Proposed Christchurch tram extension
Consultation has now closed on the proposed tramway extension through Oxford Tce., Cashel, Manchester, High and Colombo Streets. The Council was seeking views on:
i) whether the tramway should be extended
ii) the appropriateness of the route and
iii) whether rails should be installed in City Mall during reconstruction.
A preferred route option has been identified. A map of the route available at:
http://www.ccc.govt.nz/HaveYourSay/pdfs/3458ExistingTramRoute.pdf
Potential issues for cycling include access, safety (pinch points, tracks) and longer term cost implications for expenditure on cycling infrastructure.
A Special Consultative Procedure was also underway to consider changing the status of City Mall to allow for trams in addition to service and emergency vehicles. This would be a variation to the City Mall Special Order.
Spokes tram submission complete
Tram submission
Excellent submission paul
Not happy with this at all
In my opinion, the proposed tramway extension is an absolute waste of money, and outright dangerous for cyclists.
As I understand it, the existing tram tracks have caused dozens of cycle accidents over the years. Of particular danger are the locations where the tracks veer to the side of the road at the tram stops. I've heard that residents adjacent to those locations regularly call the ambulance on behalf of cyclists that have come to grief. Do we really need more of this? I don't think so.
At the very least, this type of tram stop arrangement should never be replicated. In other cities, trams stop in the middle of the road, and the dangerous S bends that cyclists have to cross at acute angles are avoided.
Given all this, I find it rather rich when it says the following in the Council documents: "A traffic safety audit has confirmed that there are no serious safety issues and there are several current examples of the tram operating safely through pedestrianised areas."
Beyond the safety issues for cyclists, I don't really have an issue with the existing tram carrying tourists around in a circle. I'm sure many love that. I can't see, though, why the ratepayer is asked to fork out another few millions to make this circle a bit longer. What is that going to add to the experience of our tourists? Nothing, I suspect. So why do it then?
What is in it for the ratepayer? If the tram would fulfil some transport function, that would be nice. But I can't see how the proposed figure of 8 route is ever going to achieve that.
If we want to invest this money, may I suggest that we put it towards a tram route that has a proper transport function? Close a few roads to traffic (or reduce traffic volumes) and provide a corridor on which the trams can move with some speed, so that you get somewhere in a timely manner. But keep the tramlines straight, so that we don't endanger the remaining cyclists.
What I find particular astounding is that in High Street (between Cashel & Hereford), the foundation for the tram tracks is already under construction. So months before we have committed ourselves to this project, hundreds of thousands of additional dollars are being spent on a rather fanciful foundation that may never get used for its intended purpose. In my humble opinion, our Councillors should sort out what we want to use road space for before expensive construction commences. Now that the facility is under construction, wouldn't it be very embarrassing to decide not to go ahead with the tram extension? Have we thus created some commitment to this project even before the public got consulted on it? Sorry, but this is all wrong in my opinion.
Submissions on proposed Christchurch tram extension
I have volunteered to write / co-ordinate a submission on behalf on Spokes re the tram proposal - it is due Monday, so please post comments here.
Also put your thoughts into CCC directly using the links in Robin's post - hope you have done this with your comments Walter.
If you want to make some general points for me to include in the Spokes submission please do so. At our last meeting, the gist of what we wanted to submit was:
a) doubtful of the value of tram extension as it is not useful public transport
b) The exisiting tram route is hazardous and a deterrent to people cycling. Spokes would like to see the exisiting tram route thoroughly revamped and made cycle-friendly, before any extension is done (we can back this up with comments and images of the worst features of the current route).
It is likely that if the roadways that the tram currently uses were re-designed to accommodate bikes & trams as the priority, with cars relegated a distant third, things would be much safer. It is tram-track / car / bike conflicts that cause much of the current problems. (Of course if it goes thru City Mall the priorities should be pedestrians, then bikes, then trams.. and no cars!)