Another funky stunt by Generation Zero today:
This morning, young Aucklanders descended on Freyberg Place in Central Auckland, where some were dressed up as slaves and chained to a car, to express how much the lives of Aucklanders are oppressed by car dependency and the short-sighted policies responsible for it.
“Today’s demonstration aimed to raise awareness about the car-centric policies and planning that are the cause of many economic, social, and environmental problems in Auckland,” said the group’s spokesperson Ryan Mearns.
“With so much priority given to driving, Aucklanders have little freedom to make better transport choices, leaving people slaves to our congested roads and the volatility of fuel prices.”
The demonstration was organised by Generation Zero, a youth organisation formed in 2011 to catalyse action on climate change in New Zealand.
Generation Zero’s 50:50 campaign is calling for a rebalancing of the Government’s transport budget to give a fairer share of the funding for “smart transport choices”, which would help reduce New Zealand’s oil dependence and carbon emissions.
At present, every dollar invested in new infrastructure for rail, buses, walking and cycling will be dwarfed by 30 dollars spent on new state highways.
“We’re suggesting that spending ratio should be moving toward 50:50,” said Mr Mearns.
“Balanced investment would be a huge leap towards a better transport system where we are free to get around without cars. As young people, that’s the kind of transport future we want to inherit.”
Mr Mearns said that there is overwhelming support in Auckland for investment to provide smart transport choices, citing for example surveys that show over 60% of Aucklanders support the City Rail Link.
“In the past we thought of cars as our ticket to freedom, without realizing all the catches that make our lives difficult. Aucklanders have wised up, and now it’s time that central government policies and spending priorities caught up.”
Transport is becoming an interesting, if somewhat unexpected, battleground between different generations I feel. The ‘old guard’, typified by Steven Joyce and Gerry Brownlee, have only ever driven everywhere and can’t really understand what everyone else is going on about. Younger generations seem to understand that the car’s promise of freedom is only true to an extent and – if taken to the extreme – can end up being more of a trap than we had thought.
Thankfully, I feel that we’re on the right side of history and people will look back at Joyce & Brownlee as being the last of the old dinosaurs.
Way to go Generation Zero! I’m excited by the freedom that Smart Transport will bring to Aucklanders!
Another great action from their 50/50 Campaign! http://generationzero.org.nz/5050/
“The ‘old guard’, typified by Steven Joyce and Gerry Brownlee, have only ever driven everywhere”
Curiously, I could argue the opposite (not for Brownless and Joyce, but for the general population). A lot of the older folks grew up cycling (they just forgot). A lot of the younger folks never did. They often only came into contact with cycling during OE’s and suchlike.
So I don’t think it’s a generation thing at all. Too simple. But love the “slave to the car” stunt!
Joyce et al never grew up with adults cycling like their own parents’ generaton did. Would have been seen as a childish thing to outgrow.
Yep, re the OE I was already something of a fair weather cyclist but doing 10 years in Europe drove the point home for me, particularly when I saw the difference in cities over there.
I use to cycle everywhere over Auckland as a youngster. Bearly see a kid on a bike nowadays. Parents probably keep their kids of the roads as too busy and unsafe. Crazy how many bikes you see in Europe contrast. People of all ages.
After living overseas I do believe our lives here are more detached and poorer for our car reliance. It’s unfortunately more people making decisions don’t realise this.
Yes, we’re poorer for our car reliance, without a doubt. But only those people who’ve lived abroad and returned can really have a solid sense of what a difference a non-car-dependent society can make.
Not really off-topic at all. I’m currently watching a documentary about Calgary suburbia on the National Film Board of Canada site. http://www.nfb.ca/film/radiant_city/ Highly recommended.
Is that type of happy motoring suburban blah Auckland’s fate? Steven and Gerry would seem to hope so.
Maybe Auckland is already there.
I have no problem with this concept, as there’s nothing wrong with lobby groups, although I was surprised to see a photo of steam rising from a chimney on the 50:50 home page, and wondered what that had to do with anything. I then clicked through to “Why 50:50″ and to my disappointment found references to non-pollutants such “CO2″ and “carbon”. Epic fail. There are further references to “transport emissions” – now presumably this refers to exhaust gases etc which of course are pollutants, although the site doesn’t make this clear, however these are pretty well controlled today with modern vehicle emission control systems.
But I did find something positive! While there is reference to increasing future fuel costs (a reasonable assumption), there is no claim for “peak oil” I’m pleased to say. Well, there is an oblique reference to it in the linked paper, but not a biggie.
So in summary, by all means lobby for something you believe in, but please try to avoid losing credibility by buying into a scam. I quote: “Every tonne of CO2 we release means more heat gets trapped in the atmosphere, pushing us closer to crossing dangerous climate change thresholds. In order to deliver a safe and stable climate we need to start decreasing carbon emissions today – ultimately to zero.” Give me a break!
jonno1, the first sentence is almost certainly factual. Read it again. You would have to not believe in a) Basic physics and b) the possibility of non-linearity in the climate to not believe it is correct.
Sorry swan, I’m not sure which sentence you mean.
“Every tonne of CO2 we release means more heat gets trapped in the atmosphere, pushing us closer to crossing dangerous climate change thresholds.”
Thanks swan, the problem there is in the emotive language, not to mention the climate models. And BTW I do have a grasp of basic physics! However, as Matthew (below) has now Godwinned the thread, I’ll call it a night.
And now there is something wrong with modelling climate systems Jonno?
And you got Godwin wrong and all.
If you make low-value comments, you’ve got to expect people to call BS on you.
If you think carbon is not pollution then you are just wrong. Both carbon as soot, and carbon in other compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons make up the particulates in particulate pollution.
By the way I don’t think there is room on this blog for comments parroting daft climate change denialism memes and pretending that peak oil isn’t real. Give us a break and ruin a different blog instead. I find there is a generally high level of intelligence of the commenters on this blog, and such anti-science rubbish doesn’t make the cut.
@mattthew – jonno1 was stating a position held by many people, which you are going to have to be a whole lot more persuasive in your arguments to turn around.
Responding like a troll with ad hominium attacks isn’t going to achieve much. The most powerful blogs a those that welcome differences of opinion, not those that seek to be an echo chamber.
So while I might not agree with his opinions or position jonno1 is far more welcome in my eyes in this discussion than you at this point.
By the way I don’t think there is room on this blog for comments parroting daft climate change denialism memes and pretending that peak oil isn’t real. Give us a break and ruin a different blog instead. I find there is a generally high level of intelligence of the commenters on this blog, and such anti-science rubbish doesn’t make the cut.
Quite. This is a transport blog, and a place where established facts are taken as given. Those who want to relitigate the science should do so elsewhere.
Apparently Germany is currently building twenty-something new thermal power stations. It’s an anti-nuclear thing. But any CO2 savings in NZ are going to be cancelled out by the dirty Europeans. Why bother?
I have an issue with the accuracy of: “At present, every dollar invested in new infrastructure for rail, buses, walking and cycling will be dwarfed by 30 dollars spent on new state highways.” The country is spending half a billion dollars electrifying Auckland’s rail, another half billion (?) dollars on new Auckland trains, hundreds of millions of dollars on new trains in Wellington, and there is a constant investment in new buses around the country. That must total to around $2billion or so. There is no way we’re spending $60billion on state highways, even if you accept the argument that an arbitrary 50:50 split is based on anything more than pulling a slogan out of a hat.
New buses are funded by OPEX subsidies, not CAPEX.
It’s CAPEX for someone… either the bus companies or a bus leasing company. If you’re only measuring central government funding of transport then you come up with a meaningless comparison. It’s like saying “every dollar spent on food will be dwarfed by 1000 dollars spent buying trains”, ignoring the fact that most food is bought by people out of their salaries and wages. Trains and buses are at least partly funded by ticket sales. Air transport is almost entirely funded by ticket sales and government levies on air travel. Sea transport is almost entirely funded by freight charges and ferry ticket sales. All these pay for investment in the country’s transport infrastructure. And I’m glad they do, too… Monolithic central planning never worked out well, no matter where it was tried.
Just in response to Obi’s comment on the investment in smart transport being 1:30, this is directly in references from calculations done on the NZ Transport funding document produced by the government. 14 Billion is to be spent on the Road’s of National Significance program, with under 1 billion allocated from central government transport funding for smart transport.
OK I’m calling BS on you Jonno.
“Every tonne of CO2 we release means more heat gets trapped in the atmosphere, pushing us closer to crossing dangerous climate change thresholds. In order to deliver a safe and stable climate we need to start decreasing carbon emissions today – ultimately to zero.”
So you object to the “ultimately to zero” bit which is overkill or are you going against the scientific consensus and the basic physics of heat transfer in the atmosphere?
And you don’t think peak oil is going to happen, or hasn’t happened? Of the 3 trillion barrels on planet Earth, we’ve burnt 1 trillion, have reserves of a trillion and have no idea how we’re going to get the other 1 trillion out.
Carbon as soot in particulates is pollution, no less than peanut butter is peanut butter.
Give us all a break – anti-science propaganda ain’t welcome round here.
Ah! Have now clicked on the link at the top (as distinct from Sarah’s link). How sad, it’s not about alternative forms of transport at all. And here I was trying to be supportive and provide constructive criticism. Silly me.
Nice to see some of the younger generation get it about providing choices for your citizens. And very articulate comment by Mr Mearns.
I enjoy the ‘people’ aspect of using the trains compared with the more isolated experience of driving my car where I sometimes find myself swearing at other people from my ‘bubble’. (Which is usually through fear of accidents). That can’t be healthy!
Jonno. Like most of us, Gen Zero obviously do not believe that climate change is a “scam”. If you do that’s great for you (although probably not so good for your grandchildren), but may I ask that you don’t use weasel words here? I can tell you have an axe to grind on this issue, but this is not the appropriate forum.
Suburban driving is exhausting ! A point I’ve never seen brought up on this forum is just how tiring suburban driving is – both on motorways and arterial roads. After driving through suburban Melbourne I usually feel really tired the next day, and it’s much more tiring than country driving. Over the weekend I made the choice to leave the car at Ballarat and travel from there to and around Melbourne entirely by PT. The main reason was so I would feel fresh the next day. All the trains were 5 or 6 cars, and all well used even on Sundays. On some lines the Sunday service is now every 10 minutes, because at a 20 minute frequency trains would be too crowded. About two thirds of weekend patrons appear to be under 30. Provide a good usable service and the next gen will come. Good on you next gen Aucklanders !
when I was living in Melbourne i owned a car. After a while i understood it was useless, i parked it somewhere in a street in an suburb and forgot about it for 2 months. Then I sold it. I wish I could do it now.
More protests and awareness events of this nature, placing emphasis on using rail and bus, are needed over the next two years by Generation Zero and other lobby groups. If anything, such lobby and change-agent groups, need to work together better to ensure the pace of change is stronger and quicker than it is currently.
I am aware the new bus network will be put in place by 2016 but it is important that public pressure like what Gen 0 etc are doing, continues – to ensure that the new bus network is put in pace without being watered down and that the CRL gets built without being watered down….and that proper revenue protection systems are put in place to ensure maximum farebox collection going forward.
Too many things of importance in Auckland are implemented in a half-baked, shoddy manner – mainly due to public apathy and uninvolvement in the development process. Inform, educate and inspire the ‘wider public’ and the old men who roam the corridors of power, constantly meddling (both in Auckland and in Wellington) with transport policy and PT project design/implementation, will at last be given what they deserve – permanent larengitis.
@Max I think you are going one generation too far back there. Brownlee I can vouch for wouldnt have been on a bike since he was at school. As I have mentioned on this site before, Brownlee used to coach his Rugby team at my school by driving up and down the school driveway barking our orders as his team ran up and down the school fields. Doesnt strike me as the actions of a guy who understands the benefits of cycling or public transport.
Couldn’t see Gerry on a bike. Rear-ended at a giveway sign in the weekend by someone without insurance. Went to the panelbeaters today and the place was overflowing with cars. That’s a real growth industry. It’s getting dangerous out there. I’m catching the train as often as I can from now on.
As much as I love commuting by train over commuting by car, I still see the City Rail Link as a huge waste of money. As such let those that support it fund it and leave the rest of us out of it.
If it was the eastern link that has been mentioned a few times on this blog then count me in for support – but even then leave others that don’t support it out of it’s funding model.
The easiest way to get increased train patronage into the CBD is just to get the council to remove its subsidised car park buildings and let car parking charges reach their natural equilibrium.
Karl you see it as a waste of money but have no reasons…..
Karl – “The easiest way to get increased train patronage into the CBD is just to get the council to remove its subsidised car park buildings and let car parking charges reach their natural equilibrium.”
So Britomart (and therefore, the rail network) is on the cusp of reaching capacity (say, 2018), such that no new trains can be added and those already running will have the maximum number of carriages.
In response, you suggest further burdening the load by pushing people towards trains, but refuse to do anything about capacity. Huh?
Your solution is a good one, but it must be matched by capacity on the other (PT – in this example, rail) side,otherwise its pointless. That can only happen in any meaningful way through building the CRL.
Its quite simple – if you want to expand rail use you have to provide increases in frequency, capacity and ultimately coverage (e.g. new lines). None of that can happen in any substantial way until you make Britomart a through station.