Wasnt' that the argument mounted for AirNZ running on biofuels - that it would be hit first by a price increase in jetfuel?

Yeah i think so. I think they've had a couple of successful test flights using 50/50 jatropha biofuel/standard aviation fuels. So that's a good start.

Yes you make some very good points there. We do need to be looking this now, however the signs are that we are not. It looks like our government thinks it will be business as usual.

I think the biggest issue for AirNZ is that it will be seen as a large contributor to global CO2 emissions due to the long-haul nature of flying from NZ. By using biofuels, hopefully this will mitigate against any political or financial backlash.

Thing is, what Fitzsimons fails to see, is the fact that hybrid and soon pure electric technology in cars will soon become widespread and cheap. Nissan's Leaf is thw world's first mainstream pure electric car, where as the Indian made G-Wizz is classed as a "quadracyle" and therefore isn't a car. Besides, the G-Wizz is crap anyway.

Thing is, what Fitzsimons fails to see, is the fact that hybrid and soon pure electric technology in cars will soon become widespread and cheap. Nissan's Leaf is thw world's first mainstream pure electric car, where as the Indian made G-Wizz is classed as a "quadracyle" and therefore isn't a car. Besides, the G-Wizz is crap anyway.

There is a problem in that it will take a while for these alternative vehicles to get to that critical mass needed for them to become cheap and accepted in society as a mainstream product.

I think the real heart of this problem is how Toyota markets the product. They are marketing the Prius as a product for environmentally conscious people, hence having it's own brand "prius" rather than marketing the car for the masses by incorporating the technology into Camrys, Corollas etc. I see that this is slowly changing, but its very limited apart from the Lexus brand and a few models from other manufacturers.

Of course you can't blame Toyota for this since a hybrid vehicle is more expensive to produce and it therefore wouldn't sit quite right amongst all the other Corollas and Camrys with regular motive power sources.

This therefore brings the question of government regulation, cross-subsidisation, tariffs, incentives etc to encourage people to go "hybrid". This could be done at multiple levels to ensure that hybrid technology gets adopted by the mainstream. For example you could require car sellers charge an additional $500 per NEW non-eco vehicle 'pollution tax' which goes to a fund to help discount hybrid vehicles. The government could also provide tax incentives (GST Free?) for hybrid purchases, councils could provide 50% parking discount for hybrid vehicles... and so on.

Of course once these incentives produce the intended results, they can be removed or reduced as the production costs will have decreased.

But then there is also the question of whether hybrid really is the way to go in the first place? They still use more fuel than some small new diesel based cars? And what about pure-electric?

Heh. Yeah I've heard it stated that the Prius doesn't sell well despite it looking ugly, it sells well because it looks ugly, and is obviously a hybrid.

I think the real heart of this problem is how Toyota markets the product. They are marketing the Prius as a product for environmentally conscious people, hence having it's own brand "prius" rather than marketing the car for the masses by incorporating the technology into Camrys, Corollas etc. I see that this is slowly changing, but its very limited apart from the Lexus brand and a few models from other manufacturers.

Of course you can't blame Toyota for this since a hybrid vehicle is more expensive to produce and it therefore wouldn't sit quite right amongst all the other Corollas and Camrys with regular motive power sources.

The Camry Hybrid exists

You would be surprised how many manufacturers sell hybrid cars on the mass market. I like the idea of a tax on cars which don't have hybrid technology as an incentive to buy one and to help pay for the discounts, but just think how well it would go down in the public. The Nissan Leaf I mentioned is a mass market pure electric vehicle and many more companies, especially in China, are coming up with pure electric or hybrid vehicles to sell. The article talks about the future in 2030 which I think, is more than enough time for mass electric vehicles to become cheap.

However, this being environmentaly concious New Zealand, I think it won't take long to catch on.

The days of affordable fuel are coming to an end and the Government needs to rein in its spending on roading infrastructure and target alternative transport, the Green Party says.

Following another large spike in the price of petrol and diesel, Greens co-leader Russel Norman said a commitment by the Government to spend an additional $21 billion on roading infrastructure after 2012 was irresponsible when only $0.7b was tagged for alternatives.

It now costs up to $1.83 for a litre of 91 unleaded petrol and $1.16 for diesel, which is the highest in 18 months and a level which AA PetrolWatch spokesman Mark Stockdale described today as an "uncomfortable price point".

Dr Norman said investment in roading, compared to alternatives such as light rail and bus lanes, was way out of kilter.

"Such a one-sided investment approach to managing our future mobility is economic mismanagement. There is no other way to describe it.

"For the person on the street, this will mean they'll have next to no alternative options for getting to work when oil prices become unaffordable for everyday transport. And this could happen very soon."

Dr Norman said a Shell head had this week said that the days of cheap oil appeared to be over.

He said the Government appeared to be putting its faith in the continued development of electric cars.

"But the new cars are expensive, their uptake will be slow, and they don't solve the problem of congestion or where the power will come from."

- NZPA

Source (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10631155)

Decent argument there.

I personally think there is a lot of scare-mongering going on from the Greens (and Labour for that matter). Investing in PT simply because the price of oil is getting more expensive isn't in its own right a valid reason for making the investment.

You invest in PT when you have determined that there is going to be enough demand to warrant the investment. The demand for PT covers many facets, not just the price of oil. Speed, safety, efficiency, convenience, lifestyle are all factors at play in this issue.

Now yes, agreed, there will be a direct correlation between increasing oil prices and PT patronage, but the question to ask is that of the roughly $700 million that the NZTA estimates it will spend on new roading projects in Chch over the next 10 years, if say $200 million of that was invested in PT improvements instead of roading, would we actually get $200 million worth of benefit from that? Or would the government still have to pay another $200 million to finish the roading projects that otherwise couldn't be finished anyway?

Now I know it is easy to simply say yes... the world is running out of oil... yah-de-yah-de-yah...

But ask yourself this question?

If trams and trains were running to all major parts of the city and outer towns TODAY... How many people would use them over and above those that use PT now? I would suspect that the majority would still use their own private cars.

Since the Chch Western Bypass (Carmen/Russley/Johns Rds) is congested now, it needs upgrading. Now I don't see it likely that we'll be building trams/trains that run roughly on that alignment anytime soon so it would probably mean that we'll need to spend the $300 million on this project alone anyway.

Food for thought huh?

PS: I'm not actually trying to downplay any importance of all the arguments FOR public transport - sustainability, economy, social issues etc... but I am also trying to view the whole picture here, which unfortunately actually includes Steven Joyce's view that for the short-medium term, most NZ'ers will still travel predominantly by private car - Why? Because we can.

most NZ'ers will still travel predominantly by private car - Why?

Answer: because there is no viable alternative, due to lack of investment into PT.

I agree with you that public transport projects (and any project for that matter) has to stack up economically before it goes through. Funnily enough, the Puhoi-Wellsford project in a 'road of national significance', despite it having a BCR below 1.

Now, increasing oil prices make public transport more economical in the long term when compared to driving, because it uses less petrol per passenger. Petrol prices are almost certain to increase over the next 5-10 years. As a result, both public and private transport will become more expensive, but pulbic transport will become comparatively cheaper. A government with vision beyond the next 3 years will therefore be investing more money into public transport than the current one.

I personally think there is a lot of scare-mongering going on from the Greens (and Labour for that matter). Investing in PT simply because the price of oil is getting more expensive isn't in its own right a valid reason for making the investment.

You invest in PT when you have determined that there is going to be enough demand to warrant the investment. The demand for PT covers many facets, not just the price of oil. Speed, safety, efficiency, convenience, lifestyle are all factors at play in this issue.

Now yes, agreed, there will be a direct correlation between increasing oil prices and PT patronage, but the question to ask is that of the roughly $700 million that the NZTA estimates it will spend on new roading projects in Chch over the next 10 years, if say $200 million of that was invested in PT improvements instead of roading, would we actually get $200 million worth of benefit from that? Or would the government still have to pay another $200 million to finish the roading projects that otherwise couldn't be finished anyway?

Now I know it is easy to simply say yes... the world is running out of oil... yah-de-yah-de-yah...

But ask yourself this question?

If trams and trains were running to all major parts of the city and outer towns TODAY... How many people would use them over and above those that use PT now? I would suspect that the majority would still use their own private cars.

Since the Chch Western Bypass (Carmen/Russley/Johns Rds) is congested now, it needs upgrading. Now I don't see it likely that we'll be building trams/trains that run roughly on that alignment anytime soon so it would probably mean that we'll need to spend the $300 million on this project alone anyway.

Food for thought huh?

PS: I'm not actually trying to downplay any importance of all the arguments FOR public transport - sustainability, economy, social issues etc... but I am also trying to view the whole picture here, which unfortunately actually includes Steven Joyce's view that for the short-medium term, most NZ'ers will still travel predominantly by private car - Why? Because we can.

The argument is the same on the Aussie blogs - but the point is families have 2, 3 or 4 or more cars in one house.

Germans and Swedes and Japanese too have cars - just not so many per household.

The aim of good public transport should be so houses don't need multiple cars, as well some families further in don't need a car at all. And finally, people make sensible journeys - walk 500 metres to the shops for the pack of cigarettes, ride 3 kilometres to visit a friend, catch the train to work in the CBD rather than drive, catch the bus to University, share a ride if a few are going but its a long way from PT


and finally, if it's all too hard, then drive.

And don't worry about distance - sure distances are great in NZ compared with some parts of the world, but even lowly populated places like Sweden or Japan's northern most island, Hokkaido, have good public transport.

Hokkaido by the way has only 4 million people or so, is as big as one of NZ's main islands, and most of the people live in one large city, Sapporo, in fairly low density surrounds.

Answer: because there is no viable alternative, due to lack of investment into PT.

No, I disagree...

See, people don't just use PT because it is there... people use it to get around if it is the most suitable means of transport for the journey. But building a comprehensive PT network isn't actually a guarantee that people are going to use it. Ironically you could look at some of Sydneys Toll motorways which are way under utilised to see such an example of building something that people don't want to use.

Now, there in lies the problem - it would be very hard in most NZ cities currently to build a PT network that is more attractive than their own private car.

There are many reasons why that is and solving it requires a multi-faceted approach. Council planning towards ensuring we have a much higher population density would go a long way towards solving it, as would reviewing fuel taxes and other incentives.

But remember people don't like having 'nanny-state' governments that force people's hands so any council and government that plays hard nose and tries to be too aggressive is likely to be shown the exit door at the next election.

And there you have the conundrum... and on that basis, then unfortunately, Stephen Joyce is right in throwing money at the roading problem rather than at the public transport problem. And for any government in the near future, that will likely be the case for another decade or so.

But remember people don't like having 'nanny-state' governments

Arguably NZ had the nanniest state in the free world until Lange arrived.

And that was built democratically, so I reject this idea that people don't like Nanny states.

Some people don't like them; they are the empty vessels making noise. The only reason governments listen is becauses others don't make a countervailing noise.

Yes sure people use private vehicles in New Zealand because they want to, and they can, and they always have done. There are functioning roads that are kept in good condition and developed further when they start to clog up.

It's much more convenient in the sense that you can go wherever you want on your own terms - you don't have to wait at a station or bus stop, you don't have to walk on your legs (much), and you don't risk running into friends of your parents and having another discussion about how many wives and children you don't have.

We are so good at looking 30 centimetres in front of our noses. How exhausting.

Yes sure people use private vehicles in New Zealand because they want to, and they can, and they always have done. There are functioning roads that are kept in good condition and developed further when they start to clog up.

It's much more convenient in the sense that you can go wherever you want on your own terms - you don't have to wait at a station or bus stop, you don't have to walk on your legs (much), and you don't risk running into friends of your parents and having another discussion about how many wives and children you don't have.

We are so good at looking 30 centimetres in front of our noses. How exhausting.

The philosophy is probably slightly different actually -

If you give a child a PS3 or Xbox2 and they can use it whenever they please, then, after a few months you say that no, you can only use it special occasions - I'm sure most children would be a little annoyed? Yes?

The same goes with most of the population if the govt suddenly said that we cannot drive our cars anymore except for special occasions and that we have to use PT most of the time - How do you think we would feel?

So therefore it will always be a populist policy to build our way out of congestion by building more roads - Very short sighted Yes, but that is the easy way out for any government.

It isn't as much of an issue of European and Japanese cities because (1) those places have had PT for most generations currently living and therefore (2) the public is inherently used to using PT since that is the mindset that were brought up with.

So any uptake in PT in NZ is only ever going to be a steady gradual one forced probably by oil pricing rather than government policy.

And a steady increase in PT usage doesn't really justify a massive increase in PT expenditure, but a steady increase, which seems to be what is happening anyway.

Hate to say it, but I think Stephen Joyce and the National Govt are actually quite right to spend up on roading.

Rail link campaign gets 11,500 signaturesNZPA March 29, 2010,


A campaign to get a dedicated passenger rail service running between Hamilton and Auckland has had a shot in the arm with an 11,500 signature petition presented to local MPs in Hamilton today.

Other than the Overlander, the cities have not had a passenger rail link for several years, and growing support to get one reinstated led to Labour committing to do so before such hopes were dashed in the party's 2008 election defeat.

Local Labour MP Sue Moroney this morning said she had received the petition from Campaign for Better Transport and would present it to Parliament this week.

She and Green Party MP Gareth Hughes, along with local Hamilton city councillors, were backing the campaign, saying there was plenty of demand for train services from locals who currently commute to Auckland in cars.

Councillor Dave Macpherson said a council survey found there was 80 percent support for the service, along with indications that surrounding areas such as Tauranga and Rotorua would make use of it. Between 700 and 800 people a day were likely to use it, he said.

Ms Moroney said the Government and regional council Environment Waikato had to be involved to get the service going, and she would keep the pressure on them.

The Government has committed to spending money on Hamilton's new expressway, and when the petition was presented today, National's Hamilton East MP David Bennett told locals that the expressway was the priority

Minister outlines importance of Canterbury economy
Friday, 16 April 2010, 2:22 pm


Transport Minister Joyce outlines importance of Canterbury economy
The significance of the Canterbury economy to New Zealand as a whole and the fact it is the country’s second largest wealth generator in terms of regional economies was noted by Transport Minister Steven Joyce this morning.
He was meeting with the Canterbury Regional Transport Committee and local mayors, chaired by Environment Canterbury’s Cr Jo Kane, for a Christchurch breakfast briefing on regional transport. “I am very aware of the importance of the Canterbury economy to the national economy,” said Mr Joyce, noting the region’s second place in terms of regional wealth generation.

“I am very cognisant of the importance of investing in the transport system in Canterbury,” he said, noting underinvestment in transport infrastructure in the past.
The Minister outlined key government policy around the “Roads of National Significance” and implementation of the Government’s Safer Journeys Road Safety Strategy 2020.
“It is clear to me that the regional unity Canterbury has presented to Government, on transport matters at least, has paid dividends in recent times,” said Cr Kane.
“This must carry on if we are to continue to see current levels of Government money continue to be directed into the region. The Roads of National Significance are a key focus now, but these will be delivered before we know it. We need to keep our issues in the Minister’s sights, so that other things which benefit both urban and rural sectors - sealed rural roads, public transport, bridges and cycle routes - keep pace with economic growth.”
During the discussion, Mr Joyce made some cautionary points around rail, Cr Kane said.

“He pointed out that in Wellington and Auckland the commuter trains were not paying their full costs and he did not see why one sector of transport should be treated as a charity for ratepayers and taxpayers with a built-in assumption that they deserve to be subsidised.


“In terms of Greater Christchurch, he said that if people want rail alternatives to the motor car and buses for travel from satellite towns, they need to make sure they do the numbers well and can afford it long-term.”
In answer to other questions, Mr Joyce said he was not anticipating any further rises in the age for getting a driving license which will go to 16 from 15. Re the mooted decrease in the blood alcohol level for drivers supported by the Canterbury Transport Committee, he said this was “a finely balanced decision” which the Cabinet would work through in coming weeks.
ENDS

This post could have gone in a number of threads - obviously its a Palmerston North issue first, but its really interesting from the point of view of PT projects across the country and, in particular, rail.

By way of background, Palmerston North has been debating about the location of its new bus terminal, the state of its city rail terminal (terminal is a pretty strong word for it) and at the same time, has been faced with the prospect of its commuter rail with Wellington - The capital connection - being reduced or scrapped.

Nevertheless, the airport has come up with the idea of having bus and rail services (passenger and freight) all located at the airport. It would provide an all-in-one hub.

Its only a concept at this stage and is yet to be costed, but they have come up with initial plans (got these from the CBT site):

http://static.stuff.co.nz/1271385175/675/3590675.jpg

I have mixed views on this. The airport is by no means near the CBD but then again its not a massive drive to The Square (the CBD) either and it would no doubt be a major hub for taxis. And with talk of a ring road circling the city in future, it might work in the long run. Also, given that rail was diverted from the central city many many moons ago, its current location (Tremaine Ave on the outskirts of the city) is less desirable than having it at the airport.

The only downside would be that it would seem more advantageous to have the bus terminal much closer to the CBD. Rail too, but the latter is no chance now.

What's good to see is that the Mayor is encouraging the debate on what role rail will play in passenger transport, even in a place the size of Palmy.

More can be read here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/3589377/Airport-aims-to-link-bus-air-and-rail

It does make you wonder why Palmy airport can see the benefits of rail, and Auckland airport can't. I would imagine their revenue components (in particular, parking fees) are similar in make-up.

The Government will invest an initial $250 million as part of a $4.6 billion long term plan to turn around KiwiRail, Prime Minister John Key announced today.

Mr Key said $750m would be committed "in principle" over the next three years.

The announcement was part of a plan to get the rail freight business sustainable within a decade.

The lion's share of this $4.6b would come from the business itself.

Labour purchased Toll NZ Ltd in July 2008 for $690m and renamed it KiwiRail. The National Party criticised the move at the time.

- NZPA

^^ also signalled increased fares for commuter rail in Auckland and Wellington.

At the very least this indicates that rail has not been ignored.

^^ About the best news to come from the National Government as far as sustainable transport is concerned.

Of course it will still be a worry if the NAL, NWL, OSL, and NGL lines all close or get mothballed as is being suggested.

But unfortunately, the government and Kiwirail are quite right that these lines are very under-utilised, and are also rather substandard in trackworthiness.

Do we spend much of the $250m upgrading little used lines, or do we spend it improving lines that carry traffic?

Sure, it would be nice for the government to say 'here's 10 billion dollars to fix your network up completely' but the reality is that we can't afford that.

So do you think a govt payout of $750m over 3 years is enough and is it reasonable? And what do you think on the possible closure on those lines that are in poor usage?

I can see the thinking behind wanting to close these lines, except for the NAL. It seems very strange the put all line north of Auckland in the same group as the others. It already has train running daily, with the potential for more if the branch to Marsden Point is built, all the other lines have either trains running only once a week or none scheduled and only run when required.

At the very least this indicates that rail has not been ignored.

I hadn't thought about it this way, but you're right. If a government actually CARES about rail, it would put it on a solid financial footing, whereas if it didn't care, it would let it bleed to death through financial neglect.

Contrary to the memes that circulate that the government should care for rail by subsidising operating costs excessively

This is interesting, are NZTA freezing bus funding for other provincial centres?

Plans to introduce more public transport bus routes in Invercargill have been scuttled because of NZ Transport Agency funding constraints, the city council says.

The council last year unveiled draft plans, which went out for public consultation, for a radical revamp of Invercargill's bus service, which was to have buses running more regularly.

The plan was to replace the existing 10 suburban city bus routes with four circular bus routes operating in clockwise and anti-clockwise directions.

However, the agency, which contributes 50 per cent of the total cost of the Invercargill bus service, has since told the council it will not increase its funding contribution in the next three years.

Invercargill City Council senior traffic management officer Eddie Cook told councillors this week the four new bus routes, which would have had 104 departures from the CBD a day, would now operate only clockwise, totalling 60 departures a day.

This was 30 fewer daily bus departures than there were now.

The average travel time for passengers on the new routes, which begin on December 1, would increase from 20 minutes to between 25 and 30 minutes, he said.

The other big change was that the free buses on Saturdays and from 9am-2.30pm on weekdays would be abolished. Those buses would now cost $1 for each journey.

Cr Neil Bonifacetold the meeting he believed Invercargill's new bus service would be worse than the current service.

The council shouldn't "kowtow" to the agency, he said, later describing an agency representative who previously spoke at a council meeting as an "idiot".

After the meeting, Mr Cook said the 370,000 bus users in Invercargill each year would still fit into the 60 daily bus trips earmarked for the new service.

The NZ Transport Agency's decision not to increase funding to the council meant if the number of bus routes was not reduced, then ratepayers would have to pay extra in the long term, he said.

Though the number of daily buses would decrease in the city, more money was being spent on bus shelters and marketing.

Agency acting chief executive Stephen Town said it was being upfront with councils that there was no additional funding for new off-peak public transport services in smaller centres. The focus for public transport investment was congestion relief in large urban areas, where it was needed most to help grow the country's economy.

"We are urging local authorities to look for ways of making more efficient use of existing services within existing budgets."

That's strange. A new bus service has been launched here too, although by a private company.

The New Plymouth service contract is up for renewal this year, but preliminary information from the NZTA shows that it will get the green light given the 24% patronage increase.

That's strange. A new bus service has been launched here too, although by a private company.

I must admit to being rather underwhelmed by the new service in Nelson. I think - if anything - it's actually worse than what was there previously, with the exception of the Richmond services. Looks to me more like a cost cutting exercise than actually trying to build patronage. What a pity! :ohno:

I must admit to being rather underwhelmed by the new service in Nelson. I think - if anything - it's actually worse than what was there previously, with the exception of the Richmond services. Looks to me more like a cost cutting exercise than actually trying to build patronage. What a pity! :ohno:

I have noticed an increase in frequency of services on suburban routes. But I don't use public transport because it is actually faster to walk.

However, in saying that, not all the buses are actually in service yet. I went past they depot in Richmond a couple of days ago and they still had about four or five units still to have their liveries put on.

People would use it more if it wasn't so expensive. I remember laughing out loud when Svart complained about bus fares in Auckland being too expensive.

The New Plymouth service contract is up for renewal this year, but preliminary information from the NZTA shows that it will get the green light given the 24% patronage increase.

That's quite an increase. Any idea of causes?

Really big change isnt it?

That's quite an increase. Any idea of causes?

The long circuitous routes have all be split up, and the frequency increased. We've also seen increasing congestion through the Eastern city which helped push people onto public transport also.

That's a really great result by any measure, especially considering it came on the back of a 30% increase in the cost of fares!

New buses are currently being prepped (first time since 1987!) and some additional routes/frequencies will also be implemented.

See, that's the opposite of what Invercargill is planning. We intend to take our 10 suburban routes and make them into 25min long 'circuit' routes.

Clearly the New Plymouth system/current Invers system is better.

See, that's the opposite of what Invercargill is planning. We intend to take our 10 suburban routes and make them into 25min long 'circuit' routes.

I had a really quick look into this over the weekend, and can see that Invercargill had a peak of around 510,000 passengers per annum in 2005, which then trailed off to 370,000 passengers for the 2010/2011 year.

The reason for the passenger increase appears to be related to the free off-peak services introduced earlier, with the decrease related to the subsequent overall reduction of services.


Clearly the New Plymouth system/current Invers system is better

The system proposed for Invercargill is similar to what has been implemented in Palmerston North, with their "looped" route system that sees buses traveling in both clockwise and anticlockwise directions around the loops, giving passengers a reasonably short trip (although admittedly not always as quick as a direct route) into the central terminus.

This has proved relatively successful for Palmerston North with patronage currently at around 550,000 PA on the urban services (note this does not include the 'free' MUUA services), and continues to grow at a rate of around 8% PA.

New Plymouth previously had a looped service, but buses travelled only in one direction, not both. A direct system was chosen to replace this system because of the cost of adding additional bus shelters, the amount of changes to parking, and the ability to provide quicker services for off-peak travel so that two routes could be serviced by one bus.

So this could work for Invercargill, but it might not suit the travel patterns of potential customers, and the introduction of $1 off-peak fares (previously free) will no doubt frighten a few people off to start with, even though that is a very low fare.