It appears the world is headed for a period of very expensive fossil fuels while it begins to transition to alternatives. If the US or Israel attack Iran, we may even find ourselves faced with fuel rationing in the event supplies are disrupted. Definitely a worst-case scenario, but over the past years diplomats have estimated the odds of an attack as high as 50%.
Against that background, the government's move to ensure a viable, long-term, electrified rail network not only makes sense, it looks like the only rational thing to do. Toll would not pay for that additional security and the government could have poured subisidies into Toll forever only to see then slide away as "profits" instead of infrastructure.
While much of the discussion around public transport has focused on moving people to and from work in urban settings, we may find we need a national public transit network based on electric rail before too much more time has passed.
Anyone who has seen first-hand the huge waste associated endlessly negotiating improvements (and monitoring compliance) with funder / provider arrangements should get down on their knees and thank the Universe for the clarity that the Government has now brought to our national rail system.
One can only hope that organisations like ARTA (Auckland Regional Transport Authority) are similarly enabled in the near future, rather than being endlessly frustrated, as they have been, by the time consuming waste and messy politics of the seemingly sadistic complexity introduced by the funder / provider regime now in operation.
That regime is why bus companies run buses all the way from South Auckland into the central city - parallel to the train lines - rather than buses feeding passengers to the trains. To get from the bus lines, you have to walk in some cases over 500 metres to get to a train station. But if the private operators do integrate with the train system, they stand to lose money.....never mind how much sense it makes in terms of providing more efficent public trasnport (as opposed to revenues for one small part of it).
Private business more efficient? Let's not fall for that one ever again. Sometimes it is...and sometimes it is not. We have to be clear-eyed when it is not.
Rail was an example of when it is not.
Daily review 15/07/2025
5 hours ago
Private business more efficient?
ReplyDeleteIn their dreams.
Bolger and Labour will show the world what a really efficient state-run service can do.
Kick Comalco out and electrify the whole rail system.
The evidence is there for any who have eyes open to see it. I've worked in private business for over 25 years. The only reasons they look more efficient in infrastructural areas are:
ReplyDelete1. Their balance sheet only shows a piece of the whole picture. They happily pitch overboard onto someone else costs they don't want to pay. The state sector often doesn't have that option, being the provider of last report for necessary services.
2. Private business balance sheets can and have been fiddled to look great until the minute the company falls over. Particularly if the business is privately held and shares are not openly traded. Accounts don't need to be made public.
3. Profit is meeant to show a return on capital commensurate with risk. When there isn't really any risk because the state is providing subsidies for essential services by a private provider, the money thus spent too often ends up being profit instead of the service intended.
The failures and / or poor services levels by private sector infrastructure providers due to mismanagement, malfeasance and simple greed mean it isn't really very funny.