From:
Tim Kerr
Date:
Aug 08 00:10 UTC
Short link
Oh dear.... Once again we start to hear from the anti-car brigade.
Andrew, the reason you are seeing so many potholes is due to the chief cause
of road wear (as cited by Bryan? Oh cripes! I've forgotten his name!). The
chief cause is weather. We have had a bit of bad weather - as we do most
winters - and that increases road damage. (incidentally, you get more
punctures in wet weather too...)
Although there may be data that USA road mileage is decreasing that does not
really foretell the end of the motorcar over the next ten years. As the USA
figures fall the Chinese, Mexican, Brazilian, Indian mileage increases...
I have stated it in the past - and obviously have to repeat it.... "For
every conversion from private transport to public there is a gap ready to be
filled by someone deciding to modify their own private transport usage...
either re-convert to a car, alter their time to go to and from work...
whatever" People will use private transport if it continues to suit them.
Yes... oil price etc does influence the decisions - but again, for every
person who decides not to use private transport there is a gap for someone
prepared to face the extra cost to fill the gap. They make savings on
cost/consumption by changing other aspects of their private vehicle usage.
So, the hoi polloi make private transport sacrifices - only to find the
wealthier, fatter cats (lawyers, accountants, mid-to-senior local body
employees - all inner-city workers) fill the gaps. Yes, our subsidy
payments - yours and my fuel taxes or whatever end up providing room for
comfortable, well-padded and well-paid employees and business professionals
to get a comfortable ride to work - at a comfortable time... While we wait
at a bus stop out in the cold...
Which is OK - if that suits you. But why we should ALL pay a contribution to
your misery... well....
You see, while we make our sacrifices (being taxed to pay for a transport
infrastructure dependant of subsidies for its survival) the supposedly rare
oil is being used by countries with a higher level of growth - by countries
beginning to pass us in GNP and general living standards... No. We don't
HAVE to make these sacrifices. Not yet at any rate. Nor in ten years time...
Now, I am not saying DON'T ride your bicycle. All I'm trying to point out is
don't make any sacrifices for other people. If you LIKE catching a bus (as
my partner does) then catch one. If you LIKE riding your bicycle, then ride
it. But don't get all environmentally tied up with dreaded feelings of using
up the last drop of oil. You won't, we as a country won't, the last drop (it
won't happen) will be used up by a country that has achieved a far better
standard of living than we in NZ who have been brow-beaten into servitude
and tiny vegetable plots by a bunch of conservationists with doctorates in
sustainable development who have well-paid jobs in local government...
As for rail - yeah, I love it too - as Paul De Spa has pointed out, rail is
not really an option in Christchurch. We don't have the natural corridors -
or currently - the population to support rail. Oh, I suppose we could
rebuild the Little River line - and the Rangiora line is OK... and I am not
against the extra tram lines in the inner city - though they are not a
transport option. But commuter rail is expensive - much more expensive than
those who would want to use it are prepared to pay.
Again, I have pointed this out in the past - MOST traffic congestion occurs
between 0830 and 0900 Hrs in the morning - the TIME MUMS HAVE TO DROP THEIR
LITTLE DAHLINGS OFF TO SCHOOL. Schools will not accept kids before 0830
hrs - (though, interestingly, private childcare centres do....). Get rid of
the school gate delivery systems and I reckon you would reduce congestion at
that peak time by 25%. The afternoon congestion begins at....1430 Hrs... the
time Mums start setting off to pick their little dahlings up from school.
Then it seems to drop around 1600 hrs and intensify at 1500 Hrs. No amount
of public transport subsidy will alter this - the only way to alter it is to
change the Dahling Delivery system. (I have suggested banning delivery
within 1600 metres of the school gates but interestingly I have never heard
another word in support of this wonderful scheme...) Making the little
dahlings walk two miles a day would mean they get a bit of exercise - and we
would get a little less traffic congestion...
Now I may sound trite - but the points I am making are serious. There are
WAYS of lowering peak hour traffic problems that do not include massive fuel
taxes and subsidies to support public transport systems that most of the
users dislike.
Meanwhile, one of our largest export products happens to be oil.. and we
have more fields to be opened up in the near future. We are NOT going to run
out of oil in the next ten years...
Another point. Road building is massive and expensive - but it tends to
cover its costs within its economic lifetime - say ten years... By contrast,
rail which takes up far less space, seems even more expensive to construct.
It has a much longer economic life-time - roughly 100 years. Unfortunately
it seems the longer economic life acts as a stymie to proper costing,
maintenance and replacement. This is what has happened to NZ Rail (Oops,
Kiwi rail). It has in broad terms a 70 -100 year life cycle and, again in
broad terms, that 70-100 years is up. Kiwi Rail needs massive capital -
capital only a massive public company or a Government can afford.
I had a wonderful experience yesterday. I set off after visiting my cash
machine and felt something pleasantly odd. Yep, I had left my bloody bicycle
helmet at home. Ah, freedom!
Cheers,
Tim Kerr.
----- Original Message -----
From: "andrew" <<email obscured>>
To: <<email obscured>>
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Guest Speaker (Paul de Spa): SPOKES and the
state of cycling in Christchurch
> On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 00:09 +1200, Paul de Spa wrote:
>> I’m not sure why you say Akld’s regional fuel tax is about heavier
>> laning and trucks… I’ve read it as being for capital investment in
>> passenger rail, a good alternative to private motor vehicles, (for
>> Auckland anyway, I have to admit to not being fully sold on the
>> advantages of rail here in Chch). But yeah, I reckon when the time
>> comes the Canterbury Regional Transport Committee should bring in a
>> regional fuel tax and say, we are going to split it three ways: 1/3
>> public transport, 1/3 active transport and 1/3 “other”. To those who
>> would say “Petrol is getting too pricey anyway, and motorists’ money
>> should only be spent on roads,” I’d say surely it’s better that an
>> increase in what we pay for petrol goes back into our own communities,
>> rather than to the oil companies, and is used to build the alternative
>> infrastructure we’ll need when petrol gets really unaffordable.
>
> Well said, Paul. To me, it's about simple geography and economics. First
> rail: rail works really well when you have a population contained in
> natural transport corridors, which is why it works in Wellington and
> could work in Auckland. Because it costs such a lot to build, it
> requires a guaranteed volume to make it worthwhile, and you'd only
> really want to build a rail track along a densely populated corridor for
> that reason.
>
> So, rail is never going to be that effective in Christchurch unless we
> artificially constrain ourselves to live close to transport routes to
> the point where population density builds up along those routes and
> rail becomes cost-effective.
>
> As for spending money on roads, my worst fear is that in 10 years I end
> up staring at empty stretches of road with few cars on them and full of
> potholes, built with *my* money, all because we refused to acknowledge
> the warning signs that cars were on the way out.
>
> It's already happening in the US where they've had the biggest drop in
> miles travelled since records were collected starting in 1942 [1]. At
> this point, if I was a Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy
> person, I'd be a bit worried about that underlying assumption that
> traffic congestion will just keep on increasing for the foreseeable
> future and the resulting commitments to build lots of new white elephant
> roads.
>
> And while I'm at it, can someone do something about the huge number of
> potholes I seem to be seeing at the moment ? How about less money on new
> roads and more on fixing up the ones we have ? :-)
>
> [1] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91658095
>
>
>
>
> Andrew Groom
> Bryndwr, Christchurch
> Info about Andrew Groom: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/andrewgroom
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7JVZuULUUVteoaYc7LCa3o
> -----------------------------------------
> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1392 - Release Date: 4/22/2008
3:51 PM