tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-211616357616951025.post8319140877789960953..comments2024-03-05T08:45:33.095+13:00Comments on NZ In Tranzit: A reminder in concrete of why we need better city leadership!David Welchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11986414622432134057noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-211616357616951025.post-91722935639352125512013-09-21T00:29:01.484+12:002013-09-21T00:29:01.484+12:00The city has a hundreds of kilometres of sealed fo...The city has a hundreds of kilometres of sealed footpath, no doubt absorbing hundreds of hectares of valuable urban land. Even on the arterial roads, most of these footpaths would be lucky to see 200 people a day use them.<br />On the road beside these same footpaths, if an arterial road, pass 30-60 buses a day carrying hundreds or even thousands of people a day. I see no logic in giving pedestrians privilege (yes I know they form a safety buffer too) and yet denying tens of thousands of bus users city wide the benefit of easy fast and predictable public transport movement, just because bus lanes (like footpaths) will sit empty 95% of the time. Is a lane that sits empty 59 minutes in the hour but has four buses pass in 15 seconds, each carrying, say, 17 passengers on average (across peak and off peak) = 68 people, 10 hours a day = 680 (I wont count the other 8 off peak hours) more important as a busway than a parking space for, say, 20 people across the same time space. It doesn't really matter how much congestion exists or not - the value of having bus lanes 7 am - 7pm seven days a week, and thus hugely reliable bus services (and reliable transfers) grossly over-rides a smattering of parked cars that a few planned bays or indicator signs to side streets could easily cater for. Unfortunately to put it crudely the bus user is "a niggar" under the extreme prejudice against bus users "busism" considered worthless, the car owner a superior being, That is for example in the above equation, one car parker =34 bus users. Nothing can remove for one minute the stupidity of planners and politicians who saw Wellington and Auckland receive over $2 billion on public transport and did not even bother to seek the $5 million or whatever to widen the underpass at Barrington to accommodate a separate bus lane - this is not "excessive future proofing" - it is doing the job we pay politicians and public servants to do!David Welchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11986414622432134057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-211616357616951025.post-29169078982416632772012-06-11T19:23:37.831+12:002012-06-11T19:23:37.831+12:00I disagree. I believe that excess future proofing ...I disagree. I believe that excess future proofing will lead to unnecessary extra cost to the taxpayer.<br />If at every upgraded intersection additional cost is put into future proofing for "when the city may have a million people" we will have a road network that is significantly over-constructed.<br />Once the new Christchurch Southern Motorway is completed, the volume of traffic traveling around the Barrington / Jerrold St's intersection (under the new bridge) will decrease.<br />Currently far too much money has already been put into bus lanes that are used for 3 hours a day on routes that will reduce in congestion when further planned upgrades are put in place. Look at the Main North Road bus lanes for instance, when the Northern Arterial Motorway is constructed traffic on Main North Road will drop causing minimal congestion and we will end up with an under-used additional lane.<br />Also in days where the city's areas of expansion are currently under review, why construct something that may no longer be a strategic route to the city?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com