Joel Cayford is on the Auckland Regional Council, and keeps a most excellent blog where he comments on planning, transport and other matters quite regularly, and in good detail too. A post that he made a week or so ago included a table that really caught my eye:
London’s population in 2006 was just over six times Auckland’s population, and yet their transport emissions were below twice of ours. On a per-capita basis, your average Aucklander emitted (from transport) over three times as much CO2 as your average Londoner. Furthermore, transport emissions made up nearly half our our ‘carbon footprint’, while in London they are less than a quarter.
You don’t have to be a genius to work out that it’s our car dependency that has created this difference. In London people have a wide variety of transport options – and even if their Underground rail system is powered by coal power plants, the inherent efficiency of public transport clearly shines through. Obviously, London also has significantly different land-use patterns to Auckland – with higher densities and more mixed-use developments meaning that people don’t have to travel so far in their cars to undertake their daily activities. Over time Auckland is slowly shifting towards these kinds of land-use patterns, although the evolution is happening at a snail’s pace and even then our transport system isn’t really keeping up.
In the future, with an emissions trading scheme in place both here and internationally, there is going to be a direct cost to Auckland from this situation. If the price on emitting a tonne of CO2 in the future reaches something like $100 – that cost would be about $500 million a year – just from transport.
Just another reason to be worried about our car-dependency.
Processing...
I sure if you did this kind of comparison around the world Auckland would be at or near the bottom… Houston, Detroit or Kansas City bottom maybe..?
Houston and Phoenix are generally considered to be the very bottom. I think they’re the only two large cities in the world with lower per capita public transport use. Although Phoenix is building a light-rail system as we speak I think.
A lot of European people I talk to have nothing nice to say about the Brits. I wouldn’t exactly hold them up as setting the example compared to other European Cities. However in saying this, London is only moving forward with a congestion charging scheme and is years in advance to Auckland.
I guess this further shows how average Auckland is as a city, with officials pushing for public transport but the road lobby still getting there roads.
The thing I don’t understand is Houston has a LOT of heavy rail lines radiating out from the city… I don’t understand why they are building light rail lines instead of setting up electrified commuter rail..? Is it because of the really large amounts of freight they run on rail in the US..?
Brent, yes that is the point that I often make – for all the pro public transport talk that you see in plans and strategies, when it comes to the nitty gritty of allocating funds you see the roads still get the vast majority of funding. It’s like all the pro-PT talk is meant to distract people into thinking that they’re being sensible with their thinking, when in actual fact it’s just another roadsfest.
Jezza, light-rail systems seem to be under construction in a LOT of US cities. I guess this is because they have been successful where they have been built, and more cities are “jumping on the band-wagon”. Regarding rail freight, I know that a lot of freight is shifted by rail in the US, so perhaps there’s no room on their systems for passenger trains – or perhaps the lines just aren’t set up for passenger services (ie. largely running in industrial area?)
Yeah well a full 40% of all freight runs on rail in America, that is massive… America is actually MUCH better prepared for climate change and peak oil issues (transportation wise) then we are when you have look at their exisitng rail corridors, every city has a huge number of rail corridors in it they could utilise when they need and if they get serious about energy effiency and high speed rail they’ll be pretty set… Us on the other hand…
I’m sure a lot of their lines run through industrial areas but certainly enough would be out of their cities through residential areas to set up electrified commuter systems relatively easily… It seems to be a real mindset over there, heavy rail equals frieght, light rail and subways equal passengers… You can count the commuter rail networks over there on one hand…
SO the average living area of someone in Auckland vs London is what? Comparing London to Auckland is absurd. An old world city that is over a thousand years old, with a rail/metro network mostly financed by private enterprise over a century ago, and road network that is very badly built out. Urban density in London is another world compared to Auckland, as is the cost of living. This means public transport density is affordable, and much energy use in heating is also more “efficient”. However, very few have a garden, back yard for kids to play in. Commuting in London is not fun either, people live in London because of employment opportunities, cultural experiences and the like – I doubt many in London would think the transport is great. Most tube lines at peak times are crammed like sardines, and if you are wealthy you’ll get cabs in preference at far higher cost. May as well compare Pyongyang to Auckland and remark on how low the carbon emissions are there, and the lack of congestion. Very very different cities.
I realise it’s a very different city liberty. My point is that if we want to reduce our transport sector CO2 emissions we should look to become more like London – at least in some respects. From looking at London a fairly decent amount via Google Earth it would seem that terraced houses are some of the most common housing types – and each house has a garden.
Widespread terraced houses along main roads and around railway stations in Auckland seems like a very good way to intensify in my opinion.
Terraced housing has a garden for the ground floor flat, the other 2 (or 3 maybe including basement) flats have no access to it. These are usually not houses, they are former houses divided into flats on each floor. Living space in London is at a premium. If I ever move back to NZ it will not be to live anyway remotely like that. Furthermore when you get to the edges, it reverts to proper sections and houses, and London’s catchment area for commuters is more than double its metropolitan area (GLA jurisdiction), because so many have fled to get homes with gardens and space. They commute by rail to the centre and by car to the periphery. London’s sprawl continues, and the prices of property in London would make NZers weep – which is partially due to policies reducing the ability to use more land for low density housing. London thrives of course because it IS London – a world city, financial capital, trading centre and international hub for business services. Auckland is none of these.