The structures that support bad transport decisions
By Simon Kingham
This article was first published in the book Once in a lifetime: city-building after disaster in Christchurch (2014).
Simon is a professor in the Geography Department at the University of Canterbury, where he is also the director of the GeoHealth Laboratory. He researches and teaches on a range of urban issues including sustainable urban development, transport, health and air pollution.
Transport has been one of the most debated areas of the recovery and rebuild of Christchurch. Whether it be about a new bus exchange, opportunities for rail, where and how parking should be provided, or the provision of infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists, everyone has an opinion and most people are experts.Transport infrastructure and public transport services are provided by national or local government and such investments are often seen as public goods; once provided they are available for all to use.[1] Consequently the rationale for decision-making around transport is sometimes viewed differently than for other services and infrastructure. Terminology is also important: funding for road projects is often termed ‘investment’, whereas public transport is deemed ‘subsidised’.
Transport in Christchurch will, without a doubt, change in the coming
years as the city recovers and is rebuilt. But how it will change and what the impact will be on our travel behaviour is less clear. To be able to consider and understand this, this chapter will start by examining how transport affects
us, then examine how transport decisions are made, and end with some reflections on how transport in a future Christchurch might look.
Transport impacts
What are the benefits of different modes of transport, and how might this be factored into transport decision-making? There are a number of well-established ways in which transport can affect us. Some of the major considerations are examined below.
Environmental pollution
Clearly non-motorised modes (i.e. walking and cycling) produce little or no pollution and this is obviously better for the environment and health than motorised modes. Buses will generally produce more pollution than cars although when the numbers of passengers in a vehicle are factored in then public transport will nearly always result in lower per person pollution emission rates. A less obvious and understood facet of pollution in relation to transport is the concentration of pollution people are exposed to while travelling. [2] This can vary significantly between modes, with studies largely finding that people travelling by car are exposed to the worst quality of air, pedestrians and cyclists exposed to the cleanest air, and public transport users somewhere in between.The evidence for this includes research carried out in Christchurch. [3]
Physical activity
Clearly those who walk or cycle get more physical activity than those travelling by motorised modes, and gain the associated health benefits. These benefits have been shown to be significant and substantial. [4] What is less obvious are the benefits of increased physical activity for those using public transport. An increasing number of studies show significant health benefits through walking to and from public transport stops and stations, [5] including for rail and light rail.[6]
Social inequality and exclusion
There is a growing body of research that examines links between social inequality and transport.There are multiple ways that transport affects social inequality including car access being required for full participation in modern industrialised societies; lack of car access being a key factor in social exclusion; changing land use; and work and lifestyle patterns increasing
car dependence and exacerbating the problem of poor access for non-car- owning households. [7] Clearly car access is a key here, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has concluded
that communities with better active and public transport can reduce social disparities. [8]
Land use
Transport infrastructure uses space. In New Zealand it has been estimated that 25-30 per cent of land in New Zealand’s towns and cities is given
over to transport through roads, car parks, driveways etc. Clearly different modes have different land use needs with car travel requiring substantially more space than other modes, as seen in figure 1, [9] but perhaps more easily visualised in figure 2. Any road space used for transport cannot be used for other public activities such as parks or other uses of communal open space.
Cost
Transport comes with economic costs.These include individual costs, such as paying for vehicles (car or bike), maintenance, running costs (fuel, repairs etc.) or fares for public transport; and public costs, such as the provision of public good services (e.g. bus and rail services) and infrastructure (e.g. road building and maintenance or cycling infrastructure). In 2005, the Ministry of Transport produced the Surface Transport Costs and Charges Study (STCCS), which assessed the following: the costs that road and rail users were paying, the costs that they imposed on society as a whole and who pays for land transport. [10] It concluded that ‘no one is overpaying and that all land transport users are underpaying to varying degrees’. Specifically, the report asserts that cars directly cover only 64 per cent of their costs, trucks 56 per cent, buses 68 per cent and rail 77 per cent. The remainder of the costs are paid out of general taxation and local rates. It should be noted that these figures do not include any health impacts associated with physical activity, which we know will be substantial. As a result it is fair to say that the figure for cars will be significantly lower than 64 per cent.
The bottom line is that the costs of all motorised modes are substantially subsidised by general taxation with cars being the most subsidised form of transport. On the other hand, investment in active transport (cycling and walking), which was not included in the STCCS, has been demonstrated in an increasing number of studies as having significant economic benefits. [11] From this we can see that there is an increasing and compelling body of evidence that strongly demonstrates that investing in active and public transport is sound economically.
How do we make transport planning decisions?
So how are transport decisions made? What are the key drivers that shape how and where transport investment is made? In Christchurch there are
three main agencies involved in the provision of transport: the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), who manage state highways; Christchurch City Council (CCC), who manage local roads; and Environment Canterbury (ECan), who manage public transport. In the context of post-earthquake Christchurch, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) also needs to be included. Much of these organisations’ effort is spent maintaining existing services, whether this is road repairs or public transport routes. Decisions on the provision of new transport or changing transport priorities rely on finding new funding within a funding-scarce environment. Each player has different criteria and mechanisms that decide how much they spend on different activities.
Ultimately the body that has most power in this is the one that controls the largest pot of ‘new’ funding. In New Zealand this is the Ministry of Transport through the Government Policy Statement (GPS) on Land Transport Funding, which decides ‘the government’s outcomes and priorities for the land transport sector’.12 The 2010 GPS unashamedly states that the aim is to realign ‘transport expenditure to better support economic growth’ and
that the key part is ‘a significant programme of improvement in key land transport infrastructure, with an intention to invest nearly $11 billion in
new infrastructure for New Zealand’s State highways over the 10 years from 2009 to 2019’. This allocates around 40 per cent of the budget for new state highways, 40 per cent for maintenance of existing roads, 10 per cent for public transport services and less than 1 per cent each for public transport infrastructure, and walking and cycling — a similar amount to that allocated for ‘Management of the funding allocation system’. This is given effect by the NZTA-managed National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) and funds are available from the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF). State highway projects are managed by NZTA and are in essence uncontested. For local non-state highway projects (new or maintenance), local government (CCC or ECan) has to either fully fund through local taxes and/or, in the case of public transport, farebox recovery, [13] or co-fund and seek the remainder from the NLTP. To actually get the NLTP fund, CCC and ECan have to apply for funds through the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) that feeds into the NLTP.There are three hurdles to non-roading projects getting funded through this process. Firstly, projects need local support to be part of the city plan; this is not always a given when in competition with other spending priorities. Secondly, they have to get national support, by fitting within the GPS targets — there is no point applying for large funds from a part of the GPS that has little budget, and unfortunately the GPS has little available for non-roading projects. Finally, there have to be no logistical hurdles to implementation (e.g. the public or businesses objecting during any consultation process). [14]
For any transport project to get into the RLTP, it has to demonstrate value for money and is compared against other projects from the whole region, from Kaikoura down to Waimate. One method of doing this is to use NZTA’s Economic Evaluation Manual which allows organisations to ‘evaluate the economic efficiency of their investment proposals in line with the Transport Agency’s Assessment Framework’.[15]This evaluation process is based on economic efficiency and is assessed by the use of a benefit cost ratio.This is very much an economic approach, with no scope for including the public good unless a competitive economic value can be attached to it. It is possible for CCC or ECan to fund projects entirely out of local funds, but these
are then not supported by any central government funds, and are in direct competition for funds with all other local non-transport projects.
In other words, there is little central government funding available for any new public transport or major walking and cycling projects.
Transport in Christchurch’s recovery and rebuild
The first opportunity to develop a transport plan for Christchurch came through the hugely successful and popular Share an Idea campaign. The key transport points that came out of this can be seen in figure 3. Key features were a shift to a more walkable, cycleable city, with good public transport – including light rail or trams.The first recovery document was the CCC-produced Draft Central City Plan. [16]
The central city then became the responsibility of the newly created Christchurch Central Development Unit (CCDU), who turned this into the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan. [17] There were some key changes from the CCC Draft Central City Plan, the most notable being that there was
only brief reference to transport, and detail was delayed to a later date.The transport plan came out as an addendum: An Accessible City. [18] There were two main significant changes compared to the original CCC plan. Firstly, a slow core 30 km/h centre was introduced. Secondly, plans for light rail, which were a key part of the CCC Draft Plan, were removed from the CCDU plan.
At the same time as the Accessible City report was being prepared, Christchurch City Council produced its longer-term Transport Plan 2012-2042. [19] It has four goals, which are to improve access and choice;
create safe, healthy and liveable communities; support economic vitality;
and create opportunities for environmental enhancements.The notion of
the public good being included in transport decisions is more visible in this longer-term plan. However, towards the end of the document is a warning that the GPS ‘means the funding available for public transport, cycling and walking networks as outlined in this Plan will be heavily constrained for much of the early recovery period’. Investigations into the feasibility of passenger rail or light rail are mentioned as part of a public transport network.This plan also includes reference to a connected cycle network including major cycleways and flagship projects.The latter has come to fruition with the CCC budgeting in the region of $70 million for thirteen new separated cycleways to be completed within five years. [20]
The future
What is becoming increasingly clear worldwide is that many public good transport initiatives, which are likely to lead to a more sustainable and resilient future (specifically public transport and active transport) now stack up very competitively when assessed economically. However, under the current central framework for funding transport projects in New Zealand (largely driven by the GPS) these are unlikely to get funded.The Roads of National Significance, the current priority for the Government, are in many cases poor economic value. [21] Yet when questioned, the Government defends its spending, ironically on the grounds of the public good, and refers to this as investment. [22] Public and active transport are either seen as insignificant, or referred to as subsidies. This suggests that, in the current political climate, projects are unlikely to get funded unless they fit the roading agenda, with public and active transport investment not favoured.Yet, it is known that many active and public transport projects have stronger economic cases, and that many of the journeys we make are short and ideal for active modes.
So what is the future for Christchurch? The CCC has demonstrated its commitment to investing in active transport modes. However, the future looks less bright for more expensive transport projects such as light rail, irrespective of the medium- or long-term benefits that may be demonstrated, due to central government policies and funding mechanisms.
References
[1] Adrian Humphris, “Public Transport — Public Transport Funding,” Te Ara — Encyclopdeia of New Zealand, updated July 13, 2012, www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/piblic-transport/ page-7.
[2] Exposure here refers to the quality of the air in the vicinity of the traveller, and does not account for respiration rates.
[3] Simon Kingham, Ian Longley, Jennifer Salmond, Woodroe Pattinson and Kreepa Shrestha, “Variations in Exposure to Traffic Pollution While Travelling by Different Modes in a Low Density, Less Congested City,” Environmental Pollution 181 (2013): 211–218.
[4] John Pucher, Ralph Buehler, David Bassett and Andrew Dannenberg, “Walking and Cycling to Health: A Comparative Analysis of City, State, and International Data,” American Journal of Public Health 100 (2010): 1986–1992.
[5] Karen Villanueva, Billie Giles-Corti and Gavin McCormack, “Achieving 10,000 steps: A comparison of Public Transport Users and Drivers in a University Setting,” Preventive Medicine 47 (2008): 338–341; Ugon Lachapelle and Laurence Frank, “Transit and Health: Mode of Transport, Employer-Sponsored Public Transit Pass Programs, and Physical Activity,” Journal of Public Health Policy 30 (2009): S73–S94; Lilah Besser and Andrew Dannenberg, “Walking to Public Transit. Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 29 (2005): 273–280.
[6] Richard Wener and Gary Evans, “A Morning Stroll. Levels of Physical Activity in Car and Mass Transit Commuting,” Environment and Behavior 39 (2007): 62–74; John MacDonald, Robert Stokes, Deborah Cohen, Aaron Kofner and Greg Ridgeway, “The Effect of Light Rail Transit on Body Mass Index and Physical Activity,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 39 (2010): 105–112; Barbara Brown and Carol Werner, “Before and After a New Light Rail Stop: Resident Attitudes, Travel Behavior, and Obesity,’ Journal of the American Planning Association, 75 (2008): 5–12.
[7] Karen Lucas, ed., Transport & Social Exclusion. A Survey of the Group of Seven Nations, (report produced for the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society, 2004).
[8] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Environmentally Sustainable Transport. Futures, strategies and Best practices. Synthesis Report of the OECD project on Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST), (Prepared on behalf of the Austrian Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management in co- operation with the OECD, 2000).
[9] Todd Litman, “Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impacts. Considering the Impacts, Benefits and Costs of Different Land Use Development Patterns,” Victoria Transport Policy Institute, updated April 24, 2014, www.vtpi.org/ landuse.pdf.
[10] Ministry of Transport, “Surface Transport Costs and Charges: Main Report” (prepared for the Ministry of Transport by Booz Allen Hamilton with Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds and associated consultants, 2005).
[11] Susan Bidwell, Review of Studies that have Quantified the Economic Benefits of Interventions to Increase Walking and Cycling for Transport (report prepared by Crown Public Health, part of the Canterbury District Health Board), updated December 5, 2012, www.cph.co.nz/Files/ QuantEconBenefitPhysicalActive.pdf.
[12] Ministry of Transport, “Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding 2009/10–2018/19,” May 2009, amended November 2010, www.transport.govt.nz/assets/ Import/Documents/Amended-GPS-November-2010.pdf.
[13] For bus services, farebox recovery is intended to cover 50 per cent of the costs of running the bus service; the remainder covered equally by local ECan rates and central government funds through the National Land Transport Fund. Since the earthquakes, as bus use has dropped, farebox recovery has dropped below 50 per cent. There are virtually no bus services where farebox recovery attempts to cover the full costs.
[14] Opposition from businesses to bus lanes and a bus interchange on Riccarton Road have proved insurmountable for those ideas in the past.
[15] New Zealand Transport Agency, Economic evaluation manual, 2013, www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/economic- evaluation-manual/economic-evaluation-manual/docs/ eem-manual.pdf.
[16] Christchurch City Council, Draft Central City Plan (Christchurch: 2011), no longer available, http://resources. ccc.govt.nz/files/CentralCityDecember2011/FinalDraftPlan/ FinaldraftCentralCityPlan.pdf.
[17] Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (Christchurch: 2012), http://ccdu. govt.nz/sites/ccdu.govt.nz/files/documents/christchurch- central-recovery-plan.pdf.
[18] Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, “An Accessible City,” in Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (Christchurch: 2013), http://ccdu.govt.nz/the-plan/an-accessible-city.
[19] Christchurch City Council, Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012–2042 (Christchurch: 2012), http://resources. ccc.govt.nz/files/TheCouncil/policiesreportsstrategies/ transportplan/ ChristchurchStrategyTransportPlan2012.
[20] “Cycleways in Christchurch,” Christchurch City Council, accessed March 2014, www.ccc.govt.nz/cityleisure/ projectstoimprovechristchurch/transport/cycleways/index. aspx.
[21] Jason Krupp, “Otaki Strays from Economic Rigour,” New Zealand Business Review August 2013, accessed March 2014, www.nbr.co.nz/article/otaki-expressway-strays- economic-rigor-wr.
[22] “Transport Funding Cancellation of Otaki to Levin Expressway,” New Zealand Parliament, accessed March 2014, http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/ qoa/50HansQ_20120717_00000006/6-transport- funding—cancellation-of-Otaki-to-levin-expressway.
