’t live in Wellington or Christchurch (where there are parallel networks). How about removing barriers to investment in telecommunications infrastructure? How about cutting company tax to make returns more lucrative? No – pork for the relatively well heeled. The talk of broadband facilitating business is usually not shared with the fact that broadband is also extensively used for entertainment. THIS is National's new Think Big - and those who rejected the last one are happily cheering this on - without seeing the irony that destroying Telecom's property rights under Labour probably hindered development of new telecommunications infrastructure more than any other recent government measure.

$200-300 million for a new prison? Well at that cost it better be good, especially when you have a 50% range on the price! This is core state business, but I do wonder how much capacity could be saved by addressing victimless crimes.

Waikato expressway? Basically, there are seven segments of the expressway that haven’t been built. Of them, three are definitely worth progressing, the others aren’t.
- Longswamp to Te Kauwhata is partly complete, and isn't a safety or congestion concern.
- Rangiriri bypass is worth building to remove through traffic from that village.
- Huntly bypass is exhorbitantly expensive, over $400 million for a steep hilly highway over Taupiri Hill. Not worth building at present.
- Ngaruawahia bypass is well worth building, as it shortens distance, journey time, improves safety and can link with the improvements at Te Rapa and west of Hamilton.
- Hamilton (east) bypass is over half a billion dollars and hardly worth building at present, when much needs to be spent on the existing Hamilton (west) bypass. Last segment that should be built.
- Tamahere to Cambridge four laning is worth building to improve safety between Cambridge and Hamilton.
- Cambridge bypass is well worth building as a two lane highway with passing lanes for now, to relieve the rather nice town of Cambridge from heavy traffic

Central Tauranga Corridor? Good project, Tauranga has significant congestion on roads ill equipped to perform arterial functions, though again why general taxpayers should pay is beyond me.

More school building? Well let’s pour money into infrastructure for a centrally planned, bureaucratically driven system then. The core problem is simply ignored.

Insulation of state houses? Assuming they are sold, it would be fine, if it would recover more in rent. However, we all know this is a subsidy for those with housing provided by nanny. Market rentals would help, but we know THAT wont happen.