Ward Mike: Road Traffic Reduction Bill — Second Reading 
Ward Mike: Road Traffic Reduction Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11145] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 Helen Duncan says the Greens do not like cars. It is not that we do not like them we just do not like the things they do. I do not know how to drive but my wife has a car. My father gave her his car. I asked my father whether he meant that he wanted me to use my money to keep his car going after he died. 
Our cities were designed around the car. It takes a special effort in fact to live without a motorcar. Most Greens own a motorcar. Most people own a motorcar. It is difficult to live without one. One has to make other choices. This bill is an attempt to make those other choices possible to make them easier to access. Peter Brown made the point that our roads are woefully inadequate. If we build more of them we will wind up with more woefully inadequate roads. Peter Brown also mentioned that bus services needed to be affordable regular and comfortable. That is the purpose of this legislation. Peter Brown also said that driving is a pleasurable activity. It could be it can be but much of the time it is not. If this bill is successful and we trust it will be it will make driving a more pleasurable activity for those people who have to drive who have no other choice. 
Peter Brown says we would be one of the few countries in the world that treat our transport in such a frivolous manner. The kinds of measures in this legislation are not cutting edge. They happen in Europe they happen in many other parts of the world and I will talk about some of those. But the Road Traffic Reduction Bill is an interesting document. It is a hate it or love it document. There were not too many lukewarm submissions. Some referred to the bill as being anti-business. Rural communities appeared to believe that the passage of the bill would oblige them to get their stock to the works by bicycle or public transport. Others saw it as the death knell of the motorcar. They would be prised out of their prized autos and forced to walk or sit next to someone else—heaven forbid—on a bus or in a carpool. They seemed always to say they would be sweating as well. That was one other thing. 
The bill of course proposes none of these things. It is a very practical element in any modern transport strategy. It recognises that making cars easier to own faster and more comfortable and building more roads to accommodate them has not made it easier to move people or products or reduced travel times. The perception of those who opposed the bill was that more cars are inevitable—Peter Brown is typical of this—and that people were not about to change their travelling habits. Such a perception fails to account for those who cannot drive yet; those who are too young too old or too disabled to drive; those who choose not to drive; or the vast majority of us who already use a variety of means of getting around of which the motorcar is but one. 
The “more cars are inevitable” mindset also fails to acknowledge cities like Wellington where over 20 percent of the people entering the city each day have already made the choice to come by public transport and many others have decided to walk. In Western Australia the TravelSmart scheme identified 40 percent of the population who were already making an effort to travel wisely and the 40 percent who were likely to be persuaded to leave their cars at home. In one year traffic volumes reduced by 17 percent. If the Western Australians can do it New Zealanders can do it. 
Supportive submissions came from groups as diverse as cycling advocates public health authorities local authorities and trade unions. Sometimes that support was qualified but generally it recognised that even if it were possible to solve transport problems by building more roads such a strategy failed to address the numerous negative consequences. The Waitakere City Council stated in its submission: “If we are able to deliver high-quality living environments to our people we need to be able to manage and reduce the demand for motorised travel.” While many groups appeared to believe that the bill would undermine business the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions supported the bill and stated that it was interested in traffic solutions that ensured affordable public transport options. The council acknowledged that a reduction in road traffic would confer real social advantages particularly in safety and health and that in fact it would be good for regional development. 
Stacey Gasson from Johnsonville identified the health risks imposed by motorcars and the new sedentary lifestyles. People who climb into motorcars do not exercise. They do get fatter they do get ill they do get cardiovascular disease they do get Type 2 diabetes and they also threaten those who would choose to cycle or walk. 
The Public Health Association of New Zealand and the Auckland District Health Board supported the purpose of the bill and the measures to enhance environmental quality in the health safety and well-being of people in communities. The Auckland District Health Board particularly commented on the estimated 253 people who die prematurely each year from exposure to vehicle fumes. They also point out the use of rewards and penalties that encourage good behaviour like the Onewa Road fast lane in Northcote whereby drivers can travel in that lane if they have more than three people in their car. So communities are already making smart moves to get people to get out of their cars or share their cars. 
The Cycling Advocates Network points out that many of its members are also motorists. While they acknowledge that there is a considerable benefit to cyclists in the Road Traffic Reduction Bill the bill can have benefits for all road users including time benefits for those who continue to make trips in motor vehicles and that during rush hours cyclists regularly arrive at a destination before motorists who are making similar journeys. I might add that yesterday I travelled in from the airport. I came on my tricycle. I left 5 minutes after Ian Ewen-Street left in his taxi. He was actually bringing my bags in. I had 10 minutes to wait after I got here before he arrived. It took me quarter of an hour less to get in from the airport on a tricycle. I had to go via the waterfront I might add. He came through the tunnel. 
The Cycling Advocates Network points out to “the Road Traffic Reduction Bill is anti-business” lobby that shifting people and goods on to other modes of transport— for example public transport and rail—enables goods and services that must travel by road to do so more conveniently. It also points out that regular commuter challenges such as the ones held in Christchurch consistently show that cycling is the fastest option door to door during rush hour for typical work journeys. There has also been the view that such a bill while laudable in its aims is not at all practical in terms of being able to succeed because of our ever-increasing growth in traffic demand. This misses the point that these traffic projections are always based on extrapolating historical trends as a result of traditional pro - motor vehicle policies which the bill aims to change. Such trends have been successfully overturned overseas and with general public acceptance. There is no reason why a similar approach cannot succeed in New Zealand. For example the TravelSmart programme in Western Australia which I mentioned before achieved a 17 percent reduction in car use over the space of 1 year. That is an amazing drop in vehicle volumes. If we do that in Auckland the traffic will move smoothly all the time. A close-to-home example that members of the select committee may well be familiar with he says is the drop in traffic congestion during school holidays. The incorporation in the Land Transport Management Act is a good outcome. 
For those who believe that the bulk of submissions oppose the bill I would point out that the submissions process is not a popularity poll. If making decisions were simply about counting heads our job would be unnecessary. Our task is to listen to our communities to weigh up the arguments and to come to decisions that accommodate those valid arguments. Many of those opposing the bill when pushed simply rejected the idea of compulsion. The bill does not talk about compulsion. The Land Transport Management Act is a much better piece of legislation because of the inclusion of the principles of the Road Traffic Reduction Bill. The Road Traffic Reduction Bill has resulted in transport legislation that just might begin to address the absurdity of vast numbers of people sitting in motor vehicles on their own travelling very slowly—night and morning—to and from places they should have chosen to live much closer to in the first place. I am delighted that this bill has in fact been incorporated into the larger Land Transport Management Act and I look forward to a future in which we start to live in a way that is a little more within the capacity of the planet to provide and gives ourselves more time to enjoy the process.