My brief summary is: cars cars cars, until at least 2050, maybe we’ll
think up another strategy then. Oil might get expensive but we’ll do
nothing now as some other technology may appear.
If you think my summary is unfair, well theirs doesn’t read much
better:
“While there is an assumption that car ownership and therefore use
will continue to rise in line with economic growth, the rate of car
ownership growth is forecast to taper off as we near a saturation
level. Reaching this theoretical saturation level is forecast to be
beyond 2050, so current projections show there is a need to ensure the
community’s needs for private vehicle transport are reasonably
accommodated.”
“In an era of rapidly rising fuel prices vehicle use may decline or at
least the rate of growth may slow. Conversely, if there is a large up
take of alternative fuels or electric vehicles then the rates of car
use may increase. These statistics will be monitored and any material
changes may require the Plan to be amended.”
I don’t understand the disconnect - the council assures us that they
are “monitoring the statistics” - yet they seem to be ignoring them.
I have written to one of the councilors who is more supportive of
public transport, who hopes to at least get the council to commission
a more detailed report on the cost of a light rail system from the
railway station to the hospital. Such as system is though to cost
around $140m. Another public transport option ignored in the report is
extending the existing trolley bus routes.
What the draft plan does support is spending $30m within the next 10
years on concrete spaghetti at the Basin reserve, and in the longer
term to consider building an extra mt Vic Tunnel expected to cost $175
and an extra terrace tunnel expected to cost $167.
Anyways team I'm interested in your opinions...
What do you think Wellington's strategic transport plan should be?
What is the right balance between road and public transport funding?
How should this balance change in the face of changing oil prices and
emissions reduction targets?
> My brief summary is: cars cars cars, until at least 2050, maybe we’ll > think up another strategy then. Oil might get expensive but we’ll do > nothing now as some other technology may appear.
> If you think my summary is unfair, well theirs doesn’t read much > better:
> “While there is an assumption that car ownership and therefore use > will continue to rise in line with economic growth, the rate of car > ownership growth is forecast to taper off as we near a saturation > level. Reaching this theoretical saturation level is forecast to be > beyond 2050, so current projections show there is a need to ensure the > community’s needs for private vehicle transport are reasonably > accommodated.”
> “In an era of rapidly rising fuel prices vehicle use may decline or at > least the rate of growth may slow. Conversely, if there is a large up > take of alternative fuels or electric vehicles then the rates of car > use may increase. These statistics will be monitored and any material > changes may require the Plan to be amended.”
> I don’t understand the disconnect - the council assures us that they > are “monitoring the statistics” - yet they seem to be ignoring them.
> I have written to one of the councilors who is more supportive of > public transport, who hopes to at least get the council to commission > a more detailed report on the cost of a light rail system from the > railway station to the hospital. Such as system is though to cost > around $140m. Another public transport option ignored in the report is > extending the existing trolley bus routes.
> What the draft plan does support is spending $30m within the next 10 > years on concrete spaghetti at the Basin reserve, and in the longer > term to consider building an extra mt Vic Tunnel expected to cost $175 > and an extra terrace tunnel expected to cost $167.
> Anyways team I'm interested in your opinions...
> What do you think Wellington's strategic transport plan should be?
> What is the right balance between road and public transport funding?
> How should this balance change in the face of changing oil prices and > emissions reduction targets?
Totally agree with Greg's comments.
Huge disconnect with reality at yesterday's GW Transport and Access
meeting.
And the big funding disision of getting something like light rail onto
the drawing board
immediately (and dropping roading projects) wasn't supported by 3 of
the other Councillors.
However, a motion was passed
for assessments of "high quality public transport system" and other
new roading and tunnels projects.
to take place within 5 - 10 year period.
This is very sad.... as public money will be scarce...
and most likely unavailable as we move further along the energy
descent path..
Paul Bruce
(Greater Wellington Regional Councillor)
On May 6, 9:58 pm, greg <greg.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My brief summary is: cars cars cars, until at least 2050, maybe we’ll
> think up another strategy then. Oil might get expensive but we’ll do
> nothing now as some other technology may appear.
> If you think my summary is unfair, well theirs doesn’t read much
> better:
> “While there is an assumption that car ownership and therefore use
> will continue to rise in line with economic growth, the rate of car
> ownership growth is forecast to taper off as we near a saturation
> level. Reaching this theoretical saturation level is forecast to be
> beyond 2050, so current projections show there is a need to ensure the
> community’s needs for private vehicle transport are reasonably
> accommodated.”
> “In an era of rapidly rising fuel prices vehicle use may decline or at
> least the rate of growth may slow. Conversely, if there is a large up
> take of alternative fuels or electric vehicles then the rates of car
> use may increase. These statistics will be monitored and any material
> changes may require the Plan to be amended.”
> I don’t understand the disconnect - the council assures us that they
> are “monitoring the statistics” - yet they seem to be ignoring them.
> I have written to one of the councilors who is more supportive of
> public transport, who hopes to at least get the council to commission
> a more detailed report on the cost of a light rail system from the
> railway station to the hospital. Such as system is though to cost
> around $140m. Another public transport option ignored in the report is
> extending the existing trolley bus routes.
> What the draft plan does support is spending $30m within the next 10
> years on concrete spaghetti at the Basin reserve, and in the longer
> term to consider building an extra mt Vic Tunnel expected to cost $175
> and an extra terrace tunnel expected to cost $167.
> Anyways team I'm interested in your opinions...
> What do you think Wellington's strategic transport plan should be?
> What is the right balance between road and public transport funding?
> How should this balance change in the face of changing oil prices and
> emissions reduction targets?
I was interested to see that they are aware of the issues as reported in the story on the above page, and quoted below:
The draft plan, prepared by Greater Wellington Regional Council, Wellington City Council and Transit New Zealand, will be considered by committees of these three organisations next week. The committees are being asked to recommend it to the Regional Land Transport Committee, followed by public consultation.
The draft plan has been deliberately developed for adaptation as the environment changes. For example, if oil price increases or carbon charges substantially reduce the demand for private transport, those projects required for private vehicle demand could be delayed. Conversely, if affordable alternatives for powering cars become more widely available, the roading projects would be expected to proceed as planned.
I think we need to make a few oral submissions, presenting evidence such as the recent IEA announcements about oil supply crunches, and pop some bubbles regarding shortages of materials the production of batteries etc. for electric cars. We need to show them that private cars are a red herring, unfortunatley the new generation of cheap solar panels also relies on very depleated reserves of rare metals also. As Paul says, options become increasingly limited as the energy descent bites.
Following is my submission on the Regional Policy Statement.
Cheers
Nigel
I have read the Regional Policy Statement and I was unable to find any policies for developing people or communities, Greater Wellingtons "human resources". I am concerned that our people and communities will lack the resilience required to withstand oil scarcity, and that we are more dependant than ever on a very finite resource.
The definition of "sustainable management" ("meeting the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations") in the foreword of the Regional Policy Statement is now over 20 years old. In the last 25 years the worlds population has grown by 2 billion, and the economy, i.e. resource consumption has doubled, however our earth has stayed the same size and we have depleted vast amounts of its resources. Increasing population and increasing consumption expectations are increasing competition for increasingly depleted resources. E.g. Fish, fuel, metals.
I can understand government bodies not wanting to cause alarm or "rock the boat", but I also think the Regional Policy Statement lacks a sense of urgency. Conservatism is no excuse, we are compromising the needs of future generations, we are pushing against the limits to consumption based growth and we are compromising our own future needs. This Regional Policy Statement, while tentatively recognising what is required, does not signal the paradigm shift that is required to achieve "sustainable management", we canot afford to base the next 10 years on a policy statement that lacks urgency.
As resources become further depleted, competition for materials such as steel and plastic and inputs such as fuel will escalate the prices of buildings and infrastructure, machinery and cars, as well as their production and running costs. We should have been planning globally for this eventuality for the last 20 years, to give us more time and smart resilient cities. Instead our cities have become more dependant on cars and fuel and we accelerate our consumption of finite resources.
In the very near future we may see food prices continue to escalate, driven by competition from meat/dairy production and biofuels and pushing the cost of living beyond the means of some people. We need to develop strong and vibrant communities and networks, who are able to identify issues in their communities and address them proactively, before problems arise.
I would like to see policy that empowers communities to plan and initiate projects and ideas that will provide them with the means to cope with rapidly increasing fuel and food prices. These initiatives will also enable them to cope in the event of natural disasters, and provide socialising and employment opportunities.
> Totally agree with Greg's comments. > Huge disconnect with reality at yesterday's GW Transport and Access > meeting. > And the big funding disision of getting something like light rail onto > the drawing board > immediately (and dropping roading projects) wasn't supported by 3 of > the other Councillors. > However, a motion was passed > for assessments of "high quality public transport system" and other > new roading and tunnels projects. > to take place within 5 - 10 year period.
> This is very sad.... as public money will be scarce... > and most likely unavailable as we move further along the energy > descent path..
> Paul Bruce > (Greater Wellington Regional Councillor)
> On May 6, 9:58 pm, greg <greg.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The draft plan has been released.
> > My brief summary is: cars cars cars, until at least 2050, maybe we'll > > think up another strategy then. Oil might get expensive but we'll do > > nothing now as some other technology may appear.
> > If you think my summary is unfair, well theirs doesn't read much > > better:
> > "While there is an assumption that car ownership and therefore use > > will continue to rise in line with economic growth, the rate of car > > ownership growth is forecast to taper off as we near a saturation > > level. Reaching this theoretical saturation level is forecast to be > > beyond 2050, so current projections show there is a need to ensure the > > community's needs for private vehicle transport are reasonably > > accommodated."
> > "In an era of rapidly rising fuel prices vehicle use may decline or at > > least the rate of growth may slow. Conversely, if there is a large up > > take of alternative fuels or electric vehicles then the rates of car > > use may increase. These statistics will be monitored and any material > > changes may require the Plan to be amended."
> > I don't understand the disconnect - the council assures us that they > > are "monitoring the statistics" - yet they seem to be ignoring them.
> > I have written to one of the councilors who is more supportive of > > public transport, who hopes to at least get the council to commission > > a more detailed report on the cost of a light rail system from the > > railway station to the hospital. Such as system is though to cost > > around $140m. Another public transport option ignored in the report is > > extending the existing trolley bus routes.
> > What the draft plan does support is spending $30m within the next 10 > > years on concrete spaghetti at the Basin reserve, and in the longer > > term to consider building an extra mt Vic Tunnel expected to cost $175 > > and an extra terrace tunnel expected to cost $167.
> > Anyways team I'm interested in your opinions...
> > What do you think Wellington's strategic transport plan should be?
> > What is the right balance between road and public transport funding?
> > How should this balance change in the face of changing oil prices and > > emissions reduction targets?
I agree that the goals listed at start of the plan are sensible[1],
and I also find that it is encouraging that the council is now feeling
the need to tack on footpaths, bike lanes and bus ways onto roading
projects.
However I think it is important that we judge the plan based on how
well the plan's proposed projects are likely to achieve the stated
goals. Based on my reading, the plan intends to solve congestion, GHG
emissions, road safety and land use problems by supporting a continued
increase in the use of private cars and road building. I think when
all the costs of this approach are considered (monetary, social and
environmental), that they are likely far higher than an alternate
approach with an increased long-term strategic investment in public
transport.
More details in my next post – Note I am still getting my head around
all this, if you think I am misrepresenting the councils plan, please
speak up. It is an important discussion.
Cheers,
Greg
[1]
The Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy (RLTS) also contains
the following region wide
strategic outcomes:
• Increased peak period passenger transport mode share
• Increased mode share for pedestrians and cyclists
• Reduced greenhouse gas emissions
• Reduced severe road congestion
• Improved regional road safety
• Improved land use and transport integration
• Improved regional freight efficiency.
Wellington City Council’s Transport and Urban Development Strategies
seek to achieve the
following outcomes:
• Concentrate future population and employment growth along the
Growth Spine, supported
by:
o A dedicated, high quality and high frequency public
transport corridor
o A high quality state highway route with dependable travel
times
o Bus priority along connecting arterial routes
• Convenient and safe walking and cycling routes
• Limit commuter parking in the Central Area
• Improve access to the waterfront.
On May 7, 8:44 am, Rimu Atkinson <rimuatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My brief summary is: cars cars cars, until at least 2050, maybe we’ll
> > think up another strategy then. Oil might get expensive but we’ll do
> > nothing now as some other technology may appear.
> > If you think my summary is unfair, well theirs doesn’t read much
> > better:
> > “While there is an assumption that car ownership and therefore use
> > will continue to rise in line with economic growth, the rate of car
> > ownership growth is forecast to taper off as we near a saturation
> > level. Reaching this theoretical saturation level is forecast to be
> > beyond 2050, so current projections show there is a need to ensure the
> > community’s needs for private vehicle transport are reasonably
> > accommodated.”
> > “In an era of rapidly rising fuel prices vehicle use may decline or at
> > least the rate of growth may slow. Conversely, if there is a large up
> > take of alternative fuels or electric vehicles then the rates of car
> > use may increase. These statistics will be monitored and any material
> > changes may require the Plan to be amended.”
> > I don’t understand the disconnect - the council assures us that they
> > are “monitoring the statistics” - yet they seem to be ignoring them.
> > I have written to one of the councilors who is more supportive of
> > public transport, who hopes to at least get the council to commission
> > a more detailed report on the cost of a light rail system from the
> > railway station to the hospital. Such as system is though to cost
> > around $140m. Another public transport option ignored in the report is
> > extending the existing trolley bus routes.
> > What the draft plan does support is spending $30m within the next 10
> > years on concrete spaghetti at the Basin reserve, and in the longer
> > term to consider building an extra mt Vic Tunnel expected to cost $175
> > and an extra terrace tunnel expected to cost $167.
> > Anyways team I'm interested in your opinions...
> > What do you think Wellington's strategic transport plan should be?
> > What is the right balance between road and public transport funding?
> > How should this balance change in the face of changing oil prices and
> > emissions reduction targets?
Thank you for the support. Good to know there are some voices on the
inside calling for increased public transport funding. Do you know of
any good studies which look at how to find a suitable funding balance
between roads and PT?
Cheers,
Greg.
On May 8, 7:07 am, paul <Paul.Br...@greens.org.nz> wrote:
> Totally agree with Greg's comments.
> Huge disconnect with reality at yesterday's GW Transport and Access
> meeting.
> And the big funding disision of getting something like light rail onto
> the drawing board
> immediately (and dropping roading projects) wasn't supported by 3 of
> the other Councillors.
> However, a motion was passed
> for assessments of "high quality public transport system" and other
> new roading and tunnels projects.
> to take place within 5 - 10 year period.
> This is very sad.... as public money will be scarce...
> and most likely unavailable as we move further along the energy
> descent path..
> Paul Bruce
> (Greater Wellington Regional Councillor)
> On May 6, 9:58 pm, greg <greg.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My brief summary is: cars cars cars, until at least 2050, maybe we’ll
> > think up another strategy then. Oil might get expensive but we’ll do
> > nothing now as some other technology may appear.
> > If you think my summary is unfair, well theirs doesn’t read much
> > better:
> > “While there is an assumption that car ownership and therefore use
> > will continue to rise in line with economic growth, the rate of car
> > ownership growth is forecast to taper off as we near a saturation
> > level. Reaching this theoretical saturation level is forecast to be
> > beyond 2050, so current projections show there is a need to ensure the
> > community’s needs for private vehicle transport are reasonably
> > accommodated.”
> > “In an era of rapidly rising fuel prices vehicle use may decline or at
> > least the rate of growth may slow. Conversely, if there is a large up
> > take of alternative fuels or electric vehicles then the rates of car
> > use may increase. These statistics will be monitored and any material
> > changes may require the Plan to be amended.”
> > I don’t understand the disconnect - the council assures us that they
> > are “monitoring the statistics” - yet they seem to be ignoring them.
> > I have written to one of the councilors who is more supportive of
> > public transport, who hopes to at least get the council to commission
> > a more detailed report on the cost of a light rail system from the
> > railway station to the hospital. Such as system is though to cost
> > around $140m. Another public transport option ignored in the report is
> > extending the existing trolley bus routes.
> > What the draft plan does support is spending $30m within the next 10
> > years on concrete spaghetti at the Basin reserve, and in the longer
> > term to consider building an extra mt Vic Tunnel expected to cost $175
> > and an extra terrace tunnel expected to cost $167.
> > Anyways team I'm interested in your opinions...
> > What do you think Wellington's strategic transport plan should be?
> > What is the right balance between road and public transport funding?
> > How should this balance change in the face of changing oil prices and
> > emissions reduction targets?
I also plan to write a submission, thanks for sharing your ideas.
Regarding the councils quote[1], I think we need to judge the councils
plan based on the proposed measures in the plan, not vague
reassurances that they will do the right thing should another scenario
arise.
Perhaps the council could include a two scenario plan – one assuming
low oil prices, and another assuming high oil prices? Each scenario
would recommend a different set of projects that make sense based on
the scenarios oil price. At the moment the council seem to be only
planning the first scenario, and have made no plans at all for the
second. Perhaps further scenarios could take into account differing
future national GHG emission reduction targets, and different levels
of public support for public transport.
It is difficult to call the current plan “strategic” or “long term”
when it fails to recommend measures to take based on likely future
scenarios.
Thanks for the helpful discussion,
Greg.
[1]
The draft plan has been deliberately developed for adaptation as the
environment changes. For example, if oil price increases or carbon
charges
substantially reduce the demand for private transport, those projects
required for private vehicle demand could be delayed. Conversely, if
affordable alternatives for powering cars become more widely
available, the
roading projects would be expected to proceed as planned.
On May 8, 2:18 pm, "nigel taptiklis" <nigel.taptik...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I was interested to see that they are aware of the issues as reported in the
> story on the above page, and quoted below:
> The draft plan, prepared by Greater Wellington Regional Council, Wellington
> City Council and Transit New Zealand, will be considered by committees of
> these three organisations next week. The committees are being asked to
> recommend it to the Regional Land Transport Committee, followed by public
> consultation.
> The draft plan has been deliberately developed for adaptation as the
> environment changes. For example, if oil price increases or carbon charges
> substantially reduce the demand for private transport, those projects
> required for private vehicle demand could be delayed. Conversely, if
> affordable alternatives for powering cars become more widely available, the
> roading projects would be expected to proceed as planned.
> I think we need to make a few oral submissions, presenting evidence such as
> the recent IEA announcements about oil supply crunches, and pop some bubbles
> regarding shortages of materials the production of batteries etc. for
> electric cars. We need to show them that private cars are a red herring,
> unfortunatley the new generation of cheap solar panels also relies on very
> depleated reserves of rare metals also. As Paul says, options become
> increasingly limited as the energy descent bites.
> Following is my submission on the Regional Policy Statement.
> Cheers
> Nigel
> I have read the Regional Policy Statement and I was unable to find any
> policies for developing people or communities, Greater Wellingtons "human
> resources". I am concerned that our people and communities will lack the
> resilience required to withstand oil scarcity, and that we are more
> dependant than ever on a very finite resource.
> The definition of "sustainable management" ("meeting the needs of the
> present without compromising the needs of future generations") in the
> foreword of the Regional Policy Statement is now over 20 years old. In the
> last 25 years the worlds population has grown by 2 billion, and the economy,
> i.e. resource consumption has doubled, however our earth has stayed the same
> size and we have depleted vast amounts of its resources. Increasing
> population and increasing consumption expectations are increasing
> competition for increasingly depleted resources. E.g. Fish, fuel, metals.
> I can understand government bodies not wanting to cause alarm or "rock the
> boat", but I also think the Regional Policy Statement lacks a sense of
> urgency. Conservatism is no excuse, we are compromising the needs of future
> generations, we are pushing against the limits to consumption based growth
> and we are compromising our own future needs. This Regional Policy
> Statement, while tentatively recognising what is required, does not signal
> the paradigm shift that is required to achieve "sustainable
> management", we canot afford to base the next 10 years on a policy statement
> that lacks urgency.
> As resources become further depleted, competition for materials such as
> steel and plastic and inputs such as fuel will escalate the prices of
> buildings and infrastructure, machinery and cars, as well as
> their production and running costs. We should have been planning
> globally for this eventuality for the last 20 years, to give us more time
> and smart resilient cities. Instead our cities have become more dependant on
> cars and fuel and we accelerate our consumption of finite resources.
> In the very near future we may see food prices continue to escalate, driven
> by competition from meat/dairy production and biofuels and pushing the cost
> of living beyond the means of some people. We need to develop strong and
> vibrant communities and networks, who are able to identify issues in their
> communities and address them proactively, before problems arise.
> I would like to see policy that empowers communities to plan and initiate
> projects and ideas that will provide them with the means to cope with
> rapidly increasing fuel and food prices. These initiatives will also enable
> them to cope in the event of natural disasters, and provide socialising and
> employment opportunities.
> On 5/8/08, paul <Paul.Br...@greens.org.nz> wrote:
> > Totally agree with Greg's comments.
> > Huge disconnect with reality at yesterday's GW Transport and Access
> > meeting.
> > And the big funding disision of getting something like light rail onto
> > the drawing board
> > immediately (and dropping roading projects) wasn't supported by 3 of
> > the other Councillors.
> > However, a motion was passed
> > for assessments of "high quality public transport system" and other
> > new roading and tunnels projects.
> > to take place within 5 - 10 year period.
> > This is very sad.... as public money will be scarce...
> > and most likely unavailable as we move further along the energy
> > descent path..
> > Paul Bruce
> > (Greater Wellington Regional Councillor)
> > On May 6, 9:58 pm, greg <greg.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The draft plan has been released.
> > > My brief summary is: cars cars cars, until at least 2050, maybe we'll
> > > think up another strategy then. Oil might get expensive but we'll do
> > > nothing now as some other technology may appear.
> > > If you think my summary is unfair, well theirs doesn't read much
> > > better:
> > > "While there is an assumption that car ownership and therefore use
> > > will continue to rise in line with economic growth, the rate of car
> > > ownership growth is forecast to taper off as we near a saturation
> > > level. Reaching this theoretical saturation level is forecast to be
> > > beyond 2050, so current projections show there is a need to ensure the
> > > community's needs for private vehicle transport are reasonably
> > > accommodated."
> > > "In an era of rapidly rising fuel prices vehicle use may decline or at
> > > least the rate of growth may slow. Conversely, if there is a large up
> > > take of alternative fuels or electric vehicles then the rates of car
> > > use may increase. These statistics will be monitored and any material
> > > changes may require the Plan to be amended."
> > > I don't understand the disconnect - the council assures us that they
> > > are "monitoring the statistics" - yet they seem to be ignoring them.
> > > I have written to one of the councilors who is more supportive of
> > > public transport, who hopes to at least get the council to commission
> > > a more detailed report on the cost of a light rail system from the
> > > railway station to the hospital. Such as system is though to cost
> > > around $140m. Another public transport option ignored in the report is
> > > extending the existing trolley bus routes.
> > > What the draft plan does support is spending $30m within the next 10
> > > years on concrete spaghetti at the Basin reserve, and in the longer
> > > term to consider building an extra mt Vic Tunnel expected to cost $175
> > > and an extra terrace tunnel expected to cost $167.
> > > Anyways team I'm interested in your opinions...
> > > What do you think Wellington's strategic transport plan should be?
> > > What is the right balance between road and public transport funding?
> > > How should this balance change in the face of changing oil prices and
> > > emissions reduction targets?
