As Matt wrote last week, Auckland Transport are keen to set up an electric car sharing scheme.
Auckland Transport intends to seek bids from national and international operators to establish a large-scale PEV based car-sharing scheme in Auckland. The successful scheme will be privately owned and operated.
I think it’s a ballsy move, and all of us here at TransportBlog seem to agree that it’s a good idea. To me, it’s another demonstration of the way in which AT are looking at ideas from all over the world, and trying to implement the best ones right here in Auckland. This, the light rail announcement and other recent decisions suggest that AT are being proactive and showing some real vision. Besides, if they keep looking at what cities are doing overseas, they can’t help but notice the extent to which other cities are investing in public and active transport rather than more roads… which has got to be a good influence for their own funding mix.
Anyway, that’s a little off-topic. Back to the current scheme. There are several reasons why I think it’s a good thing, in general terms. It combines the advantages of car sharing schemes…
- They can change people’s transport habits, and help reduce private car ownership. That saves people money, and makes more use of the vehicle resource.
- This is especially useful in places where the opportunity cost of owning a vehicle is high, such as dense city environments (e.g. the city centre, other metropolitan centres, or anywhere where we’re building up or digging down to create new carparks)
- A great complement to public transport, as per that rather nifty diagram in Matt’s post.
… with the advantages of electric vehicles:
- As I’ve been writing in a series of posts, EVs are very well suited to New Zealand. Our mainly renewable electricity means that EVs can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport. This will assist the council’s aims to reduce Auckland’s emissions.
- There are no “tailpipe” emissions from the cars themselves, as opposed to conventional cars which send out nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and so on. That’s a good thing for air quality in busy city locations.
- This scheme should involve the successful company setting up charging stations in various locations, and the implication seems to be that these will also be available for other drivers to use (presumably paying for the privilege).
- This is a good test and demonstration opportunity for EVs (electric vehicles) in New Zealand. For many people, this will be the first chance they have to see and drive them.
There’s a lot of upside if this scheme works well, and not much to lose if it doesn’t. Auckland Transport probably won’t be putting in any money, and see their role as mainly providing information and helping to get the scheme set up.
Auckland Transport are also interested in being a major customer – they think they could replace 250+ vehicles from the combined AT/ Auckland Council fleet, or 25-35% of the total fleet of 1,000 cars. I’d note, though, that these organisations probably haven’t done much study on how many vehicles they could eliminate simply by making more use of public transport, shared vehicles etc. And this won’t really help the scheme “replace between eight and 20 privately-owned cars” per one shared car.
But that’s splitting hairs, because schemes like this get a major leg up by having cornerstone customers, and it’s good that Auckland Transport wants to be one. I’m sure other large organisations will be keen to get involved too. We do need to get big organisations interested in EVs as an alternative to conventional cars, because they account for such a big fraction of new car sales – cars that will still be on the roads twenty years from now.
Auckland Transport also plans to make parking spaces available for the cars, in its buildings and on streets. This sounds good; it’s a valuable use for those spaces. It’s not quite clear whether AT would demand a full commercial price from these spaces or not, and presumably this is something that would be thrashed out during negotiations.
Similar programmes overseas
Electric car share schemes are quickly spreading around the world’s cities. The Paris program, known as Autolib’, seems to be one of the most successful examples, and there’s plenty of information on that if you Google it. The scheme is run by Bolloré, and four years after launching it has 3,000 cars. This month, Bolloré launches a similar program in London, starting with just 100 cars.
From The Guardian:
For younger people in particular… “owning a car is just no longer on their radar, particularly in the city. You have insurance, €1,000-plus a year; you have a whole load of other costs; you have petrol, environmental concerns; you have a constant headache finding somewhere to park. It’s quite clear that for this group, and for others too, owning a car no longer has the social cachet it once had. Cars used to be like toothbrushes – you didn’t share, you didn’t borrow. But we’re shifting from a possession model to a usage model. A car is a tool for transportation, nothing more.”
The Autolib’ scheme seems to have been effective in reducing car ownership rates:
A survey in late 2013 by market researchers CSA found 70% of non car-owning Autolib’ subscribers – around half of the total – felt the service had allowed them not to buy a vehicle of their own, while 75% or car owners believed it had helped them limit usage of their own car, particularly for leisure and shopping. And more than a quarter of car-owning Autolib’ members said they felt the service now provided their “main car”, rather than a secondary option.
CSA estimated that in the first two years of the service’s existence, more than 11,500 conventional cars in the greater Paris region had been sold – or not bought – thanks to Autolib’, and put the projected figure over five years at around 28,000.
Processing...
Its an interesting idea,
I be really keen for the idea to succeed – but the cars (and by implication: pick up and drop off points) need to be ubiquitous to be any good even within the CBD zone let alone outside the CBD zone.
Yes, AT could use them for their fleet, but you can do that now with a ICE based car sharing scheme (like CityHop) and AT said that they already “minimised” the number of pool cars they have, so how will making them electric help on its own? Especially as a large chunk of AT and other council operations are so dispersed. Maybe thats why CityHop are spitting tacks?
All up I think AT should focus more on LRT options for the Isthmus over a electric car sharing scheme. And we’re still waiting on more details of that as that will be the real game changer for the Isthmus.
After all, even if the car sharing was wildly successful and got 20 other cars per electric car of the road, that total of cars removed is really a drop in the bucket – and the next time one of those mega car-carriers pulls up in the Ports that many cars and more will be added to the Auckland roads in short order from it.
If you look at how many people can moved and how many more cars can be kept out of the CBD by LRT or other high capacity PT just on the Isthmus to CBD routes then this scheme is niche at best.
Agree you gotta start somewhere but to me this is like our current isolated bike share scheme, in a country/city with compulsory helmet laws and a requirement to pick up and drop off the bikes at the same place or very few other places.
All in all its not really going anywhere very fast is it?.
This shows how far our council has become removed from it’s core responsibilities.
While grass berms grow uncontrolled and library hours are shortened we have council organisations so out of control they think it is within their mandate to start up a rental car business.
Regardless of the +’s and -‘s it should be up to private interests to take on business risk, not the ratepayer.
‘it should be up to private interests to take on business risk, not the ratepayer.’
Err? it is.
Perhaps you have basic comprehension issues but do show me where AT say that they are going to start this business? This is a call for private sector interest. No money from berm mowing or anywhere else is going into some kind of start-up. Additionally this is AT not AC.
He definitely has basic comprehension issues; it’s a recurring theme in his “comments”.
This is a blatant personal attack against me.
Can the moderators please do something about it?
*** This comment has been edited for violating our user guidelines” http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/about/user-guidelines/ ***
*** This comment has been edited for violating our user guidelines” http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/about/user-guidelines/ ***
More specifically: “4. General moaning about the blog and its editorial direction is extremely boring. If you there are things you like and/or don’t like about the blog then put it in an email to us, rather than a comment. Or find another space more to your liking.”
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/about/user-guidelines/
More specifically #3 .Ad hominem attacks are frowned upon. If you disagree with someone, refute their statements rather before insulting them. If you must insult someone, be cheeky.
I appreciate Patrick Reynolds response, but harrymc’s response is not in line with the terms and conditions of the blog
Yes, such comments are frowned upon; indeed I’m frowning right now. Get over it.
I think you’ll find Mathew has very valid points. For every pressure group wanting something special outside core infrastructure the council sets up study committees with expensive consultants, etc at RATEPAYERS expense. Mathew is correct in expecting Council to stick to core infrastructure. Council should NOT be spending any ratepayer money on non core infrastructure activities, INCLUDING setting up committees to ‘study’ random ideas that are not CORE infrastructure. For those who think the Council has a bottomless pit of money to throw at all random studies be reminded that the Council is now heavily BORROWING money just to keep afloat. Auckland Council is seriously in danger of bankrupting us all with the ‘entreprenurial’ attitude it has. How did we go from 9 reasonably efficient councils to one with such debt? Think about it. As a ratepayer (many properties) I am sick of it, and like it or not, I have a voice too.
Why should council only conduct core activities?
‘core activities’ = ‘stuff i like’ by whoever is using the phrase. not how it works in a democracy or indeed any civilised society. Council does stuff on all of our behalf, some like this, some that, suck it up.
Where do you get the idea that “Council is now heavily BORROWING money just to keep afloat. Auckland Council is seriously in danger of bankrupting us all with the ‘entreprenurial’ attitude it has”
From this report. “https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/203284.pdf”
You can see that the Councils credit rating is AA/Stable/A-1+. Most banks have a rating of AA-
Also from the report “Liquidity:- Auckland’s liquidity is strong. We project its debt-servicing ratio of free cash, liquid assets (after haircuts), and unutilized bank facilities over the next 12 months to be 141% of the council’s next 12 month’s debt and interest
repayments.”
and “These deficits offset Auckland’s operating surpluses of 13.6% of operating revenues from 2013-2017.”
If you read the full report you see that council is borrowing money to fund capital infrastructure. Not unreasonable. Similar to borrowing to purchase a house, the money is not wasted as you now own an asset.
That’s just one of those lies that is repeated endlessly by right wing opponents of the current Council. It must be true right, the story goes, because we are the faction of fiscal discipline and success therefore everyone else is profligate and hopeless. Complete and utter baseless nonsense, of course.
But stereotypes are incredibly stubborn. Take the current central government, which maintains a wholely reputation for fiscal discipline despite pouring billions into vast road projects decades before their need is apparent etc etc. Can you imagine the outrage if a different party was so brazenly spending our money to support one Party’s position in a bye-election like Joyce is in Northland? Where is the outrage from ACT, from Farrar, and rest of the Taxpayers Onion? Hypocrites all.
As Patrick and the others all point out what you and The Real Matthew spout about council finances is utter bollocks.
And its not just us saying that.
Lyn Provost, the Auditor General, the one who can call any public organisation to account for their creative accounting or spending practises, says Auckland Council is not profligate with money nor is it spending beyond its means.
So, suggest you go and find something else to moan about, because fiscal ineptitude is not something AC or the current council collectively are guilty of.
You can however question the fiscal ineptitude of the 9 councils that AC was made of.
Because most of the “debt” you talk of that AC now has came from decades of all of them underspending on maintaining “core functions” like roads and infrastructure.
Auckland Council’s ever increasing borrowing:
http://www.interest.co.nz/bonds/62519/how-and-why-auckland-council-plans-borrow-nz14-bln-behalf-its-ratepayers-over-next-decad
Apologies for personal attacks accepted. Just wish people who write offensive comments knew how to use Google. Take note Greg – not me talking bollocks.
Now some bright spark can tell me how it will ever get paid back apart from increased rates / fuel taxes and other similar attacks on ratepayers.
Ooooh, Auckland Council is borrowing money! So what?
The council is borrowing money therefore its profligate and out of control with its spending? Thats still a load of bollocks.
Its no big deal, its a totally normal function of both central and local government as part long term infrastructure provision to borrow to pay for it.
These borrowings are to provide “Assets” i.e. they increase the value of Auckland Council Inc and its many CCOs as they are constructed.
Any accountant will tell you that borrowing money to get an asset worth more than the cost of the borrowing is “a good thing”TM
Its how the housing market and mortgages work.
Part of the borrowing in that article refers to Auckland Council refinancing its existing “mortgage” using overseas money, which again is a perfectly legit and valid thing to do.
And council will have access to even better rates than if they borrowed it on the local markets.
Doesn’t mean they’re out of control and the Auditor General makes exactly that point in her report about councils current finances and future plans.
As almost all the borrowing is for intergenerational assets, it makes sense for the present council to require future Aucklanders to pay for providing these assets, and doing so in their future rates – as these people will be benefiting from these assets by the time they are “paying for them”.
The alternative is to charge every current Auckland rate payer $1000s more a year now – to pay up front to build roads and bridges and other really expensive things – even though they won’t be needed for half a decade or more. How is that being fiscally prudent?
You may not agree that all the assets being built by Council are good value, but thats a different argument altogether and not what you are on about.
And I agree that some of the assets council wants to spend its money on don’t represent good value when compared to other alternatives for the *SAME* spending.
And thats why the GenZero “Essential Budget” plan for the LTP made so much more sense than councils own plans. Its not only cheaper than the “gold plated” model, but delivers more of the sorts of things that will alleivate the problems with traffic and other issues better than just chucking money at more roads which is what the Basic model proposes.
But borrowing is not the enemy here, and to state as you and TRM are that council is about to go broke as a result is absolute and utter bollocks.
I am still waiting for a link that backs up your statement “Council is now heavily BORROWING money just to keep afloat. Auckland Council is seriously in danger of bankrupting us all with the ‘entreprenurial’ attitude it has”. The link you provided above does not do this. I have googled all over the place and can only find links to info that all pretty much say the council is doing a good job on the financial front. Please don’t provide links to opinion or editorial pieces, as these are neither factual nor have any accounting knowledge.
My berm was mowed just yesterday.
There have already been a couple of false starts in Wellington. The difference here is the commitment of a major institution to use it themselves. I understand there is a car share scheme being set up in Christchurch with the support of 5 major employers.
Insurance in NZ is nowhere near as huge a problem as it is overseas for younger drivers, so that’s one key cost driver that doesn’t exist here.
Does the Council still have small engine-displacement spaces in the Downtown Car Park?
Electric cars may cool a city compared to fossil fueled cars:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep09213
The drop in temperature may reduce air conditioning use
As NZ is renewable energy deficient any additional electric usage will have to be supplied (at least initially) from fossil fuel.
Hi Pete, the good news is that we’re certainly not renewable deficient – we have perhaps the best potential of any country in the world. We’re very lucky on that front. See http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2014/03/17/can-new-zealand-transition-to-100-renewable-electricity-spoiler-yes/
What does ‘renewable deficient’ mean in NZ context? NZ has a flat to falling demand for grid delivered electrons, around 80% of which are renewably generated, and more than enough consented generation projects to close all thermal plants [although we are unlikely to shutdown the 10% co-gen because of their efficiency]. The impending closure of an ageing aluminium smelter that currently uses 15% of total supply has power companies desperate to find new markets for their product making them very keen partners in this kind of idea.
Anyway, what’s the downside? Cleaner air in cities; oh dear, that won’t do. Fewer cars on urban roads, ummm? might end up with more charging points earlier? I’m scratching my head. Or is it that we will be filling in the Waitemata Harbour for no good reason as we import fewer cars? Yes well that is already the case; there is no good reason to pour more dirt into the harbour.
Another confused petrol-head perhaps.
30% of New Zealand’s electricity comes from fossil fuel. If we encourage more electric vehicles we will need more electricity. That will be provided by fossil fuel.
Wrong. All the currently consented generation is renewable, it is not being built because demand is flat to falling. Partly because of increased efficiency and partly because of distributed solar. All new generation will be renewable because it is the most cost effective. No one is planning or building any new thermal. Huntly is being decommissioned. NZ does not have a problem with electricity sources; geo has much further potential, wind is hugely effective here, we have some of the highest performing last based wind farms in the world, and they match perfectly with Hydro [both are intermittent but on such different time scales that they fit perfectly together.
And you misunderstand how car share reduces pollution of all kinds, and improve cities; carshare scheme reduce the number of vehicles in a city by considerable number. Once fully operational each vehicle in a carshare scheme removes up 20 private cars from a place. That most certainly does a huge amount of good on every level. All developed cities improve with every little wheeled tin box removed. This is a proven way to achieve that.
Also it is AT’s scheme and has nothing to do with Brown. I’m pretty confident we knew about it long before he did.
Non renewable electricity energy sources in NZ approx. 20% – see:
http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/energy/energy-modelling/data/electricity
Electric car charging at home can be set to use off peak power which will involve even less fossil fuels.
Also note that in some (geographical) areas there is 0% fossil fuel usage due to the generation source and capacity.
I’m all for electric cars – they are the future for personal automotive transport – but not a Council issue.
Is AT not an Auck Council offshoot / department?
Re: AC and AT – “Its complicated”.
AT is a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO), but is set up by Parliament (by design) to be as politically independent of Auckland Council as it is possible to be.
e.g. most of the board members are appointed by the Government and there are only two AC councillors on the AT board.
Even though most AT’s funding comes from AC via rates, it works like a separate organisation, and it is tasked in practice with working for two different masters – AC and NZTA.
It is not the ideal structure, but AT needs to be able to “chart a course” which is kept separate from/away from influence of the politics of the day – both at local and (in theory) central government.
But given how central Government is these days controlling what NZTA can and can’t do, this in turn controls what AT can and can’t do as NZTA is the fist and AT the glove..
All of which is why AT seems to not be under the control of AC and comes up with such as suggestions as LRT or Electric Car Sharing Scheme proposals. As it works to a different agenda and timeframe.
What is the downside here? ~100% of New Zealand’s vehicle fleet is powered by fossil fuel to begin with!
Most electric cars would be charged overnight anyway, so when there is renewables base capacity rather than at the margin of the peak.
As Nick says, a car fleet running on 70%+ renewable electricity is still a big improvement over the curent 0% renewable fossil fuel. Not to mention that electric cars use much less energy anyway.
And right on cue to prove ‘Pete’ wrong yet again: https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/26776619/renewables-growth-behind-southdown-closure-mrp/
MRP are closing down the 140MW Southdown thermal plant this week because of growth in lower cost renewables:
‘Mighty River Power today confirmed that its gas-fired Southdown power station will close at the end of the year in response to significant growth in renewable generation in New Zealand.’
MRP CEO goes on to say:
‘Major investment in renewable electricity generation in New Zealand over the past decade has “squeezed out large volumes of gas and coal-fired generation out of New Zealand’s electricity mix, because they’re less economic to run,” Mr Whineray said. In total there has been a reduction of more than 4,000GWh of thermal fuel commitments since 2013, representing more than 10% of the total generation in New Zealand. This reflects the renewable advantage of New Zealand – one of the world leaders.’