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
Rest of post
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tracey Dorreen" <<email obscured>>
To: "Canterbury Public Issues Forum"
<canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Traffic congestion
> 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?
>
> Tracey Dorreen
> Christtchurch
> 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/7b4tdpvqH7fAXLGLzrb4EI
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> 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