Submission on
Proposed Changes to Transfund's Project Evaluation Procedures
About CAN
The Cycling Advocates' Network of NZ (CAN) Inc is this country's national network of cycling advocates. It is a voice for recreational, commuter and touring cyclists. We work with central government and local authorities, on behalf of cyclists, for a better cycling environment. We have affiliated groups and individual members throughout the country, and links with overseas cycling organisations. In addition, several national/regional/local government authorities, transportation consultancies, and cycle industry companies are supporting organisations.
The national committee of the group has prepared this submission.  You can find our names on our website http://www.can.org.nz/ under 'contacts -> office holders'  
Our postal address is: PO Box 6491; Wellesley St; Auckland
Our e-mail address is: secretary@can.org.nz
General
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on these interesting developments in project evaluation. CAN has based its submission on reviews of the relevant discussion document and background research material, as well as feedback from attending one of the recent industry workshops. If you require any clarification of the points raised by us, please feel free to contact us.
One of our concerns is that the research presented to date is not largely relevant to cyclists or based on specific cyclist feedback. This may also be a consequence of the earlier "industry" workshop at the beginning of this research, when CAN and other cycling interests were not represented. We hope that this submission and our current regular meetings with you will correct that oversight.
In considering both these changes and the proposed changes to the funding allocation framework, we are very concerned about the "double dipping" in changes for congestion projects. Not only are they top priority in the funding framework, but they also get additional benefits now. This would appear to favour short-sighted roading capacity increases over more sustainable projects, that might encourage more cycling for example.
Travel time costs
CAN has some methodological concerns about the different travel-time costs attributed to different modes. While there is some logic to these for those who can do other productive things while travelling, they imply some "class" distinctions between different mode users that may be problematic for projects that hope to encourage people to switch modes. Indeed, people thinking of changing modes are likely to have quite different travel time valuations than the "average" user.
For example, the higher commuting travel-time costs for cycling over driving mean that someone switching to a bike is likely to face the double penalty of longer travelling time (in non-congested areas) plus higher travel-time costs/hr. Although this would be somewhat offset by savings in other costs, it suggests that the proposed travel-time valuations would not apply in this case.
The proposed values of time across different modes are relatively similar, suggesting that these values may be the same within the margin of error. We note that no evidence is indicated in the background research that the differences in values-of-time across modes are statistically significant.
All of the research to date has been done on motor vehicle and public transport users. The assumptions used to determine values for cyclists and pedestrians are not at all obvious and potentially dubious. Hence there is a real need for "willingness-to-pay" research for these groups just like the others. The methodology used for the previous surveys seems equally suited to valuations from these modes too.
Some of the arguments floated about the higher cost of travel time for cycling are related to comfort, i.e. it's more sweaty/cold/hot/wet/tiring or there is a greater exposure to fumes (which research has shown to be debatable). But there are also counter-arguments about the exercise benefit gained at the same time and the sheer pleasure derived from cycling. Many cyclists actually choose longer routes and greater travel times because the value of their trip is enhanced by this, rather than by reducing travel time. The current PEM cannot account for this. This is why some WTP research on the topic is urgently needed to clarify the matter.
Trip reliability effects on travel time benefits
Trip reliability does not appear to be available for cycle trips. Yet mode switching to bicycles generally provides a significant improvement in travel time reliability. There may also be projects that improve the travel-time reliability for existing cyclists, e.g. improvements to crossing busy roads.
We are concerned that trip reliability has not been introduced for Passenger Transport projects, despite relatively robust findings in the surveys. It is not clear why trip reliability should be any more difficult to calculate for PT services, and its exclusion would appear to disadvantage projects such as bus-priority lanes and urban rail double-tracking.
Vehicle operating costs
We note that bicycle operating costs are still not included in the PEM. As well as recognising the true operating savings in switching from a motor vehicle, such benefits would also add to the lifetime benefits of cycle route-shortening projects (e.g. off-road shortcuts). For example, on a project that saved cyclists 400m of travel, a value of ~5c/km for 200 cyclists/day would net lifetime savings of approximately $15,000, a figure that could be relatively significant for minor cycling projects.
Vehicle occupants ride quality
Given the generally minimal suspension provided on bicycles, ride quality is also likely to be a significant factor for cyclists. As well as providing a less bumpy ride, on smoother roads cyclists encounter less friction too, reducing the effort required to pedal. The fact that cyclists are often relegated to the sides of the roads, where surfaces are often worse, exacerbates the issue. Therefore research into cyclists' WTP for smoother ride surfaces (for example, a coarse chip versus a smooth asphaltic concrete) should be investigated. In the interim, the use of the derived motor vehicle WTP values should be allowed for cyclists too.
Accident analysis procedures
CAN greatly supports the proposed "weighted accident procedures" that take into account historical crash data and typical crash rates; these are a big improvement on "waiting for a fatality to happen". The seal-widening and bridge-widening crash rates in particular will benefit cyclists if they provide more projects of this nature.
We are concerned however that the predicted crash rate savings overall for installing an urban roundabout over a priority or signal-controlled intersection will mask the significant safety problems encountered by cyclists at roundabouts. Without specific highlighting of this problem, the new changes will encourage RCAs to install more roundabouts without adequate consideration for cyclists.
Currently there are also no cycling-specific crash rates to take advantage of the new procedures, such as the relative safety of different mid-block facilities and intersection types. We would support further research in these areas, probably along similar lines to that carried out recently for Transfund on general crash rates.
We note with interest the "safety perception" surveys that were also carried out in the benefit parameter research, although ultimately not incorporated in the PEM. Given the problems encountered in determining reliable cycle crash rates, perhaps similar perception surveys could be used instead to determine WTP values for various cycle facilities.
The PEM is still also lacking in specific accident benefits for low-speed (e.g. 30-40 km/h) urban zones. These benefits can be significant for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. For example, a 1996 study of 20 mph zones in the UK found that the average annual accident frequency fell by about 60 percent. The recent moves by LTSA to allow more flexibility in setting speed limits, including low-speed zones, means that this issue is likely to become more prevalent. However at the moment it is difficult to justify these projects monetarily in NZ, because of a lack of industry guidance on the specific benefits.
Headway reduction and interchange penalty
We find it inconsistent that interchange and waiting times are now included for PT projects, yet there is no allowance for the extra search time spent finding a car park and/or walking to one's ultimate destination. This is particularly so, given that cycling generally features none of these time penalties.
Other Issues
As discussed at our last meeting with Transfund, we feel that more specific guidance is needed on how benefits for a cycling project might be determined, especially in light of the Government's recent transport package. The evidence to date suggests that it is Road Controlling Authorities and not Transfund who are limiting the number of funding applications for cycling projects, and we suspect that this is in part due to lack of confidence in assessing cycle project benefits. The $3 million in new funding is not likely to be spent if RCAs are still unsure how to put up viable projects for it.
Another disincentive that RCAs face when contemplating cycling facilities is that designing for these facilities intrinsically costs more as a proportion of a project’s capital cost than conventional roading projects. Per kilometre, roads can cost hundreds of times as much to build as cycle facilities, yet the design costs are not proportional. For example, an RCA may be able to design a $1 million roading job with the same effort and expense as a $100,000 cycle path. Needless to say, when RCAs are allocating staff resources to the design task, the roading job looks so much more efficient, and is likely to get the resources
We also suggest further research and guidance be produced on trip generation and the elasticity of trip mode changes. While a straight comparison of car and bicycle travel costs will favour the latter, the most difficult step in deriving benefits from a project encouraging cycling is determining either the likely modal shift or expected new demand. We recommend that reference be made to various overseas publications (for example, recent US and Australian guidelines,) and work be undertaken to produce New Zealand-specific guidelines. An alternative approach for modal-shift projects could be to reduce the expected traffic growth on relevant routes and compare the savings in vehicle costs.
We also continue to have concerns about the potential for induced traffic in many "congestion relief" projects. Although Transfund's PEM Procedures do now have a section on induced traffic it appears to focus more on the different ways of modelling it than the actual underlying issues of when it should apply. We suspect that in most cases, analysts still just assume the same amount of traffic growth for both the do-minimum and project options. Yet a slight increase in traffic growth (as may be expected from many congestion projects) may significantly counter the savings in travel costs from reduced travel times. This reflects the fact that, with "upgrading" of major roads, travel time is not saved, because people will ultimately make more trips and/or travel further instead (in fact, people's "travel-time budget" has been constant over the last century).
Summary
In conclusion, we strongly recommend that equivalent research is now carried out to quantify the following benefits/costs applicable to cyclists (and pedestrians where relevant):
•	Travel-time costs for various trip purposes
•	Bicycle operating costs
•	Cyclist ride comfort WTP
•	Cyclist crash rates for different mid-block facilities and intersection types
•	Cyclists WTP for safety of facilities
•	Trip generation and/or mode-shift demand due to cycling projects
This would ensure that Transfund has a world-class project evaluation system for all modes of travel.