At last week’s transport discussion involving EU Member of Parliament Michael Cramer there was an interesting set of questions (besides the weird secret airport guy) and responses between a couple of audience members and Labour MP David Shearer. Effectively, Mr Shearer suggested that in order to sell the need for better public transport to the widest possible audience, we should talk more about creating a “world class public transport system” and less about “better PT”; more about the benefits of a better public transport system to road users and less about the benefits to PT users themselves.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, a couple of people took issue with this suggestion. The event was organised by the Green Party and it seemed to be attended by a large number of pretty strong public transport, walking and cycling advocates. Supporters of sustainable transport are probably still a bit suspicious of the Labour Party’s transport policies – which in the last government took a long time to come around to being balanced and sensible. Arguably this only happened in 2008 when petrol prices spiked – although thankfully Project DART and electrification were underway before they got voted out. A couple of audience members pointed out they were sick of the focus being on how we can make life better for people driving cars and really took issue with Mr Shearer presenting things in this way.
While in some respects I certainly understand the frustration with a ‘car-centric’ view of transport policy – even when promoting alternative transport options like public transport – I actually agree with David Shearer that we do need to talk about both the issues he raised more. In essence, last week’s transport meeting was something of “preaching to the converted” when it comes to the need for more sustainable transport policies. What we really need to do, and what Len Brown’s mayoral campaign did so effectively, is selling the benefits of a better public transport system to the population as a whole – and whether we like it or not, unfortunately the vast majority of those people currently drive. If our politicians are going to champion better public transport (and we need them to, because they hold the purse-strings) then we must find a way to “sell” the benefits of these policies to as wide an audience as possible.
David Shearer touched on two key messages to do this – and I think he should be congratulated rather than demonised for understanding the need to find a way to sell sustainable transport policy to people who currently drive to work every day.
- That Auckland needs, and deserves, a world-class transport system:
Auckland generally does very well in “quality of life” surveys – to the extent that I find myself somewhat surprised by the results when we’re up in the high echelons of livability with places like Zurich, Vienna and Vancouver. I guess the half-decent climate, the natural beauty of the harbours and the relative isolation from international terrorism probably help here. But there’s typically one thing that lets Auckland down quite badly – and that’s our transport system. Most particularly, our relatively poor public transport system is seen by the general population to be a major factor in “holding back” Auckland from becoming the truly best city in the world to live in.
Therefore, what Auckland needs is a world-class transport system: a balanced system of all modes that works in an integrated manner to a standard that befits what international surveys constantly say is one of the best cities in the world to live in. It almost goes without saying that the follow-on from that is to point out we have half the system: the roading-side. We just need to balance that with a world-class public transport system.
- That spending money on improving Auckland’s public transport system will benefit you, regardless of whether you use it
Due to our historic transport policies, and the land-use patterns around which Auckland has grown in the past 60 years, the vast majority of people drive as their primary means of getting around the city. That’s not particularly unusual: even Vancouver has “only” a 16% public transport modeshare of getting people to work in the morning.
That doesn’t mean the majority of your transport dollars need to be spent on roading. What public transport offers, in terms of cost-effective congestion relief, is a way of shifting more people more efficient at peak times, for less capital cost, than would be possible if you tried to shift them all on roads. Obviously there are many other advantages: social, economic and environmental – but from a congestion-only point of view, PT “knocks the top off” the intensity of congestion at peak times by shifting people in a more space-efficient manner than if they all drove. This has a big benefit for people who continue to drive of course: as otherwise their road would be far more congested. NZTA have even costed the benefit to motorists of each additional rail and bus trip at peak times and off-peak times – the figures are quite startlingly high:
Len Brown’s mayoral campaign was very effective at getting these messages across – that Auckland deserves a world-class public transport system, and that not having one is holding us back from becoming the most livable city in the world. He was also very effective at getting across the message that improving public transport is a key way of reducing congestion – or at the very least giving people more choices for getting around Auckland.
Sustainable transport purists may wish for more focus to be put on public transport’s potential for reducing CO2 emissions, or its health benefits, or (in my case particularly) how better public transport can ensure we don’t destroy the urban fabric of our city yet still enable people to get around easily. But at the end of the day, if we are to get real change to transport policies we need enormously broad public support. I think we are there to quite a large extent, but David Shearer shouldn’t be criticised for outlining effective ways to increase public support for more sustainable transport policies. We need people like him who can make the argument for better public transport to a skeptical audience: whether that be his caucus colleagues when deciding transport policy details, or whether that be the general public at election times.
Processing...
I agree but it also needs to go further, there is often comments from people around the country along the lines of “if Auckland wants rail then they should pay for it”, this has been especially the case in relation to the CBD tunnel. Not only do we need to point out the benefit to car users by improving PT but we need to promote it to the country. Auckland needs to be publicly showing that projects in region actually benefit the whole country through increased economic activity which will mean the government collects more taxes.
As an example of this, we expect rail patronage to hit 10m this year but with the CBD tunnel and higher frequencies it is estimated that by 2040 patronage would hit 50m. That is 40m extra trips by rail than we have now each year. Based on that having a benefit of $17 per trip it equates to $680m of benefits each year and even if you tripled operating costs to $240m that still leaves a yearly benefit of $440m.
Also in the board paper you published the other day, the benefit was listed as $19 per trip.
NZTA’s table and your analysis seem to have a number of implicit assumptions. The table lists road traffic reduction benefits as a function of additional PT trips. It seems clear that an additional PT trip, per se, has zero road traffic reduction benefits so assumption 1 is that the trips are substitutional. Assumption 2 is that the stated figures can be extrapolated linearly. Each PT trip that removes a vehicle from the congestion-affected roads has a diminishing road traffic reduction value. There will be a point at which a substitution has no appreciable beneficial effect (ie there is no congestion and low traffic flow) and hence negigible traffic reduction value. Assumption 3 is that NZTA’s figures are valid and current and having examined aspects of their economic evaluation manual I have my doubts but I shall put those aside for now.
To take “expected” annual rail trips for 2040 (a guess) and assume that every one of those is substitutional (unlikely since the guess is based partly on overall growth projections) then apply a constant figure for the substitutional benefit of an expense (or disbenefit) that for the most part probably will not be incurred (insofar as road transport becomes self-limiting) piles assumption on assumption to paint an overly optimistic picture. That’s not to say there will not be a benefit but given that the subject is “selling PT to the masses” credibility has to feature somewhere.
In the case of the CBD tunnel it is not magically going to free the roads up, they will be just as congested as today and even more so as the predicted number of cars arriving in the CBD in 2040 is actually higher than it is now despite the tunnel carrying thousands of people so the benefit isn’t going to diminish.
Indeed, the point being imagine how much more congested it would be in 2041 with the 10,000 extra vehicle trips to the CBD each day that the tunnel project takes off the roads.
That 10k is just in the AM peak
Why resort to imagination when we can refer to the CBD tunnel business case? The low capital cost scenario (ie. a lot more buses) projects an additional 4,500 daily AM trips by car and notes that this would largely be achieved by additional car occupancy and broadening of the peak. Not much increase in road congestion intensity since as the authors of the study state “increased car usage on the existing network is not feasible given…etc, etc”.
The road network into the CBD is at capacity and under the business case tunnel scenario will continue to be at capacity. It follows therefore that the tunnel has not taken vehicles off the road nor decreased congestion costs to motorists. If you want accrue benefits to road users from decreased road congestion you would first have to provide increased road capacity to realise those savings. Rather counterproductive, I suggest.
The NZTA table states an estimate for the marginal value to other road users (in the form of decreased congestion) of one net road user ceasing to use the roads at peak times. If (as you quite reasonably suggest) the roads will be more congested there will have been no net reduction in road users. If there is not net reduction the is no reduction benefit. The $680 annual benefit that you calculate is an illusion and as such is counterproductive in attempting to “make the argument for better public transport to a skeptical audience”.
If there were no growth in demand (the ceteris paribus implicit in the NZTA table) a motorist moving to rail or bus would benefit other motorists. In the context of increasing demand the picture you paint is one of the bulk of that demand being met by rail with possibly an increase in road use and an increase in the congestion costs to motorists.
I don’t fully agree with how NZTA do their EEM calculations (because they’re ignorant of induced demand). But, one has to take the current situation for what it is, and under that framework there is a big road user benefit from PT investment that boosts patronage.
You can’t sell the unsellable.
Public Transport must be:
1. Frequent (every 15 minutes on the trunk routes minimum, including trains) and with decent operating times (6am-11.30 pm, 7 days including Sunday night on the trunk routes)
2. Connected and integrated (easy to transfer, integrated fares and ticketing [both, not just one])
3. Simple and legible network structure
4. Decent comfort (ancient buses and ancient trains are definitely out, we used to have unairconditioned rusty diesel metal boxes on wheels from the 1980s or maybe even the 1970s for buses, now sold off and dumped for newer vehicles); Canberra, Australia still runs some ‘brown bus’ museum pieces around on their network.
I agree. lots of surveys showing that people mainly want PT so “other people” can use it…. which is fine. Because as soon as there is a decent PT system in place they will start using it.
I agree, you here a lot about the what Kiwis/Aussies/Zimbabweans will and won’t do and how we are all in a ‘love affair’ with the car and it’s not part of the good honest Kiwi Dream etc etc, but at the end of the day people make simple rational choices about what is best for them. The reasons most people don’t use public transport in Auckland is that it is usually slower, less convenient and more expensive than the alternatives. Change that and watch people’s prejudices evaporate.
This is obvious in Melbourne where increasing traffic congestion and fuel costs over the last decade have resulted in massive patronage gains on the rail system. Trips went from 124 million in 1999 to 214 million last year. There wasn’t a single improvement in the rail system in that time, in fact it suffered from congestion. Neither had the Australian psyche shifted, there was no great social revolution, people didn’t abandon their backyards. It’s simply became faster and easier to use the train so an extra 20,000 people a day started doing so.
If this all starts with people thinking it is good for them if other people use PT (and it is), then so be it, if we can get motorway traffic levels down 10% by boosting train frequencies then all the better for the city. However once it is there and they try good PT themselves most will probably change their mind and consider it a viable option.
The Metropolitain Atlanta Rapid Transit Autority (MARTA) has a rail network consisting of 38 stations vs Auckland’s 40 train stations. Atlanta, US is one of the most low density cities as reported by Demographia, well below that of Auckland and even lower density than Brisbane (I am looking into the Brisbane density figures and I suspect that a handful of extreme ultra-low density suburbs and flood-plain areas are pulling the average density of Brisbane down significantly, so it actually might be much higher than what is reported).
Anyway, Altanta is car-dominated, sprawling, low density and has fewer train stations than Auckland. The MARTA Service area covers a catchment population of about 1.7 million people. It’s train system carried around 65 million passengers, so about 6 times higher than Auckland, despite having less infrastructure and far lower density. MARTA runs their trains every 15 minutes most of the day and links their buses to train stations.
I’m not holding up Atlanta as the capital of good public transport, but here appears to be a low density, car loving sprawling US city that has tried to do something about it and is getting passengers. Their PT mode share is still low, but I think that getting 65 million passenger journeys using the system is much better than not having it at all. You could make comparisons also with Perth which is also car lover paradise and this has not prevented PT gaining patronage. The cars are still being driven- but driven to the train station park & ride now!
Bottom line: car loving seems to be more of an ex-post rationalisation aimed at justifying the current “do nothing” situation than any meaningful proper analysis and explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority
Really congestion is going to be greatly eased in Auckland by the rising cost of fuel. People are going to cut vehicle use like they did in 2008. Sustained higher prices will lead to a great deal less pressure on peak routes. The problem is though that the alternatives to driving in many cases are so poor that this will almost certainly come with a decline in productvity making us even less able to afford petrol or to build alternatives. Add to that that we have a minister and a powerful institution [NZTA] that still won’t stop pouring valuable resources into even more lavish road schemes what ever the numbers say: of either oil or decline in use…. madness
An interesting research question would be: what would happen to public transport mode share if electric cars became mainstream? Would it be cheaper to drive or more expensive? (And also what would happen to home power bills in the meantime with all that demand on the power grid and infrastructure required?)
I think public transport needs to provide a fast, quality service regardless of what car does. Public Transport needs to be good, in and of, itself.
I agree and I think PT can be better than driving in Auckland. The current rail network is a great basis. We have already identified future routes, CBD rail tunnel and Avondale-Puhunui. Just those two projects would revolutionise Auckland’s transport network. Think what direct Henderson to Manukau via the Airport would do. Add in an East Auckland line and we’d be pretty much be sorted barring figuring out rail to the Shore which you could do at leisure. So for maybe 7-8 billion we could have pretty much the best PT system in Australasia. Plus you don’t have to spend it all at once, if you went over 20 years it would only cost 400 million a year. It just seems insane that we haven’t leapt on this opportunity.
The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) only has about 69 stations (modest extensions are planned), but that system is carrying something like 250 million trips annually. Brisbane (SEQ) has a far more extensive network with around 149 stations, even Adelaide (about 80 or so?) and Melbourne (around 200) have more stations.
So I’m starting to think that its not just size, but also how intensively used the system is. Strategic extensions seem to work (like Perth’s Joodndalup and Mandurah lines) but all this is making me think that “usage intensity” of infrastructure is important. The longest you’ll wait for a train in Toronto is about 5 minutes in the off-peak. In Melbourne that’s around 20 minutes waiting. There appears to be a lot of connecting buses in Toronto pouring passengers into the rail system.
So while extensions are good, they are also very expensive, sometimes I guess its easy to think “lack of patronage must be due to an infrastructure deficit” (this may well be true in Auckland) but in Brisbane this doesn’t seem plausible at all. I think more intensive use- by running bus rapid transit (BRT) from the train stations and running the trains more frequently you can ‘extend’ the rail network very cheaply, penetrate into the suburbs right up to people’s front doors, and cover all corners of Auckland while extensions are planned.
Just my two cents.
This might be of interest:
Application of a commuter railway to low density settlement, by Peter Martinovich, Public Transport Authority of Western Australia.
http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/18/Files/Peter_Martinovich.pdf
This slideshow is one of the reasons why I don’t buy the “low density means bad PT” and “but all the trips are dispersed” lines often trotted out. Density does matter, but so does integration, service quality and restraining policies on cars (congestion tolls/parking and so on).
Mr Shearer’s initial comment was what caused most people at the evening concern, but the argument he went back to as you have established here does have its merits.
Benefits to drivers in terms of freeing roads is one of the causes for investing in rapid transport, but it can’t be the only or main justification. There are a number of reasons why I think the ‘benefits to drivers’ case undersells rapid transport:
1. Cars are better for some things, public transport is better for others, and they are only partial substitutes for each other. Benefits to drivers can’t take into account the value rapid transport offers above what is possible with cars, so limits the maximum benefits
2. It leaves the impression that public transport funding is at the discretion of drivers for their benefit, which is going to perpetrate the problem we have securing funding for public transport, especially when the vocal minority such as the road lobbies get involved
3. In the cities at least, most people are sold on rapid transport already. You can see that in the poll they did asking Aucklanders for their top priority projects, in electing Brown and in talking to anyone who has travelled to a city overseas. I don’t think I’ve ever met someone who enjoys driving in rush hour, nor is there anyone who would say Auckland’s transport is getting better despite the billions spent on motorways
In summary: a benefit, yes; the reason, no.