Delusional transport predictions

Written By: - Date published: 12:12 pm, June 16th, 2014 - 57 comments
Categories: transport - Tags: , , , ,

This morning I was reading the Transport Blog on The Draft 2015-2025 Government Policy Statement released by the Ministry of Transport. This is the main starting point for a number of the transport planning documents over the coming decade(s).

Ignoring the questions about the climate change issues and use of public transport as a topics for another day, just looking at the assumptions that underly the MOT’s planning model about passenger transport makes me think that the planners there are completely delusional. Or just so far in bed with the road construction industry that they prefer to ignore economic realities.

From the Transport blog’s excellent post.

The sections on Existing Demand and Travel Forecasts are perhaps some of the most interesting and are something that didn’t exist in the previous GPS. However they seem to be an attempt by the MoT to continue trying to justify spending the XX% of the transport budget on massive new motorways. They do seem to be finally acknowledging that traffic volumes haven’t grown but then push the argument that everything is just a blip and will recover again soon.

30. GPS 2015 (draft) has been prepared following a period of modest increases in freight demand and flat demand in light vehicle travel, measured in vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT). This is illustrated in Figure 2.

31. Demand grew strongly through the early 2000s, easing back through the middle of the decade. Following the global financial crisis in 2008, demand returned to close to 2005/6 levels and remained at these levels through to the end of 2013. A similar period of flat demand occurred in the aftermath of the fuel crisis in the early 1970s. In that case, demand remained soft for more than 10 years.

2015 GPS - Travel Demand & Fuel

The problem with this is that overall the economy has already recovered and improved yet we are still to see any upward change in VKT or fuel consumption. The difference in the graph above where fuel consumption started increasing again is likely tied to fuel prices getting cheaper and there’s no sign that’s about to happen again anytime soon. In fact there’s not even a single mention in the document of what might happen to fuel prices in the future which in my opinion is a massive omission. Fuel prices can clearly have a massive impact on driving demand and without increased demand the already shonky economic cases for the massive roading spend up will be even worse.

This is “planning”? It looks far more like a wishful thinker with delusions of being back in the 1960s. Why?

If you look at the barrel price of our main reference crude over the last 30 years, as can been seen in this chart from interest.co.nz

The cost of crude oil we buy on international markets has fluctuated markedly over the past 30 years, even more so in NZ$, but the inflation-adjusted cost (“real” cost) shows we have benefited from a long period of relatively low costs.

Back in the 1970’s a increase in the real local landed price for crude caused a series of economic shocks to our economy. The increase in petrol prices, the use of CNG and LPG from the new gas fields,  the reduction of the maximum road speeds, and the imposition of carless days all contributed to the flattening of the consumption of petrol that lasted until the price of imported oil crashed.

The rise of fuel prices from 1999 as the world economy boomed had a strong impact on the cost of fuel in the budgets of families as shown by in the index of petrol prices and the consumer price index.

From Stats NZ

Obviously this chart is a little out of date as cuts off as the global financial crisis impacted starting in 2007. However the slowly increasing real cost of fuel since then has continued to rise slowly and remains a significiant part of the consumer price index .

But the trend is clear, when the fuel component cost of the CPI rises up high enough, then the numbers of passenger kilometres and the amount of fuel consumption stalls. This is exactly what we have seen from 2006 onwards.

So why does the MOT think that real fuel prices are likely to remain static or decrease as they did in the mid-1980s.

Who knows? That is what seems delusional to me because there is nothing that indicates an increase of cheaper oil, or a reduction in demand worldwide, or even a viable lower cost alternative. Everything appears to indicate that the operating cost of transport is likely to increase for both families and businesses.

The proven reserves of oil have increased over time at a steadily reducing rate (and there is a lot of contention about some of these statistics).

proven oil reservesBut increasingly these reserves are in harder to extract (and therefore more expensive) heavy oils and tar sands.

But there is also more demand from different consuming nations as developing countries start using more in developing and maintaining their economies. For instance look at the rise of China as a consumer.

All of this indicates that the rising prices of extraction and the increased competition for oil is going to lead to a long period of increasing petrol prices.

Sure, we may find an economic way of producing transport without petrol for instance with electric vehicles. For instance with the Telsa “gigafactory“. However the resulting overall cost of such vehicles is likely to be at prices points that are well above the cost of the current vehicles based on current cheaply extracted and refined fuels.

So what is the government planning on spending transport money on over the coming decade? Transport blog summarises the high level mid-point spending and it is a lot more roads.

Midpoint estimates of transport costs from 2015-2024 from the Government Policy Statement on Transport

Somehow based on what looks like a delusional belief that people are going to start driving more as the price of petrol is going up, the MOT is planning about $17 billion dollars to be  sunk into (what I think will be) white elephant new roading over the coming decade.

They are completely delusional and appear to be living in the 1960s.

In fact I suspect that they should be regarded as being a arm of the roading construction industry.

57 comments on “Delusional transport predictions ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ghostwhowalksnz 1
    16 June 2014 at 12:42 pm

    For the original De Leuw Cather report in the early 60s, they used incorrect population density, and then justified a web of motorways for Auckland.
    It seems likely that population density for Auckland has really taken off in the last 5 years or so.

    Just done a quick check of a busy Auckland rd, Te Atatu Rd
    5day ADT peaked at 47600 in 2004 , in 2009 it was 37,700

  2. fambo 2
    16 June 2014 at 12:53 pm

    Slight detour from the topic at hand but I’d like to see members of the Automobile Association rise up and tell the AA’s board or whoever is in command of that organisation that they belong to it in case they break down and need help – not because they support its right wing attitudes on everything to do with cars.

  3. Tracey 3
    16 June 2014 at 12:54 pm

    Interesting terminology. They talk about numbers dropping but say they will “recover”. Recover suggests that numbers failing is negative, an ailment to be cured.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1
      16 June 2014 at 2:41 pm

      That would be how they see it, yes. As it stands our entire economy is based around ever more consumption of scarce resources and any decrease in that consumption is considered bad hence the delusional idea that a Steady State Economy will be in perpetual recession.

  4. Chooky 4
    16 June 2014 at 1:11 pm

    Phil Twyford on Radionz mid- day news on Labours roading policy…Looking good!… getting rid of proposed motorways!…saving billions?

    From TV3 News…..’Labour criticises Government’s transport policy’…Monday 16 Jun 2014 8:28a.m.

    The Government’s draft transport policy statement outlining a multi-billion dollar spend-up over 10 years shows it is stuck in the 1950s, Labour says.

    The statement, released on Sunday, says its priorities for $38.7b of spending includes a focus on road safety, value for money, productivity, maintaining regional roads and the continued funding of its “roads of national significance” programme.

    But Labour transport spokesman Phil Twyford says the focus is far too much on motorway projects which are poor value for money.

    “There is no new commitment to improving public transport infrastructure in our largest cities. John Key’s road to Damascus conversion to Auckland’s City Rail Link last year increasingly looks like it was just a photo-op,” he said.

    “There is a lot of rhetoric about the need for more efficiency in moving freight around, but National has only one tool in the box – moving bigger trucks on bigger motorways.”

    Mr Twyford says Labour will take a more intelligent look at how investing in rail, ports, coastal shipping and roads can boost economic development in the regions.

    “The draft policy acknowledges that traffic demand has been flat lining for several years now, but then in a giant leap of faith assumes that rapid growth in traffic demand will shortly resume,” he said.

    “Gerry Brownlee’s motorways obsession is stuck in the 1950s but New Zealand needs a 21st century transport policy,” Phil Twyford says.

    The Government says it will begin construction of Auckland’s inner-city rail link in 2020, and Mr Brownlee says studies show it is unlikely the city will meet targets set by the government to bring the construction forward.

    “We’re also very mindful that Aucklanders do like to use their cars,” he told Radio New Zealand.

    “We’re playing catch-up in what has been probably two decades of underspend in the roading network.”

    The Government will consult on the document until August 11 and a finalised version will be released after the 2014 general election.

    NZN

    Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Labour-criticises-Governments-transport-policy/tabid/423/articleID/348724/Default.aspx#ixzz34lCjTbz3

    • adam 4.1
      16 June 2014 at 1:59 pm

      Twity Twyford offering the bear minimum again. Sheesh why do the labour faithful put up with this right wing twat? As for Len, what a conniving little pillock he has turned into. He sound more and more like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u0EL_u4nvw&feature=kp especially when it’s anything to do with transport or making Auckland a better place to live. Ken you are a shining light for all those who did not vote – proof if you ever needed it – politicians are only interested in self interest.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.2
      16 June 2014 at 2:51 pm

      We’re also very mindful that Aucklanders do like to use their cars,” he told Radio New Zealand.

      No, really, we don’t – we just don’t have any fucken choice.

      “We’re playing catch-up in what has been probably two decades of underspend in the roading network.”

      Get it right – we’re playing catch up on six decades of under-spend in public transport.

      • hoom 4.2.1
        17 June 2014 at 4:02 am

        Get it right – we’re playing catch up on six decades of under-spend in public transport.

        Absolutely.

        And per http://www.congestionfree.co.nz/ catching up only takes a fraction of the planned Road spend.

        Basically delay a couple of bits of motorway by a few years & we come out with a great public transport network that both makes life better for non car owners & reduces the number of cars on the roads.

        See http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/10/15/harbour-bridge-traffic-flows/ for the impact of the North Shore busway on Harbor bridge traffic: Number of people crossing up but number of vehicles down = much improvement for car people as well as the PT users.

  5. Poission 5
    16 June 2014 at 2:52 pm

    anything to do with transport or making Auckland a better place to live.

    Why the hell should people in the Chatham Islands or the east or west coasts subsidize (through their petrol tax) Auckland transport in any form.

    • lprent 5.1
      16 June 2014 at 3:10 pm

      Because they don’t have to?

      Over the last few decades less than half of the money raised in the Auckland region from petrol taxes is spent in the Auckland region. Start here.

      When we finally got the ability to levy extra taxes specifically for funding the Auckland public transport system after decades of the rest of the country ripping of Auckland, the moronic National government stopped it. Sure we use roads elsewhere in the country, but not the billions that are ripped off to maintain and build roads that are largely for the benefit of people in the other parts of the country.

      As it stands, what I’d like to do is to separate the transport taxation for Auckland from the National system and just spend it in Auckland with a few smallish transfer payments to the other parts of the country.

      Are you really such a complete idiot that you don’t realize how underfunded the Auckland transport system has been for the last 4 decades?

    • hoom 5.2
      17 June 2014 at 4:12 am

      Why the hell should people in the Chatham Islands or the east or west coasts subsidize (through their petrol tax) Auckland transport in any form.

      Auckland with over 1/3 of the population pays over 1/3 of the tax but gets under 1/3 of the spending -> Why is Auckland losing out on having good PT by having to subsidise uneconomic roads in those other places?

  6. srylands 6
    16 June 2014 at 3:14 pm

    You are missing the point. Most of our roads are totally inadequate for current traffic volumes. It is not about growth. The Wellington northern corridor is a good example.

    Corridor investment to major ports and airports is a focus for investment in the OECD. The Government is following that prescription (albeit 20 years too late and too little).

    You are fond of using the adjective “massive” to describe roading and motorway investments. The planned investment is modest, not massive. We just don’t have the money for massive investment. New Zealand currently has a pathetically low incidence of motorways compared to other nations. (Yes I can provide sources of you wish). The planned investment will change our status from pathetically low to just sadly low.

    We are not going to take our goods to port on trains or coastal shipping in volume. They are not competitive.

    • McFlock 6.1
      16 June 2014 at 3:25 pm

      What’s this “we”, australian?

      The fact that rail is not seen as more “competitive” demonstrates that less efficient road transport is subsidised by taxpayers. It also demonstrates the dull thinking applied by neolibs such as yourself when it comes to evaluating private good from public expenditure.

      Not to mention the analogy that the answer to “my belt is too tight” is not always “get a bigger belt”. The healthier answer might be “lose some weight”.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.2
      16 June 2014 at 4:13 pm

      You are missing the point. Most of our roads are totally inadequate for current traffic volumes.

      No, it’s you who are missing the point. Traffic volumes are dropping and will drop further as the price of fuel continues to increase.

      It is not about growth.

      According to the MoT, who are the ones doing the projections, it is.

      Corridor investment to major ports and airports is a focus for investment in the OECD.

      Electric rail is a better investment.

      New Zealand currently has a pathetically low incidence of motorways compared to other nations.

      We don’t actually have to follow the failed systems of other nations.

      We are not going to take our goods to port on trains or coastal shipping in volume. They are not competitive.

      Yes they are. The only reason trucks are winning out at the moment id because they’re not paying their way like the trains are. Have the RuCs properly charge road users and trucks would stop over night.

      • tracey 6.2.1
        16 June 2014 at 4:23 pm

        he thinks the port in wellington is a “major port”.

      • Wayne 6.2.2
        16 June 2014 at 5:18 pm

        Draco,

        From my experience in travel to overseas cities (including European cities), Auckland and surrounding areas are well underdone for motorways. Most of what is planned is what we need now.

        Obviously there is a limit to what is needed, but from what I see the plan is pretty sensible. Not having a motorway to Hamilton, and for that matter to Tauranga is a major impediment to growth.

        Not having motorway links to the port and to the airport produces congestion on all the neighbouring roads.

        The problem was that from around 1990 to 2005 we just did not spend enough, and congestion got out of control.

        I suspect once the current and proposed projects are complete we can probably take a breather, the catch up will have been done.

        But the result will be safer, faster travel with fewer accidents.

        • karol 6.2.2.1
          16 June 2014 at 5:25 pm

          With the current motorway plans, I can’t see any improvement in the next few years in getting in, around and out of New Lynn at peak periods. At the moment it is diabolical, especially if trying to get to any part of greater Auckland that is not the CBD or en route to it.

          We need a massive public transport upgrade, now.

          PS: I think Auckland’s public transport system compares poorly with that in overseas cities. Why not improve that first, then see what roading is needed to supplement it?

        • Macro 6.2.2.2
          16 June 2014 at 5:28 pm

          “Not having a motorway to Hamilton, and for that matter to Tauranga is a major impediment to growth”

          You have to be joking! Ever heard of “rail”?

          I know – taking trucks off the roads is not going to be liked by your mates in the “transport industry”. But quite frankly their time is about to come to an end. They are going to be priced out of the market as oil escalates to unprecedented heights. A thinking government would be planning for this – not spending stupidly on white elephants.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.2.2.3
          16 June 2014 at 5:42 pm

          I agree that a transport upgrade is needed but motorways and highways aren’t. What we need is better trains. Electric and high speed.

          In the cities we need better public transport.

        • Macro 6.2.2.4
          16 June 2014 at 5:49 pm

          I’d invite you Wayne to take a bus trip from Manukau city to the airport or anywhere else from Manukau for that matter. The “bus station”, if you can call it that, is situated outside the large mall by Countdown, and has room for about 3 buses at most. At anytime during the day there are up to least 20 busses trying to use this space blocking the road thru, and around 100 people waiting with shelter for about 10 max. If the minister really wanted to do something about improving transport – he would look at spending more money on making public transport more accessible and user friendly for a start. Now I realise that this is a City of Auckland Problem – but I think there is also a lack of vision by a Minister whole quite frankly doesn’t understand the problem.

          • karol 6.2.2.4.1
            16 June 2014 at 5:56 pm

            Good points, macro. From Wayne’s comments above, it looks like his travel routes are not the same as those for Westies or south Aucklanders. His route looks to be North Shore to CBD, motorway south, and the airport.

            • lprent 6.2.2.4.1.1
              16 June 2014 at 6:18 pm

              SH20 will help a lot with the latter two. Of course there isn’t any public transport on that route that I am aware of.

              Checking… For leaving now you can get a bus from Albany to the CBD for $5.60, then the Air bus to the airport for $16.00 (ouch). Travel time estimated at an hour and 38 minutes.

              Be interesting to see what happens after the SH20 comes online. My guess is that sometime in the next two decades afterwards we will get a route change that notices the new motorway… After all, they have only just started changing the bus routes from the 1980s through much of Auckland.

              😈

              • karol …
                16 June 2014 at 6:27 pm

                Is there a direct public transport route from West Auckland to the airport?

                Ah, no. It’s necessary to travel to Mt Eden station first.

                New Lynn to Mt Eden, $4.60 – 21 minutes.

                But, I think getting to an from the airport is not a priority for many Westies.

              • Macro …
                16 June 2014 at 6:38 pm

                My travel to the airport is from Thames. By car it is actually an easier drive than from previously Coatesville! But if going overseas for any length of time there is the problem and cost of car parking. Actually as a senior I can travel for $16 from Thames to Auckland airport by Intercity bus interchanging at Manukau to the Airporter which runs about every 15 mins during the day. In other words its a no brainer, the bus is better. My comment to Wayne above is based upon a recent experience of returning and waiting at the Manukau “bus station” for about 20 mins for the Thames Intercity. My what a shemozzle!

        • Tracey 6.2.2.5
          17 June 2014 at 8:54 am

          how did your travel to overseas cities inform your experience of public transport there and in auckland

    • lprent 6.3
      16 June 2014 at 4:19 pm

      I’m always surprised that you think that Wellington has much going on that is productive? But your previous writing indicates that it is the only place you seem to think that exists in NZ. Pretty delusional…

      Sure moving the Wellington airport to the Hutt would probably help. That is where the airfreight will come and go from. But basically there is bugger all productive traffic to and from it or even to and from the Wellington port, so it probably isn’t that cost-effective.

      Christchurch hasn’t really had a particular problem with either the port or the airport that I’m aware of. Fixing up that damn parking lot would be useful at the airport.

      Auckland has problems with access to both the port and the airport. But they are due to congestion of private cars on the roads to each. The effective way to reduce the congestion is to remove cars off Auckland roads is to put in public transport to cover peak loadings which is when the place snarls up for hours.

      The single most effective transport investment that have been has been done in NZ in the last decade was putting the northern busway in. The reason why is it meant now 7 years later that ~40% of the peak passenger traffic over Auckland Harbour Bridge is now carried by buses and we lost most of the endemic jams that used to happen there every day at the rush hours, including transport to the ports. Which mean that the very large replacement cost of the bridge could be deferred for at least a decade (and probably considerably more).

      Completing SH20 is going to help traffic to bypass most of the Auckland jam point at the CBD, which will help a lot. But without getting cars off the road, it will just jam up as well in a decade. But if you really wanted to fix the issue about getting to and from the airport, the biggest single shift would be to put a train line to there. Probably wouldn’t help the airport as they make most of their money on storing cars…

      But moving commuters to rail and bus around Auckland will help even more. It gets more people off the roads.

      Now that the twin rail has largely been done, that requires the central rail loop at the heart so that trains and buses can stop doing the awkward spoke system they currently use of always blocking up at the CBD where the routes converge.

      Damn sight better to use our existing roads in Auckland more efficiently by getting people off them, because there really isn’t that much more room to put more of them on the isthmus

      I don’t know of many other places in NZ that have problems getting to either their airports or their ports. Tauranga would be the only one that comes to mind as a possibility.

    • Lanthanide 6.4
      16 June 2014 at 10:22 pm

      “New Zealand currently has a pathetically low incidence of motorways compared to other nations. ”

      Please show us the other countries that have the same population density we do, and the short history as a nation, ie one that hasn’t had hundreds/thousands of years to build up infrastructure.

  7. Ennui 7
    16 June 2014 at 4:59 pm

    I read this column with wry amusement: the oil is going to run out and there are NO alternatives on the current scale (despite what outraged technology geeks will scream at me..please dont confuse technology and energy, they are not the same). Maybe not tomorrow, not in my lifetime even, but it will. Full stop.

    What the whole Nact transport plan and the response from Labour betrays is the unitary vision of economic growth, and ever increasing use of resources especially energy. So bravely we head towards an NZ where the remaining car with the last tank of petrol will be able to hurtle forth along a multi-lane highway free of obstruction, and maybe fall off an unfinished bridge. In a brave attempt to deny economic collapse, leave it in the dust. Yeah right!

    You might think Standardistas might be prescient enough to point out good uses, maybe better uses, for the last of the liquid energy. Real transition plans, real sustainable economies. But no, its all growth growth technocures etc…..God I am bored.

    • lprent 7.1
      16 June 2014 at 5:12 pm

      I had a problem with responding to this particular bit of stupidity from the transport ministry. So I figured that I would just operate within the framework that they might be able to understand. That is why this was the second paragraph started with.

      Ignoring the questions about the climate change issues and use of public transport as a topics for another day, just looking at the assumptions that underly the MOT’s planning model about passenger transport makes me think that the planners there are completely delusional.

      In this case that they thought the relative price of fuel would fall and there would be an increase in kilometres travelled by private cars and we were experiencing just another decade long blip that would correct itself eventually. It isn’t and they won’t. After a couple of the existing roading projects like SH20 are done to complete the existing network, I can’t see the point in more roads.

      Sure I could have written a debate on alternatives. But the only one that I see as being viable at present with current technologies is various forms of public transport. What I was questioning the transport ministry about their own assumption. Just pouring cold water on that took a thousand words and a lot of graphs.

      Did you want me to write thesis?

      • Ennui 7.1.1
        16 June 2014 at 8:49 pm

        No Iprent, thesis not required, I probably need a little more tolerance and to read / comprehend better. Good post, just my bad temper.

    • Colonial Viper 7.2
      16 June 2014 at 5:37 pm

      the oil is going to run out and there are NO alternatives on the current scale

      To be precise, there will be plenty of oil left in the ground when it becomes unaffordable to pump any more. (Either financially unaffordable, or from the critical standpoint of EROEI). As Jeremy Grantham has speculated the problem we face in the next few years may not be one of peak oil SUPPLY but of peak oil DEMAND (due to the ever declining affordability of oil partly due to deteriorating economic and financial situations).

      You might think Standardistas might be prescient enough to point out good uses, maybe better uses, for the last of the liquid energy. Real transition plans, real sustainable economies. But no, its all growth growth technocures etc…..God I am bored.

      I presented a number of Labour Party MPs with several such transition ideas in 2011. Including the concept that there is only one moral use of our remaining fossil fuel reserves: to build infrastructure and capabilities which will help future generations of Kiwis survive fossil fuel energy depletion.

      I think they understood the message. Problem being, the perception is that there is zero urgency and zero electoral payback to even approach these issues. The suggestion that growth is over – even after years and years of stagnation/decline – is still heresy.

      • BM 7.2.1
        16 June 2014 at 5:54 pm

        There will be a lot of natural gas conversions in the next decade or two, hybrid vehicles will be the big thing in the coming decades.

        We’re going to need roading for a loong time yet, doomer boy.

        • lprent 7.2.1.1
          16 June 2014 at 6:11 pm

          Problem is that we’re rapidly running out of natural gas in NZ. The likelihood of finding another maui or kupe sized field is pretty low, and the smaller ones aren’t particularly economic at current prices.

          We have a particularly fractured geology because of how the landmass was formed around a joint in the seabed subduction zones. The explorations in the offshore basins isn’t showing much trace.

          Yes we could get gas shipped into NZ as LNG as is starting to happen around parts of the northern hemisphere. But it is a freaking long way to NZ from anywhere. It is not all that likely to be particularly economic unless they manage to exploit those gas fields in the Timor sea and don’t immediately sell the gas to Japan.

          I wouldn’t pin much hope of getting a cheap hydrocarbon source from our geology now that we have emptied our larger fields.

          • BM 7.2.1.1.1
            16 June 2014 at 6:18 pm

            I thinking more the USA and Europe.

            More vehicles that switch to alternative fuel sources the less demand for petrol so petrol prices will stay within an affordable band.

            I’d say there’s quite a bit of fat within the price of petrol especially since companies like BP run the whole process all the way from pumping it out of the ground to pumping it into your car.

            Once the alternatives get a bit of momentum watch the price start to come down.

            • lprent 7.2.1.1.1.1
              16 June 2014 at 6:43 pm

              Possible. But you remember how much it cost to do the conversion here to putting in that whole distribution network. I think that western europe is more likely to go electric because they’re already most of the way to getting a decent network to push power around from wind generators in places like the north sea .

              The US? I have no idea

              • BM …
                16 June 2014 at 7:00 pm

                That’s what will rule out Nz with the gas conversions, when I was a apprentice mechanic back in the 80’s we did a ton of CNG conversions

                That was only made possible due to the government converting the fleet to CNG and LPG, without governmental backing no ones going to out lay the coin for the refueling infra structure.

                Any hybrids within NZ would be of the Prius type.

                • lprent …
                  16 June 2014 at 9:37 pm

                  I was referring to the infrastructure of making the CNG refueling stations available. No point converting a vehicle fleet if you can’t fill the things.

                  NZ was relatively easy to change compared to the colossal challenge of trying to set up the refilling network for the European or US population.

            • Draco T Bastard 7.2.1.1.1.2
              16 June 2014 at 7:07 pm

              I thinking more the USA and Europe.

              What? For oil and gas? Are you fucken joking?

              They already import a large percentage themselves which means, effectively, that they don’t have anything to export. And their shale gas just disappeared:

              The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) has cut the Monterey Shale oil formation estimate by 96 percent to just 600 million barrels from 13.7 billion, due to a lack of extraction technology. The assessment cut US national reserves by 39 percent.

              Basically, we’re at the bottom of the world, aren’t particularly important to anyone and with very little resources. We can support ourselves but we ain’t going to be exporting a whole lot to be able to afford to import oil and politics won’t supply it either.

              Your fossil fueled dreams are over.

        • Ennui 7.2.1.2
          16 June 2014 at 8:51 pm

          Hey BM, in the words of the Bard “as surely as night follows day” you will be without fuel. Enjoy the walk from your empty immobile metal overcoat.

  8. feijoa 8
    16 June 2014 at 6:42 pm

    I read a comment in the local paper a few weeks ago, (Dompost), – an opinion piece about the transport plan, sorry can’t find it, but in it he said that the numbers of DRIVERS in NZ was falling- ie young people not bothering to get their licence, let alone buy a car.
    Does anyone know if this is true, as I have never heard it mentioned before

    • Once was Tim 8.2
      17 June 2014 at 10:23 am

      From memory, it’s also been covered briefly on Backbenches a while ago, and on radio.
      Although my daughter got her licence at 15, my son didn’t bother until he was about 27, and all their mates were reliant on them once they did (i.e. some still haven’t bothered getting a licence). So yes – it wouldn’t surprise me at all. There’s also been a huge increase in city apartment living over the years – younger people seem quite happy to use their feet (albeit as they unsuccessfully try to text and walk in a straight line at the same time – letalone drive FFS!), or public transport.

  9. dimebag russell 9
    16 June 2014 at 6:46 pm

    time to reorganise rail and coastal shipping and take all the behemoths off the roads and get rid of the whole gigantic apparatus of national party patronage to road transport.

  10. evnz 10
    16 June 2014 at 8:34 pm

    The draft plan is not a plan, all they have done is said lets add 1 billion in ten years then divide it by ten and apply this to the current transport allocations among cars, public transport etc. I could have done that!
    This sort of thing is called “business as usual” With “business as usual” global emissions, we will have used up the world’s entire carbon budget by 2031. In other words the National ‘plan’ does nothing to acknowledge this.Any realistic plan needs to start with “How do we go about reducing transport co2 emissions to zero before 2031?” and this is hardly even alluded to in the whole report
    Well before 2025 people are not going to tolerate these transport planners to stuff up our planet.

    • lprent 10.1
      16 June 2014 at 9:27 pm

      Reread the second paragraph of the post a couple of times and use that seldom used organ – your brain.

      I could have written the post that you’d like to see with more depth and knowledge than your asine hysteria. However I chose to just point out and highlight a single weak point in the MOT’s own argument that everyone knows from firsthand experience.

      • evnz 10.1.1
        17 June 2014 at 8:43 am

        You have not replied to my post at all other than telling me to use my brain and accusing me of asinine hysteria. Is a comment on the content of it below you? You have missed my point which was not that some details of the plan are wrong,(which is what you choose to write about) but that the fundamental assumptions on which it is based, that the next ten years will be just like the last ten years, (and therefore that the transport plan can just look at what happened then and project it into the future,) are wrong.

        • lprent 10.1.1.1
          17 June 2014 at 8:01 pm

          As well as running this rather busy site with the associated moderation and maintenance jobs, I also have a life that doesn’t relate to the site including at present quite a lot of holiday relaxing after my last job and a sluggish hunt for my next job.

          I tend not to argue points that I have already explained even when I put in one of my characteristic nasty goads. I explained several times in the comments and the post why I didn’t go into issues of climate change on this post. It would have simply made the post too long and wasn’t required to point out the inherent flaws in the policy.

          But if you wanted to see what I think about climate change, then I suggest that you click my handle on the post and look through my back catalogue of posts. Or use this in the search engine “@author lprent climate change” after selecting posts in the Advanced link.

          Personally, spoken as someone who was actually trained in earth sciences and who I suspect has a much clearer idea about the inevitable changes approaching than you, I simply think that you are incorrect. I don’t think that we will see significiant climate effects until closer to the 2030-2050 period. I think that the already irrevocable effects then will convince everyone. I don’t think that the imminent shift away from ocean buffering in the forthcoming el nino’s in the next 15-20 years will be enough for people to “see”. I also suspect that your opinions lack the kind of attention to detail that would make it worth me engaging with you on the subject.

          But if you really want to insist on telling me what I should write about, then I suggest you look in the policy – the section on self-martyrdom offenses, and the last section in the about and learn to control your rather dumb egotism. Try OpenMike.

          • evnz 10.1.1.1.1
            19 June 2014 at 9:00 am

            Deepest apologies. I am new to your site and just steamed in a bit I guess. I can see now that abruptness is part of your distinctive style and took offence unjustly and didn’t read your original post carefully enough either. Keep up the great work. When things come round to my area I will pop back in. cheers

            • lprent 10.1.1.1.1.1
              19 June 2014 at 9:28 am

              Yeah I seem to get grumpier as I get older, spend more years running this site, and keep hearing dealing with the same issues over and over again.

  11. john 11
    16 June 2014 at 10:17 pm

    The problem with the transport blog is they mistake fuel used for kilometers travelled.

    Before the GFC small cars were not nearly as common, in fact just 2 were in our top 10 most popular vehicles. Now 5 of our 10 most popular selling cars are small cars, including the top 4.

    The ANZ truckometer shows our traffic dropped during the GFC, but has grown significantly since then to above the previous peak, and significantly above for trucks.

    We need significant spending on our roads for years, just to get them up to first world standards (and yes, the same goes for public transport).

    • lprent 11.1
      17 June 2014 at 12:23 am

      Ah no. Perhaps you could read the graph which has both on it or dig back to the MOT report. What you will find is that the MOT works off three separate measures at different times, which roughly have the same characteristics.

      Your ideas about how a recent change in buying patterns for new vehicles can change a car fleet that has an average age of more than 13 years, and where the majority of new registrations are second hand imports – well it borders on the idiotic delusional.

      I would leave a link, but it is a pain to do on a phone, and would have taken you only a minute to lookup on Google.

      In short, you appear to be a blowhard fool enamored of your own stupidity.

  12. john 12
    17 June 2014 at 12:41 am

    lprent says “Your ideas about how a recent change in buying patterns for new vehicles can change a car fleet that has an average age of more than 13 years, and where the majority of new registrations are second hand imports – well it borders on the idiotic delusional.”

    What is idiotic and delusional are your comments, because the small rankings were for BOTH new AND used car sales for ALL the years since the GFC.

    LPrent says “In short, you appear to be a blowhard fool enamored of your own stupidity.”

    If you want your abuse to be taken seriously, first you’ll have to wash your face – it’s dripping with egg.

  13. john 13
    17 June 2014 at 1:18 am

    Sorry – more eggs coming your way.

    You say it’s idiotic and delusional to think more small cars on the road will have any effect on the overall car fleet.

    MTA, who monitor the car fleet, because of fuel prices, say small cars “have had a significant effect on the makeup of the New Zealand vehicle fleet in recent years”.

    http://www.mta.org.nz/2013top10

    They also say in 2013 alone, an ADDITIONAL 57,000 cars were added to the vehicle fleet.

    MTA – “NZ vehicle fleet size increasing – expect more traffic, everywhere”

    http://www.mta.org.nz/n3777,198.html

    And the ANZ truckometer shows a steady and significant increase in both light and heavy traffic in 2010, 11, 12, 13, 14.

    http://www.anz.co.nz/resources/e/1/e18cfed4-2374-4f80-8d8e-8da97c17d59b/ANZ-Truckometer-20140610.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=e18cfed4-2374-4f80-8d8e-8da97c17d59b