Urban cycling options in the free market
by Stephen Knight
Environmental Consultant, Auckland, New Zealand
Address for correspondence
PO Box 78 157
Grey Lynn
Auckland
New Zealand
Fax: + 64 9 373 7410
e-mail: sj.knight@auckland.ac.nz
The currency used in this article is the NZ$
NZ$ 1.00 ˜ US$ 0.56
NZ$ 1.00 ˜ E 0.50
NZ$ 1.00 ˜ £0.34
Abstract
The City Council in Auckland, New Zealand, has known since the late 1970s that apparently marginal activities such as cycling and walking can significantly benefit the urban environment. Despite this, lack of foresight has left the city with restricted capacity to take advantage of these low-tech options. However, the full implementation of a proposed national transport model may see the payment of ecological, social and economic costs of private vehicle by users. This may provide an impetus for a better balance between transport options for Auckland.
Keywords
Auckland, cycling, efficiency, externalities, flexibility
Introduction
New Zealand is reforming its national transportation policy. The process began in 1993 with the Ministry of Transport’s Land Transport Pricing Study aimed at developing the appropriate pricing and regulatory framework to ensure users faced the full economic costs of their transport decisions. Included in the LTPS cost-benefit analysis were ecological and social costs (MoT, 1996). The New Zealand government has now released a discussion document on proposed legislative amendments. Among the proposed amendments is a suggestion that changes in the way road users are charged would better reflect the environmental impact of road use. For example, congestion pricing to create incentives for using alternative transport modes or travelling at different times of the day and thereby increasing engine efficiency.
It is up to local government to work out how to realise sustainable transport goals within any new enabling legislation. This in turn relies on local body political commitment. This applies particularly in Auckland City, recognised as one of the country’s most congested, least efficient and environmentally one of the most damaging transport centres. The whole of the Auckland Region (including Manukau, North Shore and Waitakere Cities) suffers to a greater or lesser extent from these problems. Auckland City serves as a particular case in point.
Changes in national legislation, with consequent pressure for local change, will raise hope amongst the cycling lobby in Auckland. Cycling has been marginalised to the point where as a percentage of commuter travel it is internationally low (ACC, 1998). This is despite City authorities recognising for at least 20 years the personal, community, economic and ecological benefits of cycling (ABPC, 1980).
This paper uses the cycling experience in Auckland to illustrate how failure to provide transport flexibility has hard-wired the city in favour of the private car. This makes it extremely difficult to retrofit and cater for alternatives once seen as unimportant and now recognised as having social, economic and ecological benefits.
It’s got to be good for you
Many major advertising campaigns now focus on convincing consumers they can buy quality goods that minimise environmental impacts while also improving their health, their home or their family, and may even save them money. A New Zealand fruit juice slogan "It’s Got To Be Good For You" typifies the approach.
Oddly, despite the amassing of international evidence, New Zealand transport planners and engineers have (with notable exceptions) ignored data showing that individuals benefit from using cars less. They claim people want to drive, so they meet the need; it’s up to individuals to assess the costs and benefits. Until recently there was no serious consideration of how supply management provides facilities favouring one mode of transport, resulting in increased use of that mode (Havlick & Newman, 1998). Inevitably, alternatives become impractical, leading to the conclusion that nobody wants to do anything other than drive a car.
Now, under a market oriented political philosophy, bureaucrats can claim it is not their role to engineer society. There is no impetus to debate working for the public good. This includes providing the public with information that could benefit their health, home, family, environment and pocket book. Given this, lobbyists for alternative transport options now have to work smarter, not harder. They could show that if market-oriented planners adopt all the implications of the market place, the outcome could be a more sustainable transport system. This is explored more fully below.
Twenty four years ago, Ivan Illich pointed out that a typical American male spent almost 20% of his time devoted to his car through travelling, sitting in traffic jams, finding parks and earning enough to run it and pay it off (Illich, 1974). A 1990 German study reckoned drivers annually spent an average of 470 hours of their pay for the same thing. Meanwhile, the average German commuting cyclist spent 15 hours - about 3% of the car owners budget (Seifried, 1990).
There is no equivalent New Zealand study, but New Zealand Automobile Association figures (McCutcheson, 1998) suggest that for a second hand car buyer per annum costs vary from $2,300 to over $7,000. Taking $5,000 as the median, using an average income of $22,100 per year and allowing for the current 22.125% applicable tax rate,it would take 604 hours to cover annual car costs. Note that these figures will vary markedly throughout the country: for example, Auckland incomes are higher than average, but then the average value of a car is likely to be higher as well. However, one thing that does not alter: $5,000 is $96 per week, and using the 3:100 ratio, a cyclist
would need only $3.00 per week, saving $93.00.
Community and Ecological Benefits
That cycling is good for individuals and the community is well recognised locally. Motor vehicles are the largest contributor to metropolitan air pollution and can detrimentally affect public health, welfare, ecology, the economy, property and social structure (Whitelegg, 1993; MoT, 1996; ARC, 1998). Apart from impacts such as photochemical smog, greenhouse gas endowments and noise; there are less obvious impacts such as community disruption and isolation by arterial routes and motorways; and the major contribution to water pollution from road run-off (ARC, 1997). Cost estimates to treat all existing and future urban stormwater discharges into the Waitemata Harbour and Hauraki Gulf, in order to remove hydrocarbons, zinc, lead, copper and other contaminants, are between $1.8 and $2.3 billion (ARC, 1998). Meanwhile, cycling allows greater mobility for those in the community with limited transport options; cyclists travel faster than motor vehicles in rush hour traffic and take up less space; it’s healthy; and cycling is the most energy efficient method of transportation known (ARC, 1997).
Despite this local knowledge, Aucklanders have been making more trips over longer distances by car while cycling numbers drop. For example, between 1986 and 1996, the average length of a trip to work increased from 10.8 km to 13.9 km (ARC, 1998). Resulting non-productive congestion costs to the Auckland economy are estimated to be $755 million (Ernst & Young, 1997).
Cycling could reduce congestion significantly. Auckland Regional Council monitoring of peak time traffic along a main Auckland City arterial route (Dominion Road, 1997) shows an average overall travel speed of 17 km/h and a minimum speed of 9 km/h. No monitoring of cycling speeds has been done, but regular cycling commuters (including myself) agree that at peak times 10 km/h along congested roads is probably an acceptable minimum estimate.
Taking into account vehicle size (a bike’s footprint is about 4 m2 (2 m x 2 m), a small car’s is about 12 m2 (4 m long, 3 m wide)) and the two second rule stopping distance (5.56 m stopping distance required for every 10 km/h), a cyclist travelling at 10 km/h needs at least 15.2 m2, while a car travelling an average 10 km/h needs 28.8 m2. Using the average Auckland peak time occupancy rate of 1.2 people per car (ARC, 1998), that brings the space need per person for car drivers down to 24 m2 (see Table 1).
Table 1: Space requirements of cyclists and car occupants
| Vehicle | Bike | Car |
| Length (metres) | 2 | 4 |
| Width (metres) | 2 | 3 |
| stationary footprint (m2) | 4 | 12 |
| 2 second rule footprint (m2) 1 | 11.2 | 16.8 |
| at 10 km/h total area required (m2) | 15.2 | 28.8 |
| total area required per person at 10 km/h (m2) 2 | 15.2 | 24 |
| at 20 km/h total area required (m2) | 26.4 | 45.6 |
| total area required per person at 20 km/h (m2) 2 | 26.4 | 38 |
.Notes
1 a vehicle travels 5.6 m in 2 seconds at 10 km/h
2 1.2 persons per car
Put another way, six cyclists would need five cars if they drove. Assuming they can travel at an average 10 km/h, the road space saved on a peak time arterial by every six cyclists would be the difference between the space five cars require as against six bikes. At 10 km/h, six bikes need 91.2 m2 and five cars need 144 m2 (see Table 2). Thus if 10% of those driving at peak time took a bike instead, road capacity could increase almost 3.67%.
Table 2: Area required for 6 people travelling by bike and by car.
| m2 | % of 5 car space | |
| space for 6 bikes at 10 km/h | 91.2 | 63.33 |
| space for 5 cars at 10 km/h | 144 | |
| difference | 52.8 | 36.67 |
| 10% switch from cars to bikes | 3.67 |
As car speed increases, the potential increase in capacity due to cycle uptake also increases (Table 1).
Political Commitment
Recognition since at least 1980 at a regional government level that cycling, along with walking, is central to integrated transport planning in Auckland (ABPC, 1980) has made little or no impact. There has been a steady decline since 1986 in the number of Aucklanders cycling to work, to 1.8% as of 1996 (ARC, 1997). At the same time there has been a steady increase in the number of car trips per person, and an increase in car ownership, from 1.38 vehicles per household to 1.55 vehicles per household by 1996 (ARC, 1997).
It is not possible to say these trends are due to the observed failure by city councils in Auckland to improve the safety or accessibility for cyclists (Knight et al., 1997). Part of the problem is the significant and constant change in where people live, work, shop and play, resulting in changing transport needs (ARC, 1998) and responses to those needs. This makes identifying the causes of increased car use difficult to identify. But prima facie evidence suggests that lack of alternatives, including cycling facilities, makes it less likely that Aucklanders would opt for other ways of travelling apart from the car. For example, one indictor of the lack of City Council support to date is the length of cycleways in the region. As of 1997, there were only 40 km of cycle paths, with only 10 km suitable for commuting (ARC, 1997). For Auckland City itself, there were only 21 km of what are called ‘cycle facilities’, most of it unsuitable for commuting (ACC, 1998).
As to why bureaucracy failed to account for alternatives has not been analysed in detail. Doubtless the reasons are similar to those elsewhere: cheap petrol, cheap cars, and no charges for adverse environmental impacts … all leading to the assumption that private vehicle use is not only convenient but desirable. The massive benefits of private vehicle use for large numbers of people is undeniable, but the benefits have been oversold. The resulting planning inertia has left cities such as Auckland with major problems if they want to retrofit and encourage other transport modes.
Financial Support
In 1997-98, only 0.75% of the total Auckland City transport budget was allocated to developing further cycleways. Roading, meanwhile, continues to receive almost 90% of the total budget. While this imbalance is being addressed (ACC, 1998), the potential for political backsliding remains.
The release of the Auckland City Council’s March 1998 Cycle and Walking Strategy led to the Council indicating an intention to spend $14 million over 20 years, from 1998-99 through to 2018-19, on improving cycle lanes, bike stands and marking out bike routes (ACC, 1998). The document analysed the advantages of cycling and walking, recorded design criteria, set out an implementation plan, and put in place goals with costings. In short, it provided an effective blueprint with measurable outputs to improve cycle and walking access around Auckland City. $14 million over 20 years compares with the $24.7 million expenditure on roads projected for 1998-99 ($19 million for capital expenditure, $5.7 million for major maintenance).
The problem now is ensuring that the City Council sticks to the Strategy and implements it in full. Political and financial commitment has been lacking, with few notable exceptions, throughout the region. The 1998 document largely repeats undertakings made in 1980 - undertakings that failed to materialise (Knight et al., 1997). Recently, despite the 1998 Strategy recommending $390,000 expenditure in 1998-99 on cycle network implementation, Auckland City Council’s draft Annual Plan set aside about $75,000. Lobbying by cycling groups gained Council agreement to boost this by up to $200,000 from savings that might arise from elsewhere in the budget. These savings never did arise, and only the $75,000 remains available for the balance of this financial year. Ten times that amount is required to be spent annually in order to realise the Cycle and Walking Strategy. Auckland City now says it will also review the possibility of accelerating the strategy in future years.
Subsidies and Economic Benefits
An extra political lever may be the user pays - free market model as it is applied within the framework of environmental externalities. Private vehicles are subsidised by rate payers and tax payers (see below). As cycling and walking have not benefited from past subsidy-promoting regional and central government policy initiatives, arguably, there is some catching up to be done. For example, regional public transport historically has received a $30 million annual subsidy, while walkers and cyclist got $1.8 million annually (ARC, 1997). Yet the percentage of the population using these modes to get to work are the same: 5.8% for public transport, 5.8% for walking and cycling (ARC, 1997). The $14 million earmarked for cycling in Auckland City over 20 years is a move in the right direction, but is only making up for past inequities.
The OECD has recently stated that there should be a clearer understanding that ecological health underpins economic performance (OECD, 1997). A submission I wrote for the advocacy group Cycle Action Auckland to the 1997 National Land Transport Strategy Discussion Document (MoT, 1997a), recommended that this philosophy should be reflected in the national Strategy (CAA, 1997). For example:
If all ecological costs are accounted for in decisions regarding transportation in New Zealand, the outcome for cyclists and others should be favourable. For example, a NLTS Background Document refers to the market ensuring efficient use of resources (MoT, 1997b), Section 5.3.1, p. 18). However, this assumes full ecological costs are accounted for. This is not the case presently, and this needs to be clearly stated in the National Strategy as a lack that must be addressed during the creation of regional LTSs. If this is not done, existing distortions will continue. Unfortunately, this is not addressed in the recently released proposal to amend transport legislation.
Elsewhere in the 1997 Discussion Document (MoT, 1997a), Goal 1.3 (p. 16) stated that regulatory regimes must be neutral. If neutrality includes the concept of accounting for all costs, then historically private vehicle use has been subsidised by not sheeting home the full costs of environmental externalities. Cycle Action Auckland therefore recommended the following change to Goal 1.3:
These ecological subsidies - possibly worth over two billion dollars regionally, as noted previously - provided for private vehicle users by the wider community are additional to subsidies for the building of roads, bridges, car parks and other support facilities. Overtly recognising these hidden subsidies will require political support, as will the implementation of planning responses in the light of such knowledge. Auckland City has failed to use such information in the past for strategic planning; it is now time for public and central government pressure to be applied to ensure it does so in the future.
Roading Use Outcomes
As mentioned, Auckland City is attempting to address past distortions. It has initiated a database for cyclists (and pedestrians) to record examples of barriers to access to the roading system for these modes. The data available is too sketchy to allow for robust analysis at this stage, but it will eventually provide a strong source of anecdotal evidence as to the extent to which failure to allow for flexible transport options has hard wired the city in one direction.
A few examples:
• A recent subdivision opposite Rosebank School removed existing alleyway access for school children to walk and ride. Larger numbers of children are now dropped off by car. This in turn creates more congestion, reducing willingness among those children who still do so to ride, creating in turn further congestion. This is despite City Council recognition that subdivisions [new housing estates on land that was used for other than intensive residential purposes] should ensure walking and riding facilities are not just maintained, but enhanced.
• Traffic calming measures in one of Auckland’s high density inner city suburbs effectively narrow roads into squeeze points, forcing drivers to slow down. It also removes any space between cyclists and vehicles: either car drivers let cyclists go first, or run them over. Cyclists, recognising their greater vulnerability, usually give way.
• Recent road widening along one of the city’s main arterial routes has created a confusing lane system which exposes cyclists to more traffic, not less. In addition, footpath access has been reduced, not increased.
• Another main arterial, four lanes wide, cannot be modified to allow for safe cycling access, because the existing footpath is the minimum allowable. The alternative is to reduce the number of lanes. But subdivisions have developed as a result of the four lane access system; reducing motorised traffic access would punish suburbanites for responding to city traffic planner incentives.
A primary problem for Auckland is that it is built around an isthmus. Access into the city is geographically restricted, meaning equally restricted options for cyclists or pedestrians to avoid the main arterials. Thus not allowing for cycling or walking facilities on these main routes is doubly frustrating, and doubly difficult to undo. Thus Auckland City's attempts to improve cycling access, which have begun despite a miniscule budget, are limited by geography and a history of poor strategic planning.
Conclusion
Most rate payers and tax payers are car users, and a city’s infrastructure reflects this. But hidden subsidies create distorted incentives to drive, reducing options to walk or cycle. One of New Zealand’s largest urban centres, Auckland, is now hard-wired with a preference for private vehicles. Exactly how to redress the imbalance and retrofit for cycling should be the subject of Auckland’s regional land transport strategy. Investing in the integration of cycling and other options into the Auckland transport system could reap several times that expenditure in ecological, economic and social benefits. Such benefits would have been much easier to realise had politicians, planners and roading engineers heeded the information available since the 1970s, and allowed for greater transport flexibility in a geographically limited city. However, a market model for transport planning now being pushed by central government opens up the opportunity to charge the full ecological, social and economic costs of private vehicle use. This may provide an impetus for a better balance between transport options for Auckland.
References
ABPC (1980) ‘Interim Report on Cycling’ Auckland Bicycle Planning Committee.
ACC (1998) ‘Auckland City Cycle and Walking Strategy’ Auckland City Council [March].
ARC (1997) ‘Transfacts: why cycle?’ Pamphlet published by the Auckland Regional Council.
ARC (1998) Draft Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy Auckland Regional Council [July].
CAA (1997) ‘Submission to the National Land Transport Strategy Draft Discussion Document’ Cycle Action Auckland [September].
Ernst & Young (1997) Alternative Transport Infrastructure Investments and Economic Development for the Auckland Region Quoted in ARC (1998) op. cit.
Havlick, S.W. & Newman, P.W.G. (1998) ‘Can Demand Management Tame the Automobile in a Metropolitan Region?’ World Transport Policy & Practice 4(1).
Illich, I. (1974) Energy and Equity Marion Boyars, London, 1974. Quoted in Whitelegg, op. cit.
Knight, S., Brehmer, K. & Watson, P. (1997) ‘Breaking the Cycle: helping translate council promises into practice’ in Proc. Planning for and promoting cycling in urban areas Centre for Continuing Education, The University of Waikato, Hamilton [15 October].
McCutcheson, J. (1998) pers. comm. New Zealand Automobile Association,
MoT (1996) Land Transport Pricing Study: Environmental Externalities Discussion Paper Ministry of Transport, Wellington.
____ (1997a) National Land Transport Strategy Draft Discussion Document Ministry of Transport, Wellington.
____ (1997b) National Land Transport Strategy Draft Background Information Ministry of Transport, Wellington.
OECD (1997) Guiding the Transition to Sustainable Development.: A critical role for the OECD The report by The High Level Advisory Group on the Environment to the Secretary General of the OECD. [25th November] http://www.oecd.org/subject/sustdev/index.htm
Seifried, D. (1990) Gute Argumente: Verkehr, Beck’sche Reihe Beck, Munich. Quoted in Whitelegg, op. cit.
Whitelegg, J. (1993) ‘Time Pollution’ The Ecologist 23(4) pp. 131-134.