A Green Mayor for Auckland City?
Auckland City Mayoral candidates put their Green policies on display last night as part of an open public forum.
Hosted by the Auckland Green Party, the Mayoral Forum provided 12 candidates, as pictured, the chance to express their policy positions during both prepared speeches and audience questions.
Candidates addressed questions based around the Green Party’s principles of ecological wisdom, social responsibility and appropriate decision-making, The speeches and questions touched on issues including public transport, housing affordability, regional governance and the question of “one Auckland,â€? Queen Street upgrades, water, privatisation and other infrastructure issues. Other candidates standing in local body elections for the ARC and for councilor and community board positions also introduced themselves.
Today’s NZ Herald has details .
September 25th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
so who judged their policies? did they have some real coservationists there of just the usual green party line up of red red robbinhoods dressed uncomfortably in green tights?
September 26th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Lets hope they mean to do something NewYork produces 1/400th of the worlds green house gases so how much does Auckland produce of New Zealands, probably much more than We would expect,
I think MAJOR road tolls would help much more than petrol taxes as it would, Free trains might help at peak hour times aswell.
As for water WE need to reuse it much better shower to toilet to ponds which create gas would be my preferance to start with. As for Queen street i think the inner city part should be car free (except early morning to allow for shop keepers).
September 26th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Ekstatek
Road tolls would decrease use of the roads and thereby decrease green house gas emissions by cars.
But there is a social justice issue here.
Generally speaking rich people drive much more than poor people. So road tolls would drive poor people from the roads leaving them clear for richer people.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/pressroom/releases/040701.asp
IMO We need a rationing system where having more disposable income does not entitle more car use.
W
September 26th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Yes I agree. We should extend that scheme to all spending - so that people who work hard and earn more money are rationed to spend only the same amount as people who dont work hard or earn much. Tosser.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:11 am
ekstatik said: MAJOR road tolls would help much more than petrol taxes as it would, Free trains might help at peak hour times aswell.
Yep, and the rich people who would happily pay the tolls are also much more likely to be driving 4 litre SUVs than small energy-efficient cars.
I’m yet to be convinced by the arguments supporting free public transport. I think, at least in Auckland, it is issues of frequency, capacity, reliability and routing that discourage peolpe from using public transport - not the cost, which is already cheaper than driving your car.
And for some of the provincial cities, we need to look to actually getting some public transport running before we look at whether it should be free.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
hi im wondering when green policy is going to include the social ecology.
eg local body concerns about youth gang violence crime drug dealing etc, particulary in south auckland (reform of cannabis laws is a key part of the solution I venture to suggest)
regards
September 26th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Bliss,
I think you raise an interesting point. Instead of road charges, why not re-introduce carless days?
To get around the problem of two car families choosing different days for each car, you could require all vehicles registered at the same address to have the same carless day. I remember all the problems with the original scheme (exemptions etc), so perhaps some revisions need to be made.
What about lowering the open road speed limit to 80 km/hour. Cars are more efficient at that speed? I guess this isn’t really a problem in Auckland, where the slowness of the traffic is more of a concern.
OK, the above schemes are flawed and have limitations. However, any party trying to introduce them today would be considered radical. It is worth remembering that it was a National government that first tried the ideas out. Society has certainly changed a lot since then.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Carless days are silly, I very rarely drive, but occasionally make a delivery to Auckland, am i meant to tell them i can’t come on a certain day because of carless days, it stinks of a nanny state.
I agree we need to stop rich people wasting petrol with large SUVs and the poor paying for a journey they need to make, perhaps we need to introduce a carbon limit on EVERYONE, e.g. you can buy that 1000 of litres of petrol each week however you can’t then buy your noodles from china or run your air conditioner in exchange for the c02 your using in your car. kinda drastic but something needs to be done. The government needs to be investing in alternative fuel cars (electric and so forth) and BAN all conventional cars from being imported!
As for reform of cannabis laws I most heartily aggree, and while I stopped smoking YEARS ago I still think back at all the money that must of gone to the growers/dealers. Its a MAJOR problem which needs to be solved,
September 27th, 2007 at 3:16 am
Samiuela, In theory reducing the open road speed limit would reduce carbon emissions. However the Ministry of Transport study of the 50mph speed limit published in August 1975 found that it didn’t work in practice. When the speed limit was dropped from 55mph (60 on motorways) to 50mph average speeds fell from 59mph in November to 49mph in December. By March they had increased to 52mph and by May they had reached 55mph. They were still 55mph a year later. The percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit during 1974 was much less than in 1973 yet the number of speeding tickets quadrupled. The number of speeding tickets per million km travelled on the open road in 1974 was about the same as in 2004. The MoT study argues that the initial large drop in average speeds was the result of a public perception of a national crisis. Once that perception disappeared average speeds went back up to 5mph over the limit despite increased enforcement.
Nevertheless petrol sales did fall slightly despite increased traffic. That study noted “that rural traffic growth has been less than urban growth and that weekend traffic growth has been less than weekday growth. In some locations weekend traffic has actually decreased… traffic volume in 1974 was 5.1% higher in urban areas and 0.2% higher in rural areas. Overall the indications are that recreational or non-essential traffic has reduced and other traffic has increased but at only about half the rate of the previous year.”
Meta-analysis of the road toll in the 5 years before and after the speed limit reduction reveals a 35% reduction in deaths of passengers aged under 25 but only a 12% reduction for other road users and age groups. Essentially the same result is found with a meta-analysis of the road toll between 1995 and 2005. The single common factor is a petrol price shock. This supports the contention that the main consequence of the first oil shock was a reduction in recreational travel. Something which clearly wont contribute much to solving Auckland’s traffic problems.
The main effect of carless days was an almost 20% increase in used car prices.
Labour and National both responded to the oil shocks by restricting trading hours for petrol stations, prohibiting petrol sales between noon Saturday and Monday morning.
The two oil shocks did briefly halt the the decline in passenger transport patronage in the main centres but once the wage-price spiral kicked in and bus fares went up people went back to their cars again.
That seems to be the most valuable lesson to be learnt from the two oil shocks. PT users are more price sensitive than car users.
I suspect the real reason people prefer cars instead of buses is the same reason they prefer suburbs instead of tenements. A lingering Victorian era notion that high density is bad for health and safety. The sort of notion that is so deeply ingrained that it is actually below the level of awareness and therefore never expressed in attitudinal surveys. Which of course means it is never taken seriously by PT promoters, who continue to be perplexed by why people stubbornly refuse to get out of the cars even when it is cheaper and/or safer to travel by other modes.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Kevyn,
The reason used car prices went up is because people wanted a second car (which they could drive on the other cars carless day). You could easily get around this problem by requiring all vehicles at the same address to have the same carless day. But yes, I agree with you there are flaws in the idea.
I believe the reason PT is not used more is because hopping in the car is quicker and more convenient. I am not sure if any NZ city has the population to support a PT system that is more convenient than driving the car. I think people are just going to have to learn, one way or another, that they are going to have to put up with a little bit more inconvenience, and probably take a bit longer to get to work. Its not bad when you get used to it, you can read on the PT, but not in the car, for example.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:25 am
The principal reason for PT not being used is that it costs MORE than money. It costs time.
As an example, if I miss the 6:30 train out of Welly by 5 minutes I have to wait 25 minutes for the next (which is fair enough) but then miss connecting to the bus for the last 8K of the trip for another 30 minutes. I am only counting WAITING time here.
That’s a 55 minute hit, which is time that would belong to me, if I were in my car. With what my time is worth, the car pays for itself VERY quickly.
People are lousy schedulers at this level. Work makes demands we cannot anticipate at hours that are seldom arranged for our convenience. I am often spotted rolling down Featherston street at a great pace, puffing and wheezing, at 18:28
It also accounts for my hitchhiking into the station in the morning rush, when the buses are 40 minutes apart (instead of an hour) . Four trains go in that 40 minutes. I can’t fault the rail, but no way in hell to get to the station. Bike lockers there are in number, 4, with no plans for more. Ride the bike, take the bike on the train… and the roads are laid out so as to make the bicycle the more audible part of the road surface. Not safe.
That’s just it. It is a lateness multiplier.
This is THE single most important reason it doesn’t get used…. here.
Other places where the trains run every 5 minutes during the rush, and you can actually get to one without a 10K hike, the usage soars.
Solving it needs another model of transit… or electric cars, or compressed-air cars, or something new.
respectfully
BJ
September 27th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
samiuela,
You can register your second car at my address if I can register mine at yours. That’s what friends are for 
It might help overcome resistance if the number of carless days per month equalled the number of engine cyclinders.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Kevyn:
You have a point. I imagine any scheme to try and reduce private vehicle usage will run into problems. Perhaps fuel vouchers would be a better way? I don’t know … I’m just trying to think of ways to deal with the problem, rather than just going on about how much of a problem there is, but not offering a solution.
Bjchip:
You are 100% right. Public transport in New Zealand cities is probably not going to meet everyones needs, for the reasons you point out. Having said that, I lived for slightly over ten years in Wellington, in 5 suburbs and about 7 or 8 different houses. In every place I lived, I would have classed the public transport as “adequate”, at least for someone with a day job. I used PT about 1/3-1/2 of the time, and cycled the rest of the time.
So, although I agree with you on the problems with PT in smallish cities, I reckon that the percentage of people who could use the existing system with out major hassles is very much higher than currently do (of course, with more users there would have to be more buses etc).
So how do we encourage more people onto the PT? Will more frequent buses, later hours, more routes make the difference, or are people essentially “addicted” to their cars, and won’t give them up until they are simply prohibitively costly to run?
September 29th, 2007 at 12:32 am
samiuela, I think your latest suggestion is definitely the best. Simple and equitable. Admittedly it’s a crisis solution but global warming and peak oil are going to deliver that crisis sooner or later.
BJ has identified the main barrier to voluntary use of PT. Nothing that can’t be fixed. Just a range of issues that need a range of solutions. If only we could politicians out of the way, with their propensity for monumental solutions such as Britomart and the North Shore busway and electification. Most of the points that BJ raises could be fixed at existing rail and bus stations at relatively little cost. I just can’t see Helen or the local MP or the news crews turning up for the ribbon cutting ceremony for the cycle lockers at Tawa station. Can you?
September 29th, 2007 at 1:26 am
I drive to work. The 7km takes about 10-15 minutes if I avoid rush hour. (Part of the trip is on 80kmph roads.) It is close enough to cycle, but I can’t avoid cycling on 80kmph roads and don’t want to risk it. If I bus, I’m faced with a 10 minute walk and a few minutes wait, then a 20-25 minute bus trip followed by a 20+ minute walk. That’s about an hour. Then repeat going home. Totalled up, that takes about 1 and a half hours out of my day above what it currently takes me, during most of which I am at the mercy of the elements. Unless PT gets me close to where I work, it isn’t a viable option.
Trevor.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Trevor29,
I understand your point. I think the reason I am not perturbed by public transport times is that I am used to not having a car. Its either take the PT, or walk/cycle etc.