Press release: Cranford Street clearway recommendation misses the mark

Greater Ōtautahi is concerned that council staff have recommended to the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central community board that a clearway on Cranford Street is an acceptable path forward. We completely reject this recommendation and urge elected members to reject the clearway too.

“Our analysis of a similar clearway on Curletts Road shows that clearways do not work to resolve congestion,” says transport David Palmer. “If elected members are serious about solving the downstream effects of the Christchurch Northern Corridor, they must choose to keep the bus lane.”

We are concerned that council staff have recommended the clearway option against the interests of residents. Staff have concluded that: the clearway best meets council obligations under the Notice of Requirement (NoR) issued by the Environment Court; that it aligns with the Downstream Effects Management Plan (DEMP); and that it aligns with the community submissions. We think all of these conclusions are incorrect.

In the NoR, council were instructed to manage the negative downstream effects of the CNC. In our submission, we pointed out that any congestion relief from a clearway would only be temporary, and our case study of Curletts Road confirms this. It is clear that the clearway proposal will not serve to manage the negative effects; in fact, it will make them worse in the medium term. Therefore, the clearway actually works against council’s responsibility under the NoR. Regardless, we believe that any short-term benefit will be massively outweighed by the reduced safety and hostile public environment that will be created by turning the road into a highway.

Regarding the DEMP, we believe the DEMP takes a highway-design approach and applies it to a residential area. Therefore, the data and modelling provided by transport experts is fundamentally misleading. If you apply highway design approaches to a residential road, it is no surprise that highway modelling will recommend you turn the residential road into a highway. We believe this has resulted in a tunnel-vision, car-centric approach to solving the downstream effects. The result will be a poor outcome for local residents and the community.

Finally, 55% of submitters were in favour of options other than the bus lane, which directly contradicts the claim by staff that the clearway option was most in line with public feedback. By our estimation, the negative feeling and overwhelming evidence presented against the clearway enormously outweighs the lukewarm support it received in submissions. 

The bus lane is a greatly superior option, as it encourages mode shift away from the private car, and comes with the added bonus of providing a safe space for cyclists and emergency vehicles to access the area. People choosing to take an alternative to the private car will do much more to alleviate the downstream effects of the CNC than adding another lane ever will.

We hope elected members can look past the flawed recommendation by council staff, and vote to keep the bus lane. This is an opportunity for members to demonstrate their vision for our city. We deserve a better transport future than an endless sea of private cars stuck in stand-still traffic.