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.