Slippers

In NZ's beautiful capital city there is a suburban train system, by far the best such public transport system in New Zealand. By all accounts, it is very punctual - even if it is often only every half hour to and from Wellington central, it is very reliable - and pretty cheap. It is also said to be extremely safe to use - any time of day or night - partly because it still has proper conductors that walk up and down the carriages, chatting to everyone on board and punching tickets. Their presence deters twits from larking about and helps make the whole experience of using it a lot more enjoyable than your usual late night public transport experience in many big cities. It is also, of course, a valuable part of NZ's clean and green efforts and the rides themselves on many parts of the routes are extremely scenic with wonderful views of the sea and forest/bush that surrounds Wellington. It is, perhaps, despite being a bit dog-eared (part of the charm) one of the finest train systems in the world, not cos it is massive or hyper fast, but cos it is well-liked by those who use it and is extremely reliable and just very nice to be on.

So they are going to scrap it.

Slippers

Don

There's no 'they' in the democratic world. Politicians are elected by the people. NZ is a democracy and anyone who doesn't like a decision could get off their arse and campaign against that decision and if they persuaded enough people, change that decision. Usually decisions like the one you mention come down to money, and no doubt there are plenty of people fed up with subsidising a transport system they don't get much benefit from
so are happy to see it scrapped.

Cheers - Don

Slippers

"They" was used to cover all the people involved in the process of making this decision - it covers the national and local government members and others who see fit to scrap the system. There is not a system of daily referendums here where one is regularly given a chance to let the decision makers know your opinion on individual decisions. Like most modern democracies, you get the chance to vote periodically, after having seen what was in the parties' manifestos, and, in between these chances to vote, you get little chance to have an affect on what is done. As far as I am aware, the scrapping of this train service was not in any manifesto.

"anyone who doesn't like a decision could get off their arse and campaign against that decision", you said. Do you mean that they could do that and make their world better instead of emigrating somewhere else whilst saying "this place is finished and gone to the dogs", etc? I will admit that I have held such an attitude - like a fool.

If societies were as truly democratic as you believe, there would still be capital punishment in the UK.

As for the justification for scrapping systems of environmental interest (and which decision may well be regretted if and when oil shortages bite in the future) being that people are tired of subsidizing systems which they do not use, where would such attitudes leave kids' education, old age pensions, etc, in fact anything for the young or vulnerable in our society. Childless people pay for schools, young people pay for older people's pensions, able bodied people pay for services for the disabled - such things are one of the hallmarks of a civilised society. Should the car drivers not pay for the car-less, then, especially as we may all be encouraged to leave cars at home in the future?

Slippers

Don

Don't know if I'm like most people but I'm happy enough to vote in general elections every 3-5 years and let the elected politicians get on with everyday decision-making. Internet etc may soon make mini-referendums cheap and easy but I don't think too many decisions will be made this way - certainly not policy. There's usually plenty of discussion in the media around decisions that impact on people's lives, eg scrapping a train service, so it's not as if politicians are operating in a vacuum.

I'm personally not emigrating because I think where I live or the UK (my homeland) has gone to the dogs, though there are plenty of things I don't like about my current life (and plenty I do like.)

Don't agree that democracy = simple majority rule, therefore eg let's reinstate capital punishment. Society has always needed leadership and direction and we prefer to elect politicians who can provide reasonably competent evidence of these. There might be a simple majority of the electorate wanting capital punishment but it's not matched by a majority of the (on the whole) clever, experienced, thinking people we elect as politicians who make the decisions. Maybe the intelligentsia know best in certain cases.

Car drivers (or the general taxpayer) subsidising cheap transport for the car-less isn't remotely the hallmark of a civilised society. It may, however, be an element of redistributive taxation.

Cheers - Don

Slippers

I posted that Wellington's train system is to be scrapped, somewhat at odds with NZ's clean and green image - after all, it is commonly said that cars are a major source of pollution and would it not be better to get us all out of our one person per car journies and onto public transport. You suggested this was democracy at work and that one could, by campaigning, reverse the decision, even though there are large sums of money and vested interests at heart. I questioned that one person could have such an impact of these sorts of decisions and that that was most often not the way our "democratic" system worked. Now you are saying that you are happy to let people make such decisions on your behalf - what happened to getting "off their arse", as you said? I am a bit confused. You seem to support the idea that the "intelligentsia", as you call them, make decisions for you, with you just periodically deciding which of these people will do it for you, with your full trust, and yet you maintain that we can "change that decision". Now I am really confused.

As you said, there quite often is discussion surrounding infrastructure decisions like trains. There was also a lot of discussion surrounding NZ's power shortages in 1992 but I do not think NZers got much chance to influence, even through the general election, the outcome because I would be surprised if they voted in favour of the power shortages and possible cold showers to come in 2003. All around the world today, people are given the choice between 3 or so indistinguishable flavours of the same dish when it comes to picking between political parties at election time. Similarly, given that the train scrapping appeared in no manifesto, I question how you can believe that people got their chance to influence the decision. Most people are too busy working long hours with scant holidays to campaign and so are at the whim of their government when it comes to these sorts of decisions. This is the way things work in practice.

If you believe that it is right to scrap systems that a large part of the population get little benefit from, as you implied with your comment of "no doubt there are plenty of people fed up with subsidising a transport system they don't get much benefit from
so are happy to see it scrapped", then I disagree. I gave other examples of where such an attitude could leave you - the majority of people do not have school-age kids, for example and so do not directly benefit from schools, and yet I would think it a terrible decision if the childless majority suggested schools be scrapped - and said that this defence of things that are of no direct benefit to yourself but may be of interest to one's neighbours or just the strangers that make up society as a whole is ONE of the hallmarks of a civilised society. I stand by this.

Slippers

muppetking

You should know,Slippers, that individual rights and accountability do not good bedfellows make in NZ. Witness the ongoing Maori TV debacle!

BritboyNZ

You've GOT to be joking right? Tranz Rail/Tranz Metro operate one of the 'finest train systems in the world' I nearly fell of my chair when I read that! You have obviously never been on a TGV (French) the MRT in Singapore or any Japanese railway which really Are fine railways.

The NZ rail system is in a worse state than the British system. This summer just gone, trains were limited in places to 40kmh because of rails buckling in the heat - down to poor maintenance. The LTSA commissioned an independant report which said that its track maintenance was: "at the limit of acceptable practice" and "it was under-reporting buckling and derailment problems" :

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...toryID=3007840

Its safety record also leaves a lot to be desired. I reckon it's only a matter of time before there is a nasty accident. The trains themselves are totally clapped out and many date back from the 50's. Wellington Council offered to pay for the refurbishment of some, as they are so dilapidated LTSA wants to remove them from the network for safety reasons. Tranz Rail declined the offer:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnews...toryID=3452187

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...toryID=3050448

As a company, it is virtually bankrtupt - share price recently plunged to all time lows of about 30cents. Standard & Poor have downgraded TR's credit rating several times recently. It has interest repayments on debt due in June that it will almost certainly default on, and has sold a large number of its assets(including the interisland ferries it now leases back) to pay off debt.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/b...toryID=3401401

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,...8a1864,00.html


Tranz Rail & its network isn't a 'world class railway' it is a national joke and running on borrowed time, my friend.

Russ.

Slippers

I have to admit that I may have let my enthusiasm for NZ and the train system in question get the better of me and overlook the shortcomings you mention, but I could never be as negative about what NZ has to offer as that.

However bad it is, it is still NZ's finest suburban train system (or finest public transport system of any kind) and when in NZ you learn to be grateful for what you can get. You cannot expect TGV-like systems in a small population country like NZ and to expect that seems to me to be missing the charm of the whole thing. Besides which, it is clear, is it not, that there has been a determined policy to run the system down for years so that people will be led into saying how bad it is and support the call for it to be scrapped and leave NZ without trains of any kind.

Slippers

BritboyNZ

If you read my reply carefully - I was in no way negative about NZ or what it has to offer. My wrath was directed at the incompetent idiots at Tranz Rail who have run what was I imagine a perfectly good railway into the ground. New Zealanders will pay a heavy price for this in both inconveinience when the trains stop running and through their pockets as it will be the government / local authorities like Wellington Regional Council who will pick up the bill.

Slippers

No, please, there's no need to spare my feelings and let me down easy. I try to be positive about NZ and feel a bit foolish now for having got carried away in extolling its virtues. Just put it down to a young-at-heart attitude and a preparedness to make the best of what life has to offer. I am grateful for your pulling me back down to earth and agree with many of your points. Like I said, I find the phrases "worse state than the British system" and "a national joke" a bit harsh, but you are probably right.

Slippers

PS How is the rain your end? Enough for the fire to go on tomorrow night?

Slippers

No, it's no good. Try as hard as I can to accept your arguments, I have to say that I still think that NZ should not scrap its only suburban rail system. TGV speed it may not be, but very useful, pleasant, reasonably cheap, and, most of all, unique, it is.

Slippers

Don

Don't know why you are confused - I haven't been anything but consistent. You/ others can get off your/ their arse and campaign against this uneconomic, badly-run, falling-apart train service being closed down if you/ they like, but I (first person singular) wouldn't, in this case, which decision I would probably support if I were sure I knew the key facts, or in many others even if I rather disagreed with the decision. Don't get me wrong, I have campaigned in the past (No Wing Airport! probably being my first campaign and various others following especially during university days). But these days I take a more phlegmatic view that the key thing for me and for the society I live in is that my government broadly gets economic policy right, because without that, there's a lot less money for everything else. That's the 'campaign' that motivates me most, at general election time. So if I agree or disagree with smaller decisions: this hospital being closed down; immigration quota to NZ being 45,000 instead of 60,000 or 10,000; general taxation being set at that level instead of the other etc etc...- I am fairly relaxed about taking the rough with the smooth in terms of the impact on me. On the whole I do trust our elected politicians to get the most important things broadly right and on the whole I have been justified in my trust over the last 20 years or so. But me trusting administrations/ governments to get things broadly right is totally different to and not at odds with me saying that there's a place for campaigning and influencing changes to decisions/ policy - of course there is, campaigning is a forceful way to get a message across to our politicians, maybe they got something wrong or weren't very well tuned in to what the people wanted.

Your remark about 'people are given the choice between 3 or so indistinguishable flavours of the same dish when it comes to picking between political parties at election time' actually bears out my point above: the key parties are often broadly in agreement with each other on what makes good economic policy and there doesn't seem to be much daylight between one manifesto and another on the key 4 or 5 points. Thank goodness. They shout a lot about the minor differences in economic policy (and especially loudly about differences in other, less important areas of administration/ government) but ultimately you're right - they tend to be fairly similar in approach. Whenever a party is obviously way off the track on economic policy/ competence to run economic policy, the electorate smells a rat and the party becomes unelectable. (Remarks apply broadly to OECD nations.)

As for your last paragraph, your point is what exactly? I'm not disagreeing that the 'defence of things that are of no direct benefit to yourself but may be of interest to one's neighbours or just the strangers that make up society as a whole is ONE of the hallmarks of a civilised society', although your terminology is somewhat inexact for my liking ('things'), just that a crappy train service that is obviously past its sell-by date, arguably unsafe, near-bankrupt and hopelessly uneconomic does not exactly fall into the same category as schools, hospitals, help for pensioners, help for the handicapped, caring for the environment etc etc.

Cheers - Don

Slippers

In the recent "Reasons for emigrating" thread, you said that one of NZ's strengths was that it is a

"Democratic western country with modern infrastructure"

and yet now you say NZ's capital city has "a crappy train service that is obviously past its sell-by date, arguably unsafe, near-bankrupt and hopelessly uneconomic".

It is this sort of inconsistency in your overall picture of NZ that is confusing.

You say in your post above that the campaign that motivates you the most at election time is that your "government broadly gets economic policy right", and that over the last 20 years or so the UK government has broadly got things right for you. The question begs, then, why you are emigrating. Are you hoping that the NZ government will get things more "broadly right" with the economy than the UK government has? If you are coming to NZ to find a stronger economy, you may be disappointed. If you are going to say you are emigrating for "quality of life" or "lifestyle" reasons, then you seem to be aware of the link between economy and lifestyle and yet you sound like you hope for a better lifestyle in a weaker economy. Again, this sort of thing is confusing.

The issue for me here, though, is the importance of public transport. As I said, it is clear that the Wellington train system - NZ's only suburban rail service - has been purposefully neglected and run into the ground so that the the casual observer comes along and says how terrible it is - especially the well-informed people who never actually use it - and that, yes, it must be scrapped.

The reality is that it is a simple but very useful system and will be sorely missed by the many people who do use it. It is especially well used by schoolkids who cannot turn to a car and will be forced onto the few buses with their much longer journey times and less favourable fare systems. It is one of the few things in NZ that is genuinely useful in keeping the place clean and green rather than encouraging the use of cars for every journey. Yet they plan to scrap it in order to satisfy people who can only see the dollar sign wherever they look.

Slippers

Kiwipaul

I don't hold the present Rail management totally responsible, the problem was the gulible government that sold the rail system for a pittance to Wiscounsin rail and a Kiwi Fay Richwite, who then proceeded to asset strip the company, by selling everything that wasn't tied down and even some that was ( they got about $80M from the gov for Auckland comuter lines).

When they had sold everything they could (even the inter island ferries) they used dubious accounting practicies to ramp up the share price and then sold out, making a fortune.

The current management is just the mugs they left in charge to take the fall, when the whole pack of cards came crashing down.

The gov should let Tranz Rail go bust and then just take it over at no cost to themselves and run it as they used to, and stop pouring more money into the pockets of the speculators.

Slippers

I agree. You sound familiar with the system and I am glad there is someone else who can see its promise, despite its current media image and shortcomings. I thought to myself the other day that if it was back in govt hands I wouldn't mind helping to keep it in good nick - bit of voluntary work cleaning or repairing torn seats, and so on - and I am sure a lot of people here would do the same (kiwis seem to like to get involved) but where's the incentive if it just an income strand for some dubious company(ies) who strip it bare and run it down?

Cheers,
Slippers