Cycle lanes make sense, but the costs and benefits should be properly assessed. Photo / Michael Craig
OPINION:
Of all the columns I have written for the Herald, my April column on Auckland Transport policy generated the greatest response, with many Aucklanders expressing their confusion and disillusion over various aspects of the organisation's policy.
Auckland Transport (AT) sought to refute what I had stated, saying its staff were "encouraged" to travel to work by means other than private car. This struck me as vague, so a submission was made to AT under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) to uncover more about the organisation's own work travel and parking policy and whether it aligned with what it was asking of Auckland residents, workers, and business owners.
The submission asked how many vehicles were used by people coming into head office, how many staff used public transport, and whether people took cars but used commercial parking.
AT says there are no car parks at head office; in the LGOIMA response it says there are 151 fleet vehicles available for AT's use and "Vehicles are stored overnight at various office locations (20 Viaduct Harbour Avenue, Albany, Henderson and Manukau), AT car parks (Fanshawe St) or with staff who work from home or work from vehicles across the region.)"
Its response to the questions about vehicle use indicates it has minimal data on how its people move around Auckland. The number of personal vehicles used by staff coming into head office is unknown as travel to the office is a personal arrangement, however public transport or alternative transport modes are encouraged.
The number of staffers using public transport is also unknown. So is the use of commercial parking, as any commercial arrangements are personal to staff. Auckland Transport does not provide or pay for staff carparking.
This is revealing. None of this is measured, therefore nothing is known and none of it can be managed or improved. In my last article I suggested that AT starts with a conclusion and then works out how to get there — this is an example.
"Public transport or alternative transport modes are strongly encouraged" — how? The conclusion, presumably, is that AT staff "should" use modes of transport other than personal cars. How or whether that happens is up to them, and AT does not take responsibility for tracking, measuring, or managing the conversion of its people to public transport or alternative travel modes.
In my opinion this approach is also evident in the 100-page-plus Auckland Cycling and Micromobility Programme Business Case, released by AT and approved by Auckland Council. The finding is that AT's cycling policy demonstrates a better benefit-cost ratio as a transport project than either the Waikato Expressway or the Waterview Tunnel. On its face, it represents good value for money.
The cost-benefit analysis of the cycling business case — using Scenario 1, with $1.9 billion of expenditure, as an example — indicates that more than half of the returns ($925 million) come from estimated health benefits to Aucklanders (which inevitably involves some significant and hard-to-verify assumptions) and perceived travel time benefits ($154m).
These are not calculated but are estimated based on 10 per cent of the (also estimated) cycling health and general traffic reduction benefits. In other words, the number is a guess on a guess. (These figures are in Table 4 of the cycling demand and economic assessment of the business case, published in February.)
As for the economy, the business case acknowledges that "Business impacts and wider economic impacts have not been assessed". That's $1.9b in expenditure with no assessment of what it means for ratepayers, the city's businesses, or the local, regional, or national economy.
The problem is that by not calculating any of the impacts — including the adverse health and time travel impact of forcing people to use bikes or public transport over the convenience of vehicles — the analysis may reach an incorrect, unrealistic or unsafe conclusion, with $1.9b on the line.
AT can argue that this has a better benefit-cost ratio than the Waikato Expressway or the Waterview Tunnel only if those projects have been assessed against the same metrics — with the health benefits of people being able to get home faster, spend time with their families and do physical activity factored in.
Equally, if health is the primary driver, then a $1.9b investment should be benchmarked not against roads but against better healthcare facilities, diabetes programmes, promoting healthy eating, more sports facilities and parks, more exercise programmes in schools and reduced-hours working, which global research shows has significant health benefits and a material impact on emissions reduction.
In my view, AT is moving forwards with its eyes firmly on the rearview mirror. There has been a seismic shift towards flexible working, which can be expected to have a far more material impact on reducing carbon emissions than any cycling infrastructure project.
My point is not anti-cycling; I support the concept of more local cycle routes. The problem, it appears to me, is that the widespread change in how work is done does not appear to be considered or accounted for in the business case.
On an economic and health basis, we might be better to invest in more fibre infrastructure and to support companies to develop or expand flexible work programmes.
A central criticism (from AT) of my April column article was that AT has said it does not have parking at any of its locations for board members, the CEO and other senior executives, or general staff members, and that all AT staff are encouraged to use public transport or walk, cycle, or scooter to work.
Auckland Transport told the Herald, "there is only parking for fleet vehicles for employees that are required to drive as part of their roles." Got it. Does that mean it's okay for an AT employee to drive between job tasks and have free parking available wherever they need to be, but not for all the Aucklanders who do not work for AT?
And it can hardly be argued that AT is working to convert staffers to cycling — any cycling and micromobility enthusiasts within the organisation have only three electric bikes and six pedal bikes available for their use.
The current effect of AT policy is that it does not discriminate on the purpose of the journey. Instead, it discriminates on how the journey is made.
A tradie or a retailer who needs to transport tools or goods from job to job should not be inconvenienced by having the parking outside their shop or job site removed. Nor should a working parent who needs to drop the kids off and then get to work be forced to use public transport; after all, they are simply going between jobs and are "required to drive as part of their roles".
This response by AT is more proof of the organisation's central Auckland focus. My original point regarded not only the head office but also personnel transportation relative to all AT roles and locations across Auckland.
My contention remains that AT should not use any conventional passenger vehicles, fleet or otherwise. All AT staff should exclusively use public transport, bikes, or walk to go between jobs, because this is what AT policy is designed to have Aucklanders do.
It is drastic, but AT policymakers must recognise they cannot just fob off the economic and social impacts of their policies on other people — causing longer commuting times and making everyday life more difficult — without understanding the real-world impacts.
For AT to require and measure this would also generate essential insight into the impacts of a car-free approach — given the cycling business case's note that "business impacts and wider economic impacts have not been assessed".
A final message to AT's leaders. Actions speak louder than words. Let's focus on the job of keeping Auckland moving and implement transport policies that are calculated and demonstrated to materially reduce carbon emissions, support businesses, and improve Aucklanders' quality of life.
And to Aucklanders, this October we have a choice — elect the mayor and the councillors who are prepared to restructure this entity and make wholesale changes at board and executive level. Auckland deserves better.
Note: A second LGOIMA submission was made to ask about Auckland Transport's communications staff numbers and compensation. Auckland Transport confirmed in a response early this month that the organisation has 60 employees in its Stakeholder, Communities and Communications division, of whom 33 earn more than $100,000 a year.
- Andrew Barnes is a businessman and philanthropist. He is the founder of Perpetual Guardian.
Infinz Awards celebrate big winners in the finance industry.