Sustainable transport

via Not PC

Rail and public transport is supposed to be the most efficient, best, all singing, all dancing solution to transportation worries. There is some evidence that this may not actually be the case.

Rail is far from the most efficient means of commuter transport, as figures from the U.S. government bureau of transportation statistics figures and the U.S.Dept. of Energy Transportation Energy Data Book demonstrate.  Brad Templeton looked at the figures from these sources and produced this handy graph, below, which shows that the average passenger uses less energy to travel a mile in the average car (with an average load of 1.57 passengers) than if he travelled in a diesel bus, a trolley bus, a heavy rail train, or a light rail train—and only marginally more energy than if he travelled by jet plane.  Read more »

I fail to see why standing around for hours waiting for a charge is desirable. While there are three fifths of five eights of stuff all electric cars driven by smug people it is all fine and dandy, but as soon as you have to start queuing for a charge it will be the death of them.

Then of course there is the simple fact that they won’t solve suburban transport issues at all, in fact they will make them worse:

Electric vehicles have been touted as the dream technology to solve our suburban transport challenges and rescue us from oil dependence and environmental threats. Yet technology use occurs in a social context. Almost no discussion of electric vehicles has addressed the uneven suburban social patterns among which electric vehicles might be adopted.

The evidence that my colleagues Neil Sipe, Terry Li and I have assembled suggests the socio-economic structure of Australian suburbia, in combination with the distribution of public transport infrastructure, constitutes a major barrier to the widespread adoption of electric vehicles, especially among the most car-dependent households.

Relying on electric vehicles as a solution to energy and environmental problems may perpetuate suburban social disadvantage in a period of economic and resource insecurity.

The people most affected by poor transport options would be even more affected by a transition to gay electric cars.

It makes sense that households who are most car dependent and least able to afford higher fuel prices would be the most eager to switch to an electric car. But, it turns out, the social structure of Australian suburbia means these groups are poorly placed to lead such a transition.

In our study of Brisbane we created datasets linking vehicle fuel efficiency with household socio-economic status. In our analysis, high vehicle fuel efficiency, including hybrids, serves as a proxy for future electric vehicles. We linked motor vehicle registration data with the Green Vehicle dataset on fuel efficiency, plus travel and socio-economic data from the ABS Census.

Our analysis builds a rich picture of how the spatial distribution of vehicle efficiency intersects with suburban socio-spatial patterns, using Brisbane and Sydney as case studies.

We found that the average commuting distance increases with distance from the CBD while average fuel efficiency of vehicles declines. So outer suburban residents travel further, in less efficient vehicles, than more centrally situated households. Outer suburban residents are also likely to be on relatively lower incomes than those closer in.

The result is those living in the outer suburbs have relatively weaker socio-economic status but are paying more for transport. For example, one-third of the most disadvantaged suburbs in greater Brisbane also have the most energy-intensive motor vehicle use.

A socially equitable transition to highly fuel efficient or electric vehicles ought to favour those with the highest current exposure to high fuel prices. Yet our research finds it’s not likely to happen.

What a dilemma for the green taliban, who are in reality a bunch of socialists. They insist on moving to electric this and electric that, but in doing so isolate and perpetuate the poverty trap, which of course would lead them to claiming the poor need subsidised cars…and on it would go.

Wonder no more. Electric cars are a useless expensive waste of resources:

U.S. federal policies to promote electric vehicles will cost $7.5 billion through 2019 and have “little to no impact” on overall national gasoline consumption over the next several years, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report issued on Thursday.

Consumer tax credits for buying electric vehicles, which can run as high as $7,500 per vehicle, will account for about 25 percent of the $7.5 billion cost, the CBO said.

The rest of the cost comprises of $2.4 billion in grants to battery makers and projects to promote electric vehicles as well as $3.1 billion in loans to auto companies designed to spur production of fuel-efficient vehicles.

Many of these initiatives were initiated in 2009 under President Barack Obama, but the loan program was authorized in 2007 under the Bush administration.

Producing all-electric cars and plug-in hybrids is part of the auto industry’s solution to reach increasingly stringent fuel economy standards designed to cut emissions and lessen the United States’ dependence on oil.

U.S. government standards mandate that by 2025, automakers to show corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) of 54.5 miles per gallon or about 39 miles per gallon in real world driving.

The tax credits will increase sales of EVs, hybrids and more fuel-efficient gas-powered models and help boost the average fuel economy of automakers’ fleets, the CBO said. The federal tax credits apply to the first 200,000 electric vehicles sold by each manufacturer.

But these sales will leave room for automakers to continue to sell models with low fuel economy, the CBO said.

“The more electric and other high-fuel-economy vehicles that are sold because of the tax credits, the more low-fuel-economy vehicles that automakers can sell and still meet the standards,” according to the report.

As a result, tax credits will have “little or no impact on the total gasoline use and greenhouse gas emissions of the nation’s vehicle fleet over the next several years.”

Policy on Public Transport

Public Transport hasn’t worked in Auckland for the very simple reason that it is a large, spread out city with a small population on a global scale. There are not enough people close enough to public transport stations to mean they can commute solely using public transport. They likely will have to drive first, then get on to public transport. This defeats the purpose of taking a bus or a train, if you are in your car you might as well go the whole way by car.

Aucklanders and Albany voters have voted with their cars, and last year only 32000 people used public transport to get into the central city. The demographics of Albany are such that just 5% of voters take public transport. The voters of Albany have voted with their cars.

That means I will support more roads, more parking and if this means toll roads that ease congestion, I am all for them. Lets just end the hypocrisy about public transport being good for everyone, because if it was people would have stopped driving before now.

The big problem with public transport is it is always something “other people” should use. So the Whaleoil policy on public transport is to identify the “other people” and make it mandatory for them to use public transport:

“Other people” include

-       Green Party Members

-       Public transport advocates

-       Cyclists who whinge about roads not being rider friendly

-      Anyone who votes for Andrew Williams

If we could get this group of whingers off the road we would ease congestion and make it a lot easier for the rest of us to get around.

Vote Slater - Albany - Auckland - Keeping the Buggers Honest