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.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, July 20, 2009
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?
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?
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, July 13, 2009
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.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
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.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
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...
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)