All posts in the topic Traffic congestion (Short link)

Topic Navigation

Useful Links

Topics in Canterbury Public Issues Forum

Summary

There are 39 posts — by 14 authors — in this topic.
Latest post made by Tim Kerr at 2007 Aug 03 01:51 UTC

From: Andrew Groom Date: 2007 Apr 12 23:01 UTC Short link

(I changed the email subject line in my reply to better reflect what
this topic is about)

Ralph Skjellerup wrote:
> Good evening
>
> I am waiting for some good issues? One that stands out is the planning of
> our roadways. The planners have ignored situations such as the Westfield

If City planners are starting to give more consideration to cyclists,
kudos to them ! Ralph, you ask about solutions to the problem of
congestion - I don't think making life easier for motorists is one of
them. Traffic congestion is the natural result of everyone acting in
their own interests. If we try to pander to motorists, as a parent
pandering to a willful child ends up creating a rod for their own backs,
we will just make the situation worse.

An example: suppose it takes you 15 minutes to make a particular journey
through the city. One day the City makes some adjustments to the roads
so that the journey only takes you 13 minutes. Hooray !, you say. The
next day you say, isn't this great ? The day after, you say, man, the
congestion in this city is getting really bad, someone should do
something about it - it takes me 13 MINUTES to do this journey - that's
FAR too long.

Instead of pandering to motorists, how about some natural consequences ?
If it takes too long to make that journey, how about:

- not living so far away from where you work (if it's a commute) ?
- maybe taking the bus so you can do something useful or relaxing on the
way ?
- maybe ride a bike so you can get some exercise and fresh air and NOT
contribute to the congestion, and spend less money and time parking ?
- maybe take a walk ?

Christchurch has a natural disadvantage being flat and open - people
can, and do, want to live anywhere in the city area, unlike, e.g.,
Wellington, where people are constrained to living in narrow corridors
defined by the geography of the city. As a result, public transport in
Wellington is far more effective because a public transport
infrastructure shuttling people along a narrow corridor (they actually
have commuter trains, for example) is far more cost-effective than one
working over a very spread out area like Christchurch. My feeling is
that the City should be actively *dis*-couraging people from living in
places where it is more difficult to serve them with public transport by
changing zoning patterns to make it more attractive to live near public
transport corridors. In other words, we need a spoke-and-hub zoning
pattern in the city rather than the bullseye pattern we have now.

If anyone's interested, I've got an interview with Richard register of
Eco City Builders (http://www.ecocitybuilders.org/) by David Room from
Global Public Media at:

http://www.reurbanise.co.nz/resources/interviews/richardregister

where he talks about alternatives to designing a city for better use of
energy and resources. It's an 18 MB mp3, so not small, but very
interesting to listen to.

Over a billion dollars is spent on roading every year in Canterbury and
congestion is just getting worse. Isn't that just reinforcing the maxim
that "if you build more roads, you get more cars" ?

Cheers, Andrew.

From: Christine Edwards Date: 2007 Apr 13 04:35 UTC Short link

re traffic congestion... 4 mornings a week between 8.00a.m  and 8.20a.m. I get
a bus into
  town. As I wait for the bus to come along Cranford st I notice that  95% of
the cars have one person. Where are they all going? The 5% that do have
passengers are mostly parents with children.  I have also noticed the bus
service is faster in school holidays.  As for people biking - I see about 4/5
on bikes depending on the weather.
   I do realise that buses can't go everywhere but I do think more could be
done like the bus lanes in Auckland. If you have a certain number of people as
passengers  and as a private car owner you can use the bus lanes and some
people actually stop and pick up people at the bus stops so they can use the
bus lanes. Maybe some roads need to be cyclelane free and have bus lanes. Or be
buslanes in peak times and cycle lanes non peak times.
  Something has to be done about the traffic- try Riccarton Rd on a Saturday
afternoon- even worse in wet weather.  If something isnt done we will end up
with a tax like inner London.
  Christine

Andrew Groom <email obscured>> wrote:
  (I changed the email subject line in my reply to better reflect what
this topic is about)

Ralph Skjellerup wrote:
> Good evening
>
> I am waiting for some good issues? One that stands out is the planning of
> our roadways. The planners have ignored situations such as the Westfield

If City planners are starting to give more consideration to cyclists,
kudos to them ! Ralph, you ask about solutions to the problem of
congestion - I don't think making life easier for motorists is one of
them. Traffic congestion is the natural result of everyone acting in
their own interests. If we try to pander to motorists, as a parent
pandering to a willful child ends up creating a rod for their own backs,
we will just make the situation worse.

An example: suppose it takes you 15 minutes to make a particular journey
through the city. One day the City makes some adjustments to the roads
so that the journey only takes you 13 minutes. Hooray !, you say. The
next day you say, isn't this great ? The day after, you say, man, the
congestion in this city is getting really bad, someone should do
something about it - it takes me 13 MINUTES to do this journey - that's
FAR too long.

Instead of pandering to motorists, how about some natural consequences ?
If it takes too long to make that journey, how about:

- not living so far away from where you work (if it's a commute) ?
- maybe taking the bus so you can do something useful or relaxing on the
way ?
- maybe ride a bike so you can get some exercise and fresh air and NOT
contribute to the congestion, and spend less money and time parking ?
- maybe take a walk ?

Christchurch has a natural disadvantage being flat and open - people
can, and do, want to live anywhere in the city area, unlike, e.g.,
Wellington, where people are constrained to living in narrow corridors
defined by the geography of the city. As a result, public transport in
Wellington is far more effective because a public transport
infrastructure shuttling people along a narrow corridor (they actually
have commuter trains, for example) is far more cost-effective than one
working over a very spread out area like Christchurch. My feeling is
that the City should be actively *dis*-couraging people from living in
places where it is more difficult to serve them with public transport by
changing zoning patterns to make it more attractive to live near public
transport corridors. In other words, we need a spoke-and-hub zoning
pattern in the city rather than the bullseye pattern we have now.

If anyone's interested, I've got an interview with Richard register of
Eco City Builders (http://www.ecocitybuilders.org/) by David Room from
Global Public Media at:

http://www.reurbanise.co.nz/resources/interviews/richardregister

where he talks about alternatives to designing a city for better use of
energy and resources. It's an 18 MB mp3, so not small, but very
interesting to listen to.

Over a billion dollars is spent on roading every year in Canterbury and
congestion is just getting worse. Isn't that just reinforcing the maxim
that "if you build more roads, you get more cars" ?

Cheers, Andrew.

Andrew Groom
Bryndwr, Christchurch
More info: Info about Andrew:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/andrewgroom

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3HoZgUzTBcx4rPetwzMZSi

From: Andrew Groom Date: 2007 Apr 15 22:36 UTC Short link

Hi Christine,

christene edwards wrote:
> re traffic congestion... 4 mornings a week between 8.00a.m  and 8.20a.m. I
get a bus into
>   town. As I wait for the bus to come along Cranford st I notice that  95% of
the cars have one person. Where are they all going? The 5% that do have
passengers are mostly parents with children.  I have also noticed the bus
service is faster in school holidays.  As for people biking - I see about 4/5
on bikes depending on the weather.
>    I do realise that buses can't go everywhere but I do think more could be
done like the bus lanes in Auckland. If you have a certain number of people as
passengers  and as a private car owner you can use the bus lanes and some
people actually stop and pick up people at the bus stops so they can use the
bus lanes. Maybe some roads need to be cyclelane free and have bus lanes. Or be
buslanes in peak times and cycle lanes non peak times.
>   Something has to be done about the traffic- try Riccarton Rd on a Saturday
afternoon- even worse in wet weather.  If something isnt done we will end up
with a tax like inner London.

Thanks for that. While bus lanes sound like a good idea, they have the
following disadvantages:

1. They still have to be built, which costs money
2. Where is the land going to come from ?

So, I suspect retrofitting bus lanes in existing urban areas would be
nightmarishly expensive.

You mention the congestion tax in inner London (more details at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/03/congestion_charge/exemptions_guide/html/what.stm).
Personally, I think this would be a great idea for Christchurch, along
with tolls for certain stretches of road at certain times of day. We
have the technology for being able to charge people a fee for being on,
say, Main North Rd between 5:00 and 6:00 pm and many other options
besides - why aren't we using these options to reduce congestion ?

The answer is in the assumption we make in this society - that it is our
inalienable right to drive our cars whenever and wherever we feel like.
So, when we say, "something must be done about traffic congestion", what
we're really saying is, "something must be done about traffic congestion
*that doesn't negatively impact on me in any way, shape or form*". It's
only when we get past this mental block that we will be able to sort out
  our traffic congestion problems.

Thinking larger scale for a moment, perhaps the best solution of all,
and by far the easiest (technically) to implement, would be a gradual
but significant hike in petrol tax, with the proceeds going directly to
public transport. I imagine this would be seen as being unfair to those
in rural areas, but you can't please all of the people all of the time ...

Cheers, Andrew.

From: Christoph Hensch Date: 2007 Apr 15 23:44 UTC Short link

Ralph Skjellerup wrote:
"There also appears to have been too much concentration on cycle lanes, perhaps
the planners only ride bikes?"

Well, I find that the planners have it really all wrong, too, going about it
with a completely inappropriate mindset. I personally would love to bike,
however find it too dangerous and unpleasant.

Here is a good website that gives an idea how planning could be in Christchurch
to make biking a useful mode of transport in the city:
http://utilitycyclism.blogspot.com/

From: Andrew Groom Date: 2007 Apr 16 00:10 UTC Short link

Christoph Hensch wrote:
> Ralph Skjellerup wrote:
> "There also appears to have been too much concentration on cycle lanes,
perhaps the planners only ride bikes?"
>
> Well, I find that the planners have it really all wrong, too, going about it
with a completely inappropriate mindset. I personally would love to bike,
however find it too dangerous and unpleasant.
>
> Here is a good website that gives an idea how planning could be in
Christchurch to make biking a useful mode of transport in the city:
> http://utilitycyclism.blogspot.com/

Hey, thanks Cristoph - a very interesting read. The bit about cyclists
being officially regarded as "fast-moving pedestrians" in Kyoto is
particularly interesting. Personally, I regularly cycle on footpaths for
short distances where the alternative is to cross and recross a
dangerous stretch of road. I'm always very careful when doing this to
either drop my speed or keep a sharp eye out for slower moving
pedestrians or cars backing out of driveways. The number of close calls
I've had on the footpath have been far fewer (and far less dangerous)
than those with cars on the road.

Cheers, Andrew.

From: Natalie Date: 2007 Apr 16 00:27 UTC Short link

As my urban planner professor said at Ottawa University: The more roads you
build, the more traffic you'll get. If you think that by building a better,
bigger road from a 2 laner to a 4 laner will help congestion, you're wrong.
The only thing that a larger road brings, is more traffic.

Good quality affordable public transportation is the solution-- and that
includes seats for everyone. The most annoying thing is to take a bus that
takes 30 minutes and to stand all the way and pay to stand!!

Cycling is great. I cycle to work when the sun is shining and frost is not
on the ground. I dare say that I don't trust car drivers with frosted
windshields.

But did you know that diesel is the worst polluter there is. At least
woodburners smell nice. (in reference to our supposed worst polluters, say
ECAN...)
Being behind a diesel vehicle, I would 'recycle' the air in my car. On a
bike, it's hard to hold your breath and peddle. So I take the side roads. I
truly believe that cycle lanes are not adequate. We need cycle ONLY paths
like those on the Avon. But this is impossible, so I won't hold my breath...


 The only other solution is to redesign our city so that it is cycle
friendly. But the City Council likes the idea of cars in pedestrian malls
(is Cashel Mall), so we need to elect new city councilors who REALLY think
outside the square. With people getting fat and wanting to ride their cars
to the Dairy... well... we need new city folks too (chuckle)

Another solution which is coming close to realization is to up the price of
petrol and get people on their bikes and into buses! Hitting people in their
pocket would help, but then our city buses would up their price too because
of petrol prices...

The other solution is to give pedestrians and cyclist the right a way. Yes
change the law . A change in mind shift. People come first, as opposed to
cars!! Cycling is dangerous because car drivers don't respect them. In
Canada, pedestrians have the right away. Vancouverites are special drivers.
You only need to 'look' like you 'want' to cross the road, and cars stop for
you! Now that doesn't happen in any other Canadian cities, and that's been
15 years ago. Not sure if it's changed, but that's the attitude one is
looking for in a city. Friendly cities DONT drive over people :)

My lunch break is up. Gotta go.

From: Andrew Groom Date: 2007 Jul 11 07:36 UTC Short link

Interesting article in the Herald today:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=309&objectid=10450836

It does sound like the traffic is pretty effectively "managing itself" over the
bridge in Auckland, and a lot of money is being saved in the bargain.

I find it fascinating that we bleat about a new Council building costing $100M
but we don't bat an eyelid at the possibility of spending 10 times that amount
on probably unnecessary new roading projects, when a bit of simple demand
management will fix the problem ...

Cheers, Andrew.

From: Andrew Groom Date: 2007 Jul 24 22:26 UTC Short link

Hi Paul,

paul scott wrote:
> All roads leading North from the City are now congested, but there was a
reasonable flow along Hills road to Marshlands.

When I read this, I'm just more and more convinced that some form of
toll on the motorway north of the city at peak times would make a huge
dent in this congestion problem, and generate some revenue that could be
fed directly back into a better public transport system along that route.

How hard would it be to set up a system that:

1. Automatically photographs license plates of cars entering or leaving
the motorway during peak times.

2. Uses character recognition software to automatically detect license
plates of passing cars (it does exist - check out:



3. Build some sort of billing system that either:

a) charges people per trip or
b) have some sort of flat monthly fee

This is not sci-fi - it's being done now in various places round the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_plate_recognition#Electronic_toll_collection

Richard, perhaps you could comment on whether this sort of system has
been looked into by the CCC for managing congestion, and if not, why not
? I accept that there are concerns about accuracy and privacy, but I'm
sure these could be overcome with a little creative thinking.

Cheers, Andrew.

From: Natalie Date: 2007 Jul 25 07:31 UTC Short link

Hi

Tolls in Christchurch? Is this really necessary? It would cost more to
administer than it would to 'save our sanity'?

Car pooling, bus lanes, better bus schedules, etc... all of these
options need to be looked at instead of punitive ways. Why not give
away free bus passes, have a competition, make the bus a fun way of
getting to work-- put musicians/comedians on the bus, have prize
giveaways, publicise the winners, give restaurant vouchers, have a
'mystery bus', loads of possibilities. Why do what other cities do
when you can do it better?

Use your imagination !
Honey works better than...

From: Christine Edwards Date: 2007 Jul 25 08:59 UTC Short link

Hi Natalie. Totally agree about tolls. There are better ways. Bus lanes are a
start.

  Our bus service on the whole and compared to other countries is very good. I
have taken tourist friends on the buses and they have been astounded to see a
bus driver get off and help a wheelchair bound person onto the bus, let alone a
bus that 'kneels' for the elderly. They were also astounded to see bus drivers
chatting to regular school kid passengers.  I think there needs to be more
thought given to routes.Often when I would like to go by bus somewhere it means
taking 2 buses and a trip into town and out again- so I end up with the car.
More frequent bus times along main aterial routes at peak times would be better
and not buses that stop in the middle of the road. I have never seen this
anywhere unless there has been a specific bus route as part of the road
markings.

  I think a thumbs up hot line for good bus drivers and a thumbs down hot line
for poor bus drivers.. and these should be clearly and prominently displayed on
the bus.

  I have often wondered why the buses here are so big. Many cities have smaller
buses for off peak times.These are more economical and  take less space on the
roads = so why have the big buses running almost empty?

  Metro card  is great but could further discounts be offered if you load up
with $20 or $30 rather than the $10 that is often put on? This would encourage
more people to go by bus.
  $20 = 2 free trips/ $30= 3 free trips
  A competition sounds great...
  Christine



Doglinks NZ <email obscured>> wrote:
  Hi

Tolls in Christchurch? Is this really necessary? It would cost more to
administer than it would to 'save our sanity'?

Car pooling, bus lanes, better bus schedules, etc... all of these
options need to be looked at instead of punitive ways. Why not give
away free bus passes, have a competition, make the bus a fun way of
getting to work-- put musicians/comedians on the bus, have prize
giveaways, publicise the winners, give restaurant vouchers, have a
'mystery bus', loads of possibilities. Why do what other cities do
when you can do it better?

Use your imagination !
Honey works better than...

/Natalie

Natalie Perzylo
Wainoni, Christchurch, NZ
Info about Natalie from Doglinks.co.nz Perzylo:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/natalieperzylo

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4pAbvT00cPQTITn4MuEtuC

From: Tracey Dorreen Date: 2007 Jul 25 09:50 UTC Short link

Just think if you were forced not to be able to drive a car like me because of
my sight impairment, for example, you would be forced to use the public
transport system anyway.

I walk my girls to and from school every day and am constantly amazed at how
congested Marshland Road is getting.

However, I would dearly love to be able to have the choice of riding a bike
round the city.  Pity there are not enough cyceways around Christchurch.
Perhaps we whould encourage carless days and offer incentives to those who
actually do take up the challenge!

From: paul scott Date: 2007 Jul 25 20:24 UTC Short link

Eeea -Bureaucracy                    .

.
Apparently I have been wrong.
I was  thinking we could encourage Mayor Bob Parker  to be road user friendly.
Well, it turns out that would be a waste of time, because Bob can’t make Policy
at all on Traffic.
A couple of the people at Council put me right.
Richard West plans, directs and oversees policy.
STOP CARS     GET CARS OFF THE ROAD   policy .
Mayor Bob only gets to say “infrastructure”

And  I am not allowed to sack Traffic Planners at all,
2021 socialism forever dudes, elect who we like.
Its not good is it, sorry to let you all down.
Even though motorists like me are 80% of the ratepayers , and drivers  we  have
no say.
I have come to the conclusion that Mayor Bob Parker can and will not close down
the  STOP CARS antagonism to motorists.

Hills Roads by Richard
First there is 1.5m of footpath.
After that there is 1.5 metres of garden for the dogs to go in
Then there is the bicycle track 1.5metres
Then there is a two metre  slab concrete helipad concrete and yellow fence in
the middle of Hills road, which nobody has ever stood in.
By now we are six meters towards the center of the road., leaving 3 metres for
cars.

What about a  Bus stop  on the left hand side of the road, where it belongs,
not where Richard has it . In the middle of the road.

Hey dudes check out this site which Andrew Groom advertises,
He wants electronic surveillance of all motorists all the time , way to go
Andrew








 MOTORISTS  YOU ARE STOPPED  HERE
 because they built a  BUS STOP  in the middle of the road,  HILLS  ROAD

City Council, and Canterbury Regional Council  have as  policy,  a mission to
get   personal  cars off the road.
This means  making it  as difficult as possible for car owners,
until we give up and catch the bus, or pay $1000 per year per ratepayer for a
light rail.
All roads leading North from the City are now congested, but there was
previously a reasonable flow along Hills road to Marshlands.

Richard West, Transport planner  noticed that, so he put a bus stop right smack
in the middle of the road.
Yes that’s right, he had to build out nearly six meters onto the road, so that
whenever  a bus stops, all the  cars behind also have to stop in waves.
I repeat there are six meters of wide road space to the left of this STOPCARS
platform.   From the STOPCARS platform, on the other side of the road
the bicycle lane and parking area protrude towards the center leaving not
enough space for two trucks to pass safely at this part on Hills road

There’s more, Soon they want to toll  you a penalty if you have driver [ no
passenger] only in a car.  Imagine meter maids with red arm bands at
checkpoints like this  to toll you.   Tell them your Mistress is lying down.
Worse some of them want electronic recognition of cars on arterial routes,
so you can be levied for just being there.

Richard West, Traffic Unplanner is responsible for these concrete slabs in the
middle of the road all around your city,  grass edges, doggy walks, and cabbage
trees,  and anything to block your way.     And  he means to get
 your car, yes that’s you, off the road.

You can  request  good roads,  e-mail to
Bob Parker              <email obscured>
or
Megan Woods         <email obscured>

We pay the taxes and we will decide when the roads close down, not Council..
Bus lanes,  bicycle lanes or horse lanes,  good,  but its years too early to be
closing our car lanes down.
We can have roads which will work for the next Ten Years,
but only if we require the next Mayor to be Motorist and Traffic friendly,
otherwise move into central city in a concrete sunless box where planner
specify.

Sincerely,  Paul Scott
http://paulscottfilms.blogspot.com/

From: Nicky Wagner Date: 2007 Jul 25 21:32 UTC Short link

Paul makes a good point that most people in Christchurch get around by
car. And that in itself is the main part of the congestion issue. But
buses are also useful to car drivers- if you average out the numbers of
passengers on each bus (overall trips about 20 per bus) and then the
average number of people in each car. One bus replaces 15+ cars on the
road so it frees up the road for less congested travelling.

Also, re the bus borders - yes they are in the middle of the road and
yes they are designed to hold up traffic but only for the 30secs that
the bus is stationery and the way that the traffic is congested in Hills
Rd that will just mean that the cars have less time waiting at the
lights or queuing in traffic. It will normally not make any difference
to the length of time that a car takes to drive down the street.

In the long term by keeping the buses in the traffic flow they will be
able to keep to a more reliable timetable and be more attractive to bus
users. Therefore patronage will increase and there will be fewer cars on
the road and traffic will speed up. It really is short term
inconvenience for long term gain and the alternatives of increasing
congestion are far worse. So give the bus boarders a chance you- the car
driver-  will be a winner if they work.

Cheers Nicky Wagner

Chair Public Transport Portfolio Environment Canterbury
National MP

New Zealand National Party
Christchurch Office - 189 Montreal St
P.O.Box 538 Christchurch

Cell            021 387 521
Phone        (03)  3658297

Check out my website at www.nickywagner.co.nz
or the National Party at www.national.org.nz

Disclaimer: The information in this email (including attachments) is
confidential and may be legally privileged. If an addressing or transmission
error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this
email and destroy the message. If you are not the intended recipient, any use,
disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful.

From: paul scott Date: 2007 Jul 25 22:07 UTC Short link

e- -Bureaucracy                    .


OK I have almost changed my mind a bit.
I went out to watch Hills road last night for a while and no buses stopped.
The traffic flow was consistent and good, so good I couldn’t cross the road
again, how about pedestrian crossing from the yellow fence  helipad.
hahah  see  what happens when you forget to take your car ..

I have said elsewhere how bus drivers have been saying  they are usually let
out by motorists now.
When Motorist comes up to a bus they slow down, but not stop, and the flow
continues.
But of course in the socialist republic we can not rely on people for anything,
Car drivers  are rednecks by definition we have to guide them firmly and
punitively  towards the

 STOP CARS    TOLL LEVY  GET CARS OFF THE ROAD

My next subject will be the Unitary Council,
ie Sacking the entire  ghastly politicised  Regional Council
and having a non partisan leader, who can actually make policy.

I’ll be back.
Paul Scott

http://paulscottfilms.blogspot.com/

From: Andrew Groom Date: 2007 Jul 25 22:42 UTC Short link

Of all those people who are against any of the actual or suggested
measures for reducing traffic congestion in the city, i.e., improvements
to the public transport system, motorway tolls at peak times, support
for cyclists, etc., I would ask:

1. What would *you* propose to do about it ?
2. How much would it cost ?
3. Who would pay for it ?

Also, I have to say to those who say we can solve this problem just
using carrots, i.e., no sticks, no offense but perhaps a bit of reading
on Psychology 101 is in order - you'll get some very slight behaviour
modification this way, but substantial behaviour change will only come
when there's some negative consequences for our actions. Would you
suggest that we could reduce crime by letting perpetrators go unpunished
and putting everyone who doesn't reoffend within a certain timeframe in
a draw to win a prize ? :-)

Of course, measures like making people feel good about taking the bus
will always be political winners because:

a) they're cheap
b) they delude everyone into thinking that they're making a real difference
c) there are no negative consequences for anyone

And, yes, bus patronage has grown significantly but has this resulted in
an increase in the overall *percentage* of trips being taken by bus ? If
you read the latest Regional Land Transport Strategy Annual Monitoring
Report (which I have just found):

http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/59B3DBF9-9252-427B-A2CD-BEBB05128A47/0/RLTSAnnualMonitoringReport_2006.pdf

you'll see a rather odd thing on page 12 - a lot of detailed stats are
published on the number of bus trips, expenditure on cycle lanes, etc.,
to show that we are spending more on "alternative" modes of transport.
The odd thing is that the most important statistic, the percentage of
trips using alternative modes, was last reported in 2001 and not since.
The only suggestion of a problem is that the percentage has *decreased*
to 14% in 2001 from 15% in 1996.

Have we stopped recording it ? If so, why ? Could it be that it's not
politically expedient to report that, with all the money we're spending
on buses and cycle lanes, we're just not getting the shift of people
away from cars that we would have hoped for ? Don't get me wrong, I
think all of these things are great, it's just that using the carrot
without combining it with the stick is just a pointless waste of
everyone's money.

Cheers, Andrew.

From: Andrew Groom Date: 2007 Jul 25 22:59 UTC Short link

Hi Nicky,

Nicky Wagner wrote:
> Paul makes a good point that most people in Christchurch get around by
> car. And that in itself is the main part of the congestion issue. But
> buses are also useful to car drivers- if you average out the numbers of
> passengers on each bus (overall trips about 20 per bus) and then the
> average number of people in each car. One bus replaces 15+ cars on the
> road so it frees up the road for less congested travelling.

Well, yes, it would theoretically reduce congestion if cars were driven
by robots. However, cars are driven by human beings, and human beings
will modify their behaviour according to the circumstances. So, if you
reduce congestion on a given stretch of road at a given time, more
people will use that route and the congestion will return. You will have
achieved an increase in the number of people through that route, and
maybe a slight decrease in the amount of transport energy used per
person, but not reduced congestion or the total amount of transport
energy used.

Cheers, Andrew.

PS. On closer inspection of that monitoring report I linked to in the
earlier message, it appears that the percentage of trips by alternative
modes is based on census data, hence the long gap between figures.
However, isn't this an important enough figure to be surveying annually
by other means ?

From: John Atkinson Date: 2007 Jul 25 23:05 UTC Short link

Re Buses. Law change required to make other traffic give way to Buses leaving a
Bus stop.   It was a major change when Left turning traffic was made to give
way, and that change was introduced reasonably smoothly.

In my opinion, it is absolutley absurd to turn Buses into Barriers, impeding
the traffic flow.  I can see a mind set developing in Car drivers where they
wouldn't catch a Bus just to be bloody minded.

John RAtkinson

> To: <email obscured>> From:
<email obscured>> Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic
congestion> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:09:05 +1200> > e- -Bureaucracy . > > > OK
I have almost changed my mind a bit.> I went out to watch Hills road last night
for a while and no buses stopped. > The traffic flow was consistent and good,
so good I couldnt cross the road again, how about pedestrian crossing from the
yellow fence helipad.> hahah see what happens when you forget to take your car
..> > I have said elsewhere how bus drivers have been saying they are usually
let out by motorists now. > When Motorist comes up to a bus they slow down, but
not stop, and the flow continues. > But of course in the socialist republic we
can not rely on people for anything, > Car drivers are rednecks by definition
we have to guide them firmly and punitively towards the > > STOP CARS TOLL LEVY
GET CARS OFF THE ROAD > > My next subject will be the Unitary Council, > ie
Sacking the entire ghastly politicised Regional Council > and having a non
partisan leader, who can actually make policy.> > Ill be back.> Paul Scott> >
http://paulscottfilms.blogspot.com/> > paul scott> > Info about paul scott:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/scottpaul> > This topic's messages may
be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/618jF9bJdTGrwrWoF1YzmZ>

From: henri s Date: 2007 Jul 26 08:28 UTC Short link

New Zealand needs to sort out PUBLIC TRANSPORT!

From: Tim Kerr Date: 2007 Jul 26 09:16 UTC Short link

I drive around the country reasonably regularly. I also drive around
Christchurch a bit.

I noticed congestion - but mainly between 0830 and 0900 in the mornings and
1430 to about 1700 hrs in the afternoons. The rest of the time I can park in
the city - though I have generally stopped using parallel parks in town
because I can get an hour for free in a parking building.

If you want my two-cents worth I find buses in Colombo St a bloody nuisance.
They are too wide to overtake, they take up too much road space when
turning, and they are actually congesting the road within the four avenues.
I have been caught between six or seven of the things in the central city.
In addition, their automatic transmissions are very noisy making normal
conversation impossible on the foot paths - and in some shops. Then walking
along parts of Lichfield St by the bus depot is an exercise in acrobatics -
the drivers aren't keen to give way to pedestrians if the street is clear
for them to move out.

Also, they are now impossible to pass when on a bicycle - they just take up
too much space.

I believe there are no traffic problems (apart from buses in Colombo St
within the CBD) and apart from commuters and school kid deliveries.

In the longer term I do not see an great increase in off-peak congestion
because the city is spreading outwards and the traffic is being dispersed to
the outer fringes and malls etc.

Public transport supporters seem to have a fixation on transport to the CBD.
Well... I don't like catching buses to the CBD because I have no way of
carrying the stuff I have picked up from there home!

As for the school traffic.... First step (if you accept regulation - and
most of you seem to love it) is to make school pick-up and drop off points
for cars and buses 1600 metres from the school gate. A short walk or jog
from the drop-off point to the school gate would reduce obesity and improve
social interaction skills - while reducing traffic congestion. (if you want
to know how this works then ask me...)

Second step, bill the commuters - charge the buggers for travelling to and
fro within the crucial congestion hours. As I have observed in previous
comments, there is little commuter congestion at 0600 hrs! Riddle the place
with special cameras (which you all seem to love) and send a monthly
account...

Third step, get rid of over-sized buses with noisy automatic transmissions
within the CBD.

Finally, ban cycle helmets so people like me can go back to riding our
bicycles without being threatened by resentful motorists.

Tim Kerr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Groom" <email obscured>>
To: <email obscured>>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion


> Of all those people who are against any of the actual or suggested
> measures for reducing traffic congestion in the city, i.e., improvements
> to the public transport system, motorway tolls at peak times, support
> for cyclists, etc., I would ask:
>
> 1. What would *you* propose to do about it ?
> 2. How much would it cost ?
> 3. Who would pay for it ?
>
> Also, I have to say to those who say we can solve this problem just
> using carrots, i.e., no sticks, no offense but perhaps a bit of reading
> on Psychology 101 is in order - you'll get some very slight behaviour
> modification this way, but substantial behaviour change will only come
> when there's some negative consequences for our actions. Would you
> suggest that we could reduce crime by letting perpetrators go unpunished
> and putting everyone who doesn't reoffend within a certain timeframe in
> a draw to win a prize ? :-)
>
> Of course, measures like making people feel good about taking the bus
> will always be political winners because:
>
> a) they're cheap
> b) they delude everyone into thinking that they're making a real
difference
> c) there are no negative consequences for anyone
>
> And, yes, bus patronage has grown significantly but has this resulted in
> an increase in the overall *percentage* of trips being taken by bus ? If
> you read the latest Regional Land Transport Strategy Annual Monitoring
> Report (which I have just found):
>
>
http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/59B3DBF9-9252-427B-A2CD-BEBB05128A47/0/RLTSAnnualMonitoringReport_2006.pdf
>
> you'll see a rather odd thing on page 12 - a lot of detailed stats are
> published on the number of bus trips, expenditure on cycle lanes, etc.,
> to show that we are spending more on "alternative" modes of transport.
> The odd thing is that the most important statistic, the percentage of
> trips using alternative modes, was last reported in 2001 and not since.
> The only suggestion of a problem is that the percentage has *decreased*
> to 14% in 2001 from 15% in 1996.
>
> Have we stopped recording it ? If so, why ? Could it be that it's not
> politically expedient to report that, with all the money we're spending
> on buses and cycle lanes, we're just not getting the shift of people
> away from cars that we would have hoped for ? Don't get me wrong, I
> think all of these things are great, it's just that using the carrot
> without combining it with the stick is just a pointless waste of
> everyone's money.
>
> Cheers, Andrew.
>
> Andrew Groom
> Bryndwr, Christchurch
> Info about Andrew Groom:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/andrewgroom
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1sEybAge2rbpUJcc4aLsvd
> -----------------------------------------
>   To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>   To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>   in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>   More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>   http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>   E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

From: Tracey Dorreen Date: 2007 Jul 26 09:48 UTC Short link

Hi Tim,

Your comments above are not very positive.  Imagine if you had a wheelchair,
the bus needs to be wide enough to accommodate you.  Same with anyone who uses
a pram for their children.

I remember when I had my big OE in Britain some time ago, that the busses were
small which is great for those who don't have access problems.  But our busses
are great here in Ch Ch.  In fact we have the best bus service in NZ.  I wonder
if any of you have ever bothered to get out of your cars and use public
transport.  Judging by the comments on this topic - I doubt it.  At least you
guys have a choice of whether you use a car.  I don't and I am completely
dependent on others to get me from A to B.  However, my kids and I don't suffer
from obesity unlike some people who constantly use their cars even to go to the
corner dairy.

From: Andrew Groom Date: 2007 Jul 26 23:14 UTC Short link

Here's an interesting report on some research done on changing commuter
behaviour in New Zealand:

http://www.its.usyd.edu.au/publications/working_papers/wp2002/ITS-WP-02-13.pdf

An interesting conclusion:

"Our results show that implementing measures to promote the use of
alternative modes, such as passenger transport and cycling, without
complementary measures to deter car use is not going to have the desired
effect on traffic growth and congestion".

Cheers, Andrew.

From: paul scott Date: 2007 Jul 26 23:40 UTC Short link

Eee  bureaucracy                   .


Richard West and Traffic  planners talk about the    “Traffic induction cycle”
By this means if you block traffic driving here, it will drive  over there.
That is called  ‘traffic evaporation”.

If you block off the road,  or a road  becomes so difficult to traverse by say
putting concrete blocks right  in the middle of it, the motorists look for
another way.
Since their objective is to get cars off the road,  they study examples of
total clearance of traffic.

Will you observe reader, that they never talk about efficient traffic flow, not
at all,
just get cars off the road, and replace with bus lanes, bike lanes  and gardens
for the horses and dogs.

lets googleGoogle    “Traffic induction cycle”   and get one only article,
Case histories in reclaiming the street

Volverhampton England  1990’s
“ Private car through-traffic was gradually removed by closing the  central
core roads,
effectively blocking the main north-south and east-west routes through the
city,
 ….City centre access was restricted ”

Yes that’s right Motorists, they closed the main roads

Vauxhall Cross, London, England  1990’s
“Transport planners have used the concept of traffic evaporation”
ie. Again they Closed the roads to motorists


The studies admit that drivers become upset when you block their roads, and so
we are best not consulted at all. Because we are the problem and because  we
would object,

Private drivers will have to become politically active..and we will.

Marshlands road
Lets evaporate the  traffic hold ups on Marshlands road now.
Marshlands has four lanes in a lot of places, but  that roundabout  at the
single lane intersection beside BP station  and the plant nursery need fixing
now.

It  keeps the  engines turning but going nowhere here, and the Planner says he
will look at it in 2012, I think he said.
This is punitive and mindless
Double lane through the roundabout.
Save every commuter minutes each way.
Then get four lanes along the rest of this hotch potch main arterial drive.



Paul Scott
http://paulscottfilms.blogspot.com/

EVAPORATE car traffic      TOLL LEVY     CARS OFF THE ROAD
CONSTANT ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE          TRAFFIC PLANNER  AUTHORITY  SOCIAL
KONTROL

From: Tim Kerr Date: 2007 Jul 26 23:47 UTC Short link

Dear Tracy,

Wheelchair owners drive cars, take taxis, wheel their own chairs - and use
buses. I rarely use buses - but I seem to use them more than wheelchair
users - judging from my personal experience - for I have never seen a
wheelchair user on a bus. Now, it is mandatory for buses to have special
equipment for wheelchair users - which costs a few bob - but they are rarely
used. If you want to utilise energy efficiently it would be better for
provide free access to taxis for wheelchair users. Specially-equipped taxis
are constantly used for transporting people in wheelchairs. They have a bit
more space for luggage and a bit of room for other passengers (like the
wheelchair user's friends for example).

No, I agree, I don't use buses very often. I don't need to. I prefer a car
or a bicycle because they are quicker, cheaper or more comfortable.

The reason Christchurch has the "best" bus fleet is due in large part to the
massive subsidies required to run them. Subsidies hide inefficiencies and
should be avoided as much as possible.

As one taxi driver observed in earlier correspondence on the topic - they
don't get subsidies (although some of the users get subsidies) and they
provide an excellent service from point to point.

While you may enjoy sitting in a bus watching the world pass by, they do
make a lot of noise and are too wide and too noisy and too numerous along
Colombo St within the city centre.

And you have missed my main point. Most "traffic" problems only occur around
the key commuting times of day. Alter the usage at these times of day and
there would not be a traffic problem. And there are ways of doing this - one
being starting earlier in the day... or another billing motorists using the
roads at certain times of the day.

Both would be more energy efficient than building buses equipped for
wheelchairs under subsidies.

Cheers,

Tim Kerr.


Obesity transgresses all transport modes. I have seen obese people on buses.
I have even seen obese people on bicycles and walking. However, making the
children walk 1600 metres to and from the school gate a couple of times a
day would reduce the number of Mum's waiting outside the school gate and
would reduce commuter delays considerably. The reason, as I mentioned
previously, can be explained but not within this message.

From: Tracey Dorreen Date: 2007 Jul 27 00:05 UTC Short link

Hi Tim,

You seem to contradict yourself in your post.  Since you rarely use the busses
you would not know that wheelchair users do use the busses.  I have seen qite a
few since I use the bus a lot.

As for the taxi idea - get real.  Taxi drivers find it expensive to convert
their vehicles into ones suitable for people with wheelchairs.  There are nont
many of these on the road and those wheelchair users whom I know find it
extremely frustrating to book them because there are so few of them on the
road.

Finally the Metrocard card gives you discounts on your rides.  How much do you
pay in petrol - when using a metrocard in a day, it costs no more than $3 and
you can ride as many times as you like.  Another bonus when using the bus is
that you don't have to worry about parking spaces/tickets, registration and WOF
fees and car repairs to name just a few benefits.
Quoting Tim Kerr <email obscured>>:

> Dear Tracy,
>
> Wheelchair owners drive cars, take taxis, wheel their own chairs - and
> use
> buses. I rarely use buses - but I seem to use them more than wheelchair
> users - judging from my personal experience - for I have never seen a
> wheelchair user on a bus. Now, it is mandatory for buses to have
> special
> equipment for wheelchair users - which costs a few bob - but they are
> rarely
> used. If you want to utilise energy efficiently it would be better for
> provide free access to taxis for wheelchair users. Specially-equipped
> taxis
> are constantly used for transporting people in wheelchairs. They have a
> bit
> more space for luggage and a bit of room for other passengers (like the
> wheelchair user's friends for example).
>
> No, I agree, I don't use buses very often. I don't need to. I prefer a
> car
> or a bicycle because they are quicker, cheaper or more comfortable.
>
> The reason Christchurch has the "best" bus fleet is due in large part to
> the
> massive subsidies required to run them. Subsidies hide inefficiencies
> and
> should be avoided as much as possible.
>
> As one taxi driver observed in earlier correspondence on the topic -
> they
> don't get subsidies (although some of the users get subsidies) and they
> provide an excellent service from point to point.
>
> While you may enjoy sitting in a bus watching the world pass by, they
> do
> make a lot of noise and are too wide and too noisy and too numerous
> along
> Colombo St within the city centre.
>
> And you have missed my main point. Most "traffic" problems only occur
> around
> the key commuting times of day. Alter the usage at these times of day
> and
> there would not be a traffic problem. And there are ways of doing this -
> one
> being starting earlier in the day... or another billing motorists using
> the
> roads at certain times of the day.
>
> Both would be more energy efficient than building buses equipped for
> wheelchairs under subsidies.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim Kerr.
>
>
> Obesity transgresses all transport modes. I have seen obese people on
> buses.
> I have even seen obese people on bicycles and walking. However, making
> the
> children walk 1600 metres to and from the school gate a couple of times
> a
> day would reduce the number of Mum's waiting outside the school gate
> and
> would reduce commuter delays considerably. The reason, as I mentioned
> previously, can be explained but not within this message.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tracey Dorreen" <email obscured>>
> To: "Canterbury Public Issues Forum"
> <email obscured>>
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion
>
>
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > Your comments above are not very positive. Imagine if you had a
> wheelchair, the bus needs to be wide enough to accommodate you. Same
> with
> anyone who uses a pram for their children.
> >
> > I remember when I had my big OE in Britain some time ago, that the
> busses
> were small which is great for those who don't have access problems. But
> our
> busses are great here in Ch Ch. In fact we have the best bus service in
> NZ.
> I wonder if any of you have ever bothered to get out of your cars and
> use
> public transport. Judging by the comments on this topic - I doubt it.
> At
> least you guys have a choice of whether you use a car. I don't and I am
> completely dependent on others to get me from A to B. However, my kids
> and
> I don't suffer from obesity unlike some people who constantly use their
> cars
> even to go to the corner dairy.
> >
> > Tracey Dorreen
> >
> > Info about Tracey Dorreen:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/traceydorreen
> >
> > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5j8OqFkfMlFeChFWALF3BC
> > -----------------------------------------
> > To post, send your message to:
> <email obscured>
> > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> > in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
> >
> > More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
> >
> > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
> Tim Kerr
>
> Info about Tim Kerr: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/timkerr
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/275HT9d09XJVcoLsElz8zs
> -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>

From: Paula Lambert Date: 2007 Jul 27 00:21 UTC Short link

For many years I drove a car, and for several a motorbike as well.  In Nov
last year was forced to ditch car when it broke down so I got back on my
pushbike.  I have dropped and kept off several kilos, feel much fitter, and
because I live close to several bus routes, plus am on the Orbiter route and
5 mins bike from Eastgate, biking has not been a problem.  We have carpooled
without much of a problem for Sat morning footie, etc.  I think some of my
friends feel sorry for me because they see a car as somewhat of a status
symbol.   I can understand people who don't live close to *easily accessible
bus routes* resisting a change.   But Chch buses have been superb for us,
kudos to whoever put that system together.  A London friend here recently
for a few months was very impressed.   My only regret is selling
the motorbike to buy the last car [grin].

On 7/27/07, Andrew Groom <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> Here's an interesting report on some research done on changing commuter
> behaviour in New Zealand:
>
>
>
http://www.its.usyd.edu.au/publications/working_papers/wp2002/ITS-WP-02-13.pdf

>
> An interesting conclusion:
>
> "Our results show that implementing measures to promote the use of
> alternative modes, such as passenger transport and cycling, without
> complementary measures to deter car use is not going to have the desired
> effect on traffic growth and congestion".
>
> Cheers, Andrew.
>
> Andrew Groom wrote:
> > Hi Nicky,
> >
> > Nicky Wagner wrote:
> >> Paul makes a good point that most people in Christchurch get around by
> >> car. And that in itself is the main part of the congestion issue. But
> >> buses are also useful to car drivers- if you average out the numbers of
> >> passengers on each bus (overall trips about 20 per bus) and then the
> >> average number of people in each car. One bus replaces 15+ cars on the
> >> road so it frees up the road for less congested travelling.
> >
> > Well, yes, it would theoretically reduce congestion if cars were driven
> > by robots. However, cars are driven by human beings, and human beings
> > will modify their behaviour according to the circumstances. So, if you
> > reduce congestion on a given stretch of road at a given time, more
> > people will use that route and the congestion will return. You will have
> > achieved an increase in the number of people through that route, and
> > maybe a slight decrease in the amount of transport energy used per
> > person, but not reduced congestion or the total amount of transport
> > energy used.
> >
> > Cheers, Andrew.
> >
> > PS. On closer inspection of that monitoring report I linked to in the
> > earlier message, it appears that the percentage of trips by alternative
> > modes is based on census data, hence the long gap between figures.
> > However, isn't this an important enough figure to be surveying annually
> > by other means ?
> >
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Reurbanise - Urban Sustainability
> ph: (03) 3528 055, mobile: 0274 992 569
> http://www.reurbanise.co.nz
>
> Andrew Groom
> Bryndwr, Christchurch
> Info about Andrew Groom:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/andrewgroom
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5w4f6QcozdoNUa4rJmHWpL
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
> More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>

From: paul scott Date: 2007 Jul 27 01:12 UTC Short link

Blenheim road deviation               .


Is there anyone here [ especially planner ] who can understand what Blenheim
road was about?
The traffic flow worked well from both ends of the Park before, but not now.
I  keep asking drivers if they know what it means and they do, it takes longer
to get through the lights than the old good  roundabout.

Some people say the bridge area is sold to private interests for car parking.
Apparently there were
massive commercial gains and losses in this deviation


Paul Scott
http://paulscottfilms.blogspot.com/

From: brenda dew Date: 2007 Jul 27 20:17 UTC Short link

I am a regular bus commuter as I work near Hagley Park thus parking is at a
premium.On warm days I cycle but that can be a hazard when going straight ahead
and vehicles want to turn left.I travel on the red and blue bus services and
the drivers are a real mixture of helpfulness and
 friendly attitudes depending on peak times and quiet times.The maintenance or
lack of  was brought up recently when the driver asked us to call out when our
stop was nigh as the call bell was faulty and when there is a gap at the bottom
of the rear doors you choose your seat wisely so as to avoid the draughts. The
timing of each run is more accurate so we signal the driver or he sails past as
one driver informed me that it is unsafe to stop the bus suddenly because of
it,s size .At the exchange trying to enter at peak hour is a problem because of
the vehicles travelling east on Lichfield in the left lane who want to turn
left into Manchester St.I think the bus should have priority.

From: Nick Jackman Date: 2007 Jul 28 07:53 UTC Short link

I would like to make some comments on issues around transporting people in
wheelchairs.

Tracy is right when she says it is difficult for wheelchairs users to get a
taxi.  High demand for services and a shortage of drivers are the main
reasons why.  There is currently excess capacity in the Christchurch
wheelchair taxi fleet due to a shortage of suitable drivers.  If anybody
would like to become a driver please contact me on 0276584211.    First
Direct can have greater coverage of wheelchair taxis immediately if we get
more suitable drivers.  We also have other positions available.  No previous
experience necessary if you have the right attitude, good language skills,
and a good driver's license.

This highlights an issue that Christchurch will have to face if we want a
better passenger transport system.  At present, there is a lot of
competition between the groups of taxi and bus operators for a short supply
of suitable drivers with P endorsements.  It takes up to two months to
produce a trained driver who can legally transport people for payment.  This
is too long for many potential recruits to the passenger service industry,
as they need to earn money straight away, so they often drift away from
passenger service before becoming qualified.  I believe Red Bus can afford
to pay recruits for that period but many operators aren't so fortunate.


The passenger transport system is constrained by the number of qualified
drivers who are willing and able to do different types of work.  I would
like to see a political effort to solve the driver shortage problem that
Christchurch's passenger service industry faces, and I would be happy to
talk to anyone who wants to work towards this.  Passenger transport is
becoming increasingly important and we need extra drivers to solve issues
such as the poor taxi coverage that Tracy highlights.  The situation of
scarce essential resources such as drivers, and bus and taxi operators
competing against each other for them, needs addressing if Christchurch is
to improve its transport system.

I would like to correct something Tim Kerr has written that he attributed, I
think, to me.  Taxi operators do get subsidies.  Total Mobility gives a
subsidised fare for users but taxi companies get paid directly the subsidy
to distribute to their operators.  There are also a few other subsidies for
wheelchair transport that go to operators because there are a lot of extra
costs involved.

This month has seen the introduction of a new TM payment of $10 GST incl. to
all operators in New Zealand for trips where the hoist is used, which
highlights a second issue concerning wheelchair transportation.  Drivers can
not charge any loading fee under the new scheme.  A number of the taxis in
Christchurch are configured to carry 3 and 4 wheelchairs, which can take
quite a while to load and unload (sometimes this takes longer than the
journey).  So some wheelchair trips are becoming less profitable, especially
for the operators who have invested in 4xWC vehicles (some of the Ford
Transits you see around).  With the introduction of the new $10 subsidy
(which is really $8.89 without GST), Christchurch operators lost previous
regional subsidies which included some payment for loading.   Taxis that
take several wheelchairs do provide more fuel efficient transportation, as
Tim Kerr suggests, if compared to single trips made in many vehicles.
Another Ecan loading subsidy may be something to revisit if Christchurch
wants to encourage this kind of wheelchair transport which is also more cost
effective to users.


Many taxi operators in other regions have got out of transporting
wheelchairs and it would be a shame if this happened in Christchurch.
Although there is always room for improvement, Christchurch has much better
wheelchair taxi services than some other places in NZ.  Wheelchair taxis are
expensive for taxi operators, customers and the taxpayer, and the vehicles
have to do a lot of other types of work other than TM wheelchair
transportation to be profitable.  We have to be careful to build the
services and not see operators in Christchurch exit such a necessary part of
the industry.


Dial-a-ride is also meant to be trialled this year but I'm not sure how
that's going.  It will be some kind of more flexible bus route for
wheelchair transportation that users can phone.  However, I have doubts that
going bigger is the best way, due to the significant loading time, and my
assumption of dial-a-ride in ChCh is it will be less flexible with its
routes than fleets of taxis, and flexibility becomes important when you are
transporting dispersed groups of people at different times of the day and
night.  If time is quite valuable to users I think dial-a-ride could have
problems if it tries to take too many chairs per trip.  It has to guarantee
people will get to work, the doctor, church etc. on time.  Dial-a-ride will
have to be quite heavily subsidised to work I would imagine, but that's not
to say it can't work because it does in some parts of the world.  Time will
tell.

I don't agree with Tim that subsidies always hide inefficiencies (although
often they do).  Sometimes subsidies are necessary because society highly
values some things with significant costs attached.

I hope this has given people some insight into some of the issues and
complexities involved.

Regards,
Nick


-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> <email obscured>]
Sent: Friday, 27 July 2007 12:05 p.m.
To: <email obscured>; Tim Kerr
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion

Hi Tim,

You seem to contradict yourself in your post.  Since you rarely use the
busses
you would not know that wheelchair users do use the busses.  I have seen
qite a
few since I use the bus a lot.

As for the taxi idea - get real.  Taxi drivers find it expensive to convert
their vehicles into ones suitable for people with wheelchairs.  There are
nont
many of these on the road and those wheelchair users whom I know find it
extremely frustrating to book them because there are so few of them on the
road.

Finally the Metrocard card gives you discounts on your rides.  How much do
you
pay in petrol - when using a metrocard in a day, it costs no more than $3
and
you can ride as many times as you like.  Another bonus when using the bus is

that you don't have to worry about parking spaces/tickets, registration and
WOF
fees and car repairs to name just a few benefits.
Quoting Tim Kerr <email obscured>>:

> Dear Tracy,
>
> Wheelchair owners drive cars, take taxis, wheel their own chairs - and
> use
> buses. I rarely use buses - but I seem to use them more than wheelchair
> users - judging from my personal experience - for I have never seen a
> wheelchair user on a bus. Now, it is mandatory for buses to have
> special
> equipment for wheelchair users - which costs a few bob - but they are
> rarely
> used. If you want to utilise energy efficiently it would be better for
> provide free access to taxis for wheelchair users. Specially-equipped
> taxis
> are constantly used for transporting people in wheelchairs. They have a
> bit
> more space for luggage and a bit of room for other passengers (like the
> wheelchair user's friends for example).
>
> No, I agree, I don't use buses very often. I don't need to. I prefer a
> car
> or a bicycle because they are quicker, cheaper or more comfortable.
>
> The reason Christchurch has the "best" bus fleet is due in large part to
> the
> massive subsidies required to run them. Subsidies hide inefficiencies
> and
> should be avoided as much as possible.
>
> As one taxi driver observed in earlier correspondence on the topic -
> they
> don't get subsidies (although some of the users get subsidies) and they
> provide an excellent service from point to point.
>
> While you may enjoy sitting in a bus watching the world pass by, they
> do
> make a lot of noise and are too wide and too noisy and too numerous
> along
> Colombo St within the city centre.
>
> And you have missed my main point. Most "traffic" problems only occur
> around
> the key commuting times of day. Alter the usage at these times of day
> and
> there would not be a traffic problem. And there are ways of doing this -
> one
> being starting earlier in the day... or another billing motorists using
> the
> roads at certain times of the day.
>
> Both would be more energy efficient than building buses equipped for
> wheelchairs under subsidies.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim Kerr.
>
>
> Obesity transgresses all transport modes. I have seen obese people on
> buses.
> I have even seen obese people on bicycles and walking. However, making
> the
> children walk 1600 metres to and from the school gate a couple of times
> a
> day would reduce the number of Mum's waiting outside the school gate
> and
> would reduce commuter delays considerably. The reason, as I mentioned
> previously, can be explained but not within this message.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tracey Dorreen" <email obscured>>
> To: "Canterbury Public Issues Forum"
> <email obscured>>
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion
>
>
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > Your comments above are not very positive. Imagine if you had a
> wheelchair, the bus needs to be wide enough to accommodate you. Same
> with
> anyone who uses a pram for their children.
> >
> > I remember when I had my big OE in Britain some time ago, that the
> busses
> were small which is great for those who don't have access problems. But
> our
> busses are great here in Ch Ch. In fact we have the best bus service in
> NZ.
> I wonder if any of you have ever bothered to get out of your cars and
> use
> public transport. Judging by the comments on this topic - I doubt it.
> At
> least you guys have a choice of whether you use a car. I don't and I am
> completely dependent on others to get me from A to B. However, my kids
> and
> I don't suffer from obesity unlike some people who constantly use their
> cars
> even to go to the corner dairy.
> >
> > Tracey Dorreen
> >
> > Info about Tracey Dorreen:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/traceydorreen
> >
> > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5j8OqFkfMlFeChFWALF3BC
> > -----------------------------------------
> > To post, send your message to:
> <email obscured>
> > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> > in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
> >
> > More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
> >
> > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
> Tim Kerr
>
> Info about Tim Kerr: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/timkerr
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/275HT9d09XJVcoLsElz8zs
> -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>


Tracey Dorreen

Info about Tracey Dorreen:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/traceydorreen

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6MczsVnWU6cDKlQIFnilpa
-----------------------------------------
  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

From: Tracey Dorreen Date: 2007 Jul 28 09:59 UTC Short link

Hello, Nick,

Thanks for clarifying the issues for us about the wheelchair taxis.  I even
learnt a thing or two which I didn't know before.  I also think it's a bit much
for the poor taxi drivers to have to pay $10 TM payment.  These guys have to
make a living just like everyone else.

Sorry I can't take up your offer of being a taxi driver.  As a member of the
Royal NZ Foundation of the Blind, I don't think I would qualify as a very good
or safe driver - he he!

From: Nick Jackman Date: 2007 Jul 28 13:53 UTC Short link

Hi Tracey,
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.  The drivers don't pay the $10.  They
receive it as a subsidy, but on some trips it is looking less profitable
when drivers take extra chairs due to longer loading/unloading times and no
mechanism in the subsidy to address this (the drivers get only $10 no matter
how many chairs they take in one trip).  There was a regional subsidy Ecan
was paying that did help address loading/unloading time but they decided to
take it away this month when the national subsidy was implemented.  The $10
subsidy looks like it will be better on the trips with one or two chairs and
not so much loading time, but it may yet discourage operators to invest in
the more expensive vehicles that take up to 4 chairs, which at the moment
can provide more options and cost-effective solutions for users, as well as
being more fuel efficient on large multiple wheelchair trips.  So it could
yet be something of a two-edged sword in Christchurch.

I should add that nationally this is the first time in most regions
operators are getting any subsidy to address the extra costs involved in
transporting wheelchairs, so it should go some way to help building up
services around the country.  The Christchurch experience proves that
government support makes a big difference.

From: BJ Clark Date: 2007 Jul 29 22:10 UTC Short link

Dear Tim

There are very good reasons why wheelchair users are not seen on buses
as often as they would like. The buses may seem wheelchair friendly but
often they are not.

People with disabilities are often unemployed and on benefits, therefore
have a limited income. Bus transport is fiscally the best option for
them however the design of the busse is still not good enough. Bus
drivers have set timetables to adhere to and waiting for a person in a
wheelchair or on fact a lady with a pram, affects his time table.

Another issue is that buses will pull up at a bus stop and inform the
wheelchair user that the bus ramp is not working. If this is in fact the
case, should the bus leave the depot if it is not in good working oredr.


Perhaps if Mr Holton-Jefferies or another representative from Ecan,
attends the DPH Transport Forum tonight at the baptist Church, Oxford
Terrace, they may be able to understand the frustration of those in
wheelchairs.

Cheers

BJ


BJ Clark QSM JP
Regional Facilities Manager & Access Advisor
CCS Disability Action
PO Box 8066
Riccarton
Christchurch
email - <email obscured>
Ph (03) 348 8974
cell 027 296 5505

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Kerr <email obscured>]
Sent: Friday, 27 July 2007 12:53 p.m.
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion

Dear Tracy,

Wheelchair owners drive cars, take taxis, wheel their own chairs - and
use buses. I rarely use buses - but I seem to use them more than
wheelchair users - judging from my personal experience - for I have
never seen a wheelchair user on a bus. Now, it is mandatory for buses to
have special equipment for wheelchair users - which costs a few bob -
but they are rarely used. If you want to utilise energy efficiently it
would be better for provide free access to taxis for wheelchair users.
Specially-equipped taxis are constantly used for transporting people in
wheelchairs. They have a bit more space for luggage and a bit of room
for other passengers (like the wheelchair user's friends for example).

No, I agree, I don't use buses very often. I don't need to. I prefer a
car or a bicycle because they are quicker, cheaper or more comfortable.

The reason Christchurch has the "best" bus fleet is due in large part to
the massive subsidies required to run them. Subsidies hide
inefficiencies and should be avoided as much as possible.

As one taxi driver observed in earlier correspondence on the topic -
they don't get subsidies (although some of the users get subsidies) and
they provide an excellent service from point to point.

While you may enjoy sitting in a bus watching the world pass by, they do
make a lot of noise and are too wide and too noisy and too numerous
along Colombo St within the city centre.

And you have missed my main point. Most "traffic" problems only occur
around the key commuting times of day. Alter the usage at these times of
day and there would not be a traffic problem. And there are ways of
doing this - one being starting earlier in the day... or another billing
motorists using the roads at certain times of the day.

Both would be more energy efficient than building buses equipped for
wheelchairs under subsidies.

Cheers,

Tim Kerr.

Obesity transgresses all transport modes. I have seen obese people on
buses.
I have even seen obese people on bicycles and walking. However, making
the children walk 1600 metres to and from the school gate a couple of
times a day would reduce the number of Mum's waiting outside the school
gate and would reduce commuter delays considerably. The reason, as I
mentioned previously, can be explained but not within this message.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tracey Dorreen" <email obscured>>
To: "Canterbury Public Issues Forum"
<email obscured>>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion

> Hi Tim,
>
> Your comments above are not very positive.  Imagine if you had a
wheelchair, the bus needs to be wide enough to accommodate you.  Same
with
anyone who uses a pram for their children.
>
> I remember when I had my big OE in Britain some time ago, that the
busses
were small which is great for those who don't have access problems.  But
our
busses are great here in Ch Ch.  In fact we have the best bus service in
NZ.
I wonder if any of you have ever bothered to get out of your cars and
use
public transport.  Judging by the comments on this topic - I doubt it.
At
least you guys have a choice of whether you use a car.  I don't and I am
completely dependent on others to get me from A to B.  However, my kids
and
I don't suffer from obesity unlike some people who constantly use their
cars
even to go to the corner dairy.
>
> Tracey Dorreen
>
> Info about Tracey Dorreen:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/traceydorreen
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5j8OqFkfMlFeChFWALF3BC
> -----------------------------------------
>   To post, send your message to:
<email obscured>
>   To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>   in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>   More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>   http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>   E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

Tim Kerr

Info about Tim Kerr: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/timkerr

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/275HT9d09XJVcoLsElz8zs
-----------------------------------------
  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

From: Tracey Dorreen Date: 2007 Jul 29 22:50 UTC Short link

Hi BJ,

Yep, the two issues you raised are very valid ones. In an ideal world, busses
would be designed to make it easier for those with wheelchairs, prams, etc. to
get into the bus.  If the busses were more easily accessible, then it would be
a winner for all members of the public.

Tracey
Quoting Bj Clark <email obscured>>:

> Dear Tim
>
> There are very good reasons why wheelchair users are not seen on buses
> as often as they would like. The buses may seem wheelchair friendly but
> often they are not.
>
> People with disabilities are often unemployed and on benefits,
> therefore
> have a limited income. Bus transport is fiscally the best option for
> them however the design of the busse is still not good enough. Bus
> drivers have set timetables to adhere to and waiting for a person in a
> wheelchair or on fact a lady with a pram, affects his time table.
>
> Another issue is that buses will pull up at a bus stop and inform the
> wheelchair user that the bus ramp is not working. If this is in fact
> the
> case, should the bus leave the depot if it is not in good working
> oredr.
>
>
> Perhaps if Mr Holton-Jefferies or another representative from Ecan,
> attends the DPH Transport Forum tonight at the baptist Church, Oxford
> Terrace, they may be able to understand the frustration of those in
> wheelchairs.
>
> Cheers
>
> BJ
>
>
> BJ Clark QSM JP
> Regional Facilities Manager & Access Advisor
> CCS Disability Action
> PO Box 8066
> Riccarton
> Christchurch
> email - <email obscured>
> Ph (03) 348 8974
> cell 027 296 5505
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Kerr <email obscured>]
> Sent: Friday, 27 July 2007 12:53 p.m.
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion
>
> Dear Tracy,
>
> Wheelchair owners drive cars, take taxis, wheel their own chairs - and
> use buses. I rarely use buses - but I seem to use them more than
> wheelchair users - judging from my personal experience - for I have
> never seen a wheelchair user on a bus. Now, it is mandatory for buses
> to
> have special equipment for wheelchair users - which costs a few bob -
> but they are rarely used. If you want to utilise energy efficiently it
> would be better for provide free access to taxis for wheelchair users.
> Specially-equipped taxis are constantly used for transporting people in
> wheelchairs. They have a bit more space for luggage and a bit of room
> for other passengers (like the wheelchair user's friends for example).
>
> No, I agree, I don't use buses very often. I don't need to. I prefer a
> car or a bicycle because they are quicker, cheaper or more comfortable.
>
> The reason Christchurch has the "best" bus fleet is due in large part
> to
> the massive subsidies required to run them. Subsidies hide
> inefficiencies and should be avoided as much as possible.
>
> As one taxi driver observed in earlier correspondence on the topic -
> they don't get subsidies (although some of the users get subsidies) and
> they provide an excellent service from point to point.
>
> While you may enjoy sitting in a bus watching the world pass by, they
> do
> make a lot of noise and are too wide and too noisy and too numerous
> along Colombo St within the city centre.
>
> And you have missed my main point. Most "traffic" problems only occur
> around the key commuting times of day. Alter the usage at these times
> of
> day and there would not be a traffic problem. And there are ways of
> doing this - one being starting earlier in the day... or another
> billing
> motorists using the roads at certain times of the day.
>
> Both would be more energy efficient than building buses equipped for
> wheelchairs under subsidies.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim Kerr.
>
>
> Obesity transgresses all transport modes. I have seen obese people on
> buses.
> I have even seen obese people on bicycles and walking. However, making
> the children walk 1600 metres to and from the school gate a couple of
> times a day would reduce the number of Mum's waiting outside the school
> gate and would reduce commuter delays considerably. The reason, as I
> mentioned previously, can be explained but not within this message.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tracey Dorreen" <email obscured>>
> To: "Canterbury Public Issues Forum"
> <email obscured>>
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion
>
>
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > Your comments above are not very positive. Imagine if you had a
> wheelchair, the bus needs to be wide enough to accommodate you. Same
> with
> anyone who uses a pram for their children.
> >
> > I remember when I had my big OE in Britain some time ago, that the
> busses
> were small which is great for those who don't have access problems. But
> our
> busses are great here in Ch Ch. In fact we have the best bus service in
> NZ.
> I wonder if any of you have ever bothered to get out of your cars and
> use
> public transport. Judging by the comments on this topic - I doubt it.
> At
> least you guys have a choice of whether you use a car. I don't and I am
> completely dependent on others to get me from A to B. However, my kids
> and
> I don't suffer from obesity unlike some people who constantly use their
> cars
> even to go to the corner dairy.
> >
> > Tracey Dorreen
> >
> > Info about Tracey Dorreen:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/traceydorreen
> >
> > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5j8OqFkfMlFeChFWALF3BC
> > -----------------------------------------
> > To post, send your message to:
> <email obscured>
> > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> > in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
> >
> > More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
> >
> > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
> Tim Kerr
>
> Info about Tim Kerr: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/timkerr
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/275HT9d09XJVcoLsElz8zs
> -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
>
> BJ Clark
> Harewood, Christchurch
> Info about BJ Clark: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/bjclark
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/gh1pcg2LviwEaxY2njkY8
> -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>

From: Paula Lambert Date: 2007 Jul 30 08:31 UTC Short link

These people in chairs are pretty brave venturing out onto buses in the
first place.   I saw a friend onto a bus a few weeks ago.  She has muscular
dystrophy and is in one of those zippy small electric chairs that are very
heavy with low centre of gravity to avoid tipping easily.   The busdriver
had a couple of tries to get correctly aligned and close enough, but there
was still a wee footpath/bus height/gap problem that needed fearlessness
from the chair-user because without driver assistance she
could have over-powered getting the chair onto the bus to get over the
height/gap and squashed her feet bumping into the step below the drivers
seat.   It was a bit dangerous, as well as scary to watch.
Are drivers trained to offer boarding assistance to chair-users when
required ?  She needs no help disembarking.



On 7/30/07, <email obscured> <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> Hi BJ,
>
> Yep, the two issues you raised are very valid ones. In an ideal world,
> busses
> would be designed to make it easier for those with wheelchairs, prams,
> etc. to
> get into the bus.  If the busses were more easily accessible, then it
> would be
> a winner for all members of the public.
>
> Tracey
> Quoting Bj Clark <email obscured>>:
>
> > Dear Tim
> >
> > There are very good reasons why wheelchair users are not seen on buses
> > as often as they would like. The buses may seem wheelchair friendly but
> > often they are not.
> >
> > People with disabilities are often unemployed and on benefits,
> > therefore
> > have a limited income. Bus transport is fiscally the best option for
> > them however the design of the busse is still not good enough. Bus
> > drivers have set timetables to adhere to and waiting for a person in a
> > wheelchair or on fact a lady with a pram, affects his time table.
> >
> > Another issue is that buses will pull up at a bus stop and inform the
> > wheelchair user that the bus ramp is not working. If this is in fact
> > the
> > case, should the bus leave the depot if it is not in good working
> > oredr.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps if Mr Holton-Jefferies or another representative from Ecan,
> > attends the DPH Transport Forum tonight at the baptist Church, Oxford
> > Terrace, they may be able to understand the frustration of those in
> > wheelchairs.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > BJ
> >
> >
> > BJ Clark QSM JP
> > Regional Facilities Manager & Access Advisor
> > CCS Disability Action
> > PO Box 8066
> > Riccarton
> > Christchurch
> > email - <email obscured>
> > Ph (03) 348 8974
> > cell 027 296 5505
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim Kerr <email obscured>]
> > Sent: Friday, 27 July 2007 12:53 p.m.
> > To: <email obscured>
> > Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion
> >
> > Dear Tracy,
> >
> > Wheelchair owners drive cars, take taxis, wheel their own chairs - and
> > use buses. I rarely use buses - but I seem to use them more than
> > wheelchair users - judging from my personal experience - for I have
> > never seen a wheelchair user on a bus. Now, it is mandatory for buses
> > to
> > have special equipment for wheelchair users - which costs a few bob -
> > but they are rarely used. If you want to utilise energy efficiently it
> > would be better for provide free access to taxis for wheelchair users.
> > Specially-equipped taxis are constantly used for transporting people in
> > wheelchairs. They have a bit more space for luggage and a bit of room
> > for other passengers (like the wheelchair user's friends for example).
> >
> > No, I agree, I don't use buses very often. I don't need to. I prefer a
> > car or a bicycle because they are quicker, cheaper or more comfortable.
> >
> > The reason Christchurch has the "best" bus fleet is due in large part
> > to
> > the massive subsidies required to run them. Subsidies hide
> > inefficiencies and should be avoided as much as possible.
> >
> > As one taxi driver observed in earlier correspondence on the topic -
> > they don't get subsidies (although some of the users get subsidies) and
> > they provide an excellent service from point to point.
> >
> > While you may enjoy sitting in a bus watching the world pass by, they
> > do
> > make a lot of noise and are too wide and too noisy and too numerous
> > along Colombo St within the city centre.
> >
> > And you have missed my main point. Most "traffic" problems only occur
> > around the key commuting times of day. Alter the usage at these times
> > of
> > day and there would not be a traffic problem. And there are ways of
> > doing this - one being starting earlier in the day... or another
> > billing
> > motorists using the roads at certain times of the day.
> >
> > Both would be more energy efficient than building buses equipped for
> > wheelchairs under subsidies.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Tim Kerr.
> >
> >
> > Obesity transgresses all transport modes. I have seen obese people on
> > buses.
> > I have even seen obese people on bicycles and walking. However, making
> > the children walk 1600 metres to and from the school gate a couple of
> > times a day would reduce the number of Mum's waiting outside the school
> > gate and would reduce commuter delays considerably. The reason, as I
> > mentioned previously, can be explained but not within this message.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tracey Dorreen" <email obscured>>
> > To: "Canterbury Public Issues Forum"
> > <email obscured>>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion
> >
> >
> > > Hi Tim,
> > >
> > > Your comments above are not very positive. Imagine if you had a
> > wheelchair, the bus needs to be wide enough to accommodate you. Same
> > with
> > anyone who uses a pram for their children.
> > >
> > > I remember when I had my big OE in Britain some time ago, that the
> > busses
> > were small which is great for those who don't have access problems. But
> > our
> > busses are great here in Ch Ch. In fact we have the best bus service in
> > NZ.
> > I wonder if any of you have ever bothered to get out of your cars and
> > use
> > public transport. Judging by the comments on this topic - I doubt it.
> > At
> > least you guys have a choice of whether you use a car. I don't and I am
> > completely dependent on others to get me from A to B. However, my kids
> > and
> > I don't suffer from obesity unlike some people who constantly use their
> > cars
> > even to go to the corner dairy.
> > >
> > > Tracey Dorreen
> > >
> > > Info about Tracey Dorreen:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/traceydorreen
> > >
> > > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5j8OqFkfMlFeChFWALF3BC
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > > To post, send your message to:
> > <email obscured>
> > > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> > > in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
> > >
> > > More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
> > >
> > > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
> >
> > Tim Kerr
> >
> > Info about Tim Kerr: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/timkerr
> >
> > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/275HT9d09XJVcoLsElz8zs
> > -----------------------------------------
> >  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> >  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> >  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
> >
> >  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> >  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
> >
> >  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
> >
> >
> > BJ Clark
> > Harewood, Christchurch
> > Info about BJ Clark: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/bjclark
> >
> > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/gh1pcg2LviwEaxY2njkY8
> > -----------------------------------------
> >  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> >  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> >  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
> >
> >  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> >  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
> >
> >  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
>
>
> Tracey Dorreen
>
> Info about Tracey Dorreen:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/traceydorreen
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/64b6fXpJzgZoZxT3FRSOl3
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
> More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>

From: Tim Kerr Date: 2007 Jul 30 09:08 UTC Short link

Paula, She needs a taxi.

I've shifted those little cart things by truck - and they are heavy and
relatively unstable.

That's one of the points I'm trying to make. Everyone thinks buses are the
universal transport solution. They aren't. They eat up capital and do half
their trips empty.

If more effort was put into better taxi transport - transport that picks up
and takes the person to where she/he wants to go then buses would be
cheaper - and more efficient... and I could continue to use my car or bike -
or whatever.

Taxis, incidentally, don't do empty return trips - unlike buses and light
rail!

And Paul, I don't agree with your hierarchy of road users. Well,... with the
exception of two-stroke motor scooters!

Other road users DO treat me OK on a bike - if I follow the road rules and
ride in a disciplined and predictable manner. But they don't like me riding
without a helmet - because they don't like bastards enjoying themselves and
they don't like having to wear seatbelts and (God help us!) High
Vis(ability) Vests!!!

And apart from two-stroke motor scooters, I feel I try and respect the road
code when I am driving a motor vehicle.

Unfortunately for other road users - except pratts on two-stroke motor
scooters - I do occasionally muck up - and upset other road users. I don't
do it deliberately (with the exception of two-stroke scooter riders. If I
missed one of you lot as you passed me on the inside then I'm sorry - I must
have failed to see you!)

Paul, I like your idea of banning traffic planners from the roads. But how
do we spot one? I used to rely on them having ginger beards, fawn cardigans
and sandals over walk socks - but they seem to have been replaced by some
sort of suit. Or maybe they've changed gender!

Cheers,
Tim Kerr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paula Lambert" <email obscured>>
To: <email obscured>>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion


> These people in chairs are pretty brave venturing out onto buses in the
> first place.   I saw a friend onto a bus a few weeks ago.  She has
muscular
> dystrophy and is in one of those zippy small electric chairs that are very
> heavy with low centre of gravity to avoid tipping easily.   The busdriver
> had a couple of tries to get correctly aligned and close enough, but there
> was still a wee footpath/bus height/gap problem that needed fearlessness
> from the chair-user because without driver assistance she
> could have over-powered getting the chair onto the bus to get over the
> height/gap and squashed her feet bumping into the step below the drivers
> seat.   It was a bit dangerous, as well as scary to watch.
> Are drivers trained to offer boarding assistance to chair-users when
> required ?  She needs no help disembarking.
>
>
>
> On 7/30/07, <email obscured> <email obscured>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi BJ,
> >
> > Yep, the two issues you raised are very valid ones. In an ideal world,
> > busses
> > would be designed to make it easier for those with wheelchairs, prams,
> > etc. to
> > get into the bus.  If the busses were more easily accessible, then it
> > would be
> > a winner for all members of the public.
> >
> > Tracey
> > Quoting Bj Clark <email obscured>>:
> >
> > > Dear Tim
> > >
> > > There are very good reasons why wheelchair users are not seen on buses
> > > as often as they would like. The buses may seem wheelchair friendly
but
> > > often they are not.
> > >
> > > People with disabilities are often unemployed and on benefits,
> > > therefore
> > > have a limited income. Bus transport is fiscally the best option for
> > > them however the design of the busse is still not good enough. Bus
> > > drivers have set timetables to adhere to and waiting for a person in a
> > > wheelchair or on fact a lady with a pram, affects his time table.
> > >
> > > Another issue is that buses will pull up at a bus stop and inform the
> > > wheelchair user that the bus ramp is not working. If this is in fact
> > > the
> > > case, should the bus leave the depot if it is not in good working
> > > oredr.
> > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps if Mr Holton-Jefferies or another representative from Ecan,
> > > attends the DPH Transport Forum tonight at the baptist Church, Oxford
> > > Terrace, they may be able to understand the frustration of those in
> > > wheelchairs.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > BJ
> > >
> > >
> > > BJ Clark QSM JP
> > > Regional Facilities Manager & Access Advisor
> > > CCS Disability Action
> > > PO Box 8066
> > > Riccarton
> > > Christchurch
> > > email - <email obscured>
> > > Ph (03) 348 8974
> > > cell 027 296 5505
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tim Kerr <email obscured>]
> > > Sent: Friday, 27 July 2007 12:53 p.m.
> > > To: <email obscured>
> > > Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion
> > >
> > > Dear Tracy,
> > >
> > > Wheelchair owners drive cars, take taxis, wheel their own chairs - and
> > > use buses. I rarely use buses - but I seem to use them more than
> > > wheelchair users - judging from my personal experience - for I have
> > > never seen a wheelchair user on a bus. Now, it is mandatory for buses
> > > to
> > > have special equipment for wheelchair users - which costs a few bob -
> > > but they are rarely used. If you want to utilise energy efficiently it
> > > would be better for provide free access to taxis for wheelchair users.
> > > Specially-equipped taxis are constantly used for transporting people
in
> > > wheelchairs. They have a bit more space for luggage and a bit of room
> > > for other passengers (like the wheelchair user's friends for example).
> > >
> > > No, I agree, I don't use buses very often. I don't need to. I prefer a
> > > car or a bicycle because they are quicker, cheaper or more
comfortable.
> > >
> > > The reason Christchurch has the "best" bus fleet is due in large part
> > > to
> > > the massive subsidies required to run them. Subsidies hide
> > > inefficiencies and should be avoided as much as possible.
> > >
> > > As one taxi driver observed in earlier correspondence on the topic -
> > > they don't get subsidies (although some of the users get subsidies)
and
> > > they provide an excellent service from point to point.
> > >
> > > While you may enjoy sitting in a bus watching the world pass by, they
> > > do
> > > make a lot of noise and are too wide and too noisy and too numerous
> > > along Colombo St within the city centre.
> > >
> > > And you have missed my main point. Most "traffic" problems only occur
> > > around the key commuting times of day. Alter the usage at these times
> > > of
> > > day and there would not be a traffic problem. And there are ways of
> > > doing this - one being starting earlier in the day... or another
> > > billing
> > > motorists using the roads at certain times of the day.
> > >
> > > Both would be more energy efficient than building buses equipped for
> > > wheelchairs under subsidies.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Tim Kerr.
> > >
> > >
> > > Obesity transgresses all transport modes. I have seen obese people on
> > > buses.
> > > I have even seen obese people on bicycles and walking. However, making
> > > the children walk 1600 metres to and from the school gate a couple of
> > > times a day would reduce the number of Mum's waiting outside the
school
> > > gate and would reduce commuter delays considerably. The reason, as I
> > > mentioned previously, can be explained but not within this message.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Tracey Dorreen" <email obscured>>
> > > To: "Canterbury Public Issues Forum"
> > > <email obscured>>
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:51 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Tim,
> > > >
> > > > Your comments above are not very positive. Imagine if you had a
> > > wheelchair, the bus needs to be wide enough to accommodate you. Same
> > > with
> > > anyone who uses a pram for their children.
> > > >
> > > > I remember when I had my big OE in Britain some time ago, that the
> > > busses
> > > were small which is great for those who don't have access problems.
But
> > > our
> > > busses are great here in Ch Ch. In fact we have the best bus service
in
> > > NZ.
> > > I wonder if any of you have ever bothered to get out of your cars and
> > > use
> > > public transport. Judging by the comments on this topic - I doubt it.
> > > At
> > > least you guys have a choice of whether you use a car. I don't and I
am
> > > completely dependent on others to get me from A to B. However, my kids
> > > and
> > > I don't suffer from obesity unlike some people who constantly use
their
> > > cars
> > > even to go to the corner dairy.
> > > >
> > > > Tracey Dorreen
> > > >
> > > > Info about Tracey Dorreen:
> > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/traceydorreen
> > > >
> > > > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5j8OqFkfMlFeChFWALF3BC
> > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > To post, send your message to:
> > > <email obscured>
> > > > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> > > > in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
> > > >
> > > > More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> > > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
> > > >
> > > > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at
http://OnlineGroups.Net
> > >
> > >
> > > Tim Kerr
> > >
> > > Info about Tim Kerr: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/timkerr
> > >
> > > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/275HT9d09XJVcoLsElz8zs
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > >  To post, send your message to:
<email obscured>
> > >  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> > >  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
> > >
> > >  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> > >  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
> > >
> > >  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > BJ Clark
> > > Harewood, Christchurch
> > > Info about BJ Clark: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/bjclark
> > >
> > > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/gh1pcg2LviwEaxY2njkY8
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > >  To post, send your message to:
<email obscured>
> > >  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> > >  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
> > >
> > >  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> > >  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
> > >
> > >  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
> > >
> >
> >
> > Tracey Dorreen
> >
> > Info about Tracey Dorreen:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/traceydorreen
> >
> > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/64b6fXpJzgZoZxT3FRSOl3
> > -----------------------------------------
> > To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> > in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
> >
> > More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
> >
> > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
>
> Paula Lambert
> Nth Linwood/Avonside
> Info about Paula Lambert:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/paulalambert
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5rruIUfH6j8IO4yK8xguO3
> -----------------------------------------
>   To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>   To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>   in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>   More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>   http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>   E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

From: Nick Jackman Date: 2007 Jul 31 10:29 UTC Short link

I agree with Tim that more resourses should be put into taxis to boost their
use and efficiency.  As he suggests, buses are not a universal transport
solution.  However, I don't believe taxis are either.  Both modes have
advantages and disadvantages and they both excel at different things.  It is
easy to criticise the bus service but we will need it progressively more in
the future as the realities of congestion, global warming and declining oil
supplies become more apparent over the years.

I think the uses of taxis should be increased to enhance the bus system and
boost its capacity, so it may better cope with the demands that will be made
of it in future.

If people are to be expected to one day give up their cars they need to feel
confident enough to do so.  In the future, it is likely that people will
still need to use cars sometimes, no matter how committed they are to buses,
cycling, walking etc.  If they could rely on different taxi services for
some of their transport they will be better resourced to get rid of their
private vehicles, as they can have backup cars or vans for those times when
they really need them.  Therefore, to achieve modal shift away from private
cars we will need more cars/vans as public transport, and we will need to
use them increasingly in more creative and efficient ways.  There is much
that can yet be done with passenger transport services.  I think the greater
efficiency gains will be made when buses and taxis work together in an
integrated fashion.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Kerr <email obscured>]
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2007 10:07 p.m.
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion

Paula, She needs a taxi.

I've shifted those little cart things by truck - and they are heavy and
relatively unstable.

That's one of the points I'm trying to make. Everyone thinks buses are the
universal transport solution. They aren't. They eat up capital and do half
their trips empty.

If more effort was put into better taxi transport - transport that picks up
and takes the person to where she/he wants to go then buses would be
cheaper - and more efficient... and I could continue to use my car or bike -
or whatever.

Taxis, incidentally, don't do empty return trips - unlike buses and light
rail!

And Paul, I don't agree with your hierarchy of road users. Well,... with the
exception of two-stroke motor scooters!

Other road users DO treat me OK on a bike - if I follow the road rules and
ride in a disciplined and predictable manner. But they don't like me riding
without a helmet - because they don't like bastards enjoying themselves and
they don't like having to wear seatbelts and (God help us!) High
Vis(ability) Vests!!!

And apart from two-stroke motor scooters, I feel I try and respect the road
code when I am driving a motor vehicle.

Unfortunately for other road users - except pratts on two-stroke motor
scooters - I do occasionally muck up - and upset other road users. I don't
do it deliberately (with the exception of two-stroke scooter riders. If I
missed one of you lot as you passed me on the inside then I'm sorry - I must
have failed to see you!)

Paul, I like your idea of banning traffic planners from the roads. But how
do we spot one? I used to rely on them having ginger beards, fawn cardigans
and sandals over walk socks - but they seem to have been replaced by some
sort of suit. Or maybe they've changed gender!

Cheers,
Tim Kerr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paula Lambert" <email obscured>>
To: <email obscured>>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion


> These people in chairs are pretty brave venturing out onto buses in the
> first place.   I saw a friend onto a bus a few weeks ago.  She has
muscular
> dystrophy and is in one of those zippy small electric chairs that are very
> heavy with low centre of gravity to avoid tipping easily.   The busdriver
> had a couple of tries to get correctly aligned and close enough, but there
> was still a wee footpath/bus height/gap problem that needed fearlessness
> from the chair-user because without driver assistance she
> could have over-powered getting the chair onto the bus to get over the
> height/gap and squashed her feet bumping into the step below the drivers
> seat.   It was a bit dangerous, as well as scary to watch.
> Are drivers trained to offer boarding assistance to chair-users when
> required ?  She needs no help disembarking.
>
>
>
> On 7/30/07, <email obscured> <email obscured>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi BJ,
> >
> > Yep, the two issues you raised are very valid ones. In an ideal world,
> > busses
> > would be designed to make it easier for those with wheelchairs, prams,
> > etc. to
> > get into the bus.  If the busses were more easily accessible, then it
> > would be
> > a winner for all members of the public.
> >
> > Tracey
> > Quoting Bj Clark <email obscured>>:
> >
> > > Dear Tim
> > >
> > > There are very good reasons why wheelchair users are not seen on buses
> > > as often as they would like. The buses may seem wheelchair friendly
but
> > > often they are not.
> > >
> > > People with disabilities are often unemployed and on benefits,
> > > therefore
> > > have a limited income. Bus transport is fiscally the best option for
> > > them however the design of the busse is still not good enough. Bus
> > > drivers have set timetables to adhere to and waiting for a person in a
> > > wheelchair or on fact a lady with a pram, affects his time table.
> > >
> > > Another issue is that buses will pull up at a bus stop and inform the
> > > wheelchair user that the bus ramp is not working. If this is in fact
> > > the
> > > case, should the bus leave the depot if it is not in good working
> > > oredr.
> > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps if Mr Holton-Jefferies or another representative from Ecan,
> > > attends the DPH Transport Forum tonight at the baptist Church, Oxford
> > > Terrace, they may be able to understand the frustration of those in
> > > wheelchairs.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > BJ
> > >
> > >
> > > BJ Clark QSM JP
> > > Regional Facilities Manager & Access Advisor
> > > CCS Disability Action
> > > PO Box 8066
> > > Riccarton
> > > Christchurch
> > > email - <email obscured>
> > > Ph (03) 348 8974
> > > cell 027 296 5505
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tim Kerr <email obscured>]
> > > Sent: Friday, 27 July 2007 12:53 p.m.
> > > To: <email obscured>
> > > Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion
> > >
> > > Dear Tracy,
> > >
> > > Wheelchair owners drive cars, take taxis, wheel their own chairs - and
> > > use buses. I rarely use buses - but I seem to use them more than
> > > wheelchair users - judging from my personal experience - for I have
> > > never seen a wheelchair user on a bus. Now, it is mandatory for buses
> > > to
> > > have special equipment for wheelchair users - which costs a few bob -
> > > but they are rarely used. If you want to utilise energy efficiently it
> > > would be better for provide free access to taxis for wheelchair users.
> > > Specially-equipped taxis are constantly used for transporting people
in
> > > wheelchairs. They have a bit more space for luggage and a bit of room
> > > for other passengers (like the wheelchair user's friends for example).
> > >
> > > No, I agree, I don't use buses very often. I don't need to. I prefer a
> > > car or a bicycle because they are quicker, cheaper or more
comfortable.
> > >
> > > The reason Christchurch has the "best" bus fleet is due in large part
> > > to
> > > the massive subsidies required to run them. Subsidies hide
> > > inefficiencies and should be avoided as much as possible.
> > >
> > > As one taxi driver observed in earlier correspondence on the topic -
> > > they don't get subsidies (although some of the users get subsidies)
and
> > > they provide an excellent service from point to point.
> > >
> > > While you may enjoy sitting in a bus watching the world pass by, they
> > > do
> > > make a lot of noise and are too wide and too noisy and too numerous
> > > along Colombo St within the city centre.
> > >
> > > And you have missed my main point. Most "traffic" problems only occur
> > > around the key commuting times of day. Alter the usage at these times
> > > of
> > > day and there would not be a traffic problem. And there are ways of
> > > doing this - one being starting earlier in the day... or another
> > > billing
> > > motorists using the roads at certain times of the day.
> > >
> > > Both would be more energy efficient than building buses equipped for
> > > wheelchairs under subsidies.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Tim Kerr.
> > >
> > >
> > > Obesity transgresses all transport modes. I have seen obese people on
> > > buses.
> > > I have even seen obese people on bicycles and walking. However, making
> > > the children walk 1600 metres to and from the school gate a couple of
> > > times a day would reduce the number of Mum's waiting outside the
school
> > > gate and would reduce commuter delays considerably. The reason, as I
> > > mentioned previously, can be explained but not within this message.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Tracey Dorreen" <email obscured>>
> > > To: "Canterbury Public Issues Forum"
> > > <email obscured>>
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:51 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Tim,
> > > >
> > > > Your comments above are not very positive. Imagine if you had a
> > > wheelchair, the bus needs to be wide enough to accommodate you. Same
> > > with
> > > anyone who uses a pram for their children.
> > > >
> > > > I remember when I had my big OE in Britain some time ago, that the
> > > busses
> > > were small which is great for those who don't have access problems.
But
> > > our
> > > busses are great here in Ch Ch. In fact we have the best bus service
in
> > > NZ.
> > > I wonder if any of you have ever bothered to get out of your cars and
> > > use
> > > public transport. Judging by the comments on this topic - I doubt it.
> > > At
> > > least you guys have a choice of whether you use a car. I don't and I
am
> > > completely dependent on others to get me from A to B. However, my kids
> > > and
> > > I don't suffer from obesity unlike some people who constantly use
their
> > > cars
> > > even to go to the corner dairy.
> > > >
> > > > Tracey Dorreen
> > > >
> > > > Info about Tracey Dorreen:
> > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/traceydorreen
> > > >
> > > > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5j8OqFkfMlFeChFWALF3BC
> > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > To post, send your message to:
> > > <email obscured>
> > > > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> > > > in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
> > > >
> > > > More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> > > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
> > > >
> > > > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at
http://OnlineGroups.Net
> > >
> > >
> > > Tim Kerr
> > >
> > > Info about Tim Kerr: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/timkerr
> > >
> > > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/275HT9d09XJVcoLsElz8zs
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > >  To post, send your message to:
<email obscured>
> > >  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> > >  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
> > >
> > >  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> > >  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
> > >
> > >  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > BJ Clark
> > > Harewood, Christchurch
> > > Info about BJ Clark: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/bjclark
> > >
> > > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/gh1pcg2LviwEaxY2njkY8
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > >  To post, send your message to:
<email obscured>
> > >  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> > >  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
> > >
> > >  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> > >  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
> > >
> > >  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
> > >
> >
> >
> > Tracey Dorreen
> >
> > Info about Tracey Dorreen:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/traceydorreen
> >
> > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/64b6fXpJzgZoZxT3FRSOl3
> > -----------------------------------------
> > To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> > in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
> >
> > More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
> >
> > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
> >
>
> Paula Lambert
> Nth Linwood/Avonside
> Info about Paula Lambert:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/paulalambert
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5rruIUfH6j8IO4yK8xguO3
> -----------------------------------------
>   To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>   To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>   in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>   More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>   http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>   E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net


Tim Kerr

Info about Tim Kerr: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/timkerr

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6f2Bkz4LAm4SOx5I8loAk8
-----------------------------------------
  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

From: Tracey Dorreen Date: 2007 Jul 31 23:04 UTC Short link

Nick is spot on about the public transport and congestion issue.  Yes, I do get
the point that there are times during the day when the roads aren't so
congested, Tim.

I totally agree with Nick that we need to enhance all forms of public transport
so that when the time comes, we are not so inadequately prepared.  As I said
before, the more cycleways we have around Ch Ch, the better.  Wouldn't it be
great if Ch Ch became known as the cycling city.  What do you think?

From: Tim Kerr Date: 2007 Aug 01 02:35 UTC Short link

No, Tracey, Nick Jackman is not "spot on" about public transport!

Firstly, as with anything to do with limited supply - there is no magical
"tap' where God or someone suddenly turns off the supply of oil! It is not
"running out" - Look, please everybody, understand we have many, many years
of oil left under the ground - somewhere.

Also, everyone is obsessed about "private transport" - much of the transport
(and the costly inefficiencies resulting from fringe environmental
pessimists and their talk of peak oil) is NOT private transport. Most
transport is by boat, rail, truck and to a lesser extent, air.

If oil suddenly runs out - then understand this - we won't need private cars
or bus lanes or light rail!!!

While Nick is going on about agreeing with my statement we need "more
resources to boost taxis" - I didn't, I merely suggested re-routing
subsidies so they went to the user - and not a ruddy big bus company - would
be more efficient. Anyway, I digress... While Nick goes on about more
resources for taxis and stating people need to feel they have the
"confidence to give up their cars" the rest of the world is building them in
record quantities! If NZ has 4 million working cars (it hasn't) then that is
the equivalent of, say a largish city in the USA, or Japan, or Europe.

Now China and India will probably end up with say, half a billion cars (in
China) - and about a quarter of a billion in India within the next 20 years.
These two countries (let alone the rest of South and SE Asia) aren't going
to say "Oh, lets not have more than 4 million cars in our country - so we
don't pollute the world more than little old New Zealand..." If that
happens, then I'll dine on Asian Rhinoceros!

In the late 1970's energy experts predicted oil would run out by 1990. It
didn't. In fact, it was so plentiful and cheap no one invested in new
refineries! It was a lack of refining capacity that lead to current
reasonably high prices (reasonably moderate actually).

In the 1970's when we were told how soon oil was to run out we used Valiants
and Holdens that gulped down petrol. Many bus and truck fleets were still
using underpowered petrol-guzzling bangers - and diesel was relatively rare!
The most economical car on the road was probably a Morrie Minor....

We probably use less oil now than we used to. We buy and shift a lot more
stuff around than we used to. Logistics is now virtually a science - and who
buys all this stuff? I dunno! Maybe we do! But we do it more efficiently
than we used to.

Let me return to my original point. Planning to restrict cars is not the
issue - making sure we have efficient and effective transport is. Private
car usage ultimately sorts itself out. If motorists don't like going
somewhere because of the congestion - then they won't. All restrictive
planning does is ensure some motorists won't use the facility - so that
another one may! (A slight variation of the theme if you build a motorway
motorists will use it - until it becomes congested...)

If buses are so nice and practical - then fine - let people use them. But I
don't see why they should have special bus lanes - unless they are separate
from the road - and self-financed. Maybe buses should have priority when
pulling out of a bus stop - if only for the sanity of the poor driver... But
most people seem to let buses out OK.

So, Tracey, don't worry, we are not "inadequately prepared!". Incidentally
Tracey, services have been enhanced. Taxi companies no longer run Morris
Oxfords, most buses are now running on diesel, trucks and cars now have
heaters as standard - things have become enhanced - most without regulation.

As for cycle lanes.... If Christchurch was to become the cycling city...
Hmmm, well, all that Lycra and shaved legs and other bits... But cyclists
aren't noted for their intelligence either! And that leads to your final
point... cycle lanes.

Cycle lanes are a disaster. If they are off-road they end up going no
where - or worse, not the place you were wanting it to go to. Then they are
congested by pedestrians who think they own the cycleway and expect you to
avoid them...Or you are flying along the cycleway pleased not to have any
pedestrians or rubbish bins in your way when suddenly around the corner is
another cyclist - heading straight towards you! If cycleways run next to the
roads - then you have no rights at intersections, you cannot do a RH turn -
and worse, you are expected to get off your bike and act like a pedestrian
at roundabouts.

Painted lines on the side of the road offer an element of psychological
safety to some cyclists. Unfortunately they also prevented RH turns.
However, this City Council has come up with a few intersection innovations
to allow left hand turns (and even right of way over left turning traffic
when going straight ahead). The city council traffic planners should be
congratulated on this - it took about 30 years to develop.

Finally, cycle lane psychology means Transit NZ builds roads that disallow
cyclists - then put a pathetic little path down one side of the road. This
is dangerous and prejudicial to cyclists - and no fun for pedestrians
either. Now something needs to be done about that!

Cheers,
Tim Kerr

From: Andrew Groom Date: 2007 Aug 02 21:37 UTC Short link

Hi All,

I'd just to clarify a point about my suggestion of actively discouraging
people from using certain routes in times of peak congestion. Because of
patterns of commuter behaviour, i.e., where they tend to live and
especially when they tend to commute, traffic along certain routes
inevitably has peaks of "load", and on some routes the peaks are very
high compared to the troughs.

If we increase the capacity of a given route to cope with the peak load,
  at considerable cost, e.g., by adding lanes, not only do we sharpen
the peak load (because more people will try to commute closer to their
desired time, mostly because of standard start and finish times of the
working day) but we also end up creating an infrastructure that's
grossly underutilised the vast majority of the time.

To me, it makes more sense to save money by trying to spread those peaks
over a wider timeframe, thus getting better utilisation of the route
without having to spend the huge sums that we do on infrastructure.

Cheers, Andrew.

From: Tim Kerr Date: 2007 Aug 03 01:51 UTC Short link

Ah, at last, some logic about "rush hour traffic"!

Andrew Groom has just pointed out that commuter traffic jams up some of the
system for a short period during the day.

Exactly! If I drive around the city outside the hours of 0800 and 0900 then
I don't find any problem with traffic. Traffic flows get worse from about
1500 Hrs. And the reason the evening rush starts so early is due to parents
picking up school pupils. As I have stated (twice) in previous ravings -
school pupil drop-off points should be 1600 metres distant from the school
gates. This would act as a dis-incentive for parents to deposit or uplift
their kids - and thus reduce the length of the traffic congestion period in
the afternoons and reduce - and reduce obesity.

As Andrew clearly states - spreading time will solve the commute delays. As
I have pointed out (twice) there ain't much commuter traffic at 0400 Hrs!

And we don't want to spend money on improving commuter networks when we
should be spending money on roads that get stuff to and from ports and farms
and factories (if we have any left) and warehouses.

Pandering to the commuter crush only panders to the well-heeled lawyers and
municipal corporation employees and social workers - the people who start
work at 0900 Hrs.

Cheers,
Tim Kerr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Groom" <email obscured>>
To: <email obscured>>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic Congestion


> Hi All,
>
> I'd just to clarify a point about my suggestion of actively discouraging
> people from using certain routes in times of peak congestion. Because of
> patterns of commuter behaviour, i.e., where they tend to live and
> especially when they tend to commute, traffic along certain routes
> inevitably has peaks of "load", and on some routes the peaks are very
> high compared to the troughs.
>
> If we increase the capacity of a given route to cope with the peak load,
>   at considerable cost, e.g., by adding lanes, not only do we sharpen
> the peak load (because more people will try to commute closer to their
> desired time, mostly because of standard start and finish times of the
> working day) but we also end up creating an infrastructure that's
> grossly underutilised the vast majority of the time.
>
> To me, it makes more sense to save money by trying to spread those peaks
> over a wider timeframe, thus getting better utilisation of the route
> without having to spend the huge sums that we do on infrastructure.
>
> Cheers, Andrew.
>
> Andrew Groom
> Bryndwr, Christchurch
> Info about Andrew Groom:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/andrewgroom
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2uLuA9o2SCWnS4pNii0obA
> -----------------------------------------
>   To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>   To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>   in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>   More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>   http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>   E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

You cannot post because you are not logged in. If you are a member Canterbury Public Issues Forum, login to post to this topic. Otherwise sign up, become a member of Canterbury Public Issues Forum, and post to this topic.

Need help? Please contact technical support. Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using GroupServer.