[sustran] Re: Denver, Houten and Auckland

[Wendell Cox]

By competing, I wasnt talking about competing for funding, I was talking
about the direct cost per passenger kilometer of highway systems v. rail
systems. As for external costs, Hayek told us that prices can only be
determined by the market. The failure of planners to accurately set prices
was the most important reason communism failed (the second most important
had to do with Reagan and Thatcher). External costs and benefits need to be
considered, but I have a real problem with basing policy decisions on
artificial (and necessarily false and inaccurate) costing, which can also be
influenced by
politics and the bias of the researchers.

DEMOGRAPHIA & THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)
http://www.demographia.com (Demographics & Land Use)
http://www.publicpurpose.com (Public Policy & Transport))
Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134
PO Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
----- Original Message -----
From: Kerry Wood <kerry.wood at paradise.net.nz>
To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 30 October, 2001 01:53
Subject: [sustran] Denver, Houten and Auckland


> Wendell
>
> I think you have gone a generalisation too far.
>
> In New Zealand the reason why transit investments are incapable of
competing
> with highways is structural: no capital funding is available, (except from
> local body taxation) so nobody has seriously tried. In contrast, statutory
> funding mechanisms are available for road building, from central
government
> funds.
>
> The last serious try was electrification of Wellington's suburban lines in
the
> 1930s, completed in the 1950s. That scheme (still with some of the
original
> rolling stock) seems to be the reason why overall transport costs and
> congestion are lower in Wellington than in Auckland or Christchurch.
>
> There is now increasing awareness of the limitations of road building, and
> Auckland is developing a sensible-looking transit proposal. It uses
suburban
> rail, light rail and a busway (horses for courses), and looks reasonably
> fundable, with central government more receptive to such ideas than for
many
> years. But there is still no regular funding mechanism.
>
> Partial studies by the NZ Ministry of Transport (1994 - 96) suggest that
NZ
> road transport has externalities equivalent to somewhere around 2 - 4% of
GNP,
> even ignoring externalities such as 'free' parking provision (a favourite
of
> Todd Litman's). With subsidies like this, no wonder the alternatives
cannot
> compete with highways. Of course, those externalities are contestable: in
some
> cases the costs cover a 20:1 range, but with a reasonably reassuring 'most
> probable' figure towards the bottom of the range. Arguing about precise
figures
> is fruitless; such charges can never be exactly right, but can only too
easily
> be exactly wrong, as they are at present.
>
> In Auckland a professor of economics has identified a 400 m spur road off
a
> grade-separated flyover junction which, by back-of-envelope calculations,
would
> have costs of USD 2.00 / vehicle kilometre if the opportunity cost of the
land
> were included (the width is about 200 m, because of multiple approaches to
the
> grade separated junction). But it is not included.
>
> Another difficulty is the cuckoo effect: providing for cars tends to drive
out
> other modes. Congestion makes buses or trams too slow and unreliable,
roading
> engineers allow drivers to go too fast and fail to provide adequately for
other
> modes, and drivers make walking and cycling too dangerous.
>
> Other approaches are possible. I have just got back from visiting Houten,
a new
> satellite town of Utrecht, in the Netherlands. Houten now has a population
of
> 40 000, but has not had a traffic fatality since 1987. The trick is to
make
> walking and cycling safe, with easy journeys to local shops or a station
with
> an excellent transit service to the city centre. Car ownership and use is
> practicable, but  local car journeys are not: drivers have to go out to
the
> ring road, travelling slowly on roads designed to favour other modes, then
> slowly back in to their destination. Cyclists and pedestrians go direct,
so
> walking is often faster than taking the car, and cycling is almost always
> faster. Cycle and pedestrian crossings of the ring road are all grade
> separated, and commuting into Utrecht by bicycle is practicable. Children
as
> young as 5 years cycle to school without adult supervision, and here lies
the
> inevitable downside: they have crashes when they move to other and less
safe
> cities.
>
> I also visited Milton Keynes, in the UK, which is also a new town and is
also
> designed for safe cycling. The safe cycling objective has failed, and with
> hindsight it was doomed from the start. Milton Keynes has safe segregated
cycle
> paths, but they are socially unsafe and have poor or very poor access at
either
> end. My guess is that ultimately, it was not designed for safe cycling: it
was
> designed to keep the cyclists out of the way. Milton Keynes is an
old-paradigm
> city, Houten is new-paradigm.
>
> Regards
>
> --
> Kerry Wood
> Sustainable Transport Consulting Engineer
> 76 Virginia Road, Wanganui 5001, New Zealand
>
>
> Wendell Cox wrote:
>
> > This debate could rage for years. After sending my original note, I was
> > sorry that I had not clarified the point. My point had to do with the
former
> > "colonies" --- US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, where the land use
> > tends to make transit investments real losers and incapable of competing
> > with highways. Elsewhere this may not be the case. Especially in the
> > developing world, authorities need to understand that the only hope for
> > limiting the growth of auto use as people become more affluent is to
provide
> > comprehensive region wide transit systems that make people NOT WANT to
buy
> > cars. This means providing as much public transport as possible within
the
> > constrained budgets availalbe, it means priority for buses, jitneys,
> > rickshaws and it means it is time to stop building Metro systems that
cannot
> > sustainably provide an alternative to the automobile for most of the
trips.
>
> (snipped)
>