The first Smart Transport Conference was surprisingly positive, considering the State of Things. We were there.
Despite rash promises of ‘live’ conference blogging and tweeting, I’m sorry to say that busted 3G and flakey networks got the better of me. But I’ll try to make up for the freezedriedness with some extra depth.
A conference on transport might not seem like the funnest thing for those of us more jazzed with cycle style and velo culture, but ultimately, culture is at the heart of a helluva lot about how we and our stuff gets around, and the experiences we have. So what better place then to talk transport, than the cultural capital.
Getting There
I’m met off the plane by Brook from Mamachari Cycles, who, handy to the airport, kindly whisks me off for the most excellent coffee, some fat-chewing on the state of utility cycle retail – and a chance to try some of his Whisper electric bikes on real (and windy) Wellington hills.
There are plenty who will tut-tut about ebikes, but I’m not one of them: For people living or regularly traversing serious hills (and let’s face it, we do have them), or who really need to avoid sweat, or perhaps with health handicaps – these are just great. I only had a short ride, but I’m impressed with how the e-help only kicks in when you really need it – the rest of your ride au natural. For all of that, Brook lends me a lovely used Omafiet for my stay and I’m on my way.
Hell, I own a dutch men’s bicycle, but this is the real deal in terms of weight, graceful step-through frame, and handlebars that are even more sit-back than sit-up. So it takes a little bit of getting use to – even for me – but yes, I love this oma. Perhaps with a few more than the 3 speed gears would be nice, but for style and superb comfort – nothing comes close.
The Seat of Power
Siting the event in parliament buildings was a great move on the part of sponsors: the Greens and Labour. Once we’ve cleared through the security checks, this feels like just the right place to be developing a shared vision of a rational, smart, approach to transport for this century – even if the proximity to a Transport Minister mired in 50’s thinking is sobering. Not to mention that the Beehive Theatrette is the best-kitted talk venue I’ve stepped into.
So the political ethos is pervasive, yet the way that Labour and the Greens have come together to make this happen has the effect of de-emphasizing party politics. And there is I think, unprecedented of goodwill between Labour and Greens people at the conference: it’s practically a lovefest. Labour MPs acknowledge they’re a little late to the party, and, it would have been nice to see the Labour spokesperson on Transport actually front up (perhaps he was busy with Other Things), but all in all, everyone is just glad to be working together.
The Answer
I’ve already mentioned the heavy public transport emphasis of the conference, and this was particularly pronounced on he first day. Australian Dr Paul Mees is forthright that public transport is THE answer. Paul is erudite, a great presenter, with a wonderfully droll sense of humour. The point is made that PT requires more exercise walking (as does be cycling of course) to get to hubs, so we cycle advocates have to acknowledge there are some health benefits to PT. He focuses on Zurich as a best-case model. Smart use of old tram tech, and some PT subtleties are unpacked, but for the life of me I still can’t see how this is better than the great cycling cities, of which there are now more than a few to choose from.
A Sense of Space
Julie Genter, who really does cycle, has done some ground-breaking work where transport economics and urban design meet. And she wins hands-down for sassiest, slickest presentation, but much more pertinently, the one that shows emphatically what our misguided transport approaches are doing to our space. Car dominance costs more for its use of space than it does from energy – which surely is bad enough. We hear how too many engineers are preoccupied with flow, and marginalise interaction. However it’s the spaces we interact in via active transport, with the highest value. As many of us know, property with cycle ways is worth much more than that without. And property by motorways is certainly low value in every sense. Julie highly recommends The High Cost of Free Parking. The title sounds as dull as ditchwater, but I gather it’s far from that.
History Always Repeats
From this side of the pond, Dr Chris Harris gives us some historical context on Auckland’s stymied hopes for better transport options, much as he did last year at Late@Museum’s Auckland panel discussion. He’s great at unpacking Auckland’s dysfunctional relationship with central government, but as with the previous speaker, his solutions are so public transport heavy to the exclusion of active transport, I have to wonder about his objectivity.
Act Local
After a break we’re back for a Local Government perspective.
PANEL: Finally cycling might get a look in, with Welly Mayor Celia Wade-Brown, and Lawrence Yule in his dual role as Mayor of newly active transport friendly Hastings and President of Local Govt NZ. And there’s Labour’s Auckland Issues spokesperson Phil Twyford.
Phil puts some healthy emphasis on stepping up the public debate on an intellectual level. Some from the floor question whether it’s all gone too far now and more of a political scrap is what’s called for. As much as I bemoan the current level of public discourse (near zero) I tend to concur.
Lawrence Yule brings a particularly vivid sense of an emerging theme: the lack of integration and continuity in transport. Local government has little control over funding its community generates, and while it tries to plan for 10 years, is consistently yanked about by 3 year central government election terms. Hastings commitment to active transport infrastructure is great, but I’m not sure that its promotion is sophisticated enough to be effective. All the same, this is a mayor who gets the value of active transport, and that he, like now visionary mayor Bob Parker is a National Party man, and his fronting up at this conference is further proof that smart transport doesn’t have to be politically partisan.
It’s the Economy, Stupid
PANEL: Russel Norman, Green Party co-leader, Dr. Rhema Vaithianathan, Assoc. Professor of Economics, University of Auckland, Stephen Selwood, CEO, NZ Council for Infrastructure Development, Bill Rosenberg, Economist, NZCTU
Again: an active transport free zone. But Rhema Vaithianathan shocked more than a few of us, pointing out that while we perceive the opposite, Auckland congestion is by world standards, actually amongst the lowest in the world, and how good it would be if we had much more of it! Her focus is behavioural economics, and she argues for measures that encourage behavioural change, by threatening consequences that rarely need to be imposed, rather than being used for revenue gathering. Which has me suddenly rewriting pieces of the presentation I’m due to give the next day.
Russell Norman dispenses quite a bit of the hard-core economics we’re increasingly seeing from the Greens, and reminds us of the $7 billion we send out of the country every year, just for oil, and points to the way the NZTA apportions different value to different transport modes: it’s not a level playing field. Bill Rosenberg demonstrates the CTU gets the impact of transport on the economy, citing that 13% of household spending is on getting around.
Former AA man Stephen Selwood is probably the outlier in policy terms, but he’s good humoured, and as the big cheese on general infrastructure, like Lawrence Yule, brings a certain heft to proceedings, as well as a valuable counterpoint. And despite his different perspective, is probably the most optimistic about building national consensus on transport. For him Denmark and Sweden are the best models because of the effort they’ve put into getting everyone on the same page.
This Calls for a …
Purely with concensus building in mind, we retire. By now we’re all feeling like proper pollies so of course it’s off to the Backbencher for libations.
Despite the bleakness of current central government transport ideology, everyone is in pretty good humor – as has characterized all the otherwise potentially very dry talk so far. Main themes emerging so far..
- The limits of having a sound argument – Mr Joyce is immune to the arguments, it’s going to take a lot more than being right, if we want anything to be different.
- The RONs (Roads of National [party] Significance (like the puhoi holiday highway), the GPS (Government Policy Statement) – these are the key battlegrounds
- Isn’t it nice getting together on this? Yes it is – no question.
It’s easy to feel very small and powerless in the face of the Joycian juggernaut, but maybe tomorrow will be different. In the meantime it’s back onto the Omafiet in search of a quieter place for Unity and I to hatch and plot and celebrate some cycle stuff.
To be continued
", yet the way that Labour and National have come together to make this happen h"
Great post Tim – but i think you mean "The Greens and Labour"…National declined their invitation.
With the Nats polling over 50%, they may think they are beyond this discussion. Transport is an enormous part of the economy and should therefore be an election issue.
I think you will find this was a tax payer funded talk fest and I'm sure it must have been "nice" to get together but what was actually achieved? What is the outcome? What actual hard results are there from this?
LucyJH: Eeek – sorry, corrected – interesting to know National were actually invited.
BG: AFAIK Nothing was taxpayer funded unless you include the use of the auditoria which were sitting vacant. As to an outcome, perhaps you could still your panting heart and wait for installment #2.
Last time i looked political parties are funded by the tax payer and work for us…things must have changed, Labour and the Greens must be self funding now which is great news.
I look forward to the turning of the first soil in the start of the work resulting from this talk. Bring on installment #2
@ BG. Because the Greens and Labour are in opposition they cannot pass laws which result in construction projects. I wish they could but they can't!
What opposition parties can do is:
a) hold the government to account by pointing out where they think the government is making mistakes in the way they pass laws and/or spend taxpayer funds. Generally the aim of this is to try and get the government to change their policies and put funds or legislative support into different projects. The conference is a good example of this type of activity.
b) work constructively with the govt on issues where they agree (see, for example, the Green Party's work on the national cycle way or the $400 million they secured for insulating NZ homes)
c) meet with their constituents and help them with issues such as immigration, housing, welfare, ACC etc. The conference didn't serve this purpose directly but it allowed a chance for MPs from the Greens and Labour to hear from disabled public transport users who are, I think, a massively disenfranchised group
d) put forward members bills and try to get them adopted
e) work constructively on Select Committees to try and improve legislation the governing party is introducing
You may disagree but I personally think that of all the functions an opposition party can serve the first (of holding the government to account/pointing out the mitsakes they are making) is the most important as it is the only real way to achieve significant change in a government's policies.
None of the policies that (for example) the Greens have had adopted from opposition would have come about and resulted in real funds being spent on real projects if they had not done lots and lots of initial work getting media/public interest focused on how the government was neglecting a particular area (e.g., Jeanette F worked on home insulation and energy efficiency for many many years before the govt agreed to fund it). This conference helped to fulfil that function of criticizing the government's allocation of funding. In my view this is part of being an effective opposition, which is an essential thing to have in a healthy democracy.
Having said thta the conference also had other more practical outcomes which I am sure Tim will tell you about soon
Didn’t want this turning into a political debate, not sure what that has to do with it.
Just pointing out any party is tax payer funded and answer to us the tax payer on how that money is spent. Any party is also capable of holding talk fests and setting up more committies to hold more talk fests.
I will eagerly await the solid actual work I can touch and see that comes from this conference.
You sound very typical of a green supporter, very defensive and its my way or the highway.
This cause would do far better with some outside input that isn’t aligned with a political party.
“cyclist, you are your own worst enemies”
Great new moto!!!
How can you directly criticize a political party and then say "I don't want to get involved in a political debate?"
I was trying to explain that opposition political parties can't build solid actual projects you can touch because they don't have the authority to spend taxpayers funds. But you're obviously not interested so I won't bother trying to explain again what a majority is, how legislation gets passed, what the role of the opposition is in our democracy etc.
I agree that cycling would get more funding if it was supported by all political parties. I encourage you to contact your local National or ACT MP and ask for their support. They will listen more keenly to you as a possible voter than they will to anybody else.
My bad, confused as to who arranged and funded this "Smart Transport" conference. The impression I had was it was a private org that had invited political parties to attend which National declined.
But now realize it was a political conference "sponsored" by the Greens and Labour with politicians on the panel so can understand why National declined.
Have I got this right?
@BG I think that we can interpret by the National Party's non attendance is their lack of interest in #smarttransport options. National are still focused on road building rather than providing a range of alternatives such as PT, walking & cycling. That looks clear from what I have read and understand about the political landscape. Transport and cycling could be a non political thing and we would all love the Nats to get behind sustainable transport. Alas, it is not looking likely at the moment.
When I track through all your comments on this website, I get the feeling that your motivation for being on the comments pages is far from genuine. It is just mischievous and tiring. There is lots of good stuff going on and there are a lot of people working hard to make transport and cycling better for Auckland.
fair call mark.my intentions were in a different place before I realized the wrong peeps are trying to make the wrong changes.
Your also right about the nats. Labour did so much for cycling in the 9 years they had – yeah right!
“cyclist, we peddle with our mouths”
Pingback: No disclosure | Kiwiblog
There is an opposition to the National parties current vision of transport. Good to see…
http://wwf.org.nz/?7923%2FPoll-shows-most-kiwis-disagree-with-big-spending-on-roads
Pingback: The Smart Transport Conference DAY 1 | Cycling in Auckland « Nowoczesne przeprowadzki