Address to second annual Land Transport Summit

It's an open secret that in New Zealand 'Land Transport' is a fancy way of saying roads. We have never had a land transport system or a land transport strategy. What is driving the flurry of reports and the feeling of crisis over the last five years is serious congestion, mainly in Auckland, which is costing us dearly in terms of time wasted and goods delayed.

Over the 10 years since I moved from Auckland to the Coromandel the morning and evening peaks have spread earlier and later and the period in between is often not much better.

So the land transport problem is defined by many as the narrow issue of: how do we fund and build more motorways to relieve congestion? The Greens think we need to take a rather wider view of the issue.

New Zealand is one of the most motorised countries in the OECD. Only Australia, Canada and the United States have a higher per capita ownership of passenger cars. There is approximately one car for every two people in New Zealand - or over two cars for every three people with a licence. Looking at freight movements, between 1975 and 1998 road freight grew 131 per cent while rail freight volumes shrank 1.7 per cent.

Some would see these statistics as a sign of strong economy. We disagree. In countries and regions with a more balanced development of transport modes, economic development has been just as strong or stronger. International studies suggest that a high level of dependence on private vehicles means resources are 'wasted' on transport rather than invested in more productive activity.

Put simply, a city like Auckland spends too much of its income simply getting people and goods from A to B. The fundamental cause of this problem is the distance between A and B. One study showed that North American households spend more of their income on transport than almost anywhere in the OECD, despite having access to much cheaper cars and fuel. And North American studies also show that, as with many other problems, the poor are hit the hardest by the costs of car dependence.

For decades Auckland has been heading in the wrong direction. Most of Auckland's transport woes can be traced to the decision in the early 50s to build motorways rather than a suburban rail network. The resulting sprawl and accompanying traffic congestion has gradually strangled Auckland.

A succession of reports over the last fifty years have recommended infrastructure investments in roading and parallel investments in public transport. Each time the roading has been built but not the public transport.

So Auckland has a skeletal bus service, an even more skeletal passenger rail service, no rail freight access to the western port, little water transport across its harbour and is regarded by most as too dangerous for children to walk to school or workers to cycle to work.

As noted UK transport expert Prof Phil Goodwin observed - car dependence is a process. It is a mistake to pretend it doesn't exist, but an even bigger mistake to claim it is inevitable or that nothing can be done about it.

Traffic reduction is possible and it generates benefits for the economy, communities, public health and the environment. If you doubt this, just reflect on how much easier life would be for couriers if there was five or 10 percent less private traffic on the roads. Just imagine the value of the land occupied by roads and motorways in Auckland. And just remember that a sedentary car dependent lifestyle has been estimated by one North American study to be the equivalent of smoking up to 20 cigarettes a day in terms of increased risk of heart disease.

New Zealand is only starting to wake up to the public health issues surrounding transport. Overseas this is an enormous topic. Today I just want to talk about one aspect of this issue - what we are doing to our children?

New Zealand's statistics on child pedestrian injuries and deaths are a disgrace. Our rates for both deaths and hospitalisation are higher than for either the US or the UK. In the last serious published study, the death rate for children older than one from motor vehicle injury is more than four times the death rate from childhood asthma and five times the rate for all infectious diseases combined. And again the death and injury rates are higher for Maori and among groups with lower socio-economic status.

And again the answers are depressingly simple - reduce the speed and volume of traffic. We cannot educate children to stop being children, to be distracted by a bird or chase a ball, filled with faith in the safety of their world. What we can do is make sure that adults in charge of cars use them sparingly and responsibly.

To those who suggest the street is no place for children, I ask you to think of the long term effect on the next generation of kids who don't know how to walk to the park, the shops or school. Children need a sense of independence and mobility as they explore their world - and they have as much right to be safe in our streets as adults do.

Its not just children who suffer from heavy traffic volumes. In a groundbreaking study 25 odd years ago Donald Appleyard measured the way traffic volumes affect people's sense of what constitutes 'home'. In streets with light traffic, people included both sides of the street and the houses of neighbours with who they were friendly. As traffic volumes increased people's sense of freedom became more restricted until even parts of their own houses were not even seen as home. The National Roads Board replicated this research in New Zealand in the early 80s with similar results.

This, and other evidence of the way a 'wall of traffic' can sever a community is well documented, but it has had little obvious effect on the thinking of traffic engineers. Down in Wellington Transit New Zealand and its predecessors have been trying for nearly 40 years to build a road through the historic and populous area of southern Te Aro. This is the only corner of Wellington without a major arterial between the inner-city and nearby suburbs - one would think this would be seen as a valuable asset.

Instead Transit pushes doggedly on with a 1960s plan that shifts arterial traffic closer to four schools, divides a thriving community, and destroys a heritage area to create a five way intersection.

Changes to transport funding may finally put an end to this particular dinosaur but in a peculiarly quixotic gesture Transit is today evicting people from property it owns on the route, before it has even applied for construction funding. I am at a loss to even begin to understand why conflict, pollution and severance are seen by some Government agencies as a sign of progress.

Air quality is deteriorating and, despite being surrounded by sea and benefiting from a windy climate, a number of spots in Auckland now exceed international health limits for air pollution.

According to Auckland Regional Council:

•the air quality in some inner-city Auckland streets regularly exceeds World Health Organisation standards;

•the amount of fine particulate pollution above Auckland amounts to the equivalent of 500 bags of cement being shaken out in the air every day;

•the toxic pollutants going into Auckland's air weigh more than half the solid waste going into landfills around the Auckland region;

•the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution levels in Auckland skies are comparable with London, and carbon monoxide (CO) levels are higher than in London;

•living in a city like Auckland cuts about a year off the average life expectancy.

So much for our 'clean and green' image!

Even in cities like Wellington, what little monitoring there has been shows that carbon monoxide levels in some areas exceed WHO guidelines at times.

Last August preliminary studies at a conference on air pollution and health suggested that New Zealand faced a serious public health problem from vehicle related air pollution. I am confident that when research on this topic is finally made public we will see that the excess deaths and illness from air pollution represents a hidden 'road toll' on a par with those resulting from crashes.

We know how to reduce air pollution - combining emission standards for vehicles with cleaner fuels and, crucially, measures to reduce traffic overall. In cities where this combination has been tried it has worked. The argument that more and bigger roads allow cars to run more efficiently and hence pollute less is seductive but flawed - faster traffic flow encourages more driving and hence more traffic. And faster traffic has a whole lot of other adverse effects from community severance to safety risks.

We are far better to look for slower but smooth traffic flows through traffic calming - once again evidence shows this reduces accidents, fuel use and emissions while creating a more attractive environment for walking and cycling.

Instead, and as a result of all that has gone before, transport is the biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions — 43 per cent of the total. This is a strategic risk as we commit to playing our part in global reduction of emissions to slow and halt climate change.

If investing in roading ahead of all other modes was the solution to congestion, Auckland ought to be doing fine. In fact I can find no city in the world which has solved congestion just by building motorways.

As many international reports show, if you have a car dependent society and a truck dependent economy the only brake on expansion of transport demand is congestion. As soon as a new road is built it fills up with traffic. Driving more miles becomes an easier option than thinking about car pooling, taking the bus, living closer to work, using your head to do two things on one trip, using the phone to replace a meeting, going to a nearer beach instead of a distant one, and all the other daily decisions that are affected by the ease or otherwise of driving.

It also leads to more freight going by truck rather than rail.

A decade ago ARC figures showed that land transport infrastructure - roads, parking, garaging, driveways, car saleyards, service stations, mechanics workshops took some 40 per cent of the land area in metropolititan Auckland.

This figure remains true today and is astonishing when you pause to consider the potential alternative uses for the land. The comparable figure for Wellington is at most 25 per cent - if building roads and neglecting public transport were the solution it would be Wellington not Auckland that was crippled by congestion.

The Auckland regional growth strategy looks at a population of two million people for Auckland by 2050. If car ownership and truck use also doubles and the infrastructure also doubles, where are we going to live, work and play? On only 20 per cent of the land area? Unlike some other cities there are only two directions Auckland can expand. The cars will still want to come into the isthmus and will need that doubling of space.

Clearly we need a new approach. It will of course involve roads and motorways. But we need to think wider if we are to provide a sustainable transport system for the future.

The Land Transport Act 1998 requires there to be a National Land Transport Strategy to guide the Regional Land Transport Strategies in which communities set out the thinking and the projects for transport in their area. There isn't. What passes for land transport planning in New Zealand is actually a year by year roading plan. The priorities for spending are determined only by a benefit-cost analysis that leaves out environmental and social impacts, counts very small time savings for very large numbers of people but has no ability to consider long term strategic planning.

Logically, we need an integrated national strategy which aims to serve our economic, social and environmental needs across a mix of transport modes. This would then guide the regional strategies and the priorities of Transfund and Transit New Zealand. We need to think 10 years ahead to ensure the projects funded now lead in a sustainable direction.

The Government is preparing a New Zealand Transport Strategy which may adopt some of these objectives. However it is not the statutory Land Transport Strategy and so does not have force under the Act. Other measures may be necessary, such as amending the Act itself to adopt sustainability as an objective as well as safety and affordability.

The Local Government and Environment select committee which reported in November on its Enquiry into the Role of Local Government in Meeting New Zealand's Climate Change Target recommended such an amendment. It also proposed that when the objective of sustainability had been incorporated into the regional strategies they should be directly linked to funding priorities.

Separating responsibility and funding for roads from other transport modes has not worked. Even the inclusion of section 3D into the Act, allowing Transfund to fund alternatives to roading where they can be shown to be more cost effective has made little difference as the sole criterion has been usefulness to motorists. The mandate of Transfund must be broadened to include all forms of land transport and alternatives to land transport such as barges for logs and ferries for passengers. Until the serious imbalance in infrastructure funding has been addressed a ring fenced fund for pasenger transport should be created.

While our roads are over used and lack capacity we have another nation wide transport system that is underused and has spare capacity. For reasons of its four-fold energy efficiency, reducing climate change, increasing safety and overall economic cost to the nation we need to get more long distance heavy freight off roads on to rail.

There are many operational reasons why this does not occur now - in particular there is no environmental pricing for land transport that would recognise the greater sustainability of the rail system. But there is also a threat to the continuation of an integrated national rail network as shown by discussions over closing the Napier-Gisborne line, the likelihood of closing the Rotorua line and the fragmentation begun by assigning the lease of the Auckland corridors to a separate party.

Last April the Greens published our Rail Strategy proposing that, in this situation, it would be more secure for the public sector to regain control over the lines and infrastructure and seek competitive private tenders for the right to run freight and passenger services over it.

We proposed a partnership between central and local government to own the track and take responsibility for system operation and safety, coupled with a clear funding system based on track user charges, a network maintenance payment, and an equalisation payment to recognise the bias against rail from both the fact that road users do not pay full social and environmental costs and the historical bias against rail in public investment since at least the 1950s. We do not expect to see our proposed system fully in place in the near future but we are confident that this Government is prepared to recognise the environmental, economic and social advantages of a thriving rail system.

The present system of fuel taxes and levies further distorts competition between modes.

The Land Transport Pricing Study attempted to quantify some of the environmental and social costs caused by the land transport system which are paid for not by the users but by the whole of society.

These include health costs from air pollution, climate change from CO2, the private uncompensated costs of crashes, water pollution from road run off, noise, etc. Many hoped that when this research was done there would be some form of environmental pricing applied to vehicles or fuel to 'internalise' these external costs but no government has yet had the courage.

However, petrol users do pay some excise tax into the Consolidated Fund. It is not directed to repair environmental or health damage and is not identified as part payment for such damage but it is a return to the Crown that could be used for such costs. Diesel users however pay nothing. Road User Charges are all paid into the Land Transport Fund and used to build roads. This has seriously distorted the market for diesel and petrol light vehicles with the result that general revenue has not kept up with fuel use and there has been a major increase in fine particulates from diesel which are a health hazard.

It also contributes to the distortion between road and rail. Rail uses diesel so much more efficiently than road that if diesel is underpriced it favour trucks over trains.

Ideally the Greens would like to see a from-scratch rebalancing of petrol and diesel excise and road user charges so that external costs are internalised and there is no cross subsidy. This may have to wait until climate change policy is developed as it could be combined with a carbon tax or tradeable emissions permits.

Alongside of this we need comprehensive vehicle emissions standards, and incentives for smaller and cleaner vehicles, coupled with cleaner fuels. We need to show the lead in public transport funding with carrots offered for low and zero emission vehicles - Wellington's air quality, for example is the better for having electric trains and a large number of electric trolley buses. The public transport funding system needs to support regional councils that choose cleaner public transport.

The growth in diesel use is of concern when there are no safe levels for some emissions from diesel engines. Fuel prices and vehicle registration ought to give people an incentive to choose a clean vehicle and use it wisely. Leaving aside ambient air quality for a moment, pedestrians and cyclists have a right not to breathe in toxic exhausts produced by other road users.

One third of all car trips are less than two kms - ideally suited to walking and cycling. But it won't happen unless some attention is paid to safety for pedestrians and cyclists, to the planning of safe cycling routes where they do not have to merge suddenly with fast motorised traffic, and to safe storage facilities for cycles. We also need to plan for the public transport-cycle connection with provision on some line haul services to carry cycles. Any new commuter train services in Auckland need to ensure that they are more cycle friendly than TranzMetro in Wellington which charges cyclists an adult fare for their bike!

One-off projects are no more sensible in the cycling area than they are for roads. There needs to be a national cycling strategy to co-ordinate them. Cycling organisations have already done a lot of work on this which could be adopted by Government to guide the provision of facilities.

It is no secret that the Government is considering raising some combination of petrol tax and road user charges to fund more transport infrastructure. I think it is also well understood that the Greens will not support such a move if all the money were to go to new motorways encouraging more one sided development and eventually more congestion. But we recognise that more investment in infrastructure is needed and provided this is balanced and steers New Zealand towards a more sustainable transport system we welcome it.

Alongside the big picture of funding, tax and big projects there is a small picture of daily decisions that incrementally send us in the direction of more congestion and more need for roads, or less traffic, less congestion and less air pollution. Will I drive my child to school because the roads are not safe, and thereby contribute to making them less safe for every other child so that they have to be driven too? Or will I cycle with them, walk with them, carpool with three other families, or take a turn every fortnight to supervise a 'walking school bus' of twenty or thirty children?

Anyone who thinks these decisions are too small to bother about should take a look at how Auckland's congestion eases during school holidays.

Local authorities, workplaces, schools, hospitals, retail centres can all influence these decisions. To encourage those micro-decisions I have a bill before Parliament at the moment - the Road Traffic Reduction Bill. It requires each local authority to set its own road traffic reduction target and measures to achieve it. It would be possible, of course, to set a target that was so low no effort would be needed to meet it. But I hope that just by requiring councils to address the issue they may be encouraged to work with major destinations in their area to find ways of reducing the number of people who travel on their own in a car every day to the same place.

The bill, which should have its first reading in the next couple of months, also changes the mandate of Transfund to incorporate sustainability and thus enables it to fund solutions other than roads.

In this speech I have tried to point out that a sane and sustainable transport policy for New Zealand involves a shift from 'predict and provide' roading to a more balanced transport policy that attempts to undo the harm of the past decades of extremism. We need to recognise our shared interest in a saner transport future. Roads are places where people live, work, play and learn - not just ways of getting elsewhere. The short trip on foot or on a bike is as important as the long-haul freight journey. Sustainability and integration, along with a healthy dose of humility, need to become second-nature to transport professionals and the transport industry.

Some 10 years ago I spoke at a major transport conference and said that the current transport planners just don't see cyclists and pedestrians when they plan roads. That same day my son was knocked off his bike and seriously injured when he had full right of way by a motorist whose excuse was that he 'just didn't see him'.

I don't think much has changed. Today's programme headlines one session as 'The perspectives of user groups on Land Transport developments'. The groups are: motorists, represented by the AA, and trucks, represented by the RTA.

I rest my case.