Every week we read more than we can write about on the blog. To avoid letting good commentary and research fall by the wayside, we’re going to publish weekly excerpts from what we’ve been reading.

Urban kchoze, “Prince Charles’ 10 Principles of of urbanism: typical example of what’s wrong with urbanists/architects“:

In a way, the true descendants of traditional cities aren’t the mummified European cities of Paris and London where all is done to maintain buildings and neighborhoods as they were in the early 20th century, but Japanese cities. Yes, Japanese cities are resolutely modern in terms of buildings, but the traditional process of city-building is still alive in Japan, while it has been replaced by planner fiat in Europe and North America. The people who built the cities people love would have likely been more than happy to have our modern technology to allow for taller buildings with more varied materials. Likewise, though the Japanese use modern materials and technologies, they still use them in a way that is more in line with the traditional process of incremental city-building.

Alan Davies, “What would it take to build a tram network the size of Melbourne’s?“, Crikey:

The US has over 45 operating streetcar and light rail systems but none of them are anywhere near as large as Melbourne’s tram system. Melbourne has the largest extant urban streetcar network in the world with 249 kilometres of double track and 487 trams.

Cost

If Melbourne’s tram network had been removed in the 1950s and 60s like similar systems in Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and many regional centres were, it would be astronomically expensive to build something like it today from scratch. The cost of rolling stock alone would be in the region of $3 Billion (1).

Based on the actual $1.6 Billion it cost to build the newly opened 13 km Gold Coast G:link line, a network the size of Melbourne’s could have an all-up cost in the region of $30 Billion.

Or if we extrapolate from the estimated $2.2 Billion it’s taking to build Sydney’s new 12 km CBD and South Eastern Light Rail system, the all-up cost could be in the region of $45 Billion.

James Dann, “They paved paradise etc etc“, Rebuilding Christchurch:

Yesterday, Georgina Stylianou revealed that the earthquake recovery minister Gerry Brownlee had used his “special powers” to fast-track a car parking building for Phillip Carter, the brother of the Speaker of the House, National MP David Carter. This was followed by a chorus of down-on-their-luck property developers piping in that they too needed more car parks, and that could the government please build some for them.

The sad, bizarre situation in Christchurch right now is that there are more people lobbying for the rights of cars to sit motionless than there are trying to house human beings.

Lindsay Cohen, “Seattle dog’s rush hour ride: on the bus, by herself, weekly“, Komo News:

SEATTLE — Public transit in Seattle has gone to the dogs.

Commuters in Belltown report seeing a Black Labrador riding the bus alone in recent weeks. The 2-year old has been spotted roaming the aisles, hopping onto seats next to strangers, and even doing her part to clean the bus — by licking her surroundings.

“All the bus drivers know her. She sits here just like a person does,” said commuter Tiona Rainwater, as she rode the bus through downtown Monday. “She makes everybody happy. How could you not love this thing?”

Anna Maria Barry-Jester, Why The Rules Of The Road Aren’t Enough To Prevent People From Dying, FiveThirtyEight:

On how speed limits in the US were set

Here’s how speed limits are established in most states, according to Federal Highway Administration research: Traffic engineers conduct a study to measure the average speed motor vehicles move along a road. The speed limit is then set at the 85th percentile. From then on, 85 percent of drivers would be traveling under the speed limit and 15 percent would be breaking the law. Sometimes other factors2 are taken into consideration, but in most places, speed limits are largely determined by the speed most people feel safe traveling. Some states, including Louisiana and Michigan, go so far as to call limits determined by this method “rational speed limits,” stating that achieving compliance is possible only if the speed limits are reasonable.

Todd Niall,  Knowledge gap in Auckland rail saga, Radio NZ:

The gap, in this case, is a knowledge gap. The gap between what we see being played out in public, and what is going on behind closed doors, between the Auckland Council, and the Government and its agencies.

The reminder of the significance of knowledge gaps was the Government’s announcement in June 2013 that it would commit to sharing the cost from 2020 of a project it had publicly poo-poohed.

This was widely regarded as a sudden and unexpected change of tack by the Government. It wasn’t.

Paul Little, Trees, not cars, make a liveable city, NZ Herald

Although no one has actually been seen embracing them, the stand of six 80-year-old pohutukawa on Great North Rd near the SH16 interchange works could use a hug right now. Auckland Transport has approved their removal to widen a road we don’t need.

Hugs would also be welcomed by a lot of Aucklanders who have recently begun to see all too plainly what a hellish plan is being put in place between here and the Waterview connection (cost $1.4 billion). The pillars and overpasses can now be seen to be on a scale so colossal they appear not to be made with humans in mind at all.

One of a few images from a 1937 plan for London by Sir Charles Bressey on how to accommodate more vehicles in London

Sir Charles Bressey 1937 London Plan

Chris Barton, The Best Urban Design of 2014, Metro:

It was a year of winning forms and some massive fails. Chris Barton picks his favourite urban design developments — and hands out the wooden spoons.

And finally, Councillor George Wood sent us a fun game to play via twitter. Fortunately, I passed the test:

Quiz: Can you name these cities just by looking at their subway maps? [Wonkblog]

Share this

14 comments

  1. I’m not sure how big an Auckland tram network would need to be effective. The key to selling it would be marketing it as ‘adding character’ to heritage suburbs. While there’s nothing a tram can do that a bus can’t, I’d forgotten how much of a kick I got out of seeing them in action until I went to the zoo last weekend.

  2. I got 7/10 on the George Wood linked “Know your cities by their transit maps” test – not bad I suppose – since I’ve never used most of them at all or seen their layouts.

    Yep, can’t believe that Christchurch, thanks to CERA, is making more progress with car parks than actual, you know, buildings, in the CBD for people who drive to work or shop in.

    And yes, there is without a doubt a lot of backroom stuff going between Gov’t and Auckland Council over CRL funding and much more, more than what is evident in public – and not all of it good for us I’m sure. e.g. you gotta wonder how long before (if its not already on the table now) the Government tells Auckland Council, to stump up for the convention centre operating subsidy and to expedite the resource consent process making it non-notified – or we’ll have to delay CRL funding even further? A sort of quid-pro-quo, with the emphasis on the “quid”.

    This government is very much wedded to this SkyCity deal like a down-on-his-luck addicted gambler, and both hoping the next turn of the cards brings the big win that will make everything right again.
    It looks to save face anyway it can as this risks blowing up in its face, and this seems a logical way for it do both.
    The obvious and smarter option is to simply call the bluff, fold your hand and walk away – losing only the initial stake, rather than your whole fortune by going “all-in” as they seem to be keen to do.

    1. The government is clearly the”dark side’ working for the petroleum and gambling Empire. I say we build a Millinium Falcoln and take out all the carparks and the casino before they build a death star. The universe will be at balance again. Has anyone seen any Ewoks we probably need these guys as well.

  3. The piece on Christchurch is very saddening and doesn’t bode well for the future of the city.
    It seems the people in power have not learned a single thing: they are adamant to make the same mistakes the rest of the world has made 30-50 years ago. Whilst these other cities are desperately trying to fix these issues with hefty price-tags; New Zealand is like the stubborn child, thinking that these examples are somehow different to its own situation.
    Will they ever learn?

  4. “I cannot maintain any reasonable mental state when reflecting on what the planners, both from CCC and those imposed on us from elsewhere (National party and its crony mates), have done to Christchurch. I have had to keep looking away from this Dementor’s gaze. But if we keep looking away, worse will happen….”

    From the economist Eric Crampton’s essay ‘The plan against the Rebuild’ pages 300-308, in the book ‘Once in a Lifetime: City-building after Disaster in Christchurch’, Published August 2014

    P.S the comment in brackets is mine.

  5. The Christchurch CBD saga gets even worse.

    There was a plan to rebuild the Christchurch CBD but a few years later the government agencies in charge have quietly given up on that duty with no explanation. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/65097936/Land-prices-shrink-Christchurchs-south-frame

    Here is a report from 2013 of what was meant to happen “In a landmark deal between the Crown and the city council last week, the Crown agreed to put $481 million into the frame – $399m for the land and $81m for design and construction – which will border a smaller central city with green space and new residential and commercial development.”
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/8864866/Govt-mum-on-frame-money

    But does this latest government rebuild back down mean they are not spending $400m? Or that $400m wasn’t enough to compulsory purchase the CBD land they wanted?

    What is going on?

  6. “The Crown has set aside $284 million for the Convention centre development and earlier this year the CCDU announced that Carter Group (surprise, surprise that would be Speaker of House David Carter and nephew MP Matt Doocey family’s money), Ngai Tahu Property and Plenary were the preferred developers.” http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/10661310/Convention-centre-might-be-white-elephant

    Most Cantabrians are expecting the Convention Centre to be a white elephant where costs are socialised to the tax and rate payer while the revenues from the associated hotel, restaurant and entertainment services are privatised.

    Christchurch is ground zero for Planet Key. A great place for Key’s mates, not so good for everyone else.

  7. The government complains bitterly that there is not a enough competition for development on the fringes of our cities. That this is the cause of our unaffordable housing. They blame this situation on planners in local government for not zoning enough land. But when they have a chance to increase competition inside a city in the most central location and therefore one of the most desirable locations, what do they plan to do? Hand it all over to one developer.

    Hypocrites!

    “A Cera spokeswoman said that after a strong response, four developers had been short-listed and all had submitted development proposals.

    “We are currently undertaking evaluation of the proposals and once this has been completed, we hope to have negotiations concluded with the preferred developer by March 2015,” the spokeswoman said.

    “Once the developer negotiations have concluded, we expect the residential development construction will begin shortly afterwards.”

    Initially, Cera had hoped to choose its preferred developer by September or October.”

    The 14-hectare precinct occupies the blocks between Manchester, Madras, Lichfield and Kilmore streets. Cera documents say 800 medium-density homes for more than 1500 people will be built on 6.8ha of this, divided into 13 “super lots”.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/63578221/Green-frame-plans-still-in-Cera-hands

    1. What if instead of having one developer the 13 ‘super lots’ were given to 13 developers. With the intention of doing 13 of this sort of ‘Multiplication by subdivision’ developments. http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2013/06/13/multiplication-by-subdivison/

      The government is already providing the parks, bike lanes and so on. These terrace/tenement sort of developments would be perfect. Not only would they provide the same amount of housing as the apartment plan. If the ground floor was to commercial standards -stud height etc and the area was zoned commercial/retail/residential then you would have this natural mix of shops/ cafes/ office space and residential. The exact mix would depend on demand and would likely alter over time.

      Of course this sort of competitive development process would not push up property prices in the CBD so wouldn’t benefit Key’s mates. Maybe that is why it is not being considered?

  8. Now that I have calmed down a bit over the Christchurch situation. I liked the Urban Kchoze link. The whole thing was good but there was this little gem at the bottom of the comment stream.

    “American Republican politicians also promote suburbia (homeownership and driving) along with stock and gun ownership, as a think-tank found in the 1970s that these traits were reliable predictors of right-wing voting.”

    http://urbankchoze.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/prince-charles-10-principles-of.html?showComment=1420551348278#c2436568252165650087

    I have often wondered if the reason in New Zealand we don’t get the kind of affordable urban development that locals want is that Wellington politicians are busy trying to create electorates of their particular colour. Blue -sprawling car based ones, with no interference to existing leafy (blue) suburbs. Versus compacting Red cities waiting for density to be high enough to justify PT (that for some unspoken reason cannot be supplied from the start).

  9. I am not sure that that is all there is to setting speed limits in the US but even if it is, I give them credit for thinking about it. (I know there is more to it than that.) Anyway, it sure beats the NZ method which is to not give the slightest thought to the matter. When the speed limit on a gravel, winding road on a steep grade is 100 kmh, the “system” legalises and encourages suicide.

    1. Yep, the 85th percentile speed is basically all that many US jurisdictions use to determine speed limits (typically leading to speed “creep” as the mean speed chases it upwards). There are discussions about implementing other processes in the US (just had meetings about it), but like us there is a lot of resistance to any hint of lowering speeds.

      NZ has a more rational system that takes into account things like activity, land-use, and traffic facilities, but it still has its quirks and omissions (esp. 30-40k streets), and relies a lot on the motivation of roading authorities to change the default 50/100 limits (perhaps we should adopt the Swedish approach of having 30/70 defaults? That would motivate some roading staff to do something to get some higher limits in places) . Proposed changes to the speed limits process to take into account road geometry and function more should address the kinds of concerns you are talking about (assuming the politicians can ignore the inevitable grizzles from the public).

      P.S: I got 9/10 for the Metro transit quiz (mixed up SFO/Portland; quite similar). Mind you, I’ve just used two of them this week (DC and NY), so maybe I had an advantage…

  10. As a traffic engineer in Canada, that quote about speed limit being the 85th percentile speed is incorrect. Maybe it’s different in the US, but I doubt it, we tend to copy them pretty thoroughly. Where we use the 85th percentile speed is when we DESIGN roads. By that, I mean visibility distances, curve radius and the like, all are done supposing a vehicle being driven at the 85th percentile speed, which is generally assumed to be 10 km/h over the actual speed limit. The goal is that a driver driving at the design speed should see far enough so that if there’s an obstacle on the road that he may come to a stop before hitting it, or be able to assess the situation so as to swerve around it, etc… It also means that the road’s curves should not be so tight as to induce an uncomfortable lateral acceleration on drivers taken them at design speed.

    A 50 km/h road is designed for 60 km/h, a 70 km/h road is designed for 80 km/h, etc…

    As to how we determine speed limits, the law actually says something like: except where otherwise indicated, none may drive faster than:
    -50 km/h in urban areas
    -70 km/h on gravel roads
    -90 km/h on paved roads
    -100 km/h on highways

    We have a guide that tells us when we can deviate from these legal speed limits, based on number of private access to the road per km, how far ahead people can see, whether the area is homogeneous or not, how many vehicles drive on that road, etc… The 85th percentile speed is one of these criteria, but is not sufficient by itself to increase or lower speed limits.

    Here is the guide for Québec, published for cities who frequently demand speed limit changes on provincial roads passing through their territory:
    http://www.bv.transports.gouv.qc.ca/mono/0826152.pdf

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *