3 ms·

So, $3 million/km? How much does a road cost? "The 2km stretch of the Bayfair to Baypark upgrade on SH2 south of Tauranga was already costing $70 million per

So, $3 million/km? How much does a road cost? "The 2km stretch of the Bayfair to Baypark upgrade on SH2 south of Tauranga was already costing $70 million per kilometre - two to three times more than usual." https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/425683/highway-costing-70-million-per-km-set-to-get-even-more-expensive-due-to-pumice https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/425683/highway-costing-7... That's about $25 million per km in the usual, or about 10x more expensive than this bike path. "The cost to build a new road link in Christchurch’s west has ballooned 41% to $25 million." says https://www.neighbourly.co.nz/public/christchurch/broomfield-hei-hei/message/69770340 https://www.neighbourly.co.nz/public/christchurch/broomfield... and that appears to be under 2km of road works., so $30 million/km. "The $290m 16-kilometre Northern Corridor motorway extension, funded by the government, cost $18m a kilometre to build, while the second stage of the southern motorway worked out at $20m per kilometre." says https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/124611551/building-101km-of-cycleways-across-christchurch-to-cost-301m https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/124611551/building-10... In the US it costs about US (20230) $4 million/mile to put in a new small urban road. https://kobobuilding.com/cost-to-build-a-road-per-mile/ https://kobobuilding.com/cost-to-build-a-road-per-mile/ . That's about NZ$4 million/km, if I did the conversion correctly, and still more than the bike path. > that is $750 per person Now do the same calculation for roads. Also, "About $187m of that will come from the Government’s coffers, not ratepayers" says https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/127422028/christchurchs-controversial-301-million-cycleway-network-ramps-up https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/127422028/christchurc... so your math should be adjusted. I work it out to ((301_000_000 - 187_000_000) / 405_000) + (187_000_000 / 5_258_000) = NZ$317 per Christchurch resident

robocat 3y ago
Arguing that roads are more expensive is roger irrelevant. > 10x more expensive than this bike path. And faaar less than 1/10th of trips goes to bike paths. Cost per actual trip is what matters. What I see is a few busy bike lanes (say city centre). And some virtually unused bikelanes e.g. there are very nice expensive cycle lanes next to the Southern Motorway - but their cost per trip is surely much much higher than the cost of the Motorway per trip costs. I.e. your argument isn't just wrong, it's likely wrong in the wrong direction. And some of that expensive road costs are for cyclists e.g. a costly ROAD intersection designed for bikes (near a university). The new redesign to fix the cockup is more $$$. One intersection - and designing for bikes was the cause for the costs (the externalities were also high). https://i.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/123202841/traffic-lights-at-christchurchs-controversial-20pole-intersection-to-be-reduced https://i.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/123202841/traffic-light... Cyclelanes get road barriers e.g. road to Lyttelton has a new one. Fairly accounting for costs added to roads matters. > NZ$317 Aaaaand just where do you think those government taxes come from eh? You are trying to imply that the difference between $750 and $317 is free money not paid for by Christchurch tax payers. My bigger point is that the reality needs to be rationally acknowledged. Ignoring usage is putting head in sand.
- eesmith 3y ago
  It's also incorrect to compare this bike path, which seems to be more expensive than most, to the average road cost. I quoted several road projects which were much more expensive than average. Is the average comparison price comparison more like 30x? If so, that's what you would expect for 3% of the population, yes? > Cost per actual trip is what matters. Then work out and present the numbers, rather than feelings. Every person biking is a car off the road, and the car on the road requires a LOT more space than a bike. Bikes also take far less space to store, so you don't need a much space dedicated to parking instead of housing or businesses. Your secondary effects should include reduced pollution (EVs don't have exhaust, but still release tire/brake particulates) and improved general health (by people biking instead of driving). Try digging up the planning study which justified this work, and see what it reports. That should include the "rationally acknowledged" details you seek. > You are trying to imply that the difference between $750 and $317 is free money not paid for by Christchurch tax payers. No, I was pointing out that your math - "that is $750 per person" - is wrong. If that simple calculation is wrong, how well can you/I trust your analysis?
  - robocat 3y ago
    You're off on some other tangents... The government money for the cycle lanes comes mostly from car and fuel taxes: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-land-transport-programme/2021-24-nltp/facts-and-figures/ https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-la... Roads are mostly paid for by car users - so their relative expense is fucking irrelevant. It is perfectly valid to complain about the costs of cycle lanes when they are being paid for by people that are not using them. Sure non-cyclists do get some benefits - but nowhere near the amount that non-cyclists are paying. I couldn't find any figures on cross-regional tax imbalances. But as a first estimate I think it is fair to assume Christchurch government taxes are approximately the same as government expenditure on Christchurch. Not quite right e.g. we hear a lot of complaints that Auckland roading infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the country. I'm only quoting public info - this is not an area I care that much about. I'm just interested in some estimates given the issues I perceive around the city.

robocat 3y ago

Arguing that roads are more expensive is roger irrelevant. > 10x more expensive than this bike path. And faaar less than 1/10th of trips goes to bike paths. Cost per actual trip is what matters. What I see is a few busy bike lanes (say city centre). And some virtually unused bikelanes e.g. there are very nice expensive cycle lanes next to the Southern Motorway - but their cost per trip is surely much much higher than the cost of the Motorway per trip costs. I.e. your argument isn't just wrong, it's likely wrong in the wrong direction. And some of that expensive road costs are for cyclists e.g. a costly ROAD intersection designed for bikes (near a university). The new redesign to fix the cockup is more $$$. One intersection - and designing for bikes was the cause for the costs (the externalities were also high). https://i.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/123202841/traffic-lights-at-christchurchs-controversial-20pole-intersection-to-be-reduced https://i.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/123202841/traffic-light... Cyclelanes get road barriers e.g. road to Lyttelton has a new one. Fairly accounting for costs added to roads matters. > NZ$317 Aaaaand just where do you think those government taxes come from eh? You are trying to imply that the difference between $750 and $317 is free money not paid for by Christchurch tax payers. My bigger point is that the reality needs to be rationally acknowledged. Ignoring usage is putting head in sand.

eesmith 3y ago
It's also incorrect to compare this bike path, which seems to be more expensive than most, to the average road cost. I quoted several road projects which were much more expensive than average. Is the average comparison price comparison more like 30x? If so, that's what you would expect for 3% of the population, yes? > Cost per actual trip is what matters. Then work out and present the numbers, rather than feelings. Every person biking is a car off the road, and the car on the road requires a LOT more space than a bike. Bikes also take far less space to store, so you don't need a much space dedicated to parking instead of housing or businesses. Your secondary effects should include reduced pollution (EVs don't have exhaust, but still release tire/brake particulates) and improved general health (by people biking instead of driving). Try digging up the planning study which justified this work, and see what it reports. That should include the "rationally acknowledged" details you seek. > You are trying to imply that the difference between $750 and $317 is free money not paid for by Christchurch tax payers. No, I was pointing out that your math - "that is $750 per person" - is wrong. If that simple calculation is wrong, how well can you/I trust your analysis?
- robocat 3y ago
  You're off on some other tangents... The government money for the cycle lanes comes mostly from car and fuel taxes: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-land-transport-programme/2021-24-nltp/facts-and-figures/ https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-la... Roads are mostly paid for by car users - so their relative expense is fucking irrelevant. It is perfectly valid to complain about the costs of cycle lanes when they are being paid for by people that are not using them. Sure non-cyclists do get some benefits - but nowhere near the amount that non-cyclists are paying. I couldn't find any figures on cross-regional tax imbalances. But as a first estimate I think it is fair to assume Christchurch government taxes are approximately the same as government expenditure on Christchurch. Not quite right e.g. we hear a lot of complaints that Auckland roading infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the country. I'm only quoting public info - this is not an area I care that much about. I'm just interested in some estimates given the issues I perceive around the city.