There’s often a lot of discussion around the future of transport – particularly in cities. We’ve talked many times before about how transport trends are changing, how we’re seeing people drive less and catch PT more, how changing preferences amongst younger people in both where they live and how they get around is one of the large reasons behind these changes. When we talk about prioritising projects that respond these changes we occasionally get labelled as car haters (among other things). By suggesting that these days you don’t really need a car I guess that must make the author of this article very much a car hater. Can you guess who wrote it.
Soon almost no one will want to buy a car … Cars are enjoying their last hurrah, burning brightly as suns do just before they fizzle out. [Today’s] young people are simply not interested in cars at all. My son is … 19 and has not bothered to take his driving test. His argument is a simple one. There’s a coach that stops right outside his flat in London and it takes him, in a blizzard of wi-fi, to and from Oxford. For £11.
If he wants to go somewhere else, he can use a train or something called “a bus”. An Uber cab is never more than a few clicks away, and there’s always a Boris bike for short trips on level ground when it’s not too cold or hot or wet. He can move about without worrying about breath tests or speeding fines or parking tickets or no-claims bonuses. My son therefore thinks he’s free simply because he doesn’t have a car.
And there’s no point going on about the open road and the wind in your hair and the snarl of a straight six because he just doesn’t see cars this way. With good reason. When he was little he spent two hours a day on the school run strapped into a primary-coloured child’s seat, in the back of a Volvo, in an endless jam. There’s no way this was going to engender any motoring-related dreams. He wasn’t sitting there in a goo of expectation, thinking, “Hmm, when I’m big I will do this as well.”
…
And if you sell something as a practical proposition, it had better actually be practical. Which, as we’ve established, a car isn’t. Nor is a fridge, for that matter, since you have a supermarket on every street corner now that can keep everything chilled until you need it. Free up the space in your kitchen. Get rid. And free up the space in your garage while you’re at it. Because you don’t need a car. Not really. Not these days.
If you guessed Jeremy Clarkson you’d be right. His love of cars is well known and perhaps it’s all just a ploy to encourage more people off the roads to clear space for him to be able to drive faster. More likely is he like many others are actually looking at the changes that are happening right in front of us. He mentions how his son isn’t interested in driving and I’ve had conversations with many baby boomer aged parents who are changing their attitudes to transport and urban issues after seeing their children shun their suburban upbringing and opt for more urban lifestyles.
Of course to me none of this suggests that cars are suddenly bad or that they aren’t useful in many situations – for example I wouldn’t be able to visit my parents without one – however it does highlight that in urban areas cars aren’t the must have they used to be.
Processing...
To me the impracticalities and dis-economies of owning a car are becoming apparent to the majority of people and that the reason why there’s still so many cars on the road is because cities been built for cars rather than people.
The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that the only people who need to own a private motor vehicle (not necessarily a car) is tradies as they need to be able to carry their tools with them and nobody else. Everybody else only needs access to chauffeur driven vehicles (bus, taxi, train).
as I am currently working as a bus driver, ironically I need a car to get to and from work
The joys of shiftwork. I feel your pain.
although, in the future our PT should move to a 24 hour operation (e.g. SkyTrain), complemented in places by Uber, so that even those working shifts have an alternative.
“Everybody else only needs access to chauffeur driven vehicles (bus, taxi, train).” This is not viable in Auckland in 2015 unless you want to restrict your activities and job opportunities significantly. An elderly parents is one reason I could not live without a car. Visiting friends at night would be very limited and expensive without a car.
In existing public transport networks it would be.
car share
True but that would be because of what I said in my first paragraph:
How often do you vusut your friends at night? Have you compared the total cost of car ownership with the cost of the occasional taxi?
“Visiting friends at night” said the man with no (or grown up) kids…and friends with no kids. 🙂
The commonsense answer to all this is horses for courses. In Auckland I have a car as it is practical for my needs. In London I would never bother. In Germany I have car. It is a case of what works best in each environment for the tasks I have to perform. One of my sons has no interest in a car, whereas the other does. And for each of them it is down to what is most practical for what they need to achieve each day.
“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” Albert Einstein.
London has excellent public transport; Auckland has not got excellent public transport. That might have something to do with it no? Auckland with excellent PT and the position changes.
‘Germany’ is rather large……..
For me not having a car in London is because it is impossible to get from one side to the other in a short period of time. So for me it is not practical to drive. However the tube is.
The key point is the trend. Here are results from an Aus Federal gov study (you know that level headed by Tony Abbott who only wants to funds urban highways): PT demand to soar in Victoria, especially rail: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/public-transport-crush-predicted-to-get-worse-20150521-gh6xe9.html
We cant say car is bad, and every young person hate cars, in fact some young people still dream about cars.
However the point I wish to make is we need a freedom of choice. People can choose to use pt or cars. The problem in nz is the level of convience and coverage of public transport is still not as good as car, at least yet.
*** This comment has been edited for violating our user guidelines: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/about/user-guidelines/ ***
As Ricardo has rightly pointed out it’s horses for courses. I’d never use a car in Toronto, New York or Sydney but I do in Auckland (and Melbourne if I lived there). With Auckland being so close to Northland, West Coast beaches, Coromandel and world class geothermal areas there is substantial benefit to car ownership in Auckland. The other uniquely NZ factor is that once you reach other NZ towns you need a car to get around, unlike overseas countries where there are several big cities.
That’s not to say other modes don’t have a role to play in Auckland. I’m all for cycling infrastructure along the waterfront from the harbour bridge to St Heliers. But it’s largely pointless putting cycling infrastructure anywhere else because Auckland is incredibly hilly. Auckland will never achieve Copenhagen’s cycling network share.
We need to adapt these international ideas to fit our city rather than blindly applying them
Not having a car is indeed a crippling limitation if you’re traveling. For instance it’s not possible to reach the Waitaks without a car.
On the other hand “I’m all for cycling infrastructure along the waterfront from the harbour bridge to St Heliers”
Why? That would be almost completely useless because no one would be able to actually ride his bicycle to that path, except for the small amount of people living along that coastline. Or would you expect people to strap their bike on their cars and drive to the coast?
Some parts of Auckland are indeed very hilly. I have lived in the Birkenhead area, there on a typical trip you’d have 15 to 20 height meters per km. But that’s not a deterrent to cycling though. The problem is the utterly hostile streets, not the hills.
One area with a lot of kids riding their bike to school is Bayswater. That’s not a flat area either.
Wsomc – nonsense. Last time I was in Auckland, I took the train to the Waitakere hills. Door to door – Britomart to start of a kauri tree trail somewhere way out in the wops. No car involved.
Yes, you can reach the eastern edge with the train and bus (to Titirangi, or Waitarua), but you won’t make it to the coast (Piha or Muriwai). Meaning for instance that if you ever walk the Hillary Trail, you’ll not be able to reach the northern end without a car.
Now, is this a desirable situation? Probably no. But it’s also unlikely to be economic to have a bus to Piha. Maybe Muriway would be busy enough with tourists during the summer.
There used to be a bus to Piha, infrequent and weekends only, has that service stopped?
Who are you referring to as a ‘car hater’?
“yet we rarely see posts on here about vehicular efficiency, reducing travel times etc”
That’s because an obese person doesn’t need advertisement / articles about burgers and fries. He needs to know about healthier food and ways of getting exercise.
Homer Simpson: “Burgers and fries – hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm”.
Homer’s Brain: “No. Must. eat. healthier. food. and. get. more. exercise.”
Homer Simpson: “Shut up. brain. Can’t. think. eating…… hmmmmmm”
Good PT would be a better option both to get to those places and once there than cars.
Only if you’re exclusively riding in the Waitakere’s. Everywhere else isn’t that bad.
The roads in the Waitaks are actually the first place where I spotted cyclists in Auckland. It’s definitely a good place if you’re cycling as a sport.
“Auckland is incredibly hilly. Auckland will never achieve Copenhagen’s cycling network share…” Rubbish!!
Wellington city has seen an increase of cycling from 1% a decade ago to 4% now, yet the rest of the region which is less hilly has only 1-2% cycling.
I have been cycling in Wellington since I shifted here 43 years ago, and it has got steadily easier as bikes have become lighter with more gears and better brakes. And now we have e-bikes, which doubles the effective range and allows senior citizens to keep on cycling.
However, the supportive infrastructure did not start improving until 5 years when a few lines began to be painted on roads.
Neither topography or weather are the issue. It is supportive infrastructure. If a network of safe cycle ways are built, we could get to 30% mode share cycling within 10 years. The multiple benefits accrue to both the community and the user with big savings to the economy.
+1
And I’ve been cycling here for 30 years, up hill and down dale. Auckland is almost flat by comparison!
See, you can say the weather isn’t an issue, but I note a distinctly lower number of cycle commuters on mornings when it is bucketing down or blowing a gale than it isn’t. Likewise I have no desire to expose myself to any more UV than I absolutely have to to try and minimise my risk of getting cancer. Now I *could* take a whole heap of steps to mitigate this, as well as carry a spare set of clothes to wear at each end of my journey if I rode a bike, but thankfully someone has already invented a form of motoring transport that provides ample protection against rain, hail and shine. I’m happy to sit in traffic if I’m not getting soaked or cooking like shoulder bacon.
Just saying the weather isn’t an issue doesn’t mean it’s true. The bulk of the new Central-East Auckland cycle-way will be through the bottom of the valley into Orakei so that will offer some shelter, but a lot of it is still going to be exposed in places. It’s something we need to take into account when we push cycling as a viable transport option, even if it’s as simple as accepting that cycling isn’t really a seven-day-a-week option and some days will be so miserable that people would rather drive or bus.
When you live in a hilly area all you need is a peddle assist bike, 300w doesn’t need a license will take you up to 30km on the flat and flatten out the hills and you get exercise if you want to increase it’s range or speed.
Where I grew up in Derbyshire we either walked or cycled and had more hills than Auckland but no one had cars until I was into my 20’s, our parents never had cars but our lives were not as spread out as the car has allowed, we had friends within easy walking or cycling distance, my wife cycled to work every day 7 miles each way and then would go for a ride with the cycle club in the evenings on roads with no cars, you don’t realize how pleasant life was without the car, people were more relaxed no such thing as road rage.
Agree. I was a student in both Derby and Sheffield in the 1970’s and would spend much of my recreation time pedalling through the lovely hills of the Peak District. Definitely easier without so many cars in those days.
Im sorry but cycling infrastructure is sorely needed in Auckland. You might like to think that Aucklanders will never cycle but you get what you build for. Build a network of goat tracks around the city and people will commute via goat.
A car is often the very best option for getting around, so long as lots and lots of people aren’t trying to do the same thing at the same time in the same place. In busy lively cities other options become better because the spatial needs of lots of people in cars undoes that mode’s inherent convenience. This is clearly where Auckland is at now. Cities need other choices as well as the car. So it is not about being ‘anti-car’, but anti-autodependency. And in particular anti-autodependency in cities. An important distinction.
Furthermore it is becoming clearer and clearer that those cities that try to accommodate driving at the expense of the complementary modes are losing out in place quality as the spatial and place costs of driving infrastructure are very high [as in fact are the financial costs for society]. In the battle for international competitiveness autodependency is a clear negative. And increasingly so, here is the best summary of this trend, recommended reading:
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/28/end-of-the-car-age-how-cities-outgrew-the-automobile
I think walking is far and away the best way of getting around, except for the inconvenient fact that often stuff is put too far away from other stuff so it takes too long.
I imagine in the future there will be alot more older and smaller vehicles hanging around, owed with the requirement to just do those couple of trips every week for shopping or getting out of town, just managing to get warrant, no depreciation because it worth nothing. No point investing in anything flash because you train to work and pick up groceries on your way home. And you eat locally because it is easy and you know people because they all do the same, kinda villagey. Sound like something I want to be part of.
The other alternative is the ability to own a stupidly impractical car, that is rubbish in the city, because it’s simply not required to be multi use.
IMO, probably not.
1. It’s more efficient for supermarkets to deliver than for everyone to go shopping. The reason why this isn’t happening already is because our so-called economic system has the incentives backwards which results in ever increasing use of resources rather than the opposite.
2. Getting out of town is, again, better done on PT. It increases efficiency in many ways: a) It doesn’t use as much fuel as car use b) doesn’t use as much resources to produce c) cuts down on congestion
Our economic system caters to desire rather than practical realities and the worst of that is being rich.
Guilty! It’s me. I’m a car-hater.
– I hate the way they have been allowed to dominate the transport scene for so many decades, in spite of mounting evidence that this is not sensible or desirable.
– I hate the way governments in the English-speaking world have deliberately prioritised cars over public transport and destroyed any semblance of a ‘balanced transport policy’.
– I hate the way cars are prioritised over the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, even whole communities, and particularly CHILDREN.
– I hate the way the atrocious lack-of-safety inherent in the mode is excused and played-down and not dealt-with effectively as it is in most other areas of society.
– I hate the cavalier attitude towards safety, restrictions and enforcement, that has pervaded the minds of many drivers, including some in senior positions of government.
– I hate the government’s failure to confront the excessive performance-capabilities of many cars, which simply invite dangerous and illegal behaviour.
– I hate the expectation that the needs of motorists are automatically more important than the needs of anyone not-in-a-car and that this justifies cars capturing most of the transport budget.
– I hate the way car-based planning has reinforced the need for cars, and in many instances has removed the freedom-of-choice not-to use a car. And then because people have no option, their constrained choice is then claimed to indicate their preference.
– I hate the way urban liveability and amenity and social cohesion have so-often been sacrificed for the needs of traffic. And the rural environment too, in more-densely populated societies. (And don’t get me started on climate change, pollution and resource-depletion!)
If it wasn’t for issues like these, I wouldn’t have any problem with cars. I’m sure I’d love ’em!
+1 and I even used to race them. This worm has turned.
You can add me to the list, I’m disappointing in the government that they have put so much into roads of national significance as if that’s the only future, they obviously don’t read any geological reports on the state of the oil industry, only see the hype from the industry spin doctors.
-Clarkson is a very intelligent person who knows how to make a very good Tv show. He knows how to read the middle aged white male driver world and how to make fun of it. He used his “Dick Quax” character on TV to make fun of Quax people while also making them feel important. For everybody else it was just a funny TV show.
-For entertainment purposes cars are excellent but in modern days that has been taken away (speed cameras, alcohol tests, realization that cars kill, noise and pollution regulations etc) so young people find entertainment in other things.
Disclaimer: I am a big top gear fan and I don’t own a car…
Also I think households are becoming or moving back to more multimodal in transport now. There will be for some time a place for a car for the portion of trips that PT can’t or doesn’t fit well for (e.g. getting the dog to the vet), as well as those highly repetitive commute trips to work, or school that PT and active modes often work well for. Already you are seeing some 2 car households drop back to one as other we re-embrace biking, walking, taking the train for our daily commutes.
Not dead in the UK yet http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30706580
Or, to put it another way, UK car sales recover to levels last seen 7 years ago thanks to one-off financial stimulus:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/20/pension-pots-used-lamborghinis-minister
http://www.smmt.co.uk/2015/01/uk-new-car-registrations-december-2014/
That’s the interesting thing about this “reduced driving” trend. It seems that new cars sales are generally holding up, although overall vehicle kilometres travelled is falling. They seem to be fairly independent of each other.
Sorry – I have no source to quote and no time to look for one just now.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098410_u-s-drivers-covered-record-high-number-of-miles-so-far-this-year
Overall driving mileage is picking up in the U.S.
This disconnect between ownership and distance driven has been a trend in the UK and other advanced economies for years now. Japan is a classic for this. Cars are highly effective as status symbols thanks to our social conditioning, and most effective for this when sitting on the drive for the neighbours that you want to keep up with to see, and when you’re incurring minimal wear and tear. Even if people choose alternative travel modes they will continue to buy cars for this purpose, and for weekend travel.
Tim, what are your points? 1. That people that save all their lives should not be allowed to spend their money on cars? 2. That car sales decline was only due to the GFC?
Seems that global car sales are up and that declines were economy driven (excuse the pun) and not a fundamental shift away from cars in favour of PT and e connectivity http://www.autoblog.com/2015/02/03/global-auto-sales-forecast-growth-ihs/
Best news is electric car sales are growing as if we are going to continue to be in love with cars it is better for the world if they are not petrol powered.
The GFC certainly led to people deferring car replacements for a few years, the current bump in sales is that deferral catching up. Manufacturers would be very foolish if they think current levels are some kind of new normal. In this country it has be aided by a strong dollar too. It is more likely to flatten out.
A response to “jk of Wellington” benefits from a tongue firmly in the cheek….
Point is: car purchases reflect finance availability and social conditioning as much as need or desire to drive. And to put it in context, I think it helps to look at parallel tends that really reveal people’s shifting expenditure and travel preferences:
http://www.theurbancountry.com/2011/05/positive-shift-in-uk.html
Bit different in the UK though, with their extensive rail network, with many lines in many cities, and an extensive intercity network (even after the Beeching cuts). It’s not just that cities in NZ are designed for cars, it’s also that the vast majority of the country can only be accessed by car. We have a national rail network, but it’s neither used for passenger transport, nor advocated for use by public transport advocates, whose focus is really only on PT in the larger cities and not in provincial cities and towns, or travel between them. Nobody (at least so far) seems to be calling for passenger rail in this country.
Getting about the country easily and comfortably by PT is what NZ needs in order to make a real dent in car use nationally. We do actually own the rail network, so it should be possible to lobby for its use. First seeking change of the framework in which the rail network is run (unbundle it and make it available for use by other operators), then second pursuing new services, i.e., passenger, run by the appropriate operator.
Good point Geoff.
I doubt with our population and terrain etc we will get much of a change to intercity for long distance when flying is cheap and quicker (or driving or bus).
That said for shorter distances it makes sense and I would love to see a proper Hamilton-Huntly-Pokeno-Auckland service. This could also potentially be linked to a Tauranga-Hamilton service.
Yes of course this is true which is why those calling for ‘Garden City’ style growth outside of Auckland are pissing in the wind; It will all be auto-dependent sprawl, as we see right now in Pokeno, Millwater, Kumeu-Huapai, Hellensville, etc etc. Not cute-and-expensive railway served ex-urban London Stockbroker belt. Dreaming.
Patrick, you’re assuming eceryone wants to live in/near the CBD like you do. We can build small cities but as has been mentioned they need to be properly conbected, as per London and many continental European areas.
No I’m not Bryce; but rather that there is already heaps and heaps of sprawl-burbia for those that want it to choose from- the property price spread shows the shortage is in proximate dwellings. And for the sake of our economy and the planet we have to stop further ruining more countryside. And especially what annoys me are those that argue for this destruction under the guise of a love of the environment and economic efficiency. It delivers neither.
The Garden City idea for Auckland is at best intellectually sloppy, as it just can’t happen without radical changes in infrastructure priorities and unrealistically strong Green Belt laws, which the speculators will always bust especially when their boosters occupy the beehive [ie now]. Until and unless there are actual Rapid and Intercity Transit services to these outlying locations it’s just leapfrog sprawl. A disaster for the city and nation.
Millwater could be easily moved from that car dependant bracket. It’s not quite as bad as it appears and just needs linking into the Northern Busway to unlock a more PT oriented phase. Stopping the NEX in a paddock in Silverdale, next to the motorway, does nothing to alleviate this. The density there is not as low as it seems due to small sections and there are now quite a few terraces being built (I’d say this will increase in pace) and the street network is starting to appear useable from a PT POV, not to. mention quite a few community parks with paths that link it all together. It’s not Vancouver, with small blocks, but there are far worse examples around. The RTN connection into the places people actually live is the important bit. Millwater, at this time, is in a far better position than Kumeu for growth. The area needs a plan that encourages density however.
You’re preaching to the converted Patrick, but there are those of us lobbying for rail to Auckland’s satellite communities, to at least manage that spawl somewhat, through provision of transport choice. Rail to Huapai (infrastructure already in place) was added to the Rail Development Plan for very good reason – to break Auckland out of its cycle of 1950’s transport planning which states that all development must be around roads, with things like rail retrofitted decades later when transit-orientated development has been made impossible (and of course it never actually happens).
Unfortunately the 1950’s agenda took hold and ditched Huapai rail in 2013, and it was done in a most undemocratic way, denying any opportunity for public consultation. The recent New Network had a large number of submitters calling for rail, and AT simply ignored them all, stating rail was outside the scope of the New Network consultation process, even though it was clearly listed as a component of the New Network in the public consultation documents.
You may be right that fighting the roading lobby is p**sing in the wind, but we can at least let history record that there were Aucklanders willing to fight for responsible development.
We have two intercity coach companies who offer low prices particularly if you can plan your journey well in advance. I see many locals and tourists using the 380 bus to transfer from the intercity coaches to the airport at Manukau city and vice versa.
These coach lines go to all sorts of places . Its not just intercity for example it would be possible to have a return day trip to Waihi beach if you wanted too. I wonder if anyone has ever done that.
If we could use the rail network as well for intercity travel that would be great.
Bryce, I just drove through Millwater yesterday and it was so much worse than I had imagined (or how it looks on a map – which isn’t tidy either). Millwater is a complete and utter clusterf*ck of design! It is suburbia maze hell for cars and I can imagine that it’s even worse for bikes/pedestrians. Quite simply I have no idea how anyone could think this is a good design (and that includes developers trying to maximise houses). The roads are not car friendly, they certainly aren’t bus friendly, and are a nightmare for cyclists. For pedestrians some aspects are beneficial I suppose to an extent however like Albany they increase the distance needed to walk to get from A to B which isn’t pedestrian friendly. Quite simply they were starting from scratch on a huge development and should have used something akin to a grid pattern for most of it with a few main roads set up for buses, bikes etc with pedestrian access to the side streets.
You drove through so you obviously realise it’s on a hill then will a couple of gulleys? Aside from the ring road, it’s not so bad on a bike and as for being bad in a car, I have no idea what you’re on about. Yes, a grid would be fantastic, but this was designed under the old Rodney council. Most of the streets have low traffic volumes and are easily cycled (gravity aside) and there are a huge amount of short cuts through the area for bikes and pedestrians.
Hobsonville Pt has the advantage of a huge flat area as a starting point. Show me a better, large scale, recent, development in Auckland.
It has narrow roads with big raised medians meaning for bikes it is hazardous. As for the reading layout I’m talking about how you have to make a lot of 90° zig zags to get anywhere doubling the distance travelled (be it by car or bike). There is no common sense way to get from one part of it to another – it literally is a maze! The hill should have had a fairly straight road going along the top and each valley should have had the same intersected with roads going up/down the hill. That way buses could have easily covered the entire area within a 300m walk and it wouldn’t be a maze for everyone else.
Narrow streets are great for bikes, especially when designed to keep volumes and speeds down. Also, the street design discourages drivers from driving right through and instead encourages them to use the ring roads to reach their destination. This is actually good for residents and people on bikes.
Bryce, ordinarily this would be the case in modern urban design however this is not the case in Millwater. The narrow streets have nowhere for slow cyclists to go or allow better cyclists to get any speed up and because the median is raised (grassed/planted) there is nowhere for a car to get around a bike so is a safety issue. The ring road is poor urban design (look at Albany). It encourages race-track type driving. I’m sorry but Millwater is a shit layout for everyone as has been agreed upon by most on here on multiple occasions in other threads.
Meh. I love my cars, both of them. V8s, the worse type for the Welly dave types. Those appliances stuck on the motorways every morning not so much.
Not a lot beats a good blast up SH16 on a fine day.
My eldest daughter got her driver licence… Eventually. But the youngest (22) can’t be bothered. Since she moved to London (UK) last year there have been any talk at all about driving. All she talks about is the Tube.
Ice seen the same thing in Toronto over the past few years. Kids who grew up along the TTC subway line are so used to using it the idea of learning to drive is absurd to them… Plus driving there is a real test of mental acuity. Straight in at the deep end… And it can get pretty deep on the 401 and the Gardiner for much of the day…. Just take TTC and talk to your mates on Viber, Kik or WhatsApp.
My kids have licences, but have never completed the practical [I encourage to them; it’s a good life skill]. A drivers license is for getting into bars for them, it doesn’t have any other utility.
Just saw an article in Stuff about how Simon Bridges want’s NZ to have more electric cars (no problem with that), however I find it crazy that they are looking to replace the Kiwirail electric locomotives with diesels on the NIMT!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/68439958/simon-bridges-hoping-to-attract-more-electric-and-driverless-cars-to-nz
Simple:
Cars = good
Trains = evil
and *electric* trains = really, really, really evil.
As Darryl Kerrigan said; “Tell him he’s dreaming”. “NZ take a leadership role in electric vehicles and pilot less vehicles”. He needs to get out more. To China or Norway, both with a huge head start on us in EVs. China as a step up from the ubiquitous bicycle and Norway through aggressive taxation on non-EVs. We don’t have the base population of bicycle users and I just can’t see this government slapping a big fat tax in the importers of petrol & diesel vehicles in order to encourage us to go EV. Even though EV is absolutely the right strategy for NZ where fuel is imported and a large %age of our electricity is from renewable sources. I don’t know which audience he’s talking to and here’s hoping he learns something by rubbing shoulders with other Transport Ministers.
“Bridges said be believed this country could lead the way when it came to embracing electric vehicle, or EV, technology”
NZ is one of the best placed countries in the world for electric vehicles due to: our high amount of renewable electricity, how most of our oil is imported, fairly mild climate, and fairly high rates of of street parking.
However, major policy changes are required if he wants high EV uptake I.E. :
– California: Federal and state tax credits to the tune of USD10,000. Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) Mandate: require each car make to have a certain proportion of their sales as ZEV’s, or buy credits from other auto-makers who exceed their mandated sales, single occupancy use of high occupancy lanes.
– Norway: Substantial tax breaks, Bus lane access, Fee toll road use, congestion charge exemption, free parking in many locations.
While it is the right strategy, with current government policy there is no way we will lead the world in electric vehicle uptake.
I understand that Israel is a leader in EV uptake due largely to the somewhat hostile attitudes of its oil supplying neighbours.
He is the son of a multimillionaire, he can afford to make a car less choice. The major cost being the rental of living in central London.
Agreed, this is something that people seem to be having trouble grasping. The new fare structure might make it better for me to leave the car at home if I work in the CBD, but only if I can get a job in the CBD. It’s doesn’t mean I’m going to give the car up, just that I can buy something a little less suited to traffic jams. If I work anywhere else, I’m going to have to drive – I don’t have hours and hours at the start and end of each day to spend on a bus/train and that’s before you factor in the waiting times and margins needed to factor in if you want to make a connecting service. I suspect there will be many people in my suburb who are in the same boat.
Well i’m happy to call Peak Car in cities, particularly city centres. Because that is being chosen, in increasing numbers of cities as it is the rational response to the pressures of our age. In short; it’s time:
“All this is part of a comprehensive policy in which we assume very deliberately that there will be fewer cars in Paris. Therefore in calculating the flow of spillover traffic I don’t project myself into a world where there are as many cars as today. Objectively that will no longer be the case.”
http://www.citylab.com/design/2015/05/in-paris-plans-for-a-river-seine-reinvention/392639/
http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/bringing-the-tesla-electric-car-to-nz-2014112218
I am calling Peak Peak. Since the oil thing turned out to be bollocks they now put peak in front of everything else.
http://crudeoilpeak.info/latest-graphs
This is one of the most up to date graphs of the oil and gas world wide and conventional oil has not gone up in 10 years, I would think it has peaked even though more has been invested to increase production, the only increase in oil came from none conventional that is far more expensive to produce with thousands of wells having to be drilled to increase output as the depletion rates are so high in the fracking oil industry.
Nice graphs. So are you saying peak oil really meant ‘peak conventional oil’ or ‘peak oil done the old way’? Hell we could use that argument to say it happened 100 years ago. The low hanging fruit principle says the easiest always goes first. But it isn’t showing any peak.
But it doesn’t matter how much is left, it matters how much it costs to get it out of the ground.
We could be swimming in oil at $200 a barrel but it will radically change the way the world works as hardly anyone will be able to afford to use it. The phrase “Peak Oil” really refers to “Peak Cheap Oil” – which it has been for the last 50 years.
Transportation, especially of freight, would have to be much more energy efficient – i.e. not using fossil fuels for every part of the journey. For a start, passenger air travel and air freight would be pretty much a thing of the past.
Also, and this may seem counter-intuitive, but the period of peak oil [ie now; say 2005-2020] is of course the moment with the highest production rate, by definition, rather than a moment of scarcity. It is the point of the highest rate of production combined with declining obvious future sources. Shale and Arctic: that’s the sound of the scraping of the barrel. Shell sure as hell wouldn’t be bothering with the cost and risk of the Chukchi Sea if it had nice fruitful reservoirs with strong and cost effective future production all lined up.
This seeming contradiction; apparent abundance and dismal prospects all at once, explains both the intensity of the argument between peakers and the business-as-usual- lobby, and the volatile price situation. He-ho, sure is fun to watch. Shale has now plateaued. Russia too by the looks; all eyes to those reasonable souls in the Middle East. Oh and perversely lower crude price may be as much an indication of beginning of the decline as the more expected endlessly rising one, as it reduces exploration and investment. Shale is a Ponzi.
For a great read on Shell’s last attempt in the Arctic this is unbeatable, truly brilliant journalism, its a page turner: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/magazine/the-wreck-of-the-kulluk.html?_r=0