This is the fourth post in a series on the Ministry of Transport’s working paper on New Zealand’s capital spending on roads, which was prepared as an input to the 2015/16 Government Policy Statement (GPS) on Land Transport Funding. It was released to Matt under the Official Information Act just before Christmas. Previous posts:
In the last two posts, I took a look at MoT’s analysis of benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) for new state highway and local road projects. They’ve found that BCRs for state highway projects have fallen significantly since 2008, meaning that we’re spending more money for road with fewer benefits. Consequently, if the Government were focused on getting the highest benefits out of its transport budget, it would have to de-fund most large state highway projects that are currently underway.
This week, I want to take a look at a slightly different issue: Which regions are doing well (or badly) out of road spending? The MoT report includes some in-depth analysis of “regional equity” in NZTA’s expenditures on road maintenance, construction, and public transport over the period from 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Here’s the key chart. It compares the total revenue that NZTA has raised from each region against the amount of money that NZTA has spent in those regions.
A few things jump out from the chart. The first is that NZTA’s spent slightly more than it raised from fuel taxes, road user charges, and other sources. The second is that there are some big disparities between revenue and expenditure in some regions. In particular: Auckland and Wellington are getting about 20-25% more in NZTA expenditure than they pay in revenue, while Canterbury is getting only slightly more than half as much expenditure as it pays in revenue.
Here’s a summary table of which regions are doing well and badly out of NZTA’s funding criteria:
This can’t be explained by a few major projects or funding calls in one or two years. MoT’s analysis of spending over time shows that “where regions either received significantly more in expenditure or significantly less in expenditure, that accumulation was fairly constant over time. Differences are not due to changes in single years.” In other words, the regions that got less spending in 2002 were also likely to get less expenditure in 2012.
The MoT report goes on to take a look at some potential explanations for disparity in spending, such as differences in population, GDP, vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT), etc. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to draw robust conclusions from their analysis as there is likely to be endogeneity, or simultaneous causation, between these variables. (Perhaps MoT should consider using an instrumental variable approach to control for this?)
Here’s one view of the issue, which compares NZTA expenditure with regional population. It tells a similar story – Auckland, the Waikato, and Northland attract more funding than their share of the population would imply, while Canterbury gets less.
One thing that MoT didn’t cover, unfortunately, is the relationship between projected future population growth and spending. It’s reasonable to spend more to enable future growth rather than pouring money into declining regions. This could help to explain the high level of spending in Auckland and the Waikato, which are picked to grow faster than NZ as a whole. However, it doesn’t explain the low level of spending in Canterbury, which is expected to be the second-fastest growing region in the country over the next three decades, or the high level of spending in Wellington, which is not expected to grow rapidly.
Statistics NZ’s 2013-2043 population growth projections
Lastly, it’s also instructive to look at the relationship between NZTA’s regional expenditure and the share of national VKT travelled in those regions. This is a useful measure because VKT per capita varies considerably between regions. According to MoT’s data, people drive less in Auckland (10% less than the national average) and Wellington (almost 25% less than the national average). While major urban areas require fewer roads per capita, they may need more spending on public transport infrastructure and services. Canterbury, by contrast, is pretty close to the national average in terms of VKT per capita.
As you can see, this comparison continues to show that Auckland and Wellington are over-funded relative to their driving behaviour, while Canterbury is under-funded.
Because so much of NZTA’s expenditure consists of road spending, this suggests that recent Governments may have misunderstood the needs of New Zealand’s major urban areas. In effect, they have spent a lot of money on roads in cities where public transport, walking and cycling are growing rapidly. Motorway extensions at the edge of town – e.g. Puhoi to Warkworth and Transmission Gully – are not especially useful for meeting transport needs in urban areas. They may be useful in regions like the Waikato where people and freight travel longer distances, but cities are different.
The data also suggests that Christchurch is getting under-funded. As the data series stops in 2012, it’s difficult to tell whether this trend has reversed since the 2011 Canterbury Earthquake, which damaged a fair chunk of the city’s infrastructure. The earthquakes also created space for residents and the city council to push for innovative ideas like a frequent bus network and a network of major cycleways. It would be great to see the region pushing on ahead with these ideas, but past under-funding makes me wonder whether there are institutional barriers to funding projects in Christchurch.
What do you make of MoT’s data on regional transport spending?
This is the second post in a series on the Ministry of Transport’s working paper on New Zealand’s capital spending on roads, which was prepared as an input to the 2015/16 Government Policy Statement (GPS) on Land Transport Funding. It was released to Matt under the Official Information Act just before Christmas. Previous posts:
In the previous post, I took a look at the MoT paper’s findings on the economic efficiency of state highway spending. MoT showed that since 2008 spending on the Roads of National Significance (RoNS) has gone up, while benefit-cost ratios have gone down. As a result, we have almost doubled our spending on state highways without achieving any more economic or social benefits from that spending.
This week, I’ll take a look at a different question: Is it possible to spend our road budget more efficiently? If we chose to build other roads instead, would we get more benefits from them?
The MoT paper examines this issue quite comprehensively, and comes up with an unambiguous “yes”. But before I get into it, it’s worth reviewing the system that the Government is currently using to assess transport investments. Projects are ranked on three criteria:
- Strategic fit [i.e. is this project trying to do something that the Government cares about?]
- Effectiveness [i.e. will this project actually do what it’s intended to do?]
- Benefit and cost appraisal [i.e. will this project deliver more benefits than costs?]
In short, the BCR is only part of the picture. In practice, it’s less important than strategic fit. However, it’s still an important criteria for determining whether we are getting good value out of our transport investments, especially as many of the strategic outcomes that the Government wants are accounted for in a transport cost-benefit analysis.
With that in mind, Section 5.4 of the MoT paper compares BCRs for local road and state highway projects which have committed funding versus those that will probably receive funding or which will remain unfunded.
This analysis, summarised in the chart below, shows that BCRs for state highway projects tend to be lower than BCRs for local road projects whether or not they have committed funding or not. This might be an indication that too much money has been allocated to new state highways – effectively, there are worthy local roads that are going unfunded.
Another worrisome finding is that BCRs for “committed and approved” state highway projects are considerably lower than projects that are merely “probable” or which have not been given funding. This suggests that even within the state highway budget, funding isn’t going to the projects that offer the best returns.
However, the MoT paper notes that these figures include “significant spending on large strategic projects” – the Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI) in local roads and the RoNS in state highways. Is it simply the case that a few big funding calls are skewing the results?
Here’s what the chart looks like with those projects removed. As you can see, “committed and approved” state highway projects other than the RoNS also offer a lower return than the “probable and reserve” projects that may or may not get funding. What the hell is going on here?
Elsewhere in the paper, MoT sums up the situation as follows, with a nod to the idea that traffic forecasts are over-predicting growth:
It also compares these figures with BCRs for other transport spending, including NZTA-funded PT infrastructure and services and walking and cycling projects, and concludes that:
In other words, the focus on big state highway projects means that the Government is passing up higher-value spending that serves other modes. Unfortunately, the paper doesn’t offer a lot of additional analysis. But it would be interesting to know how much analysis NZTA or MoT has done on the bus infrastructure projects that are needed to get good transport outcomes in Auckland, such as the Northern Busway extension, the Northwest Busway, extensions of the AMETI busway, and bus interchanges to support Auckland’s New Network.
With all that in mind, how would we be spending money if cost-benefit analysis was the key criteria?
Section 6.2 of the MoT report contains a number of colourful charts to illustrate how we could be doing things differently. Here’s the bit that stuck out for me. It classifies new state highway projects, excluding RoNS, according to their BCR (vertical axis), funding priority (horizontal axis), and total cost (size of bubble).
If BCRs were the key criteria for project funding, the black-coloured bubbles would be de-funded and the red-coloured bubbles funded in their place:
As you can see, if the Government were focused on getting the highest benefits out of its transport budget, it would have to de-fund most large state highway projects that are currently underway. Yikes.
It’s not clear what conclusions MoT’s drawing from this analysis, as the final paragraphs are entirely blacked out. However, I’d be surprised if they weren’t a bit skeptical of the way that public money is being spent…
Next week: MoT’s analysis of roads spending by region. Preview: Canterbury’s getting a raw deal.
This is the second post in a series on the Ministry of Transport’s working paper on New Zealand’s capital spending on roads, which was prepared as an input to the 2015/16 Government Policy Statement (GPS) on Land Transport Funding. It was released to Matt under the Official Information Act just before Christmas. Previous posts:
As I said last week, MoT’s paper suggests that there are big issues with the land transport budget. Current road spending does not seem to represent good value for money. To their credit, MoT appear to be acknowledging this. However, it doesn’t seem to have percolated up into the investment decisions being made by the Government.
This week, I want to look at what NZTA’s money (the National Land Transport Fund, or NLTF) is being spent on, and how economically efficient that expenditure has been.
Section 4 of the MoT report contains a lot of useful data on past and future spending on roads. Here’s what’s happened to the roads budget over the last 15 years, and what’s expected to happen over the next decade:
Basically, about a decade ago we started spending a lot more on new or improved roads. A lion’s share of new spending went to state highways, in spite of the fact that local roads carry more traffic. As we have previously discussed at length, this spend-up coincided with a flattening of growth in vehicle kilometres travelled. (It also coincided with an acceleration in price inflation for civil construction.)
In other words, we’ve spent a decade spending increasing amounts of money on roads for which demand is not increasing. And the last three Government Policy Statements plan for state highway spending to increase further.
In order to pay for state highway spending, it’s been necessary to divert money from other activities – local roads, maintenance, PT, and walking and cycling have all taken a hit. The Government has also raised petrol taxes several times. The MoT report offers some analysis of how spending priorities changed between the 2008 GPS and the 2012 GPS.
The following chart compares projected spending ranges for new and improved state highways (the darker uppermost bands) and new and improved local roads (the thinner, lower bands). It shows that funding for state highways – the Roads of National Significance – was raised by around half a billion dollars a year, while local road funding was cut back.
One would hope that the Government’s decision to allocate vast amounts of funds to state highway projects was based on a sound economic rationale. Unfortunately, there is no hard evidence of this in the MoT paper. Section 5 of the MoT paper analyses benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) for road spending. It notes some caveats with the data – BCRs for some projects had to be inferred from “efficiency scores” – but there is enough data to paint a picture.
Here is MoT’s picture. It is not a pretty one:
Essentially, MoT finds that average benefit cost ratios for state highway projects declined significantly in 2008/09 and have stayed low ever since. An eyeballing of the graph suggests that BCRs prior to 2008 averaged a bit over 3.5 – meaning that state highway projects were expected to return $3.5 in social benefits for every dollar invested. Since 2008, they have averaged a bit over 2 – meaning that state highway projects now only return $2 in social benefits for every dollar invested.
MoT’s analysis of this graph is entirely blacked out in the released document. Nonetheless, the implications are simple: we have almost doubled our spending on state highways without achieving any more benefits from that spending. BCRs aren’t everything, but it’s really, really hard to understand why the Government would want to spend money so ineffectively.
The answer is that they feel that the Roads of National Significance offer a better “strategic fit” with their overall objectives for the land transport budget. I’m not necessarily opposed to this evaluation approach. In my experience, cost-benefit analysis invariably has some blind spots. Using qualitative “strategic fit” criteria can allow policymakers to take account of broader goals that aren’t well covered in NZTA’s Economic Evaluation Manual.
However, I don’t think that strategic fit should override all other analysis. If you think that a project is important for supporting a productive economy, that’s fair enough. But if an evaluation of the project’s impact on freight costs and agglomeration effects in urban areas results in a low BCR, you should question your prior assumptions about its economic benefits. It’s foolish to think that four-lane divided highways are magical devices for creating economic growth. Economics simply doesn’t work that way.
Next week: Do we have better options for spending the transport budget?
All the way back in June 2014, Matt asked the Ministry of Transport if he could see some of the background research that informed the 2015/2016 Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding. They were slow in responding to his Official Information Act request, but the information has gradually trickled out. Two days before Christmas, MoT sent him a long, very interesting working paper on New Zealand’s capital spending on roads.
Over the next four weeks, I’m going to review some of the key findings from the paper. To briefly summarise: there are big issues with the land transport budget. The paper suggests that current road spending may represent a massive misallocation of capital. To their credit, MoT appear to be acknowledging this. However, it doesn’t seem to have percolated up into the investment decisions being made by the Government.
The first things that jump out from the report are the demand forecasts being used to predict the need for more roads. As we have been observing for years, overall vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) in New Zealand have been flat for almost a decade. (In line with trends throughout the developed world and in almost every US state.) Here are MoT’s estimates of VKT on state highways (yellow line) and local roads (green line) since 2001:
It is reasonable to assume that the eight-year-old trend of flat traffic volumes will continue, at least in the near term. But MoT’s paper suggests that the government’s not making that assumption. They commissioned consultancy NZIER to forecast future traffic growth over the period covered by the 2015/16 GPS. Here are their results:
These forecasts are a bit laughable. The paper offers no explanation for why we should expect the trend of the last eight years to immediately reverse itself. Fortunately, MoT seems to be aware that NZIER’s forecasts are unreliable. In order to demonstrate that, they ran NZIER’s forecasting model backwards, using data from previous years. They found that the model did not match past data very well – often a sign of a poorly-designed model:
As we discussed last year, since 2006 MoT’s own forecasts for future VKT have all proven too optimistic in the long run. However, unlike NZIER’s model, they have often picked short-term trends accurately:
[Note: The paper contains a number of other charts summarising various forecasts – I’ve only excerpted a few of the more interesting ones. It’s well worth taking a look at the rest.]
What does all this mean? I had two very different reactions – one technical and one policy-focused.
First, from a technical perspective, what is going on with NZIER’s forecasts? I’m not familiar with their models, other than the vague statement in the MoT paper that they were based on projections for population and economic growth. However, it seems like they may be based on careless use of regression models, including:
- Omitted variable bias – it seems like NZIER may have assumed that traffic grows in proportion to one or two variables – e.g. population and economic growth. In doing so, they may have excluded other important variables, such as the structure of the economy, the location of projected population growth, and the impact of technology (e.g. online shopping, smartphones, video calling).
- Model mis-specification – NZIER may have assumed a positive, linear relationship between (say) income levels and per-capita VKT. However, the actual relationship may be more complicated. It might actually be true that people drive more until they reach a certain income level, and then start driving less.
- Inappropriate assumptions about causality – Regression models measure the degree to which two variables are correlated. Establishing that there is a causal relationship is much more difficult. NZIER may have (wrongly) assumed that a past relationship must necessarily hold true in the future. And they probably haven’t explicitly accounted for the impact of investment decisions in shaping demand.
But that’s all just economic mumbo-jumbo. Ultimately, I’m more worried about the implications of these forecasts for investment decisions. Are bad forecasts being used to justify a road-heavy investment programme? If NZIER’s forecasts are being sensibly discounted (and ignored) by transport agencies, I’m not that worried about them. Economists (myself included) make ludicrous statements on a regular basis, usually to little effect.
But if they are being taken seriously, New Zealand’s taxpayers should be concerned. If policymakers and planners are basing major investment decisions on the NZIER forecasts, they may misallocate scarce funds to roads that will not be needed. That is money that could be better spent on other things, such as bringing New Zealand’s underdeveloped public transport and walking and cycling options up to scratch, building new schools and hospitals, or rebuilding Christchurch.
Next week: What’s happened to BCRs for new state highway projects?
Simon Bridges has released the final version of the 2015/16 – 2024/25 Government Policy Statement (GPS) following on from the draft version earlier this year. The GPS is effectively the top dog when it comes to transport funding and policy as in the words of the minister:
The Government Policy Statement on land transport (the GPS) sets out the Government’s strategic and policy goals for land transport, as well as the funding direction necessary to achieve them. It guides not only an investment of $3.4 to $4.4 billion per annum from central government, but around $1.0 billion a year from local government.
The GPSs relationship to other key planning documents is shown below.
Very little has changed from the draft version we saw with the Ministry of Transport saying some of the changes are:
- The upper ranges of funding available for public transport have increased, so up to $115 million more will be available for public transport projects between 2015/16 and 2024/25. This takes the potential spending on public transport to a total of $4.585 billion.
- The objectives set down in the final GPS 2015 have been amended to ensure they are clearer and more well-defined. A new ‘efficiency’ objective has been added, while the ‘demand’ objective has been clarified so it refers to access to social and economic opportunities.
- A definition of major metropolitan areas (reflecting the Statistics New Zealand definition) has been added, clarifying those areas which are eligible for funding under the Regional Improvements activity class.
- The Auckland Transport Package (announced by the Government in 2013), Accelerated Regional Roading Package (announced in August 2014) and the Urban Cycleways Package (announced in September 2014) have been referenced throughout GPS 2015. While funding for these will be provided in addition to funding for activity classes, the packages will be considered and undertaken in a way consistent with other projects funded under the GPS.
- The role that technology and innovation can play in managing network access and capacity has been reflected throughout the document, including the new crosscutting reporting line which will ensure technology investments (and the returns on these investments) will be transparently recorded.
In other words there’s been some tweaking around the edges but no significant change. That means there is still some massive hypocrisy and double standards contained within the document. As a quick example, while noting that vehicle travel has basically flat-lined and will “remain more muted than in previous economic cycles“, the maximum possible funding for state highways increases by 4%. By comparison almost all talk in the document about improving PT services comes with the caveat of “if justified by demand“. Simplified you could say PT investment has to justify its existence but road investment doesn’t.
Related, the maximum possible funding for PT increases by 3.5% per annum and the MoT say “This rate of increase reflects current and projected patronage growth“. Of course that level of projected patronage growth only exists because of the level of funding being made available limiting services. If Auckland Transport had more funding they could roll out the new network much faster and of course by doing so we would see stronger patronage growth much sooner.
One of the key things about the GPS is the funding ranges it sets. These funding ranges are meant to give the NZTA some (small) amount of flexibility when setting the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) which sets out the projects that are likely to be funded. The NZTA could theoretically use the maximum funding ranges in some categories at the expense of others however overall the exact amounts selected tends to be closer to the midpoint between the upper and lower figures.
And using the mid-point between the two figures, this graph highlights where the money is going over the next decade.
In terms of the maximum extra $115m possible for PT, for the next three years the difference between the draft and the final version over the next 4 years are compared to the draft are just $5 million in 2016/17 and $10 million in 2017/18.
In addition to the table above the GPS also lists the funding outside of the categories above, in other words money the government is paying directly for transport projects such as the governments $100m Urban Cycleway funding that they announced in the lead up to the election. One of the things that’s odd about that particular funding stream is it seems to be broken up into state highways and local roads elements which is something that hadn’t been mentioned before.
Overall the direction of transport policy has changed little since 2008/09 and the focus remains on building massive state highway projects – most with low value outcomes – while the areas of the transport system that are seeing the most growth get ignored.
We have long criticised the Ministry of Transport as being horribly outdated in their thinking on transport matters. It’s always difficult to know the extent to which the Ministry is just reflecting the government’s political direction or whether they truly believe what they’re saying, but in more recent times there have been a few signs that the Ministry might be getting its act together. For example, their Briefing to the Incoming Minister highlighted some important changing transport trends, particularly when looking at future funding issues.
It seems like some of the more interesting advice in the “BIM” might have come out of the Ministry’s “Strategic Policy Programme“, which has recently published information on projects in three key areas:
I’ll look to get to all these documents in a few posts over the coming days and weeks, but for now focus on the “Future Demand” work, which seems to have highlighted the uncertainty around the future of transport that comes through in the BIM more strongly than it has before. The summary highlights the key issue:
The road network is worth more than $60 billion and costs more than $1 billion a year to maintain. We are planning to invest $10 billion over the next ten years to change the shape of the network to improve its quality and capacity.
This would be relatively straightforward if we knew how demand would change. The challenge we face, however, is there have recently been changes to the patterns of demand for personal travel.
From 1980 to 2004 we saw annual increase in demand in the order of three percent per year. This highlighted the importance of tackling congestion and improving safety and gave us assurance revenue would grow to cover the costs of a growing network. From 2005 to 2013 total demand only grew by 0.25 percent per year.
We now face an uncertain future. We cannot be certain demand will return to pre-2005 levels of growth nor can we be certain it will remain flat. This means we can no longer rely on traditional forecasting models alone to help us to decide how to invest.
Importantly, the Ministry acknowledges a systematic over-projection of future demand has occurred in recent years:
As there are so many factors that may affect future transport demand, plus so much uncertainty around the short-term and long-term causes of these changes, the Ministry’s project developed four different scenarios for the future based around two-axis: whether the relative cost of energy would increase or decrease and whether technological change would lead to a preference for virtual or physical accessibility.
Perhaps what is most interesting in the scenarios is the modelling that was done on future total vehicle kilometres travelled between 2014 and 2042 and that they declined in three of the four scenarios. This is not a per capita decline, but an absolute decline. It is only the “traveller’s paradise” scenario which saw VKT increase over this time period.
The study draws some interesting conclusions:
When we think about creating a thriving New Zealand we should recognise we are trying to improve access not just mobility. There are three different ways we can achieve this: with good transport systems; with good spatial planning; or by improving digital access. We need to integrate our thinking across these three areas to achieve the optimal outcome.
To reduce the uncertainty we face we should seek to better understand the factors affecting the changing patterns of demand and refresh our demand models accordingly. We should look both at social trends and also speed in development, take-up and impact of new technologies.
To ensure resilience of the access system we develop for New Zealand we should seek to build in flexibility where we can. This will allow us to respond more quickly to changing patterns of demand and reduce the likelihood that we will make investments which will become unnecessary.
We need to recognise that the investment decisions we make will shape patterns of demand and not just respond to them. We should move away from the approach of seeking to simply predict future demand and then provide for it. We should instead debate the sort of access we want and decide how to invest to support the future.
That last sentence is exactly what I’ve long thought, our travel choices are a reflection of the system that we’ve invested in. It’s no surprise that so many rely on cars for transport options when for so long that’s the only thing we invested in improving while at the same time we allowing all alternatives to get substantially less attractive and useful. The changing trends that we’ve been seeing over the last decade are in part a response to the fact we’ve slowly started to improve some of those alternatives.
There’s a huge amount of additional background information on the project website, which is worth a read through as it summarises a lot of discussion about the issue of “peak car”.
While it’s great to see the Ministry doing this work, the real test will be to see whether this affects any policy changes. The draft Government Policy Statement seemed to write off the recent flattening of VKT as a “blip”, whereas this future-focused work suggests that, under the majority of scenarios, it’s here to stay and VKT could even start declining.
Last week the Briefings to government ministers (BIM) were published. I’ve already looked at what the Ministry of Transport (MoT) and NZTA have said about transport in Auckland and so in this post I’m going to look at some of the other points mentioned in the documents. In particular what they say about long term trends and funding issues.
Perhaps the most significant aspect in the BIM from the MoT is that they are finally starting to acknowledge the transport world is changing. That demographics are shifting and people are starting to think and use transport differently to the trends that have persisted for around 60 years. Of course these are the same issues we regularly talk about and previously the ministry seem to have taken “it’s a blip” approach the the real world results. As such it was a pleasant surprise to finally see such an acknowledgement from them.
The MoT have split the changes into three areas:
- A growing and ageing population
- Uncertain demand for personal travel
- New technologies driving improvements in safety, efficiency, and environmental outcomes
A growing and ageing population
Along with the talking about the huge population growth expected in Auckland the briefing notes this important point about the biggest demographic group in most western countries.
By 2036, the number of people in New Zealand aged 65 and over is forecast to double to 1.2 million. The ageing population is more pronounced outside of the major urban areas and international data suggests that individuals halve their vehicle kilometres travelled when they retire. This is likely to radically change transport demands in the regions and reduce the revenue base available to maintain the transport network and meet social expectations for levels of service.
Our large older generations halving their car travel would have a massive impact on the demand for new roads in particular. As that happens the demand for Super Gold cards is going to soar. The next section almost had me falling of my seat when I first read it.
Uncertain demand for personal travel
Around 96 percent of personal travel in New Zealand occurs in private vehicles. Historically, the total distance travelled by private vehicles has increased consistently over time. This consistent growth has been driven by an increase in population and the number of vehicles in the fleet, and an increase in the distance travelled on a per capita basis. However, as shown in figure 2 below, this growth has stalled in recent years.
The average distance travelled per-person in light passenger vehicles has fallen by around 8 percent, from a peak of about 7,600km in 2004, to around 7,000km in 2013. The total distance travelled over the same period has increased marginally (from 39.3 billion kilometres in 2004 to 40.4 billion kilometres in 2013) as a result of population growth. This trend is not unique to New Zealand – it has been observed in a number of developed countries.
There is some debate as to whether this trend is the result of economic factors or a more structural shift in attitudes towards personal transportation. The fact that this trend emerged before the onset of the global financial crisis gives cause to believe that social, behavioural and lifestyle factors (such as the proliferation of smart phones, social media, online shopping and video conferencing) may also be having an influence. A related trend is a reduction in the number of driver licences being issued. In particular, fewer young people are choosing to drive. This suggests that in some groups, the perceived merit of car ownership and use may be declining.
Strong population growth means that overall demand for transport across all modes will continue to increase. Motor vehicles are and will continue to be the predominant mode of transportation in New Zealand for the foreseeable future. However, the rate of growth in motor vehicle travel seen in the twentieth century is unlikely to continue. An ageing population, rising fuel prices, increasing urbanisation, improved mobility and accessibility options, growing health and environmental concerns, and changing consumer preferences all appear to be contributing to reduced per-capita travel in motor vehicles and an increase in demand for alternative transport options
To me this is a huge admission from the MoT and I guess they could only go on so long ignoring the data that was in front of them. I really hope this means we can start to have a more rational discussion about our transport future along with an acknowledgement that we can also shape that future, especially in our urban areas. The last section touches on this future a little however it once again shows the ministry (and we’ve seen it repeated by the Minister) seem to think driverless cars are going to magically change everything.
New technologies driving improvements in safety, efficiency, and environmental outcomes
Technology is everywhere, and it is changing the way we live our lives. It is changing how and when we communicate with each other, whether we travel to purchase goods or have the goods come to us, and where we work. It is changing the demands that we, as a society, place on the transport system and our need for it.
Modern transport systems are becoming increasingly reliant on technology, with increasing levels of automation delivering improvements in safety and efficiency. In the long-term, the use of fully autonomous or driverless vehicles has the potential to revolutionise the transport system. In the more immediate term, the increased availability and reducing cost of information technology will offer improvements in efficiency, safety, and social experience. Technology will play an increasingly important role in helping to improve service levels while managing costs.
Moving on, the long term future of the current funding model is raised and it’s clear the MoT is concerned about the future funding stream for transport. Here are some high level predictions for what the MoT say we may see.
In the next ten years:
- The historic link between the rate of economic growth and the level of demand for transport will continue to weaken. We will achieve economic growth without an equivalent increase in transport demand.
- As our population becomes more concentrated in urban areas, local councils with stagnating or declining populations and low growth prospects will find it increasingly difficult to meet the cost of maintaining their existing networks.
In 20-30 years:
- Gradual improvements in the fuel efficiency of cars will slowly erode the effectiveness and fairness of Fuel Excise Duty as a means of collecting revenue from transport users.
- Solutions to congestion in cities are likely to become increasingly expensive. This could increase the tension between cities’ and regions under a national funding system.
- Greater demand for public transport and active modes could put pressure on the National Land Transport Fund, which is collected from motorists.
The first point about the weakening link economic growth and transport demand is something we’ve highlighted a long time ago. This is quite important as the Roads of National Significance are largely based on the idea they will improve the economy. The last point is also an odd one as we know that investing in PT infrastructure can really help bring down operating costs while also boosting revenue due to more customers using the services.
The briefing says impacts of changing trends could have these impacts on the government.
- We will need to answer difficult questions around the amount that should be collected from transport users, what it can (or can’t) be used for, and how it should be distributed around the country.
- As expenditure rises and the amount collected from motorists at the pump decreases, regular increases in fuel taxes will be required. This could prompt changes to the way we collect revenue from transport users.
- Measures to contain costs and transition towards a more sustainable expenditure path will be challenging, particularly for transport providers that are accustomed to continuous improvements to network standards.
- The government should expect increasing pressure for more funding from both larger cities (especially Auckland), which are struggling to pay for the investments required as a result of population growth; and smaller regional centres, which are facing rising costs with fewer rate-payers to fund them.
There are some serious issues in there and it seems the third one could be aimed at large infrastructure builders hoping for continuous large projects like currently seems to be happening. The current set of projects are already putting large pressure on the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) and this is highlighted in this graphic below where expenditure is greater than the revenue being generated.
Lastly it’s interesting to see the current transport spend in the context of New Zealand’s history. It’s currently at 1.3% of GDP which is the highest level it’s been for decades and well above the OECD average of around 1%.
Overall it’s good to finally see some sense starting to come through from the Ministry but the question is, will the government listen?
Yesterday the government released all of the Briefings to Incoming Ministers. These are briefings from the various government agencies that give an overview of what they do, what they’re working on and of course key issues related to the portfolio. They are developed prior to the election and are intended for which ever political party takes office. Of interest to us are the briefings from the Ministry of Transport (MoT) and the NZTA.
The first thing I noticed about the briefings was just how much more effort agencies are putting in to the design of the briefings themselves. Even compared to just 3 years ago they’ve gone from being fairly simple documents to much more elaborate presentations which perhaps reflects the fact these are starting to be viewed by the public much more. There is a heap of interesting information On to the content itself. Due to the amount of material for this post I’ll just stick to the parts about Auckland.
Both agencies dedicate significant portions of their briefings to Auckland and the challenges the city faces however positively they both make some significant comments and suggestions.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the briefings comes from the NZTA in relation to the City Rail Link (CRL). The NZTA have broken down their briefing into two main sections, the first is about who they are and what they do while the second is about the agency’s area of focus. That second section has been further broken down to The next 3-6 Months and The Next 1-3 Years. In the next 3-6 months section they dedicate one part to the CRL. They say.
Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are continuing to plan, design and acquire property for the City Rail Link. The City Rail Link is now being delivered in two distinct parts.
Phase One is the enabling works to build two rail tunnels between Britomart under Queen Street and the Downtown Shopping Centre, and a ‘cut and cover’ tunnel under Albert Street as far as Wyndham Street. The enabling works are planned for 2016 to 2017 to coincide with the planned redevelopment of the Downtown Shopping Centre by Precinct Properties Ltd. Auckland Council is budgeting between $240 million and $250 million for these works. The aim is to complete the enabling works before the World Masters Games in April 2017. We think this is a sensible sequencing of enabling works which will minimise disruption of critical intersections in the CBD, and enable compliance with the planning conditions that only one intersection can be out of action at any one time. A more compact construction schedule at a later time would prove too disruptive.
Phase Two is the tunnel boring machine and station building stages of the project. This phase could start as early as 2018 and be completed by 2022 at a cost of around $2 billion. Design and procurement decisions for this phase could be taken progressively from 2015/16 onwards, but are dependent on future funding decisions and commitments.
The Crown is not currently an active partner in the City Rail Link project implementation. The government has signalled it will only consider being a funding partner to enable a construction start in 2020, or possibly earlier if certain patronage or other targets are achieved. The risk of not being involved in these early stages is that the key elements of the project get determined in the meantime. If the Crown is to be a future funding partner it needs a mechanism to identify options and risks around planning, design, procurement and financing.
We have experience in complex infrastructure projects of the scale of the City Rail Link. One mechanism to help manage Crown risk could be for the Transport Agency to become a technical partner with Auckland Transport in developing the City Rail Link. This would be consistent with the one transport system arrangements that have been forged with Auckland Transport and Auckland Council over the last 3-4 years.
There’s a couple of very clear points the NZTA are making. Firstly they agree on the timing for the early works which will see the tunnel built from Britomart to Wyndham St and secondly they clearly want to be more involved in the project. I think this would be a big positive because as they mention they have a lot of experience in building large infrastructure projects and that is likely to be very useful to the teams designing and building the project.
The suggestion of the larger Phase Two starting in 2018 is an interesting one. I’ve heard suggestions that even if the government agreed to fund the project tomorrow there’s so much work ahead with all of the design that still needs to happen that any construction is still years away. 2018 is also conveniently between the date that the council/AT want and what the government want. A compromise solution of 2018 seems like a fairly realistic trade off and with the early enabling works already complete would see the project opened only 1-2 years after the council has planned for.
Overall it’s fantastic the NZTA have taken this position and it’s in quite stark contrast to the briefing from the MoT which hardly mentions the project.
The NZTA in a separate section about Auckland go on to say: (emphasis mine).
Auckland city centre faces growth challenges and changing travel patterns unlike any other New Zealand location. Even with the City Rail Link (irrespective of its timing), providing for and managing growth will require a step-change in bus infrastructure and operations. We are working with Auckland Transport to guide and review the business cases for proposed investments to meet these challenges.
The Auckland Plan sets out the direction for land use and transport planning over the next 30 years. The strategic direction for transport in the Auckland Plan is to “create better connections and accessibility within Auckland, across New Zealand and to the world.” The direction of transport strategy in the Auckland Plan could be generally described as an increasing focus on public transport and active modes from the past, but also includes significant investment in new roads, particularly in the large areas of greenfield land to be urbanised. This proposed strategy has been criticised by some as it acknowledges that despite the proposed sixty billion dollar transport investment congestion is still as bad in 30 years’ time. However this fails to recognise the significant growth over this period and that a network free of congestion is not an appropriate goal. While severe congestion is undesirable, the focus needs to be on supporting economic growth and productivity through provision of better access to markets, employment and business areas.
Transport investment in the short to medium term is focused on increasing the capacity of the road network, completing key links as well as improved management of the network to maximise capacity and efficiency for the movement of people and freight. Increasingly as Auckland continues to grow, and in line with international experience in large cities, a greater emphasis and investment is needed on public transport, active modes and demand management.
The Transport Agency considers the strategic direction for transport outlined in the Auckland Plan is basically sound and that the focus needs to be on sustained delivery while continuing to refine the strategy over time
Over to the MoT and there are a few things I noticed strongly in the MoTs discussions on Auckland. One is that they are quite concerned about the implication funding projects in Auckland will have on the rest of the nation. They are very concerned that by funding projects in Auckland that people in other regions will demand more investment too. In addition they still like to try and belittle both the city centre and the impact that PT has on travel.
There is one glimmer of hope though.
Different regions have different transport demands. This can create tensions under a national funding system. For example:
- Auckland has at times suffered from relatively low per-capita investment in transport infrastructure and will face increasing congestion in the future as a result of strong population growth. The ‘golden triangle’ region of Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga is expected to experience significant growth over the next 30 years, and there is a strong argument that good transport links in this part of the country will deliver the best returns for New Zealand overall.
- Many small regional centres have stagnating or declining economies, with some experiencing population decline. Some of these regions are already struggling to maintain their transport services and infrastructure with increasing maintenance costs and fewer rate-payers to fund them. However, it is often argued that transport can stimulate regional economic growth, and that stronger regions will help to alleviate pressure on our major cities.
The high cost of addressing congestion in cities, increasing demand for public transport alternatives, and a perception that big cities are taking more than their fair share will result in escalating pressure on the national funding allocation system. In addition, we have a large investment in transport infrastructure (the roading network) that can be underutilised for much of the day. Building the network to meet ‘peak’ demand is neither sensible or feasible.
So in the same document we have the NZTA saying they want to be involved in the CRL longer term and that greater emphasis on PT is needed while in the other document we have the MoT saying that building a network just for the peak isn’t sensible or feasible. Next they’ll be telling us that people are travelling less (that’s tomorrow instalment).
We’ve talked quite a bit about how trends in New Zealand are changing and one that regularly talk about is Vehicle Kilometres Travelled which is the distance that vehicles in New Zealand drive. The results come collating the distance travelled from vehicle odometers which is something checked each time someone gets a Warrant of Fitness. The distance we travel on a per capita basis has been dropping for some time.
Last week at the transport debate Gerry Brownlee said new data would show the trend of declining VKT was reversing as the economy recovered. His suggestion being that just around the corner we’re going to need roads like Puhoi to Warkworth to deal with the extra driving that we’re all supposedly meant to be doing. But are we actually driving more? Well new data from the Ministry of Transport suggests that on a per capita in Auckland basis we each are still driving less than we did decade ago.
Other regions show an assortment of outcomes with some results up and others down.
In Auckland we’re driving less but of course we also know for the last decade or so the big story in transport has been the resurgence of PT use which has been growing strongly. This is growth is off the back of investments like Britomart, the Northern Busway and the bus lanes on the isthmus e.g. Dominion Rd.
So how does this growth in PT trips compare to the changes shown above for VKT? The graph below shows the two and there’s quite a difference as to where the growth is occurring.
Of course the number of PT trips is coming off a low base however a 30% increase in use is nothing to sneeze at. At the end of June 14 each Aucklander took approximately 47 trips a year on PT. That’s fairly low by international standards or even compared to what’s achieved in Wellington however with all that’s going on with PT right now we could see the result rise considerably in the next few years.
The Ministry of Transport has released a detailed and interesting look into some of the results coming out of the 2013 Census Journey to Work question. Both the executive summary and the full report are worth a read. As we’ve noted before, the 2013 census results confirm a shift in the way Aucklanders are travelling, with much stronger growth in public transport than in driving (especially in percentage terms). Interestingly, even within people travelling to work via private vehicle, there is a big difference between those who drove themselves (which increased and roughly maintained its modeshare) and those who were passengers (which declined fairly dramatically). This is shown in the graph below:
I’m struggling a bit to explain why private vehicle passengers has declined to significantly – perhaps they are the ones who are shifting mode to public transport to a greater extent than drivers?
The report compares Auckland’s mode-splits with a number of Australian cities, highlighting quite an interesting trend that although our public transport use is generally lower than those cities, our active transport modeshare is often higher:
Quite a lot of the report is analysis of different parts of Auckland, comparing travel patterns and modes for the CBD, CBD fringe area (called other central), inner urban (isthmus and lower North Shore), outer urban and rural areas. The graph below is a fairly nifty way of representing the overall share of Auckland’s trips that start and end in these different areas:
The Outer Urban area is reasonably “self-contained” in its trips, with a very large share of trips originating in Outer Urban areas also being destined for those areas. The CBD is a strong destination for Inner Urban areas, along with employment in other parts of those Inner Urban locations.
Looking closer at the CBD, the report analyses where people who work there are coming from, showing a strong focus on the isthmus and the lower North Shore – the “Inner Urban” areas highlighted above:
It is worth noting the difference between the west and the south in the map above – both areas reasonably equidistant from the city centre, but with the south having much more local employment and therefore much less of an employment connection with the CBD. One would expect, post City Rail Link, for the west to be even more strongly connected and also for the south to begin to benefit from improved city centre access and the employment opportunities that will provide.
Another interesting part of the report is the comparison between different local board areas, which unsurprisingly show some pretty dramatically different modal splits:
Waitemata Local Board obviously stands out from the rest, with a private vehicle modeshare of below 50% and a very high proportion of people walking or cycling to work. Clearly Waitemata benefits from having so many jobs located within the local board area, as well as the increasing number of people who live in the city centre unsurprisingly having a very high ‘walk to work’ share. Another point of interest is how work from home varies by Local Board – higher in rural and richer areas and very low in parts of South Auckland. I guess this reflects most ‘work from home’ jobs being either rural in nature or well-paid professional work.
One of the clearest patterns highlighted in the report is the relationship between residential location and trip length, with journeys to work getting longer and longer as you live further away from the city centre – even though only a relatively small proportion of Auckland’s jobs are actually located in the city centre:
This finding is unsurprising and a core part of why urban sprawl concerns us so much, because people living in far flung parts of Auckland need to travel a very long way to work – which is both expensive and places a lot of pressure on the transport network. It’s also clear that West Aucklanders are stuck with long commutes more so than most other parts of the city – highlighting once again the huge benefit City Rail Link will bring to the west as well as the need to increase the level of employment available in that part of Auckland.
Flipping the above map around, to instead focus on length of journey by destination reveals a much less clear pattern and some interesting anomalies – people who work at the airport have to travel a very long way to get there (rail to the airport will be very useful for them!) while people who work in the Howick/Botany area seem to have very short commutes, maybe highlighting the extent to which that area is disconnected and isolated from the rest of Auckland (only people who live in the area are prepared to work there):
Looking at private vehicle modeshare by point of origin highlights clearly the more and less car dependent parts of Auckland. The inner areas are doing pretty well here while the northwest and the southeast (in particular) are the most car dependent parts of Auckland. Hopefully the AMETI and Northwest busways will change this in the future:
Bus modeshare is highest on the North Shore and the Central Isthmus – reflecting locations where high quality bus service and infrastructure is available:
For rail, a key analysis relates to the question of “for trips heading to the CBD from a particular area, what proportion of those trips are carried by train”. The south does pretty well in this respect, reflecting that it’s a pretty long car journey from Papakura or Pukekohe right through into town:
Looking at the above map it’s quite telling to see how along the inner parts of the Western Line, rail is capturing a pretty low proportion of CBD-bound trips – I imagine due to the very long an convoluted path the train takes via Newmarket. With the City Rail Link in place there’s some huge growth potential in these areas for much higher levels of train use as there’s a pretty huge untapped market at the moment.
Looking at overall public transport modeshare, the dominance of the isthmus is quite clear. This is a large reason why we were so frustrated to see intensification on the isthmus watered down in the Unitary Plan to such a great extent last year.
There are a myriad of other fascinating maps and graphs within the report, but they can wait for a future post. Perhaps commenters might have a think about what they think might be behind a few of the results above – particularly:
- Why might private vehicle passenger trips have decreased so significantly compared to all other modes of getting to work?
- What impact might CRL, Airport Rail, AMETI and other major projects have on these patterns over the coming decades?
- What’s up with Stonefields? – its travel patterns are much more like an ex-urban piece of sprawl than a fairly dense inner-urban suburb.