Matter Traffic Plan—III VALUE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICE

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30044, 31 January 1963, Page 3

Matter Traffic Plan—III VALUE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICE

lap

F. TOMLINSON,

«a* i ** itucmb w_ ii vanw», =1 » is periM*K«gndtettt font tbs Ottetctanfoßegtoael Manning Awfhnrifw in pSShingSaM on the master transnortattan plan devoted only sbeut oas pace to the pert that pchlii passenger transport and rail services would play tn its concept of the future transport plan for Christchurch. The Mlowtag is an extract from the report:—"From trends over the last a years as shown by the figures to Table A, it is expected that, in the next 30 yean, public paaaetper transport wiU not he able to make any major additional contribution in the . transport acene, and relatively could lose ground.'* A further extract from the report does not give rail aervices anv future in the authority’s conception of “things to come." “The further devetopmont of local railway services, both for goods and paaerrigrra, is hampered, in a similar way to bus passenger services, by the circular shape of Christchurch, except that in the case of the railways it is an even more restricting influence. It is also expected that, on balance, the Christ-church-Lyttelton road tunnel will have a limiting effect on any major growth in rail transport between Lyttelton and Christchurch. The plan does not, therefore, envisage that the part played by rail transport will change materially during the planning period." On page 31 of the report, we read the following rather astonishing statement: “Provision for Public Transport: While the motorway system is planned primarily for cars and trade vehicles, tt will undoubtedly be rf great value to public passenger transport undertakings, particularly in the field of rapid transit tram the outer suburbs to the city centre. It is possible pick up and let down points will be required along each motorway and the matter will have to be borne In mind at the detailed design stage.** It wiU beinteresting to learn what the National Beads Board thinks of thia Impracticable proposal ITb?a*«roU MtabUshs*foet that in all the major cities of the world, including New Zeeland, the bulk of the population is carried to and from the central areas by publie transport—rail, subway, bus, street-cars, or the like, and the percentage of the public who use private motorvehieles or cycles is small by RegionabMsnning Authority apparently does not accept this baste tact and tn Us windom, puns lor the bulk of the public to congest our roads and streets with private cars (one person a ear presumably). until we re.cn a state of ehaos and confusion at a huge and exborbitant cost to the public. Traditiona Jy. the present generation of planners will then fade from the scene, to be replaced by a new team of experts who. no doubt will then commence to undo what their predecessors so diligently believed to be right In table A of the report, the growth figures from 195® to IMO are estimated as follows: Population 50 to TO Motor-vehicle MO to 144A00 1 ansport Board Passenger) 10 to Mm

tMmamfo'i- ■ - pff ■ witt ba one car to every 2.18 perasna or better than 1W cars a family, Tba ■- pJOpOBlll atauthority apparently eorinfe that a targe proportion of these M4JNO vehicles should he able to drive,at intatswint spaed into the centre of out city, regardless of resulting confusion and wholly uneconomic Th* authority assumes that ear parting facilities will keep pace with thia explosive congestion. (Page M of the report.) But, it five perking buildings, each accommodating 390 care were built each year for the next 30 yean, we would then have provided apace for only 25,000 cars, during which period the increase is estimated to be OfJMO can. The capital cost of these 100 parking buildings could exceed £25 million, apart from the problem of finding the space to locate them within the central areas. Other Thoughts The following is an extract from “Time" November, 1982: “Transit Gloria. Perhaps the boldest civic-works programme on any ballot confronted the voters in three San Francisco Bay area counties. For years, San Francisco has been choking on traffic, despite a growing number of bridges and freeways. Forty-eight lanes of fort stays now wind around the city, and 32 more are in the works. But city planners estimated that an additional 40 would be necessary to handle the region’s projected papulation jump from 2,500,000 to 4,000,000 in the next decade. “Instead of programming even more freeways and bridges, city engineers draw up imaginative plans for a rapid-transit system that would include the shuttling of trains from Oakland to San Francisco through a sixmite lube under the bay. Now it takes a commuter an hour to drive the 20 miles from Orinda to the downtown area; the transit system would whisk him there in U minutes aboard swift, silent trams that would run every M seconds during rush hours, The 28-mile trip be* tween San Francisco arid Southern Alameda County now takes li hours by car in heavy traffic; by train, it would take 31 minutes. “By tapping existing financing systems, the planners figured they could scrape together 204 million dollars for the project But they stitt needed a bond issue of a whopping 792 million dollars. That broke down to a 27-dollar-a-year tax increase for the "median* householder in the region, whether or not betused the system. Making natters even tougher was a State requirement that the proposed bond issue be passed by 80 per cent or more of the voters By 81.1 per eent. of the total vote of 714.425 citizens of the three counties agreed to shell out the necessary money to build the first major rapid-transit programme to the United States since Cleveland’s in 1955” Surely it is a fallacy to proceed with the Christchurch master transportation plan without much more thought and consideration. If, as it is admitted by the Christchurch Regional Planning Authority, publie transport must take over the major rote in 30 years’ time, then surely the planning period should be now, not after it is too late. (To be continued)