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.

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.