Infrastructure News: Yearbook 2024

A BRIDGE TOO FAR

Infrastructure Funding and Financing Conference 2024

OPERATING IN THE NEW LANDSCAPE

26 MARCH 2024

TE PAPA, WELLINGTON

KEY THEMES

• Lessons from successful long-term agreements

• Challenges and opportunities of structural reform

• The future of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in New Zealand

• Alternative funding and financing tools

• Funding and financing climate resilient infrastructure and adaptation

AMELIA EAST

& Head of Advisory, Asia Pacific, HKA

SUSAN LUCKING Head of Infrastructure, Government and Specialised Finance, BNZ

JIM PALMER

Future for Local Government Review

NICK LEGGETT

Executive, Infrastructure New Zealand

brightstar.co.nz/IFF

Chair,

Chief

Partner

Funding and financing New Zealand’s infrastructure challenges

The gravity of New Zealand’s infrastructure deficit is well traversed. The conservative estimate is over $200 billion and the increasing frequency of climate related disasters alongside the pressures of growth will continue to add to this multigenerational challenge. Our infrastructure deficit is the legacy of historic underinvestment but also represents a significant opportunity for our economy, people and environment.

It's time for a mindset shift in how we fund, finance, procure and deliver our infrastructure. Structural reform is needed to supercharge the sector’s ability to deliver for New Zealanders. To deliver infrastructure faster and leverage the full benefit of projects, external partnerships need to be at the heart of a reset approach to infrastructure delivery.

In partnership, Infrastructure New Zealand and Brightstar look forward to presenting the upcoming Infrastructure Funding and Financing Conference on 26 March in Wellington. The gathering is essential for infrastructure professionals to come together and explore what the changed

environment will mean for infrastructure funding and financing, and how the sector can come together to pave the way ahead.

Panel discussions

The first panel discussion will investigate the challenges inherent in structural reform and what new revenue tools for local government might mean. We will be joined by Jim Palmer, Chair of the Review Future for Local Government Review Panel and Anne Tolley, Commission Chair in Tauranga as we consider the way forward.

Shaping the future of PPPs – towards Community and Economic Partnerships

This session will include newly announced Partner at Russell McVeagh, Bevan Peachey, Infrastructure, Government and Specialised Finance at BNZ, Susan Lucking and Amelia East, Partner and Head of Advisory, Asia Pacific at HKA. The discussion will explore the future of a refined PPP, or community and economic partnership, model. They will provide key insights from Infrastructure New Zealand’s funding and

financing work and explore what change will mean for the sector.

Peter Colacino, Infrastructure Strategy and Transformation Lead –Australia, Mott MacDonald and former Chief of Policy and Research at Infrastructure Australia will host a fireside chat to discuss programmatic procurement to drive positive economic and community outcomes.

Colacino brings close to 20 years of experience in public policy and is an internationally recognized leader in policy and reform, having authored or contributed to more than 50 influential reports and publications on topics such as regional development, infrastructure, urban planning, market capacity, transport, funding and financing.

Masterclasses

Risk Management in infrastructure projects

Bevan Peachey will also be facilitating a masterclass which offers a focused and comprehensive opportunity for participants to delve into the critical aspects of risk management in infrastructure projects. Participants will gain a foundational understanding

of the principles that underpin risk allocation in contracting for infrastructure projects.

Placed-based agreements for local government professionals

Local government professionals are encouraged to attend a second masterclass to gain practical takeaways that will enable them to navigate the complexities of place-based agreements effectively, fostering informed decision-making and strategic planning within the New Zealand landscape. There will be lessons and learnings from overseas, along with discussions of New Zealand’s opportunities and risks.

Facilitators are Patrick McVeigh who is the Practice Lead, People and Places and MartinJenkins alongside Linda Meade, Managing Director at Kalimena.

The Infrastructure Funding and Financing Conference stands as a testament to the collaborative spirit driving New Zealand's infrastructure towards excellence. We look forward to seeing you there. To view the programme visit brightstar.co.nz/IFF

Local infrastructure funding model ‘unsustainable’

Almost all councils have now seen the initial level of investment required over the next 10 years as part of long-term planning, with many considering double-digit rates rises

Providing for community needs from infrastructure is a massive challenge that is not being met and without a longer-term and committed plan of investment in old and new infrastructure, our assets will continue to decline, says Gary Porteous, Āpōpō.

The association for infrastructure asset management has just released the findings of its first Member Sentiment survey, highlighting that New Zealand’s infrastructure has not improved in the past year.

The majority of respondents also believed the country doesn’t have sufficient capability to manage infrastructure assets.

“We need a step change to the way we fund, develop, manage, and maintain our country’s infrastructure; a dramatic increase in potholes is a great representation of what happens when we haven’t invested well enough in our assets,” Porteous says.

“Our survey also shows that we need to find new ways to steer ourselves away from an infrastructure tragedy.

“This is why Āpōpō supports Local Government New Zealand’s (LGNZ) calls for a more sustainable funding structure that gives greater clarity around the

future pipeline of infrastructure work.”

LGNZ President Sam Broughton says at a time when central government is talking about tax cuts, local leaders know rate increases are necessary to provide

need to balance the level of investment needed with affordable increases, the pressure on councils has reached the tipping point.”

Recent commentary from the Office of the Auditor General said they remained

for communities’ futures. Councils will consult their communities on their draft long-term plans (LTPs) in the new year. The draft LTPs will outline the priorities for the community, how much it will all cost, and where the money might come from.

“Councils’ share of overall tax revenue has remained at 2% of GDP for the last 50 years, despite our ever-increasing responsibilities. That’s not sustainable.

“The rates proposed in the LTPs are necessary to fund existing services and essential infrastructure, and while councils are always acutely aware of the

concerned following the analysis of the 202/21 results that councils might not be reinvesting enough in critical assets. They mentioned if councils underinvest in their assets, there is a bigger risk of asset failure and ultimately reduce the amount of services delivered to their communities.

“We cannot keep patching up worn out assets. Local councils are very aware of increases in the cost of living and how difficult this conversation is for communities.

“Many households pay $2-3,000 per year just for one service such as power. Rates account for a huge

range of infrastructure and services communities rely on, and are councils’ key tool to raise revenue.

“Continuing to rely so heavily on household and business rates is not a sustainable funding approach for local government. LGNZ will be working with the Government on a toolbox approach to addressing funding and financing challenges.

“Not every tool works well for each council so we need to take a locally-led approach to finding the right levers for individual communities. Options for new funding mechanisms include revenue sharing between central and local government, which could form part of new city and regional deals. Our members have also strongly supported that the Government pay rates on all Crown land, as well as introducing new tools like congestion charging, bed taxes and tourist levies.

“A 4-year term of local government would also make a dramatic improvement in productivity across councils and provide certainty. This would in turn create a longer-term pipeline of work for the private sector to partner with councils and deliver for Aotearoa New Zealand,” Broughton says.

2

4

6

7

35

36

38

39

Is New Zealand’s infrastructure workforce adequate?

The infrastructure sector makes up 4.7% of New Zealand’s total workforce, a new Te Waihanga report finds, but what exactly does this look like?

Who’s working in infrastructure?

A baseline report provides the first comprehensive baseline analysis of New Zealand’s infrastructure workforce.

“You can’t plan for the future if you don’t have a sense of the size and make-up of your current workforce,” says Te Waihanga Director of Economics Peter Nunns.

“We wanted to know how many people work in the infrastructure sector and what sort of work they’re doing. We also wanted to understand who’s working in infrastructure, so we looked at factors like age, ethnicity, gender, training, and migration.

“We found that the

infrastructure workforce is large and complex, with over 100,000 full-time equivalent workers spread across more than 100 distinct occupations. That’s around 4.7% of the total New Zealand workforce,” Nunns says.

“We often think about infrastructure work as mainly about new builds, but this actually accounts for less than half of the workforce. We estimate that around 14% of infrastructure workers are engaged in planning and design, 46% are constructing new assets, and a further 40% of infrastructure workers are engaged in asset management and maintenance. These roles are essential – you can’t

build something without planning and designing it first, and once it’s built you have to maintain it.”

The findings also shed light on who is working in infrastructure and the pathways that they follow into the workforce.

Ethnic diversity within the infrastructure workforce is similar to the overall New Zealand population, but the ethnic mix is uneven across occupational categories. For instance, labourer occupations have a higherthan-average share of Māori and Pacific workers, while professional occupations have a higher-than-average share of European and Asian workers.

Women account for only 11% of the total

infrastructure workforce compared to around 47% of the overall New Zealand workforce. Moreover, younger age cohorts have a similar share of women as older age cohorts, suggesting that gender balance won’t change as older workers retire.

“This data will help us identify where we will face capacity pressures and how we can respond to them by sequencing work better and training and recruiting new workers. It also highlights increasing gender and ethnic diversity as a key opportunity for lifting our capacity to build infrastructure,” says Nunns.

Why infrastructure costs as much as it does

A

new Te Waihanga report shines a light on projects often costing more than expected, looking at past changes in construction wages and prices for five key infrastructure construction materials

Why do construction input costs change? analyses several decades of price data for construction inputs to understand how they are affected by both global and local factors.

The report finds that infrastructure providers have limited control over their input prices.

Price changes mostly reflect the impact of things that are happening outside of the New Zealand construction sector, says Te Waihanga Director of Economics Peter Nunns.

“For labour costs, we found that construction wages closely track wages elsewhere in the New Zealand economy. In the short term, high demand for construction workers can push wages a bit above this trend, but construction wages tend to return to trend within two years.

“Global factors are the primary driver of material prices, especially for traded commodities like structural steel, timber and diesel fuel. Changes in global prices flow through to New Zealand very quickly. Even

when we produce or source some materials here, prices are still based on global markets,” he says.

“The exception is materials like concrete and aggregates that are too heavy to ship long distances. Regional factors, like limits on setting up new quarries near major projects, are likely to play a stronger role for those materials.”

The findings of this report build upon earlier research by Te Waihanga that looks at infrastructure construction productivity

and infrastructure delivery cost benchmarking.

“Understanding what drives infrastructure costs allows us to better plan and mitigate risks and get more infrastructure for the money we spend,” Nunns says.

“While labour and material costs are hard to control, there are some levers we can pull. Infrastructure providers and decisionmakers can focus on driving productivity in construction and optimising projects’ scope and design to ensure that we get the most bang for our buck.”

Hard work gets results

The success of Rapid Facility Services is driven by a team that combines experience, commitment and a professional skillset that covers every aspect of facilities management with personal service

The team was forged by three friends working in the industry who realised that the key thing stressed building managers, business owners and landlords needed was to make a single call and get a reliable and qualified support team that would cover any aspect of facilities management.

The Rapid trio set down a business philosophy that “we will do what others can’t or won’t do “ and set about assembling a highly trained, efficient and safety-conscious team of professionals who get the job done right, the first time.

Today that service stretches from food manufacturers’ audit cleaning, all aspects of industrial cleaning, painting, building and floor safety management to anti-microbial and moss

Having worked in the industry for many years, three

and mould treatments to prevent surface damage to roofs, ceilings, walls, floors and specialised equipment.

friends, Paul Schoch, Robyn Schoch and Andrew Chan realised that by combining their skills, they could create a company unlike any other

Team members Darren, Brandon and Akeli

Could a bridge or tunnel work across the Cook Strait?

As KiwiRail enters talks to terminate plans for its new Interislander ferries, transport planner Nicolas Reid explores the feasibility of other options to link the North and South Islands

The first question to ask is why would we even want a fixed link between the islands –what are the reasons we might have to replace the interislander ferry?

It’s important to note we’re not starting from scratch as ferries already link the islands. The benefit of a crossing doesn’t come from the act linking the two halves of New Zealand together, but how much it improves on the existing connection. So this is basically another way of asking “what are the limitations of the ferries?”

What could a Cook strait crossing do?

There are effectively three ways a fixed link across Cook Strait could improve on the ferries. These are the same three reasons that underline the case for just about any transport infrastructure project: travel time, reliability, capacity. In short, the Cook Strait ferry is fairly slow, it is subject to regular cancellations from weather and equipment failures, and these two combined with the fixed schedule of sailings limits the capacity and dependability of the link. To cover the 65km Wellington and Picton, as the crow flies, takes around four and a half hours including check in and loading time. That’s an effective speed of just

15km/h.

In comparison, a fixed crossing would theoretically be immune to weather conditions and much less susceptible to catastrophic equipment or vehicle failures, and without a fixed schedule and long turnaround times it would have far higher capacity to move vehicles, hour by hour around the clock. Perhaps most significantly the travel time would be vastly reduced, to around 40 minutes between Picton and Wellington.

Ok, so it would certainly be viable from a benefits perspective… but what about the practicality and cost side of the equation? What would

the infrastructure to get a fixed link across Cook Strait actually look like?

Let’s block out the main constraints and see how that shapes the design.

The major obstacles to linking the North and South islands

The biggest problem with the strait is that it’s deep, really deep. There is a trench through the middle of the strait which drops to over 220m below sea level. The second problem is that it is wide. At the narrowest point it’s 22km across, but that’s between the North Island and a point on Arapaoa island, one of the long and

mountainous islands of the Marlborough sounds which is quite remote from any towns, roads or railways.

The more practical crossing point from Cape Terawhiti on the Wellington side to Oyster Bay on the mainland is more like 30km across.

The third problem with crossing the strait is that it is geographically remote and subject to some truly exceptional terrain. On either side the nearest highways and railways are some 15 to 20km away across rugged mountains, valleys and inlets, with barely a dirt road on either side.

A bridge is infeasible

The first thing we can see from this is that any crossing of the strait would have to be a tunnel, not a bridge. The crossing is just too wide, and more importantly too deep, for a bridge. It’s true there are a lot of so-called bridges that span distances across water of twenty kilometres or more, for example the bridge section of the Hong Kong-Macau link, the bridge across Qingdao bay, the crossing between Crimea and Russia or the causeway from Sadi Arabia to Bahrain. The Lake Pontchartrain bridge in Louisiana claims to be the longest bridge over water in the world, covering 38km. This seems more than enough for our purposes. However, these are perhaps more appropriately called elevated causeways or perhaps over-water viaducts rather than bridges. The difference here is that all of these superlong crossings are of relatively shallow waters, which enables them to be supported by from below on rows of piles. The have

only one or two modest sections of true bridge to allow a navigation span for larger vessels. This approach is infeasible on Cook Strait however, as the supports would need to be over 200m deep to reach the seafloor, requiring hundreds of submarine structures rivalling the Skytower in height. Currently the longest true bridges are the great

infeasible, but surprisingly a tunnel alone isn’t. The longest underwater tunnels in the world are greater than we would need to cross the strait.

For example, the Seikan Tunnel between Honshu and Hokkaido in Japan and the Channel Tunnel between England and France are both around 50km long, with underwater sections of 23km and 37km

suspension bridges to Shikoku Island in Japan and across the Dardanelles in Turkey. They both have a suspended span of around two kilometres between supports, a fraction of the distance over the Cook Strait trench.

I should note there are some proposals currently for floating bridges, where the suspension towers are built on top of submerged floating chambers that are anchored to the sea floor, similar to deep sea oil rigs. This has the promise of allowing bridges to be built of almost any length across great depths, however nobody has ever built one and they remain just an interesting idea.

But a tunnel is doable… for trains

So a bridge, a causeway or bridge-tunnel combo is

length respectively. More importantly, they are both quite deep, especially the Seikan Tunnel which dives to 240m below sea level. Furthermore, the Japanese example crosses a tectonic fault line with difficult geology, something that a Cook Strait tunnel would also need to do. In short, for thirty-five years the Japan has had an transoceanic tunnel that is longer and deeper than the one that would be required to pass under Cook Strait.

One thing to note here is that all the very long underwater tunnels are rail tunnels rather than road tunnels. This is due to the smaller cross section required for rail, the higher capacity it provides, the lower ventilation requirements and the greater safety against crashes, fires and other emergency situations. The

longest subsea road tunnel in the world is the recently opened Ryfylke Tunnel in Norway. While this is also a very deep tunnel to get under a fjord, at 14km long it’s not nearly long enough. Sure it might be technically possible to build a road tunnel long enough to cross the Cook Strait, but it would be twice as long as the longest road tunnel ever built so far, and possibly the deepest. In my book that puts it into the infeasible territory, at least infeasibly risky and expensive to be considered a viable concept.

So a rail tunnel is the most feasible option then. My guestimate, without knowing much about the tunnelling geology, is that the best alignment for a Cook Strait tunnel would between Makara in the hills above Wellington to the valley behind Oyster Bay to the east of Picton. This avoids the deepest part of the trench and the worst of the landside geography, and it also avoids the power cables that run along the sea floor.

This is no mean feat, at 37km long this tunnel is quite a bit longer than just the 28km underwater section. In addition, there would need to be new rail lines extended from the end of the lines on either island. Given the mountainous terrain these rail extensions to the tunnel proper would require some heavy engineering, with numerous smaller tunnels, viaducts and a lot of cut and fill.

Overall, the total route would be about 65km between the railheads of the North and South island networks. Assuming the new crossing was designed for trains going up to 110km/h, the current upper limit for the main

trunk lines, it would take about 40 minutes for a train to run between Picton and Wellington.

The new tunnel would be double tracked for capacity and resilience, and it would need to be electrified to remove the risks of diesel trains in such a long tunnel. Therefore, the project should also probably include electrification of the remaining parts of the North Island Main Trunk line, and possibly also the South Island trunk as far as Christchurch.

The road-on-rail shuttle

Even though it would be rail tunnel it would work for cars and trucks too, joining both sides of State Highway 1. This would work by using shuttle trains which road vehicles are loaded onto, which is how the Channel Tunnel operates. Therefore, tunnel would also need an extra-large loading gauge to allow trucks to be driven straight onto oversized rail carriers, at shuttle terminals either side. These would probably be at or near the current ferry terminals at Picton and Wellington, and have a pretty similar operation. The tunnel would effectively operate as a train ferry, with cars and trucks loaded on and off

either side of the strait. It’s probably that a dual gauge tracks between the shuttle terminals might be required to allow for oversized shuttle trains on standard gauge as well as regular freight and passenger trains on narrow gauge to use the tunnel. Japan’s Seikan tunnel does this, mixing standard gauge passenger trains with narrow gauge freight trains.

For road transport there would still be loading and unloading time but the crossing would be about three hours faster overall, taking about 90 minutes all up. Also, the shuttle trains could be a lot more regular than the ferries, departing a couple of times an hour rather than a few times per day.

Sounds great, but how much?

Here’s the rub, planning and designing without considering cost as the primary factor is just daydreaming. A Cook Strait tunnel might be a feasible concept in a technical sense, and it might produce a whole lot of benefits over the current ferries…. But whether it’s a good idea depends on whether you can afford it in the first place, and whether the cost of gaining those benefits.

With the Seikan and Channel tunnels we have two good examples of tunnelling projects with similar size and scale that can give us an estimate of the cost involved in crossing Cook Strait. The Japanese tunnel cost ¥1.1 trillion in 1988 while the Anglo-French crossing cost £9 billion in 1994, both of which were massively over budget by the time they were finished. Converting the cost of those projects into today’s dollars gives us an indicative cost in the order of $40 to $50 billion New Zealand dollars, before inevitable delays and blowouts could stretch it far higher. At about 10% of the country’s GDP the concept is improbably expensive and would be practically impossible to fund and deliver. The cost of capital alone would push $2b a year, every year. Even if you could it’s hard to see how a such an extreme cost could stack up even with generous time savings and other benefits.

To sum up a bridge or a road tunnel across Cook Strait would be infeasible, but actually a rail tunnel carrying passenger and freight trains and shuttles for cars and trucks would be possible. At 37km it wouldn’t be the longest transport tunnel in the

world, nor the deepest at 200m below sea level, but it would be close on both counts. It would deliver some pretty big time savings, with hours saved compared to the ferries, and it would provide greater capacity, flexibility and reliability to the national transport network.

However, just because it’s technically feasible and provides benefits doesn’t make it a good idea, because the cost of getting those benefits would be enormous. The travel time and resilience benefits wouldn’t come close to exceeding the $50b or so it would cost to build a Cook Strait tunnel, and the amount of international borrowing required to fund it would amount to a threat to our national sovereignty. And if we did have that sort of money to spend on transportation in the country, there are a lot of other things we should be doing first with better returns on investment.

Nicolas Reid is a Principal Public Transport Planner at MRCagney.

linkedin.com/in/ nicolasreid

W i t h y o u r s u p p o r t w e c a n c o n t i n u e t o p r o v i d e p ra c t i c a l h e l p , c a r e a n d c o m f o r t .

A c c o m m o d a t i o n a n d h o m e v i s i t s a r e j u s t t w o o f t h e w a y s w e s u p p o r t N e w Z e a l a n d e r s a f f e c t e d b y c a n c e r.

No better investment than chemical safety training

Now is the time to schedule your customised Responsible Care NZ Competent

Chemical Handler course, conveniently delivered on your own site

Changes to our Global Harmonisation System (GHS) chemical regime applying from 30 April 2021 require accurate and timely advice - non-compliance could prove costly.

Competent staff avoid expensive and sometimes confusing compliance advice, while enabling an effective response to chemical incidents, often without requiring emergency services.

Inspectors and certifiers with years of expertise warn of a declining national workplace chemical safety performance.

A crucial factor is the continuing loss of onsite chemical safety advice, primarily due to replacing flawed but effective mandatory Approved Handlers with whatever employers now deem sufficient.

A second major chemical incident in the same public facility is a timely reminder that safe chemical management is not receiving the attention it deserves. Competent staff are essential.

Onsite Responsible Care NZ (RCNZ) Competent Chemical Handler

Certification courses are tailored to reflect your chemical inventory and enable compliance.

Upskill the last of your HSNO Approved Handlers, update Certified

Handler requirements and successfully implement the updated Global Harmonisation System (GHS).

For struggling, noncompliant business operators who are attracting attention from enforcement agencies, practical onsite advice from Competent Chemical Handlers helps lessen the load on a diminishing number of Compliance Certifiers. It helps to ensure site chemical safety measures remain effective.

RCNZ Competent

Chemical Handlers (CCH) are increasingly in demand, resulting from our popular ‘Walk and Talk’ site visit to assess actual chemical management performance, identifying the need for specialist training, throughout the product life cycle.

Chemical incidents now guarantee media attention, often sensationalising the incident by highlighting persons adversely affected by unwanted exposure to chemicals.

This can irretrievably damage reputations to both customers and suppliers, particularly if employers have not taken all practicable steps to safely manage their chemical inventory throughout their operations.

When chemicals do cause problems, employees, customers, WorkSafe

Essential compliance tools

Ensuring staff are competent to safely manage the harmful chemicals essential to your business includes your effective response to a chemical incident.

To enable a smooth, cost-effective transition to and beyond compliance, you need compliance tools:

- the updated RCNZ industry Codes of Practice reflecting our revised GHS chemical management system

- your 24/7 CHEMCALL® emergency response subscription; and the all-important ‘how to’ advice arising from our popular site ‘walk and talk’ assessments

- replacing your Approved Handler with our Competent Chemical Handler certification

These are all cost-effective measures which add value to your business.

Talk to us today about compliance tools, which confirm you are a good employer, committed to safeguarding employees and our environment by safely managing your chemical inventory.

Responsible Care NZ

04 499 4311

www.responsiblecarenz.com

inspectors, local authorities, health protection officers and emergency response organisations all benefit from the expertise and product safety information available 24/7 from 0800 CHEMCALL®, our industry’s unique, subscription based chemical emergency advisory service.

Supported by thousands of compliant Safety Data

Sheets (SDS) combined with their collective industry expertise and local knowledge, CHEMCALL® responders provide callers with comprehensive advice about how to safely manage the incident, safeguarding people and often avoiding business disruption.

Future of freight transport dead in the water

Once again New Zealand’s rail network is under existential threat, warns Michael van Drogenbroek, following the new Government’s decision to pull the plug on ferries that would have provided a seamless freight connection between the North and South Islands

Iam sure the cancellation of the Interisland Project IREX has come as a big shock to many – but really is it such a shock? The writing was on the wall many weeks ago it seems.

To be clear I think it is a major misstep to cancel it –wouldn’t it have been better for a pause for at least a few weeks to see more of what could be salvaged. As it stands it is a major threat to the future of interisland rail freight on the Auckland to Christchurch corridor and as a result of that also to

the very North Island Main Trunk itself and the Main North Line from Picton to Christchurch – can it survive without RoRo rail ferries?

There is a pattern emerging here that is setting the stage for a massive relook at the performance and future viability of KiwiRail.

In fact in the National Party Transport Strategy “TRANSPORT FOR THE FUTURE” on page 25 it states the following;

“Rail has received significant investment in recent

Budgets but isn’t performing, with freight volumes decreasing. National will continue to support rail as a critical part of our supply chain but will have very clear outcome targets that we expect KiwiRail to deliver against to maximise these investments”

Toll Rails 2007 “Plan B” Revisited

I believe we are facing a situation where a future akin to what Toll NZ in 2007 called Plan B is looming.

This will see the Golden Triangle – Auckland Metro to Hamilton to Tauranga and associated Golden Triangle lines, such as the line to Kawerau and Kinlieth in the Waikato and BoP survive.

The lower North Island Metro rail in the Wellington region with regional rail connections to Wairarapa and Palmerston North should survive due to the New Rolling stock being procured as part of the Lower North Island Rail Integrated Mobility (LNIRIM) project underway (assum-

ing that project doesn’t get scuttled) and a few other bespoke sub network lines survive such as Central South Island for dairy and inland Port traffic together with some other hinterland connections to Ports such as Fonterra traffic to Port of Otago and maybe the connection to Napier Port.

Gone perhaps will be all rail beyond Napier, Northland Rail (despite recent investment unless Northport development takes off), South Island West Coast Rail as soon as the coal extraction there declines – Westland Dairy and the Tranz Alpine I am afraid are not enough to sustain such a vastly expensive rail link –especially if the Alpine Fault cracks open. And perhaps the Connector lines through New Zealand from Auckland to Christchurch and beyond – including Interisland Rail.

Project IREX, the Interisland connection replacement and upgrade project with two new large RoRo rail capable vessels, has suffered cost blow outs and has now been cancelled. It is now debatable, once again, whether or not the national rail link down the North Island Main Trunk and the Main North Line Auckland to Christchurch via the Interisland connection will be sustainable into the future despite the largely funded Main North Line rebuild after the Kaikoura earthquake in 2016. That was funded under an insurance claim. One way this could have been more sustainable was to build the alternative to Picton Ferry terminal by building Clifford Bay – but that wasn’t done and is another story that should be written about some other time.

And this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg that

is threatening to tear a gash in the side of Rail in New Zealand. Make no mistake the knives are not only out for rail in New Zealand –they are being sharpened – I can almost hear the spinning stone wheel grind against the metal of the knives as I write this.

Historical Context, Background and Historic Government Agency Views

First up some context.

The New Zealand establishment seems to have had it in for Rail in New Zealand for decades. Why? Because they don’t understand it – at least not in the way many other nations do – they think they do but surely they don’t.

Many years ago a senior Treasury official said to me “Michael, the Economics of Rail are the economics of Rail – they never change” –this was fine in some sense but what was implied in that statement was the meaning, more than anything, that rail in New Zealand is hopelessly uneconomic and simply doesn’t work here and likely never will.

As far back as 1987 the New Zealand Treasury was trying to shut the whole network down. In 1988 the NZ Treasury wrote in an advice paper to Cabinet ministers:

"B. On the basis of the Boaz-Allen steady state analysis, we would recommend that the Government agree in principle to the Corporation ceasing rail operations. If this were accepted, Officials and the Board would jointly need to study in more detail the closure options including further work on both the short term and long term impacts on the road network. The studies would

also cover the best method for splitting off those parts of the current operation that are or could be commercially viable. At this stage we believe that the net costs associated with closure (eg. redundancy) are unlikely to be higher than the $330million cash grant the Corporation is seeking for restructuring. However further work needs to be done to confirm this.

c. note that the evidence suggests that the Corporation will require continued Government subsidy in the form of lower dividend streams or cash grants;

EITHER (Treasury View)

d. i: agree in principle to the early closure of rail operations and direct officials to report in conjunction with the Board of NZRC on the optimum method of implementing this decision;

OR

ii: agree to the continuation of rail operations in New Zealand, on the following basis:..."

Despite this being in 1988 similar advice as recent as June 2015 was being offered by Treasury.

The hard truth for those that believe in Rail is that it has never stopped being the Treasury view despite studies such as the Value of Rail in New Zealand study from EY in 2017. For all the talk of a balanced transport view, there remains an underlying view in Treasury, MoT and NZTA Waka Kotahi that fundamentally outside of Wellington and Auckland Metro rail systems, and perhaps the Golden Triangle between Auckland Hamilton and Tauranga, New Zealand doesn’t need a rail network. Yet we trumpet the unrealistic view that Aviation and Air New Zealand can decarbonise in the relative

near term whilst the most obvious decarbonisation of a transport network that already exists and is proven already to be able to be decarbonised – electrification and better use of the national rail network – is ignored. It is harmful to our international reputation and there is an argument from some that it should be broadcast to the World exactly what are our true emerging colours are as a nation in this regard – and it isn’t pretty.

Big companies like Fonterra, the nations major export ports such as Port of Tauranga, freight forwarders such as Mainfreight and Toll, coal exporters, steel manufacturers and the forestry industries are keen supporters of Rail and lobby the Government for investment in Rail assets and upgrades. What is it they see that the academic, research fellows and ex Treasury officials don’t seem to see? Is it just big business promoting its own self interest as some might say? That they see a way of getting cheap freight rates below economic costs at the cost of taxpayer investment?

Thank you Mr Taxpayer!

Or is it more about broader economic comparative advantage and lowering supply chain costs in order to make our supply chain to the worlds markets for our produce cheaper than our international competitors?

So that in turn we export more produce overseas and therefore have a higher GDP for the good of the nation’s economic prosperity overall? The truth most likely is that it is a combination of these factors. It is good for their business’s growth but also a way of subsidising their transport costs through government intervention by public

Treasury Advise to Ministers 1988

investment of taxpayers money in Rail. This in turn leads to a stronger export lead economy and a higher profit for those businesses and a better performing New Zealand overall from which we all benefit. In a pure efficient market this may sound like a nonsense, but other countries we compete against do it, so we seem to be forced into a corner.

It seems Rail in its history has so often been wedged into this somewhat uncomfortable position itself as it is in many other parts of the World. New Zealand at large, it would seem, should generally benefit from these investments in Rail infrastructure much like it does in Roads. But many struggle to see the public good in Rail that they can easily see in Roads because Rail is more of a closed system not open to casual users like the Roads. Only the Rail operating company has

access to the tracks. When it comes to Roads everyone seems to be a socialist as it enables us all to put our “snout in the trough”.

Surely we have got past the Road vs. Rail arguments in 2023. Where the more neo classical academic economists seem to struggle is the allocative efficiency of this “intervention” in the freight market by the Government and the investment of scarce public funds in Rail. It is after all a more Keynesian approach and the Government trying to help pick winners. Pity for Coastal Shipping as they currently seem to, unfairly, miss out on any of these economic welfare transfer payments – except maybe the local body owned Ports. Welfare economics has always been a difficult area for these types of investments – it sees these “welfare transfer payments” to Rail as having lots of economic leakage and waste.

But what is your choice? Is there a welfare gain or loss from the investment in Rail?

I had been hopeful that this issue had been put to bed for good after the landmark Economic Value of Rail Report in New Zealand in 2017 which addressed some of the issues I talked about back then. However, some of the same political and central government agency protagonists and core key questioners are still there – likely still asking the same questions.

Back in June 2009 David Heatley wrote in his “The history and future of rail in New Zealand Research Report” for The New Institute for The Study of Competition and Regulation Inc the following:

”Rail has had a net social cost for at least 50 years, soaking up resources that could have been diverted to other, more productive uses. Without that drain on social welfare, New Zealand

might today have vastly improved roads, hospitals and other infrastructure.

Given the poor productivity and economic performance of rail in public ownership, private ownership should have been in the public interest. The proper response by a private owner to the economic situation of rail was to increase productivity where possible, and where this was insufficient, to rationalize services and reduce the scale of the network.

“While completely exiting rail would be more economically desirable than the present situation, such a move would not capitalize on the tasks and rail lines that may be economically viable. A viable subset of the network would seem to be available. It will probably be around 1500-2000 kilometres in length – less than half the present size. Line closures and land sales in other areas could fund up -

From

grading of the core network to 21st century standards. The potential economic and environmental benefits of rail are most likely to be realised in this scenario.”

The full report can be read here at: https://www.heriot-edievale.com/resources-and-reports

Luke Malpass in September 2009 in the “KiwiRail: Doomed to Fail?” supported by the Centre for Independent studies wrote.

”KiwiRail needs to be restructured and privatised in separate pieces. This way, the commercially viable parts can be privatised and certain lines sold to interested parties like ports and companies such as Solid Energy and Fonterra. The unprofitable parts should be shut down by government and the land put to more valued use.

Land could be set aside for public use, such as being part of the new national cycleway, or sold to private interests. KiwiRail has a difficult future in its current form. With many fiscal pressures looming in the medium term for New Zealand, KiwiRail is becoming an increasing financial burden on the government’s balance sheet. The reform, rationalisation and resale of KiwiRail should be a top priority for the government.”

His article can also be read on my website at: https://www.heriot-edievale.com/resources-and-reports

In March 2009, Bill English, a former Minister of Finance, described rail as follows: ‘‘Billion Dollar KiwiRail investment now worthless” says English – New Zealand Herald (4 March 2009).

How will the rest of the World view this? How will it go down when we broadcast to the World that

New Zealand is seriously considering abandoning its national rail network. Will they even care? Well they should – as this could be an indication that we as a nation are generally playing only lip services to our clean green image.

More Recent Advice From NZ Government Agencies

The next bit of analysis is rather shocking from the period around the middle of 2015 for New Zealand Government advice.

The following are extracts from Government agencies, and in particular the NZ Treasury, advice to the New Zealand Government Cabinet in 2015. A copy of the source document titled “Kiwi Rail – NZ Treasury Response To OIA Request on Kiwi Rail Funding / Possible Closure – 4 February 2016” is available at:

https://www.heriot-edievale.com/resources-and-reports

19. The only real options available to the Crown with respect to KiwiRail are therefore to:

• retain most of the freight network, or

• close most or the entire freight network, with the option of retaining the upper north island section only (Auckland to Hamilton to Tauranga) as this part of the network carries the

most freight volumes and covers most of its costs.

49. Treasury believes there is a net economic cost of continuing to fund rail at the levels required. The net social cost is estimated at between $55 million and $170 million per annum based on a national cost benefit analysis. Whilst the assumptions underlying analysis of this nature are subjective and some require further work to validate Treasury believes that it will not change the conclusion that there is a net social cost of continuing to fund rail at the levels required.

50. Treasury believes that a more comprehensive study be undertaken to better understand the implications of closure to enable the Government to make the most informed choice possible. The comprehensive study should be public, and at arms’ length from the Government. Treasury therefore recommends a one-year funding commitment for KiwiRail whilst this process is undertaken. It is critical that any study be done publicly, as it will not only ensure that all relevant stakeholders and information can be accessed, but it will also provide an opportunity to inform the public on the ongoing costs associated with funding rail, and what benefits are being generated from this investment.

And this from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) at the time:

note that NZTA advises that if all the freight currently transported on rail was transferred to road, the additional road user charges earned from the additional trucks on the road would be sufficient to adequately address road capacity and safety issues in most areas

14. note the estimated environmental and safety benefits from transporting the current volume of freight by rail of ~$10 million and ~$20 million per annum respectively do not outweigh the costs of continuing to fund rail, and

15. note that a further assessment of the likely impact on the transport supply chain (including the impact on New Zealand’s major ports), KiwiRail’s customers, regional economies, road safety and environmental impacts would be needed before a decision could be made to significantly down-size the rail network

NZTA supports the indicative evaluation outlined in this report, and the conclusion that even taking account of the public good aspect there is currently a significant gap between the financial assistance the Crown is providing to KiwiRail and the value of the public good.

However, it believes that

in the event the government has some ongoing investment in the rail network as a public good, NZTA could be the appropriate policy and planning agency for investment decisions across the entire transport system (including rail). This would allow for an integrated ‘whole-of-network’ approach to investing in and delivering on the government’s ‘public good’ priorities for both rail and road transport, over the long term

So there you have it – as at June 2015 NZTA did not believe in the Value in Rail. I suspect there are many in the agency that still have this prevailing view despite the recent years apparent support for rail emanating – but how much of this was just to satisfy the political masters of the day. What is their true “frank and fearless advice” And whilst they have apparently made good progress to being a more mode neutral Transport agency over the past five or six years, indications are is that they maybe are about

to return to previous form.

Further extracts from this document are:

157. New Zealand’s freight provides insufficient scale, in both density and distance, for rail to be an economic transport mode. Even though rail carries most coal (90%), dairy (75%), and iron and steel (65%) on a net-tonne per kilometre basis, and 30% of general freight between Auckland and Christchurch, rail remains an uneconomic transport option – many users would not pay the full costs required to supply rail services.

158. The size of this problem is demonstrated by the size of the subsidy required to keep the railway network running. The subsidy required covers around twothirds of rail’s capital expenditure – a subsidy of $200 million a year compared to KiwiRail’s current operating earnings of around $100 million (EBITDA). This problem is fundamental and determined by the divergence between rail’s characteristics and advan-

tages and New Zealand’s freight needs.

162. We have quantified our assessment of the costs and benefits associated with rail freight in the national cost benefit analysis table 10 in paragraph 85. Rail provides some safety and environmental benefits by reducing the number of trucks on the road. However, these benefits are estimated at around $20 million and $10 million a year respectively (after allowing for a reduction in rail crossing injuries and rail emissions). Compared to the required public funding (around $200 million a year) this represents very poor value for money. Further road safety or road fuel efficiency initiatives and investments would be much more cost effective.

169. However, we expect there would be minimal impact on road service levels on average because the NZ Transport Agency (with the additional revenue received from additional truck travel) would undertake sufficient works to maintain adequate

road capacity and road safety levels in most areas (noting that the impacts in some urban areas would be difficult to address). It would undertake more maintenance as a result of the increased number of trucks, and bring forward planned passing lanes or four-laning, and undertake various other works in order to maintain road service levels. This is discussed further below.

174. However, current users are often unwilling to pay more for the use of rail. This shows that there is strong competition for rail by the alternatives from road and sea shipping –which offer other advantages.

178. Initial analysis has shown that the majority of the national State highway network appears to have sufficient capacity to handle most of the rail network freight, if this freight was moved to road (it is possible that some of it may end up being moved by coastal shipping). However, there would be significant ‘pinch

points’ around cities and ports.

179. The NZ Transport Agency would receive additional revenue from additional truck travel estimated at between $100 and $150 million a year, which is expected to be roughly equal to, or exceed, the costs associated with the additional truck travel, primarily on State highways, made up of:

• additional road maintenance and renewals

• small capacity improvements to maintain road service level, and

• bringing forward planned works to address major pinch points.

187. The above table shows that the status quo option of keeping rail as currently configured requires a subsidy of between $190 and $230 million (plus the economic cost of taxation, equal to an additional 20%), and that this cost is significantly greater than the benefits we assess as being derived from retention of the status quo.

188. Another interpretation is that closing down rail would produce an economic saving of between $150 and $232 million per annum, or fiscal savings of between $141 and $222 million per annum (cost of subsidy less avoided decommissioning and mothballing costs identified above), both of them after costs of closing down rail and upgrading roads.

189. The net social cost is much lower in respect of the golden triangle. A viable alternative to closing rail down might therefore be to close down everything except the golden triangle

Overall Treasury View

199. In our view, the costs of continuing to subsidise

KiwiRail at the levels required most likely outweigh the benefits attributable to the services the company provides. As a result, we do not think this is an industry (excluding Metropolitan rail services which are not covered in this report) that the Government should continue to subsidise in the long-term.

204. We would caution on “institutionalising” (e.g. either by funding through NZTA’s National Land Transport Fund or another operating funding mechanism) a funding arrangement as this would make it more difficult for the Government to exit at some point in the future if the appetite for doing so changes. This is on the basis of our assessment of there being a net economic cost of funding rail at the levels required.

So what does the NZ Ministry of Transport have to say about the Treasury view:

205. The Ministry of Transport supports the views expressed in this report. The Ministry notes that there are no easy options for the Government with regards to the financial future of KiwiRail as all options require a significant amount of Government subsidy.

And what about the New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi:

New Zealand Transport Agency View

210. NZTA supports the indicative evaluation outlined in this report, and the conclusion that even taking account of the public good aspect there is currently a significant gap between the financial assistance the Crown is providing to KiwiRail and the value of the public good. The evaluation also highlights that realistically that gap will take

10-20 years to close even if significant action is taken.

And here is a killer comment from all:

“note that Treasury, the Ministry of Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency believe there is a net economic cost of continuing to fund KiwiRail at the levels required”

The National led Government of the day didn’t support publicly the drastic options for reducing the network but I have no doubt it was a close call at best by the Government Cabinet of the day. However the underlying fundamentals continue to be against rail. Increased road investment is about to occur making rail’s competitive position even weaker.

It has to be acknowledged, though by the rail industry, that it has had a lot of funding over the past few years and the nation has yet to see it perform to the standards expected from this investment. This is disappointing for the industry so I have absolutely no doubt that all the matters pre examined in the history of Rail in New Zealand will be looked at once again and as such the industry is again under existential threat despite progress in the period since 2015.

Future Outlook

It is probably that further reform of the network is required but fundamentally until the elephant in the room is addressed, Rail in New Zealand will continue to significantly underperform to its full potential.

The elephant in the room is pro -roading investment and incremental improvements to roading networks through Roads of National Significance (four laning of major roads across

New Zealand) as this has continued to erode rail’s competitiveness over time in terms of transit time on road as well as its weight carrying capacity. Not only does it do this but it crowds out capital for Rail – after all there is only so much money to go into Land Transport.

From a customer and user perspective, the problem to be solved is how do we sustain efficient, reliable transport connectivity that delivers the service promise to make our exporters and importers competitive on the international market. Rail is a key enabler and link in the transport network in the same way that roads and the Interisland link are.

As for passenger rail nationally across New Zealand and my Vision on that previously released by me – these will need to be paused for a while whilst we fight for the very existence of the Rail network itself as its very existence is under threat. Without a Rail network there can be no national passenger rail service.

As a final note I have been warning on this for the past ten plus years and the below link to my Blog republished on 12 December 2023 referring to the original blogs made in the 2012 to 2015 period, can be found here: https:// www.heriot-edievale.com/ post/flashback-to-2015-isgroundhog-day-about-tohappen-again-to-kiwirailin-2024

Michael van Drogenbroek is a Rail, Freight and Public Transport Consultant & Advisor

Navigating trends & challenges in workplace health & safety

The National Health & Safety Leaders’ Summit, set to unfold in 2024, promises a dynamic exploration of the latest developments, trends, and challenges in the ever-evolving landscape of workplace health and safety.

On the Plenary Day One of the Summit, an impressive lineup of speakers is poised to deliver critical insights and practical strategies to safety leaders navigating the complexities of their roles.

Exploring the Evolving Health & Safety Environment

Kicking off the summit, Robyn Bennett, President of the New Zealand Institute of Safety Management, will spearhead discussions on the latest trends in health & safety management.

From changing market conditions to economic shifts and workplace trends, Bennett will shed light on how these factors impact safety leaders. Emphasizing a redefined business ecosystem with a focus on worker safety and wellbeing, she will draw lessons from recent highprofile workplace health and safety challenges.

Keynote on Adapting to Change and Delivering Outcomes

Following Bennett, Steve Haszard, Chief Executive of WorkSafe, will deliver a keynote addressing

organizational change and expected responses within the health & safety sector. He will delve into the impact of WorkSafe’s new strategy on safety leaders and elucidate how performance measurement mechanisms will shape the sector's future.

Driving Cultural Transformation

Christian Hunt, Founder of Human Risk Ltd, brings an international perspective to the summit. His keynote will explore driving transformation in organizational culture to embed safety. By delving into the interface of culture, human factors, and behavioural science, Hunt aims to provide actionable strategies for fostering continuous improvement in safety culture.

Engaging Leadership and Front-Line Teams in Culture Change

Derek Toner, Director of Engaging Solutions, will share insights on driving culture change by engaging with leadership and front-line teams.

Toner will emphasize the pivotal role of visibility in culture change and the responsibilities of safety

leaders in co-designing safer working practices.

Māori Health & Safety Framework: A Cultural-Centric Approach

Moira Loach, Senior Health & Safety Advisor, and Jodhi Warwick-Ponga, Board Trustee, will introduce the Haumaru Tāngata (Māori Health & Safety) Framework. Addressing the overrepresentation of Māori in workplace statistics, they will outline the framework’s components and application in workplace health & safety initiatives.

Legal Landscape, Compliance, and Case Studies

Grant Nicholson, Partner at Anthony Harper, will discuss the evolving legal landscape of health & safety in New Zealand, highlighting recent legislation, regulatory changes, and court cases. The summit will also feature a panel discussion on the role of health & safety leaders in critical incidents, and insights from Women In Safety Excellence NZ on shaping the future of health & safety.

In essence, the National

Health & Safety Leaders’ Summit promises a comprehensive journey through the nuances of health and safety leadership, providing attendees with actionable insights and strategies to enhance workplace safety and wellbeing.

Attendees can tailor their conference experience with Day Two Streams For safety leaders traversing the dynamic intersection of technology and safety you can attend Stream A which will focus on emerging technologies; including trends that leverage AI to enhance safety through virtual reality.

Wellbeing at work is on the radar for many organisations and Stream B will delve into topics ranging from psychological health and safety obligations to preventing worker burnout and promoting resilience at work.

The event will be held on 19-20 March at the Ellerslie Events Centre in Auckland and you can view the programme at brightstar. co.nz/safety

National Health & Safety Leaders’ Summit

19 - 20 MARCH 2024 ELLERSLIE EVENTS CENTRE, AUCKLAND

Critical insights for leaders to improve workplace safety & wellbeing

WHAT’S ON

DAY 1 : 19 MARCH

Plenary Stream

DAY 2 : 20 MARCH

Choose between: OR

STREAM A Innovation & Technology in Health & Safety

STREAM B Health & Wellbeing at Work

brightstar.co.nz/safety

STEVE HASZARD Chief Executive WorkSafe

CHRISTIAN HUNT Founder Human Risk

ROBYN BENNETT President New Zealand Institute of Safety Management

SARAH MCGUINNESS Founder & CEO Revolutionaries of Wellbeing

MARK LESLIE CEO Pāmu

JOANNE VAN DEN BERG Head of Safety & Wellbeing Foodstuffs NI

continue to feel disappointed and frustrated at the previous government for botching this project so badly that it was further from becoming a reality in 2023 than it was when they took it over in 2017.

Under Labour’s first transport minister Phil Twyford, Waka Kotahi were ready to start delivering it, and my understanding is they had contracts ready to sign to start enabling works – that was, until the government got distracted by the NZ Super Fund proposal – which then led to the bizarre twin-track process that saw Waka Kotahi competing with the NZ Super Fund for who would build it. It turns out the Super Fund would have won the gig, had Winston Peters not blocked it a few months out from the 2020 election.

The next transport minister, Michael Wood, reset the process in 2021 – but notably put in charge the same consultants who were behind Waka Kotahi’s failed bid in the previous process; and this resulted in the tunnelled light rail proposal which bloated the cost of the project.

I feel that both Phil Twyford and Michael Wood got distracted by thinking they could be the ones to right the wrongs of the past – for example, the abandonment of schemes like that pushed by Sir Dove-Myer Robinson. Both often repeated the urban legends that have built up around ‘Robbie’s Rail‘ but ignored the hardlearned lessons, that any programme needs to be fundable and builable in a rational, staged way. They were certainly encouraged by some officials and industry players to ‘build big‘ from the start, and not repeat the experience of the Harbour Bridge which soon

Auckland light rail what went wrong

Light rail was a key part of Labour’s policy platform when they were elected to office in 2017 – they were even handed a scheme by Auckland Transport that had seen significant design work already undertaken, yet in six years nothing was achieved and the project has been cancelled, Greater Auckland’s Matt Lowrie says

needed to be expanded again – even though (as the Harbour Bridge example shows), taking a staged approach would likely have resulted in a better overall system.

Had they not been distracted, light rail along Dominion Rd would be in operation now – but sadly, the concept is probably now dead for a generation due to Labour’s mismanagement.

I do think discussion about Light Rail will come back at

some stage, but probably not for a decade or more. The reality is the factors behind the need for it still exist, such as that there is only limited space in the city centre for more buses. Reductions in public transport use since COVID have brought probably a few years reprieve but usage is rising again and will eventually get back to, and exceed, those pre-pandemic levels and that will reignite the discussion about higher capacity options.

And speaking of the type of capacity light rail can deliver, it’s notable that Sydney’s 12km CBD and Southeast light rail line, which opened just before the pandemic, recorded 31 million trips in 2023. That’s the same as what Labour’s Tunnelled Light Rail was estimated to achieve in 30 years.

Contruction of the Sydney Metro West started in 2020 and when completed in 2032 it will connect Greater Parramatta and the Sydney CBD.

In December 2023 the New South Wales (NSW) government announced the potential for more stations to help drive new housing supply.

Sydney Metro has been directed to work on increasing the delivery of new housing supply along the Metro West alignment, to support the government’s plan to build more well-located homes near new and existing transport infrastructure.

The government acknowledges that if it is to create more housing supply that will drive down the cost of renting or buying a home, Sydney is going to have to change. This means well-located houses and apartments near well-connected transport infrastructure.

The NSW government has directed Sydney Metro to complete scoping studies for up to 2 new stations to be constructed west of Sydney Olympic Park, along the existing planned route, with a decision made based on their ability to drive greater urban infill housing.

The announcement has been endorsed by the recommendations of the Sydney Metro Independent Review.

Independent reviewers Amanda Yeates and Mike Mrdak have concluded their thorough analysis of the Sydney Metro project. Their findings include:

• The government should commit to the current 9 station alignment of Sydney Metro West at a minimum, targeting an opening date of 2032. The reviewers made a

Rail drives housing solutions in Sydney

While the new government puts the brakes on light rail in Auckland, Sydney is steaming ahead with its new 24-kilometre metro line and is making plans for extra stations to encourage tens of thousands of new houses

point of noting the “arbitrary” nature of the previously announced delivery date determined by the former government.

• Ensure the current design and construction plans do not preclude additional stations from being considered as station locations in future.

• That Sydney Metro to provide a consolidated property and placemaking strategy across all existing lines to support the government’s priorities regarding housing supply.

• That a business case should be prepared

to improve bus and active transport connections to broaden the catchment of the existing alignment.

Sydney Metro West will ensure tens of thousands of people will be able to live next to a ‘turn up and go’ service that connects them to their jobs, their services and their communities with a train every 4 minutes.

Sydney Metro will move to shortlist delivery partners and develop a procurement model that provides opportunities to get the most housing and the best return from this significant investment for the people of NSW.

25,000 new homes on Rosehill Racecourse

The critical need to deliver housing in well located areas, along transport links means the NSW government has commenced discussions with the Australian Turf Club (ATC) on a proposal to relocate Rosehill Racecourse and build up to 25,000 new homes, surrounded by greenspace and a new Sydney Metro West station.

The proposal, which was brought to the NSW Government by the ATC, centres around the potential to build more than 25,000 new homes on the Rosehill Racecourse site. This would allow the government to explore the feasibilty of a new Metro West Station at Rosehill.

Dumping one Road of National Significance would pay for fast intercity rail

No one is asking for a Japanese bullet train, but their standard 160km/h services on the other hand already run on the same narrow gauge as New Zealand – it wouldn’t be hard or expensive to do here, transport commentator Ben Ross says

The idea of hourly inter-city passenger train services between Auckland to Hamilton, and every two hours out to Tauranga, is not so farfetched.

Starting with Auckland to Hamilton, whether it is done as a full public venture or as a Public-Private Partnership, there are capital expenditure costs to bring the infrastructure

up to scratch, allowing for 120km/h services (the L1 Line Speed currently allowed for passenger services).

The total for just Auckland to Hamilton, with trains

running both ways every hour, would be $1.243 billion – or the price of just one of the 13 Roads of National Significance, the fourlane highways the current National-led government

wish to build.

The $1.243 billion broken down looks like:

• $103 million to bring Tuakau, Pokeno, Te Kawahata, Huntly, Ngāruawāhia and Hamilton Stations up to scratch, including necessary interchanges with other modes, and interfaces with wider urban areas.

• $30 million for the duplication of the rail bridge at Ngāruawāhia, including two level crossing upgrades

• $10 million for a Third Platform at Puhinui Station on the Third Main

• $500m for rolling stock. This would consist of a diesel/ electric hybrid that can run both on the wires at Auckland (and eventually Hamilton) and off the wires to Tauranga. Passenger capacity is 500 with 400 in Commuter Class, and 100 in Premier Class. Also, luggage and bike compartments needed.

• $300m for depot in the Waikato and the HQ

• $300m for duplication of the single track out the back of Meremere (which also includes foundational work for electrification in that stretch)

For an extra $600 million we get full electrification to Hamilton.

The extra amount to allow services to Tauranga would be:

• $1 billion for a duplicate Kaimai Tunnel (should be borne by the Public Purse although a private operator for

passenger services can pay towards it through track access fees as part of their concession)

• $100m to bring the existing tunnel up to scratch effectively allow dual main operations with both tunnels

• $500m to bring the East Coast Main Trunk Line up to speed to support the trains including more passing loops (add another $500m for full duplication – a cost that should be borne by KiwiRail given it benefits freight)

• $100m for new stations including Morrinsville, Tauranga and Mount Maunganui

• $50m for stabling depot at Mt Maunganui

• $100m for additional rolling stock (and allowance for extra services in peak-onpeak conditions)

So the total costs for Tauranga services (not including full duplication) would be $1.85 billion. All up, a regular 120km/h Auckland-HamiltonTauranga passenger train service would cost $3.693 billion, or the price of around 2.5 Roads of National Significance.

One thing to note with the costs is that some of the benefits spill over into freight as well by allowing more and faster freight trains on those two respective lines. So any track or tunnel upgrades need to bear this in mind as well, especially if a PPP for passenger is to be considered.

Enter Japan

$3.7 billion for passenger

services and better freight services on a 100year asset timeframe is extraordinarily good value for money compared to four-lane highways of the same value, but with 50-year asset timeframes. That is not even including emissions, congestion, and the efficiencies of rail over roads for long distance passenger and freight movements (reductions of deaths and serious injuries on the road, productivity boosts, energy efficiency of steel wheels on steel tracks compared to rubber wheels on oil-based asphalt). I have not included tourism benefits either, nor benefits to land around the stations for subsequent TransitOriented Developments either.

But New Zealand is not very great at these sorts of large projects in terms of planning, procurement, construction nor operations. Look at IREX (the ferries), the Waikato Expressway and Transmission Gully repairs, and other large civic projects.

So why not bring in the world masters of transit especially rail transit, Japan?

Japan are world renowned for their rail systems (most are privately owned), their reliability, punctuality, and their rather large transitoriented developments in, around, above and below their stations as well. We should bring in the masters for Auckland-HamiltonTauranga inter-city services due to high population growth allowing guaranteed patronage if you provide a decent enough rail offering.

In bringing in Japan for these Inter-City Services we will need to recognise these three things for them to even consider wanting to invest into inter-city

services in the upper North Island:

1. Public Private Partnership and who bears what upfront costs especially with track upgrades also benefiting KiwiRail’s freight services

2. Japan likely to design, build, own and run these services on a multi-decade concession before the assets either return to public control or Japan continues on with them

3. How to handle any Transit Oriented Developments (TOD) with both the stations and around the stations given it is the TODs that make the bulk of income and asset base for Japanese rail schemes. Do not get me wrong, some Japan-styled TODs would be most welcome into New Zealand, but if we are having Japan operate on a concession for the trains, how the TODs are handled especially when the concession runs out need to be factored in.

Once these three points along with the upfront costs are considered, I see no reason why someone like Japan Rail on a 35 year concession operate an Auckland to Hamilton service, and Auckland to Tauranga service. For the most part the OPEX and the majority of the CAPEX is kept off the Government’s books although arrangements for Tauranga service upgrades, and how we handle the benefits to the freight network.

Creating a healthy workplace starts with a solid foundation for wellbeing – the overall physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, and social health of people. A positive culture, increased productivity, higher staff retention, and better health and safety outcomes are just some of the benefits that come from making wellbeing a key focus of an organisation.

Leading health and safety organisation Site Safe New Zealand is on a journey to work with the construction industry to shift the approach to wellbeing in the workplace and set people up for success with the tools and resources they need to support wellbeing.

Since the release of a 2019 research report conducted by Site Safe into suicide in New Zealand’s construction industry, there has been acknowledgement from industry that mentally healthy and well workplaces have benefits for both health and safety and business success.

“We know how important it is to destigmatise the idea of looking after ourselves, especially in our industries who have typically had more of a ‘toughen up’ attitude when it comes to our wellbeing,” says Brett Murray, Site Safe New Zealand Chief Executive.

“We already work with key partners like MATES in Construction and Hato Hone St John to provide resources and training courses focusing on mental health in the industry, but we knew there was more we could do to support our industry and members, and in particular

Setting up for success with a solid foundation for wellbeing

small organisations who don’t have the financial resources to invest in this area.”

This year, Site Safe has partnered with Ignite Aotearoa to give Site Safe members free access to their

are evidence-based, easy to access, flexible and affordable, with a focus on partnering with workplaces to enhance employee wellbeing.

Site Safe are also investing in the wellbeing of the industry by sponsoring a

online platform and a large range of mental health and wellbeing resources, information, and workshops.

Ignite Aotearoa is a social wellbeing enterprise backed by Emerge Aotearoa – one of New Zealand’s largest independent mental health and social service organisations. Ignite Aotearoa’s mental health and wellbeing offerings

number of one-on-one support sessions so members can try out one of the services offered by the platform. Ignite

Aotearoa hosts over 100 different providers, including financial advisors, human resource consultants, occupational therapists, dietitians, social workers, counsellors, psychologists, and more.

“80% of our members are

small businesses who may not have ready access to tools and resources that support workplace wellbeing,” explains Murray. “We want to support our members to create a solid foundation for wellbeing by giving them access to a wide range of information and support that suits their needs.”

“Both our organisations have strongly aligned values,” says Murray. “Like us, Ignite Aotearoa believe New Zealanders should be able to access mental health and wellbeing support whenever they need it.”

By being proactive and getting support, employers can set a positive example for workers. Being open, honest, and free of judgement is a sure way to ensure people feel comfortable speaking up and ask for help when they need it.

To learn more, visit

https://www.sitesafe.org. nz/news--events/news/ new-member-benefit-igniteaotearoa/

The ETS alone won’t reduce transport emissions

Upping the cost of fuel to incentivise cleaner travel options will only work if those options are available in the first place, says Malcolm McCracken in Better Things Are Possible

The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is a cap-and-trade scheme operating in New Zealand that places a price on domestic carbon emissions (excluding agriculture), creating a financial incentive for businesses and individuals to transition towards cleaner and more sustainable practices.

For transport, you pay into the ETS when you purchase fuel. As the carbon price rises, this will be reflected in the cost of fuel, encouraging fuel customers to reduce their carbon emissions by opting for more fuelefficient vehicles, adopting alternative fuels, or using other transport options like public transport.

This will help reduce emissions from transport, assuming carbon prices continue to rise. However, there are real risks with relying only on the ETS to reduce emissions from the transport system.

A key risk is that this ignores the effects of the transport and land-use system we have established in New Zealand. The reality

is that many people have little choice but to drive because we have created a built environment and transport system that is cardependent and thus high emissions by design.

Today, many Kiwis suffer from what is defined as transport disadvantage, where people have limited options to participate in everyday activities and

transport poverty, people who pay more than they can reasonably afford for travel. Unless we invest in transport choices, we risk exacerbating this issue and pricing more people out of participation in society.

Taking a carrot-and-stick approach will deliver a more secure policy platform that is more likely to deliver the emissions reductions we need from the transport system. The “stick” is the pricing of carbon through ETS, to make people consider alternatives and reduce their emissions from transport. The “carrot” in this scenario is providing transport choices through investments in public transport, walking, cycling and micro-mobility.

These investments will create a choice on whether to take public transport, walk or cycle more often, but also incentivise more fuel efficient or electric vehicles, trip chaining

to minimise driving and choosing to live closer to their place of work and other regular destinations.

However, without those choices, as is currently the case in many parts of our towns and cities across the country, we risk public pushback against the ETS. In this scenario, there is a serious risk that support for the ETS becomes politically unsustainable and it will fail. This is why we need a system change in our transport and land-use system.

But what about the market?

Pricing emissions in transport is a marketcentric policy, so what about the market solutions for alternative transport solutions?

Unsubsidised transport does exist in some contexts, where there is sufficient demand. However, in most

contexts, there is significant public investment to generate economic and social good. This is particularly true in New Zealand, where all transport is dependent on public investment to function. We collectively pay for roads, public transport, cycleways and footpaths through fuel taxes and road user charges, our rates and general taxation because of the public good this creates.

All of these solutions will continue to require public investment. In order to reduce emissions from transport and create resilience through mode and network choice, we need to:

• use right-sized public transport solutions, which support growth while removing car dependency.

• improve resiliency in our roading network as the climate changes.

• invest in infrastructure to make it safe to walk, cycle and scoot for local trips to reduce car dependency.

• make changes to our land-use planning system to make it easier to build more homes, at higher densities, in accessible locations in our cities.

Put simply, if there is no public investment in these solutions, they will not exist when the ETS really ramps up the cost of driving. To succeed, we need the ETS to provide the right price signals and we need to make the right investments to provide transport choice. The end result is a more inclusive New Zealand through better transport choices.

Global emissions reach record high

Instead of fossil fuel emissions dropping sharply and rapidly this year, which was needed to ease climate change, the latest Global Carbon Budget is calling 2023 the worst year yet

Global emissions from fossil use in 2023 are projected to hit a record high of 36.8 billion tonnes, rising 1.1%. Emissions from all fossil sources (coal, oil, gas) are projected to have increased, with the highest growth from oil, projected to rise 1.5 per cent. The growth in oil emissions is largely due to resumption of ground transport and aviation following the shutdowns during the COVID-19

pandemic.

Coal emissions, which represent 41 per cent of global emissions, are projected to increase 1.1 per cent.

Emissions from permanent forest loss through deforestation remain too high to be offset by current CO₂ removals from reforestation or afforestation.

While emissions are declining in some countries, these efforts aren’t enough

to reverse the overall growth in global fossil fuel emissions. Recent progress is not fast enough or widespread enough to put global emissions on a downward trajectory towards net zero.

Annual analysis indicates that if current global carbon dioxide emission levels persist, there is a one-intwo chance the Earth’s climate system would reach 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels in about seven years,

says Global Carbon Project Executive Director Dr Pep Canadell.

The Paris Agreement commits to pursuing efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

“The latest Global Carbon Budget shows progress in an increasing number of countries but faster, larger, and sustained efforts are needed to avoid significant negative impacts of climate change on human health,

the economy, and the environment,” Dr Canadell says.

“If the temperature targets of the Paris Agreement are crossed, the global effort to reach net zero emissions will require a massive, and perhaps unachievable, scale-up of deliberate carbon dioxide removal to bring down global temperatures.”

What is the Global Carbon Budget?

The Global Carbon Budget provides detailed information about the natural and anthropogenic sources and sinks of carbon dioxide worldwide and is produced through peerreviewed scientific papers.

The Global Carbon Budget was first produced in 2006 to establish a common and mutually agreed knowledge base on greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It is an international research project within the Future

Earth research initiative on global sustainability and a research partner of the World Climate Research Programme.

The Global Carbon Budget has contributed to the first Global Stocktake to be released at COP28.

The analysis is also an important input to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which reports on climate change caused by human activities.

What’s new in the 2023 Global Carbon Budget?

• The extreme fire season in the northern hemisphere, particularly fires in Canada, counteracted an observed decline in emissions from fires in tropical regions and drove carbon dioxide emissions higher than the global average

since satellite records began in 2003. Global emissions from fires for January-October 2023 were 10-28 per cent above the 20032022 average.

• The 2023-24 El Niño event will further increase carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. An El Niño event brings hotter, drier weather. The Global Carbon Project anticipates that El Niño will mean terrestrial natural carbon sinks are less effective in taking up of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and leading to higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and warming. Hotter and drier conditions in most of the tropics lead to a decline in their carbon sink strength. The ocean sink usually increases during El Niño

years but does not completely offset the decline in the land sinks.

• Carbon dioxide removal, while small, is accounted for the first time in the budget. Carbon dioxide removal is where deliberate, human activity takes carbon out of the atmosphere. The budget says carbon dioxide removal from afforestation and reforestation accounted for 1.9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, equivalent to about 5% of fossil emissions. Carbon removal not based on vegetation (industrial removal and the use of certain minerals) was responsible for offsetting only several thousand tonnes in 2023.

How much of global warming has happened already?

The 2015 Paris Agreement aimed to limit temperature rises to 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels, but a recent study involving sea sponges suggests we may have already failed

Global mean surface temperatures may have already passed 1.5 °C of warming and could exceed 2 °C by the end of the decade, a paper published in Nature Climate Change suggests. The projections are based on 300 years of ocean temperature records preserved in sclerosponge skeletons from the Caribbean.

Historical observations and data are limited for ocean temperatures; however, proxy records allow for the examination of historical events. One of those proxies is the sclerosponge, a long-lived species that records chemical changes in its calcium carbonate

skeleton, serving as a natural archive of ocean temperatures.

Malcolm McCulloch and colleagues used samples of sclerosponges collected in the eastern Caribbean, where the natural variability of temperatures is less than at other locations, to explore temperatures in the ocean mixed layer (the region in the water that interacts with the atmosphere) over the past 300 years.

On the basis of these sponge records, the authors show that the pre-industrial period can be defined by stable temperatures from 1700 to 1790 and from 1840 to 1860, with a gap defined by cooling related to volca-

nic activity. They suggest that warming related to human activity commenced from the mid-1860s, with clear emergence by the mid-1870s. This is around 80 years before instrumental sea surface records indicated, but is in line with previous palaeoclimate reconstructions.

The authors suggest that these findings have implications for current projections of global warming. They indicate that their records show that for the reference period (1961 to 1990) used to calculate anomalies, the ocean mixed layer and land surface temperatures increased by around 0.9 °C relative to the newly defined

pre-industrial period. This is compared to current estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1850-1900 pre-industrial period of 0.4 °C. Using their temperature record, the authors estimate that 1.5 °C of warming may have been reached and that a mean surface warming of 1.7 °C could have occurred between 2018 and 2022.

On the basis of their records, McCulloch and colleagues indicate that the opportunity to limit Earth’s warming below 1.5 °C may have passed, and the goal to keep warming below 2 °C could be exceeded by the end of the decade.

How long do we have to limit global warming?

The window is fast closing for us to cut carbon emissions and reduce the severity of global warming, a new study finds

The amount of carbon that humans can still emit, while also limiting warming to 1.5 °C relative to pre-industrial levels, may be exhausted within the next 6 years, suggests a study published in Nature Climate Change.

The findings are based on a re-evaluation of existing estimates and indicate that carbon budgets for staying within the temperature targets set out in the Paris Agreement may be lower than previously estimated.

The remaining carbon budget (RCB) represents the net quantity of CO2 that can be emitted without overshooting a particular warming threshold. It is one of the key parameters for

planning decarbonization pathways under the Paris Agreement, which sets the goal of limiting warming to below 2 °C, and aims to limit warming to 1.5 °C relative to pre-industrial levels, to minimize the worst impacts of climate change.

However, despite its importance, calculating the RCB is associated with large levels of uncertainty, owing to the influence of other factors, including warming from gasses other than CO2 and the ongoing effects of emissions that are not accounted for in models.

Robin Lamboll and colleagues use an updated dataset and methodology

to estimate the RCB and characterise some of the existing uncertainty. Their calculations suggest that the RCB for a 50% chance of constraining warming to 1.5 °C is 250 gigatonnes of CO2 (GtCO2), as of January 2023. They indicate that this is around half of existing estimates.

At current emissions levels, they suggest that the RCB to limit warming to 1.5 °C may be exhausted within 6 years.

The authors also estimate that the RCB for a 50% chance of keeping warming below 2 °C is 1,200 GtCO2. They suggest that if emissions continued at 2022 levels (around 40 GtCO2 emitted per year),

this is roughly equivalent to an RCB of 23 years and 12 years for a 66% or 90% chance, respectively, of limiting warming to 2 °C.

The authors note that their findings highlight the impact that different factors have on the RCB, but note that their re-evaluation also contains some uncertainties.

“The findings laid out by Lamboll and colleagues illustrate that any calculation, no matter how rigorous, is subject to change with revised data and understanding”, writes Benjamin Sanderson in an accompanying News & Views article.

How are cities responding to extreme weather?

Weather events are becoming more unpredictable, more intense and more damaging, posing huge challenges in both preparing for and recovering from their growing impact, says Jeremy Kelly, Global Director of Cities Research at JLL

From extreme heat across southern Europe to the heaviest rainfall on record in Shenzhen and Hong Kong, to flooding in Brazil and cyclones devastating parts of southern Africa, cities face unprecedented physical risks.

Four in five cities across the world now face significant climate hazards such as heatwaves, floods

and droughts, according to non-profit CDP, which surveyed 998 cities. Much of this extreme weather is down to a changing climate, and in the latter part of 2023, it’s coupled with the cyclical effects of El Nino. Many cities are facing multiple threats from extreme weather. While they currently establish longer-term resilience plans, they’re also having to deal

with the immediate consequences of unprecedented and costly weather events.

Changing weather patterns have huge implications for real estate and the people that live in cities. For nearly a third of cities surveyed by CDP, climate-related hazards pose a threat to at least 70% of their populations.

More than 90% of the world’s largest compa-

nies will have at least one asset – offices, factories, warehouses or data centers – financially exposed to climate risks such as water stress, wildfires or floods by the 2050s, according to S&P Global.

Standing up to the heat

Rising temperatures have broken records for longer

and more intense heatwaves in multiple urban areas in recent years. Cities, in response, are implementing a range of policies and measures to cool their streets.

City-appointed chief heat officers are increasingly leading the charge on tackling soaring temperatures and keeping local populations safe. Sierra Leone’s capital, Freetown, recently appointed Africa’s first chief heat officer, a role that cities such as Miami, Melbourne and Monterrey in Mexico have also invested in.

Being prepared is critical. Heatwaves are a growing issue for cities, often piling pressure on aging energy infrastructure to keep buildings cool through air conditioning. In turn, this is adding to carbon emissions (unless energy comes from renewable sources), fuelling longer-term global warming. Instead, nature-based solutions can help to cool urban areas in a more environmentally friendly way.

Medellin in Colombia reduced urban heat island effects by 2°C in three years by creating 30 green corridors. The tree-shaded routes, featuring tens of thousands of native trees and tropical plants, includes new bike lanes and walkways across the city.

It’s not just about planting trees; it’s also about keeping them alive in a changing climate. As part of Paris’ plans to plant 170,000 trees by 2026, it is growing a variety heat-resilient species in different locations depending on their water and sunlight needs.

Traditional city infrastructure is also undergoing a rethink. South Korea’s capital Seoul removed a major elevated thoroughfare through its centre, opening up access to the river and low-

ering urban heat by at least half a degree Celsius. Vienna in Austria has developed its cool streets initiative with four permanent and 18 pop-up streets featuring a mixture of light-coloured road surfaces with traffic

thinking around wider resilience in city regulations. Many buildings are unprepared for the climate risks they now face and owners don’t understand the impact until it’s too late.

restrictions, “fog showers” on hot days, water features and tree cover.

Roofs, too, are coming into focus. Many cities have introduced legislation requiring green roofs on new, and sometimes, existing buildings. Some cities are providing financial incentives to install green infrastructure. Hamburg in Germany subsidizes green roofing measures with grants up to €100,00 while New York has revamped its green roof tax abatement program.

As a different tactic, cities such as New York and Los Angeles are painting rooftops white to reflect sunlight.

Resilience measures need to be more explicitly incorporated into existing building codes and city-level regulations. Take Japan, for example, where they have very rigorous building codes relating to earthquakes and they’re ahead of the curve on cyclones. We need to expand that

Turning the tide on flooding

Heavy rainfall is a critical threat facing many of today’s cities. Research from C40 looking at almost 100 member cities, found flooding could cause $64 billion of damage to urban areas each year by 2050, even with current levels of flood protections in place.

Meanwhile, non-profit First Street Foundation and engineering firm Arup identified 730,000 retail, office and multi-unit residential properties at annualized risk of flood damage in the U.S. costing over $16.9 billion a year by 2052.

Some cities, especially those in coastal areas, are already taking pre-emptive measures. Shanghai, New York and Cardiff are improving their “sponginess” by implementing inner-city gardens, improved river drainage and more vegetation.

After a 2011 rainstorm

which cost around $1 billion in damages, Copenhagen constructed its Enghaveparken. Located at the bottom of a hill, it contains numerous chambers to hold and safely manage heavy rain. Rotterdam’s Watersquare Benthemplein, equally transforms from a sunken public plaza and basketball court into a major stormwater basin during heavy rain.

The storms that often bring heavy rain are also causing disruption to infrastructure and business as usual operations. It’s leading some cities to invest in microgrids, self-sufficient energy systems that can generate and store their own power and distribute it locally to connected buildings.

In Columbus, Ohio, a severe storm in 2022 left hundreds of thousands of residents without power for nearly a week. The city recently installed the first of five planned microgrids with 100 kW of onsite solar generation and 440 kWh of battery energy storage. San Diego is likewise investing in eight microgrids to support both short-term resilience and its longer-term goal of being powered 100 percent by renewables by 2035.

Today’s cities need to be willing to think boldly about potential resilience measures and collaborate widely to share knowledge about what is working. Cities like Melbourne, Sydney, Amsterdam and Paris have been pioneers in developing climate resilience strategies but as climate risks continue to mount, even these will need to evolve. No city can afford to be complacent about what increasingly extreme weather means for their buildings or people.

Changing the way we plan infrastructure resilience

A new report on infrastructure vulnerabilities and resilience has been released by the New Zealand Lifelines Council, focusing particularly on the interdependencies between infrastructure sectors

This iteration of Aotearoa New Zealand’s Critical Infrastructure: A National Vulnerability Assessment broadens its scope from earlier releases (2017, 2020), to include Flood Protection, Solid Waste, Fast Moving Consumer Goods, and Financial Payments infrastructure sectors.

The report aims to stimulate awareness, particularly about interdependencies between infrastructure sectors, and drive a change in approach to prioritising resilience investment in infrastructure to best meet

our community needs.

Strengthening the resilience of infrastructure is a key focus of Rautaki Hanganga o Aotearoa –New Zealand Infrastructure Strategy. This includes considering the extent to which critical infrastructure networks rely on one another to function. This we experienced this very clearly with Cyclone Gabrielle – where electricity disruptions, for instance, also disrupted communities’ water and communication networks.

Climate change is only one of a range of hazards we must plan for – including

cyber-security threats, volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunami.

Because our time and resources are finite, interventions need to be planned, prioritised, efficient and effective. The latest National Vulnerability Assessment will help to inform and accelerate our thinking around adaptation. This includes us, as individuals, businesses, communities, and as a nation, better understanding the risks, and deciding what resilience levels we’re willing to accept and pay for. Resilience needs to be

properly integrated into the investment, planning and recovery frameworks, as well as maintenance strategies, of critical infrastructure owners – at local, regional and national levels. The report says that regional infrastructure resilience business cases would help support and prioritise across infrastructure systems.

The report is available to read on the New Zealand Lifelines Council website: NZ Lifelines – Home

Predicting the big one

A major earthquake is likely to occur on the South Island’s Alpine Fault in the next 50 years – predicting when or where is not currently possible, but a recent study suggests large earthquakes can give off seismic signals months to years beforehand

Unique seismic signals may be detected months to years before some large earthquakes, such as those preceding the 2023 magnitude 7.8 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake in Türkiye and also strongly felt in Syria, suggests a Nature Communications paper.

The authors suggest that the development of earthquake warning systems would require more local and regional detection networks, as well as the monitoring of secondary faults, accompanying the main rupturing faults. The findings may improve our ability to improve the forecasting of some future large earthquakes.

Despite the urgent social-economic need to warn

people and protect critical infrastructure, short term prediction of earthquake magnitude, time, and location is currently not possible. In some cases, the processes leading to an earthquake may have an extended duration of months to years, which can be monitored and potentially recognized. However, tracking these processes and identifying seismic signals as indicators of an upcoming large earthquake remains challenging.

On 6th February 2023, a high magnitude earthquake struck the East Anatolian Fault Zone causing widespread damage and casualties in Türkiye and Syria. The rupture started at a secondary fault, and then propagated to the main

fault.

Patricia Martínez-Garzón and colleagues found that there was an acceleration in the seismic event rates and larger energy release starting from approximately 8 months prior to the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake, organized in clusters within 65 km of the epicenter.

Although the main rupture occurred on a fault and in a region previously identified to have a very high seismic hazard potential, the preparatory signals took place both on the main fault and on a secondary fault, which had previously received little attention.

Although some large earthquakes may display a monitorable preparation phase, the authors note

that, owing to the large number of variables, recognizing such signals and using them for mid-term earthquake forecasting remains challenging.

The findings highlight the challenges of detecting the preparation and nucleation phase of large earthquakes. A full understanding of the preparatory phenomena would be necessary for the development of future warning systems, the authors suggest. More comprehensive earthquake monitoring together with long-term seismic records may improve our ability to recognize earthquake preparation processes from other regional deformation transients.

Chemical safety relies on meaningful cooperation

Expanding government-industry partnerships to help business operators should be a no brainer. Inviting enquirers to read the regulations falls well short of educational expectations

Barry Dyer Chief Executive Responsible Care NZ

Today, chemical suppliers and their customers continue to adjust to the Covid operational environment.

They struggle with supply chain delays, the loss of experienced staff, frustration with unanswered queries to risk-averse authorities, inflexible and prescriptive regulations, rising compliance costs, diminishing resources and increasing public chemical safety expectations.

While 130,000 businesses are reportedly captured by the Hazardous Substances and Major Hazard Facilities regulations, the official mantra of “600-900 persons seriously harmed each year by unwanted exposure to chemicals in their workplace” presumably applies to all of the country’s 530,000 workplaces.

Increasing community concerns about vulnerability to unwanted chemical exposure and damage to our fragile environment places additional pressure on both suppliers and users of the chemicals.

We all need to sustain and improve our quality of life and these products must be safely managed throughout their life cycle.

Downgrading the flawed but effective HSNO Certified Handler requirement has inadvertently undermined an invaluable capability.

The action deprived businesses, particularly SMEs, of an immediate and recognisable source of workplace chemical safety and compliance advice -- a safe chemical handling capability and emergency response knowledge – critical when a chemical incident occurs.

PCBUs and SMEs must now devise their own solutions to ensure employees are competent to safely handle the chemicals with which they work.

Chemical industry leaders are moving away from relying on lagging indicators of safety performance in favour of identifying safer work practices and work-

places, by responding to workers’ suggestions about improvements.

Conscientious business operators can add value by sourcing accurate, cost-effective workplace chemical safety advice and compliance tools from their suppliers, industry partners and Responsible Care NZ.

A proven strategy is government agencies collaborating with proactive industry associations to best achieve workplace safety aspirations. The problem is that SMEs rarely join associations.

However, they all obtain their chemical requirements from suppliers and can benefit from product stewardship advice and cost-effective industry compliance initiatives.

Responsible Care NZ extols less regulation in favour of enabling business operators to be increasingly self-sufficient, using cost-effective products and services such as site compliance assessments and specialist training.

The focus is keeping people safe around the chemicals we encounter every day by adding value to businesses.

Responsible Care is a global voluntary chemical industry initiative developed autonomously by the chemical industry for the chemical industry.

Chemical suppliers continue to help customers achieve workplace chemical safety aspirations through product stewardship initiatives.

To help solve the in-house chemical compliance dilemma in New Zealand, Responsible Care NZ delivers specialist and cost-effective Certified Handler standard training, complete with a certificate.

Responsible Care NZ site compliance assessments are non-threatening, effectively capturing and assessing chemical safety performance in a variety of workplaces.

+64 4 499 4311

info@responsiblecarenz.com

www.responsiblecarenz.com

New Quest for you. Sustainability for us all.

New Zealand, we’ve got some exciting news

STAY IN THE HEART OF CHRISTCHURCH

Our brand-new Quest on Cambridge is opening this November. Enjoy introductory rates from $135 per night for stays from 15th November 2023 to 14th January 2024*.

SUSTAINABILITY IS HERE TO STAY

We’ve replaced almost all single-use plastic shampoo, conditioner and bodywash bottles with dispensers - removing 3.68 tonnes of plastic out of circulation. We’re also recycling old soap bars into new ones together with Soap Aid.

Find out more at soapaid.org

*Rates start at $135 for a studio and $155 for a 1-bedroom apartment all booked via the Quest App and the Quest website. All bookings must be for stays between November 15th 2023 to January 14th 2024 to qualify for the introductory rate.