by frog
I knew that cars in traffic jams used more fuel than cars flowing freely, but I didn’t quite realise it was this bad:
Results from a New Zealand Automobile Association test show cars can use four times as much fuel on congested roads as when traffic is flowing freely.
When a car is at a standstill, stopping and starting or moving slowly in heavy traffic, it uses 24.4 litres of fuel for every 100km driven. Put the same car in free-flowing traffic, travelling at 50km/h or more, and consumption drops to 6.4 litres per 100km.
Or, in financial terms, you pay $36.60 to drive 100km if you’re stuck in traffic jams, compared to $9.60 if you’re not. (Based on petrol costing $1.50 a litre.)
Which gives us just one more reason for wanting to get more and more Aucklanders (and Kiwis generally) out of their cars, and into buses and trains, onto bikes, and into walking. An uncongested city, with a good quality public transport system, is a happy city – environmentally, economically, and socially.
UPDATE: The Herald on Sunday’s editorial is on the same subject:
Auckland motorists need to take some responsibility for their own predicament. Rising world oil prices should be enough to tell us that the honeymoon stage of our long love affair with the car is over. In the most optimistic scenario, the completion of eastern and western corridors is six years away; a world-class rail system is a much more distant prospect. In the meantime, we need to take matters into our own hands. Carpooling, sending our kids to the local school, patronising the local businesses (and walking to them), working – and allowing employees to work – flexible hours to avoid the commuter crush.
Above all, we need to loosen up a little and take a charitable view of each other on the road. We all know it’s hell out there. And we’re all in this together.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Sun, October 2nd, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
And just before the road building fanatics jump in and say ‘this just means we have to build more roads to ease the congestion’, they’d do well to note that the research studies around the world point in exactly the opposite direction: build more roads and you encourage more people to travel on them, worsening congestion.
In a country which gets twitchy about some power lines going across the countryside, why would you want to concrete everything over to build more roads?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What about hybrid cars, then? They (I think) will run on battery power a lot in slow-moving traffic..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey Repton,
My understanding is that most of the additional fuel usage in congested traffic is the full stop situation when IC engines are sitting on idle and going nowhere as well as the stop-start crawl with lots of (admittedly gentle) acceleration and braking.
These are ideal conditions for fuel saving for most current hybrid technology (and fully electric vehicles as well). The Toyota Prius for example uses no fuel or battery power when stationary, and uses only battery up to 30 kph – and all that braking recharges the battery too.
And now you can get them second-hand in Auckland at The Clean Green Car Company in Fanshawe Street with a starting price of around $17,000 (which still ain’t cheap for most of us but is heaps better than the new price of c. $50,000).
But hey, electric cars – with 300km range Lithium-ion batteries and nano-tech quick-recharge – have still got more going for them. Currently being buried in Califonia fleet vehicles and scrapped when lease expires – standard ‘old-technology-sunk-cost-in-production-line’ protection practises from US car manufacturers who are only developing this technology because of regulatory clean air requir=ements legislated in relation to % of vehicle production. Lesson: intervene and regulate – bugger the market whingers, they’re not gonna do it without a push.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Expat took the words out of my mouth – yesterday spent time with my brother, an engineer, who lives in Auckland. We were endeavouring to cross Papanui Road – one of the most congested arterial routes in chch.
His observation – “and they have resold all the property taken for the new motorway”. My observation “almost every car had only one person in it”.
This was after we had a long indepth discussion on needing affluent businesses for nz to succeed and the injustice of wage disparity.
Interesting afternoon ………….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So how does the Green transport policy become practical?
If you live in a provincial town with less than 50,000 people, where’s the critical mass for public transport that meets people’s lifestyles?
If you live in a small town of 20,000 or less, or rural NZ, where public transport doesn’t exist, how does Green policy envisage making it appear from nowhere?
Light rail across Blenheim?
Regular bus service across Turangi?
There’s this familiar disconnect between Green policies, and practical realities for the average citizen.
We all ‘know’ we ’should’ walk more [security for children and women?], cycle more [try it in a blustery Wellington gale!], carpool [but neighbors have different timetables, different work locations, and may want to stop over at a cafe, supermarket or doctor's clinic on the way home] and use public transport more [yeah, right].
The public, however, can’t make the connect between what’s necessary for their lives and income and security [a car in many cases] and changes to transport that resources and costs are beginning to dictate.
They do not make rational choices or decisions.
We Greens come across as holier-than-thou ‘do this because it’s good for you’ public transport fanatics with a one-track mind.
We must listen to our customer [the public, the voter] and show how new technologies can create a myriad of choices in a brighter future. And give the people freedom of choice.
Overseas studies about more cars filling uncongested freeways are irrelevant. We have many market and social mechanisms to use to regulate supply and demand, through incentives and disincentives. If uncongested freeways mean cars use less gas, let’s look at how to decongest them.
The mix may include more public transport. It may also mean more use of less gas guzzling vehicles instead.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The mix may include more public transport. It may also mean more use of less gas guzzling vehicles instead. ”
- but DR thats whats the greens are advocating.
With all due respect, it seems to me that your concerns are more about the greens public image than they actual policy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wizban – it’s what we’re advocating, but not what we’re communicating in an inclusive voter friendly fashion!
And the same must be said of many of our policies.
No wonder our average vote in most of rural and small town NZ hovers between 2-4%, and in working class urban seats is around 5%.
Yes, our public image concerns me.
Even more so does the disconnect between policies [where we have them] and practical pathways for people to understand them and make them their own in their daily lives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We could import cheap ex-California electric cars. Except they’re illegal because they’re left-hand drive.
I’ve driven a wrong-hand drive car extensively in Europe, and it’s no big problem. You need more room to overtake that’s all – and around town no-one does that much two-lane overtaking. The main irritation is having to lean across the passenger seat at toll booths and car park exits.
They should change the rules to allow LHD cars in (actually you can import them, but only for personal use, not resale).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Richard_P, DR – There’re answers for any given economic situation. Wizban is correct.
Richard_P – it would be far easier to rip the guts out of a RAV4 locally and pack in a battery rig than to import the wrong-side-drive used vehicles from CA. I don’t think that’s a great option overall, batteries really suck in terms of energy density, but it works in some instances. That’s a Kiwi way to do it and it involves Kiwi labor and kiwi adaptivity.
DR – It is important to look at the resources available at each level. If an area is an urban center the mass transit options look better and better, and that’s what Auckland and Wellington need to work with most.
If it is a rural center the fuels can be compressed methane, or alcohol or bio-diesel… or battery cars. The issue isn’t that cars and roads are bad. I know that some Greens say stuff that isn’t qualified as urban or not, when it really should be, but the evil of the automobile as pronounced by those, is understood to ba a problem in the urban context. Solutions that are appropriate to a rural center are not appropriate to Wellington or Auckland and vice-versa. Greens get publicity for our approach to Auckland and Wellington and rail, but those aren’t “THE” green answers.
As things become harder to ship and places get more difficult to go our culture will likely change as well. We have better communication than ever, and it must get better still. Telecom has to be kicked off its money pile and we have to string cable and get broadband to the most remote homesteads… if not tomorrow, at least in time for our children to use it. Our culture of instant gratification may give way somewhat, to a little less harried pace. The courier delivery may give way to the mail truck.
Who knows. If I move to Paraparaumu I might take a horse to get to the train station or the shops. I know my daughter would love to have a horse. I observe that my Great Grandfather cut wood for heating, my Grandfather cut wood and then later shovelled coal. My Father had Fuel Oik delivered. I had a climate controlling gas furnace and A/C system installed in my California house and when I cam to New Zealand I was cutting wood to heat my home.
I have no room to keep a horse in the city, but there’s a heap of people there. I have no population density to support a train in the country… but I have room for a horse…. or a still, or a methane digester.
What I don’t have is enough money to pay to some foreign prince to buy his oil to burn. That’s what we have to plan to do without.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
Idling through traffic at an average speed of 20 KPH, most of the time stopped and most of the time with the A/C running… I really couldn’t be less surprised. The Prius does better in the city than in the country because it runs largely as an electric vehicle in the city. In the city, the electric comes into its own, but only if you don’t have to find a place to plug it in.
If we don’t design and build a micro-diesel-electric hybrid someone else will, and one way or the other that is almost certainly going to be the path that the “automobile” takes in its development.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DR:
With all due respect, it’s not in Blenheim or Turangi that people are calling for new motorways: it’s in the cities, where public transport _is_ practical. In rural areas, alternative fuels and fuel efficiency can ease the problems associated with petrol (pollution, climate change, dwindling resources, reliance on overseas markets). In the cities, over-reliance on private transport creates a whole range of other problems that alternative fuels won’t solve.
Even if cars ran on thin air and pumped out fairy dust, they’d still be an incredibly inefficient use of space. Alternative fuels won’t stop the Wellington “Bypass” from ripping up the city; they won’t stop Transmission Gully, or all the motorways planned for Auckland. They won’t stop the development of sprawling exurban non-places of gated communities, anonymous office parks and big-box hypermalls. They won’t free up all the downtown space currently eaten up by roads and parking . They won’t fix the debasement of the public realm that occurs when cities are based around cars rather than people, so that walking becomes an unpleasant and dangerous ordeal for those who choose. They won’t fix the social disconnection that occurs when people spend all their time in steel-and-glass boxes whizzing along at 100km/h.
There will always be some people who rely on a private vehicle for their daily life (tradespeople, delivery people, shift workers and the disabled), but there’s a huge proportion of people who drive suburb-CBD-suburb every day in a car. You can always come up with an argument for why a particular person needs a car of their own (timetables, locations, stopping off for shopping), but they don’t apply to most people. And by the way, a lot of those issues are caused by the car-dependent urban form we’re trying to fight!
So, the only long-term solution to city congestion is an integrated approach: high-quality public transport linked to compact, mixed-use urban form. The Greens have done good job promoting the former, but not so much about the latter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tomsk:
Very well said!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
hear hear.
And I would add that not only does walking (or cycling) become an unpleasant and dangerous ordeal, but car drivers think that walking and cycling are “uneconomic and novel forms of transport”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DR said:
We all ‘know’ we ’should’ walk more [security for children and women?], cycle more [try it in a blustery Wellington gale!], carpool [but neighbors have different timetables, different work locations, and may want to stop over at a cafe, supermarket or doctor’s clinic on the way home] and use public transport more [yeah, right].
Well, in response, have a look at this article today: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/0,2106,3430529a6479,00.html
The subheading says “Aucklanders are not getting the message, but Wellingtonians are starting to abandon their cars in favour of a smarter, cleaner way to travel.”
There’s more to it than meets the eye, though, so I did a bit more analysis of the full report:
http://wellurban.blogspot.com/2005/10/on-right-track.html
I think we’re at a turning point, at least in Wellington, and we could kick-start a virtuous circle (better services -> more ridership -> greater feasibility and mindshare -> better services…). When public transport is good, and the urban form supports it, people like it.
People won’t use public transport? Yeah, right!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The nub of this for Wellington City is that it is a very compact urban form compared to the sprawl of Auckland [150km north-south] and Christchurch [getting wider by the month], and the Hutt corridor also funnels people into reduced options for living, working and recreation.
Therefore, yes, public transport [as an option] becomes more viable. It’s also no coincidence that two of the top four Green electorates by voting power are in Wellington City.
Yes, I agree the urban form, based on a [now failed] post WWII UK model of ‘town & country’ planning, is a key element to support more socially, environmentally and financially better transport choices.
However, hundreds of thousands of Green sympathetic voters have to live in the reality of badly planned suburbs, badly engineered roading systems, gas guzzling cars, and travel through this maze to reach poorly designed industrial, work and civic centers.
They don’t all live in Wellington City or the Hutt corridor. They ‘know’ they have to change their transportation priorities, but some Greens seem to want to push them into ‘public’ transport just because it’s ’socially’ good. No-one will be pushed against their will, and no-one who feels pushed will vote for those seen to be doing the pushing.
We have to communicate our transportation policies much better at consumer level, and allow consumers to buy in by choice, not compulsion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting that in Wellington sales of small motorcycles and scooters have gone through the roof since petrol price rises.
As a ‘bike rider I can’t understand why, if people are set on commuting by motorised transport, they don’t choose a motorbike. They stack up in terms of comparatively meagre fuel usage + free parking. They share the road better with cyclists than do tin-tops (cars).
But we also need practical incentives to encourage more m/c riding – legal use of bus lanes by bikes (used in Aus), sorting out the ACC levy system (riders get whacked with large fees b/c in bike-related accidents, people get ‘more’ hurt. But though SUV users have a similar disproportionate injury rate (the party they hit) they don’t face the same high levy..), and getting rid of stereotyping of riders would help..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DR and dragonwoman :
Christchurch has spent (and continues to spend) the money and now has an excellent, comprehensive, safe (and growing) bus system, which connects with other systems.
None of the three mid twenties citizens in our family has bothered to get a driver’s licence, and we live 30 minutes driving time away from the city centre.
“Where there’s a will there is a way.” However, getting the will is the real problem and that takes education. (Papanui Road that dragonwoman talks of is very well supplied with buses … going to a variety of destinations, and linking to others. It is also a nice flat place to cycle!)
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen: Christchurch also has local body rates about 25% higher per dollar of rating value compared to Wellington, which means you’re paying a very high premium for your public bus system.
As a result, you’ve got an excellent spidersweb of routes which meets consumer needs, more modern and fuel efficient buses, and, presumably, a growing customer base.
Because your community made a choice to invest funds into infrastructure, you’ve also created a viable, comfortable and safe alternative option to personal motorcar use for a significant number of users.
It’s this aspect of choice I concur with. Some Greens however, clearly wish to push and ram public transport down people’s throats by compulsion, and that’s the kind of image the media feeds on [and quite rightly so] to create the negative messages that marginalize Green support.
It’s HOW we sell our messages over many policies that will determine whether we become a major force for change in our society within the political system, or remain dancing around the fringes and wasting opportunity.
Unfortunately, if your three mid-20’s family members ever visit Los Angeles, they’ll wish they had a drivers license, let me assure you of that! When in Rome, do as the Romans do. So they have more choice, more options in their lives, they may welcome getting their licenses:)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DR,
The rates comparison is apples with oranges.
You’d be better looking at average rating per residence (as capital values are lower here in Chch). Then see what you get for your money.
My rates info shows that this year I pay $159 for urban transport. Given that my rates are more than twice the average for Chch (and the amout of urban transport levy varies according to where you live) I can’t imagine the average would be any higher.
So less than $3 per week per household.
Try putting $3 of gas in your SUV and see how far it gets you
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DR:
Funny you should mention Los Angeles! My brother and family lived in Southern California for 35 years. My neice and family are still there …
I can only speak from my own experience, but recently I spent a day in LA and travelled from LAX through central LA to the Getty Museum and back. I had a wonderful time … the buses were frequent and efficient, the drivers helpful and the passengers friendly, the whole wonderful day cost me US$0.90!
I understood that the city/greater area has been reorganising its public transport?
I also spent a month in Sun Valley, Idaho and the free bus passed the area where I was staying every seven minutes going from one end of the ski area to central Sun Valley business district to the other end of the ski area (early morning till late evening).
I think a lot of people in Christchurch don’t yet know from first hand experience just how good our bus system now is … There are still a lot of assumptions made here without recent first hand knowledge.
I think the Greens can point to many examples here and around the world where public transport is “the way to go” … and fuel prices and gridlock will doubtless help the message get through.
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
> Some Greens however, clearly wish to push and ram public transport down people’s throats by compulsion,
Private motor vehicles are a classsic case of a private benefit and a public liability. NZ cities have way passed the point where there is any public, or indeed much private benefit in allowing more cars on the roads.
This is what governments are for, to protect the public good. If by all rational measure, cars have ceased to be a public good, then it is the duty of government to act. Sometimes however we have as individuals more attachment to the problem than we do to the cure. Alcohol is another classic example. Any cop will tell you that it causes 90% of his/her workload, yet we are no closer to dealing with the problem than ever.
Maybe we need to just ask people upfront…do you want effective public transport, lower costs, a better living environment and all the well known advantages of a good public transport system, OR do you prefer to remain emotionally attached to your cars with all the well known detriments? If the answer is more cars, then let them eat the consequences just as we tolerate all the consequences of alcohol. Maybe people are just too stupid to choose a good thing when it is offered?
Don’t like that line of thought? Then propose another. Choose between:
1. Do nothing.
2. Let the market determine the outcome.
3. “Educate” them.
4. Government intervention…ie “forcing it down their throats”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well said Logix !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Going back to the original subject of this post. This problem of free-flow versus congested roads is an important factor to take into account to minimise your carbon footprint. As a shift worker I finish work when the buses aren’t running from work to home, therefore I have to drive or get another job. The shortest routes are approx 11km, one has 8 traffic lights, the other has 12 traffic lights a two school patrol crossings (I start work at 3.30). Both have 50kmh spped limits. The other route is an expressway around the city. It is 15km, 70 & 80 speed limits, has 4 roundabouts and 4 traffic lights. On average it is 10 mins faster and is 10% more fuel efficient. That saving comes almost entirely from not spending 10mins a day stopped at traffic lights. Of course, as this is the main route north from Port Lyttleton and sufficient land was built to permit full interchanges it would be cost effective to grade separate the roundabouts and traffic lights and improve fuel economy on this route by a further 10%. But would this result in 10% more traffic? Bearing in mind that all the subdividable land along the route is already being subdivided or has already got resource consents. The council purchased the land for the expressway in the 1970s and most of the neighbouring land was not subdivided till after the expressway was built. For that reason and the desire to remove heavy traffic from local roads a lightrailway would not have been a practical option. But with all the new housing adjacent to the expressway there is now enough a reasonable client base to support a lightrail service. There is currently enough room in the expressway corridor to install a light railway but it will only be safe and efficient with grade separation at the major crossroads. Fortunately the cost of doing that can be reduced by more than half by incorporating it as a “third lane” on a road overpass. This is area is “drained swampland” so underpasses are a bit impractical.
A heavy rail line would probably have problems with sinking into the marshes and but it would make for an interesting test of the RMA.
This might not be everybody’s idea of balanced land transport investment but it is a cost effective way have betting a bob each way on an unknown transport future. Unknown because we don’t know if there’s a Dunlop or an Edison or a Westinghouse waiting in the wings with a cost effective (at post peak oil prices) replacement for the infernal combustion engine.
Gimme a swamp-gas burning micro-turbine/electric replacement for my V6 and I’ll be happy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)