Christchurch and Public Transport

I live in Christchurch since February 2017 and I do not own a car. I do not own a car because I can not afford to. If I could, perhaps I would have got a car. Now, I think that simply summarizes the problem of our public transport from a commuter's perspective. However, let's break it down. I was happy when Environment Canterbury released a Regional Public Transport Plan. This plan is now available for the public to review and provide feedback until 14th October 2018. 

I wanted to contribute my thoughts on the Christchurch part alone and I do not have an understanding of how this works in Timaru. After reading through, I find that the Regional Public Transport plan is a serious disappointment as it lacks vision and purpose. The plan proposes a strategic transformation over a period of 30 years (why?), the tactical transformation between every 10 years from now until 2050 (reasonably ok) and operational turnaround (every 3-year from now). Though the document title is public transport plan, the entire document (86 pages) mentions the word train only twice. One to mention about the past transport systems which had trams and trains and the other to mention about two rapid transit corridors from the north and southwest that would offer highspeed services (maybe including trains?) by 2048. So, I assume that the entire document is just to discuss the regional bus transport plan. This also raises the question of why can't we use the existing rail lines to provide train services now/in the near future. 

One of the issues identified and discussed in the document is journey time(s). It agrees that the current public transport system can be UNRELIABLE  and many journey times are not competitive with the private car. Very true!. One has to accommodate somewhere from 20-40 minutes in addition to the travel time if they chose to travel by bus. It is not clearly convincing from the document on how this issue would be addressed. One possible way is to have linear routes (mentioned in the document). What are the other possibilities to improve/reduce travel times? Bus Rapid Transit? (let's come to that a little later) and what will happen to those who are not residing on these linear routes?. Will there be feeder services? 

There are notes about increasing the frequency of the services. It is a welcome move but what is the use of increasing the frequency of already frequent services when only fewer people use it? A key component the document should have discussed is about how they plan to create/raise awareness among the customers and increase the number of people who use the busses. However, the document completely misses this part. The word awareness is used thrice (twice in a copy and pasted sentence). I raise the point of awareness because people in Christchurch believe (at least a few of them) that a city like Christchurch does not need bus service at all. Well, maybe they think people who can not afford a car shouldn't live here :-). I once had a conversation with a colleague who mentioned that busses are only useful for crowded cities (which calls for a separate post altogether)- how nice no? 

Now about the rapid transit corridor. BRT is one of the well-intended ideas practiced in several cities to reduce the transit time of buses compared to cars. The document proposes two routes which seems a good start (time period?). The issue is around the feasibility. Christchurch does not have wide roads. There are a few patches where we already have designated bus lanes (in Papanui Road and Riccarton Road). However, are they of use?. Let's, for example, take the stretch in Riccarton road. While driving towards the west after the Riccarton Avenue/Riccarton Road junction, you will see a 25-meter stretch marked as bus lane and then immediately there is a long stretch of car parking and then a probably 100 meter stretch of the bus lane and then a longer parking area and so on. Why should we have parking spaces on busy main roads like Riccarton Road? Similarly, why should all streets in the central city have roadside parking? What are the incentives to someone who takes the public transport over private cars? 

I would have appreciated if the document had clearly stated the goals and vision for the next 3 years, to begin with, and had details on the list of actionable which would enable more people to use the bus services. It doesn't clearly give a convincing answer for the key question - why should someone (who can afford a car - of course) take the bus instead of driving to work/city?

I thought that this is a good opportunity for me to list down the problems I face as a regular user of public transport.

1. As mentioned, time of commute. I always have to spare 20-40 minutes additional time to reach a destination. This always has an influence on me deciding on what I want to do/not do and where I would want to go/not go. If I had a car, I could reach my work in 13-15 minutes. In a bus, it takes me 45 - 60 minutes. 

2. Cost - A return trip to my work costs me $5.3 a day. If the place I work provides me a free parking, I can probably spend a little less on petrol/diesel/electricity and save time & money as well (wow, I should buy a car soon!)

3. Services - the frequency of some buses are terrible. I live at Avonhead, 7.3 km from bus interchange and there is a bus which crosses my house once in 30 minutes (Well, I can hear someone saying "you at least have that bus near your place bro!" yeah. true). 

4. What does an Express mean? - I see a few Yellow lines, Blue lines and 95 running as an express service. I never understood the concept of this. An express service can be probably one of the following - a. A non-stop service - meaning it starts at a place and runs till its destination without boarding/deboarding passengers on its way. b. A limited stop service - meaning, it will stop at specified locations and not at all bus stops. Our express service seems to neither be a nor b. From a few personal experiences - I was trying to board a Yellow line express once at Church Corner. The bus was stationed and passengers were getting down from the bus. The driver told that I can not board the bus because it was an express service - seriously? (I got down). A similar experience again once at Westfield Riccarton station as well. So does express mean that it will board the passengers at the starting point and drop them wherever (I mean designated stops only) one wants? - well wanted to try that as well. I once boarded a bus at its starting destination and told the driver that, I wanted to get down at a certain location on the way. He was like, "Bro!, this is an express service, you can not deboard at the mentioned stop. I will stop there this time but next time you should not board express". Well, now I do not know what hypothesis should I apply before checking in to an express service.

I am sure the people who wrote this public regional transport plan will be using cars to come to their office. I find that our bus drivers come to work by car. Nothing wrong in using cars, the problem is with more number of a single person traveling in a car (like single-use plastic you know). A useless observation on this. I was waiting for my bus at Church Corner one morning. Had 6 minutes to my bus and I started to count the number of cars which passed by (ok, towards the city only). 92 cars passed me and had one person in it and 27 cars had two or more person. Well, technically 3 or maybe 4 buses instead of 119 vehicles. Oh ya, they all probably didn't have time to kill like me ye!

Well, did you know there is a website which you can use to carpool? - here you go. https://www.smarttravel.org.nz/