Hi all,
Joshua has kindly given me a login for the blog so that I can join him and Jeremy in making regular posts on transport topics. It is probably a good idea that I introduce myself as you may be seeing a bit more of my thoughts in the future, so here goes:
My name is Nicolas Reid, some readers may know me as Nick R from the comments pages, the CBT forums and various other blogs. I spent the first 25 years of my life growing up in Auckland but I have been based in Melbourne for the last few years. I have a background in organisational psychology and ergonomics and worked in New Zealand as an ergonomics consultant and a injury prevention researcher. Currently I work as a researcher at the Monash University Accident Research Centre, where I divide my time between injury data surveillance and ‘human factors’ crash prevention research. I am also very passionate about public transport, urban design and other planning issues, so I have been working on a planning masters at RMIT here in Melbourne. In about six months I should be able to graduate and make the move to work as a professional planner and one day not too far from now I plan to be an ethical, socially responsible property developer (if such a thing can exist). As a researcher I’m very interested in using reliable data and evidence based methods to separate informed conclusions from hearsay and ideology.
I am a member of the Campaign for Better Transport, and I’m a former car nut who now lives an almost car free lifestyle (it’s not that I hate cars, quite the opposite, I just find it easier to get by without owning one these days). I’m also something of a cyclist, although I think I like building bikes and pulling them apart more than I actually like riding them.
Processing...
Great to have you on board Nick. It will certainly be good to have a perspective on how what’s happening here in New Zealand compares to what’s going on over there in Australia.
Excellent, there really is no excuse for us not to have two to three new posts up a day now…
My contributions will be relatively sporadic to begin with while I am still working days and studying nights, but after each round of lectures and assignments I’ll probably have a pile of (hopefully well researched) topics to post on.
By the way, anyone interested in forming the “Centre for Transport Management Studies”, or perhaps the “Australasian Transport Research Institute”? I’ve always had a bit of a chuckle when I hear about Owen McShane’s grandiose sounding “Centre for Resource Management Studies” (http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/) which looks like is run out of a garage on his farm up north 🙂
By the way, anyone interested in forming the “Centre for Transport Management Studies”, or perhaps the “Australasian Transport Research Institute”?
I vote both! CTMS affiliated to the ARTI.
Lol, sounds good Nick…
I’m kinda serious actually. The CBT works great as a grass roots public advocacy group, but maybe there is room for another public face to take the role of the informed expert/scientist.
I think that the ideal situation is for the CBT to be both, and I don’t think there is anything stopping the CBT becoming more scientists/expert based while still retaining grassroots support.
My personal opinion is that between, CBT, Cycle Action Auckland, Get Across, FAST, Living Streets NZ, Fare Free NZ and political groups such as RAM and the Greens (that have a big PT components) that more consolidation of groups is needed as opposed to more groups…
They are all basically politically motivated advocacy or pressure groups though. It would be hard for any of them to produce research or analysis that would be percieved as unbiased and disinterested.
Actually, CBT isn’t politicaly motivated. If you remember CBT was hard on the Labour lead Govt to get Onehunga, Electrification and other projects moving. Now a National lead Govt seems to be doing a lot more damage to a sustainable transport network.
As our campaigns come across opposition, of course there is a political element in the “game” to win better transport services. This is being witnessed right now with the Waikato Trains NOW! campaign I am leading. While local Labour MPs support the trains local National MPs do not (against strong public backing). If the local National MPs joined us I would welcome them on board with open arms. They choose not too, and therefore, like some local councillors at Environment Waikato, open themselves to CBT challenging the credibility of their stance.
I believe there are too many small groups, which are basically the opposition to the well funded Roading and Trucking lobbies(which soak up all the transport funds).
As CBT has had some subtanstanial wins by starting well received public campaigns( Onehunga Line, Electrifcation, Moving SH20 east) worth over $500 million( if you include electrify now which we started in 2006) one group comes to mind as very credible. Personally, I would think merging some of the other groups into the, now national, CBT would do them all good. Of course, I could be wrong and somewhere here will let me know the other groups have achieved major funding of projects , though none come to mind.
I take your point Nick that a group who sets out it’s manifesto along solely “scientific” lines would be beneficial, maybe a group within CBT..?
The Campaign for Better Transport Research Committee perhaps..?
I tend to think of it practically, like what name would you want on a submission to a plan change or resource consent application? CBT’s profile adds weight to what it says I think. Similarly, you want to think about whether a piece of research would be taken seriously or whether other advocacy would cloud perceptions of how independent you are. That’s where things get trickier, and in the end I don’t think you’re ever going to be truly impartial, or perceived as impartial – but that’s OK. The strength of your argument is what’s important and if you are speaking rubbish you will be found out.
So overall I think the CBT could be both. It just needs a rich backer to employ a full time staff member or two….
I agree Joshua…and also on the point of a well funded beneficiary would very much so get CBT rolling further and faster.
I favour the CBT having two arms, a funded independent research arm, then a lobbying arm. The latter could use the research to push for better transport decisions for the country.
This is how CBT UK also functions.
Hi Jon, you are right that I shouldn’t have described the CBT as political but you must certainly admit that the CBT has it’s particular campaigns and agendas, as any advocacy organisation does. I do agree that the CBT is building a strong profile and that taking on some of the smaller groups to have a prominent nationwide position would be a good idea. I’m not questioning the CBTs credibility or ability to achieve results either, the writing is on the wall in that regard.
I was not thinking about another advocacy group to promote campaigns, make submissions etc, but a vehicle for academics and theorists to get analysis into the public domain, a sort of library of information. Perhaps the CBT could be that vehicle but maybe it would be better if it were not part of any advocacy group. If two independent arms can be maintained then that would work well I guess, as long as people could resonably draw a distinction between the two.
Being truly unbiased is of course a myth, but striving for that could be useful. Personally, I can only assume that people like Owen McShane and Wendel Cox say whatever some big lobby group pays them to say, but when you hear of them in the media the are presented as some impartial specialist or research institute. The fact that they aren’t seen as part of a particular advocacy group perhaps gives more power to what they are promoting in public.
My real concern comes from my experiences around cycling safety research with Cycling Victoria, which funds a lot of research that consistently supports their party line and nothing else. Consequently anything they produce is basically ignored by people working in my field because it lacks any transparency and rigour, which is a shame. Everything they do is now immediately labelled as propaganda from those ‘lycra clad bike crazies’, regardless of it being good or not.
hi Nick. I hear what you’re saying about an independent research group. I am constantly frustrated by the fact that so much I want to find out about is only stuff that road engineers/train drivers know. The train drivers can’t comment about govt policy because they all work for the govt. I have heard it said taht NZTA makes a point of giving at least some work to every civil engineering firm in this country that works on road engineering so nobody can criticize them either….
However, I think that new groups are hard to form and so maybe we need to consolidate what we have more first.
Auckland is main city of Newzealand and it is very important to improve its travel progress. It is not only responsibility of Govt because it is also a duty of every citizen of this city. The every person should play a dominant role in its progress as soon as possible. We also run a good travel service to improve the public transport in Auckland.