Posts by David Haywood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Square Two, in reply to Ross Mason,
I can imagine the shenanigans around building a freaking-out Tsunami wall…..where would it go? How high? How far up the estuary? Heathcote? Avon? Brighton?
I wasn’t seriously proposing a Tsunami wall (at this stage) — just pointing out that it would be a much much cheaper option than mass abandonment!
I’ve had a chance to look at some of the LINZ vertical and horizontal shift data now for the post-Feb movements. It seems that:
The largest movement was 0.20m horizontally and 0.10m vertically at a mark close to the fault, just to the south of the city.
In other words, the bulk vertical movement appears to be less than 10 cm. So rumours that the whole of East Christchurch has sunk into the sea are greatly exaggerated. I also note that Mark Quigley stated on Campbell that these faults have not experienced previous earthquakes for thousands of years. So there is no particular reason to think that they will not restabilize in the (hopefully) not-too-distant future.
[the] chassis idea has merit compared to putting down 9m(!!) piles under a “simple” house as I saw on tele the other night
I checked out the added cost of “deep” piles and it’s actually only about $20,000 more for a typical house repiling (in the case where you have to slide the house out of the way, as most of them will be). But there seems to be a some doubt as to whether they actually work or not – particularly in the context of lateral spreading.
I hope that when the Govt gets around to buying up all the tracts of land where owners decided to shift out and make the best of it somewhere else, that the “redistribution” of the property to the next wave of developers and landlords is done in a fair and equitable manner that is clear and open...
A good point.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Square Two, in reply to Lara,
The point Brownlee was trying to make was that the general areas are obvious but the exact boundaries are uncertain at this point. This tallies completely with my own observations in Avonside that some areas of the suburb are extremely badly damaged, but there are also small groups of houses within these areas that are entirely fine.
For example, we have a brick house two doors away that only has a few cosmetic cracks in the interior plaster. No lateral spreading or subsidence or sand ejecta on (or near) the property at all. Someone has to make a very well-reasoned decision whether they’re going to kick a homeowner off a section+house such as this that is completely undamaged.
To put it another way: there has to be some very careful drawing of lines on maps – and it may not be a good idea to jog the draughtsman’s elbow by rushing him/her.
But I totally agree that Key’s ill-advised comments have made the situation much worse and caused unnecessary stress to lots of people.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Square Two, in reply to Ross Mason,
But how many times need this occur? It looks like there will be a few decades of these bloody things banging away. How much and how many times need you truck in fill to raise your plot of land to keep your arse out of the shit? Who the f%^k pays for this? Think New Orleans.Over a couple of centuries and it is below the Mississippi. In less than 100 years global warming sea rise has a good chance of flooding those liquified places. Maybe it might, just might, be useful to think about moving.
I certainly accept that *some* areas will be uneconomic to rebuild -- but you have to be very careful about kicking people holus-bolus off their land.
For a start, the earthquake commission will only pay out on the first 450 m^2 of land -- so you're asking most people around here to part with at least $50,000 of their own personal money when you kick them off. And that certainly isn't loose change as far as I'm concerned.
And then there's the significant cost to the EQC and the insurance companies (which everyone will pay for eventually). You have to look very very carefully at the economics.
Don't forget that Cathedral Square is only 7 metres above sea level. I see that some people are agitating for everyone below 5 metres altitude to be removed -- that could easily be 50 thousand people. By my estimation this would cost the EQC $8.75 billion for the land alone; and then the EQC & private insurance a further $12.5 billion to compensate for the houses.
I suggest that you could build a pretty good tsunami wall around Christchurch for $21.25 billion (and still have a lot of change left over).
Also I'd note that not all areas are sinking. We're at 5 metres altitude and we've had no ejecta in our vicinity -- and any compaction will soon reach a finite limit. Furthermore, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that any future earthquakes might generate some upthrust...
It's complicated.
-
Got the electricity back and just now the Internets. It was a *hell* of a shake yesterday (certainly worse than Sept) but very vertical here, and as a result *much* less damage to the neighbourhood than in either of the previous two biggies.
One has to accept that NZ is prone to natural hazards from tornados to volcanos to tsunamis to floods to forest fires to earthquakes. But that's why we have engineering -- to minimize the danger of these natural hazards. And it's working in CHCH; no-one was killed yesterday (or in Sept) in a situation that even in other first-world countries would have left scores dead.
Anyway, fuck leaving, I say... they won't get me out of here except in handcuffs.
-
Southerly: One Hundred and Thirty-one…, in reply to Tamsin6,
Hi Tamsin, I am so very sorry to hear about your father. I think quite a few of us at Public Address have lost important people recently, and our thoughts are with you. It does get better, but it just takes a while. With much sympathy, David
-
Thank you Gee and Blobbs (hopefully not your real name) for your great contributions to this thread. Yes, the overall urban planning issues are definitely an important factor in encouraging the citizens of Christchurch to commute by bike, and indeed very significant in NZ’s overall energy consumption.
It’s interesting to note that – despite what most people believe – the transport fuel tax in NZ doesn’t seem to cover the actual costs to NZ of consuming the fuel. Matthew Nolan has a thought-provoking piece here (I’m dubious about his figuring of the congestion cost – even though, of course, this is exactly the same approach that the NZTA uses).
I’ve been poking around looking at the obesity costs of driving and how this could be reflected in the per litre fuel price. More on that in a few months…
P.S Maybe we should be attempting to import ‘hyggelig’ into English as we did with the ever-useful – but clearly somewhat different in meaning– ‘gemütlich’ from German (thank you for that Prince Albert).
-
Southerly: One Hundred and Thirty-one…, in reply to BenWilson,
My own theory is that it’s not something that changes slowly, but can actually switch around on public mood, and certain ideas that make traffic better or worse can spread virally in feedback loops. It only takes a few people being rude to you, and you’re much more likely to be rude to someone else. Similarly, if a few people let you in here or there, you feel more inclined to give back. A small amount of constant pressure in the right direction can make a massive difference, turns a vicious cycle into a virtuous one.
This is exactly my hypothesis on the subject! (You may or may not be pleased to hear this).
-
Southerly: One Hundred and Thirty-one…, in reply to Islander,
Islander wrote:
I come round a tight corner and there’s 4 fuckin cyclists in front of me (and one right over on the wrong side of the road) – it’s only my brakes & well-maintained vehicle that save THEM from dying.
Yes, well you won't find any argument from me that there are some extremely silly cyclists (as well as some extremely silly motorists); I experienced the same thing in Coromandel recently. I do always try to remember that it's the extreme behaviour that one notices and that most people are basically good sorts. Mind you, it sometimes takes a bit of mental effort to do this.
-
Islander wrote:
we are not – emphatically – bad-mannered… We’d say you were fullashit. Mate.
Heck, that’s a bit harsh! I certainly don’t read Jeffrey Paparoa Holman’s contribution as an attack on Maoridom; my take is that he was merely commenting on the driving culture in this country.
Jeffrey Paparoa Holman wrote:
Everyone in Japan is used to sharing space and you see the most amazing configurations of cars, pedestrians and bikers.
Ah! I suspect a traffic engineer would see this merely as a function of the (unavoidable) traffic density in Japan; rather than any inherent politeness of the Japanese character!
To explain: at the low extreme of traffic density (e.g. rural NZ) you can drive very ‘selfishly’ because there is hardly anyone to inflict your selfishness upon, and any selfishness directed towards you is a similarly rare occurrence.
But at the high extreme of traffic density (e.g. urban Japan) the same amount of ‘selfish’ driving by each person would manifest itself in (almost) constant incidents, and the traffic would quickly become snarled. The only way that traffic can flow in a reasonable manner is for all participants to have an unspoken agreement to act (apparently) ‘unselfishly’.
In other words, it’s in each individual’s own selfish self-interest to act ‘unselfishly’.
Interestingly, there is a middle ground where people can act ‘selfishly’, but the incidence threshold is just low enough not to cause major traffic chaos. In many ways this is the worst of both worlds, and I’ve certainly heard traffic engineers argue that this is an exact description of our current traffic state in Christchurch. Having recently driven in (much busier) Auckland, I was quite amazed at how (comparatively) polite the driving was up there.
Mind you, it just occurred to me that perhaps you could use the traffic engineering analysis to explain the (apparent?) politeness of the Japanese culture as a whole…
Matthew Reid wrote:
Another reason for the wider lanes in Denmark is the trike, which is a pretty common sight on the streets of Copenhagen. We’ve got one from these guys. It’s considerably wider than your average bike, but hopefully safer for the three kids who are often sitting in the front than if they were in a trailer.
At 84 cm it’s not *much* wider than my existing handlebars and would certainly fit on the skinny CHCH bike lanes – and it looks oh so useful for carting round the little ‘uns. Beautiful! Er, would I have to sell my kidneys to be able to afford one?
Keep the bike ’porn’ coming people…
-
So many great comments here that I can’t reply to them all individually. But a couple of quick responses:
Lisa Black wrote:
David – would you mind if I excerpted some of your article for a Cycling in Wellington post?
Go right ahead. And thank you for posting all the excellent bike ‘porn’.
Fooman wrote:
1. Just spent the past week in the Netherlands:
a) Very suited to cycling (flat!)
b) Lots of cycles (1:1 cycles to car in the rural region, up to 20:1 in central Amsterdam).
c) Helmets not compulsoryYes, it's possible (though hopefully not) that the compulsory cycle law could be the major social obstacle to the Copenhagenization of Christchurch.
uroskin wrote:
Consider too that buying/owning/running a car in Denmark is considerably more expensive than in NZ
Yes, this is a good point. I'm not in favour of an excise tax to motorists, but I would be in favour of 'front-loading' registration costs, insurance, and WOF onto the per liter fuel price. This would better connect the motorist (in terms of price signals) with the true costs of running a car. Of course, it would not cost the average motorist any more, but it would be a much fairer system than we have at present, and would be much harder for motorists to avoid paying their rego (or not having third party insurance).
I'm researching another blog on this very topic -- should be ready in a few months -- so more details soon.
Patrick Morgan wrote:
Cycling Advocates Network is working hard on bringing this vision to Chch, and elsewhere. Check us out. Help us to help you.
Oh, believe me, I've checked you out. You're doing great work -- keep it up!
Gregor Ronald wrote:
I remember my first trip to Christchurch as a kid in the 50s - my father took me into the Square at 5pm just to watch the huge tidal wave of cyclists that poured through the central city and on to the suburbs. It left a lasting impression on my 7 year old mind.
Fascinating stuff!
George Darroch wrote [many sensible things]...
Exactly, George. Totally agree with your points about the availability of proper (Dutch style) commuting bikes, and the need to 'normalize' cycle commuting as an activity (rather than just something that freaks do). Commuting in your normal clothes should be easily possible for most cyclists; I always used to enjoy watching what the Dutch could carry on their way to work. Best thing I saw was a double-bass.
These are important issues that will need to be tackled.
Raf Manji wrote:
I couldn't imagine a city more suited to cycling than Christchurch. Our new CERA boss is a mad keen cyclist so expect that to be at the top of the agenda. Also pretty cool that we had 4 different reps from Copenhagen around the TEDxEQChCh conference.
It would certainly be great if this was at the top of the agenda -- anyone know what Gerry's attitudes to cycling are?
John Monro wrote:
I’ve looked longingly at the way some European cities just seem to be able to get on and improve their cities without the pathological attachment to the private motor vehicle that happens in the public and the planners here... Would Prof Jan Gehl of Copenhagen be prepared to help?
You won't find much argument from me on most of your points. Jan Gehl has already written a pre-earthquake report on central Christchurch -- it'd certainly be great to get him involved in designing cycle infrastructure.
BenWilson wrote:
I’d actually go further with my point above, that every kind of public transport should be sold to motorists as enhancing what they do.
I quite agree -- that's certainly the way that I see it (and why I can often agree with the ACT party on the subject of toll roads).