This Thursday, John Polkinghorne will be giving a talk to the Reason and Science Society at the University of Auckland (Room 206-315, in the Arts 1 building – map here. This will kick off at 6 pm with time for questions afterwards, and wrapping up by 8 pm. The topic is ‘Kiwis love their cars’, and other urban myths.
Here’s an abstract of the talk:
For sixty years, New Zealand governments and councils have invested heavily in road infrastructure, and spent very little on public transport. We are told that ‘Kiwis love their cars’, but do they, or do they simply have little choice but to drive?
In the last decade, driving has flattened off, and public transport use has boomed, in New Zealand and around the world. TransportBlog believes that “roads first” policies are no longer good enough, and Auckland needs to invest in quality rapid transit, active transport and other modes. This talk reviews the evidence which informs our views, and introduces the Congestion Free Network, our preferred investment program.
Hope some of you can make it!
Processing...
The transport models used by transport planners are testament to the fact that car use is a rational decision, not an irrational one as implied by the “love their cars” myth. Mode choice and travel behaviour can be explained / predicted from the generalised cost of travel (time plus monetary cost) by each mode. Changing the relative cost of public and private transport changes the proportions using each mode. The explanation for low public transport use is its relative unattractiveness, largely a consequence of the investment made in roads and the effective subsidy to peak road users.
So…what you’re saying is that a better way to frame the issue would be “Kiwis love their driving to be subsidised”…?
But David the models don’t work. They are completely crap at predicting real behaviour; consistently over predicting driving and underpredicting Transit use, and why? Because they simply express the assumptions that are built on. Like the idea that everyone is the same as the keen driving engineers that programme them:
Ding ding, knockout in Round One. Is there any coming back from that David?
I think the point David was actually trying to make is that we can boost public transport use by giving it better and more reliable travel times, so that it’s a more attractive alternative to driving. And perhaps removing the issue of the (disproportionately large) “investment made in roads and the effective subsidy to peak road users”.
Yes I thought there was a better comment in there somewhere but I couldn’t let the idea that our current models tell us anything beyond the fact that they are broken go unanswered.
Agreed – I was pointing out where the current subsidy is. Achieving the improvement requires reconsideration of how we allocate that.
Except they brought in slower trains and ridership went up. So I say slow it down some more until we find the peak.
Foolishly assuming that the function is convex over it’s entire domain ;p tut tut :p.
Plus univariance……
I think travel times are a big factor though, many of us do love our cars if it means we can spend more time with family and less time commuting, which is often the case with PV vs PT, with the exception of rapid transit at peak.
Off-peak offers very little incentive, thanks to lower frequencies and worse travel times (lack of express services), and often no service at all, even on the new network there are areas served ONLY by peak-only services and nothing else. Plus we still have some routes ending far to early in the evening, namely trains and more “remote” bus services.
I don’t think kiwis are in love with their cars but I think most kiwis do love their cars relatively to utter crap PT which is expensive, inflexible and unreliable. So no, I don’t think it is an urban myth.
so Ari, you’re saying people are rational and given viable options will choose what works best? Yes? I agree. So let’s get on with improving those options so people can have more real choices, more freedom, and are not just stuck in a loveless marriage with one mode.
I would hardly call it loveless. Most people in Auckland will prefer a car no matter how much you invest into PT by simple virtue of convenience. Because of the way we have built Auckland, PT will never be able to compete with the convenience of the car, particularly outside of the daily commute. Yes we can invest in other options, but it will only ever be a means to ease peak congestion.
well why all these complaints about congestion. If it’s love then longer in the car = better.
Well in the NW we just have cars and buses that sit in the same congestion as cars. Bus priority coming *BACK* in a year or two, which will help a tad but not majorly thanks to interchanges. Busway completion set too far in future for anyone to get excited about… According to the signs along the NW Mwy we have MOAR LANES by 2017, so what message is that conveying?
New vehicle registrations exceeded 126,000 last year. A record.
So, it seems, Kiwis do love their cars.
… but they are driving them less, more cars, parked more often. That’s a successful efficient way to run a city.
Anyway the argument is that it is difficult to function in AKL without one [or two], and that this is not ideal, especially for those that really do love their cars and want to drive everywhere all the time [or more importantly; those who we need to use the roads efficiently: truckies and tradies], as all those vehicles on the roads that wouldn’t if there were other good options are clogging them up.
Invest in Transit for the drivers sake! We love our cars; but we hate them stuck in traffic.
Tony, I don’t think you know the data as well as you think you do. Firstly, think of the economic cycle. People (and businesses, and government, which make up a massive fraction of “new” car sales in NZ) put off buying new cars in the recession. As the economy picks back up, you get a spike in registrations as those deferred purchases are made.
Secondly, you’re only looking at “new” cars, not “used imports” which are about half of all the vehicles imported into NZ. In total, 2014 car registrations were lower than in 2003-2005, although still the highest since then.
Thirdly, a high NZ dollar against the Euro and US dollar made buying European and American cars cheaper, so we saw proportionately more of those (which tend to be new, rather than the used imports which are almost all Japanese) coming into the country.
John, how do you know this is a myth? How many ‘Kiwis’ did you ask?
Or did you just base the claim on an increase in PT patronage in Auckland?
New bicycle imports last year were 285,000 – does that mean that Kiwis love their bikes even more?
I wouldn’t claim to know Glen, but I suspect it means Kiwis love their cars and their bikes.
I don’t think Kiwis ‘love’ their cars – we have no end of surveys telling us that Aucklanders prefer investment in PT over roads. Sadly though, in areas with crap PT, driving a cheap Jap import (no money down! no credit checks!) and being able to reliably get somewhere within a certain time trumps any PT use. However, the upgrade of rail, and the Nth Shore bus lanes show that people will change their habits when quality, reliable PT services are available. Making it safe to cycle would improve people’s options, too. So yes, let’s make more and better travel choices for all a priority.
‘Invest in Transit for the drivers sake! We love our cars; but we hate them stuck in traffic.’
That’s a great idea. Better change the title though.
It depends what assumption/myth we are talking about. My understanding of the ‘kiwis love their cars’ myth is given a choice between driving and a good public transport alternative (i.e. travel times, cost, reliability, comfort are comparable to driving) then Kiwis will choose to drive because they “love their cars”
The increase in public transport usage effectively demonstrates that this is simply not true. Many kiwis will choose Public transport over driving if given a good public transport alternative.
Or another way of putting it:The ‘kiwis love their cars’ myth/assumption tends to be that investing in public transport is a waste of time and money because kiwis won’t use it because ‘kiwis love their cars’. Again the increase in public transport use (especially following significant projects such as Britomart/northern busway) amply demonstrates that this idea is complete nonsense.
Transport Blog is no enemy of the car, in fact its stance is in many ways pro-car.
Not all roads are created the same. Existing roads that are widely spaced have people living in isolated houses where the car is king, because their low density cannot support public transport. When new roads are built in between these existing roads the new roads allow people to live in greater density and public transport becomes a viable option.
Transport Blog is opposed to the new roads and entirely focused on improvement to existing public transport, but only in places where there is existent density. This means that extension of suburban Auckland not favoured and the cost savings of this are believed to allow for more investment improving public transport. However expansion of Auckland continues and the only mode allowed is expansion along existing roads, this has resulted in a vast increase of rural Auckland population for whom the car is indeed loved.
To summarise Transport Blog – loves urban trains; hates suburban buses; loves lifestyle blocked cars.
“To summarise Transport Blog – loves urban trains; hates suburban buses; loves lifestyle blocked cars.”
Over the last few years AT has put forward, and begun implementing, a major plan for better bus services throughout Auckland’s suburbs. Transportblog has covered the New Network quite extensively and has (as far as I can tell; I haven’t been writing those posts) been positive about it. I recommend you look at the archives: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/tag/new-network/
And here’s a recent post that I wrote addressing exactly the issue you raise – the need to build PT- and cycling-friendly street networks in new suburbs: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2015/07/24/do-it-right-the-first-time/
In other words, I’m not sure where you got that impression from, but it’s wrong.