On Friday transport minister Gerry Brownlee spoke to the Road Transport Forum (RTF) on the government’s key transport priorities. Over the years the RTF have been a generous donor (not just to National) and have certainly received a transport policy very much tailored to their needs. There was nothing new in the speech in terms of project announcements and I guess this was perhaps not the audience to talk about the cancelling the Northern Busway extension, for example.

However, there were a few paragraphs that pick up on traffic trends in recent years – with the Minister making some rather weird connections between these trends and the success of the RoNS programme:

Between 2005 and 2012 total road travel – in terms of kilometres travelled – was almost unchanged.

There are likely to have been a number of contributing factors, including the Global Financial Crisis, population changes, and technology changes affecting the way people meet and communicate.

Heavy vehicle traffic was affected more than light traffic, dropping by over 4 per cent in 2009 – clearly an impact of the GFC.

But now we are seeing that vehicle kilometres travelled are beginning to increase again.

Heavy vehicle traffic on all roads increased 2.1 per cent in 2013, while light vehicle traffic grew 1.4 per cent.

NZ Transport Agency traffic counts for State highways shows a 4.1 per cent growth in heavy vehicle travel in the year to May 2014.

New Zealand’s vehicle fleet is also growing.

Average vehicle ownership growth has increased more than twice the speed of population growth, and recently released data shows new car purchases at their highest level since 1981.

These increases are not only because of population increases and the improving economy, but also because of the choices people make about their preferred modes of transport, and this is in the face of the biggest investment in public transport seen in decades.

So the case for investing in strategic State highways through the Roads of National Significance programme has been proved correct.

Gerry seems to be mixing up a few stats here as vehicle kilometres travelled is quite different from individual traffic counts and they aren’t always going to move in unison – but it’s the strange logic of the final paragraph that is difficult to understand. There are a few options below for what he could be trying to say:

  • The case for spending $11 billion on the RoNS is to make people drive more.
  • With per capita VKT declining a lot in recent years, it makes a lot of sense to spend $11b on a few motorways to try (unsuccessfully) and reverse this trend
  • Construction of the RoNS projects themselves generate heaps of truck trips to move earth around, which is the point of the projects and therefore they are a success

Just as a reminder here’s a comparison of per capita VKT and per capita public transport use in recent years:

What’s your interpretation of what Gerry means?

Share this

49 comments

  1. Yikes, Gerry needs to work on his critical thinking skills – that last sentence is clearly a logical fallacy.

    Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that the data he is presenting is accurate, the only way he can reach his conclusion is by assuming that traffic growth is a desirable outcome and that the RONS programme is the best option for managing traffic growth. He hasn’t provided any evidence to support this.

  2. Look, I love the work you guys do, but that last graph is approaching becoming dishonest and disingenuous. I know you’re making a point (or trying to), and I fully support PT funding, but that graph is not the way to do it. It approaches the sort of graphic used by climate change deniers.

    To summarise
    – comparing apples and oranges
    – apples on a scale of 8000-9000
    – oranges on a scale of 30-80
    – arbitrary start point

    This is the sort of graph that lets people make statements like ‘no global warming since 2008’.

    Perhaps consider editing this with more appropriate scales or just make your point – PT is needed, it’s on the rise and it’s likely to be our future.

        1. Or maybe you should go all the way back to primary school and learn some better manners.

        2. The graphs don’t need to start at zero, we’re not interested in how many people took public transport or drove cars in Auckland in the 1800s, however, doing that would perhaps demonstrate how people haven’t always driven and won’t always drive.

        3. I don’t think he was suggesting you need to start the graph at time zero, rather that it would look less like exaggeration if you plot from y=0 so people can judge if the variation appear significant. At least it is better than the graphs Muldoon used to get elected, he left off the scale!

    1. I agree it is a bad graph as the different scales and start points make it potentially misleading. A good way to graph it would be to forget the absolute numbers and set the base year (2001) at 100 for each measurement. Then we would see VKT declining to 97.6 by 2012 and PT trips increasing to 125 by 2013 (or 130 by 2012).

      1. Then you aren’t trained in statistics beyond an intermediate school level, which is fine, but that is your problem, not the graph author’s.

        1. Don’t be a dick. I’ve got a PhD in statistics, as it happens, and teach it at post-grad level.

        2. Sorry, was meant to be in response to nzzp, not sure how it ended up here….

          I agree with you about the scale on the axes though, this graph actually does a really poor job of showing how big the increase in PT is relative to a smaller decrease in vkt.

      2. I agree with the suggestion to change it to a relative scalar; I thought the same when I first saw this graph in an earlier post. Interestingly it would actually accentuate the difference with PT even more. At the moment it looks like PT goes up about three times as much as VKT goes down; in actual fact, the difference is at least tenfold.

  3. New Zealand must be the only nation on the planet, or at least the only OECD nation that is actively trying to promote more driving, more consumption of imported fuels, and the generation of more CO^2 and other air born pollutants in the transport sector!

    Is this an attempt to lower the proportion of greenhouse gases generated by the farming sector by raising those made by transport?

    No, sadly we do know what it is, apart from simply porkbarrel for the road construction and haulage industries, it is because grand mistake this government clings to about the relationship between driving quantity and economic performance.

    Throughout the last half of the last century there was an observable correlation between gross VKT and economic growth. It is pretty clear that there was a causal relationship too; that more economic activity led to more vehicle movements. GDP is, after all, simply a measure of all activity. This correlation has weakened considerably this century and seems to be actually completely detaching for many economies. But regardless of that, there is still no evidence of causality in the other direction: That is, you can not grow an economy simply by getting everyone to drive around and around more, well any more than you can by paying everyone to dig a hole and then fill it in again.

    What Brownlee has said above is that more driving is proof of a more successful economy, this is their entire world view in a nutshell; it is stuck sometime in the middle of last century, before the digital revolution, before the return to the city. The only economic activity they understand is low tech heavy lifting. Tax money spent to move huge amounts of the landscape around for every more roads that we are forced to drive on because the alternatives remain unfunded is a very shortsighted and low IQ policy.

    When Joyce says it it’s cynical PR, when Brownlee says unfortunately he believes in it.

    VMT [Vehicle Miles Travelled] v GDP in the US:

    From this summary of recent literature on the relationship between driving and GDP: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/pubs/vmt_gdp/

    1. That is a really interesting link. It shows the problems of trying to figure out what causes what when two variables co-move. Does A cause B, B cause A, A & B cause each other or are A and B both the result of something else. I had assumed (without any real foundation) that some de-coupling would have been caused by the internet with less need for goods and people to move around but if that was the case it should have shown up prior to the dot com crash. Maybe it sort of shows up in the relative slopes of the two lines. A point to make though is that neither VMT (or VKT) nor GDP are a benefit or net benefit to society, both are costs that are assumed to reflect a benefit.

      1. You may be underestimating the exponential nature of the Internet there… back in the late 90s, those of us who had the net were mainly on dialup, and used it for not very much at all. The absurd valuations for those early Internet companies were based on heroic assumptions about revenue growth, not revenue that existed then – they wouldn’t have had much effect on GDP at all at that point. As an indicator, US online retailers had sales of $24 billion in 1999; now it’s more than $270 billion.

        1. Perhaps I am, I have no basis other than my own decision to work at home. The internet let me do that even without dial up. Checking architects plans took a while but I did other things while they downloaded and uploaded. Broadband made it easier but even with dial up I was working on projects being designed in Sydney. Then there is all the visits to the bank and post office that we dont do as well as trips to the supermarket.

        2. Clearly the digital age has affected travel patterns but if it was just an across the board reduction in movement as your personal example seems to suggest then wouldn’t PT trips also decline across this period?

          That they have risen across this period then clearly there has been a movement from driving to PT use, which may or may not be related to new digital technology…

      2. Yes it is an interesting link. They are very cautious about conclusions as you’d expect. Perhaps the most interesting point on the chart though is the war years of the 1940s which shows that a whole lot of government expenditure can produce a great deal of economic activity regardless of driving. Likewise the RONS generate positive GDP numbers just by making all that activity, this of course says nothing about the value if that activity beyond the year of the construction.

        But it does matter hugely to the country as a whole how valuable that spending of our taxes and debt is in the long term. Does the flat per capita VKT offer any info on that? Or should we agree with Gerry that some uptick in vehicle movement (with a rising population and the stimulus of this programme itself) justifies the vast expenditure….?

        Also now that they have spent the entire NLTF and are overtly borrowing to maintain the programme what influence does this have? And can they stop it? Because the end of the RONS, without some other massive public works plan will clearly cause a drop in both GDP and VKT.

        1. > shows that a whole lot of government expenditure can produce a great deal of economic activity regardless of driving.

          Although I agree with your points, a lot of that “economic activity” in the early and mid 1940s did involve a lot of vehicle miles travelled – except the miles were overseas, and presumably aren’t included in those figures.

        2. indeed, but was the ‘economic activity’ of blowing stuff up overseas also included in GDP figures, certainly building the bombs and planes were? I agree it’s anomalous.

        3. > indeed, but was the ‘economic activity’ of blowing stuff up overseas also included in GDP figures, certainly building the bombs and planes were? I agree it’s anomalous.

          Other than the US-made bombs and planes and so on, the main other dollar figure is presumably paying all those guys whose jobs it was to blow things up. I don’t see why that wouldn’t be included.

        4. The war years reinforce my earlier point about GDP not necessarily being a good thing. Given a choice of a depression or a war I think I would prefer a depression as at least more people survive it.

  4. Meanwhile, out of Gerry’s fantasy land and back in the real world:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10289369/Poll-Public-transport-beats-better-roads

    Note that the preference for public transport over roads in the poll is not just an Auckland thing.

    I’m waiting for someone to do a great cartoon of Gerry as Dalla’s JR Ewing, complete with cowboy hat! That is actually where Gerry’s thinking is – stuck in a “make believe Texas” from another era.

    1. Funny you should say that, and a lot of nonsense is written about Texas, but looking up that GDP/VMT data above I found the numbers for Houston, and now even it is seeing a decoupling of economic growth [up] and driving [down]!

      1. Ah yes, Texas.

        Texas Transport officials are now discovering the real roading costs of Fracking on their roading maintenance budgets.
        (Bloomberg article http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-10/crumbling-roads-in-oil-fields-slowing-u-s-energy-boom.html).

        Basically, the cost of keeping the roads used by the huge volumes (and weight) of all the fracking related truck traffic going to and from the fracking wells, in working order.
        Will cost them more more than current road maintenance budget of $USD1 Billion for all of Texas.

        quote:
        “The Texas Department of Transportation is hoping that residents will pass a November constitutional amendment that would allow a $1.4 billion portion of oil and gas tax revenue that currently goes to a rainy day fund to be slotted for highway work instead.

        “We know that $1 billion will be needed to maintain roadways in all energy producing areas of our state, including South Texas,” Nick Wade, spokesman for the department, said by e-mail July 9. “That’s in addition to the $1 billion needed for regular road maintenance, and the estimated $3 billion for new construction to address congestion,” he said.”

        And of course, all those expensive and extensive road repairs? Well they’ll drive up the GDP in Texas.

        So, yep, just as well GDP and VMT and Road construction are now fully divorced in Texas these days.

  5. I am no fan of Gerry Brownlee, but I think it’s fairly clear that what he’s saying here is that the RoNS programme has turned out to be justified because “vehicle kilometres travelled are beginning to increase again”. In other words, he’s saying that the drop in VKT was mostly due to the GFC, and now it’s increasing again (or so he says) so it turns out we need more roads after all.

    Personally I disagree with his reasoning, but I do understand what he’s saying.

    1. But it is entirely circular: we spent billions to buy vast amounts of truck movements and in urban areas have no investments to extend alternatives to driving; therefore we are forcing driving, and look -> success! Well sort of. There is some more driving from the lowest point of the recent economic cycle. Not more driving per capita by the way, that’s still falling.

      1. Gerry’s argument is pretty clear, as SJW said. ie, “Demand for roads is increasing as the economy recovers, despite investment in public transport, therefore we need more/better roads.”

        This is internally consistent and not circular, however it does self-servingly ignore a bunch of other numbers/factors. Things like vehicle miles per capita, investment that has occurred in roads during this period, and so on. It would be relatively straightforward to use those missing points to create a coherent argument against Brownlee. Instead we get some sort of Brownlee straw-man that at best distracts from the key (surely very winnable) argument and at worst makes the poster look like an idiot. This doesn’t reflect well on the blog, and undermines its history of making clear, well-articulated arguments for better transport investment. Disappointing.

  6. Slightly unrelated, but does anyone know Labour’s official stance on the RoNS? An article a few weeks ago in out local suburban newspaper had Peter Dunne calling for Labour to “come clean” on whether they would cancel Transmission Gully or not, should they and Greens come to power. The impression left by the article is that they would.

    But a week or two later, a “Correction” was published by the paper, stating that Labour now supported Transmission Gully. And the source for this correction was none other than Labour’s spokesperson for Transport, Phil Twyford. That is the same Phil Twyford who many times previously has spoken eloquently AGAINST the RoNS.

    Can anybody actually pin down what Labour’s policy is on anything of importance? I know they plan to reduce RUC’s on caravans, ban trucks from the fast lanes off the RoNS’s, improve conditions for animals and teach everybody a few words in Maori, but meanwhile Rome is burning under National’s borrow-and-spend roading policy, and here are Labour seemingly supporting it?

    If this is true, then what is Labour offering that is meaningfully different from National. Or have they lost the plot?
    Someone from Labour PLEASE ANSWER, and hopefully correct the correction.

    1. Or Dave B, you could get off your lazy ass and look yourself. Oh look what I found after about 15 seconds of searching: http://campaign.labour.org.nz/policies

      Not really that hard is it? And if what you are looking for is not there, then I guess it hasn’t been announced yet. And no, I will not be voting Labour this election.

  7. Dave B – Labour has supported the building of Transmission Gully for a long time. What we don’t support is using a PPP to build it, effectively tripling the cost of the project and adding $2 bn to the price tag. We’ve been consistently critical of the Roads of National Significance generally – hand picking a handful of mega motorway projects regardless of their economic value. Our policy is to review those projects that are underway and part-built, to determine whether their economic value can be improved or effects on the community mitigated. The only remaining RONS that wont have been started is the Puhoi-Wellsford, and it is our policy not to proceed with it until the numbers stack up, and that won’t be in the short to medium term.

    1. Thanks for the clarification Phil. Last time I heard you (debating transport policy with other parties’ spokespersons) I came away with the impression that you were against Transmission Gully. Aside from the PPP aspect, Transmission Gully and the Puhoi-Wellsford are two of the poorest performing RoNS in terms of economic value. If Labour is “critical of the RoNS generally”, then what is it doing supporting Transmission Gully?

      The PPP is not the issue. The project is uneconomic and a bad use of resources however it is funded. And unless I am very mistaken you previously said as much yourself.
      Potentially Labour has the opportunity to rescue $Billions from National’s wrong-headed spending policy. When John Key asked Phil Goff to “Show me the money”, Phil could have responded, “Simple, John. We will cancel your uneconomic Roads of National Extravagance!”. Instead, he floundered and blew the opportunity.

      Now history is repeating! What is the point of Labour being critical of the RoNs if it is not actively going to oppose them? That is the problem. Labour’s policy is coming across as confused.

        1. OK, maybe I simply misheard you explaining how Labour can be “consistently critical of the RoNS generally”, while supporting one of the worst of them.

        2. It’s just as well Labour will not be able to form a government without the Greens. Who will stop Transmission Gully, if elected in sufficient numbers.

  8. During the recent flooding in Northland did the northern rail link remain open? Is there still a rail link to Whangerei? http://campaign.labour.org.nz/road_fix_needed_now_not_later
    It seems to me that very few people are asking about the Cost Benefit Analysis of any of the proposed roads and or the alternatives to reproducing the roads.
    No one seems to be talking about the changes to freight vehicle mass which came about prior to the preparing of the roads to meet the changes in axle loadings. Most of the roads are of flexible pavement type which have been designed on the basis of standard axles/passing over them for a given design life.

    1. Ted E: the Northland rail link, inc Whangarei, has not been affected significantly by the recent bad weather;

      Phil T: does Labour appreciate that Transmission Gully and the other Wellington RoNS will increase AM peak traffic congestion in Wellington city by 80% (source: http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/Transport/Transport-models/TN24-Baseline-Forecasting-Report-FINAL.pdf) and reduce patronage on the Kapiti rail line by 25% (source: NZTA experts at Transmission Gully expert conferencing)?

  9. Ted, its our policy to spend the $320 m on Operation Lifesaver immediately which would put in the Warkworth bypass, and fix the accident black spots and congestion pinch points.

  10. I think if your headline had a full stop after the word “strange” than it would make complete sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *