Smart Moves - a sensible transport strategy

As a Green Party MP speaking to the Automobile Association Conference I can understand how Daniel must have felt as he was thrown into the Lion's Den.

I can imagine some of you groaning inwardly and thinking, here come those Greens with their unrealistic, unbalanced, pro-public transport, anti-car views.

But I want to try to convince you today firstly, that the Green Party's transport policies are not short-sighted or unbalanced but sensible and conservative. If there is one word which defines our transport policies, that word would have to be sustainability. Dick Hubbard, founder of Businesses for Social Responsibility, defines sustainability as "making decisions today in such a way that they won't hinder the decisions our children will want to make tomorrow." This doesn't sound very radical, and it isn't - it is a very conservative approach.

Secondly, I want to convince you that it is not our policy but rather the pro-car American model of transport planning that has dominated New Zealand's approach to transport that is unbalanced, short sighted, and unsustainable; and further, that this unbalanced approach is responsible for most of the transport problems that confront us today.

To prove my point I want to take Auckland city as an example, or case study, and argue that the enormous congestion and pollution problems Auckland faces today are the result of five decades of unbalanced transport planning; and that as a result, Auckland provides an extreme example, not just in New Zealand but almost in the entire western world of car dependency — or mad car disease, as some call it.

It wasn't always like that. In fact fifty years ago, when Auckland's first master transportation plan was introduced in 1955, Auckland had a balanced, efficient transport system that compared well with other big cities in the world. Public transport usage was relatively high — 58% of all trips — and higher than car use — at 42%, and it compared well with similar Australian and Canadian cities.

But over the next 50 years, Auckland experienced the steepest decline in per capita public transport patronage recorded in any large city in the world — an astonishing 89% decline.

Although there has been a 7% increase in public transport usage in each of the past three years, at the last published census Auckland had one of the lowest per capita use rates of public transport in the world — lower even than Los Angeles!

Australian and Canadian cities with similar populations, similar car ownership rates and more dispersed cities have around 300% more use of public transport, United Kingdom cities have public transport use rates 600% higher and European cities of similar sizes use 3,000% more public transport than Auckland does.

At the same time, Auckland has congestion and pollution rates that you would expect to find in much larger cities.

So I want to spend a few minutes looking at how and why this happened.

Back in the 1950's a far-sighted plan was developed to electrify the Auckland rail network, build an underground railway from Auckland station to Kingston, to integrate rail and bus services and to establish a single authority to plan and coordinate all public transport systems in Auckland.

This plan was in step with what was called at that stage balanced transport planning which advocated a mix of investment in upgrading public transport as well as building new roads as the way to develop an effective urban transport network.

But the plan was shelved in favour of a one sided plan which ignored all other transport modes in favour of the car, and proposed the creation of an extensive motorway network instead.

So, in succeeding years, while Auckland's public transport network slowly deteriorated through neglect and lack of investment, an impressive motorway network was built. Entire inner city suburbs were lost to the motorway system and Auckland's inner city declined for many years.

Transport planners justified all this destruction by the promise that building motorways would solve Auckland's congestion problems — just as John Banks is promising today. But of course it didn't and by the mid 60's and 70's traffic congestion had grown far more rapidly than transport planners had predicted, while public transport patronage was collapsing, which prompted a decade long and ultimately fruitless campaign by the visionary Auckland Mayor Sir Dove-Meyer Robinson for a rapid transit plan for Auckland,

By that stage, most cities, even in the US, had abandoned notions of paving their way out of congestion, and were turning to 'smart growth' strategies which included rail transit systems. Los Angeles had become the model of what to avoid, rather than what to emulate, and transport planners were looking to cities like Vienna with excellent rail based public transport and car free central areas as the new models.

But not transport planners in New Zealand, where the pavement paradigm remained firmly in place. The National government of the day rejected Sir Dove Myer's efforts to upgrade public transport — or indeed to spend any money at all on the rail network - and opted instead to find a solution to Auckland's growing congestion problems by building an even larger, more ambitious, motorway network — a network that planners are still focussed on completing today.

By the end of the 70's the basic motorway network proposed in the 1955 plan had been completed — except for the South Eastern motorway. But rail patronage had collapsed to such an extent that in 1983 the Auckland Regional Council seriously proposed closing the Auckland rail system. Its plans were defeated, mercifully, by public opposition. But throughout the 80's and 90's transport planners remained convinced that building more roads was the only solution to Auckland's transport problems and public transport declined even further.

The question is, did the one sided policy of building motorways and ignoring alternatives to the car achieve what transport planners said it would — a solution to Auckland's congestions problems?

We all know the answer. Auckland got exactly what it planned for — a car dominated city, with extraordinarily high levels of congestion and a pitiful public transport system, where most people have no alternative than to travel by car. Congestion is gradually strangling Auckland and costs huge amounts in terms of time wasted and goods delayed. The problem is worst in the central city, where Auckland's motorways feed cars onto streets that simply can't handle the numbers. You could call it the Auckland paradox — the very motorway system that started so optimistically in the 1950s has created steadily worsening conditions, reduced mobility and slower access even as the time and resources devoted to driving has steadily increased

With lower rates of public transport usage than even most US cities, it is little wonder that Auckland's road system cannot cope with even current traffic levels. At approximately one car for every second Aucklander, the region has one of the highest car ownership rates in the world. Traffic volumes are growing faster than the economy and the population, and car use is expected to double in the next twenty years. How is Auckland going to cope?

Auckland's motorway system is already much more extensive than those of much larger Australian, Canadian and European cities and, not surprisingly, Auckland has the kind of pollution levels and traffic problems normally found in much bigger urban areas. But instead of learning from its past mistakes, and adopting a smart growth strategy that gives priority to urban rail, the major push is the simplistic response of building yet more motorways and spending a further 1.26 billion dollars to complete a master plan drawn up in the 1960's — despite the fact, as Paul Mees says, that in virtually no other city in the world is completion of extravagant 1960's motorway plans seriously proposed. The reason for this peculiar anomaly, he speculates, is because transport planners in New Zealand, by and large, have difficulty contemplating any transport solutions other than building more roads.

A decade ago ARC figures showed that road transport infrastructures — including roads, parking, garaging, car saleyards, service stations and mechanics workshops — took up to 40% of the land of metropolitan Auckland.

Auckland's population is expected to double in the next fifty years. If car ownership and truck use also doubles, what will happen if Auckland continues with its one sided policy of building more and more motorways, and allocating more and more precious inner city land to car parks and wasting resources on transport rather than more productive activity? Where will Aucklanders live, work and play? Where are all the cars zooming in from Auckland's extensive motorway network going to go?

And what about the threat all this constitutes to Aucklanders health?

Already, according to Auckland Regional Council:
•the air quality in some inner-city Auckland streets regularly exceeds World Health Organisation safety standards, and is a significant health hazard for Aucklanders;

•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

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

And the news is getting worse. The casualty rate from motor vehicle emissions is now reckoned to be roughly equivalent to that from accidents. A recent Ministry of Transport study estimates that 399 people die prematurely from exposure to microscopic particles from vehicle emissions. This only estimates the health effects of long term exposure to particles and does not even take into account other health effects such as asthma attacks, hospital admissions, increased use of medication and so forth.

So much for our 'clean and green' image! And then of course, there is the effect of all the carbon dioxide emissions on climate change, the energy input required, the amount of our national income devoted to supplying road transport and the time spent on driving to complete even the simplest daily transactions, and we have waste and inefficiency on a colossal scale. A more balanced transport policy would not only be far more sustainable environmentally but also economically.

If extreme congestion, long journey times and urban sprawl are everyday reality now in Auckland — and potentially in Wellington and Christchurch as well — consider how a car-dependent economy will fare when the real oil shock hits in as little as 10 years from now. I don't mean the few cents a litre fluctuations that we are all used to, but a doubling or tripling of current prices. Oil is not going to run out in an absolute sense for centuries, but production is almost certain to peak in about 2010 — and then decline as new discoveries fail to keep up with demand. Lack of supply, not Middle East politics and the manipulations of oil companies, will determine the price then! In a decade or so may we well be wishing that there was a train service available, that we didn't have to go so far to the shops, and that there was a safe, pleasant route to cycle into town.

So the service this politician is going to render to the AA is therefore not to try to win the votes of your members by making promises to support yet more urban motorways, because that is a futile, unsustainable and discredited approach, but to suggest some ways in which your organisation could use its very considerable political clout to enhance the quality aspects of motoring that your members join for.

First, accept what is now internationally recognised — that building more roads is not a long term solution, because it contributes to the problem it is intended to solve. Improving traffic flow requires managing demand, not attempting to satisfy it.

The Economist, not known for its left wing, radical views, put it in a nutshell. It said continued road funding to meet demand is one of the last relics of a Soviet style command economy. If roads were priced like any other scarce commodity, better use would be made of existing space. But as long as road funding continues to be provided by governments without any rigorous economic assessment or thorough appraisal of alternative modes, transport capacity will continue to be over provided and over used.

Second, as part of managing traffic demand, support and lobby for measures such as the North Shore Busway which will get traffic off the road. Your membership will get more value from this than from new roads which will only add to congestion. The Wellington Regional Council estimates that Wellington's public transport system gets enough traffic off the road to provide at least $230M worth of time savings to motorists.

In particular support high quality urban rail services. More and more cities are recognising that expanding and improving rail services is a more cost effective solution to road congestion than building additional road space. Many cities are taking a lead. Perth, for example, is spending 2 billion on a new rail network to complement the highly successful rail corridor which takes 14 million commuters to work each day. In California, Governor Grant Davis announced in August last year that California had finished with building new highways. Instead the state has agreed to a 10 billion plan to enhance both passenger and rail freight.

The governor said, rail represents the most efficient and practical means of reducing congestion in our urban transport corridors.

He is absolutely right. Urban rail services result in reduced road congestion and reduced travel delays, less land devoted to transport, reduced pressure for road construction, lower road construction and maintenance costs, fewer road accidents, fewer car parks, reduced pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, less energy use, and a transport choice for those without cars or those who cannot drive.

A significant investment in upgrading our rail infrastructure would reduce the wear and tear on our roads, get trucks off our roads and make driving safer, easier and quicker for all motorists.

Rail is 4 times more energy efficient than cars. It is also safer, removed from the population and for an equivalent capacity, of freight or passengers, it takes up much less land than roads.

A suburban train carrying 1000 people keeps 800 cars off the road — equivalent to a line of cars 5 kilometres long. A double track railway costs less than a six lane motorway to build and maintain and can carry over 20,000 people per hour in either direction, over four times the capacity of a six lane motorway.

And, of course, rail can use electricity generated from renewable sources. Using rail results in less pollution, less small particulate matter and less contribution to climate change.

Thirdly, get the trucks off the road, or at least stop them getting bigger by opposing the proposal for 82 foot long 62 tonne trucks. There are approximately 500 truck crashes in New Zealand each year and there were 94 deaths in 2000 as a result of these. New Zealand's narrow, winding two way roads have crash rates 3 or 4 times higher than overseas, divided highways.

A recent European study found that overall, road freight's environmental costs are nearly four times those of rail, on a per ton kilometre basis. Trucks also harm the environment through water run off that takes heavy metals and other trace elements from tyre wear and fuel and water leakages into estuaries and coastal areas.

Transport Engineering Research Ltd found in a 2000 survey that trucks typically travel at speeds 10km over allowable limits and negotiate corners at 10km over advised speeds.

A 1998 LTSA survey found that 58% of the heaviest trucks had brake defects, 25% of which were bad enough to order trucks off the road.

TERNZ report stated that 30% of drivers exceeded driving hours and 24% failed a driving simulator performance test.

Bigger, heavier trucks will inevitable propel a shift further away from the use of rail and towards greater use of road transport. This is inevitable because of the unequal cost and price structure between road and rail.

Finally, support alternative and cleaner fuels.

I was delighted to hear one of your members say that there is not a person in the room who doesn't support sustainable mobility. Let me finish with a quote from the Royal Automobile Club of the United Kingdom,

Modern day motorists are not Mr Toad, they are concerned with the environment and pollution. More often than not they also walk, cycle and use public transport in addition to using their car.

The UK's Automobile Club is now focused on mobility - not just motoring, travel - not just traffic, transport co-ordination - not just congestion. "There is a growing realisation that while the car has a vital place in the infrastructure of transport, we have gone beyond the point in the UK where we can simply defend the unfettered use of the private car on all occasions for all purposes in all conditions. That is simply not viable. The challenge for the car user now and in the future will be to have a flexible approach to mobility, not just to choose the car automatically for each and every journey. The challenge for the new UK government will be to develop a "mobility culture" by investing in long term improvements to transport systems to improve the real choice available to every traveller."