The TALES debate –
Evolution or Revolution?

The other main event on the afternoon of Day 2 of TALES Symposium was a panel debating the future of transport in New Zealand. This was supposed to be facilitated by Claire Pascoe, of the New Zealand Transport Agency, and Andrew Jackson of Consulting Jackson Ltd. Much to everyone’s surprise (including the panel members’), their places were taken by Storm and Jean Luc Picard. The panel members, however, were as advertised: Ms Celia Wade-Brown, QSO, of Living Streets Aotearoa; John Lieswyn, ViaStrada, New Zealand; Prof Simon Kingham, Ministry of Transport, New Zealand; Asso Prof Ben Wooliscroft, University of Otago, New Zealand; Prof Jennifer Mindell, UCL, London, UK; and Prof John Spence, University of Alberta, Canada.

Car travel was the only mode that increased in New Zealand between 1988 and 2013. Since then, there have been tiny increase in modal shares for cycling and for public transport use, of 0.1% each. Media coverage of the future of transport focuses on autonomous vehicles as the new utopia. The discussion considered what we want from our transport systems, and what we need to do, and what we need to do to get there. There was general agreement on where we were trying to get to but the main debate was supposed to be ‘Evolution or revolution’? Storm argued for evolution, while Jean Luc argued for revolution.

The discussion was excellent but it failed as a debate as all the panellists argued for revolution! My stance was that evolving systems had led to where we are now, and continued evolution would lead to more of the same – a focus on the supremacy of cars and little regard for those who can’t or don’t want to drive or be driven. Indeed, those wishing to walk, cycle or use public transport are often considered ‘lesser beings’. I was therefore a strong supporter for revolution. My key points were the need for slower speeds; inverting the hierarchy and the funding to match, so pedestrians have the top priority, followed by cycling and public transport, with sole use of private cars at the bottom; and a focus on moving people (and goods) not vehicles.

Transport facts and figures in New Zealand

• Obesity in New Zealand is the third highest among OECD countries.
• Road travel crash deaths have increased from 253 to 380 per year.
• Car km increased from 38bn in 2013 to 44bn in 2018. Car use has increased from 79% ofall trips in 2014 to 82% of trips in 2017 (although the good news is that this can change: car use has fallen in Wellington).
• Very few motor vehicles in New Zealand are electric: the most recent, though already out-of-date, figures were only 12,000 of the 4,000,000 motor vehicles in New Zealand.
• The population in New Zealand is predicted to increase from 4.9m to 7.1m by 2042 if it continues at the recent levels of growth but at least to 5.6m if the rate of growth slows (Stats NZ conservative estimate).
• The number of people aged 65+ is estimated to rise from 700,000 to at least 1.3 million by 2050 – from 17% to 22-26% of the population.
• Urbanisation is predicted to increase from the current 86% by 0.98% per year.

Changing the language

I emphasised the importance of reframing of road safety to road danger reduction. The problem with ‘road safety’ is it leads to targets that can be perverse incentives: we can have no child pedestrian casualties by having no child pedestrians. Road danger reduction focuses on reducing the danger to others from those who impose the risk. It is also important to stimulate changes to culture, aided by changes in language. In the UK, there has been a tendency to talk about investment in roads and subsidy of public transport whereas if the externalities were included, it would be more obvious that society subsidises private motor vehicle use.

tAs I was on the panel, I took no notes during the debate, so my thanks to Andrew Jackson for providing me with some missing stats and to Kirsten Coppell for hers on what was said, though I cannot tell you who said what. Any errors are mine, not theirs.

Infrastructure and changing the culture

Infrastructure for active travel is necessary but insufficient. There is also a need to monitor, measure, understand and change a lot more than the roads. We need a culture change, and we need to be able to measure that culture. The law of supply and demand applies to parking, and policies should be cognisant of that. Social connectedness is important for society and for individuals’ health. Streets should encourage neighbourliness and social contacts, not be a bar to meeting people.

Market forces

It is also important to consider the importance of market forces, whether those who sell calorie-rich/nutrient-poor food and drinks or the auto-oil industry. What are the economic levers that can be used to address market distortions? I urged we should learn lessons from successful tobacco control approaches, including legislation, litigation, control of advertising and other marketing, and supporting attempts to deal with addictive behaviours.

Aspirational targets and economics

These would include:

• speed reductions to 30km/h in cities and especially in neighbourhood streets;
• a national policy to ban sprawl, ensuring mixed land use and compact development to increase walkability;
• incorporating movement targets, such as 40% of trips to be walked, including a national walk to school policy;
• reducing single occupancy vehicle;
• reducing on-street parking; and
• tax breaks to promote healthier forms of commuting and to address inequity.

As well as leading to greater car use and impeding active travel, urban sprawl also imposes high costs for infrastructure (and not only for transport). Costing tools for transport policies need to include the value of time for all road users, not only drivers. Price can be used to reduce parking. Road user charging is another mechanism. But it is important to be careful of unintended consequences.

Sustainability

I was concerned that even with electric vehicles, the energy still needs to be generated somehow, so would EVs merely displace the pollution from the urban to other areas while still consuming fossil fuels. I was reassured to learn that New Zealand has much higher renewable energy and much less fossil fuel use than most high income countries currently, so this may not be a problem.

After the debate

The weather had been glorious. The only time it really rained during the three days of TALES Symposium was at the end of day 2, when we had been scheduled to go for a walk in the Botanic Gardens. Instead, informal networking continued. Had we known about the rain from our windowless lecture theatre, the panel debate on the Future of Transport could have continued for longer instead of being stopped due to the time. But that would have delayed the final plenary session by Dr Christina Ergler, on young people’s own suggestions on improving a cycle skills training programme.

The day ended with a splendid dinner at the University of Otago, Dunedin, for more networking opportunities.