No government money for fewer cars in Christchurch

Please note this sub-forum does not provide professional finance advice. You should seek advice from a licensed financial advisor.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification.

If investing please consider our affiliate link for new accounts: Sharesies.

Forums › Finance and wealth management › No government money for fewer cars in Christchurch

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1767106 19-Apr-2017 09:26

tdgeek:
I have an example actually. Im in ChCh, and rush hour is a PITA. When its school holidays its good. Plenty of traffic but a lot less gridlock. Given that this is JUST school kids, i.e. parents, that is quite a gain from one demographic. If public transport was economical, a good way to send the kids to school or take them, 1 bus = 10 cars. But you would want to incentivise that, as before long, "oh sweet, driving is good now, lets take the car"

Child fares are half adults & there are multiple specific school only runs as well extra normal busses at school times. These busses are still crammed full, ruining public transport for anyone else - sometimes I wonder if there isn't far more children in Christchurch than adults.

nickb800:
Here's a novel thought - *everyone* is a pedestrian at some point in their journey - you can't drive your car to your desk at work, to a table at a restaurant, or the checkout counter in a shop. Making the city more pleasant for pedestrians is making it more pleasant for everyone. Who enjoyed walking down the side of the one-way streets pre-quake with several lanes of traffic zooming past at 50kmh?

What!?!? It's a road. There was cars. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it.

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1767116 19-Apr-2017 09:38

bmt:
There are a lot of dinosaurs in here who would do well to open their eyes to the bigger picture.

That residential and commercial should be interspersed, so that people live close - possibly even walking distance - to their work and shops? But then, we wouldn't even have a CBD ;).

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1767123 19-Apr-2017 09:48

PaulBags:
tdgeek:

I have an example actually. Im in ChCh, and rush hour is a PITA. When its school holidays its good. Plenty of traffic but a lot less gridlock. Given that this is JUST school kids, i.e. parents, that is quite a gain from one demographic. If public transport was economical, a good way to send the kids to school or take them, 1 bus = 10 cars. But you would want to incentivise that, as before long, "oh sweet, driving is good now, lets take the car"

Child fares are half adults & there are multiple specific school only runs as well extra normal busses at school times. These busses are still crammed full, ruining public transport for anyone else - sometimes I wonder if there isn't far more children in Christchurch than adults.

nickb800:

Here's a novel thought - *everyone* is a pedestrian at some point in their journey - you can't drive your car to your desk at work, to a table at a restaurant, or the checkout counter in a shop. Making the city more pleasant for pedestrians is making it more pleasant for everyone. Who enjoyed walking down the side of the one-way streets pre-quake with several lanes of traffic zooming past at 50kmh?

What!?!? It's a road. There was cars. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it.

As I said, school holidays are very clear to see with less traffic, noticeably so

The traffic was ok before, although going through Riccarton was always a no go idea at 4pm onwards. What has changed is there are many CBDers that work outside of the CBD, so instead of lines pof traffic going in, then going out after work, you get criss cross traffic going in all directions, and through the CBD. You would think that this a spread would help, but it hasnt, as the new driving routes suited standard traffic not rush hour

old3eyes

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1767125 19-Apr-2017 09:53

bmt:

Agree with what Rikkitic is saying here. The future is not more cars, not ever widening motorways, not stacks and stacks of parking buildings.

The new Waterview connection motorway will be opening in Auckland very soon. Its purpose is to link up an alternative route to SH1 to get around Auckland, as well as removing traffic from more suburban roads. From day 1 it will be packed. It will not ease congestion at all. The concept to understand here is - you build a new road to add capacity, but in no time it has filled up and you are left with the same congestion.

When you understand this, you see that just building more roads, building more parking buildings and catering for cars above all else is not the answer. There's only so many roads and therefore on street parks you can cram into Christchurch CBD. Parking buildings cater for x number of cars, but they are not an efficient use of space.

There are a lot of dinosaurs in here who would do well to open their eyes to the bigger picture.

So what is your suggestion, teleportation??

Regards,

Old3eyes

nickb800

2721 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1767126 19-Apr-2017 09:53

MikeB4: We are an aging population and yes that includes everyone here. Ever tried using public transport using walking sticks, crutches, walking frame, wheelchair, scooter? They are wholly unsuitable due to their design, routes and simply useless drivers.

No-one is saying that everyone needs to use public transport. The point is that if we get people who can conveniently use public transport to use it, then there will be less traffic for those who don't have a choice e.g. those with limited mobility, couriers, tradespeople, etc

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1767131 19-Apr-2017 10:00

nickb800:
MikeB4: We are an aging population and yes that includes everyone here. Ever tried using public transport using walking sticks, crutches, walking frame, wheelchair, scooter? They are wholly unsuitable due to their design, routes and simply useless drivers.

No-one is saying that everyone needs to use public transport. The point is that if we get people who can conveniently use public transport to use it, then there will be less traffic for those who don't have a choice e.g. those with limited mobility, couriers, tradespeople, etc

Less parking will mean more illegal parking not less cars. Even now I can go past a considerable percentage of mobility parks that have non permitted vehicles in them. This often means I have to cancel business in the city or park where it is dangerous and very difficult for me to manage.

nickb800

2721 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1767164 19-Apr-2017 10:14

PaulBags:

nickb800:

Here's a novel thought - *everyone* is a pedestrian at some point in their journey - you can't drive your car to your desk at work, to a table at a restaurant, or the checkout counter in a shop. Making the city more pleasant for pedestrians is making it more pleasant for everyone. Who enjoyed walking down the side of the one-way streets pre-quake with several lanes of traffic zooming past at 50kmh?

What!?!? It's a road. There was cars. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it.

As a road for single occupant vehicles, no there wasn't anything wrong with it. But looking at the bigger picture, the CBD was economically broken - crumbling old buildings, sky-high vacancy rates, and a lack of private sector investment. Making it a more pleasant place to be, by improving the streetscape, is part of an economic rejuvenation that was long overdue, and would have been necessary with or without the earthquakes.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18664 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1767169 19-Apr-2017 10:17

I think it is a mistake to see things as static and unchanging. There is also an evolutionary process at work. Just because public transport is unsatisfactory for many people today, does not mean it will always be that way. It can also change as conditions, technology and demand do. Today's public transport may not be able to cope with the task, but that does not have to mean it will always be that way. Attitudes can also change. Unlike the dinosaurs, people can also evolve.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

nickb800

2721 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1767173 19-Apr-2017 10:19

MikeB4:
nickb800:

MikeB4: We are an aging population and yes that includes everyone here. Ever tried using public transport using walking sticks, crutches, walking frame, wheelchair, scooter? They are wholly unsuitable due to their design, routes and simply useless drivers.

No-one is saying that everyone needs to use public transport. The point is that if we get people who can conveniently use public transport to use it, then there will be less traffic for those who don't have a choice e.g. those with limited mobility, couriers, tradespeople, etc

Less parking will mean more illegal parking not less cars. Even now I can go past a considerable percentage of mobility parks that have non permitted vehicles in them. This often means I have to cancel business in the city or park where it is dangerous and very difficult for me to manage.

I can understand that that would be very frustrating, but the solution there is enforcement, possibly aided by technology e.g. Christchurch City is trialing sensors in car parks that detect a chip in the users mobility pass, to automatically dispatch parking wardens when a mobility pass isn't detected.

Reiterating my previous comment, providing alternatives for those who have the choice will free up capacity for those who do not have a choice. It is physically impossible to provide on-street carparking for everyone in a CBD when you have dense employment in multi-story office buildings. Over-provision of subsidised car parks for everyone in order to discourage illegal parking in mobility parks is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1767193 19-Apr-2017 10:43

nickb800:

MikeB4:
nickb800:

MikeB4: We are an aging population and yes that includes everyone here. Ever tried using public transport using walking sticks, crutches, walking frame, wheelchair, scooter? They are wholly unsuitable due to their design, routes and simply useless drivers.

No-one is saying that everyone needs to use public transport. The point is that if we get people who can conveniently use public transport to use it, then there will be less traffic for those who don't have a choice e.g. those with limited mobility, couriers, tradespeople, etc

Less parking will mean more illegal parking not less cars. Even now I can go past a considerable percentage of mobility parks that have non permitted vehicles in them. This often means I have to cancel business in the city or park where it is dangerous and very difficult for me to manage.

I can understand that that would be very frustrating, but the solution there is enforcement, possibly aided by technology e.g. Christchurch City is trialing sensors in car parks that detect a chip in the users mobility pass, to automatically dispatch parking wardens when a mobility pass isn't detected.

Reiterating my previous comment, providing alternatives for those who have the choice will free up capacity for those who do not have a choice. It is physically impossible to provide on-street carparking for everyone in a CBD when you have dense employment in multi-story office buildings. Over-provision of subsidised car parks for everyone in order to discourage illegal parking in mobility parks is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Economics.

They can run a bus service, but its not cheap, so we drive.

They can reduce fares to make it worthwhile, then they lose money

They can add more buses and routes so its great and easy to flit around the city, they lose money

So, make buses a council owned business, charged with providing a service, not making a profit. Big buses, smaller buses (thats in place now) and if its a good price, bussing will become normal.

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1767203 19-Apr-2017 11:05

joker97:

Get Singapore or Japan to build our infrastructure. Get Kiwis to do it might as well give them a billion dollars to throw down the drain - same thing.

I for one do not wish to be warehoused like the Japanese and Singaporeans.

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1767227 19-Apr-2017 11:47

Bussing is council run, with ecan dictating routes, ccc (and other local councils) providing shelters and infrastructure, and central government dictating funding levels - so lower fares and/or more investment from rates isn't actually possible (there's now a hard limit of 50% or more funding from farebox, this is what prompted the last round of "improvements"{cuts} and zone/fare changes. Previously it was less than 35% from farebox.). Bus runs are tendered to bus companies, and red bus is council owned - but guess what, they have the smallest number of tenders. Turns out public owned busses can't compete :/.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1767268 19-Apr-2017 12:23

PaulBags: Bussing is council run, with ecan dictating routes, ccc (and other local councils) providing shelters and infrastructure, and central government dictating funding levels - so lower fares and/or more investment from rates isn't actually possible (there's now a hard limit of 50% or more funding from farebox, this is what prompted the last round of "improvements"{cuts} and zone/fare changes. Previously it was less than 35% from farebox.). Bus runs are tendered to bus companies, and red bus is council owned - but guess what, they have the smallest number of tenders. Turns out public owned busses can't compete :/.

Council run but most routes are tendered to bus companies who make a profit.

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1767332 19-Apr-2017 13:59

As I said, Red Bus is ccc owned and lost most of their runs. Why? Presumably, they couldn't keep the cost down. Go Bus operates across the country, how can Red Bus or any other city owned entity compete with the economies of scale that brings? Importantly, as to defeating your point, to win the tender they must provide the lowest tender price - so it doesn't cost rate payers more, even if Go Bus makes a profit.

Perhaps, then, the answer is a national SOE public transport fleet?

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1767348 19-Apr-2017 14:18

PaulBags: As I said, Red Bus is ccc owned and lost most of their runs. Why? Presumably, they couldn't keep the cost down. Go Bus operates across the country, how can Red Bus or any other city owned entity compete with the economies of scale that brings? Importantly, as to defeating your point, to win the tender they must provide the lowest tender price - so it doesn't cost rate payers more, even if Go Bus makes a profit.

Perhaps, then, the answer is a national SOE public transport fleet?

Defeating my point? LOL ok.

If CCC wishes to make a profit, and they cannot, they need to decide if they wish to burden the fewer number of bus people, or absorb the cost across the population to enable cheaper fares. Or flag it, and focus on cars, congestion and widening roads that cannot be widened.

I doubt that economies of sale would be high for that industry, as the rolling stock and wages for drivers, R+M, depreciation is a variable not fixed cost.

So at the end of the day someone has to pay. Fare paying passengers or the total Chch population, which is what I feel is fair. Or forget buses as a means to help congestion.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6