The Centre for Resource Management Studies

From Owen McShane, Director.

Media release (immediate) 23rd September 2009
Wendell Cox writes on:

Traffic Congestion, Time, Money & Productivity.

Today’s editorial in the New Zealand Herald raises serious doubts about the wisdom of the Auckland Regional Council’s ‘green’ transport strategy. (ARC’s ‘green’ transport plan ignores reality.) The editorial writer actually declares the “unthinkable” and reminds readers and government of the reality of living and working in Auckland.

Auckland is not and never will be a "compact and contained urban form". Its environment and terrain invite sprawl. The regional plan has been trying for 10 years to contain coastal ribbon development and force population growth into higher-density concentrations near railway stations. Aucklanders have resisted for good reason. They have come to the region for its coastlines and climate. Planners of land use and transport need to work with the demonstrable demand, not against it. This is a remarkable change in the conventional wisdom. Brian Rudman, for one, must be spinning in his cocoon.

For some decades the boosters of public transport and the enemies of personal mobility have dominated the debates regarding urban growth and development by simply making assertions, having superficial appeal, because of a mixture of nostalgia and simple-minded notions about efficiency and energy use. It has taken some time for the urban and transport economists to respond with well-researched challenges, if only because such genuine research takes some time, compared to listing simple faith-based assertions.

Wendell Cox has now done us all a great favour by bringing together these recent findings from around the world and gathering them into this essay “Traffic Congestion, Time, Money & Productivity” which is also on the New Geography website. From our point of view, the timing could not be better. Our Government is setting up a new Super City government of Auckland, which will hopefully make decisions based on such research rather than nostalgic visions of the past. And if we are to close the productivity gap with Australia then we must take note of these findings because the Australians have already done so and are already implementing them. Wendell opens with the following paragraphs in praise of productivity:

It is an old saying, but true as ever: “Time is money.” A company that can produce quality products in less time than its competitors is likely to be more profitable and productive. An urban area where employees travel less time to get to work is likely to be more productive than one where travel times are longer, all things being equal. Productivity is a principal aim of economic policy. Productivity means greater economic growth, greater job creation and less poverty.

Which is clear enough and hard to deny.

He then proceeds to shatter a few myths – transport planners please take note:

Hartgen and Lee looked at five sample work destinations in each urban area, the central business district, the airport, a university, a mall and a major suburb. The results by sub-region were surprising:

“Contrary to conventional planning wisdom, the research suggests that regional economies might be more dependent on access to major suburbs, malls and universities than on access to downtowns or airports. Not only are models of productivity somewhat stronger for these sites than for CBD accessibility, but access to them has a stronger effect on regional productivity.

The research indicates that achieving free flow traffic conditions to major suburbs, universities and malls would increase gross domestic products by from 6 to 30 percent. The gain in central business districts would be between 4 and 10 percent, while airports showed the least potential for adding to urban productivity, at 2 to 8 percent. These productivity gains are far from unachievable." The concluding paragraph sums it up:

It’s the Economy, Stupid: The United States has had enough recent experience with rising unemployment and falling economic performance. It hardly needs public policies that would increase travel time, reduce productivity and increase poverty, no matter how fervently and sincerely held are the misconceptions of the proponents. Hartgen and Fields have provided an invaluable work that could not have come at a better time. Read the whole paper here. Then make sure everyone involved in managing transport in our cities reads it too.

And while they are at it, refer them to this essay from “The New City”, which concludes:

Unless planners ditch their utopian dreams and integrate academic research with social reality, they face increasing alienation from the policymaking process.

ENDS

© Scoop Media