Peter M over at the Auckland Transport Blog did an interesting piece based on census data which showed some of the suburbs in Auckland with the highest rates of walking and cycling.

Perhaps unsurprisingly the suburbs with the highest walking and cycling rates are almost all in the isthmus. However, this is just for trips to work, so there might be a more even spread if you were looking at all trips.

Anyway, this reminded me that a few weeks ago I read about this site where you can judge the walkability of your local suburb.

It’s mainly designed for people who are buying or renting a house – so you can see how walkable your local neighbourhood is.

What has this to do with cycling? I hear you ask. Well, the link was that Walk Score have just released their list of the top 10 most bike friendly cities in the USA.

Sadly, you can’t yet judge the bikability of suburbs in New Zealand but you can play around with the walkability rating.

For example, Mount Eden has a walkability rating of 87 (very walkable) whereas Flat Bush scores a 12 (car-dependent).

And, perhaps, if we vote online they will extend their bikability ratings elsewhere.

Or, on the other hand, maybe an organization in New Zealand could rate the bike friendliness of our major cities each year? Could be fun…

What do you think? Are you surprised at your suburb’s walkability score? Would you like to see a bikeability score?

The credit for this montage is to Radio Live NZ

I did a blog post a few weeks ago about the donations the Road Transport Trust (essentially, the lobby group for the trucking industry) made to political parties and candidates in the 2011 election campaign.

I said that I wasn’t too concerned about these donations because, in general, most political parties and candidates in New Zealand are simply not in the business of selling policy for money. I also said that high donors probably don’t exercise a worrying level of influence over our politicians.

A string of scandals

Since then, I must confess, there’s been a disturbing string of stories about high donors to political parties allegedly receiving favors and/or access to MPs and/or promises of influence over policy in exchange for money.

First, there was Kim Dotcom and John Banks promising to be his “very good friend”. Then there were the various unanswered questions over why Shane Jones granted William Yan citizenship.

Finally,  Louis Crimp’s massive donations to the ACT party and reports of his recent conversation with John Banks (presumably not something Banks has time for with all his constituents) painted a disturbing picture of the influence wealthy NZers may have over our politicians and politics.

Perhaps those donations from the Road Transport Forum are more sinister than I thought? Certainly, these scandals generally contribute to a perception that all politicians are the same – corrupt and venal.

I still don’t think this is the case but I do think New Zealand’s electoral system might be driving us in a direction where very wealthy individuals and companies will have more influence over our politics than we like.

Why? Well, because we are asking (or, to look at it another way, allowing) our political parties to raise a great deal of money to spend on election campaigns in a relatively short period of time.

In the last election Labour and its candidates spent $3.6 million. Of that $1.2 million was their public broadcasting allocation but they must still have raised $2.5 million.

National spent over $4.4 million, so minus the broadcasting allocation they raised $3.25 million.

Two other political parties, the Green Party and the Conservatives, spent over $1 million each.

These are not insignificant sums of money, and they would not be easy to raise for any party, particularly if you received almost no funding from high donors.

The quickest way to raise a million dollars is not to get 10,000 donors to give you $100 each – instead it’s to get 100 donors to give you $10,000 each. Of course, personally, I don’t know 100 people who would give me $10,000 but some political parties obviously do…

It’s not acceptable and it’s not excusable for politicians or political parties to make cozy deals with high donors in which they offer them more access to senior MPs or even explicitly promise to introduce policies that benefit them. But it is, perhaps, understandable why they do it under the current system.

Clearly, the growing influence of wealthy individuals and donors in NZ politics is a bad thing if you care about democracy. It’s also a bad thing if you are interested in promoting sustainable transport options because, sadly, there are not so many incredibly wealthy cyclists or public transport companies out there.

In terms of fixing this situation, obviously tighter rules around disclosure of donations would help, but there are three other things I can think of that might help.

1) Lower the threshold for electoral spending

Right now the threshold for electoral spending is higher than ever before. The electoral spending limits for National and Labour in the last election were over $5 million each.

Personally, I see no reason why the threshold needs to be this high. I agree that, yes, political parties do need a certain budget to communicate their policies effectively to the public in election year.

But $5 million? You could virtually cover the country in leaflets, letters, billboards, and advertisments.

I also don’t see that this massive advertising spend adds to New Zealand’s democracy. It certainly doesn’t seem to have inspired New Zealanders to engage with politics in 2011. In fact, we had the lowest election turn out in the last 100 years.

2. Bulk fund political parties.

It is the norm in many countries (including Australia and many countries in Europe) that political parties are funded for a significant proportion of their election costs from the state.

Obviously, New Zealand has this in terms of the allocation for public broadcasting but this is much lower (as a proportion of total electoral expenses) than what you might find in many other countries and it is limited to this one purpose.

This option is not very likely to be popular with the public: People don’t like the idea of giving politicians or political parties more money. But as Andrew Geddis puts it (PDF):

“Simply put, if the New Zealand public wants to avoid its political parties being dependent upon a few large-scale donors to fund their activities, or even skirting the legal rules in order to obtain the money they need to operate, then it will need to provide the necessary funding through general tax revenue.”

I don’t know if that’s entirely fair – some political parties do still fundraise in a principled way, but there’s certainly an element of truth in it.

3. Extend the Parliamentary term to 4 years

Elections are by far the biggest cost that political parties accrue. A four year term would mean parties would incur the major expense of an election much less often. It would also give them more time in between to raise the funds to pay for it.

I actually think a four year term would be good for a lot of other reasons as well, for example, meaning politicians and political parties would put more energy into governing and less into electioneering.

What do you think? Are you concerned about corruption? Do you think the donations National and Labour and their candidates received from the Road Transport Trust might influence their policies? What do you think the solutions are?

Generation Zero: Our Future

In Wellington, a group of 40 young people stripped down to their underwear on city trains to “expose the Government’s unbalanced transport budget”.

The stunt marked the launch of Generation Zero’s 50/50 campaign, which is calling for the Government to allocate a greater share of its transport spending to “smart transport” options such as public transport and cycleways.

The group travelled to the Wellington Railway Station, where they set up a physical bar graph using cardboard boxes and signs showing the Government’s plans to spend approximately $14 billion on new highways over the coming decade compared with just $0.5 billion for new public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure combined.[1]

Generation Zero is a youth-driven organisation that wants to see national plans and immediate action towards a zero carbon Aotearoa before 2050, to combat climate change and economic dependence on fossil fuels.

Transport accounts for over 40% of New Zealand’s CO2 emissions, and Kiwis are suffering from rising oil prices due to a lack of practical alternatives to driving, said Mr Young-Drew. But the Government still has no strategy whatsoever for addressing these problems – in fact we’re headed down the wrong road, spending $14 billion on new highways and locking ourselves into a high-carbon economy.

In recent months, Generation Zero has also been busy making submissions to local councils around the country as part of the National Land Transport Programme process, which will allocate funding to transport projects for the next three years and is due to be completed in August.

Our local councils are generally trying quite hard to move in the right direction, said Mr Young-Drew. Unfortunately, the Government’s Roads of National Significance programme is blowing the budget and there’s little left over for the smart transport choices that people want. We aim to change that with 50/50.

The 50/50 campaign is supported by the Smart Transport Network, which advocates for smart transport and aims to better inform New Zealanders on transport issues and solutions.

According to Smart Transport Network Coordinator Silvia Zuur,

Younger generations are smart, sustainably minded citizens. They understand that transport investments significantly influence their opportunities as well as their quality of life. Increasingly, younger generations are moving to places where they can get around without the burden of owning a car. The New Zealand government must recognise this generational shift and begin to change its priorities to smart transport. Otherwise younger people will increasingly vote with their feet from the nearest airport terminal.

[1] Calculated from the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding 2012-22

You can watch a video of the group at Wellington station here.

The Dominion Post covered the story here.

Cycling-a normal, everyday activity…like brushing your hair.

I’ve got a heap of blog posts in my head I want to write, mainly about the cost of transport,  but I don’t have time.

So, instead I thought I would post this poem which the wonderful Chris Dempsey, Waitemata Local Board member and keen cycling advocate, recently discovered and put on Facebook.

I liked it – hope you do too.

Cycling at night.

The rapid miles slip backward from my wheel,
The empty sky is bright
With vast solitary moon whose light
Makes candles of the trees along the road,
One steady flame for all,
And with my pedals’ rhythm as they fall
To rise in endless circles with their load
A night-bound presence not myself I feel.

Upon that shining surface that I skim
A dark and urgent form
Mimics my equal movements: I am warm
In body and in blood; I breathe the air,
I know the hawthorn’s grace;
But this grave entity who at my pace
Rides as I ride, with motions that we share,
What impulse strange and cold envigours him?

The stark machine has caught the chill moon-ray,
I, too, and turned it black:
My silent parallel exists in lack
Of light alone?-I know it. Do I know
That who I think and ride
Am not the shadow of some greater pride
Some metaphysic life that masks a glow
Whiter than moon, whose workings I obey?

Author: J.C. Beaglehole. From: ‘A Book of New Zealand Verse 1923-45′, Caxton Press.

And for one when you get home, here is a Twitter haiku I saw and liked today as well:  “Icy feet thawing / under layers of blanket / and pressed against you”

Any thoughts? Do you like the poem? Feel free to share other cycling related poems in the comments.

This is great to see as it shows they are committed to measuring cycle movements, a good first step to eventually increasing cycling rates.

They’ve created a nice graph showing the change in cycling numbers since November, 2010. It shows a gradual but steady increase over time in cycle movements since November, 2010, which is excellent.

The figures in red show the total overall cycle count. This probably gives some idea of the general trend in terms of changes in the total number of cycle trips taken (although this is only based on 10 sites).

The figures in blue show cycle trips in the morning peak (7 to 9 am). Even though a lot of these trips would be recreational, I do wonder if they possibly give more an idea of the general trend in commuter trips?

They also have provided a comparison of cycling counts from November, 2010 to April, 2011 with the same months in 2011 and 2012.

I made a graph to show the percentage change in cycling movements.

The good news is that the comparison showed a 29% increase in cycle movements in April, 2012 compared to April, 2011.

That’s a pretty massive increase for just one year – people often get excited about a 10% increase in public transport patronage (although cycling is coming off a much lower base, so let’s not get too excited just yet).

I thought perhaps it might be due to the fact that there were more weekdays in April, 2012 than April, 2011 but when I checked the calendar they both had 21 weekdays so it’s clearly not due to that.

Instead this increase seems to be part of a general trend of a 10-30% increase in every month.

What is also apparent from the graph is that rides in the morning peak appear to be increasing slightly faster than overall cycle movements.

If you assume that the morning peak rides are a more accurate reflection of how many cyclists are taking commuter trips (arguable) that might be taken as an encouraging sign that rates of cycling for transport are increasing more rapidly than cycling for recreation.

What do you think? Do you think that’s likely? Or a big jump to make based on the data we have? Are you pleased to see how fast cycling rates are increasing?

So anyway, a couple of years ago I decided I was going to cycle around the place instead of driving, and went looking for a suitable bike. I couldn’t find one and decided to build my own. This one, in fact.

The frame is a Cotic Roadrat, and the rest of the bike is put together from parts made by  Velocity, Sturmey Archer, Brooks, Sapim, Tange-Seiki, Michelin, Jagwire and Shimano

It’s not perfect – there are no mudguards and the rear basket is a bit crap. But it’s practical enough to be my primary means of transport – I ride it to work and everywhere else around the city (including to synchronized cycling practices and performances).

It has a front light powered by a large rechargeable battery…

3-speed gears…

Comfortable handlebars…

Front & rear hub brakes…

It also has a rear light attached to the carrier and some fat tyres. These days there are some more options when it comes to buying city bikes, you’ve got Velo-Ideale and Rode for instance. But I think a good point to remember is, if you can’t find what you want, you can always go & make it yourself. And if the project turns in to a Vortex of Damnation, well then at least you’ll know not to do it again.

David Joyce training

A sad story in the paper yesterday caught my eye. Two cyclists were seriously injured while cycling on a road near Taupo.

The cycling community is stunned by the serious injuries sustained by a club champion and his wife on a road near Taupo described as a “death trap”.

David Joyce and Sirpa Lajunen were airlifted to Waikato Hospital after being struck by a 4WD on Poihipi Rd just after 3pm on Friday. Both underwent surgery yesterday.

Rotorua’s Bay Trust Helicopter pilot Barry Vincent said the bikes had been “shattered” by the impact.

“The damage to the bikes was severe; there were fragments lying all around.

Luckily both are still alive although they have sustained very serious injuries.

What seemed most depressingly familiar about the story was that this is a road that local cyclists identified as dangerous many years ago. They had also been lobbying for improvements for some time.

Mark Gibson, owner of Taupo’s Top Gear Cycles…..said he had been lobbying the council for a wider shoulder on Poihipi Rd for more than eight years.

The 100km/h zone was narrow, with grassy banks on each side, but popular with cyclists because it ran between Taupo and several scenic rides.

“There’re a lot of near misses, a lot of people who get knocked off,” Gibson said.

“It might cost $1 million but how much is a life worth?

Local councillor Keith Crate, who also organises Bike Taupo events, said the council was hoping for funding to improve Poihipi Rd for cyclists.

“It’s a death trap. The whole cycling community is asking for it,” he said.

I am not sure who the council is waiting for funding from? I imagine it is probably the New Zealand Transport Agency. They are probably hoping the NZTA will match funding from the local council at a rate of 50%, for this project.

But, as we know, that funding probably won’t be forthcoming. Why?

Because the government thinks that investing in infrastructure to protect the lives of pedestrians and cyclists is only worth 0.7% of the National Land Transport Fund, even though cyclists alone take 1.4% of the trips on our roads and pedestrians and cyclists combined take over 18% of all trips.

I’m tired of reading these stories about fatal or serious injuries to cyclists at well known danger spots. Aren’t you?

A new report has come out in the USA showing that cyclists in the USA save $4.6 billion a year by riding instead of driving (hat-tip to Ashlee Hooper from Cyclists of Hamilton).

Yes, that is $4.6 billion.

They say:

The average annual operating cost of a bicycle is $308, compared to $8,220 for the average car, and if American drivers replaced just one four-mile car trip with a bike each week for the entire year, it would save more than two billion gallons of gas, for a total savings of $7.3 billion a year, based on $4 a gallon for gas.

The same article mentions that commuter cycling numbers grew by 40% in the USA between 2000 and 2010 (they were probably starting from a very low base but it’s still awesome).

However, they note that cycling and walking still only receive 1.6% of federal transport funding (which means they’re still kicking our ass, at just .7% of the total national land transport fund dedicated to walking/cycling).

I once did a bit of a half-arsed attempt to work out how much riding a bike could save you in NZ.  Anybody got any more detailed numbers on how much the average NZer spends on their car? If so, we could get closer to working it out?

How much do you think your bike saves you?

Jubilant cyclists cross bridge during 2009 Get Across protest

So, as the Herald announced yesterday, Len Brown did manage to get  the CBD rail link into the budget for the Long-Term Plan with $112 million to be spent on property purchases next financial year.

This is a pretty significant achievement – this project has literally been on the books since the 1920s, but Len Brown is the first Mayor to actually get serious money spent on it – enough to ensure (fingers crossed) that the project will, one day, finally happen.

In other news, cyclists will be pleased to hear that the walk/cycleway across the Harbour Bridge did make it into the plan although, sadly, with no funding attached.

I’ve posted a comment below from Kirsten from the Skypath team with more detail.

” it’s great that the SkyPath (the Harbour Bridge walk and cycle way) has been included in the Long Term Plan for Auckland as a “zero-budget” line item. Although this means Council hasn’t made any funding commitment, the important thing is that it keeps the project on the table and gives Council the chance to fully consider the funding options.

Plus it provides confidence to private investors that Council engagement will now build on the agreement with NZTA regarding the construction feasibility.

SkyPath will link to the waterfront walk and cycleway which will run from the Wynyard Quarter to Westhaven, so it’s also wonderful that there is $9million in the LTP for this.

These two projects will have huge synergy, providing a great commuting link for walkers and cyclists from the North Shore right into the CBD, and also creating a very attractive Auckland waterfront experience for tourists and locals.

The SkyPath will be self-funding through the user toll – $2 per trip if you use a HopCard.

This is likely to be the only way to provide this much-wanted access across the harbour in the next 20 or possibly 30 years, as NZTA have repeatedly said they won’t fund a Bridge walking and cycling facility.

Aucklanders made it clear to Council that they want this facility, and thanks to everyone who took the time to submit or contact Councillors. More than 60% of submissions on walking and cycling to the Draft LTP and RLTP supported access across the Bridge.

Len Brown also has been right behind the project for a long time. This brings the SkyPath proposal out of the background- watch for further developments! More on the proposal “

I’ve got no time for any analysis of this decision except to say full credit to Bevan, Kirsten and the rest of their team for their tireless work on this issue.

So what do you think about the council’s decision? Good news? Bad news? Would you rather wait until we can get an untolled cycleway? Or is a tolled cycleway better than nothing at all?

PS: So the budget was a bit of a downer huh? Unless you’re really rich or quite old that is. I haven’t had time (and won’t for some days) to sieve through it all and look to see if there were any changes to cycling funding (highly doubtful, anyway) but, if you spot anything that’s relevant post it in the comments and I’ll blog about it.

Wow! This arrived in my inbox from the UK CTC – it very nicely sums up the argument and has some very interesting statistics (if you like that sort of thing!)

Cycle-helmets-(the-evidence)_brf

Now, I know lots of people will say ‘but these are uk statistics’ but having lived in the UK for many years I can tell you that there is nothing much different between cycling here and cycling there. In the UK there are more people, more cars and more idiots … and the same crappy cycle infrastructure.