SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT

8
0

Urgent Public meeting on Public Transport…

Speakers include:
• Auckland City Councillor and AT Director Mike Lee, a long time advocate for rail in Auckland
• Graham Matthews, General Manager Airport Development & Delivery at Auckland Airport
• Jim Jackson, The Onehunga Enhancement Society
• Graeme Easte from CBT
• Stuart Johnstone – Rail and Maritime Transport Northern Regional Organiser 

8 COMMENTS

  1. National are diametrically opposed to rail, it’s in their policy as they are now owned by the Road Transport Association (RTA) as their contribution to their re-election next April 2017 (snap election).

  2. This is all misguided discussion, we should NOT encourage air travel, as air travel grows exponentially, with also huge increases in tourism, and the emissions are high, not even accounted for properly so far. We have a major challenge with air travel, we should encourage people to come to NZ by ship rather than planes, as otherwise we only put another death nail into our supposed “clean green image”.

    “Despite emission reductions from automobiles and more fuel-efficient and less polluting turbofan and turboprop engines, the rapid growth of air travel in recent years contributes to an increase in total pollution attributable to aviation. From 1992 to 2005, passenger kilometers increased 5.2% per year. And in the European Union, greenhouse gas emissions from aviation increased by 87% between 1990 and 2006.[5]”

    “Comprehensive research shows that despite anticipated efficiency innovations to airframes, engines, aerodynamics and flight operations, there is no end in sight – even many decades out – to rapid growth in CO2 emissions from air travel and air freight,[6][7] due to projected continual growth in air travel.[8][9] This is because aviation emissions have escaped international regulation thus far,[citation needed] and because the lack, worldwide, of taxes on aviation fuel results in lower fares than otherwise which gives a competitive advantage over other transportation modes.[citation needed] Unless market constraints are put in place this growth in aviation’s emissions will result in the sector’s emissions amounting to all or nearly all of the annual global CO2 emissions budget by mid-century, if climate change is to be held to a temperature increase of 2 °C or less.[10]”

    “These emissions are similar to a four-seat car with one person on board;[27] however, flying trips often cover longer distances than would be undertaken by car, so the total emissions are much higher. For perspective, per passenger a typical economy-class New York to Los Angeles round trip produces about 715 kg (1574 lb) of CO2 (but is equivalent to 1,917 kg (4,230 lb) of CO2 when the high altitude “climatic forcing” effect is taken into account).[28] Within the categories of flights above, emissions from scheduled jet flights are substantially higher than turboprop or chartered jet flights. About 60% of aviation emissions arise from international flights, and these flights are not covered by the Kyoto Protocol and its emissions reduction targets.[29]

    Figures from British Airways suggest carbon dioxide emissions of 100g per passenger kilometre for large jet airliners (a figure which does not account for the production of other pollutants or condensation trails).[30]”

    Much more on Wiki:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation

    Los Angeles is a bad example for rapid rail, and public transport as a whole, they have a worse situation as us:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_Los_Angeles

    While I still prefer heavy rail to light rail, for reasons stated by Graeme East and others, I think we should be much bolder with rail. People are given too much option to use cars for travel, we should not have motorways, we should have rail tracks and lines where they sit.

    But people live in lala land, they think future car travel powered by electricity will enable them to carry on as usual. Problem is the power needed will vastly exceed what we can produce in electricity, especially with a larger population, so how would you feel about nuclear power plants in or near Auckland?

    Most do not get anything in this country, they live from day to day and have NO clue about what is needed and what should be done.

  3. Electricity use per motor vehicle, check this website:
    http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_charging_home.html

    “General Motors estimates the annual energy use of the Chevy Volt is about 2,520 kilowatt-hours, which is less than that required for a typical water heater or central air conditioning.”

    That may be fine then, but how does a million or so cars in Auckland translate in equal energy consumption close to another million water heaters, I wonder?

    But electric cars seem to be more environmentally friendly at least:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car

    It comes with a cautionary note:
    “Environmental impact of manufacturing

    Electric cars are not completely environmentally friendly, and have impacts arising from manufacturing the vehicle.[129][130] Since battery packs are heavy, manufacturers work to lighten the rest of the vehicle. As a result, electric car components contain many lightweight materials that require a lot of energy to produce and process, such as aluminium and carbon-fiber-reinforced polymers. Electric motors and batteries also add to the energy of electric-car manufacture.[131] Additionally, the magnets in the motors of many electric vehicles contain rare earth metals. In a study released in 2012, a group of MIT researchers calculated that global mining of two rare Earth metals, neodymium and dysprosium, would need to increase 700% and 2600%, respectively, over the next 25 years to keep pace with various green-tech plans.[132] Substitute strategies do exist, but deploying them introduces trade-offs in efficiency and cost.[131] The same MIT study noted that the materials used in batteries are also harmful to the environment.[133] Compounds such as lithium, copper, and nickel are mined from the Earth and processed in a manner that demands energy and can release toxic components. In regions with poor legislature, mineral exploitation can even further extend risks. The local population may be exposed to toxic substances through air and groundwater contamination.[131][clarification needed]”

    Re electricity use it still sounds a lot to me, and will exceed the electricity we have available here, even if using solar and wind on top of hydro. Add near a million more residents in Auckland, as now planned under the Auckland Plan and Unitary Plan, where does the energy come from?

    I think we need to change our lifestyles no matter what, and use rail and buses as STANDARD in ALL urban areas in NZ.

  4. LA experience so far, not enough effort:

    http://la.streetsblog.org/2016/01/29/what-factors-are-causing-metros-declining-ridership-what-next/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_Los_Angeles

    We need to rethink and redesign our cities, doubling Auckland’s population to make things “more efficient” can hardly be the solution, we should SHRINK in area and become living and denser communities, and not put extra stress on our environment.

    That is my view, but Auckland Council and the vested interest parties that shaped the Auckland Plan and Unitary Plan have different views.

Comments are closed.