For the past 50 years, NZ has had a transport system oriented almost exclusively towards the car. Recently, the problems associated with such a transport system have become increasingly clear. These include:
· Congestion- the most well-known (especially in Auckland), as it directly affects a lot of people, and also directly affects business- estimated to cost Auckland $755M/ year1. Stems from the car’s inefficient use of space. Parking problems are effectively ‘stationary congestion’.
· Pollution- local air quality impacts from exhaust emissions (80% of air pollution from exhaust emissions in Auckland2 - ARC ‘Smokey’ campaign); water pollution; pollution related to car manufacture and disposal.
· Energy use- transport sector accounts for 40% of total consumer energy in NZ3; linked to pollution (esp. CO2 – 45.5% of energy-derived CO2; highest proportion in OECD4). Targeted in EECA’s new strategy.
· Road safety - still >400 road deaths and 10,000 road injuries per year in NZ5. Has improved (partly by targeting drink driving), but still a relatively poor record by international standards. Excessive speed now a major cause.
· Health problems resulting from sedentary lifestyles- only identified relatively recently. Costs of inactivity & obesity in NZ estimated at $400M/ year6. One in three NZ adults is not active enough to be healthy, and a 10% increase in the number of physically active NZ'ers would save around 300 lives a year7.
Alternatives have begun to be sought to overcome these problems (particularly the first three).
· Two-thirds of all driving trips in NZ are less than 6 km long
· One-third of all driving trips in NZ are less than 2 km long8
Short driving trips are also the worst with respect to exhaust emissions and energy efficiency.
Targeting short car trips is likely to have the most effect- they are the most problematic, and there are a lot of them.
Ideally want a transport solution for short trips that is:
· Non-congesting- make efficient use of space
· Non-polluting- have low or zero emissions
· Energy efficient
· Safe- in terms of danger to others, as well as personal risk
· Health-promoting- non-sedentary (active rather than passive)
And preferably:
· Fast (low travel time door-to-door)
· Flexible (choice of destinations, routes, and times)
· Cheap (both public cost and private)
Various solutions are regularly proposed to ‘the transport problem’ (usually meaning just congestion, and sometimes pollution and energy use). They have differing impacts on the five problems identified above:
· More roads: potential congestion gains (though debated- ‘induced traffic’ arguments); no real gains in pollution, energy use or safety; no health gains. Not cheap.
· Public transport: potential gains in congestion, pollution, energy use and safety; no real health gains. Not cheap or flexible.
· Low-emission vehicles/ alternative fuels: potential gains in pollution and energy use; no gains in congestion, health or safety. Not cheap.
· Ridesharing: potential gains in congestion, pollution and energy; no health gains. Not flexible.
· Teleworking: potential gains in congestion, pollution, energy use and safety; no health gains. Not flexible.
· Walking: potential gains for all problems. Cheap and flexible, but not fast. (OK for very short trips.)
Cycling: this we investigate in more detail.
Bicycles makes efficient use of space (a bicycle’s stationary ‘footprint’ being around 4 m2, as opposed to 12 m2 for a small car9) and therefore has significant potential for reducing congestion.
Peak traffic flows at intersections in Shanghai have been observed as high as 29,000 per hour10 (compare with traffic flow on Greenlane West Rd of 25,000 – 38,000 per day11).
Bicycles are even more space-efficient with respect to parking- 16 bicycles can be parked in a single car parking space12.
The bicycle is a near zero-emission vehicle. Cyclists emit little more CO2 while riding than when not riding. Pollution costs associated with manufacture and disposal are much less than those for the car (it has been estimated that a car generates almost as much pollution from being manufactured as it emits over its entire lifetime).
The bicycle is the most energy-efficient means of transport yet invented.
“Eggs-planation”13:
A bicyclist burns about 25 Calories per mile. One large egg supplies 80 Calories.
· A cyclist can travel about three miles on the energy of one egg.
· A person walking would require three eggs to go the same distance.
· A loaded bus requires the equivalent of two dozen eggs for each person it carries three miles.
· A train requires the equivalent of three dozen eggs for each person it carries three miles.
· A car that gets 12.5 miles per gallon requires the equivalent of seven dozen eggs to carry one person three miles.
· Even if you double the miles per gallon and double the occupancy a car will still use the equivalent of twenty-one eggs to make the trip.
Exercise recommendations for health have changed significantly in the last few years, from bursts of high-intensity exercise to regular, moderate exercise. Hillary Commission recommends 30 minutes moderate exercise per day, most days of the week (‘Push Play’ campaign14). This is easily obtainable solely from commuter cycling- eg. a 4-5 km commute twice a day- and/or replacing some other short car trips with bicycle trips.
Cycling for transport has the major advantage that it can integrate exercise into the daily routine- unlike ‘optional’ or recreational exercise (e.g. gym). This encourages automatically regular exercise habits.
Important to distinguish two kinds of safety- personal risk, and danger to others. In terms of danger to others, cycling is relatively safe, because of the low mass and maximum speed of a bicycle.
Cycling is often portrayed as being ‘unsafe’ in terms of personal risk. However:
· 90% of serious injuries to cyclists are a result of motor vehicle collisions15. It is important to identify the cause of risk. Cycling is not dangerous- driving is dangerous.
· Personal risk from cycling is not as high as for many sporting activities16.
· Personal risk from cycling is outweighed by health benefits (possibly by 20:1 in terms of life-years gained vs. life-years lost17)- even in a cycle-unfriendly environment. A sedentary lifestyle carries far greater personal risk than does cycling.
· Exposure to exhaust fumes- a growing body of research shows that exposure to fumes is in fact generally higher inside enclosed vehicles than it is for cyclists18- and again, it’s important to identify the cause of the risk (motor vehicles).
· Cycling is safer where it is more common, not just because people cycle more where it is safer. As drivers become accustomed to seeing cyclists and sharing the road with them, safety improves. Encouraging cycling makes it safer.
· Personal costs: about 3% of driving costs19. Total costs of driving are ~ $100/ week; cycling ~ $3/ week. NZers currently spend about 16c in the dollar on transport20 (as much as on food).
· Public costs: cycling infrastructure is much cheaper to build and maintain than car infrastructure.
· Speed: for short urban trips, door-to-door travel time for cycling is often less than that for driving, particularly in congested conditions. This is because maximum speed is less important for short trips, bicycles are less susceptible to traffic jams, and bicycles are easier to park. This is why cycle couriers are used for short trips. Commuter Challenge races are held regularly around the world (eg. Wellington 2001), pitting bike against other transport modes21. Cyclists usually win.
· Flexibility: cycling is a form of private transport, available at any time, and not limited to specific routes.
Not even all short trips can be made by bike. But replacing short driving trips, where possible, with cycling trips has a lot of potential for making an impact on congestion, pollution, energy use, health and safety problems. So why don’t more people do it?
Reasons people give include:
· “I’ll get sweaty or wet when it rains”- less of a problem for short trips, and there are various high-tech fabrics for dealing with these problems; plus employers can be encouraged to provide changing/ showering facilities)
· “I live in a hilly area” – modern bikes (particularly mountain bikes) have a profusion of gears, designed for tackling hills. Cycling has flourished not only in the Netherlands but also in Switzerland.
· “I need to carry things” – there are various items of load-carrying bike baggage available (panniers etc)- and even bike trailers for really big loads.
The real obstacles to increased cycle use in New Zealand include:
· lack of information- often people are simply don’t know enough about cycling to consider it- eg. how to choose a route, carry things, ride safely, deal with weather etc.
· image problems- with increased emphasis on the car in our culture, cycling has come to be seen as either a recreational pastime or a transport mode only for the poor. This needs to change. In other cultures (eg. some European countries) cycling is seen as a normal, socially acceptable way for people from all walks of life to make short trips.
· Institutional barriers- government policy regarding cycling is fragmented, with different agencies (eg. LTSA, EECA and the Department of Health) pulling in different directions. Need a more coordinated, integrated approach, and a raised awareness of cycling in government at all levels.
· Funding inequities- modal share for public transport and cycling are similar nationally, but PT typically receives much greater funding and attention. Transfund’s project evaluation (benefit/ cost) procedures, by their own admission, do not account for the full benefits of cycling (though they are currently working to quantify health benefits).
· Safety perception- this is the biggest obstacle for most people. While cycling is safer than perceived, our record is poor by international standards and can definitely be improved. Educating drivers and cyclists to share the road more safely is one approach. Many cycle safety issues in NZ are the result of roading infrastructure designed solely for motor vehicles and not for cyclists. Priorities are slowly changing to include cycling, but the standard of professional development in NZ regarding cycle engineering and design is still minimal.
· CAN is a national organisation set up to work on these problems. CAN lobbies at a national level and also at local levels, through affiliated local cycling advocacy groups in nine centres around the country.
· CAN’s vision: to make cycling an everyday activity in NZ.
· CAN has a diverse membership including: professional engineers, planners and other transport practitioners; local and regional councils; cycling-related businesses; and many keen cyclists.
· CAN prepares submissions on a wide range of cycling-related policy and is in constant liaison with many government and other agencies.
· Cycling strategies popping up all around the country
· Changing attitudes- eg. Transit NZ appointed ‘cycling champions’ in all regional offices
· Transfund incorporating health benefits of cycling into PEM
· Established a regular series of very successful national cycling conferences
· Study carried out through IPENZ on a national cycling strategy
· Hillary Commission developing Cycle Friendly Employer resources
· Input into LTSA rules, EECA strategy, NZTS etc etc.
· Numerous local cycling projects around the country (routes, safety schemes, Dr Bike etc)
· CAN membership growing fast!
1. Auckland Regional Council, Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy 1999, 1999
2. Auckland Regional Council website: www.arc.govt.nz/about/air/air2.htm
3. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA), Energy Wise Monitoring Quarterly, issue 14, December 1999
4. Ibid.
5. Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA), Road Safety NZ, September 2001
6. Cycling Support NZ, The Sense and Cents of Cycling (leaflet), 2000
7. Hillary Commission, Push Play (leaflet), 2000
8. Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA), Travel Survey Report 1997/1998, 2000
9. Knight, S., Urban cycling options in the free market, World Transport Policy and Practice, vol 5, no. 1, 1999
10. Auckland Regional Council, Why Cycle? (Transfacts leaflet), undated
11. Sinclair Knight Merz, Auckland City East West Corridor Management Strategy, 2001
12. Auckland Regional Council, Why Cycle? (Transfacts leaflet), undated
13. International Bicycle Fund website: www.ibike.org
14. Hillary Commission, Push Play (leaflet), 2000
15. Roberts et al, Pedalling Health, ISBN 0 7308 0741 X, 1996
16. Ibid.
17. British Medical Association, Cycling: Towards Health and Safety, Oxford, 1992
18. See for example Kingham S.et al, Assessment of exposure to traffic-related fumes during the journey to work, Transport Res.-D., vol 3, no.4, 1998
19. Knight, S., Urban cycling options in the free market, World Transport Policy and Practice, vol 5, no. 1, 1999
20. New Zealand 2000/01 Household Economic Survey
21. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA), Commuter Challenge Sees Bikes Faster Than Cars, Sustainable Transport Network Newsletter #15, 2001