8 min read
The opening paragraphs of the lastest plan to emerge from the production line at Auckland Council – the Energy Climate Change Mitigation Discussion Document – say a lot:
.
“Auckland’s two largest sources of emissions are transport and electricity, which combined are estimated to account for approximately 66% of our total emissions… and that Aucklands profile is relatively unique internationally…. due largely to our large renewable energy base and high levels of private motor-vehicle usage”
.
There is a very big opportunity here for cycling, which is to all intents and purposes zero emission. The full document can be found here:
.
So make sure you put in a submission on this plan by 15 July. Feel free to seek inspiration from Cycle Action Aucklands submission below. Simply email your thoughts to: eccm@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
.
Cycle Action Aucklands submission looks like this:
Cycle Action Auckland (CAA) is pleased to submit this response to the Draft, and notes that the scope of its comment are limited to transport.
.
Opportunity 1 Providing greater transport choice and reducing motor vehicle dependency.
.
1. Have we identified the main issues and opportunities for Auckland?
.
CAA is pleased to see that Auckland is recognised as having a unique energy and CO2 production profile, caused in the greatest part by our use and dependence on private motor vehicles. This is evident in ¼ of the Opportunities being directly related to transport, and ? (Figure 3) of the projected emissions reduction coming from transport.
.
CAA would suggest that there is a greater chance to achieve the plan’s goals by working in the transport area. Many opportunities will be lost if the the chance to prioritise changes to the transport system is missed. The significant opportunity is best expressed like this:
.
If, for instance, the price doubled for transport and electricity overnight, it is reasonable to imagine that users could find easy alternatives for transport in a matter of days. They would, however ,struggle to find electricity alternatives:
.
Transport alternatives like telecommuting, public transport, talking to the neighbours about carpooling, grabbing the bike from the garage or walking are straightforward transport mode shifts and are available to the majority of Aucklanders now. These changes to travel behaviour would cost the government little or nothing.
.
Electricity alternatives are not so easy to come by and typically require expensive capital for the homeowner, business operator or government. The only quick fix would be to shut down machines that require large amounts of electricity.
.
Transport emissions reduction should be given greater priority, at least in terms of more immediate timeframes for those Opportunities. Urgent consideration should also be given as to how to release the transport solutions that are already present but underutilised. Failure to take these simple actions in the first instance would result in lost time and extra expense.
.
CAA would also note that a significant reason for Aucklanders having developed a reliance on the private motor vehicle for transport is that the car has become the easiest mode of transport for Aucklanders. The Opportunities look to make the alternative transport modes easier but only hint (Page 15) at the opportunity to make the car a less attractive mode of transport by reducing hidden subsidies that currently skew the system away from other transport modes:
.
For example an increase in the cost and decrease in supply of free parking, introduction of congestion charges, reduced speed limits on the urban streets and increased fuel taxes all serve to make the car a less attractive mode and the public will naturally start to look for alternatives. It is also worth noting that most of these measures generate revenue that could be used to assist low emission transport alternatives. Transport emission reduction could aim to be self funding or even cash positive.
.
It is acknowledged however that this will be a politically difficult “sell” – the benefits therefore need to be clearly communicated to the public, and any money raised from these measures would need to be visibly used to improve the overall balance and reliability of the transport system.
.
Related to these “push” methods, emphasis of course also should be given to “pull” methods that make the use of walking, cycling and public transport easier, such as via better infrastructure and services. However, with the historical dominance of motor vehicle transport in Auckland, we believe that “pull” factors alone are unlikely to overcome this imbalance in any realistic timeframe.
.
2. Are there any other relevant issues and opportunities?
.
3. Are these appropriate solutions? If not what is missing?
.
The opportunity to make the car a harder choice, as highlighted in the answer to Question 1 should be stated as a solution in its own right, particularly given its ability to generate income.
Travel demand management solution should include reference to telecommuting or at least the idea of whether a car journey is actually necessary. Finding ways to influence the uptake of active and public transport is great to see.
.
Active transport infrastructure solutions should tie in with at least some of these existing and planned public transport nodes. For example making sure cycling infrastructure lead into and out of train station dramatically increases the catchment of that station, when compared to walking:
Furthermore, the bike paths and lanes need to be connected in a continuous network. It is worth noting that the need for separated bike paths and lanes becomes less urgent if car volumes and speeds are reduced, i.e. when the transport system becomes more balanced in the long term, fewer infrastructure intervention will be required.
.
4. Who should be involved in delivering these solutions?
.
Auckland Transport should invite key stakeholders in active and public transport, such as Cycle Action Auckland, Walk Auckland, the Rideshare Institute and the Campaign for Better Transport, from the first stages. To achieve solutions and reach challenging goals these established organisations must be valued for their expertise and resources and be involved in the planning, goal setting and auditing processes.
.
The Ministry of Health and/or the District Health Boards should be included given the potentially large public health benefits of an increase in active transport.
.
5. How could these solutions be funded
.
An increase in the cost of paid public parking, congestion charges and increased fuel taxes would produce additional funds. Extra developer contributions for developments that desire to have more car parking spaces could also be a funding source.
.
Alternatively, decreasing the spend on motor vehicle infrastructure and reassigning these funds with active and public transport would be a great start. As targets for walking, cycling and public transport are stated as percentages, funding splits in these areas should be made in the same ratio, and possibly more until the target is achieved. For example if 5% of the transport share was to be by bicycle then at least 5% of Auckland Transport’s budget should be spent on cycling.
.
Consider the reduction in health costs from the increase in active transport modes. 2012 research from the School of Population Health, Auckland University shows thats a completed Auckland cycle network and self explaining roads will deliver $20 in long term health savings for every $1 invested in the infrastructure. Perhaps the reduced long term health savings could be a source of funding for transport emission reduction.
.
6. Do you have any further feedback or comments on Opportunity 1
.
Opportunity 2 Reducing reliance on fossil fuels for transport
.
7. Are these appropriate solutions? If not what is missing?
.
As stated in the response to Question 1, it is vital to find ways of making the current fossil fuel powered cars less attractive to use, whilst at the same time encouraging the uptake of the suggested solutions.
.
It is worth noting that the energy used to create the technology suggested in the solutions is often considerable. For example, in the case of the Toyota Prius, it takes 150% (MIT) of the energy to create a standard car. This is eventually offset after a considerable number of km’s in the more efficient Prius. Often the energy to create the new technology is acquired in countries which burn fossil fuels for electricity.
.
Finding technologies that can be retrofitted to existing cars to increase efficiency should be an early priority.
.
Ensuring any government procurement places a weighting on low energy use for manufacture and the use of sustainably produced energy.
.
The ongoing public transport improvement solution, should include a public bike hire network. Bike hire networks have become serious public transport tools in the major cities around the world and are unique in their ability to provide an immediate solution (no waiting 15 minutes in a bus stop) that can be ridden in any direction to one of the other 100+ hire stations (unlike a fixed bus route). They are an excellent complement to the more traditional buses, trains and ferries, and can be installed at a fraction of the price.
.
8. Who should be involved in delivering these solutions?
.
Auckland Transport should invite key stakeholders in active and public Transport, such as Cycle Action Auckland, Walk Auckland, the Rideshare Institute and the Campaign for Better Transport, from the first stages. To achieve solutions and reach challenging goals these established organisations must be valued for their expertise and resources and be involved in the planning, goal setting and auditing processes.
.
9. How could these solutions be funded
.
A pollution tax on older cars, or cars that have not been retrofitted with efficient technology.
.
10. Do you have any further feedback or comments on Opportunity 2
.
An efficient recycling programme for old cars will be important.
