What's Missing in Christchurch's Public Transport System

One of the significant problems with Christchurch public transport is that it is almost entirely a bus system. There is certainly nothing rapid about the cities mass transit! There is no real 'backbone' to our system that allows quick services along a dedicated corridor which normal bus services feed onto/from.

To illustrate, the number of trips per year made on Christchurch's public transport system is around 17 million (almost all on bus, the rest on one ferry route). In Wellington 35 million trips per year are made on its public transport system, 11 million of which are made by rail. Take away that 11 million and it is 17 million vs 24 million for two cities of similar size. That is still quite some difference (7 million) but not as much as people may have been led to believe. Further, that extra 7 million could be accounted by the fact that buses in Wellington feed onto/from the rail network.

So my point is that we are doing relatively well considering... considering our system doesn't have a backbone! More than anything this example spells out what is wrong with our public transport network, where it still falls short. Unlike Wellington (and Auckland) we don't have dedicated mass transit corridors which our buses can work with, our rail tracks sit quiet all day except for the odd freight train.

Before I get carried away and start talking about bringing rail back I'll stop myself and instead focus on what can be done here and now and at a reasonable price. Most obviously is bringing in a system of express routes that operate frequently and stop only at major centres and popular destinations which other services feed onto. Bus priority measures will also help. I sat on the bus the other day and thought "who would really take this bus?". It was stuck in the same mess as everyone else (for a city of 400 000 people I think Christchurch has pretty bad road congestion). It's really only attractive for short trips, for those who live in inner city suburbs and work in the CBD for example. Otherwise it simply takes too long, and there is little advantage even when factoring in petrol.

If we are going to really get serious about public transport we need to recognise where it's deficiencies are (in comparison to more effective public transport, such as my Wellington example). It's inability to move lots of people quickly is a severe handicap and must be overcome to make our entire transport system operate as it should.

An Experience

I've been using the buses a bit more lately and decided to do a little report on my experiences. Firstly, I needed to get from Papanui to Rolleston. These were my options:

1) - Catch the #10/14 etc to Merivale, Metrostar to Hornby then #520 to Rolleston
2) - Catch the #10/14 etc to the CBD, #5 to Hornby, #520 to Rolleston
3) - Catch the Orbiter to Ilam, Metrostar to Hornby, #520 to Rolleston

All three options involve transferring twice to get to my destination. While I accept that transferring is a concept widely accepted in most parts of the world it bugs me is that my trip isn't exactly roundabout. In fact, the second transfer at Hornby is pointless! The #520 should operate through from Christchurch with connections to other services at the CBD, Riccarton & Hornby. However, Metro/Ecan see it fit to turn the service into a shuttle from Hornby that runs once per hour (my only options to connect with the #520 were 18:55 & 19:55). Not exactly a seamless service!

The time it takes to use public transport to get to/from Rolleston is a joke, it is little wonder only one per cent of trips made between Rolleston & Christchurch are made using public transport. No one in their right mind would call this service tolerable, let alone an asset.

The main problems are:

• termination of the #520 at Hornby (shuttle nature of the service)
• low service frequency (one an hour)
• lack of connectivity between other services

If the service ran from the CBD people could access most parts of Christchurch with just the one transfer. Rolleston itself is fast approaching a population of 10-15 000 so I fail to see why this link is lagging behind. Services could run express through the city stopping only at Riccarton, Ilam & Hornby to connect with other services.

Rangiora has a direct service every half hour during weekdays, stylised as the 'Northern Star', running via Kaiapoi, Belfast and Papanui. Why can't Rolleston? What makes it worse is that you have to wait around in Hornby, often at night for some commuters, which isn't exactly the safest scenario. In short, I have found this service to represent all that is wrong with Christchurch's public transport system. Too slow, too infrequent and not much use.

Establishing a Transport Authority for Christchurch

As we all know Christchurch is well behind in transport infrastructure, particularly on a New Zealand scale. One considerable problem I have with developing public transport in Christchurch is it's administration. Right now, Environment Canterbury (Ecan) is responsible for administering public transport over the entire Canterbury region. I think this is both wrong and highly inefficient. The population of the Christchurch urban area is 386 100, making it the second largest in New Zealand. If you stretch the arms wide enough to include Rolleston, Lincoln, Rangiora and Woodend/Pegasus the population reaches roughly 420 000. Christchurch City Council administers a population of 372 600, around 80-90% of that population. The remainder of the population is administered by the Waimakariri and Selwyn District Councils.

What I am getting at is questioning the role of Ecan in operating, planning and designing Christchurch's public transport system. Given what I have outlined above it doesn't seem very logical. Furthermore, public transport is planned in consultation with all the Councils and other authorities and certain infrastructure such as bus lanes and the new transport interchange and park and ride facilities are the responsibility of the City and District Councils. The end result is one big mess, the City Council, which administers over 80% of the affected population, coming into conflict with Ecan as it tries to fit their plans into its own.

With Christchurch City Council and Waimakariri and Selwyn District Councils coming into conflict with Ecan in recent months, leading to a Central Government review of Ecan, it seems appropriate for me to explore the possible future administration of public transport in Christchurch. First of all I believe that a dedicated transport authority is needed, similar to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA). ARTA, however, is under the control of the Auckland Regional Council and this is where I see a key difference. Any Christchurch Transport Authority should be under the control of the Christchurch City Council and, to a degree, the Waimakariri and Selwyn District Council's. Ecan, unlike the Auckland Regional Council, is huge in area and covers a significant rural community. I feel it is best for public transport, which is largely an urban concept, to be dealt with by more relevant urban authorities. Given that these Council's are responsible for the infrastructure anyway it will simply streamline the process.

So my idea is basically this:

• Establish a Greater Christchurch Transport Authority (GCTA)
• Give the GTCA the powers formally bestowed upon Ecan in regard to public transport
• The GTCA will be run by the Christchurch City Council and the Waimakariri and Selwyn District Council's

What I see this as doing is rationalising the whole process of developing public transport in Christchurch. It makes sense to have the body administering public transport being controlled by the authority which develops infrastructure and administers the urban population. As it is, the current set up is too complicated and full of too many potential conflicts. The most obvious solution, to me, is to simply get rid of Ecan from the equation altogether and replace it with an independent transport authority which answers to the Council's.

Rationalising the Bus System

With a new round of tendering for Christchurch's bus services been and gone there is change aplenty from 2 November. The entire system has been rationalised, which i see as a good thing. More routes have been made through running routes (i.e they continue through the CBD to another suburban destination) allowing some routes to be absorbed and others to be ditched. The changes are as follows (as best as I can comprehend!):

• #3 (Avonhead-Sumner) is extended to run through to the Airport and becomes "Airport-Sumner via Avonhead"
• #11 (Supa Centre-Westmorland) has a route change and becomes "Styx Mill-Westmorland"
• #12 (Northwood) is extended to run through to Murray Aynsley in the south replacing the #66 (Murray Aynsley)
• #13 (Redwood-Hoon Hay) is replaced by #8 (Casebrook-Hoon Hay) and #22 Redwood-Spreydon)
• #14 (Nunweek) extended to run through to Dyers Pass in the Port Hills and becomes "Harewood-Dyers Pass" replacing #67 (Dyers Pass)
• #15 (Bishopdale-Bowenvale) has a name change to "Bishopdale-Beckenham" and terminates on Huntsbury Hill rather than running through Bowenvale Valley
• #17 (Bryndwr-Barrington) ceases to exist and is replaced in part by #9 (Wairakei) and #20 (Burnside-Barrington) and #22 (Redwood-Spreydon)
• #24 (Hyde Park-Bromley) is replaced by #23 (Hyde Park-Woolston) which is essentially the same service but with route changes
• #35 (Heathcote) is extended to run through to Riccarton becoming "Riccarton-Heathcote" (Note: this service terminates in Lyttelton)

Okay, i think that is it! As you can see a lot of changes! These are not the only changes either, increased frequencies on a number of services are also being introduced, both at peak and off-peak (including the Diamond Harbour ferry). These changes follow the tender process for the Christchurch bus routes which will see new operators on a number of these routes. From what I have heard, CBS have lost quite a few and Leopard have gained quite well.

Another change I would like to see is a common livery. Although there are four operators (three bus, one ferry) I don't see any need to maintain separate liveries as it serves no purpose because all the routes are tendered. This would tie in well with the Metro brand and could create more awareness of the public transport system. Heck, we have the 'metrocard' surely it should go with the 'metrobus'.

In addition, I think it is time we separated our bus system into 'regions' to make it easier for passengers to identify their relevant routes and make it easier to consult timetables. I have seen this done in Auckland and to a degree in Wellington. For example, the city could be divided geographically into 'East' (Linwood-New Brighton-Burwood), 'West' (Riccarton-Harewood), 'North' (Merivale-Papanui-Waimakariri), 'Central' (St Albans-Shirley, Sydenham, Port Hills) and 'South' (Hornby-Lincoln-Rolleston). Each 'area' would be colour coded e.g orange for East, red for Central, green for West, blue for North and yellow for South. Route numbers could also be assigned depending on the region e.g 100-199 for Central, 200-299 for East, 300-399 for West, 400-499 for North and 500-599 for South. Suburb to suburb routes, such as the Orbiter and Metrostar, would continue to stand alone.

Making public transport easier to understand makes it more likely to be used. If its easy, people are more likely to think about taking the bus rather than the car.

Finally, I have often wondered if additional ferry routes could operate at peak times. For example, Lyttelton-Church Bay or Charteris Bay. I'm thinking only one or two trips per day around the peak period. Perhaps even Governers Bay to eliminate the tricky roads? In summers past ferry trips have operated to Purau Bay for campers so i guess it is possible.

So that's whats happening, and those are my ideas. I would be really interested to know what anyone thinks of my concept of rationalising the system further around geographical areas and my subsequent ideas on numbering and assigned colours.

So far so good!

So far it seems that the bus lanes along Papanui Rd are doing well. Being school holidays overall traffic will have been reduced this week so it will be interesting to see how they go next week when it's 'all go'. Interesting to see that the Press reported that some bus drivers weren't using the lanes (in the process taking a cheeky swipe at the legitimacy of the $30 million project). This can probably be attributed to the school holidays as I explained.

Leading up to the implementation of the first stage of bus lanes there was some attention given to those opposed to their worth. This came from shop owners in particular who were worried about losing a few car parks. In the end it is really about what is the greater good, and with car parking down side streets, and potential increases in foot traffic due to greater public transport use I'll go with the bus lanes.Unfortunately local journalism stops short of the big picture!

Another point being made was that Christchurch residents loved their cars too much, making the money being spent on bus lanes a waste. To this, I once again point out that out of the 'big three' NZ cities Christchurch has seen the least amount of public transport development and that this correlates with our low rate of use as an overall proportion of trips made. Where investment has been made people have flocked to public transport. Auckland rail patronage has more than doubled in just a few years while the development of the Northern Busway has revolutionised transport on the North Shore. Closer to home, look what happened when we built the 'Bus Exchange' and introduced integrated smart card ticketing (metrocard), patronage increased. However, we still have a long way to go and bus lanes are simply the next step (although well overdue). I look forward to seeing what is next, hopefully I will be able to tick a few more things off my wish list (see previous posts).

I have yet to check the bus lanes out for myself but will be doing so next week when they will be operating with schools back in session. I will post on here my thoughts and hope to start posting on here more regularly again. Until then...

Bus Lanes Start to Take Shape

If you've been down Papanui Rd lately you will have noticed a lot of work going on in preparation for the commencement of bus lanes. Eventually, the City Council plan to have a number of routes with bus lanes but Papanui Rd and Main North Rd are the first to receive them.

Essentially, bus lanes are good and I have no problem with the introduction of them. They allow buses to bypass congested traffic, improving transit times and making public transport a more attractive option for everyday commuters. Christchurch desperately needs increased public transport use (we have, by far, the lowest use out of the three biggest NZ cities) as the existing roads can't handle the ever growing traffic. In addition, planned new roads will do little to alleviate this emerging chaos and will be of little benefit unless money is used to develop public transport schemes alongside.

Christchurch, unlike Auckland and Wellington, has little public transport infrastructure and virtually no mass transit.. We have no rail services, no busways nothing. Our bus system is great in some ways (metrocard, modern buses, bus exchange, real time info) but is stuck using existing roads, meaning buses are caught in the same congestion as cars. Transit times are slow, incredibly slow in fact, and there is no other way for people to commute.

Bus lanes are the first serious piece of public transport infrastructure to be developed in Christchurch in recent memory. They will, hopefully, help to revolutionise the way people look at public transport in Christchurch. However, there are some issues I have had since construction of the bus lanes began. The lanes themselves are incredibly wide, you could easily fit a bus plus car alongside each other in the lane. These are much wider than those I have seen in London for example. It also means that the bus lanes do not run on both sides of the road at once. This is also related to the bus lanes not being continuous, they are broken up along the route which means that buses will have to merge back into traffic at various points along the route. I'm not suggesting the lanes could be continuous but what I am saying is that if they were narrower they might be able to be on both sides of the road at the same time, allowing for a more continuous run. In addition, all of the lanes appear to be part time only, which is a shame. Nevertheless, I will save my criticism for now. As the bus lanes begin to impact on attitudes and patronage, extensions and other modifications may become less controversial and more justified.

On a more positive note, I am very pleased to see that the Christchurch City Council are getting right behind the bus lanes and are promoting them well. As well as illuminated signs along the route saying "bus lanes coming soon" there are advertisements in the papers, on the Internet (stuff) and on the buses themselves. This is excellent, people need to be aware that this is a big thing. Now all we need is some articulated (bendy) buses!

New Ticketing System Contract Awarded

I don't know why this seems to have bypassed me, although I was aware a contract had been awarded, I was unaware to whom.

In any case Christchurch's ticketing system is to be overhauled and it will allow the metrocard to perform a number of new functions including online and off bus eftpos top ups. The company given the task of achieving this is INIT of Germany and they have a proven track record in that country. Interestingly current metrocards will still be capable of being used on the new system. There are still few details about this but the system will be phased in over the next year so expect to start seeing new computers on our buses soon.

Obviously this means that Infratils 'Snapper' card will not be adapted for Christchurch (at least in the foreseeable future) and that the decision has been made to go down our own route, which is fair enough as it lets us just get on with it.

Bus Lane Implementation on Papanui Road

Finally, we are about to see some progress on the issue of bus lanes!!! The Christchurch City Council has announced that on 17 August construction of bus lanes for Papanui Road will begin. There will be seven stages with each stage taking about two-three weeks to complete and the whole thing should be up and running by mid December. When completed the bus lanes will stretch along Papanui and Main North Roads from Bealey Ave to the Northern Motorway just north of Belfast (its a shame they will not extend onto the motorway, bus lanes would be a much more appropriate option than an extra traffic lane).

The Council has indicated that lanes will be either full-time or part-time but has not indicated which parts of the current development are which. Full-time bus lanes operate 24 hours a day, while part-time bus lanes will operate 7am-9am inbound and 3pm-6pm outbound (except outside schools from 3pm-4pm). Enforcement is an issue I am concerned with but I am glad to see that they are following the London example and cars parked in lanes will be immediately towed while those caught travelling in the lanes will be fined $150. The lanes will likely be administered by the City Councils parking wardens and the New Zealand Police Force.

There are other upgrades mooted as well, including new shelters and improved stops altogether. It is also important to note that cyclists will be able to use the bus lanes as well, this is good, as I am all for encouraging more cycling, but I wonder how much of a danger this could be, or whether it will hold up buses? It seems to work in London, so I guess we will have to see. There is also some controversy over the fact that much on street parking will make way for these bus lanes. I believe it is a small price to pay, the benefits far outweigh the costs and there is plenty of parking down side streets. Plus it works fine overseas, it is just a case of moving with the times (well this effort is still 40 years too late!).

Finally I want to point out three things. First, there is no other mention of other bus priority measures such as bus signals. I feel such measures can only aid bus lanes and transit times. Second, expect a similar announcement for the southern portion of Colombo Street towards Cashmere some time soon with similar completion dates. Finally, I must point out that many of the planned bus lanes are simply too far away from being a reality. The Sumner route isn't planned until 2013/14 and Cranford Street until 2017/18. This is unacceptable, more funding must be made available for these initiatives. To find out more about bus priority measures in Christchurch the Council has a very helpful website while if you want to check out the relevant press release visit here. All in all this news is excellent and is a start to finally making public transport in Christchurch a realistic opion for everyday people. Hopefully we will see more of this in the near future.

What Will Bob Parker See In North America?

Its old news that Mayor Bob Parker and the City Council CEO are to visit North American cities to study urban regeneration and public transport and at the time I didn't think much about talking about it on here. However, I got to thinking about what exactly he will see transport wise when he is there. So, basically, I'm going to have a very quick 'tour' of the various transport systems present in the cities that Bob will be visiting and the characteristics of each.

San Francisco

Population: 800 000+ (Bay area is 6 million+)

San Francisco is the second most densely populated city in the USA after New York. It is served by a light rail system called the 'Muni Metro' which has a daily ridership of 150 000+. In addition there is the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) which serves the wider Bay urban area and the 'Caltrain', a single line commuter rail operation.

Bob & Co will most likely be interested in the 'Muni Metro' as it serves an area that is more realistic in comparison to Christchurch and is within an area of density for which Christchurch is planning to mirror.

Below is a map of the light rail system.

Portland

Population: 500 000+

Portland is considered the greenest city in the USA and the second greenest in the world. Portland is well known for its land use planning and investment in light rail. Given these characteristics (which Christchurch and other NZ cities such as Auckland and Wellington are trying to emulate) and it's relative similar population it must be high on the list for Bob & Co.

The MAX light rail system has three lines and a daily ridership of over 100 000. The light rail vehicles run within their own reserved lanes on the streets and sometimes in their own corridor. There is also the Westside Express Service which is a commuter train opened earlier this year on tracks formerly used for freight only (sounds familiar!).

Seattle

Population: 600 000+

Seattle got rid of much of it's rail systems but the ensuing road congestion has forced a recent back track (for those who continue to deny that automobile dependency is a bad thing please take note!!!). Seattle has begun to rebuild what it lost in a bid to counter congestion more effectively including the 'Sounder' commuter rail service, which has two lines and is still expanding, and the 'Central Link' light rail system. The latter is still being expanded and is similar in operation to the MAX system in Portland (though less extensive).

Vancouver

Population: 600 000+

Vancouver is the Canadian city everyone raves about and it is often ranked as one of the most livable cities in the world.

In addition to one commuter rail line Vancouver also has the much heralded 'Skytrain' system which is a fully automated elevated rail system that is still undergoing expansion.

Below is an image of the Skytrain.

So, what does all this mean? Well let me first point out a couple of things. First, yes these cities are all at the centre of much larger metropolitan areas, but these areas spread out a long way and the transport systems that are being talked about are only relevant to the immediate population as listed. If you think Christchurch is still too small to compare, consider that the current population is almost 400 000 (second largest in New Zealand) and will be well over half a million by 2030.

Now, there are several things I have picked up on. All these cities appear to have undergone a phase where their respective rail and tram systems were removed in favour of freeways and buses. Of all New Zealand's cities, Christchurch fits this bill most (Auckland and Wellington retained their rail systems, in Auckland's case just). It is also quite clear that all these cities have undertaken a review of their land use and have adjusted to a more efficient and well planned use of their land. This later point is important because it increases the future viability of mass transit and is an exercise Christchurch is now beginning.

Most of the commuter rail services have been reinstated or are totally new, utilising lines previously only used for freight. All rail proposals for Christchurch have been regional in nature, aiming to serve the outer urban areas and ease traffic congestion on the approaches to the city by using the three existing lines. There are obvious parallels there. It must also be noted that Christchurch has the characteristics of a North American city, again more so than Auckland or Wellington and the success of light rail in these examples is very encouraging, particularly the high ridership and the populations they are serving.

Of all these examples I am most encouraged by Portland, and perhaps San Francisco's light rail. There have been some people who have scoffed at this attempt by the Mayor to visit these cities, and they have come up with many reasons why it is a folly. Rubbish, I say, these are very good examples from which Christchurch can learn a lot. I believe that I have given much reason to suggest that Christchurch is in a state that these cities were in ten or twenty years ago. To ignore the lessons is the true folly.

Pedestrian Friendly Street for CBD

Hereford Street is to be made more pedestrian friendly with wider footpaths, more trees, outdoor dining and a slow road between the intersections with Manchester Street and Oxford Tce. Okay, so this is only very slightly related to transport but I still think it's important. I'm not totally into pedestrianising streets too much, I have always felt the 'City Mall' was slightly too big and that Cathedral Square is too open and barren. However, this is different. This is creating an environment where traffic still exists, it just takes second place to pedestrians. I am fully in support of this because for some time now I feel our CBD has lacked that real 'city' feel. Hereford Street is one of the most dense in the city and is home to a significant chunk of the city's commercial firms. Recently I was in Wellington and I loved the way Lambton Quay retains its traffic but was dominated by people. The street looked nice, busy and full of life. At the moment, Hereford Street is drab, cold and boring. It should also flow into the City Mall upgrade quite well.

This project is seen by the City Council as a way to encourage more business in the area and I feel that they are onto something here. In addition to Hereford Street, Armagh Street is also an important commercial area with more projects planned for the future. With the tram running down it, and with New Regent Street running off it, I feel Armagh Street should be in line for a similar upgrade if the Hereford Street project is successful. Another possibility is Glouchester Street, especially with construction to start soon on two commercial buildings and one high density residential building on the soon to be vacated Press site. Keeping road traffic but not letting it dominate is something I believe will help create a more vibrant and attractive CBD. You can find the project here at the Christchurch City Council website.

I'm still working on creating a new better blog, unfortunately I just don't have the time to get online as much as I would like. However, it is slowly coming together, I have decided on simply making this blog a bit nicer and then developing a concept Christchurch 2020 transport plan which can be accessed and commented on. Hopefully, this will create some debate and I can get it 'out there'. Until then...

ANNOUNCEMENT

Lately it's been a bit of a struggle to finish my planned installments of my 'Whats Next?' series of blogs as I have been very busy and unable to put the time in. I have also been thinking about where I can go from here and what I can achieve given the right tools and time. It came down to closing this blog altogether or coming up with a new and exciting idea that others could join me in working on (hence more minds and more time).

So I'm going to try get something going, a group focused on campaigning for a modern, efficient, sustainable transport system for the Greater Christchurch Region. I would begin by splitting things off into a news blog, reporting relevant issues, and an ideas blog, outlining concepts such as my 'Metro Express' idea. These would then be opened up to discussion, and I would hope from there others may join in and help develop it into an actual entity capable of campaigning on multiple levels. I plan to put this in place over the next month or so by rationalising this blog, coming up with a snappy name and logo, getting some key contacts together and then garnering interest on relevant websites (such as CBT).

In the meantime if anyone out there is at all interested in helping me set this up please get in contact! Thanks, and I will still continue to blog news and ideas until this is all done.

Christchurch Mayor Supports Rail Reinstatement

While at times I think that Mayor Bob Parker is the wannabe dictator of Christchurch, I must confess the man does operate with a vision. Part of his vision is to plan smarter, more long-term solutions for our transport needs. Recently, in an article in the KiwiRail 'Express', Mayor Parker was questioning whether our transport planning was delivering the best possible solution. It would seem to him that it is not, and I, for one, certainly agree.

When you consider that our current system is failing, and detrimental to our economic performance and lifestyles, you start to realise that we cannot continue to put all our eggs in one basket. That line of thinking is what got us the 1962 Christchurch Transport Masterplan, where barely a paragraph was given to public transport. The result of this line of thinking is that if we continue it we will always be behind the eight ball, so to speak. Our road building has never kept up with demand, and with the Christchurch urban area growing at it's current and projected rate, it will continue to fall behind. Whats more, this way of thinking is incredibly expensive, not just in the first phase but also in developing increased capacity in the long term. This simply adds to the bare fact that 'roading' our way towards a transport solution (ala the 1962 'Masterplan') is impossible, we haven't been able to do it, we can't do it and we never will.

So with this in mind Bob's comments on Newstalk ZB that key entry points are at the maximum capacity, and even operating beyond maximum capacity hit home a little more. Sure, we can build more roads to relieve congestion but it won't keep pace with growth because it's too expensive to do so. Alternatives are needed to make the road system work as it should and to provide a properly functioning transportation system. Alternatives with more flexibility when it comes to capacity, and with lower long-term development costs which negate the need to build an illogical road system that will never keep pace with demand.

At this time Bob is talking rail as a solution to relieve key entrance points into the city. The last census puts the commuting population entering the city from outside (e.g Rolleston, Rangiora etc) at 16 000, so considering the growth rates of the Waimakariri and Selwyn districts and their ever increasing high rates of Christchurch workers you really get a feel for how many that might be now, and how fast it must be increasing. With only one per cent of commuters opting to use the bus services in these districts there needs to be development of suitable alternatives to attract greater patronage and ease the congestion at key points on the road system. As Bob himself point's out, 500 people using trains from Rangiora and Kaiapoi means 500 less cars coming in from the north on our roads. Bob also points out that park and ride would be suitable for Rangiora, Kaiapoi and Rolleston and that they could really work well with a rail service. If you've read some of my other posts you will know that this is something I have been screaming for and have already pointed out how it works well with the nature of those areas (a nature Ecan seems to believe provides an excuse for forgetting about public transport altogether).

Bob may not be everyone's cup of tea but it is good to see our Mayor with a vision that doesn't smack of ignorance and uses common sense. Unfortunately, he has a lot of hurdles to cross, first on the list being Ecan and second on the list being a central government that would probably support the 1962 Christchurch Transport Masterplan as a triumph of 21st Century thinking. Nevertheless, it is a start, lets just hope it leads somewhere. Perhaps a Christchurch 'Super City' taking in the urbanised parts of the Waimakariri & Selwyn District Councils and being delegated Ecan's powers over it's jurisdiction would be a good start. However, thats for another forum.

Commuting Chaos for Rolleston

A little bit of old news (I was supposed to post this days ago) but last week there was a very interesting article in the Selwyn Times. Of course this is just the local rag so it must be taken for what it is but it did seem to give a good indication of the mood of Rolleston residents towards transport policy. Basically, as Rolleston continues to grow, the percentage of the population that works in Christchurch continues to increase. The 2008 population estimate for Rolleston was about 7000, up significantly from 3822 recorded in the 2006 census. The article reported that residents should get used to increased congestion on the commute into Christchurch, something which I would agree with. The total population of Rolleston is expected to reach about 15 000 sometime around 2015 from memory and with cheap land, a strong Canterbury/Christchurch economy and subsequent continued high internal migration from other parts of New Zealand I don't even see the recession slowing this growth down (in fact I think you could argue that in the long term it could increase population growth).

Anyway, what was most interesting about this article was that a couple of locals who both seemed to be of the opinion that the local bus service wasn't good enough and that the nature of a bus service for such a long commute wasn't at all appealing. Both locals interviewed claimed that they would use a regular rail service if there was one, so long as it was frequent and took full advantage of it's right of way by getting them into the city quicker. One of the interviewees claimed if it could be done in twenty minutes he would most definitely use it.

I take two things from this article. First, no matter what Ecan claims, their bus service simply isn't good enough. Where is park and ride? Where is cycle and ride? Where is a modern bus station with information and shelter from winter weather? Where are bus lanes? Where is the frequency? No wonder no one uses it.

Second, local authorities are blind. There is a perfectly good double track rail line running from Rolleston to the city. Heck there is even a station and car park. Yet despite hundreds of submission the 'Rolleston Transport and Environs' study for ignoring the potential of rail in reducing car use between Selwyn and Christchurch. The prevailing opinion is that rail will not be worthwhile until Rollestons population reaches 50 000 yet this is unsubstantiated and ignorant. In my mind, 15 000 is just as likely a threshold for the success of some type of rail service being effective in increasing accessibility between Rolleston and Christchurch and it could be planned for now. Rail would be fast and have a flexible capacity. It fits park and ride like a glove (and park and ride fits Rolleston like a glove), is more comfortable, and could provide seamless transfers to the bus system at Hornby and Addington to other parts of the city. As well as Rolleston it could also serve Templeton and Isllington and would have a schedule of between 20 and 30 minutes from Rolleston to the City (based on timetables from the 1960's!!!).

All in all it is little wonder that public transport is under utilised and marginal in Selwyn. Ecan rely on a bus service designed for short commutes in a built up city in a bid to entice people out of their cars when, in reality, any public transport needs to be adapted to the nature of the areas it operates in. This should be simple, easy, yet they fail due to ignorance. The argument that no one uses public transport or that public transport in these areas doesn't work is just ridiculous when they haven't even developed it for the area in mind. I have pointed out time and again the obvious measures that need to be adopted to make public transport work in Selwyn and I have pointed out many again. When will some one listen?

Where Next? Part One: Improving Our Bus System

This is the first post in a series detailing some ideas on where we can go from what we have now in terms of transport options for Greater Christchurch. It will be limited to utilising and improving as much existing infrastructure as possible in order to generate better ideas and cheaper options and to keep it realistic. In part one, I want to look at a way in which we could improve the current bus system with a concept I have called 'Metro Express'.

Metro 'Express'?

My idea is to develop a series of key bus routes, along the cities busiest corridors, which would be direct and would make a limited number of stops. They would make use of bus lanes and other bus priority measures, would be frequent and have a larger capacity than other buses and would be smart card only (no cash fares). Basically they would operate more like a rail or light-rail system complete with 'stations' made up of more prominent bus stops with 'Express' badging. The idea is to make the bus system easier to use, more attractive and more efficient at getting you to your destination.

Here is an example of a route which could be implemented to New Brighton;



The red line is the route and the black dots are the 'stations' being the only stops that the bus would make (notice the city 'station' is located where the new transport interchange would be). Of course, this is only an example, more stops may be required or less may be sufficient but the point is they would be limited. In addition, this route would take advantage of bus lanes planned for the New Brighton routes but would offer a faster, more efficient method of utilising them. Call it 'Light-Rail Light' if you will, nevertheless it is much cheaper and more likely an idea to be implemented now and get more people using public transport. Other routes I could see this system being implemented on include Sumner, the Airport, Halswell, Cashmere, Riccarton, Queenspark and basically anywhere where there are bus lanes to be developed.

In addition to the nature of the route another aspect of the 'Metro Express' concept would be the buses themselves. Adding to the efficiency and speed of the service would be greater capacity. It is perhaps about time we looked at articulated 'bendy' buses and I believe it would be more than appropriate to allocate them to this type of service. Not only do articulated buses have greater capacity than double decker's, they also have faster boarding and alighting due to having three sets of doors. Below is an example of an articulated bus in Sydney operating on the Metrobus service which is similar to what I am proposing here.

Other features of the service would be on board computer announcements for stops, destinations and transfers and a set frequency, similar to the Orbiter service. High frequencies would be ideal, perhaps 10 minutes at peak and 15 minutes off peak during weekdays and 15 minutes all day on weekends. As patronage increases frequency could be increased on some routes. There would also be a common brand across all routes.

In the end I believe that this concept is a basic, cheap and quick way to increase public transport use. Routes are basic and permanent like light-rail, there is greater capacity and increased speed and efficiency over other bus routes. It will be easier to use, more attractive to commuters and offer a much advanced alternative to using your car. Perhaps most of all though, it's costs will be low and it will utilise existing infrastructure where possible.

Rail/Bus Hybrid?

There was an article today on Stuff outlining the idea of Selwyn District Councillor Annette Foster to run a hybrid Rail/Bus system between Rolleston and Christchurch. The idea would be to run them on the existing rail line and she pointed to the use of the O-Bahn in Adelaide of the success of this concept (buses fitted with small wheels and utilising guide rails).

The problem with this , of course, is that it would be impossible to fit in with a working railway (the O-Bahn is a stand alone piece of transport infrastructure by the way), it gains only the benefits of the railways right of way, and most of the potential gains would be nothing like a railway and could be met with bus lanes which would be much much cheaper. It is, however, nice to see a local politician looking at new ways of improving our public transport system and also looking at transport options that don't just involve roads. Foster is planning to undertake a trip to see Adelaide's O-Bahn in September.

Stats Out Of Date Report & Ecans Poor Response

I could have told the Press myself but, as an article today announced, Christchurch has the fastest growing commuter belt in the country. Basically what this is alluding to is the growth of the Waimakariri and Selwyn Districts which are the two fastest growing areas in New Zealand behind the Queenstown-Lakes District. This piece of information has come about because of the recent release of a report by Statistics New Zealand on commuting patterns in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. Unfortunately this information is for the period 1996-2006 and is thus three years out of date, which means that it does not take into account record fuel prices during 2007/08 and nor continued rapid population growth in the aforementioned areas.

Anyway, the article pointed out the obvious, that most people from these areas are commuting into Christchurch everyday (72 per cent of Rolleston workers for example) and that public transport usage amongst these people is low, actually just one per cent of all commuters (as opposed to just over four per cent from within the urban area). Before I slam what Environment Canterbury had to say about this I want to point out that last year I undertook a study on commuting patterns in the Waimakariri area and all up just over fifty per cent of workers commute to Christchurch everyday, and this is growing as fast as the population is.

So what did wise old Ecan have to say about this? Apparently commuter towns were difficult to serve with public transport and expensive to operate as they were long routes serving sparse populations. Ridiculous! Their response is that to meet growth (which must be met as continued traffic growth is unsustainable) they may undertake a targeted rate. Apparently the Northern Star service (which links Rangiora, Woodend and Kaiapoi with Christchurch) only recovers 35 per cent of its running costs compared to 50 per cent across the whole bus network. What foresight! Perhaps they could also let the public know that they have always provided a substandard service to these areas and have failed to develop a first-class public transport system.

For a start lets look at the sparse population. Of the commuting population from these areas to Christchurch, the vast majority are concentrated in particular areas (Rangiora, Woodend, Rolleston, Lincoln). Which means that the comment about the sparse population, while partly true, is also a bit misleading in my opinion. Most people reside in concentrated built up urban areas on main arteries (road and even rail) so I don't see how this argument can apply across the whole board. Its a sweeping generalisation as it only really applies to those living in the smaller towns of the main highways and those residing on lifestyle blocks which are, in my opinion, an entirely different issue.

Second, there are plenty of ways public transport can be made more accessible and made more attractive to commuters. Why have we yet to see park and ride? Park and ride would make public transport much more accessible to those living in these 'sparsely populated areas' and could potentially take hundreds of cars a day off our main arterial's into the city. Also, particularly as these are longer commuting routes, bus journeys can take some time and thus deter potential patrons as the pay off on taking public transport isn't that large. So where are our bus lanes? Bus lanes, and other bus priority measures, would greatly reduce journey times, coupled with park and ride public transport would be a much more attractive option for commuters. So why resign to moaning and stopping at a basic, limited and unsuitable bus route? Why have these simple ideas, used and proved worldwide (yes, even in New Zealand) not been implemented in these areas where they would not only be suitable but indeed are needed? While I'm at it Rangiora and Rolleston are both located smack on rail corridors. With their secured right of way, large capacity, higher speeds and natural attraction combined with park and ride and shuttle bus links rail could potentially make public transport an even more accessible option for these residents.

My point is that before we take this hook line and sinker (as in 'no one uses public transport, thus it's too expensive to get more to use it') people should know what we do and don't have and what could work. Public transport to the Waimakariri and Selwyn Districts is poor to say the least and I believe that I can make a valid argument that it's low usage is not entirely due to the long routes and sparse population. There are valid ways to deter these issues and they haven't been implemented. Its a shame because they should have, and still should be. We are a long way behind.

The article can be seen here and the report from Statistics NZ can be seen here.

Transport Interchange Details Announced

Details of the new transport interchange have been announced by the Christchurch City Council, and it would seem like they are onto something that will be a great asset for the city. The main point's of the press release are;

• The buses and bus waiting lounge will be located below ground
• The surface area will form an urban park with a 'large glass dome at it's heart'
• Land purchased will be all that is bounded by Colombo, Lichfield, Durham and Tuam Streets
• Everything will be cleared off this land for the project
• The passenger lounge will be six metres below ground (with the glass dome letting in natural light)
• Passengers will reach the lounge from escalators off Colombo Street
• Buses will enter the interchange from ramps off Tuam and Lichfield Streets
• The Interchange will cope with 370 buses in and out an hour by 2040
• Space on the land will eventually be developed with hotels, office buildings or apartments and the interchange will be strengthened to allow tall buildings built on either side of it
• The project will be completed in 2014
• The total cost of the project will be $119 million
• 33 per cent of costs are covered by the central government

So, there we have it. There are no pictures as yet and I'm sure there will be more details forthcoming as there are a few things that were conspicuous by their absence. However, what we have here is very promising and is certainly the most exciting civic project undertaken in my lifetime (in fact the article states that it is the most expensive council project undertaken, more expensive than the new civic centre). The under grounding of the buses is a good idea. It removes the mix of pedestrians and buses which is good. This is what kills the current 'bus exchange' for me, particularly the dreaded platforms on Colombo Street. Buses will access the underground interchange via ramps on Tuam and Lichfield and will merge in with traffic while passengers will enter off Colombo via escalators, a very good idea which separates passengers and buses. The idea of the glass dome lifts my hopes for something of architectural merit, hopefully something that will become a city landmark for years to come.

Planning the interchange to cope until 2040 is very good, I just hope that plans for further development (rail?) are also accounted for and that forecasts for growth in public transport aren't Conservative. The idea to develop the space above is excellent, it will render new life in this part of the city (and the entire CBD as well) and will help recover some of the costs of the project (the article also states that the proposed new central library may be built on the site).

Although it is good to see central government contributing to development of public transport infrastructure in Christchurch I do think that 33 per cent is still poor considering that Auckland and Wellington have had substantial government contributions in recent years (both are getting new trains 100 per cent funded by central government). Once again I just don't think New Zealand's second largest city is getting it's fair share of investment.

As I have said, it seems as though there are to be a few more details to be released in coming months (years?) so I will wait and see on a number of issues I still have. I would love to know what is being planned for light rail, remembering that the current planned tram extensions will be completed by 2013. Perhaps my idea of a CBD loop light rail may just come to fruition. I would also love to see a bottom level excavated for rail allowing space for a few platforms in the hope that one day an underground link to the main line south of Moorhouse Ave is made. In my opinion such an opportunity cannot be missed to safeguard a central city rail site. All in all I'm particularly happy about what is planned. The idea of a new central city park is also exciting and I can't wait to see the first renders of the development. Until then though, keep your powder dry.

Draft Canterbury Regional Land Transport Programme 2009-2019

The draft Canterbury Regional Land Transport Programme 2009-2019 has been released by Environment Canterbury. Basically, this outlines the plan for what transport projects in the Canterbury region will be undertaken within the next ten years, who will pay for them and who will fund them. I'll provide a bit more of an analysis on this later but for now check it out here .

It still leaves me worried about the future of our transport network, as the whole thing stinks of a lack of cohesion (too many separate bodies responsible for developing transport infrastructure, especially public transport) and a lack of foresight. Regarding the latter point, I see little sustainable transport initiatives and certainly few initiatives that will result in a substantial shift of transport modes which would negate the increasing rates of car usage in our growing city (despite this being a paramount concern of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Forum).

While this report clearly identity's where funding for transport will come from it still fills me with uncertainty as to when key public transport projects will be completed. Projects, such as park and ride in Rangiora, Kaiapoi and Rolleston, which could potentially reduce congestion and slash long car journeys in these areas everyday still seem far off. In Auckland I see park and ride, new bus and rail stations being built as well as rail duplication and electrification. In Wellington extensions to the electric rail network on the Kapiti Coast are planned and new Electric Multiple Unit train sets are on the way for 2010. Where is Christchurch's investment? Does it really take this long for park and ride to be developed for two bus routes? How long must we wait for bus lanes and other bus priority projects? Christchurch is New Zealand's second largest city (and growing) are we to make do with a few motorway extensions and state highway passing lanes? Investment in these key public transport projects would be of enormous benefit to local lifestyles and the local economy. Why is there no support? There is no excuse. As I've outlined above I'll make a more substantial analysis of the draft CRLTP soon. Until then...

Is This Fair? Wheres Our Money?

The Christchurch City Council has released its long-term plan for the city, of which there are three interesting transport related points. Funding for bus priority measures, the new transport interchange and the tram extensions have all been approved. However, as much as this provides evidence that a few exciting transport initiatives are under way it also raises more questions.

First, lets take a look at bus priority measures. The final part of this (Cranford Street) is not due to be completed until 2018! Well at least that's what it seems to be saying on the councils media release (http://www.ccc.govt.nz/MediaReleases/2009/July/01090244.asp). What this means is really any ones guess. Does this refer to bus lanes or is there more to it? Do we really have to wait a decade for bus lanes on Cranford Street? I hope not.

Second, its nice to see that the replacement for the Bus Exchange is now being touted as a 'transport interchange'. Of more concern is the claim that it will be built to meet increasing demands in public transport. Why this seems to make sense its primary goal should be more than that, it should aim to increase use in public transport rather than meet current (still poor) demand.

Finally, funding has been confirmed, as I've already pointed out, for the tram extension. However, funding has been confirmed not just for the initial stage but also for the final stage to the CPIT.

What worries me most of all is the time it is taking to implement improvements to public transport. If it is true, and we have to wait a decade for bus priority measurements then we have a serious funding issue. If local government had greater funding powers then it might be more possible to get such projects completed in a realistic time frame. If the current government had not dropped the proposed regional fuel tax then we may not have such an issue. In addition, questions must be asked why the government is happy to pile billions of dollars into 'passing lanes of national significance' but isn't willing to make available significant funds for public transport projects like these in Christchurch.

Auckland and Wellington are both receiving significant investment in their rail networks from central government while Christchurch continues to struggle to fund its own limited bus network and hasn't seen a commuter train on one of it's three rail lines in 39 years. Is this fair?

I look forward still to more details on these three projects. It may be possible that much needed bus lanes will not take such a lengthy time to implement and we may get a transport interchange that is more than a glorified bus stop. We may also receive a tram extension that moves more towards light rail rather than a museum piece. Until I hear more though, keep your powder dry.

Amusement Park Attraction Or Public Transport Asset?

With the extension of Christchurch's tram tracks now finally given official approval it reminds me that this is an opportunity that this city cannot afford to ignore. Is this to be a simple extension of a tourist attraction, little more than an amusement park ride? Or will this form the first part of a modern CBD light rail line? I've already outlined what I want to see before (scroll down a bit) so now I want to focus on why we must not let this go to waste.

Presently, the heritage tramway runs past mostly tourist orientated attractions as it pierces the very heart of the cultural precinct. The extensions, however, run right through major retail, commercial, entertainment and medium and high density residential areas. In short it runs through a more cosmopolitan precinct, and one with considerable plans about to go into action which will only amplify its cosmopolitan characteristics. These are not the conditions suitable for a tourist heritage tramway and such an operation would hardly be the best utilisation of the tram extensions for this area. With potential for much higher local use we should be aiming at utilising the new tram extension as a form of public transport. Not only would it be of benefit to the people living, working and playing in this area it would give greater encouragement for the planned developments. As I have said, I've already outlined my views on what we need, right now I'm concerned about actually getting it in the first place. I'm worried this will simply end up as a quaint tourist heritage tramway, still costing an arm and a leg to use trundling around half empty while locals use their cars

Utilising the tram extensions as a form of public transport, would provide encouragement for the planned developments in the area. It would encourage business to grow in the city as the increasing residential population can use the tram to access them rather than go to the suburban malls in their car. It would make this area and the CBD a more livable space. I urge our council not to ignore this opportunity to provide a valuable asset for this city. If we end up with a museum tram, we may as well rip it up again. We won't get value for money.

Christchurch's 'Britomart'... The Bus Exchange Replacement

Once again, time is getting away from me and its been a while since my last post. Nevertheless, I've been keeping pretty busy working on a few things of interest in the absence of any real developments of late, including a look at proposals for rail. Hopefully that should be up soon.

One thing I am really hanging out for though is more details on the replacement of the Bus Exchange. Now, you may be aware that the Bus Exchange hasn't actually been around too long and it may seem a waste of money to close it and build a new one in the space of just a decade. However, I firmly believe that it is the right choice, the current bus terminal offers little scope to expand and provide a world class public transport hub for the city. The current terminal is limited, in my opinion, in its ability to provide a service that will result in significant increases in public transport usage also. Why should we limit ourselves? It isn't just about fitting the buses in and increasing capacity (which, arguably, could be achieved with the current location) its about allowing the opportunity for a greater more sustainable transport system. To illustrate this point, it has been announced that provisions will be made for light-rail. What this means exactly is any ones guess as the media and politicians often get light-rail and heavy-rail confused. It could mean one or the other or even both are to be catered for. Nevertheless, it shows that what is being planned is not just a bus shed, its a transit centre and it will be the hub from which a world class sustainable transport network can grow (well that's what I hope).

Other details which have been confirmed include the site (Lichfield Street where Katmandu is located south of Ballentynes) and the fact that the buses will be located underground. Further details I would like to see are;

• Flow from the entrance to the buses (i.e no narrow corridors)
• A large open concourse with shops, information and ticket counter
• Payment before you get on the bus (ticket gates?)
• Potential for increase in bus platforms
• Optimum set-up for bus frequency and capacity
• Future light-rail and heavy-rail space established
• Inspirational architecture

It would be good for people to walk in the entrance and for the place to immediately open up into a large space, with everything they need under the one roof such as shops, eating places, tickets, information toilets etc. From there they would walk through to escalators taking them down to the bus waiting areas, touching in at gates with their metrocard's as they do so which would reduce bus dwell times.

All bus routes must be capable of being catered for and this new terminal should not reach capacity for many years. Platforms should be planned in such a way as to allow the most capacity and greatest frequency and space for additional platforms in the future should be allowed for as well. I won't say much about the light-rail provisions as the possibilities are endless with so few details but I will say that it would be fantastic, and not too costly, to leave space, perhaps below everything else, for a multi-platform central city rail terminal. Yes, it's dubious if rail will play a significant role in Christchurch transport, as it hasn't for well over thirty years now, but it wouldn't add much additional cost and we will probably never get such an opportunity again. It would just be a space if a tunnel to the main line was ever to be built. Finally, it should be an inspirational building, we should out-do Auckland's Britomart transport centre. Imagine my concourse covered with an arched glass roof or something. It should say everything about Christchurch, what it is, where it has been and where it is going.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts. I think public transport deserves a quality hub and this will help us develop a sustainable world class transport system. Lets do it now, and do it properly. Rest assured once the first details are released Ill let you know.

Christchurch Tram Extension

I thought it was about time I should update this blog as I've been pretty slack (and fairly busy) lately. I thought I'd outline the current plans for the Christchurch CBD tram extension, and what I believe is the Councils desired outcome, plus give a taste of what I would like to see this all lead to.

Here is a picture of the current heritage tramway (green) and the proposed extension (red).

This extension is planned to be completed in two stages. The first stage to the Poplar lanes area will be completed in time for the Rugby World Cup in 2011. Trams will run through Cashel Mall to High Street and down to the lanes area then back up to Cathedral Square where it will rejoin the original route.

The second stage will see the tram continue down High Street from the Poplar lanes area down to CPIT with a completion date of 2013.

The tram extension is well supported by both the public and business, and so far has had a smooth ride towards completion. Generally I support the proposed tram extension, but not if it is simply going to emulate what we currently have (i.e a tourist based museum piece). It would seem that my viewpoint is shared by many people as a number of submissions outlined a view that the tram should be aimed more at opening up the CBD to locals and integrating it into the wider public transport system. Ultimately, I believe that this is what the Council are actually trying to achieve here, it is no coincidence that this extension runs right through the just announced southern CBD redevelopment plans which incorporates massive residential, commercial and retail developments.

If the tram is indeed destined to become a part of the public transport system, then what must we see come of this project? I propose the following;

• Integrated ticketing with Buses



• 'Metro' branding extended to trams



• Real time information integrated with buses



• Modern 'tram stops' with raised platform and shelters



• Modern light-rail vehicles

Soon the Council will announce more detailed plans for the new city bus terminal, and it has already been stated that it will be built to accommodate future light-rail schemes. What this means is any ones guess as talk about light-rail has been mixed with revivals of conventional rail and it has been hard to know exactly what they are talking about. Nevertheless, the Council has talked about this extension forming both the beginning of a city-wide light-rail network as well as the first stage of an eventual city loop light-rail scheme connecting with a revived commuter rail network at Moorhouse Ave.

Below is my take on what the tram extension could eventually form in the southern CBD. The Blue lines are an extension south to Moorhouse Ave and back up Colombo Street to Cathedral Square. As well as providing additional access to the rest of the CBD this concept would also enable services to a revived Christchurch railway station at Moorhouse Ave and the new bus terminal near Lichfield Street both located by purple boxes.

Personally I see such a scheme as this providing the easiest and cheapest hope of reviving, and making viable, high-capacity transport modes within the Greater Christchurch area. Crucially without access to the central CBD no revived rail service would survive or be of great benefit.

Price of Petrol

I check in every now and again on the campaign for better transport's (CBT) website (www.bettertransport.org.nz) and have used the website to keep a keen eye on the price of petrol. Of course we all know a little over a year ago oil went well beyond US $100 a barrel and NZ $2.20 per litre but we seem to have forgotten that as the price of oil has plummeted to as low as US $40 a barrel in recent times (well, as the world economy collapsed to be frank). However, in as little time as over the last two weeks or so oil has moved from $48 a barrel to $68, an upward trend long predicted by many. As the world economy stabilises and improves this should continue to increase. Although the increasing cost of petrol isn't my primary reasoning for supporting greater investment in public transport it nevertheless is a serious problem with the potential to have long term ramifications for our economy. I will continue to watch this with interest and hope it serves as a catalyst for greater change in transport policy in New Zealand.

Anyway, I am currently working on a small project about the proposed Christchurch tram extension. I hope to show what is planned and explain a bit about what I hope for. Should have this done later this week. Till then, keep your powder dry.

Same Crap, Budget Day

Interesting to note today, during question time in parliament, that Green Party co-leader Russell Norman managed to get Transport Minister Stephen Joyce to admit that no full benefit-cost ratios had been carried out prior to the Government establishing it's seven roads of national significance. This means that we are allowing the Government to sink loads of money into these projects without actually knowing how much benefit they will be or whether they will be of any benefit at all. It would be interesting to stack this up against some other transport projects such as Auckland's rail electrification or CBD underground rail loop. For a government that claims to be financially responsible and business savvy this is worrying indeed.

Also of note today is that Stephen Joyce has hinted at delays to the Auckland rail electrification scheme because the Government wants to explore the possibility of a private-public-partnership (PPP) to purchase rolling stock. Considering how far down the, er, line this project has already gone this action makes little sense, perhaps simply being a delay tactic by a Government that's a bit cold on both rail and public transport in general. In addition, as we are in a recession right now private capital for such a project is the last thing the Government should be expecting or even seeking. Stephen Joyce, apparently, has been in Australia to see how a PPP might work, but he obviously didn't take much notice as PPP's in rail and public transport aren't flush with success there. Seriously, it's a crazy New Zealand right now. Keep you powder dry.

Christchurch Roads Getting National Funding

Three major Christchurch road projects were announced as part of the Government's 'roads of national significance' scheme, the Southern Motorway, the Northern Arterial and the Western Bypass. Of note, all three are hangovers from the 1960's era Christchurch Transportation Masterplan, of which a major part was to build an extensive motorway system for Christchurch (which obviously was never built!). The total cost of the projects is meant to be $650 million to $800 million and will be paid for out of the Government's increase in State Highway spending from $6.2 million to $10.7 million over the next ten years. Essentially what this means is that our local transport authorities will potentially save millions of dollars as these projects will now come under central government funding. Local authorities were going to put $176 million into the Southern Motorway alone which now means that money can be spent elsewhere. In addition the roads are to be given priority and may be further fast tracked through the consents process.

The Western bypass is perhaps the road I support the most. It's function is rather unique and would be hard to replicate by other transport modes. The plan is to four lane Russley and Johns Roads and build a flyover at the Memorial Road intersection. The flyover I am intrigued about as it could allow much improved traffic flow into the airport by separating north-south traffic from airport bound/origin traffic. However, what are we really getting? Until I see dedicated plans its hard to comment, but other intersections will cause problems and delays if they remain as roundabouts (even if the road is upgraded to four lanes). The other problem is at the north and south ends. At the north the bypass slots into Main North Road as a regular intersection and currently causes painful back-ups. What will happen here? At the south end the bypass flows straight into Hornby and a busy commercial and retail area, slotting into Main South Road at a busy and hazardous traffic light intersection. Continued population and traffic growth will eliminate any gains made on this road if it is not done properly and if steps aren't taken to reduce road use by investing in public transport.

The Northern Arterial is just a rehashing of the 1960's transport master plan albeit on a lighter scale. It could improve the dispersal of traffic from the north but will likely fail in reducing traffic congestion in the long term. The Waimakariri area is one of the fastest growing in New Zealand and is heavily dependent on the car. A large and ever increasing percentage of Waimakariri residents commute to Christchurch everyday so unless measures are also taken to get more commuters on to public transport the potential gains to be made by improving road access into Christchurch from the north will be nought and it will be money poorly spent.

The Southern Motorway has been on the drawing board for years and has been delayed time and time again as money has been diverted to North island projects. It basically involves widening the former Southern Motorway to four lanes (as it was always intended to have been) and extend it south around Wigram and towards Halswell Junction Road (which in turn will be upgraded). Ultimately the motorway will be further extended to just beyond Templeton (and State Highway One upgraded to four lanes from here to Rolleston), but many think this latter extension should be accelerated, an idea with which I agree. The benefits of this road are enormous as it will allow a better flow from the industrious south to the port at Lyttelton. However, once again it will be all for nothing unless other efforts are made to get less people dependent on these roads and allow them to do their job. The Selwyn District, like the Waimakariri, is one of the fastest growing in New Zealand and spending on improved public transport will be needed for this project to be feasible long-term. In addition a perfectly good double tracked railway runs from the south to Lyttelton, getting more freight moving this way would have obvious economic benefits.

All in all I believe this to be a good thing, but I must stress that developing these roads at the expense of public transport will not be beneficial and will not get these roads working the way they should. I hope the money saved by local authorities is put to good use and is largely spent on improving public transport (perhaps my wish list?). Unfortunately I believe most of it will probably be put to use improving local roads, particularly those that inter operate with these projects. However, it is early days yet and these roads might never get built such is the way of New Zealand. Remember that most transport infrastructure proposed for Christchurch in the 1960's never got built, Christchurch not only being a 'car city' but a poor one at that.

Public Transport Wish List

Looking back at my post before last I see that I've mentioned my 'wish list' for Christchurch in terms of improving public transport. So I thought id flesh it out and pop it on here to compare with what is currently on offer and see how on the money I am. Note that this is aimed to be a list of projects realistically obtainable within a five year period. Anyway here it is;

• Bus lanes on Papanui, Colombo, Riccarton, Sumner, New Brighton, Queenspark and Lincoln routes.
• Metrocard top-ups off buses.
• Park and ride at Rangiora, Kaiapoi, Rolleston and Lincoln.
• Cycle lock-up facilities at key locations allowing 'cycle and ride'.
• Suburban bus interchanges with waiting lounges, real time info, security and Metro help desks at key nodes including: Riccarton, Papanui, Shirley, Linwood and Hornby.
• Ferry terminal and bus interchange at Lyttelton.
• Upgrade and extension of CBD tram aimed at opening up the city centre to locals and visitors (including use of metrocard on tram).
• Investigation into future light rail routes on busy bus routes.
• Investigation into utilising existing three rail lines for heavy commuter rail.
  

Most of these measures are reasonable to expect in the next five years (note the final two are investigations only) and all would certainly make public transport a more feasible transport option for Christchurch commuters as well as making the city a much friendlier place to get around for locals and visitors alike.

In addition, most of my proposed bus lanes have been announced recently, which is excellent, while tenders have already been called for a new integrated smart ticketing system which should see top-ups made off buses when implemented. Park and ride at Rangiora, Kaiapoi and Rolleston is now beyond investigation and is waiting for funding as too is the Lyttelton ferry terminal and some suburban bus interchanges. Moves towards investigating light-rail and commuter rail have both shown promise in recent years with Christchurch mayor Bob Parker being a keen advocate.

All in all I think that my list is relatively on the pulse. It's a good, realistic, blueprint of what we need and can achieve in the next five years. However, with the pace things have been moving, coupled with uncertainty over funding (not helped by the withdrawal of a regional fuel tax), don't be surprised if we are kept waiting. Over the next few days I'm going to try and flesh out a few of the issues on the wish list, in particular the proposals for the CBD tram. Also, Christchurch has benefitted recently from the announcement of the Government's 'roads of national significance', with a number of projects getting the hurry-up and national funding. I will discuss the good, bad and ugly of that as well but until then, keep your powder dry.

Where is our (transport) money going?

I would like to apologise in advance for this. Mostly because I like to keep things non political. I am not associated with any political party in any way and don't consider myself left or right on the political scale. However, this issue is important for it impacts significantly on this nations ability to build an effective transport network, and therefore it impacts on the very future of Christchurch itself.

Why is our Government doing this? Why are they taking money from public transport and shovelling it into roads? New Zealand will always need to invest in roads but why at the expense of other transport modes? New Zealand's economy suffers from an over reliance on roads not because we have not invested enough in them but because we have not invested in an efficient sustainable transport network overall. Moving freight and people by higher capacity transport modes is vastly more efficient, requires less long-term transport spending and reduces short-term costs. It also allows choice, making us less vulnerable when economic hard times hit. Spending money on public transport, rail etc isn't about denying people the right to travel the way they want to. Where public transport improvements have been made people have flocked, and capacity on roads has reduced or ceased its rapid growth. Take a look at Auckland where they have had 70 per cent growth in patronage on the Northern Busway, congestion on the Harbour Bridge has eased and traffic growth in general has slowed. The obvious benefits to the economy barely need pointing out.

So why has our Government done this? They are going by the logic that 84 per cent of New Zealander's commute using private vehicles and that 70 per cent of our freight is hauled on roads. Oh dear. It doesn't take half a brain to realise that this is flawed. New Zealand has a poor reputation for public transport investment while rail has been crippled and coastal shipping practically murdered. With that in mind what does this government expect? If anything, those figures legitimise greater spending on more efficient, higher capacity transport modes and illustrate New Zealand's brittle economic position. Ironically, petrol increased by 5c a litre the same week as this announcement!

The end result is that it will cost you and me more and more to get from 'A' to 'B', it will cost more for goods to be transported around this country, it will cost more for goods to be sent from this country, it will result in a less accessible New Zealand and it will turn away visitors and business alike. End result, it will hit you and me in the pocket. Big time.

The bus goes first?

I've been waiting for development for some time now on when Christchurch is finally going to get a proper network of bus lanes. I need wait no longer! The Christchurch City Council has finally announced that it will begin rolling out bus lanes this year and include a raft of other bus priority measures. It seems the Colombo, Papanui and Queenspark routes will be the first to gain from these bus priority measures with construction due to begin mid-year. This is logical as historically Papanui-Cashmere is the busiest and most dense corridor in Christchurch (it was the last tram route and was originally to be a trolley bus route because of this). Queenspark is quite far from major nodes making it a good way of judging the effect of bus priority measures on car dependent areas.

Bus lanes on these routes will consist of both part-time and full-time types, while bus signals and improved bus stop locations will also be introduced. I have no idea what the later really means, I hope its not those awful bus stops that jut out into the traffic lane allowing a bus not to lose its place in traffic. This measure proved unpopular when trialled on Hills road, and while I say ''tough sh*t'' to those 'poor drivers' who are 'held up' by the 'nasty' bus, nevertheless the object is not to cause too much controversy on such an important and much needed public transport project.

Apparently investigation and planning is now underway for bus priority measures on the Riccarton, New Brighton and Sumner bus routes. Wider consultation still has to be carried out with local business owners and the like which means we'll probably have to wait another year or so for these to see fruition. However, once all these aforementioned bus routes have the priority measures introduced it will mean that the first box of my own personal wish list has been ticked, which makes this quite a milestone (of sorts). Bus lanes on the Riccarton, Papanui, Colombo, Sumner, New Brighton and Queenspark routes have been the logical first step in developing an efficient sustainable public transport network for Christchurch as a significant proportion of Christchurch bus services uses them.

Anyway, what will these priority measures achieve? They will allow buses to by-pass traffic congestion and give them their own signals at traffic lights. The result will be faster, more reliable bus services making public transport in Christchurch a more feasible alternative to the forever costly (both to the individual and the wider community) and inefficient car dominated system we have. To read up on bus priority yourself the City Council has a rather informative website http://www.ccc.govt.nz/buspriority/.

'Get in my car...'

Today I came across this kewl little website, www.letscarpool.govt.nz. Basically it is an initiative from the Greater Wellington Regional Council, through it's transport authority Metlink, allowing people to register and locate people with whom they can join in a car pool. 'Car pooling' or 'ride sharing' is a concept you would probably be aware of through movies and TV programmes rather than from first hand experience. However, it is gaining popularity in New Zealand, and even Christchurch, with websites such as www.carpoolnz.org and www.dunedinrideshare.co.nz offering ride share programmes. However it is great to see a local authority getting in behind such a project on an official level, showing great commitment at reducing single occupancy among car commuters.

Ride sharing allows people to pool resources in their daily commute. Four people ride sharing in a car has direct benefits such as saving on fuel etc but also has indirect benefits by reducing the need for expensive roading infrastructure (four people ride sharing could effectively take three additional cars off a road), has environmental benefits and also increases social capital. I would like to see ride sharing officially promoted in Greater Christchurch, particularly in the Waimakariri and Selwyn urban areas. Roading and public transport infrastructure is poor in these areas and do not properly disperse commuters as they approach the city. Reducing the number of cars on the daily commute could help loosen the tight grip of congestion in a number of key areas within the city and is a relatively inexpensive way of doing so. If the Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri and Selwyn District Council's and Ecan are committed to reducing traffic congestion and developing a world class sustainable transport system (as they claim) then ride sharing is a logical step to take in the early days. Hopefully they can follow the good example now being set in Wellington (bloody Wellington with its trolley buses and trains and stuff!).

For those of you at UC who travel some distance check out;

www.sustain.canterbury.ac.nz/transport/carpool_index.shtml

Definitely worth it if your beyond a walk or bike in these troubled financial times. Out.

Snap? Infratil bidding for 'Metrocard' replacement

Earlier this year the Christchurch City Council issued a tender for a new integrated ticketing system to replace the current 'Metrocard' system. On Monday it was announced that New Zealand company Infratil had made a bid for the supply of this system utilising it's 'Snapper' card system currently in use on some Wellington buses.

Seeing as we want to get the absolute best possible public transport system for our city, it makes sense to invest in a ticketing system that is world class and saves patrons time and money. Moving top ups off buses and into agents (such as dairy's), seamless integration between different services and transport modes (ferry, CBD tram), and allowing future expansion of services offered (small purchases, new transport modes) are all benefits we can expect from a new system.

Now here is the funny thing. Infratil is actually the operator of most of Auckland and Wellington's bus networks as NZ Bus. Critics have argued that this forms a conflict of interest and that it would be unhealthy for Infratil to operate the ticketing system. Most of this came up due to Infratil's recent failed bid to supply an integrated ticketing system for Auckland's public transport network and their subsequent, and very public, spitting of the dummy and associated throwing of the toys out of the cot in response. Infratil argued a back lash would ensue as the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) chose a foreign firm to supply the system instead, but the fact was that Infratil offered an unproven system that has yet to fully roll out anywhere and presented a substantial conflict of interest.

Now here is the even funnier (and fishy) thing. Auckland's integrated ticketing scheme has stalled due to the governments cancellation of the regional fuel tax. As this tax was to help pay for the new system uncertainty remains over the legitimacy and status of the current successful bid, and Infratil seem to remain confident that they will eventually be awarded the contract despite ARTA's preference for an alternative supplier.

Now here is the hilarious bit. The Christchurch tender stipulates that the new ticketing system be interoperable with Auckland's! Ha! So basically who knows what will happen and when. Personally I want to see something that is up with London's Oyster card, can be used over the entire network, is easier to use (quick boardings), can be topped up online and at shops and means we don't have to wait behind someone fumbling about with coins and notes waiting to top up their card on the bus.

For what it's worth the Snapper card in Wellington is only able to be used on some Wellington buses. It can also be used for a number of small purchases and has scope to be used for more (such as online music etc). It isn't used as an integrated ticketing system. Wellington trains, ferry's and other bus companies still issue their own tickets. There is clearly uncertainty over the Snapper system representing a world class integrated ticketing system and as public transport in Christchurch is deplorable and needs all the help it can get I am starting to think it might be better to go for a proven firm, even if it is overseas based.

Nevertheless, what Christchurch needs is an integrated ticketing system that is easy to use and top up and can easily be adapted to advances in Christchurch's public transport system. Whatever system is eventually chosen it is good to see the local authorities pressing on with investment in a more sustainable and efficient form of transportation. Improving Christchurch's public transport system with initiatives such as this can only be good.