Do we need some stick with that carrot?

I went to an interesting discussion last night on Auckland’s public transport, what’s wrong with it and how we can make it better. The discussion was headed by transport planner Julie-Anne Genter, who is very knowledgeable in the field of transport planning, particularly in the area of looking at what the hidden subsidies are of various different transport options and what we need to do in order to rebalance our transport options and, in the end, save ourselves a whole heap of money.

Some of the matters raised in her presentation, particularly in relation to parking subsidies, I will leave to another post – as I really need to have a good read of the book “The High Cost of Free Parking” by Donald Shoup (I had a brief flick through it in the University of Auckland architecture library last night and what I did read was fascinating). But for this post I am going to focus on what Julie said in her presentation that is relevant to the Regional Land Transport Strategy (which is currently seeking submissions until December 18th). I talked a bit about the RLTS a week or so back, that I thought it was a pretty good transport strategy for Auckland – probably the best we’ve had in about 60 years actually. There are a few suggestions I have, and I will put those together into some sort of ‘model submission’ over the next couple of weeks, but for now I am going to focus a bit more on the ‘strategic level’ of the RLTS.

Here are the four different “strategic options” that were considered when formulating the RLTS: Somewhat strangely, the “Preferred Strategic Option” that the ARC eventually ended up going with is none of the above four choices. Perhaps it is most similar to a “watered down Option 3”, although it seems to have hints of option 1 in it – perhaps meaning that it could be considered a “very watered down Option 4”? This preferred option is described as follows:

The preferred strategic option is a public transport led approach, where public transport services and infrastructure are provided ahead of demand in order to encourage greater public transport use. The focus of investment shifts from state highway construction into public transport improvements, behaviour change, walking and cycling and local roads.

The preferred strategic option supports the planned intensification of development in growth centres which will be well served by public transport. Developments in new growth areas can proceed on the basis that public transport services will be in place as the development is taken up. The Auckland region would be better placed to cope with oil price volatility and reduce transport-related carbon dioxide emissions.

It does very much seem like a “carrot” approach, that people will be ‘pulled’ towards using public transport through heavy investment to create a system that is attractive to use. Through the provision of this infrastructure ahead of demand, we will see patronage and (over time) land-use patterns change to a more sustainable form.

I am generally in agreement with this sentiment. Often in the “land use and transport debate” there is a lot of emphasis on how different land use patterns generate particular transport patterns and needs, but often the reverse isn’t focused on quite as much – the effect that different types of transport infrastructure will have on land-use patterns. If we look at Auckland for example, we can see that prior to the 1950s the street pattern was generally in grid formation, there were numerous strong arterials such as Dominion Road and Manukau Road, where shops and business located, while houses spread off to either side of these arterials. This pattern of land-use was quite clearly the result of the tram system. After the 1950s, once the motorway system was constructed, we see the Auckland spread rapidly, we had messy cul-de-sacs and the mix of land-uses was generally lost. This was land-use patterns responding to transport infrastructure.

So getting back to the RLTS, I think what the ARC is trying to achieve here is to match up their transport strategy with the Regional Growth Strategy, which is designed to guide Auckland’s urban development and land-use patterns up until the year 2050 (and feels like an awfully familiar friend as I wrote my Master’s Thesis on it). This makes a huge amount of sense – as it is the mis-match between the two that has led to a great number of problems for Auckland (like, say, all of East Auckland). Yet there is one piece of the puzzle perhaps missing here, and that was the focus of a lot of what Julie talked about last night, which can perhaps be summarised as “getting the incentives right” or “removing the hidden subsidies that have upset the transport/land-use balance”.

What I mean by all of this is that we can build all the railway lines we like, provide all the bus routes possible, make our District Plans focus on the provision of intensified housing within development nodes and corridors, do our best to curb urban sprawl through the imposition of Metropolitan Urban Limits – but if we don’t actually get rid of the underlying imbalances within the transport system, we’re actually not really going to properly achieve these goals. But what do I mean by the “underlying imbalances”? In general terms, these are the hidden subsidies that are ‘enjoyed’ by road users – the fact that cars emit huge amounts of CO2 but currently don’t pay for that, or that cars reduce property prices by their noise but don’t pay for that either, or that (perhaps most significantly) the cost of providing parking is ‘internalised’ by the real estate sector and paid for through higher land prices for remaining areas, lower wages (as your work is paying for your parking rather than giving you the money) or higher prices whenever you buy something (as that price needs to cover the cost of providing you with a parking space).

If we look at what has happened in Auckland over the past ten years, both in terms of land-use planning and transportation planning, it could be summarised as “we’ve tried really hard, but the results have been disappointing”. In terms of the Regional Growth Strategy, the limited amount of space for greenfield developments has been chewed up much faster than anticipated, intensification has proceeded slower than anticipated, and generally less has been constructed than anticipated – leading to higher housing prices. Overall, there just hasn’t been enough of an incentive for developers to ‘fall into line’ with the plans and strategies to focus development in certain areas. The same can be said for transportation, as was made clear through the figures in yesterday’s post we have really tried hard to improve public transport patronage over the last decade, but in a way the results have been a tad disappointing. Increasing subsidies by 250% over that time, only to have public transport patronage per capita remain roughly the same, must be considered a disappointing result (although certainly better than the falling patronage we saw in most of the 50 years before that I must note). As with land-use planning, I think that the incentives really aren’t there yet to encourage more people to shift from driving their cars to using public transport. Unless you work in the CBD, I think it’s pretty unlikely that public transport will be faster or cheaper than driving – so therefore generally the only people who will be attracted to using public transport are those without a car. As cars are pretty cheap in New Zealand, and we have one of the highest rates of car ownership in the world, that number is pretty small.

So what’s the problem here? What’s missing? Why have such significant efforts to make our land-use plans and our transport system more sustainable, less sprawl and auto-dependent, and generally improve our city seemingly come up short? While both land-use planning trends and transportation trends are undoubtedly better than they were a decade ago, it still seems like we’re not getting the results we should be. In my opinion, this is where that missing element fits in – the huge hidden subsidies to private vehicles that the system still offers. No wonder people are continuing to drive when they don’t have to pay for the pollution they create. No wonder it’s difficult to get developers to come up with intensification schemes around rail nodes when we’re requiring them to provide two carparks for each residential unit. No wonder most people still choose to drive when their work gains tax benefits from providing their employees with free parking rather than paying them more.

So there are still some underlying imbalances in the system that make it incredibly difficult for both transportation planners and land-use planners to “get what they want” out of shifting Auckland towards a more sustainable and less car-dependent future. To readdress that balance we need to think about getting rid of minimum parking requirements, we need to think about reviewing the tax system so that perhaps it benefits companies providing their workers with public transport passes rather than free parking and we need to ensure that the externalities generated by private vehicles – such as noise, pollution, CO2 emissions and ‘visual blight’ are properly paid for. Until we make these fundamental changes, that undoubtedly will make driving and owning a car more expensive, that ‘carrot’ of improved public transport is likely to make less difference than it should.

Ultimately, I therefore think that the Preferred Strategic Option for the Regional Land Transport Strategy has to be option 4 – a Quantum Shift. We need both a carrot and a stick to shift Auckland towards a more sustainable transport future. We need for people to be aware of the full cost of our automobile dependency and the full cost of all that parking which blights our regional centres. Relying solely on the carrot will only achieve a certain amount, and the huge subsidies provided to road users will continue to harm the rest of the economy. So when you make your submission on the RLTS, vote for option 4!

Share this