Big picture perspective needed on Gisborne transport access
Media Statement
15 January 2013
“The release today of a Berl review of Kiwirail’s decision to mothball the Napier to Gisborne rail line raises some
valid concerns about how strategic transport infrastructure decisions are made in New Zealand, but with such low
transport demand in the region, both now and into the future, it is difficult to see how three separate yet competing
transport connections for Gisborne can be sustained,” says Stephen Selwood CEO of the New Zealand Council for
Infrastructure Development.
Last year Kiwirail determined that, following a washout of the only rail connection linking the city to the main line,
there was no justification to repair the track and continue running a commercial loss. According to Kiwirail analysis,
the line lost $2.4 million in the year before services were stopped. On this basis, the company has determined there to
be no business case for spending an additional $4 million to reopen the line and $6 million annually over the long term
to maintain it.
“Berl argue that in this instance a wider economic analysis which incorporates environmental and social impacts on the
Gisborne community is required before a decision is made as to the future of the line. While such analysis is required
from a national perspective in relation to transport connectivity to the region, it is not required by Kiwirail which
operates under a more commercial model.
“There are some convincing reasons to take a wider view of the Kiwirail decision. Rail freight will be moved on to the
state highway network with at least some impact on safety and traffic volume; environmental impacts have not been
extensively considered, most notably carbon emissions; local interests are not measured; and more intangible strategic
benefits to the region and nation are difficult to quantify.
“However, while wider factors should certainly be considered by the Government, it is extremely difficult to see under
what scenario reinstating the Gisborne line could become a sound policy decision. Even if freight volumes doubled, the
demand for which has not yet been identified, there is more than adequate capacity in the existing road connection.
State Highway 2 is currently, and will continue to be, maintained for general traffic.
“It would be great to see a plan for the region that justified investment in both road and rail. With as few as 2000
vehicles per day using the route, even BERL's more ambitious projections of potential growth would still have little
discernible impact on the road connection except to strengthen justification for safety improvements on the highway that
are already needed.
“Furthermore, while this debate has been framed unhelpfully in the context of road versus rail, potentially the biggest
impact of continuing to operate uneconomic rail services is on coastal shipping. Coastal shipping produces fewer
emissions than rail and, like rail, is most competitive in the transport over long distances of non-perishable items.
Road freight, in contrast, maintains a strong advantage in the transport of perishable goods and deliveries over shorter
distances.
“So while the Berl report raises some important issues around the need for a bigger picture perspective, it does not
create a strong case for revisiting Kiwirail’s decision on the Gisborne line. When public money is involved, an holistic
view of transport access and connectivity is required, not a mode specific decision. But in this case, road and shipping
capacity appears sufficient to maintain equivalent access to Gisborne and public subsidy of rail is unlikely to be
justifiable.
“For the rail line to be reopened, a long term, fundable and economically viable transport and land use plan would need
to be developed by Gisborne authorities demonstrating which activities will drive rail demand into the future and how
these fit into a wider social, economic and environmental vision for the region. In the absence of this plan,
mothballing and not closing the line appears on current evidence to be the right decision,” Selwood says.
ENDS