Joel Cayford: Road and rail systems defy easy private sector solutions

COMMENT

Jim Peron (Dialogue, September 29) believes we should expect congestion on Auckland's roads because transport markets have not been allowed to operate. He believes users should pay the true costs of transport and he blames congestion on government meddling.

I cannot accept this analysis. For a start, New Zealand is famous internationally for deregulation. It is famous for trusting markets to solve problems in network industries including telecommunications, electricity, gas and rail.

Auckland local government was required to sell the Yellow Bus company and to adopt a competitive model for the provision of public transport. Consequently public transport services have been run into the ground.

Deregulation had other effects. School zoning was removed. Shopping centres developed everywhere and Auckland sprawled to an area bigger than London. It is hardly surprising that Auckland car ownership per capita accelerated as people embraced the new market-led approach to city planning.

Deregulation and growth have been the main causes of congestion. To argue otherwise is a nonsense. The question is what to do about it.

Most Western economies have successfully introduced market forces into telecommunications network services but regulation has always been necessary. Here in New Zealand we still struggle with Telecom over what sort of regulation is needed to ensure markets operate effectively. Electricity deregulation has been associated with a range of embarrassing blackout disasters around the world. Yet these are the least capital-intensive networks.

Next comes the water industry. Apart from some small community schemes, water and wastewater services have generally resisted the application of market forces and competition in New Zealand. Well-regulated and managed public utilities are generally favoured by our population.

Road and rail systems are the most capital intensive of all the network industries and have defied easy private sector solutions and the successful application of market forces on a big scale internationally.

Strong regulation has always been a critical component in managing congestion. London's experiment with congestion charges is a heavy-handed method of regulatory control which is accepted because effective, fairly priced alternative transport modes exist. These include underground trains, buses in dedicated corridors and black taxis which now enjoy relatively uncongested central-city roads.

Congestion charges are not London's attempt to pay for true costs. As a politician I would love it if we could require motorists and truck operators to pay their true costs. But who could afford it and how would it be calculated?

What price the pollutant levels present in Auckland's harbour sediments because of road runoff? What is the value of the declining populations of marine species in our marine areas affected by road runoff? Who can put a dollar figure on the community severance effects of a newly widened road? What is the value of those years of life lost and buried in Auckland's elevated death rates which health officials say are due to airborne pollution from vehicle exhausts?

These are major issues which will take decades and new technologies to resolve.

In the meantime we have an imperfect transport market. So what to do while we await the evaluation of transport's true costs and a system to allocate them?

The answer is clear. We have to regulate transport services because we cannot trust market forces to deliver an optimal outcome.

Road and rail space is a scarce commodity which needs to be allocated appropriately. It is extremely expensive and disruptive to build new capacity. International wisdom suggests that even if new motorway systems are built, demand quickly grows to fill up the capacity, particularly if each car carries just one person.

I am advised that buses running on one lane of State Highway One over the bridge can carry as many people as the single-occupancy cars in all the other lanes put together.

Public transport systems use scarce transport space more efficiently. North Shore City Council has measured the benefits to all users of Onewa Rd since a combined bus and high-occupancy vehicle (carrying three or more people) lane was established and enforced. The benefits during rush hour include: more people carried per hour, fewer vehicles per hour, and faster trip times for buses and cars.

Improved allocation of road space means that everybody using Onewa Rd has experienced faster morning-commute times.

Market disciplines can usefully be applied to public transport alternatives. Why would commuters choose to take a bus or train to work, if a car was available? The answer is simple if public transport goes from near where they live to near where they work; if the trip time is comparable; and if the experience is positive.

To bring significant efficiency benefits to Auckland's transport networks, public transport services must compete with the car. Public transport must aim for high service levels, and not just be for those who don't have a car.

They must be designed as door-to-door services with high standards all the way. Dirty old buses, leaky bus shelters, dark streets and clogged bus lanes undermine public acceptance.

So who should pay for these improved services? Some think it should be only those who use the bus, train or ferry.

The reality is Auckland's councils are investing in passenger transport systems because they will free up arterial roads and the motorway network by providing a reliable alternative. Anybody who drives a car or a truck in Auckland is the beneficiary of an effective passenger transport system, not just those who happen to take a train, bus or ferry to work. Users of private cars and trucks should pay passenger transport commuters to keep off their bit of road.

But without some congestion there would be no justification for investing in public transport infrastructure.

Few commuters will take a bus or a train if it is cheaper and quicker to drive a car. This is the basis of a well-known transport thesis - the use of transport modes balances as commuters exercise choice to get the best trip.

* Joel Cayford is a member of the North Shore City Council.