Here is an interesting animated video I found this weekend. It is an animated flyover from NZTA of the proposed four-laned section of SH1 from Rolleston to Templeton (MSRFL) and stage 2 of the Christchurch southern motorway (CSM2).
It is interesting to note that MSRFL will essentially be a continuation of the motorway, with the only real differences being that traffic isn’t as limited as on a motorway, and some local roads and adjoining properties will have direct access to SH1 (although they will be left hand turns only).
I have always found it interesting that there are only two interchanges along the entire length of MSRFL/CSM2, and this animation really puts that into perspective, although it is probably not such a bad thing (unless you access the motorway by accident!). The freight-only on-ramps where CSM2 joins CSM1 are quite interesting. I wonder how that will work? Is there anywhere else in NZ where this occurs? I certainly can’t think of any.
It would have been good to have a similar flyover of CSM1, to put the scale of the whole project into perspective. When all completed it will form more than 20km of continuous motorway/expressway – and remember, the Government currently has plans to add more RoNS “south of Christchurch” so it may yet get longer. No Auckland southern motorway yet, but getting there!
marsoe
jhumm
Mac Riada
January 8, 2012
It seems the motorway will be built straight over what is left of the Hornby branch. You can see it in the video at 2:40 passing over the line just north of Prebbleton.
This is a pity as I think it would make a good Melling Branch-like connection. A station could be built at the lines terminus, with park the ride facilities and a bus station to transfer to the 81 Lincoln bus. This terminus would not be as close to the centre of town as the old station, but it would still only about 300m to the Prebbleton shops.
Further, a station could also be built in Hornby South, next to (or just south of) dressmart. This would provide a more central station than the main station in the crammed area north of The Warehouse or area where the former station stood behind Mire 10 Mega.
Mark
January 9, 2012
Just watched the youtube clip, I’m still wondering how people access the motorway to/from key land-uses. E.g. Lincoln University to the City or Hill suburbs, Halswell to the city, eastern burbs or Rolleston etc.
As part of the earthquake recovery somebody really should like at what the motorway will do to encourage development in the west. I think we might be under estimating the change that will occur, people in thge east can now live in the west and still easily access the east. It maybe CHCH’s Auckland Harbour Bridge? If so, it is important to get rail up and running to places like Rolleston and templeton so the car does not become entrenched. Or until Rail is in place having a bus service using the motorway to link through to Rolleston and Lincoln with important interchanges along the way e.g. Lincoln Rd/Barrington St, so that PT at least has a basis to work from when rail is introduced.
As CHCH gets back on its feet, I am predicting heavy congestion along Brougham between Montreal St and Linwood Ave. As part of the motorway extension mitigating works should be done along brougham st possible 3-laning or clear ways in the peaks or even bus lanes.
bismarck
January 12, 2012
People aren’t meant to access the motorway from Lincoln/Prebbleton to go into the City. These people would use existing arterials though they could access the Shands road ramps if needed.
Yes, agree, this will be a huge improvement to traffic flows in the south west, particularly the Curletts/Blenheim/Sockburn area and Hornby. The government should be commended for getting these projects underway ASAP as if we had a Labour government instead of National last term, we would have got nothing more despite the massive demographic changes that Chch will face over the coming 10 years.
Been Benuane
January 11, 2012
What a joke; NZTA is pushing for motorway construction with peak oil already underway…
bismarck
January 12, 2012
Peak Oil? What’s that?
Peak Oil is a point in time derived from various extrapolated calculations, most of which are based on information that isn’t scientifically proven (and most isn’t able to be accurately calculated.)
I’m not saying the concept doesn’t exist… it most certainly does only that no-one really knows when it will be. When the time comes, it’s possible that we’ve developed other technologies to mitigate the effects that peak oil will have.
Been Benuane
January 12, 2012
Well Bismark oil prices are already increasing and yet I don’t see any progress on the introductions of hydrogen fuel-cells which is the only technology I know of that could mitigate its effects.
I am however seeing governments investing in railways…
…except in backward, isolated old NZ…
bismarck
January 14, 2012
Actually Been Benuane, the NZ Government has invested more in railways in the last 5 years or so than they’ve spent on it for the 50 years prior to it so it seems. To name a few projects… Electrification in Auckland, New Locos, New Wagons, Wellington network upgrades, New EMU’s for both Akl and Wgn, and of course the re-nationalisation of the whole operation… hardly a drop in the bucket to warrant your comment about NZ being backward.
As far as the government is concerned, their job is to provide transport infrastructure that meets the needs of the country… Currently, there is still an overwhelming need to have a number of motorway projects and other roaring projects completed.
All that Peak Oil will do is force upward pressure on pricing which will encourage people to reduce their fuel consumption in all the easy ways first (e.g.: buying smaller/efficient car, planning trips ahead to reduce travel, adjust driving style, maintain tyre pressures etc.).
Once people have done that then they’ll start adjusting other things such as moving closer to their workplace etc. We’ll see demographic changes, and that prices of the sprawling lifestyle blocks on the fringe of cities will reduce. Sales of large cars will plummet and the SUV will be history…
Given that none of these “oil price shock” effects are yet to kick in, then it looks to me that for the next 10 years, it’s unlikely that there will be any significant demand for a passenger rail system in Christchurch so therefore, the government SHOULD be focussing it’s money on what we need now…. and that is some massive improvements to roading.
MrV
January 14, 2012
Yeah I don’t think it’s an either/or argument. There’s no reason why an efficient rail and road system can’t work in tandem.
Been Benuane
January 14, 2012
I agree.
But unfortunately the two have had clashing interests. Road construction/maintenance companies, the wider automobile industry and the oil industries have a vested interest in encouraging automobile dependency at the expense of rail.
Been Benuane
January 14, 2012
Hahaha well actually in that 50 year span you’re including (amongst others) the 1982 Wellington EMU purchases, the 1993 Auckland DMU purchases, the 24km Kaimai tunnel and oh… …electrification of the NIMT between Palmerston North and Te Rapa. So I don’t think it quite compares.
And Kiwirail is seriously looking at closing several lines such as the those to Whangarei and Gisbourne. The new EMU’s in Wellington and electrification in Auckland are more due to the local regional councils and the previous Labour government for finally committing funding (after ignoring it for their first 6 years). And those “network upgrades” in both cities have a heavy content of repairing over a decade of neglect in maintenance.
The current Government can only take credit for forcing Kiwirail to buy some cheap and nasty Chinese locomotives which are already suffering acute reliability problems and are so mickey mouse that they actually have holes drilled through the firewall.
In comparison to every other developed country, NZ’s recent investments in railways are frankly pathetic.
Peak oil is already happening whether you delude yourself otherwise, while mainstream NZ is still locked into 1950′s-70′s mindsets overseas there’s already been adjustments to people’s lifestyles and people buying hybrids and electric cars (despite the latter being pretty silly). And of course adjustments to government policy both local and nation to address the effects of peak oil. And one of those ways of mitigating the effects of peak oil is investing in public transport, commuter rail, metros and regional passenger rail. They are after all, much less oil dependent and more energy efficient.
Sadly NZ is an isolated and insular country that tends to trail other western social trends and elected leaders will fail to act with anticipation and initiative and whose populace will continue an automobile dependency its macroeconomy already struggles to support.
I guarantee Auckland will not fund the CBD tunnel its rail network will need and the central government wont until well after it’s reached capacity.
Oh. and take as much personal offence at my opinions as you want, it only further proves my point.
jhumm
January 14, 2012
The problem with that thinking though Bismark is that it is exactly what NZ has always done, and it hasn’t worked very well. Auckland is the prime example of this. Despite 60 years of focusing on building motorways and big roads, it is still an incredibly hard place to get around. Roads alone are never going to do it. They have learnt that lesson now, but have a long way to go to catch-up. Christchurch is in a position to learn from that and avoid those same mistakes and develop a multi-modal transport network from the get-go.
I think it is incorrect to assume people will always stick to their cars. If efficient high-quality public transport is provided, people will use it. There are a number of reasons for that, including parking, petrol prices, congestion, and simply the hassle of driving. I think the best example of this in NZ is the northern busway in Auckland. They said the same thing about that as you have said about a rail system in Chch. Now buses account for something like 40% of trips across the harbour bridge, or something mental like that. And it is still growing.
In regards to the CSM, by the time it is fully complete (2020ish?) not only do you have to consider the general increase in traffic between now and then but you also have places like Rolleston which might very well double in population (or more) by then. The motorway will undoubtedly have an effect on the roads in Hornby and on Blenheim Rd, but you also have to consider that the traffic in those places will only continue to get worse in the meantime, so by the time CSM is completed the effects might only bring use and congestion down to current levels, or even worse.
It seems most traffic will likely distribute onto Barrington St and Brougham St, from the looks of it, which are already choca in 2012. I am not saying that CSM is a bad idea, just that we should also look to develop other alternative transport solutions along that key corridor in addition to the motorway (e.g., the railway line) to maintain and improve access around the city.
bismarck
January 15, 2012
No personal offence at all Been… this is nothing more than a good bit of debate.
I do agree with some of your points… but the solution ultimately is that we do need BOTH roading investment AND rail investment.
What I disagree with are how there are many people that think the motorways and other roading projects are NOT needed, and the money therefore should be channelled into rail developments instead. The fact that peak oil has or is about to occur (no-one really knows the answer), is not a reason for not building the proposed motorways. Traffic and demand still increased throughout the years of the oil crisis in the 1970′s too wen it was also expected that Peak Oil had occurred.
The problem is, the government is running a fairly tight purse so either we pay more taxes, or, the government has to cut funding from something else. In this current economic climate, I don’t think the government should be increasing spending too much. Maybe when our economy reaches 3-4% growth again and the government is operating a surplus then we should do it.
For what it’s worth, I get a slight inkling that you are more a Labour supporter in that you credited the recent upgrades with Labours spending… sure, that might be true though National still had the choice to abandon the projects that were not yet committed, and also Labour did have the choice in investing more of their enormous surpluses in their earlier years in power… but they didn’t.
My comparison of projects in the last 50 years was intended to be deliberately skewed to match your equally skewed previous comment which suggested that “Governments were investing in railways… except for backward old New Zealand”.
I will agree with one thing in that NZ tends to be rather backward in planning infrastructure. Most western countries develop infrastructure for “projected demand” whereas NZ tends to build it to “reactive requirement” which certainly has it’s downsides.
But the one thing that most people forget is that it is very easy to compare NZ with all other western countries to show how pathetic NZ’s infrastructure investments are. But you also have to remember that NZ is one of the poorest of the developed countries which means we have less money to spend on such things. Our wages are generally lower, we’re disadvantaged in the global economy by begin so much further away among other reasons.
The reality is that New Zealand cannot be accurately compared with (in terms of transport related infrastructure) any other country – Japan is far more populous, Australia is far wealthier, Singapore is much smaller and so on. About the only really close comparison in terms of Demographic and Geographic aspects is Norway… But that country is MUCH wealthier than NZ because they have mined billions of barrels of Oil so we can drive our cars.
NZ stands a really good opportunity to start increasing its mining industry so that it can become wealthier which will allow our government to increase its investment in rail.
Been Benuane
January 15, 2012
Nobody though peak oil had occurred ever in the 1970′s (unless they were completely ignorant).
What happened in the 1970′s is that the Arabs decided to exercise their right to up the price. Those in the know knew that there was plenty more cheap oil in Venezuela and Nigeria.
And can you please stray away from any of this wiitch-hunt of assuming “which party I support”? I frankly find it pathetic and puerile. Is it beyond your understanding that many people out there (who you many not associate with) might be what’s known as APOLITICAL?
And as for NZ’s slip in economic status since Britain joined the EEC, have you ever thought that might have something to do with this these backward and insular attitudes I’ve mentioned?
But in any case; if countries poorer than NZ such as Poland or Morocco are investing more in rail infrastructure then I can;t help finding it a rather weak excuse.
MrV
January 15, 2012
I commented on another post that the way I see getting money spent locally on rail infrastructure (and other things) etc is for the local councils to have an income stream independant of the rate payer, as they simply cannot be expected to take the burden of all these kind of projects. This would need to tap into the more reliable stream of general taxation from Income tax and GST revenue.
(Briefly)
The way to do it would be to decrease the size of central govt, so say (for example) they currently spend 30c in the $1 of NZ income, get the spending down to lets say 24c in $1 and transfer the saved 6c to the various local councils, on a per capita basis. Yes it will require a reassessment of central govt priorities, but the benefits to each local region will be tangible, rather that non existant benefits of having Ministries of Womans Affairs, or Family Commissioners etc. (and on and on).
Very back of the envelope calculation suggested this might net Chch ~$200 million/year. Which doesn’t sound alot, but of course it is each and every year, so overtime would provide steady cashflow for investment. Moving to a model where investments are made over time would be far better than the current do nothing for a decade and then try and spend a wad of cash model that we currently seem to do.
Unfortunately these arguments are political, but not within the current framework from either side of NZ politics. Do you see any party willing to acknowledge:
a) We are spending a heap more money now at c. govt level compared to say 2006 or 2000, yet how much would the average person feel they are getting for that additional expenditure.
b) Maybe spending the money at the local level would be a better fit for community needs.
Of course this means partially relinquishing control of the taxation strings at central govt. level, and no side will voluntarily wish to do that.
bismarck
January 15, 2012
Poland is NOT a good comparison… they are a member of the EU and attract huge subsidies to the tune of billions of dollars per year to help fund infrastructure. New Zealand doesn’t get a dime from anyone.
Morocco is NOT a good comparison either… they are a third world country and so construction costs are much cheaper. They are also building many highways and railways across vast amounts of undeveloped land… in other words… Cheap!. I would imagine they don’t have the same environmental and democratic processes either.
(As a side note: To give you a good comparison of how the effect of cheap labour can make a huge difference to the affordability, China recently opened the worlds longest bridge. It is 160 kilometres long (yes, 160km!) and carries a high speed railway. The cost of this is less than USD$9billion (NZD$11.5bn). There is no way you could build a similar structure in NZ for anywhere close to that price.
Been, I’m not sure what you are getting at with your comment about “NZ’s slip in economic status since Britain joined the EEC” being because of NZ’s insular and backward thinking… I don’t think its a simple answer explaining that, and it’s one well outside this discussion suffice to say, irrespective of the reasons, good or bad, it is a major stumbling block the country faces in building the transport infrastructure we need – be it rail or road.
The only real point I’d agree with in terms of NZ being backward is how we only ever build infrastructure “retrospectively” rather than building it for the “future”. The Auckland Harbour bridge was a case in point… no rail provisions, and not wide enough.
I’m not saying that Christchurch should never have a passenger rail. I agree that the city DOES require it. But I don’t think it would be prudent to spend up say $400million on such a scheme just yet.
At the very least, our city planners should at least reserve rail corridors for future use, and perhaps trial a service using Aucklands old DMU’s when they come available. Something that could be done for relatively low cost to gauge its popularity.
But this should be in addition to building the motorways, not instead of.
MrV
January 15, 2012
I think that’s the dilemma at the moment, it’s very unlikely on the current infrastructure you could run a semi-reliable commuter rail service, even if the DMU’s were gifted.
bismarck
January 16, 2012
Maybe if Kiwirail could be so kind to give them a good refurbishment first – but yes, that rolling stock has had it’s day. But it’s probably our best shot at doing something on a trial basis without busting the bank. If it proves successful, maybe a future government will pay for new stock.
Been Benuane
January 15, 2012
Getting complately off-topic here; how is it that countries with less advantages than NZ had in 1973 have since overtaken NZ in economic status then? countries without many natural resources to squander like you’re advocating?
C’mon what did NZ do with its money afterwards? lets see… …there was rural subsidies (for wool nobody wanted), methanol plants and there was giving state housing tenants rebates to buy their house with to mention others.
Why not investing in setting up high-tech industries such as computers? software? biotechnology? or improving the country’s infrastructure?
Oh, because it was beyond the imagination of Prime minister Muldoon and his cabinet. And who voted for him? and what appealed about him?
Oh because he was a typical narrow-minded, backward and ignorant Kiwi. And with an inferiority complex.
And you’re completely oblivious to the fact that pretty much everything you’ve posted epitomises this problem with NZ and its attitude.
And that’s really all I’ve got to say, other than that NZ already resorts to paying relatively the same for a second-hand Japanese car than any other developed country does for a new car. People are locked into a automobile dependency the macroeconomy struggles to support. And yet you think more motorways are what’s needed?
bismarck
January 16, 2012
It seems like you haven’t really stated one thing that is beneficial to this topic Been other than just saying that “New Zealand is narrow-minded and ignorant” and “Backward old New Zealand”. Hardly a vote of confidence for moving forward if that is your attitude.
Most people on this forum are actually making interesting statements and opinions on moving forward, while your negative comments are nothing but criticism on the way NZ has run it’s country over the past decade.
As for your previous comment on NZ’s supposed poor decision to buy some “cheap and nasty Chinese locomotives which are already suffering acute reliability problems” – This has nothing to do with being a poor decision. Teething problems are inevitable with equipment made to such short runs like this. If you want a good example, Check out London Undergrounds 1992 Tube Stock… they have had endless problems with those… so much for getting a reliable product out of Bombardier Transportation, one of the worlds largest, most experienced and renouned train/rolling stock manufacturers.
MrV
January 16, 2012
Somewhat unfair, not a particular fan of Muldoon, but he was trying to respond to the oil shocks of the era. You could equally say his comittment to building Clyde dam and electrification of North Island main trunk were an attempt to make us less oil dependant was somewhat visionary, if poorly implemented. The thing with the Clyde dam is everyone complains about how much it cost, but looking back would anyone now ‘not’ build it. Seems to me we need all the hydro generation we can muster.
I always hear the why not invest in biotech, computers etc mantra, however how does the govt. know who the winners are in these fields? If we knew who the next google was surely we would have already done it. Instead the govt needs to focus on only those things it does well and otherwise reduce the taxation burden. Not to say we shouldn’t fund primary university R&D, however you can’t pour money down black holes so it must focus on excellence.
More fundamentally from an investment perspective, how can we hope to compete with other countries when for 30years ‘investing’ in NZ has basically consisted of buying houses off each other using borrowed offshore money thus driving up prices. This has resulted in many of the unintended consequences we see for infrustructure as every piece of land that needs to be aquired is aquired at an inflated price, thus driving up the cost of infrastructure provision. Unfortunately this is another thing all sides of politics in NZ are equally invested in.
bismarck
January 18, 2012
You are spot on Mr V…. Actually when you look at what Muldoon did, he was actually a very clever and smart person. The Think Big projects were designed to do EXACTLY what you have said…. reduce New Zealand’s reliance on the outside world. (which at the time, NZ was heavily exposed to oil price shocks of the 1970′s).
The real problem that Muldoon had was that the oil crisis didn’t go on long enough which meant that it ended up being cheaper to import petroleum than produce it locally. This meant that the heavy investment needed to build the Think Big projects didn’t pay its way and thus the country was nearly bankrupted as a result. Had the oil crisis gone on for another 3-5 years, then the investment would have probably paid off.
Yes, you are also right in the NZ investment model…. buying and selling the same houses of each other over and over again using money borrowed from off-shore banks clearly doesn’t seem to make a lot of logical sense. Unfortunately the Kiwi-Dream of owning one’s own home still seems to be a key priority for most NZ’ers so I’m not sure how that will be solved.
All thats a little off topic…. The CSM2 is a great project and is most certainly due for construction to take the pressure off Main South Road/Blenheim Road. Hopefully in 10 years when Rolleston has say 20,000 people there will be enough demand for a train service… (I think 30,000 is a realistic figure which would compare similar to Masterton/Featherston/Carterton)
jhumm
January 18, 2012
Just to be pedantic Bismark, but the Wairararpa rail service isn’t a good comparison as it is largely inter-urban in nature, while any Rolleston rail service would largely be a suburban type service. It is worth noting that it would also service Templeton, Islington, Hornby, Sockburn/Wigram Skies, Middleton and Addington, so it is not just about Rolleston. That is getting slightly off topic again though.
Getting back on topic, I think it is worth pointing out, once again, that the pressures that CM2 will release on Main South/Blenheim Rd is in the context of 6-8 years time, not 2012. It is therefore debatable whether any impact will result in a situation on those roads that is better than the one in 2012. You will still have increasing local traffic too, especially as Hornby and Riccarton continue to grow, plus you still have to factor in the population and traffic growth from the south which will have an overall effect. It seems, to me, that the same problems will persist after CSM2 is complete (congestion and accessibility issues), and I therefore believe higher priority should be given to developing better public transport solutions along the southern corridor (not instead of, but in addition to CSM2).
MrV
January 19, 2012
Yes it appears off topic but in reality these things don’t fit into silos, it is all interrelated. Highly restrictive zoning policies from councils and ECan plus RMA costs etc combined with easy credit have fuelled the rapid inflation of asset (land) prices, but that debate is for other forums.
Been Benuane
January 18, 2012
There’s obviously no point in continuing a discussion with someone who pretends peak oil isn’t happening and who thinks Muldoon was smart.
Bahahaha oh yes rural subsurdies were such a fantastic idea, excellent one (claps).
Muldoon was obviously a complete incompetent lightweight and out-of-his-depth. You contrive biased opinions – how backward…
MrV
January 19, 2012
Nobody is defending Muldoons farm subsidies, but you have to look at it the context of the era. Hell many countries still have farm countries 40 years later!
Without reanalysing history too much, I do think the idea of recognising that NZ is heavily oil dependant in the transport sector was valid and electrification certainly had merits considering NZ is able to generate plenty of renewable electricity.
Now building synth-petrol plants and doing too much all at once wasa step too far given the constraints on the NZ economy at the time, but as they say hindsight is a wonderful thing.
MrV
January 19, 2012
sorry should read …farm subsidies 40 yrs later …
Been Benuane
January 20, 2012
Getting completely off-topic here but:
Yeah but the difference is that none of the countries that continue rural subsurdies have agriculture as their primary industry. All of those nations have considerable other industries such as services and manufacturing.
And they’re producing things there is a massive demand for such as French or italian wine and cheese.
In Muldoon’s day agriculture was NZ’s primary industry, so he was dragging down the other industries to prop up the major one.
And what was so much worse was that the bulk for that industry was producing wool and lamb that nobody wanted to buy. If he’d given the farmers an easy ride to diversify for new markets it wouldn’t have been so bad.
He was basically supporting an economic drain and dragging down things that could’ve led to prosperity. Economic idiocy.
bismarck
January 19, 2012
I never said there was no such thing as Peak Oil – What I did say was that nobody really knows for sure whether it has just happened, about to happen, or will happen in 5-10 years time. Peak Oil is a fact… I personally think it will probably happen in 3-5 years time.
Still, what you fail to understand is that even when Peak Oil does occur, the vast majority will still drive their private vehicles meaning that there will still be demand for motorway projects. For whats it’s worth, I checked the State Highway traffic volumes during the mid-1970′s to the Early-1980′s and for most part, there were still slower, but nonetheless increasing traffic volumes. The fact that NZ still has one of the highest percentages sales of SUV’s is generally a good indicator that we’re still happy to accept paying the price of fuel at the pump.
Oh… Farm subsidies were a terrible idea…. bad bad bad bad bad… and so are government subsidies on any industry. If an industry isn’t sustainable financially without subsidies, its an industry that is not worth having.
Hindsight tells us now that Muldoon was out of his depth… but only because of the facts as we know it today. But he was a lot smarter than many people give him credit for and he had more vision than any of the recent Prime Ministers had.
Back more on topic… I think that a Rolleston rail service could be trialled because the population will grow substantially…
But I’m NOT happy to pay more tax than I do currently… so either someone has to go without their heart bypass operation, or we have to put up with no trains. I do want the current motorway projects completed because they WILL improve my ability to get around for my work etc. A rail service won’t help me unless it helps to clear up the roads as I won’t be using it because my job requires a private vehicle.
jhumm
January 20, 2012
Bismark. Your final two paragraphs sound like the same old ignorant arguments we have heard time and time again. Thankfully, we are hearing less and less of this sort of stuff. Where do I begin…
1. Taking into account my previous comments, time savings are likely to be negligible or non-existent, especially in the mid to long-term. CSM2 won’t even begin construction until 2015-16, so likely won’t be completed until 2020 at the very earliest. Between now and then you have to take account of population and traffic growth (both local and thru). Most similar projects in NZ have shown the time savings aren’t worth the paper they are written on.
2. Taking into account the above point; that you think improved public transport infrastructure and increased use won’t have any benefit to someone like yourself, a dependent road user, makes me scratch my head…. furthermore, projects such as the northern busway in Auckland show that many people will use quality public transport if it is built, big time (and that this has an effect on road use). A substantial shift toward public transport on key routes will have significant benefits for people like yourself.
3. Did tax increase because the Government is investing billions of dollars rebuilding Auckland’s rail network? Did tax increase because the Government has been investing hundreds of millions of dollars dragging Wellington’s rail network into the 21st Century? Did tax increase when the Government announced the biggest road spend up of all time with the RoNS programme? No. Infact, tax actually decreased! The government is prepared to invest in both roads and rail in Auckland and Wellington these days. Why not Christchurch?
4. Heart bypass operations, and whether someone gets one or not, has no correlation with Government investment in a Chch rail system. They are competely separate funding pools.
bismarck
January 20, 2012
My ignorant comments jhumm are probably realistic though…
1) The NZTA tell me that their traffic modelling will show that travel times from Rolleston Traffic Lights to Barrington St Interchange to be 12 minutes. I did probe them in fact on how realistic that will be using your same points (remember that I am not against rail and not pro road on an unconditional basis). Their response was adamant that 12 minutes would be accurate at time of completion.
I’ll compare notes between travel times that I’ve recorded over the last 3 years with those I’ll keep recording. I’m absolutely sure that I’m going to be a lot better off.
2) I actually said that it might help me… if it helps clear the road with all the people using the rail service. I just don’t know that it will compare favourably with a motorway hence my preference to have the motorway instead of rail in this instance.
3) You are quite right… it actually comes down to priorities and much of the reason the government has managed to cut taxes and spend up on roads is because they have cut so many public servant jobs and other spending adjustments – That’s a good thing. But we are still borrowing heavily to operate this land of ours and I wouldn’t think its very prudent to invest more money in transport (road or rail) over and above what is currently planned. Remember a fellow poster “Been” had ridiculed Mr Muldoon’s vision for borrowing up very heavily on debt to fund infrastructure including Clyde Dam and NIMT Electrification among other Oil-related activities…. It bankrupted the country almost. The worlds current fragile economy is FAR from being stable so we don’t want to become a Greece or Portugal etc. When we return to surplus, my views will definitely change.
4) My comment was slightly sarcastic… in a very subtle way. Of course they come from different funding pools.
The point is that for the foreseeable future (~15 years), I don’t really see that a good reliable and frequent commuter train service can really be that financially viable.
After living in a number of areas of the city over the last 30 years, and watching and experiencing how traffic and growth patterns have changed in that time, I cannot see how a rail service is going to make things much better for the masses in Rolleston.
On the other hand, if it’s any consolation to allay your thoughts of ignorance I have on the issue, I cannot use the same argument for a Northern Motorway behind belfast which I believe is FAR less justified and northerners would benefit from a rail service right now.
A Rolleston service would have a residential catchment (beyond Hornby) of around maybe 20,000 if you include some park and ride users from say Lincoln/Springston and peripheral areas.
A Rangiora service would have a residential catchment (Beyond Belfast) of probably double that number. Something similar to Upper Hutt which can run a rail service quite nicely.
jhumm
January 23, 2012
Bismark. This would be the same NZTA that constantly makes travel time savings claims that fail to materialise by the time the project is complete, or simply aren’t sustainable beyond 3-4 years. NZTA’s travel time savings simply aren’t worth the paper they are written on, just look at Auckland for some very good examples. Why would CSM2 be any different? In my mind, a reliance on only road based solutions along key corridors fails to improve accessibility to any large degree.
2 & 3 – why does it have to be one or the other? History/evidence shows that the one mode approach doesn’t work anyway (i.e.motorway only), so it isn’t really money well spent. Best to spend more to get real results. Instead of building all roads, why not spread the money across a range of strategic transport infrastructure projects (and note the Govt is proposing more RoNS for Chch – the money is there)
4 – Sarcastic or not, it was misleading (plus it is hard for people to spot sarcasm in written form, which can lead to misinformation being spread – I don’t really want that happening on this blog).
I guess we will have to agree to disagree Bismark. Rolleston has been roughly doubling in population every 5 years, and in 2006 had a population of about 3700. Many of the 10,000 people the Chch urban area lost in 2011 have moved to periphery areas not counted as part of the urban area, including Rolleston. Considering this, and that it will likely be a popular place to reside for people moving to Chch for the rebuild, I think it would be safe to say that Rolleston might well have a population of about 15-20,000 come 2020 (which is likely to be the earliest we will see CSM2 complete).
Hornby currently has 3 shopping centres, one of which is to be expanded further. It is also developing as a major secondary commercial hub. Between now and 2020 I can only see it intensifying further. Ditto with Addington, which is developing into a key inner-city commercial, retail and entertainment precinct. Then you have the huge residential growth in Wigram, and continued growth in Templeton. Hornby and Addington (as well as the CBD) would also be key transport interchanges, providing people with easy access to all corners of the city through the Metro network.
I fail to see how a rail service to Rolleston by 2020ish would be any less justifiable than the Johnsonville line in Wellington, or the Onehunga line in Auckland, and I don’t see how it would not be of immense benefit to anyone living along that corridor (the “masses” in Rolleston or elsewere).
bismarck
February 6, 2012
I guess we can agree to disagree jhumm… Perhaps if you look at the buses going from Rolleston into the City each morning you’ll see that they are largely still empty apart from school children.
So the question is “why are those buses empty?” – If you ask people in the district, most of them will say that they are too slow to get to their destination and too expensive.
So running a train into town will certainly speed the journey up if there are frequent services and there are really good and efficient connecting bus services, though for the most part, I can’t see the total travel time door to door being that competitive with the private car unless traffic congestion increases substantially. As for cost, I think it too will be a while before a train can be reasonably competitive on cost until the whole fuel tax system is overhauled.
So on that basis, I can’t honestly see that say an hourly or half hourly train service from Rolleston to City would really be financially viable for the foreseeable future.
I think my point is that I’m not really all that keen for ratepayers (and taxpayers) to be forking out for such a service just yet – BUT on the other hand, I think it is very important that the council and government must plan sensibly now so that a rail service could be started in future. To me, this is all about land zoning to encourage higher density housing closer to rail corridors, land availability for stations and park and ride schemes and so on.
I guess a good example would be that if the Onehunga Branh was sold and built over after it closed completely in 2006, then the chances of a reinstated Onehunga Branch ever occurring would have been zero as the costs to rebuild and reopen it would have been prohibitive.
So if zoning and land designations for a future Rolleston-City rail service don’t occur, then more than likely, unchecked land development will occur which only makes such a service in the future more even more challenging.