Fancy Christchurch suburbs have heads in sand
Anyone who’s seen The End of Suburbia will be understandably outraged at news that residents of two upmarket Christchurch suburbs are campaigning against the introduction of bus services to their area.
Not only does it smack of snobbery, but it’s exactly these kinds of suburbs - remote, expensive, wholly reliant on commuting - that are most at threat from peak oil and rising fuel prices. As Jeanette has just pointed out in this release, it’s incredibly shortsighted of residents to seek to protect their semi-gated communities from the riff raff at the expense of providing real alternatives to the car, because at some point, they are going to need them. Nevermind the fact that the elderly residents who requested the bus service already do!
There’s not much on the net about this, but the issue was canvassed on Morning Report this morning - you can listen to the item here.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Wow!
A fundamental misunderstanding of the benefits of public transport. As J’s press release states, most deaths are caused by cars.
Take the logical next step in the argument: greater public transport use from within the suburb will decrease the number of cars on the road. Fewer accidents.
I used to live in ChCh. The infamous ignorant driving ethic came through in the RNZ interview. Streets on which motorists would have to pull over for the bus to pass. Some courtesy needed? Shock horror!
I agree frog. I cant see any way to react to this other than “SNOBBERY!”.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Oh, End of Suburbia is screening tonight, 815, Penthouse, Brooklyn.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
…which is on the No.7 bus route…
September 5th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Yeah, i live in Christchurch, it is appalling that the residents of these areas would suggest such a thing, especially as there is no link with bus services and crime.
In that interview the residents lie, because the streets of those subdivisions are certainly not as narrow as they suggest.
No doubt it is clearly snobbery.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
No Frog, I dont find myself outraged at all, more mildly amused.
You don’t spend a *lot* of money to live in Styx Mill and then want a bus service. Besides, your Merc or Beamer will use so much less gas than a old scrapper that commutes half the distance… Theres a lot of communities that will be hurting well before Styx Mill.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:25 am
While I support public transport in general it has to be done sensibly. There is probably little demand at the moment for public transport to this area, and a fleet of empty buses running day and night would be just as polluting as 4WDs. So it should really only be done if people will use it.
I also find bus services in general are pretty crap. Bumpy, smelly and get stuck in traffic and stop all the time for people who muck around with change- its quite infuriating when you’re in a hurry. I still catch them occasionally, but prefer to catch a train- smoother, faster and less stopping. Hopefully trains will undergo a rennaisance in NZ if oil gets silly expensive.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
There is demand for public transport in the area. My brother in law lives there and does on occasion use the bus in spite of the long walk out of the suburb to Main North Road to catch the bus.
Aren’t marketers wonderful. This area is bounded on one side by a transfer station (read dump) and covers lots of former horticultural land. Wonder what the LIM/PIM state about chemical residues?
September 6th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
for the rest of the country:
Christchurch invented snobbery in NZ, and it’s still one of the few places where you can be cut dead in a converstion because your forbears didn’t arrive on one of the first four ships, whose details are immortalised in cathedral square.
Styx has always been a bit of a hole of a suburb, so the snobbery around saying “Styx Mill” is implicit, as is the semi-gated nature of the community. Public transport to them merely implies that someone who doesn’t live in the area, or own a car, might be able to get access to their expensively purchased exclusivity.
Now Spreydon, or Linwood, by comparison…. there’s your original working-class, public transport using, salt-of-the-earth suburb.( and probably re-gentrified and inhabited by middle-class families nowadays.)
And an aside for Aucklanders: they have a school for girls that’s even harder to get into than St Cuth’s! Watch out for Rangi Ruru Old Girl’s, they’ll use your shin bones for toothpicks….
September 7th, 2006 at 1:13 am
katie:
I’m wondering how long it is since you have been in Christchurch … ?
The characature you paint, while amusing and recognisable (!), is very “dated” … and was always confined to a small minority. (The few, insecure enough to rely on the “first four ships”, are tolerated but certainly not taken seriously!)
You don’t seem to have met many from the vast majority of normal Chrstchurch people!
Just a quick mention of a few positives:
Christchurch produced and nurtured Rod Donald, and we have a lot of active Greens here.
We have spent zillions on a “state of the art” bus system, which is well patronised and expanding. See http://www.metroinfo.org.nz
We have an ambitious and coordinated recycling and resource recovery scheme involving Greater Christchurch and beyond.
(Have a quick browse through http://www.ccc.govt.nz and http://www.ecan.govt.nz)
… and come and visit some time!