general) has to be continually, officially denied to make it look like SH's can do the job of rail better. "because New Zealand's topography is so long and linear, favouring rail -- so the relevance of rail and related modes (e.g. light rail and trams, as well as all PT in general) has to be continually, officially denied to make it look like SH's can do the job of rail better" This is conspiratorial nonsense. Rail was never favoured in New Zealand once sealed highways and road transport became cost effective because the volumes, distances and loading gauges mitigated against it. Rail was propped up for decades because of the 30, 40 mile and 150 km limits banning road freight from competing with rail for most goods (this got whittled down as more and more goods were obviously badly suited for rail trips, starting with furniture and livestock). Most freight trips in New Zealand are relatively short and the double handling costs of going by road to a railhead that handles low volumes, a rail trip and then offloading onto road made it increasingly uncompetitive. It was exacerbated by the Railways Department being run as a classic government department, uncommercial, unresponsive statutory monopoly, heavily unionised with workplace practices that totally undermined it over many decades. Pilfering, rolling stock lying in yards and sidings for days and weeks on end providing "free" storage and a governance split based on engineering functions rather than users, meant NZR was a basket case. There