Other FIT Wellington pages:
Elite Projection is the belief, among relatively fortunate and influential people, that what those people find convenient or attractive is good for the society as a whole. Once you learn to recognize this simple mistake, you see it everywhere. It is perhaps the single most comprehensive barrier to prosperous, just, and liberating cities.
— Jarrett Walker
On this page… (hide)
FIT (Fair Intelligent Transport) Wellington is a group of professionals who support a change in transport priorities so the private motor vehicle no longer dominates our cities. Our vision is modern, vibrant, amenity-rich cities designed around the needs of people, not cars. FIT has made a number of submissions to Let’s Get Wellington Moving covering its mass rapid transit proposals.
PDF settings (show)
Elite Projection is a cognitive bias that has bedevilled transport policy and planning in Aotearoa New Zealand for decades. Unfortunately, the Draft Government Policy Statement on land transport 2024–34 is no exception. It sees the world through the windscreen of a private car and treats other road users—those on public transport, walking, cycling, or scooting—as irritating obstacles to the mobility of the road users who matter.
We consider that the draft would be improved by taking a more balanced, multi-modal view of Aotearoa New Zealand’s transport needs. Jarrett Walker invites policy-makers to ask themselves one simple question: Would this idea work for me if I were in a typical citizen’s situation, instead of my fortunate situation?
Because if not, it won’t work for the country, and in the end that means it won’t even work for you. It’s not hard: provide genuine options for people and whānau to move safely in and around their communities without having to rely on cars.
However, public comments by the Minister of Transport give the impression that the outcome of consultation on the draft GPS is a foregone conclusion. Such comments show an absence of good faith and bring the consultation process into disrepute.
We find Figure 2, Vehicle Kilometres Travelled versus fuel consumption, supports only a part of the story told in the text. To enhance the figure in a way that better reflects the text:
Transport is our second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions after agriculture and largest source of carbon dioxide. There is no mention of the 2030 commitments made in the Paris Agreement, just the 2050 net-zero target. We trust that the final version of GPS 2024 will explain how any gap between gross transport emissions and the 2030 and 2050 commitments will be funded. Figure 2 makes it clear that emissions from transport are not coming down fast enough.
The discussions of the various strategic priorities make no mention of the projected impact of the policies on transport’s emissions profile. In our view, this omission is irresponsible and makes it impossible to assess the potential climate impacts of GPS 2024. In the absence of information to the contrary, one might reasonably conclude that emissions from transport will increase under this GPS.
We do not understand why “Reduced greenhouse gas emissions” is not a strategic priority, nor does the draft GPS provide any explanation. Some commentary on how a strong and stable ETS
will lead to reduced emissions from transport is needed, yet is currently missing. A programme of road-building, higher speed limits and greenfield development of low-density, car-dependent suburbs, while reducing spending on public and active transport options, will inevitably result in increased emissions.
Removing both incentives for switching to EVs and penalties for high-emission ICEVs reinforces the status quo. Moving petrol vehicles to a distance-based charging scheme risks rewarding drivers of high emission vehicles and punishing those who drive low emission vehicles, unless the carbon price goes up.
The draft GPS seems to take the position that emissions reduction is Someone Else’s Problem.
We invite the government to strengthen the link between productivity and economic growth by reframing the strategic goal as Productivity-led economic growth. Economic growth without productivity growth makes us poorer in the long run, leading to the large infrastructure deficits we face today and for the foreseeable future.
To illustrate, a bus in Vancouver carries 3½ times as many passengers each year as a bus in Auckland. For every 7 passengers on a Vancouver bus, there are 2 on an Auckland bus and 5 in private cars. And that is why Auckland has a congestion problem and Vancouver does not, Auckland has a fare-box recovery problem and Vancouver does not. Yet Vancouver city has built no new roads since 1990 and reallocated space on existing roads to a city-wide network of cycle lanes.
Vancouver’s Burrard Bridge cycle lanes are the single busiest section of cycle lane in the entirety of North America, recording more than a million cycle trips annually. Before the cycle lanes on the bridge opened there were predictions that the project was “doomed to failure” with fears of “chaos” and “business plunging”. These predictions, like those heard here, were completely wrong. A similar success in Auckland would be impossible under the proposed GPS. Auckland’s current and future harbour crossings would continue to prevent people on foot or on bikes from using them.
We know from cities overseas that road-building does not reduce congestion. On the contrary, cities that do not have a congestion problem are ones which have invested in better public transport, safe walking and cycling infrastructure, demand management such as time-of-use charges, and higher density housing in the city centre and along major transport corridors. These policies enable large numbers of people to move efficiently in environments where space is constrained and highly-valued. On the other hand, encouraging low-density development on greenfield sites on urban fringes guarantees that serving these far-flung suburbs with public transport will be expensive and inefficient.
The previous investment in “RoNS” made no measurable difference to the country’s productivity, which remains behind that of most OECD countries. Why does the government believe that repeating the same recipe will produce a different result this time? We predict that moving funding from public transport, walking and cycling to road-building will again fail to move the productivity dial, while increasing traffic and making congestion worse.
The draft GPS says Effective public transport provides commuters with more choices
. This focus on commuters has long been how Aotearoa New Zealand sees public transport and it’s one reason why we have a fare-box recovery problem. Efficient and cost-effective public transport meets the needs of many people well, but not necessarily anyone perfectly. Commuters typically account for less than half of all journeys. Why do we continue to provide a service that ignores the needs of over half our potential customers? The most productive urban public transport is busy all day, every day, serving everyone, not just commuters.
Prevention is better than cure. A more evidence-based approach would be looking for ways to reduce the road maintenance burden. This means funding transport projects that reduce the need for vehicle travel and move more people using fewer vehicles. It means actively promoting alternatives to road building, such as time-of-use charges, instead of simply adding to the maintenance burden. And it means giving space over to those travel options that are lighter, more efficient and do less damage.
The heaviest freight trucks allowed on our roads do far and away the most damage. Do the road user charges they pay cover the damage they cause or are other road users subsidising them? Is the draft GPS locking in corporate welfare for the trucking industry?
The following countries have a per capita annual road toll less than half that of Aotearoa New Zealand: Netherlands, Iceland, Finland, Spain, Germany, Denmark, United Kingdon, Ireland, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Singapore, and Norway. The government might like to ask what these countries do that we don’t, and what we do that these countries don’t.
Instead, the draft GPS offers safety theatre
— a display of populist, evidence-free virtue-signalling. Figure 7, Deaths in crashes involving alcohol or drugs, would be more meaningful if it showed the trend in such deaths as a percentage of total crash deaths, and per 100,000 people. Are deaths in crashes involving alcohol or drugs going up in step with overall death rates or population growth, going up more quickly, or more slowly? The draft GPS doesn’t tell us.
Countries with the lowest rates of road deaths and serious injuries take a whole-of-system risk management approach. They make a range of targeted interventions designed to reduce the probability of crashes happening and the impact when they do (e.g., applying the “Swiss cheese model” of multiple lines of defence). Yet the draft GPS reduces funding for safer modes like public transport and cycling infrastructure, eliminates funding for traffic calming measures that enhance pedestrian safety, such as raised crossings, and reverses speed limit reductions. While the focus on safer roads, safer drivers and safer vehicles
is commendable, if you are a pedestrian, or a child biking to school, the only safer vehicle is a slower vehicle.
Under the proposed GPS, Aotearoa New Zealand will continue to lag far behind other comparable countries in safety on our roads. It seems that the convenience of car drivers is more important than the safety of vulnerable road users.
The draft GPS does not demonstrate that it will deliver value for money.
The draft GPS simply assumes, without presenting evidence, that adding more roads will lift productivity and boost our economy. Overseas evidence has repeatedly shown the opposite — more roads lead to more traffic, which leads to more congestion, especially when coupled with decreased investment in public transport and safe walking and cycling infrastructure. At a minimum, we would expect to see:
With about 18% of our greenhouse gas emissions coming from land transport, the draft GPS would create a financial liability in the form of offshore obligations to offset our emissions, required to meet our NDC as set out in the Paris Agreement. The draft GPS makes no mention of this unfunded future liability. Have you factored this into your financial calculations and if not, where is it addressed?
As written, the draft GPS ignores the economic benefits and value for money available through turning our land transport system into a modern, safe, accessible and low carbon network. It ignores the adverse impact on productivity of making it harder and less safe to get around without a car. If implemented, it will cost New Zealanders time and money, both directly and indirectly. It will lead to increased emissions, the loss of green spaces (through road construction, far-flung neighbourhoods and the need for more parking), an increased reliance on private vehicles, and continued adverse health impacts from vehicle emissions and road crashes.