Subs due 15 April link https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/226
With millions already spent to create car dependency and gridlock it will take lots of submissions to stop this madness. Help out the neighbourhoods in the north east of Christchurch while also working for better cycling infrastructure. Even a simple sub stating non support and asking for public and active transport solutions instead will be a big help.
With the new highway dumping commuters onto Cranford Street the surrounding neighbourhoods are sacrificed. The provisions for people who walk and cycle are minimal. No local cycle networks are to be provided, just a big diversion to the Papanui Parallel.
Spokes draft sub
Spokes notes that the proposal for the Northern Arterial Extension fails to meet Council policy or the community’s needs while neglecting travel demand management measures that reduce the volume of vehicles coming down the Christchurch Northern Corridor, CNC and into the St Albans road network and into the city. Spokes opposes the plan as presented. Spokes is not in support.
To that end Spokes asks Council to:
- Build local cycle networks in the north east from Cranford St to the coast
- Create a major north south cycle priority route to serve the north east
- Create more cycle access points along the N Motorway Ext cycleway
- Redirect the $15 million of funding to ECan to increase the frequency and number of buses which can move commuters from their cars to the bus.
- Make bus lanes on the Northern Arterial permanent 24/7
- Make Manchester at Bealey Ave open to buses only
- Create Park & Pedal lots and Park and Ride lots outside of the city and on the outskirts
- Remove free all day on street parking within on kilometer of the city centre
- Reinstate the free central city shuttles
- Work with other entities to reinstate passenger rail
(Council is encouraged to read this piece on a better approach from a noted transport planner https://talkingtransport.com/2019/03/17/can-the-plan/?fbclid=IwAR3HGe9tLg4v9741_e7sZLgxM1B8urSIaUZSpsVXMj1Zt8sxv5fBfBJV0K4 )
Both Spokes and The St Albans Residents Association have advocated for a holistic approach to travel and city living through the submission process. For Spokes, it has been at least since 1998. The people of St Albans have been lobbying for a range of traffic mitigating initiatives since the removal of the northern arterial designation for the area in 1989.
It is well known that we cannot build our way out of car congestion. We do not have the space or resources. In spite of this the last central government remained obsessed with catering to single occupancy vehicles.
Planning for Failure
This plan effectively severs the northern area of Christchurch limiting options for active transport while reducing safety for people who walk, cycle, scooter, etc. The proposed works wastes millions now and more millions to make it right in the future. Active and public transport are disadvantaged and car congestion is assured.
Council has the opportunity to cease sending good money after bad by focusing on Travel Demand Management, TDM implemented through public and active transport. The project’s misguided and doomed to fail High Occupancy Vehicle Lane proposal is not TDM. Let’s stop the losses.
Council aspires to create a city that people would like to live in first and foremost. This plan undermines Council goals of carbon neutrality, sustainability, true transport mode choice and for “safe, healthy and livable communities” with this plan.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to make the central city an attractive, vibrant and interesting place to live. More millions are better spent on making it an affordable place to live then on roading for commuters.
This plan saddles ratepayers with unaffordable roading construction and maintenance and burdens commuters with high transport expense and long hours too often in gridlock. Our future success is dependent not on continuing this debacle, but on providing housing where jobs are and on sustainable multi modal transport.
Council and ECan need to work together on this project and holistic transport planning. The present disconnect leads to piecemeal reactive responses which fail to achieve multi modal transport policies while burdening ratepayers and road users. Excusing the waste of $15 million now and more later as we lack the legislative or organizational arrangements to do otherwise is not acceptable.
We are better served by doing nothing and allowing commuters to experience why they may wish to bike, car pool, take the bus or move into the city.
Faults & Alternatives
This plan contains three stages prioritized to continue car dependence and failure. The first stage facilitates movement of motorized vehicles. Road safety, active transport and quality urban communities are primarily relegated to stages 2 and 3 for monitoring, assessment, feedback and consideration sometime in the future, maybe. Prioritizing car transport disadvantages communities and other transport modes. They are in conflict.
The proposal to divert people on bikes from St Albans and areas east kilometers or more to access the Papanui Parallel from areas east of Cranford Street is a stop gap which does not serve the needs of people who would like to cycle from the wider area. Major Cycle Routes well connected by local cycle networks are what is needed.
The provision of safe cycling routes within and to the city from Burwood, Prestons, Marshland, Mairehau, Shirley, St Albans and eastern suburbs are core to a successful TDM initiative. Excellent east/west cycle networks are needed. To meet the needs of residents and commuters an excellent connection to the Northern Motorway Extension cycle way to a direct cycle route to the central city is needed now. The construction of an alternative North/South cycle corridor needs to be in stage 2 or earlier. E bikes allow greater distances for people who cycle commute. Ideally forward looking transport planning would have put it in place before or no later than the opening of the CNC.
Cranford Street will no longer be a cycling option for even the most competent and confident cyclist. The cycle safety initiatives in the surrounding streets will fall far short of what is expected for a city where uptake of new cycling infrastructure by the ‘interested but concerned’ has exceeded expectations. Local cycle networks are long overdue.
Spokes strongly urges that the initiatives for cycling as outlined in Stage Two be greatly expanded and implemented as soon as possible, including the 30km speed restrictions in streets that are expected to receive increased rat running traffic from 2020 onwards.
In addition to Edgeware Road, Westminster Street, McFaddens Road, Manchester Street, Courtenay Street add Malvern Street, Weston Road, Knowles Street, Caledonian Road. Quickly develop suitable north/south cycle routes east of Cranford Street.
Congestion reduction and livable neighborhoods will be achieved by focusing on TDM and public and active transport. Implementing TDM and active transport prior to the CNC and Cranford St widening the more likely the people of St Albans and people who would like to cycle will regain confidence that their concerns are being addressed.
Many of these initiatives are affordable and should not be put off waiting upon expensive monitoring and assessing which may go unheeded. Quiet Streets can be designated immediately. The message sent will be clear those who walk, ride bikes (or wish to start) are welcome and can travel safely to where they need to go. The message in this plan is clearly “You don’t really matter.”
With full implementation of the recommendations made in this submission monitoring of traffic will give a better indication of what further options may be required and these can be selected and prioritized on an as needed basis and with empowered engagement by residents, active and public transport users and all road users.
But the Experts Say
It is evident that past and present traffic planning in Christchurch prioritized the movement of vehicles first and foremost to the detriment of city livability, cycle and pedestrian safety, health benefits, and shunned the importance of mixed mode transport options. That this is clearly still the dominant transport approach as evidenced here is disastrous.
Too often Councillors find themselves confronted by ‘experts’ and staff, who wave the red and yellow flags on submissions. “Too late, Out of Scope, Too expensive, Unrealistic” are frequently used to dismiss submitter’s concerns, when concerns are addressed at all.
The world of transport planning has generally acknowledged we cannot build our way out of gridlock. This proposal is no exception. We can face up to this reality, or we can give in to inertia, status quo and fears of political consequences and have a city not fit for purpose, saddled with debts.
Council knows that making the city a great place to live is not achieved by car congestion, pollution and unsafe roads for residents and those who choose active and public transport. The very residents Council wishes to attract and retain are the people who have chosen to have their homes, lives and communities close to the central city to enjoy the benefits. Yet this plan undermines just what Council has identified not only as important, but required for our city to succeed.