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...