Submission on Better Transport Better Roads

Introduction

The Cycling Advocates' Network (CAN) is a national voice for cyclists in promoting cycling as an enjoyable, healthy, low-cost and environment-friendly activity, and as a key part of an integrated, sustainable transport system. It consists of affiliated and supporting organisations, individual and family members from throughout New Zealand.

 CAN believes there is a real need for changes to the way that transport is managed in NZ. We do not, however, believe that most of the changes proposed in Better Transport Better Roads (BTBR) are the right ones. They will not adequately reduce pollution, energy consumption or traffic congestion.

 Need for Vision

NZ needs a coherent vision to work towards in order to build a sustainable future. Without a vision of what sort of society we�d like to live in, and how transport plays a part in that society, any transport strategies or policies we come up with lack a clear purpose. They cannot make an adequate contribution to �the big picture� and may work against other strategies or policies. 

There is no coherent vision in BTBR that readers can share or dispute, and the submission process is unlikely to produce one.

Transport is Not Just Roads

BTBR is concerned with the administration and funding of NZ�s roads. Transport is more than that - it is vehicles, people and their activities.

 Streets... give access to buildings, they provide an outlook from buildings, they give light and air, they are the setting for architecture, and they are the backbone of the everyday surroundings for many people. It is impossible to maintain that these functions are subordinate to the passage of vehicles.^[1]

Need for Strategic Thinking

Regional Land Transport Strategies are forcing regions to think strategically. The same needs to happen at a national level.

 CAN believes that a National Transport Strategy is needed and should be put in place before complex organisational changes to New Zealand�s transport system are made, to guide the changes. The recently issued National Transport Statement is not a substitute.

 A national strategy is needed to set a long-term vision and ensure that NZ has an integrated and effective transport system, supported by strategies at a regional and local level. The National Transport Strategy should set standards against which the effectiveness of the structural changes are judged. Structure must follow strategy.

 A Transport Strategy Group, convened by the Ministry of Transport, has already produced a draft National Land Transport Strategy. The process of consultation on the draft should be resumed, with the scope extended to include all forms of transport (including air and sea).

 BTBR focuses on structure and procedures, appearing to assume that the market will produce a strategy. CAN expected BTBR to give some indication of the role and relative importance of the bicycle in NZ�s transport system - this is revealed neither in the BTBR document nor in the proposed legislation.

 CAN opposes the BTBR proposal to revoke the legislation underpinning the development of a National Land Transport Strategy (p.54).

Need for Integrated Approach

We know of no overseas evidence that a market-led approach will produce safe sustainable transport at reasonable cost. Such an approach seeks to optimise the �efficiency� of separate parts of the transport system (e.g. road management). This will not optimise the whole system.

 Planning for roading in isolation from the wider land transport system ignores evidence that pollution, energy consumption, traffic congestion and access problems can best be relieved by an integrated approach. Any transport planning must also consider how travel fits in with other aspects of life in NZ, such as community, work, housing and health. Such an approach is contained in a recent report from the UK.^[2] 

 Because BTBR does not deal with these things well it ignores the potential of reducing the need to travel as a method of easing transport problems. Growth in traffic volumes is closely allied to land use patterns which encourage car dependency. Changes to zoning regulations, financial incentives, promotion etc. can be used to encourage people to work nearer to (or at) home.

 Waitakere City, for example,  is attempting to reduce the number of people commuting to work outside its borders. This task will be made more difficult if the local authority loses direct control over its roads - under BTBR, local authority policies that attempt to reduce the need to travel will come up against road companies� need to make money from it.

 BTBR takes a narrow approach that is at odds with an emerging international trend towards integrated transport policy making. In the UK, for example, the government�s white paper A Better Deal for Transport acknowledges the need for a holistic approach to transport planning. This has been followed by the establishment of an independent Commission for Integrated Transport to advise government on integration at a national level.

 Even in the USA, the Department of Transport is working on cycle safety and in five years has increased cycle use by 89% at the same time as a 15% fall in injuries. We are committed to helping ensure that every transportation agency makes accommodations for bicycling and walking a routine part of their planning, design, operations and maintenance activities. ^[3]

 The National Transport Statement issued by the New Zealand Minister of Transport in 1998 indicates that the Government sees an integrated transport system as one with competitive neutrality between the various forms of transport, with the desired outcome being a regulatory environment that encourages competition between all sectors of NZ�s transport industry.

 CAN sees this  concept of integration as contradictory - the degree of competition anticipated in BTBR is likely to work against any attempts at integrated planning. Any policy to encourage a particular transport mode could be seen as contrary to the competitive �level playing field� approach inherent in the reforms, even if it is done for the good of the country (e.g. reduction in health expenditure due to increased cycling and walking). CAN does not see a role for competition between road companies.

Public Involvement & Accountability

CAN wishes to see greater opportunities for community input into transport-related decision making than there are at present.BTBR appears to channel all community involvement through local authorities - the section entitled Community Interests appears to give local authorities the task of representing the public, without giving them the powers to meet public expectations.

 We believe that public accountability under the new public road companies will be significantly reduced. At present, members of the public can go to their councillors if council staff refuse to take notice of their requests for changes to the transport system in their community.

 Under BTBR, local authorities appoint directors of public road companies, but only a minority of directors can actually be members or employees of local authorities or their wholly owned companies. We have found in our dealings with Local Authority Trading Enterprises and Transit NZ that institutions without direct political control are generally less responsive to community needs.

 CAN believes that communities must retain control of the transport system through directly elected representatives, not through roading company managers. The transport system must be controlled by national, regional and local strategies developed by elected bodies, and be sensitive to the needs of the local community. Planning decisions must be made by directly-elected representatives, not by appointed members of company boards.

 Faster transport is the most important cause of urban sprawl, and if private companies were allowed to use the profit motive to plan roading, they would maximise road travel - and their own income - by encouraging sprawl.

 The proposed road companies would also control residential streets and would have no incentive to develop people-friendly measures such as traffic calming and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. The five year notice period for road closures for purposes other than public space development (Corridor Management Agreement Template, clause 3.3) makes it very difficult for local authorities to use road closures for traffic calming purposes.

 Planning needs to be done for the transport system as a whole, not for individual parts (e.g. roads) in isolation.Transport also has a vital role in the economic, social and cultural well-being of the nation and local communities, and affects many other areas of activity. It is appropriate that national and local government retains control over its development.

Control of State Highways

BTBR states (p.22) that Transit NZ was established to make funding and other management decisions on the merits of particular cases, without direct political intervention. This has made Transit unresponsive to the public.

 CAN believes that the transport system is not well served by the separation of control of state highways and local roads and wishes to see local road companies make management  decisions for all roads in their area. Most traffic on state highways is local or regional in any case. An institution like Transfund could be used to ensure a national highway network was maintained.

 Public Roading Companies

CAN does not object to the idea of fewer road companies, though we think four is too few. We agree with BTBR�s intention that more details of the finances and performance of road companies should be made available for public scrutiny and comment than at present (p.40).

 We believe, however, that the role of local road companies should be limited to the management of roading construction, alteration and maintenance. Local authorities should own the roads and make decisions about what roads or facilities are built or removed. This maximises democratic accountability.

 CAN believes that while road companies should be �business-like� in their operations, they should not be required to make a profit. The land used for transport must remain in public ownership.

Role of Transfund

CAN agrees that Transfund NZ should be retained as a separate funding organisation. We do not think it is appropriate they should have a profit motive, being required to make a return on their investment to the Crown.

 Other aspects of Transfund�s role under BTBR concern us: Instead of being concerned with benefits and costs analyses of projects it would need to shift its emphasis to what road users wanted, how much they were willing to pay to get it, and how it could be most efficiently provided (p.35). Under such a commercial regime, when the interests of cyclists (who will pay nothing under BTBR) come up against the interests of the freight haulage industry (who are likely to pay lots) who�ll get priority?

 Smaller groups of road users (such as cyclists) are unlikely to be able to make alternative payment arrangements, which is the mechanism BTBR suggests would work to encourage Transfund to focus on the requirements of road users (p.39).

 Transfund�s spending priorities must be guided by a National Transport Strategy. Benefit/cost criteria should be supplemented with other criteria to ensure that strategic goals are met. Benefit/cost calculations themselves should take into account a much wider range of factors than at present, including health benefits/costs that are currently accrue outside the transport system.

 Transfund should (in consultation with local authorities, road user groups and the community) set mandatory national standards for land transport infrastructure and make funding conditional on their use.

Removal of Rates Funding

In principle, CAN has no objection to the removal of rates funding for transport expenditure, provided money and the incentive to provide for and encourage cycling is available from other sources. However, we do not believe that BTBR will ensure this money is available.

 Rates funding requires that local authorities consult with and answer to ratepayers. Ratepayers include non-road users who are nonetheless affected by roads. We are concerned that if rates funding is removed, this group can be more easily ignored by road companies.

Road Pricing

BTBR makes it clear that there is no provision for cyclists to be charged to use roads (p.17). This places cyclists outside the commercial system. Road conditions are already dominated by motor vehicles, and under BTBR this will be made much worse. Those who pay will determine what gets put on the tarmac.

 People who feel pressured to pursue alternative transport options (for health or environmental reasons, or because motoring has become too expensive, for example) will find those alternatives becoming increasingly unattractive.

 CAN believes that any road pricing should be set at a level which provides an incentive to use sustainable transport modes, and that any transport reform should ensure that sufficient resources are made available to make those alternatives viable and attractive.

 The benefits created (e.g. health, economic, congestion reduction) and costs generated by each mode of transport should be taken into account when pricing and funding arrangements are determined. The system for collection of charges must be efficient, and not cost more to administer than is collected.

 Pricing should send a signal that makes motorists think carefully about when and how they use the roads. Hidden subsidies to motorists should be progressively removed. An important subsidy is the nuisance imposed on the community by traffic noise and danger. Other hidden subsidies are the rent-free use of valuable land under roads, the cost of monitoring and cleaning up pollution, and the use of rates to pay for much of local roading. These subsidies should be removed or made transparent so that road users can make informed choices about their travel options.

 In introducing new charges for motorists, the effect on low-income users who do not have access to an alternative mode needs to be considered. Access to economic, social and cultural opportunities is an important goal for the transport system. Although pricing may affect the choice of how people travel, access will not be jeopardised provided there is adequate provision of public transport and walking and cycling facilities.

 Tolls and congestion pricing are useful tools to reduce motor vehicle usage. If charges for other roads must fall as a result of increased income from tolls or congestion pricing, people will be encouraged to use other (cheaper) roads or travel at other times of day. This may merely solve problems at one place, only to create them at another (e.g. cause rat-running on suburban streets), and does nothing to reduce the overall use of roads.

 If the revenue of road companies can only increase if they undertake new investment, this provides an incentive for them to build more roads. The opportunities for new road providers to develop competing roads or highways is likely to also lead to more road building. This will ultimately counteract any attempts to reduce congestion (because of induced traffic effects) and subvert any attempts to reduce dependence on motor vehicles.

Efficiency

BTBR would allow road companies to assess road projects on the basis of expected future demand and revenue rather than current cash balances. They would be able to borrow money for large projects (p.55).

 CAN believes that with the current absence of any restraint imposed by strategic thinking, Transit�s inability to borrow is one of the main things that prevents unlimited road building to meet demand. We need strategies to reduce demand for roads, not increase it.

 CAN is opposed to road companies being able to borrow for large projects. This puts a burden on future generations. The current generation benefits from the limits on past expenditure.

 BTBR presents an analysis of the benefits and costs of its proposals to assess the overall impact of the changes on the NZ economy in 5 to 10 years (p.56). We regret that alternative scenarios were not evaluated, and that health benefits and costs were not included.

Need to Encourage Alternatives to Motor Vehicles

BTBR accepts that growth and development in cities and rural areas has led to congestion and that Environmental costs associated with our roads and their use are too high - including air, water and noise pollution, as well as the impact of roads on the landscape (p.2).

 The solutions BTBR proposes contain inherent contradictions that will reduce their effectiveness. For example, it is suggested (p.16) that congestion pricing may mean some motorists leave their cars at home and take public transport. Yet it also suggests that variable charges would enable road companies to assess the degree of willingness to pay for more road space and channel investment to those places where it was most needed, presumably increasing road capacity in congested areas.

 CAN believes that good public transport, supported by good facilities for cycling and walking, is the key to solving transport problems, particularly in urban areas. It is more equitable, cleaner, safer and more economically efficient than car use. Much of our present urban development creates urban sprawl, which discourages cycling and walking and is difficult to service with public transport.

 A combination of land use planning and investment in high quality public transport will reduce the need to travel. These measures must be supported by high quality facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. This mix will produce a transport system that meets the needs of everyone, including the young, the elderly, the disabled and the disadvantaged.

 The focus of planning must be on the provision of safe and easy links by foot or bicycle between public transport stops and residential and commercial areas, with the roading network serving as a complement to that. Current transport planning and the proposed model both focus on roading as the core element of the transport system, with public transport and pedestrian and cycle facilities as �extras�. This disadvantages those modes of travel and can distort travel choices.

 For example, limited pedestrian crossing opportunities on a busy road where cars are given priority can put people off walking. And road conditions which are helpful to motorists (e.g. �smoothing the flow�) tend to create unpleasant or dangerous conditions for cyclists and lead to fewer people cycling. 

 BTBR makes it likely that charges for using a motor vehicle will rise, but it does not provide any incentive for the provision of alternatives (public transport, cycling or walking).

Cycle Facilities

Under BTBR, cycle paths (tracks constructed on the road reserve but off-carriageway) are amenities which local authorities can choose to retain ownership or management rights over or pass on to a public road company (p.49). On-road cycle lanes will be under the control of road companies.

 The five main requirements of cycle facilities are coherence, directness, attractiveness, safety and comfort (CROW, 1993, p.24).^[4]  The cycling infrastructure must form a coherent unit, with continuous routes - gaps in cycle routes may produce danger points for cyclists.

 Because of road widths, presence of on-street parking etc. cycle routes often consist of a mixture of on- and off-road facilities. CAN believes that placing some cycle facilities under roading company control and others under local authority control is likely to lead to discontinuous (and therefore inconvenient, less safe and less attractive) cycle routes. The status of cycle paths that lie between the footpath and the roadway, or of shared foot/cycle paths is uncertain under BTBR.

 The powers to manage roads and to control roadside parking would pass to the new road companies (p.33). Removal of car parking from one side of existing arterial roads is a common and inexpensive means of creating space to retro-fit cycle lanes. This measure may conflict with a public road company�s objective to be as profitable as a non-public company - removal of car parking will reduce their revenue.

 Cycle tracks under local authority control will not be subject to a road safety management system - they may therefore be constructed to a different (possibly lesser) standard than on-road facilities. Inconsistencies in construction, signage etc. may cause problems for cyclists.

 BTBR appears to treat off-road cycle tracks as incidental to the functions of the roadway (p.49) placing them with plantings and public conveniences as things to be outside the roading companies� control. This is a fundamental misconception. Whether they are on- or off-road, cycle facilities are there entirely for the safety and transport functions of the road.

 While we are pleased to see a set of cycle facilities standards (Austroads 14) listed in the Road Safety Management System Template (p.5), these standards are likely to be applied only when a roading company makes a decision to make special provision for cyclists, not during �normal� roading work. CAN believes that Austroads 14 requires amendments for use in NZ and that a set of NZ cycle facilities standards should be developed based on it.

 Some of the provisions contained in Austroads 14 designed to improve safety and convenience for cyclists will be seen by road companies as unattractive because they give higher priority to cyclists than traditionally is the case. Facilities like advance stop lines, bicycle reservoirs, special traffic light phases are vital in improving the attractiveness of cycling as a transport option. Even without the competitive user-pays ethos of BTBR the current system tends to reject these sorts of measures - under BTBR it can only get worse, asmeasures that support cyclists (who do not pay) will be seen to hinder motorists, and therefore reduce the efficiency of the roading system.

 BTBR states that a public road company would be required to retain cycle lanes on the carriageway unless the local authority agreed to their removal or removal was required for the public road company to meet its safety management responsibilities (p.50). With cyclists not able to pay for facilities to be provided and maintained for them, we predict it will be convenient (and easy) for public road companies to find reasons to remove cycle lanes.

Safety

BTBR assures us that Road safety would improve for... cyclists (p.65).  If the measures that make roads safer and more attractive for cycling cannot be paid for by the people who use them and are seen by the roading company as hindering the progress of people who do pay, they won�t be implemented. CAN believes the only way road safety would improve for cyclists under BTBR is if the reforms succeed in preventing people from cycling.

 CAN supports the concept of a road safety management system, and the introduction of mandatory standards that apply to all roading authorities.  However, if road companies are commercially driven we do not believe systems or standards will deliver safety for cyclists. And without safety improvements and other measures to encourage cycling, the continued right of access to the roads we are promised under BTBR (p.65) will mean little.

 We believe we need more than access rights - all the rights and responsibilities of all road users must be clarified. Any discussion of safety must consider the transfer of risks between modes. BTBR is likely to increase the transfer of risk from motor vehicles to pedestrians and cyclists - roading �improvements� that speed up motoring are likely to bring increased risks for more vulnerable road users.

 Under the proposed reforms, road service providers have no role in road safety education or enforcement. Their sole focus seems to be on roading measures as the means to increase safety (Roads Bill, cl.103). Page 24 of BTBR states that in 1996 road factors contributed to 15.5 percent of fatal road crashes and 9.1 percent of injury-causing crashes. The statement significant road safety improvements could be achieved through greater attention to road safety somewhat overstates its relative importance.

 Better engineering certainly has a part to play in improving safety, and we wish to see mandatory national standards put in place. However, other factors (driver behaviour and vehicle condition) are obviously far more significant. Currently local authorities control roads and undertake programmes to improve road user behaviour. We believe it makes sense for them to continue to have this dual role.

Environment

The Government has said the environmental costs associated with our roads and their use are too high (p.2).  By permitting prices for road use to more accurately reflect cost, the proposal would achieve some environmental benefits. (p.61).

 BTBR admits, however, that a significant amount of work is still required to determine the nature and extent of environmental costs, to assess the most economic way of controlling those costs, and avoid adopting regimes that have the have the perverse effect of shifting road users to more environmentally harmful forms of transport.

 CAN believes it is unacceptable to embark on this reform process when so much is still unknown about one of the key problems it is supposed to alleviate. If it proves that environmental costs are not susceptible to measurement or control the basis of BTBR is undermined.

 Environmental costs (noise, pollution, contribution to global warming etc.) constitute a major hidden subsidy to motorists.  CAN believes that a national strategy that sets clear environmental objectives is necessary to set out how these costs are to be measured, how they are to be paid for, and how all parts of the transport system (and outside it) will contribute to reducing environmental damage.

 No matter how much motorists are prepared to pay, they don�t have the right to pollute the air cyclists breathe (nor to increase the risk of other road users). This is a fundamental problem in BTBR - what an individual wants and is prepared to pay for may not serve the general well-being of society. By creating road companies who make a profit out of providing for motor vehicles, BTBR fails to provide a transport system for the benefit of society as a whole.

Summary

�       There is a real need for changes to the way that transport is managed in NZ.

 �       A National Transport Strategy is needed. CAN opposes the proposal to revoke the legislation underpinning the development of a National Land Transport Strategy.

 �       We see no role for competition between road companies.

 �       We wish to see greater opportunities for community input into transport-related decision making than there are at present.

 �       Public accountability under the new public road companies will be significantly reduced.

 �   Communities must retain control of the transport system through directly elected representatives.

 �       The transport system is not well served by the separation of control of state highways and local roads.

 �       The role of local road companies should be limited to the management of roading construction, alteration and maintenance.

 �   Transfund NZ should be retained as a separate funding organisation.

 �   Benefit/cost criteria should be supplemented with other criteria to ensure that strategic goals are met.

 �   Transfund should set mandatory national standards for land transport infrastructure and make funding conditional on their use.

 �       Road pricing should be set at a level which provides an incentive to use sustainable transport modes.

 �       The benefits created and costs generated by each mode of transport should be taken into account when pricing and funding arrangements are determined.

 �       We need strategies to reduce demand for roads, not increase it.

 �       CAN is opposed to road companies being able to borrow for large projects.

 �       Good public transport, supported by good facilities for cycling and walking, is the key to solving transport problems.

 �       BTBR makes it likely that charges for using a motor vehicle will rise, but does not provide any incentive for the provision of alternatives.

 �       Under BTBR measures that support cyclists (who do not pay) will be seen to hinder motorists, and therefore reduce the efficiency of the roading system.

 �       Cycle facilities under BTBR are likely to become discontinuous and less safe, or be removed.

 �       The only way road safety would improve for cyclists under BTBR is if the reforms succeed in preventing people from cycling.

 �       BTBR is likely to increase the transfer of risk from motor vehicles to pedestrians and cyclists.

 �       A national strategy that sets clear environmental objectives is necessary.

 �       BTBR fails to provide a transport system for the benefit of society as a whole.

Alternative Model

CAN proposes the following alternative structure for transport reform.

 �       A National Transport Strategy sets the vision and long-term goals for the transport system.

 �       The National Transport Strategy is supported by subsidiary strategies such as a National Cycling Strategy, and a National Walking Strategy.

 �   Regional and local transport strategies  are developed to be consistent with the National Transport Strategy, which is the mechanism through which effective and integrated planning is pursued.

 �       Where necessary, regulation is used to ensure strategic goals are met.

 �   Transfund collects and distributes nationally-collected revenue, and maintains oversight of the national network and consistency of services and standards (e.g. noise, tarmac quality, signage, safety, etc).

 �       In addition, regional and local authorities may levy additional charges to reflect local circumstances, and may use rates to help fund some pedestrian, public transport and recreational cycling facilities.

 �   Regional and territorial local authorities plan and develop strategies for the transport system in their area, including provision of public transport, roading, and facilities for cyclists, pedestrians.

 �       A limited number of road management organisations maintain all roads in their region, to defined Transfund standards and in accordance with directives from local authorities. There is no longer a split between national and local roads at this level. Road management organisations do not own transport assets, and road managers have no planning role beyond road maintenance.

Robert Ibell

Secretary