https://www.transport.govt.nz/multi-modal/keystrategiesandplans/gpsonlandtransportfunding/gps-2021/ due 11.5
Email for questions & subs gps@transport.govt.nz
Central government’s policy document for what it hopes to achieve in transport over the next 10 years.
This is a BIG policy document which sets transport funding for at least 3 years. If you want an idea as to funding see Point 69 and Activity Class Funding. Cycling and walking together will get around 2.4% of the total budget, but include government’s roading heavy Upgrade Programme which provides $6.8 billion and that drops by more than half.
At the very least just write up why funding for walking and cycling needs to be at least 25% of the transport budget. Even NZTA reports that 75% of Kiwis want to ride, but find the roads intimidating. The need and desire are there and central government is not meeting it in this Government Policy Statement (GPS).
Submission
“If we know the ETS prices will be tripling or quadrupling over the next 10 years, say, that would let forecasters start making projections about transport demand and we will know what to invest in, based on expected price of petrol and other things.
– NZ Initiative chief economist Eric Crampton
Key Points
To achieve the goals set by this GPS funding for those activities and modes most likely to achieve quick and lasting change will need to be prioritised. Intent will need to be clearly stated replacing conditional language with requirements.
Spokes Canterbury supports:
- Increased funding for Public Transport(PT)
- Increase funding for Active Transport(AT) to at least 25% of transport funding
- Acknowledge that building roads encourages driving and is unsustainable
- Recognition that cycling and walking infrastructure offer better value for money than motorized options
- Favouring Urban development which concentrates housing and employment to allow sustainable transport
- Increased funding for rail and coastal transport
- Require comprehensive Value for Money Cost Benefit Analysis for all proposals
- Final Transport GPS to be aligned with and in support of Zero Carbon Act as directed by the Climate Change Commission
“We’ve made a commitment as a nation to get to zero net carbon by 2050, and we all have a part to play. The time for prevarication is over.”
-Associate Professor Janet Stephenson, Director of the Centre for Sustainability at the University of Otago
Preface
This GPS puts the government at odds with itself.
The Zero Carbon Act commits to reducing Green House Gas emissions. The Carbon Commission has made clear that our post Covid-19 response must be transformative. [1]
NZTA’s Innovating Streets for People Pilot set about re-imagining public space and reallocating street space to help councils create more people-friendly roads and spaces. NZTA’s Accessible Streets seeks to further develop that initiative.
The NZ Upgrade Programme has been roundly criticized as its projects add to greenhouse gas emissions by entrenching high emissions “shovel ready” transport projects.
Quoting environmental planning professor Iain White “the nature of ‘shovel-ready’ infrastructure projects is that they reveal both the measurement systems and priorities of the past, and not necessarily the future.”
This GPS must set policy which delivers for the future. Sadly this GPS is more “shovel ready” while posing as responsible and future focused.
NZ needs a transport GPS consistent with policy which finally delivers the transformational change too long denied and required. NZ cannot afford the business as usual approach which continues to fail us.
This draft GPS needs to state clearly government’s commitment to the changes needed. It needs to strongly mitigate the impacts of the NZ Upgrade Programme to achieve the rapid and significant changes needed to how we travel, ship freight and how we develop our urban areas.
This GPS undermines its own promise of mode neutrality by prioritizing funding for motorized transport, be it freight, Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOV’s) or PT. “the best, value-for-money transport solutions to deliver transport outcomes.” will not be delivered if funding is not provided.
Climate Change Minister James Shaw puts it simply “If we spend the next few years restoring business as usual, we will have only a few years left to transform that business as usual into something else. It simply won’t be able to be done. [2]
Active Travel
At what point will the fundamental human rights of people who would like or need to walk or bicycle be recognized and adequately funded? It is not found in this GPS which fails to take advantage of the many benefits Active Transport (AT) offers. This GPS is business as usual (bau), focused on roads for cars & trucks first, Public Transport (PT) second with a relative pittance for Active Transport, rail and coastal transport.
This GPS fails to even accurately take into account the costs and contributions of transport modes. A gross example is that cycling is not even acknowledged as sustainable. Sustainability is mentioned for Coastal shipping, the Provincial Growth Fund promises it, future energy generation will be, even tourism can be made sustainable; but cycling fails to warrant a mention as sustainable. Omissions like this undermine its credibility leaving the GPS hobbled and losing out on the many opportunities which walking and cycling offer to achieve the GPS’s stated goals.
Cycling is mentioned. Yet, the percentage of people cycling, the rapid increases as cycle infrastructure has been provided and even the pent up demand for cycling is not recognized, certainly not embraced and woefully underfunded.
The quick affordable wins cycling offers are not mentioned. To overcome the bias towards motorized transport they need to be stated, prioritized and funded. Quiet Streets, traffic calming, “pots and planters” to reallocate carriageway space, cycle lanes, intersection improvements, road user education and promotion, off road cycle paths along water ways, railways, etc. are all easy wins. To move transport planners and projects away from bau this level of detail and clear support is called for in the GPS.
NZTA reports that 75% of Kiwis want safe cycling infrastructure so they can bike. The lock down filled the roads with families on bicycles. This GPS will force many of them to remain in their cars.
This GPS must deliver the transport change needed for NZ to be self-reliant, sustainable and healthy which people need now and for the future.
Refocusing for Change
The reticence to acknowledge, let alone advance the change required to support AT is found throughout this GPS.
Major social change and personal travel habits change in response to changed conditions. The pandemic has seen roads retaken by people on bicycles. People want the ease and social distancing which AT offers. PT use in Sydney in March 2020 fell by almost 75% in response to the pandemic.[1] PT is important. Both the present and future require at least equal funding for AT to support people to choose to walk and cycle. This GPS gives bau 57% of funding and 2.8%, at best, to AT. Commit 25% of the transport funding to AT and 25% to PT at a minimum.
To accomplish the stated goals the final GPS must feature and exploit the obvious, economic, health, climate and generation spanning contributions of both AT and PT. We cannot drive our way out of disaster, even in EV’s.
Walking and cycling are not the same activity. Both must be advanced and will often require individualized infrastructure to succeed. They cannot just be lumped together. That they are included is progress, that the funding remains less than 3%, at best, of the transport spend is negligence.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/apr/22/bicycles-are-the-new-toilet-paper-bike-sales-boom-as-coronavirus-lockdown-residents-crave-exercise “Public transport usage in Sydney fell by about 75% in March, Transport for New South Wales reported, with the fewest number of people using the city’s rail, bus and ferry network in almost a century.”
The GPS Points 1-152
Sections of the GPS are critiqued to indicate needed changes and in some instances suggested text is offered.
Point 2 add Waka Kotahi and the land transport system to include and be directed by Climate Change Commission and the Ministry for the Environment to best achieve Greenhouse Gas reductions and environmental sustainability.
Point 8 promises mode-neutrality while furthering bau transport.
NZ has neglected both AT and PT for decades. The bulk of transport funding has gone to roading. Mode neutrality has not been practiced. This draft GPS further disadvantages AT, PT, rail and coastal shipping as is illustrated by the proposed funding levels. It is not mode neutral, it is bau by stealth.
For this GPS to change how Kiwis travel it must acknowledge that transport spending has not been mode neutral. To support sustainability, safety and reductions in greenhouse gases it needs to state plainly how it will be done. It will require change and prioritizing modes which deliver those goals.
Point 9 is misleading in the extreme. The funding ranges given clearly support bau with the exception of funding for PT.
Coastal Shipping is woefully underfunded and limited to shipping without recognition of its past in providing passenger transport between main centres.
Point 10 is misleading. With cycling in Christchurch at 6-7% of peak travel and other areas finding rapid increases as infrastructure is provided it is clear that cycling is both unfairly underfunded and underutilized in this GPS.
Point 11 is in direct conflict with mode neutrality.
Point 12 further undermines mode neutrality by promising new investment to programs which are mainly PT and roading based.
Point 13 the $6.8 billion inequitably funds roading and freight. Mode neutrality is further undermined. Make this clear and refocus the GPS to counter this.
Point 19 mentions expectations that government is seeking to achieve. This GPS needs to be clear, using unambiguous language, not conditional language. The goals stated to be clearly supported.
Point 21 undermines mode neutrality as the examples given are state highways and public transport, the modes receiving the bulk of funding. If this is what government wants, state it clearly. Don’t pretend it is mode neutral.
Point 30 states the importance of local government and local community engagement in transport planning. Yet current practice typically excludes walking and cycling advocacy groups, selects “stakeholders” opaquely and inconsistently and plans are often immune to input from consultation. This GPS needs to mandate transparency, inclusiveness, empowerment and that plans must be amenable in response to input.
Points 36-8 need to make clear and give examples of how Kiwi Rail will be instrumental in providing for PT needs both within and between regions.
Transport Outcomes Framework
Points 50-1 acknowledge that the draft GPS is superior to and compromises the Framework. Merge and redraft to put the Framework goals first with the GPS subservient to and in support of.
Point 52 needs to be made an overriding criterion for transport decision making. All transport projects need to not just reduce emissions, but to favour the option with the greatest impact in both the short and long term. Alternatives to projects must be developed and assessed. The potential current and future costs of environmental impacts are to be included in cost benefit analysis. Include review and direction from the Climate Change Commission.
Point 54 must be made to comply with the newly empowered point 52.
Point 55 will need to have a priority for AT mandated if the transport culture and practice changes desired are to be achieved.
Point 56 can all too easily further entrench unsustainable transport by its insistence on maintaining existing networks. Clarify that this does not imply or require that all existing infrastructure be retained or maintained as is, that infrastructure can be repurposed to support AT and PT or abandoned. The freight network wording needs to commit to refocusing on rail and sea freight. It makes sense to focus Road to Zero where accidents are the most frequent. Equally sensible is to increase the number of vulnerable road users in urban areas to improve safety and meet multiple goals.
Point 57 link and include in both road safety and public health the health benefits of AT. AT has been shown to increase worker productivity and can save the hundreds of millions in reduced health costs as regular exercise reduces the incidence of diabetes and other diseases associated with inactivity.[4]
Conversely include the health costs of inactivity from driving along with the impacts on air quality and environment and climate to be debited when making value for money calculations.[5]
Safety
Point 58 for inclusive access to be achieved funding as a percentage must be greatly increased. To support this cite how micro mobility supports Economic Prosperity and Resilience, health and safety. Note also that for some; AT is their only choice due to health or expense or access to other modes. Access will not be inclusive until quality infrastructure is provided and the lives of those who cycle are valued as evidenced by promotion, education and enforcement. Fund accordingly.
To deliver these outcomes make the first requirement that all funding seek a balance of long term returns, emission reductions and health benefits. Move PT, Rail and urban planning to the following positions to emphasize that continuing to prioritize roading solutions is not intended.
Point 60 must include data collection on transport modes involved and responsibility for accidents to allow better targeting of mitigations.
Better Travel Options
Point 62 Economic prosperity needs to make the case for AT first. AT keeps more dollars local as they are not exported to purchase vehicles, fuel, parts while reducing the burden on ratepayers to fund a primarily SoV motorized transport system. PT is important, but lacks the economic and environmental impacts of AT and does not have the user acceptance of AT when true mode choice is available. AT increases resilience and security as people are healthier, fitter at ease with walking and cycling. They reduce congestion enabling emergency vehicles easier access. Featuring “key routes” first enables bau. [6]
What will be delivered by 2031 is too little too late. “improved access” “more available” “increased share” and “reduced” are not aspirational or transformative, they are weak, conditional language allowing noncompliance. Make clear what is required as well as what are mere suggestions all too easily ignored.
The specific actions which follow are introduced with a clear message that bau will be maintained. “Optimise and maintain existing transport networks so it is accessible for all people to get to places where they live, work and play in comfort, reliably, and in reasonable time.” If the intent here is to allow AT to utilise existing networks it needs to be stated clearly. The final GPS will need to make clear that time is of the essence and that AT is the obvious first choice.
Point 64 needs to include how frequently data will be made public and how detailed. A least require annual reporting, quarterly would be better. The method for data collection also needs to be described. Data needs to be collected in cities and routes where improvements have been made, compared to pre and post work and whether a network was furthered or a disconnected fragment provided. The context, the contribution to complete networks makes a difference. Make it all publicly available online in real time.
The GPS, Waka Kotahi and the land transport system should have an active role in contributing to New Zealand’s climate change commitments through reducing road transport emissions.
Freight Connections
Point 66, include AT as improving economic prosperity as fuel inefficient high pollution emitting urban freight can be made by cargo bike. Unlike EV’s they export few dollars overseas and reduce congestion. Under resilience and security add that cargo bikes can continue to operate when fuel is scarce and roads marginal. Add cargo bikes under environmental sustainability and climate change.
Points 67-68 include data on cargo bike use and impact in urban areas including congestion and pollution reduction along with the other metrics. Require urban & regional freight routes to offer safe adequate infrastructure when equally direct cycle routes with good infrastructure are not available.
Climate Change
Point 69 is extremely troubling as it misleads. “Investment decisions will support the rapid transition to a low carbon transport system” Note that a rapid transition is called for. Looking at the funding finds that AT receives less than 2.8%, at best of the budget. PT gets 23%, Sea 0.02%, Rail 2.05% and bau roading 56.9%. The investment decisions do not support the text. Funding is where commitments are truly made. Change funding levels or change wording to make clear the decisions implemented via funding.
Government needs to decide; will NZ benefit from the essential transition to sustainable transport, will the Zero Carbon Act be supported, or will this GPS pose as providing needed change while continuing primarily bau transport?
Also of note is that climate change and environmental sustainability are not credited with moving NZ to a more prosperous economy. While much can be debated it is undeniable that a bau approach to transport and climate change will cost us dearly while leaving NZ unprepared for the future. Change the wording to include climate change and sustainability.
Inclusive Access is great. The language here needs to do more than to describe or suggest actions which will help, it needs to make commitments. Rail and sea get mentioned here, cargo bikes need to be included. All need to be prioritized and committed to.
Healthy and safe people needs to itemize and commit to how more walking and cycling will be supported in our urban areas. Support this with increased funding. [7]
Resilience and security will not be achievable without actually achieving zero carbon as soon as possible. Planning to mitigate without also committing to cut dramatically will be more challenging, expensive and less successful. State this here. Make readers and policy implementers clear as to why the policy is transformative, imperative and what is at stake if they fail.
Points 70-77 are appreciated. They need to be backed up by the funding allocations. Point 72 reminds us that “investment decisions made today will have long term implications for emissions.” Heed that. Point 75 needs to add the Climate Change Commission and the Ministry for the Environment.
Point 78 & 79 need to include urban, suburban and rural data on whether people find they can choose AT or PT easily, safely, reliably, affordably. Both capital and operational spending on all modes needs to be broken out and stated to offer possible reasons why goals are not being achieved.
Point 80, Table 1 measures actions taken against the criterion of Health, Inclusivity, Economics, Resilience and Environment. Many of the actions fail to include all of their impacts.
- Road deaths to include Resilience and Environment. Roads hobbled by accidents and environment suffering from the waste and pollution of accidents are both relevant. Include financial, social and human costs of accidents in metrics.
- A safer network to include economy and environment. More AT will result in more dollars in the local economy and better environmental sustainability. Include road user education and promotion in metrics.
- Improved access ticks all the boxes.
- Ticks all the boxes while merging PT and AT without offering metrics for AT. Rewrite accordingly.
- Ticks all the boxes while merging PT and AT without offering metrics for AT. Rewrite accordingly.
- Include AT as a mode and add inclusivity. Add urban deliveries in metrics.
- More resilient freight routes for all modes tick the boxes of economic, environment and inclusiveness. Add urban deliveries in metrics.
- Reduced greenhouse gasses ticks all the boxes. People are healthier, more inclined to use AT when environment is cleaner, the economy is not burdened with the cost of carbon offsets and as a result NZ is more resilient.
- Reduced air and noise pollution ticks all the boxes by reducing the stress of both on people, encourages AT and improves economic productivity and resilience through better worker health. Add the number of people suffering from health conditions exacerbated by air and noise pollution.
Funding & Value for Money
Taken as a Whole
Spokes strongly supports that value for money is to be applied to all projects as called for in points 89,92,94,103 and others. The criteria for analysis must be inclusive.
A robust cost benefit analysis requires that environmental impacts, the need to change transport behaviour to be sustainable, affordable and of benefit to or at least not a burden on future generations are included. Other factors are raised with point 92’s emphasis on whole of life costs, long and short term, monetized and non are important and must be applied further than to just funding options. Point 94 needs stronger wording to require that all alternative modes be included. State clearly that alternative modes applied either in whole or part be a part of cost benefit analysis. Point 103 supports lead investments, those which anticipate future demand, apply this to the likely mode shifts which meeting carbon neutral goals, sustainability and affordability will require.
Points 81-93 provide factors which may or will be included in assessing value for money without actually providing a readily applicable value for money process, details or clarity on what must be included. Rewrite accordingly providing the details, possible models to be used for assessment, requirements.
Point 83, Value Capture needs to be made mandatory. Public investments in transport infrastructure have an outsized impact on land values. Investments which create value must, not should, recapture that value from those benefited.
Add to the procurement approach factors such as number of jobs created, local economic impact, NZ jobs or business created or benefited versus overseas vendors.
Points 83-4 intergenerational projects must include all costs to future generations. Carbon intensive infrastructure increases carbon debt/impact, account for it. Climate and sea level rise impacts and likely changes in transport needs and modes must be included. The full impact of increased costs from public private partnerships must be factored in to value for money calculations, compared against government borrowing or direct funding alternatives and publicly reported. All data and reporting to be made public on line in real time.
Point 85 shifting transport spending to cities has the potential to make transport spending and borrowing costs opaque while increasing costs. Require full disclosure and comparison of the cost of funding options at national and local level, how each impacts local and/or central government debt.
Point 86 the transport funding toolkit will state clearly the benefits, challenges and full costs offered and/or incurred from the funding options it describes.
Add to: Detail how “opportunities for value capture and/or realising the value to communities of land use changes that can be optimised by land transport investment” will be secured. Mandate them.
Point 87 when assessing “today’s needs” the intergenerational impacts of projects must be included. Where those impacts incur costs these must be factored into decision making and value for money calculations.
This language “without unreasonably curtailing the discretion of decision-makers” is troubling as it could easily be used to circumvent the GPS and must be tightened up.
Point 88 this point to be made an opening requirement for the entirety of the GPS.
Transparency is required for good decision making. Providing online real time no fee access to the public is vital. The excuse of “commercially sensitive” allows for less than optimal decision making by restricting the free flow of information which is a basic requirement for fully free markets to work. Monopolies, cartels, and corruption thrive in secrecy.
Point 91 Add: Funding applicants need to show that they fully considered alternatives, environmental and social impacts, severance and climate change. This includes considering other transport mode options and whether there are better ways to operate and maintain the existing land transport system before considering expansions or new works.
Point 92 add text to require inclusion of costs and benefits for future generations. Does the project commit land and resources which may create a future burden?
Points 94-7 Demand management needs stronger, unconditional language. Mandate that the contributions of demand management, mode shift and supporting services or behaviour changes be assessed including the outcomes if the entirety of the projected spend were applied to alleviate the need for or alternatives to the proposed transport project. Where a project goes ahead; mandate that it provide infrastructure for all modes which might realistically utilize the route if infrastructure was provided.
Point 98 change expects to requires.
Points 99-102 the focus on innovation is appreciated. That this emphasis is not applied to the benefits of AT is a serious flaw to be remedied. Rewrite.
Point 103 is appreciated, but misses’ inclusion of environmental impacts/benefits and long term usefulness along with value for money.
Point 105 states that funds be used to address “today’s transport priorities”. Delete this point or change language lest it serve as an excuse for neglecting the long term and environmental impacts of transport projects, the need for mode change and be an excuse for bau.
Point 106 furthers bau by failing to allow increases to excise tax and RUC. Neither covers the full costs of the road transport network currently. While politically expedient it will hobble the goals of this GPS.
Points 113-114 make clear that funding can come from more than one class when a project delivers more than one result. Currently; the AT elements of a major roading project come from that project’s funds, not from specific AT funding.
Billions are to be spent on roading projects some which will include AT elements. Due to minimal funding for AT two undesirable outcomes are likely:
- the bulk or all of AT funds will be used to support AT elements of those highway projects leaving little or nothing for targeted AT specific projects,
- AT elements will be dropped from projects due to lack of funds.
This GPS must either increase AT funding substantially or except AT from this requirement.
New Activity Classes
Road to Zero
Points 118-120 vulnerable road users and road user education need to be prioritized in this section. With $1.5 billion in central government funding and $1.2 billion in local government funding to be invested in local infrastructure it is important that a good portion of that go to protect vulnerable road users and to increase the skills of all road users.
Current enforcement efforts are not adequate with police either unable or unwilling to act on many documented often witness and photo/video verified reports from the public. NZ desperately needs driver and road user education along with enforcement to achieve Road to Zero.
Rail
Points 122-124 provide funding to maintain and renew the rail network. Commitment to expansion is required and where that is accomplished through funding outside of the NLTF it should be referenced in detail here to provide a clear picture of what the government seeks to achieve and the funding provided.
Public Transport
Points 125-127 need to state clearly that PT funding may come from other activity classes where PT offsets the need for new or expanded roading infrastructure similar to the text in point 119. Apply this to all activity classes. This may go some ways to mitigating past underfunding for PT.
Coastal Shipping
Point 129 states mode neutrality while continuing to underfund coastal shipping The funding for coastal shipping does not compensate for the inertial advantage given to road and even rail transport. Change language to acknowledge the disparity, the need to overcome it and reallocate funding.
Activity Class Funding
A new Point is required to mandate that selection of upper or lower spending levels will be applied to all activity classes in a given year so as not to allow unequal application to undermine the GPS goals.
Point 130/Table 3
Experience has been that only the first 3 years of projections have a good likelihood of being adhered to. Comments are on the first 3 years only.
The goals of mode change and support or neutrality are not well supported by the funding allocations. Based on the activity classes and high and low funding ranges the favoured classes are Road to Zero, both State Highway classes and Local Road maintenance receive an increase as a percentage of budget in the lower range. Together they receive 57% of the lower level funding and 59% of upper level funding in the first year.
AT, has a low of 2.5% and high of 2.8% of the budget at the upper and falls to 2.1% in the lower range. This level of funding does not support the mode choice goal for AT nor the many easily and quickly obtained benefits which AT offers. is particularly disappointing when other categories, state highway and local roads maintenance for example, see increases from 2024/25. Create new classes for walking and cycling maintenance to maintain current and new AT infrastructure.
The GPS needs to dramatically increase AT spending to at least 25% of budget in both high and low spending scenarios. Including the Upgrade Programme support for AT is further undermined when the year 2024/25 budget finds the same funding as in the current GPS. This is not mode neutral, change, transformative or even in alignment with the stated goals.
NZ Upgrade Programme
Points 136-137, the GPS must focus language and funding to mitigate the Upgrade Programme “Shovel Ready” skewing of transport funding. Driven by government’s desire for quick it features bau projects including many with poor or negative value for money returns. The full detail of this $6.8 billion in funding should be included here to allow a better picture of funding across activity classes. Excluding it here furthers bau transport and the impression that more change is accomplished by this GPS than it actually does. Table 6 to be expanded to show both the upgrade programme and fund contributions across activity classes. Add text detailing where the upgrade funding is not conforming to the goals of the GPS.
Points 138-9, delete and replace with the detailed Table 6 called for above.
Point 140 retain the first sentence only.
Ministerial Expectations
Point 143 needs to include:
- Environmental impacts and costs, including non-financial
- Greenhouse gas impacts
- Likely use value or impacts for future generations
- Overall impacts of expanding urban transport to green fields areas
- Fairness of intergenerational funding when accounting for all impacts
Point 144 add to the list will publicly report in real time online to assure full transparency.
Point 145 needs to include goals and reporting for AT, PT and Coastal Shipping similar to those specified for Road to Zero, LGWM, ATAP, Rail.
Point 147 add more actively influence the way local government designs and delivers active transport infrastructure. This includes adopting world class AT infrastructure standards developed in partnership with cycling and walking advocacy groups and driving more integrated planning of transport solutions at a local level. Upgrade Waka Kotahi’s Cycling Network Guidance to standards which can be exceeded.
Point 148 edit the first point to: The Minister expects Waka Kotahi will:
¬ work collaboratively with others including advocacy and public interest groups and individuals to better understand, promote and facilitate innovative solutions across the transport system. This includes, but is not limited to….
Point 149 needs rewriting to provide clarity. It conflates project types, mode neutrality and funding options. On its face it conflicts with the ability to draw funding from each mode activity class benefited. It calls for mode neutrality, co-benefits and a fit for purpose investment process while offering the option for local government to forgo mode neutrality by not assigning activity class(es) to projects. Please separate out the issues and rewrite.
Point 150 needs a definition for “minor investment decisions”.
Point 151 Edit: “collect, maintain and publish online and in real time accurate, reliable and relevant, open (land transport) data”
Add: In all instances seek to avoid non-disclosure due to “commercial sensitivity” or similar rationales and to explicitly state the reasons when it is invoked.
“integrate transport evidence with evidence from other areas including land use, economic development, environmental impacts, Greenhouse gas impacts, and personal and public health”
Appendix 1
Include actual current and projected budget figures and funding flows to allow better understanding of the funding relationships.
Footnotes
[1] Climate Commission’s six principles are:
Principle 1: Consider how stimulus investments can deliver long-term climate benefits
Principle 2: Bring forward transformational climate change investments that need to happen anyway
Principle 3: Prepare our workforce for the jobs of tomorrow
Principle 4: Work in partnership
Principle 5: Maintain incentives to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change
Principle 6: Change how we measure the success of economic recovery https://ccc-production-media.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/public/Climate-Commission-advice-re-stimulus.pdf
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2020/apr/23/covid-19-crisis-reset-economies-sustainable-footing
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/apr/22/bicycles-are-the-new-toilet-paper-bike-sales-boom-as-coronavirus-lockdown-residents-crave-exercise “Public transport usage in Sydney fell by about 75% in March, Transport for New South Wales reported, with the fewest number of people using the city’s rail, bus and ferry network in almost a century.”
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/apr/20/its-good-to-hear-cycling-to-work-reduces-your-risk-of-dying-but-thats-not-why-i-do-it http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/feb/20/air-pollution-cyclists-bike-blog
[5] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10821702 because the researchers could not robustly assess nitrogen dioxide levels, they expect the latest figures probably underestimate the impact of motor-vehicle air pollution.
[6] https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/news-events-and-notices/news/news-2014/02/cycling-infrastructure-more-economic-than-for-other-transport.html http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/359/ https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/economic-benefits-of-walking-and-cycling http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2015/03/the-complete-business-case-for-converting-street-parking-into-bike-lanes/387595/?utm_source=SFFB https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200422151318.htm
[7] https://capovelo.com/new-study-suggests-cycling-lanes-reduce-fatalities-for-all-road-users/ http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/05/debunking-the-myth-that-only-drivers-pay-for-roads/393134/
