Is Christchurch’s old railway station on Moorhouse Avenue to join the list of demolished historic buildings? Repair costs could mean the building is too expensive to fix for its current owners, with Science Alive looking pretty keen to vacate the building regardless. Grand Ltd, which owns the Hoyts side of the building, has previously indicated a preference for a rebuild over repairs to the building. No decision has yet been made, and an engineering report is due next month.
This is a real shame and could be yet another huge loss to our historic building catalogue as the old station is a really amazing building. In my view, it should never have ceased to be the city’s railway station in 1993, and I always thought that, should local passenger rail return, it might fulfil that role once again, in some capacity.
The large and imposing old Christchurch railway station building on Moorhouse Ave (swiped from wikipedia)
If the building can survive, even in some form, I think it should be saved. The site is of strategic value for any revived rail system as it is the closest to the CBD a railway station could get without an expensive new link, so perhaps it is time for the CCC to step in and buy the site? That would bound to be a controversial decision (remember the Dave Henderson property fiasco?) but in this case it would be a much more obviously strategic decision, and therefore possibly more acceptable. Even if it can’t survive in whole or at all I think it would be wise to look at obtaining the site rather than allowing it to be rebuilt upon. Perhaps this is the sort of thing that the business case for commuter rail might throw up, but by the time that document is finalised it might be too late.
jhumm
marsoe
Been Benuane
January 11, 2012
My understanding is that the station wasn’t “lost” in 1993, it was sold. NZ railways did this for good reasons. It was expensive to maintain, underutilised and the long-distance passenger services (which is the only rail Christchurch sees) could be terminated at a smaller and more modern station at Addington.
The station was flawed anyway by its poor location too far from the CBD. It wasn’t a flawed location when it was planned in the late 1940′s in the era of the tramway and before cheap oil and automobile dependency. But as events unfolded it was soon proven to be in a poorly considered location, and it’s a big reason why commuter rail declined in Christchurch.
It’s highly unlikely that it’s going to be save-able anyway, and really when you think about it that’s probably a good thing. Unlike the rail terminus’ in Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin; as a building it’s not architecturally attractive. As far as I’m concerned the sooner its demolished the better, and they should use the earthquake as an opportunity for a brand new, less-imposing terminus on the corner of Tuam and Colombo Street fed by a corridor running through the site of this old terminus.
Been Benuane
January 11, 2012
Sorry I meant to say; “…It wasn’t so obviously a flawed location…”
MrV
January 11, 2012
Yes a new, smaller station on the site could be used to feed commuter rail traffic to the CBD. The other site that could act as a CBD transfer for commuter rail would be Riccarton.
Been Benuane
January 11, 2012
The fact is that the site was found wanting before due to its distance from the CBD. And why would anyone want to transfer at Riccarton?
People don’t like transfers unless they’re little waiting and moving involved. The service needs to be as convenient as possible to be attractive.
jhumm
January 12, 2012
You have to start from somewhere, and the old Chch station site is much better located than Auckland’s was before 2003. Even in Wellington it is a 20 min walk or a bus transfer from the station to the other end of the CBD (i.e. Willis and Dixon end) yet people do it.
Things are very different today, and a fully integrated system will mitigate some of the problems associated with transferring. The station site isn’t even that far from much of the CBD, with most areas within a 15-20 minute walk. In the short to medium term, it may be worth acquiring to get something off the ground. Of course, if the Council or Government is prepared to fund a rail link further into the city from the get-go, I won’t complain – but dreams are free.
The Addington station site is a rubbish location, and NZR could have sold all or most of the building while still maintaining adequate rail facilities for the (then) three trains, just as was done in Dunedin or similar to what has happened in Wellington.
MrV
January 12, 2012
Riccarton transfer may be more convenient for commuters approaching by rail from the North, rather than continuing on in a big loop to Moorhouse. Have a link bus that goes between say Riccarton station and Moorhouse (via the CBD) at high frequency. Eventually upgrade to tram perhaps?
I agree people don’t like transfers unless it is convenient, however it seems to be perfectly achievable overseas if train/bus scheduling can be aligned properly.
Been Benuane
January 12, 2012
Erm… …actually jhumm at ~1km it’s even further from the Moorhouse avenue station site to Cathedral square than the old Auckland station was from lower Queen street. And the Wellington station is within 600m of its CBD and for most people less than a ten minute walk. I invite you to actually examine a map. Why would you want to “start” in an already failed location? give me one reason why you wouldn’t want to start again in a somewhere that is a much more desirable location. I can’t see how if you’re going to start somewhere how it’s not crucial that this somewhere is in the best location possible!
Yes things are different today, with much more automobile dependency and aversions to walking it’s even more crucial that public transport delivers people as close as possible to where they need to go to in the CBD. There’s effectively no change in integration to what there was when Christchurch’s commuter rail failed last time, commuters would still have to make an undesirable transfer to buses instead of trams that would go the same speed.
[Although you still might be talking about this tram-train idea without doing any homework into why it's virtually impossible in NZ.]
And the fact is that for long distance trains the Addington location is no worse than Moorhouse avenue and if anything is a bit less prone to traffic.
jhumm
January 12, 2012
Except that in Auckland you had a big hill to walk up, and it appears that there isn’t much in the vicinity of the old station there, even today (visited recently). Chch’s CBD actually spreads to Moorhouse Ave and probably will more so with implementation of the draft City Plan (in which there are big plans for the southern area). Besides, in the short-medium term Christchurch is going to need a flexible system to deal with fluid land-use patterns so the transfer deal won’t be such a big issue for a while. I am in no way opposed to better access to the CBD, but suggest that might not happen for a while and we have to make the most with what we have to get the ball moving.
“There’s effectively no change in integration to what there was when Christchurch’s commuter rail failed last time” – there was no integrated ticketing, few buses met trains and the CTB and Midland coachlines actively competed against rail routes and politically undermined rail services. If rail was reintroduced tomorrow, we already have an integrated smart card ticketing system set up that would not penalise a transfer and Metro would manage the whole system across all modes allowing each mode to support rather than damage each other.
Been Benuane, please refrain from being condenscending and rude when you comment on here. There is no need for it. I am sure you are capable of making your points without resorting to language like “I invite you to actually examine a map”. It ruins what could otherwise be a good discussion.
Been Benuane
January 12, 2012
Well there’s isn’t exactly much in the vicinity of the Moorhouse avenue site either. I would say less than there was in the vicinity of the old Auckland station (before the recent developments). There’s the south city mall (which will probably and hopefully be demolished) some supermarkets/superstores and other low-density things designed for automobile dependency and not a destination of any significant percentage of commuters.
From what I’ve seen of Mayor Parker’s plans the CBD will be uniform medium density radiating out from Cathedral square and most of the employment centres will remain over 500m from the Moorhouse avenue site.
I frankly don’t understand the basis of your opinion that it’s a good idea to “get the ball rolling” by using a site for the CBD terminus/station that was previously proven unsuitable. Not only will this (at the very least) impede any growth or progress on the network and its patronage but it would be difficult to correct in the future. Surely the key to successfully introducing commuter rail for Christchurch is to have a terminus in the most desirable location possible?
I misunderstood what you meant by integration. Yes integrated ticketing (used in Paris since at least the 1970′s) would remove much undesirability. But I can’t imagine it making that much of a difference when remembering what I thought you were referring to; and that’s being reliant on a bus transfer for the final hundreds of meters, especially if the bus service isn’t likely to be frequent enough and would have to negotiate busy stretches of road such as Moorhouse avenue and Colombo street. It would be acceptable to transfer to a bus to get to New Brighton a few km’s away but it would be unattractive for the last few hundreds of meters to work.
Also, beyond wanting to use the site you seem to harbour a desire to actually save the building itself. The fact is that it looks at though it’s been very heavily damaged beyond financially feasible repair, is it REALLY worth saving? I know it’s been heritage-listed, but as with many with such status in NZ I personally have reservations whether it should be. I’ve heard it has a rather attractive floor in the booking hall but other than that it’s not a very attractive piece of architecture and only built in the 1950′s.
It’s great that you’ve got an interest in improving the transport infrastructure in Christchurch and that you’re devoting your time to this blog. But I’m honestly and sincerely struggling to not be patronising nor rude with you. In the formations of the opinions you express you’ve got some things factually incorrect or have failed to appreciate some fundamental things and to me you seem a bit uninformed.
jhumm
January 12, 2012
Well I think that says a lot more about you than it does me. You occasionally make some good points, but your insistence on arguing within a very narrow context, and becoming insulting, abusive, arrogant, and patronising when someone simply does not agree with your opinion or accept your “facts” can not be tolerated in future. I would like to keep this a friendly place for discussion and debate. You were warned plenty of times so please keep it above the belt.
Been Benuane
January 12, 2012
I invite you to quote me when I’ve insulted or abused anyone or to prove anything I’ve said factually wrong.
I’m not making anything personal, so how is anything below the belt?
I may come across arrogant or patronising but that’s not intentional. Considering without any basis you claimed that my idea will cost billions (then somehow accused me of making “bold” assumptions) and then propose a preference for something more expensive and something as-good-as impossible like tram-trains you might want to do some self-reflection.
The reason why my opinion is strong is because it’s based on facts and an appreciation of how rail networks worldwide work.
Been Benuane
January 12, 2012
MrV:
A line station (with a comprehensive bus interchange – of course) along the existing northern corridor in the vicinity of Riccarton should be more than enough for commuters for whom Riccarton is their destination. It should even be a shorter walk between the corridor and the Riccarton mall than the Moorhouse avenue site is for most of Christchurch’s CBD.
It can just be served by a line station just like Auckland’s stations at Newmarket and New Lynn.
People don’t mind transfers to auxilliary destinations provided they can meet passenger capacity.
But I frankly can’t see it being practical for Christchurch’s CBD. For one, you’d be looking at cramming a few hundred people projected into buses of 20-30 person capacity for the final few hundreds of meters. And from Riccarton they’d have to transit in the heavy-traffic corridor along Riccarton avenue through Hagley park.
Why bother with this when you could just have a new train terminus on the corner of Colombo street and Lichfield street where the underground bus interchange was supposed to go? then the trains could get people direct to the CBD interchange with no traffic delays.
MrV
January 12, 2012
In an ideal world, yes a station closer to the CBD would be the go. A through station would be better. Don’t know if anyone has the appetite for use of TBMs though.
Having a train station in the CBD that acts as a terminus would run into capacity constraints. You would need plenty of lines in/out to make it worthwhile and not cause delays on the rest of the system. (Look at the issues Britomart has.) I can’t see that happening
I think better to use the existing through lines and think about solving the last mile problem.
Of course over time what would happen is development would occur closer to to what is now the eastern side of the CBD for an easier walk to the station.
It would be relatively easy to run buses from Riccarton to city, with a bus lane in Riccarton Ave, and then run buses up Oxford Terrace. Use either articulated buses or double decker.
Alternatively trams every 3-5mins in peak would easily be able to move people from the station.
The use of this option would likely depend on how many stops you have for trains continuing from Riccarton to Moorhouse, and people would likely have differing preferences depending on where they work
Been Benuane
January 12, 2012
Realistically it would be some time (decades) before capacity constraints would be met. Part of the problem with Britomart is that it only has two tracks leading into it, but Christchurch has the clean slate to future-proof any needed expansions to 4 tracks and enough platforms. It would probably be a long time before a through station would be needed by which time it could be justified to go underground or to demolish some of the CDB for the complete corridor.
That’s why the “last-mile problem is best solved by having no last-mile with the Terminus at the site of the bus interchange (which now won’t be underground for a long time if ever).
Tthere’s three lines to initially work with; one to Rolleston, one to Rangiora and one to Lyttleton with a peak commuter service from Ashburton. That should be more than enough to start with, in time new branches can be laid to Lincoln (via Prebbleton and to the airport via the back of the western suburbs.
The fact is that Bob Parker’s plan is for the CBD to radiate from Cathedral square, having the Terminus where I think would also be a great way to spur that development. There’s very little chance of any growth around the existing station site in the near future and even if there was Moorhouse avenue is busy enough to make it unattractive as a terminus.
And I can tell you now; no transport planner in the world is mad enough to try and make commuters to a CBD transfer to buses for the final hundreds of meters. Trams and buses simply don’t have enough capacity to meet the sudden rush. And I know that Riccarton road through Hagley park is already busy, do you really want more buses routed through there? Why would you choose risking being stranded at Riccarton station let alone having to transfer over commuting by automobile?
Why not just let them take the train all the way to the CBD now you’ve got the chance? It needs to be attractive to commuters.
Been Benuane
January 12, 2012
@ MrV; Sorry I misunderstood you when you said;
“Riccarton transfer may be more convenient for commuters approaching by rail from the North, rather than continuing on in a big loop to Moorhouse.”
I strongly doubt that. Because by virtue of enjoying its own dedicated corridor, rail transit should be quicker than driving in peak hour traffic.
By the time the passengers have disembarked, re-embarked on a bus which they’ve had to walk to (assuming the bus was waiting – which in all likelihood is fanciful) and then negotiated traffic it would have taken longer and been considerably less comfortable.
And unless the Riccarton station is situated next to Riccarton Road (at an inconvenient northern boundary) the bus will have to “loop” up to Riccarton road anyway.
I doubt going to Moorhouse avenue then a few hundred meters northward again wouldn’t be much quicker and not require an inconvenient and uncomfortable transfer.
MrV
January 12, 2012
I just don’t see how you’ll get at least 4 lines (plus sufficient stabling requirement) near to Cathedral Square or Colombo/Lichfield without completely blowing the budget on land repurchases alone, the area the tracks occupy will also be relatively unsightly, unless you do something like build over the top of them Manhatten style. Let alone the roadworks required, presumably you don’t want a massive level crossing on Moorhouse Avenue.
I think the Riccarton station by Riccarton road would be fine, where would you have it?
I somewhat accept your argument regarding buses.
However it is demonstrated in somewhere like Zurich that people will take a tram after arriving at the Hauptbahnhof by rail and seem to cope transfering to a tram and head up Bahnhofstrausse or any of the other routes. I don’t see why Chch would be any different, the only argument would be which routes you have, bearing in mind there will only be so many $ for this fantasy.
I also think plans such as these:
http://buswatchnz.blogspot.com/2011/10/one-map-ten-thousand-words.html
should be developed sooner, rather than later – you have to remember despite all the discussion, most people aren’t going to the CBD so although in the beginning the system should get people within the vicinity the emphasis should be on broadly on a system that can get you around Chch.
If it goes to as many places as possible from the get-go you are likely to get higher usage.
I think this would require having a double tracked commuter system, plus at least a single line (double in parts) freight line so that freight movements though to Lyttleton from North and South don’t interfere at all with commuter rail.
Been Benuane
January 12, 2012
Okay I haven’t lived in Christchurch for a long time and never spent much time around Riccarton so my geography’s a bit off. Yeah I guess adjacent to Riccarton road is an ideal location.
Now with reference to Zurich, what you’ve overlooked is that Zurich’s Hbf and the Bf Stadelhofen are very much in the CBD. The Swiss have followed the trend in Germany and Austria of centralising their railway stations with one central station as close as possible to the CBD and preferably as a through station (which I’ll admit Christchurch’s won’t be). Until the completion of the Hirschengrabentunnel as part of the instituting of the Zurich S-Bahn in the late 80′s Zurich’s Hbf was a terminus.
But my point is that when Zurich commuters transfer to a tram at the Hbf they’re doing it from somewhere already conveniently close to the CBD. This is the sort of arrangement that I’m advocating for Christchurch.
As for the comments that people aren’t going to the CBD and about land purchases, I find it odd you’re not appreciating what could be positive outcomes from the earthquake. The land between Moorhouse avenue and the now aborted bus terminal will temporarily be worth a lot less due to the earthquake and so compensation from a compulsory acquisition won’t be as expensive.
And Bob Parker’s plan for a new Christchurch CBD looks like a CBD that should attract a lot more commercial activity than the previous one. In any case the existing rail corridors pass though or are adjacent to many areas of employment such as the industrial areas to the south west and the port of Lyttleton. The new Christchurch could develop around a properly established commuter rail network.
I do however like the western link via the airport proposed on the blog you provided although I’d build some of it within the outer fringes of the existing western suburban sprawl.
As for how the rail would be implemented; initially the Moorhouse avenue overbridge would be replaced with a newer, longer one covering all lanes and with no intersection with Colombo street. Bob Parker has already stated his desire for less cars in the CBD anyway. I’d initially have it as street level with barrier crossing on St. Asaph Street and with Tuam street and Mollet street split into two western and eastern halves. That might sound unsightly to you but nobody has a problem with street level railways all over the world and even in other NZ cities, especially in flat radial cities like Christchurch. And the area wasn’t exactly very attractive prior to the earthquakes.
If the spur became busy enough to cause a problem with the level crossing at St Asaph street then it could be justified to have the money spent grade-separating the spur. This could be done simultaneously with three or four-tracking the spur.
Christchurch will not be the same again, and it almost has a clean slate to correct the errors of the old CBD.
As for the cost, I’m pretty sure that constructing this spur along with;
* demolishing the Mercedes dealership build over the old rail connection on Blenheim road and building a new overbridge.
* double tracking the northern corridor to Northcote or Redwood
* Installing signals and constructing platforms
Would be around the +$400m mark quoted for the pointless light rail to the varsity campus and possibly less yet would provide much greater coverage and serve more commuters. And would cost less than building the new lines and spurs on the map you’ve provided. As as your link states the electrification of Auckland will allow another city to get rolling stock for free.
And finally as for stabling there would be ample space on the existing rail corridors. Very few networks have their depots and stabling yards at their CBD terminus’.
jhumm
January 12, 2012
“I invite you to quote me when I’ve insulted or abused anyone or to prove anything I’ve said factually wrong.
I’m not making anything personal, so how is anything below the belt?
I may come across arrogant or patronising but that’s not intentional. Considering without any basis you claimed that my idea will cost billions (then somehow accused me of making “bold” assumptions) and then propose a preference for something more expensive and something as-good-as impossible like tram-trains you might want to do some self-reflection.
The reason why my opinion is strong is because it’s based on facts and an appreciation of how rail networks worldwide work.”
I think you need to take a good hard look at your own comments – which are full of unsubstantiated claims (including that you are some sort of rail expert, and that you have inside knowledge of the CBD property market amongst many many others) and vague comments (“fundamental things”???). It is not my job to prove you wrong, my whole point is that you must back your claims up if you are going to be so insistent on their acceptance by everyone. I won’t get into what I think of your idea and the claims you make as part of that, except to say that you should probably read the draft Central City Plan at some point.
I don’t really care if you do not intend to come across as arrogant and patronising. There is simply no reason for you to do it, and if you struggle with controlling that then you should probably refrain from making comments on this blog, along with the others you seem to frequent, as it is clearly a problem and simply reflects poorly on you.
I encourage everyone to discuss and debate on this blog, but to do so in a respectful and mature manner, as has always been the case until recently. I will delete any comments that fail to do this from now on. End of story.
Been Benuane
January 12, 2012
What are these unsubstantiated claims then? let’s see some quotes and some proof that they’re unsubstantiated.
MrV
January 13, 2012
I still can’t see the cost/benefit stacking up, given that not everyone is going to the CBD and a new facility near the old station would likely suffice.
I think the comparison with Zurich is reasonable, yes the Hbf is a bit closer, however if you are heading to say paradeplatz then that would be ~900m away, a bit closer than Cathedral Sq is to Moorhouse Av, but within ballpark.
Rather than spend money on a new terminus+infrastructure, would it not be better to allocate it toward electrification, given that I’m not sure how citizenery along northern corridor will respond to noise of DMU’s every 15-20mins.
If capacity was needed in the CBD in future it would probably be easier to have a simple double-track underground line that goes via the CBD round the Eastern suburbs and joins the existing network in the north.
I’d try to avoid too many branch-lines (especially long branch lines) as having Heathcoat, Rolleston, Belfast/Rangiora is probably enough, and it’s more efficient to run trains in a loop.
Been Benuane
January 13, 2012
DMU’s aren’t noisy at all. Trains generally aren’t as thy run on frictionless surfaces, unless they’re heavy freight trains on standard tracks. And Christchurch is already a noisy place with the boyracers anyway.
Electrification would be the eventual goal, but realistically nobody would sensibly commit the funding immediately. As with the standard pattern in introducing commuter rail they can begin with the SA/SD carriages ofr push/pull from Auckland and/or the ADL DMU’s (if they meet the loading gauge) and grow the patronage from there to justify the investment in electrification.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about the suitability of the Moorhouse avenue site. As far as I’m concerned it was proven a poor site in the past and that’s only become more so since. It would doom the service before it even got off the ground. It’s important to get that crucial part right first time rather than try and correct it when it fails again.
Eventually the spur I’m proposing could go underground in a cut-and-cover (provided most people have forgotten the ‘quakes by then) about the time more than two tracks are needed..
A loop’s a great idea for the outer western suburbs, but it’s not true that they’re always more efficient. In loops of heavy frequency such as in metros they’ve proven in Moscow, London and Madrid to cause follow-on delays with any hiccup.
But generally there’s nothing wrong with branch lines provided the signalling’s up to snuff (which today is a matter of course). Re-laying the branch to Prebbleton and eventually extending to Lincoln couldn’t be overlooked.
Been Benuane
January 13, 2012
Regarding train noise, if you watch some youtube videos of even Auckland’s DMU’s you can see for yourself that even on rather badly maintained track the noisiest element is the horn.
Generally most of the noise with trains is due to the condition of the tracks, the train’s speed or their weight. Passenger trains on approaches to stations on tight tracks and trackbed don’t make much noise at all.
MrV
January 13, 2012
Yes I do agree DMUs would need to be used initially to grow patronage etc, however electrification should come sooner than Auckland’s took! Pity they removed electrification in the 1970′s.
Regarding noise, it’s more the departure from stations and frequency of night services that would likely concern residents, nothing that couldn’t be overcome by good station placement however.
I only mentioned branch lines because of the Sydney suburban network situation which went overboard on branch lines (Penrith, Richmond etc) and restricted flexibility and frequency on some lines.
As for Moorhouse Av. station, well yes we’ll have to disagree. But, given that the CBD will be largely underutilitsed for at least the next few years due to the eq, there is probably no urgent need to decide on CBD station right away. Have a temp station near to colombo/moorehouse and see how the network goes. Then when circumstances permit reassess.
Been Benuane
January 13, 2012
With Auckland; remember they pretty much re-started their commuter rail in 1993 and until about 2003 NZ on the whole had a VERY auto-oriented attitude encouraged by government.
In my opinion ~20 years hasn’t been too long to wait considering the hurdles they’ve had to overcome. It’s only been since 2003 that Auckland’s potential for commuter rail started to be taken seriously.
As for Christchurch it would have to depend on how patronage picked up. The main motivation for electrification is to increase network capacity/frequency.
That’s why you need a CBD station/terminus that’s at as desirable a location as possible
And yeah I agree that Sydney’s rail system is a disaster and much of it is due to too many branch lines (due to sprawl) and their planning, but I wouldn’t let that one example in the face of commuter rail in the rest of the world. I doubt Christchurch would face the same problem in our lifetimes.
Been Benuane
January 18, 2012
Mr V:
With regards to concerns about unsightliness of a railway terminus close to the CBD; if you’ve got broadband I invite you to take a look at the urban impact the main station in Oakland California (Jack London Square) and how it blends in with the surrounding neighbourhood.
Does it seem so unattractive now?
MrV
January 19, 2012
Respectfully, how practical is this in Chch CBD? Trains moving at speed of continental drift doesn’t help matters (esp. for a line station).
Yes (by these videos) Oakland looks a bit better now compared to when I last visted circa 2003, but Jesus can’t we aim a little higher than Oakland?
Afterall the only reason it’s there is because of a) the Port and b) Amtrack can’t run directly into SF.
If you really want a terminal station in a small town to model, you probably can’t really go past something like Luzern HB (minus all the freight yards on approach). Quite compact considering the capacity it has, Chch probably wouldn’t even need half that, probably have to tunnel part of Moorhouse Ave. – Expensive.
bismarck
January 16, 2012
On thing that will be a problem coming from the north is whether the corridor is wide enough for double tracking?
Can anyone remember whether the SIMT-Main North Line was ever double tracked in the past? Presumably if it was then there should possibly be room to double track it again, apart from the fact they have put a bike path down the side?
If there isn’t room, then it’s going to be quite expensive to purchase a strip of land from each property along the corridor.
As for the existing station, while it might have some “architectural merit” in it’s own right, I think there are plenty of other buildings that I’d rather see money go into for saving rather than this one. It would nonetheless still be sad to see it go.
I wonder it a mini-station could be built on the vacant lots on the South-East corner of Moorhouse/Colombo St junction? That land would surely be reasonably cheap since it’s largely undeveloped?
Then, have some trams running at high frequency down Colombo St – not sure how you’d get on with crossing over train tracks with wires etc? How was this done in the past?
Been Benuane
January 18, 2012
There is ample space in the northern corridor for double-tracking and even stations in places.
MrV
January 20, 2012
If you search the addresses here
http://ratesinfo.ccc.govt.nz/index.aspx
You’ll see the Rialto/Harvey Norman complex has a capital value of ~$27million. The car yards and surrounding business are around the $1 to $4 million range each. The 481 Cass St site could also be used (not sure of value).
I agree that either of these locations would be ideal, then run tram up Colombo to maybe Hereford, down Hereford to Art Centre, past hospital and out to Riccarton (and one day airport). You already have the rest of the tram tracks in the city to use for tourist or a loop tram.
If the council committed to a Central station here early enough (ie soon), I’m sure developers would have certainty as to where to best place to put their new office buildings. The new station could have say 2 through tracks plus 4 lines which would be terminus style.
Give Moorhouse Ave. an overhaul over time to more of a boulevard style.
Compare this option to buying up all the properties required to get a station anywhere near the CBD and it looks pretty good.
bismarck
January 20, 2012
That would be a good start if the SE Corner of the Moorhouse/Colombo St became a new central station. Sure, I agree in concept to Been’s idea that it should be as close as possible to the CBD, but am (as have been in other pages on this site) opposed to spending up too much.
My original idea actually had trains leaving the line near the Lincoln Road/Moorhouse Ave intersection and running along Hagley Ave then Lichfield St before running down Ferry Road and somehow down towards to the existing rail line again. I’d have the real inner city bits underground in a cut&cover tunnel under Hagley Ave and Lichfield St. But all that would be an expensive and challenging option due to the high water table.
So I think for now, since the CBD is largely starting from scratch, I think that the bulk of the CBD developments over the coming decade should be focussed between Hereford and St Asaph Sts – That would make a Moorhouse Ave site far more practical than it was years ago.
This could be supplemented by trams running along Ricarton Road/Riccarton Ave also so that Northerners could get off at Riccarton for a Tram service into town, or, continue on to Moorhouse and Walk/Tram from there. It would probably depend on whether their final destination was in the northern part of the CBD (north of say Hereford) or south of it.
MrV
January 20, 2012
I mean’t also to add that at least one additional line (perhaps 2) would be freight-only and be a clearway so freight doesn’t need to enter the station at all.
MrTrifles
February 21, 2012
I always considered this one of Christchurch’s most beautiful buildings – superb example of architecture from a decade underated in NZ. Much more attractive than the Victorian stuff.
Nick
August 10, 2012
One of favorite recollections from the eighties, was obtaining permission from the station master to access the tower and climb the vertical ladder to the top. Wish I had owned a camera! MrTrifles you are right! “superb example of architecture.” Of all the buildings being lost in Christchurch, I think I will miss this one the most!
reverse osmosis water filter aquariums
April 8, 2013
A residential RO filter is made from a thin film composite
membrane (TFM or TFC), which is made out of sheet polymer and
is comprised of multiple layers. After researching the subject of drinking water quality and of home water filters and purifiers, he
set up a website where he proposes the results of his inquiry for all to consider, to reach independently
their conclusions. However, Chlorinated water produces by products such as trihalomethanes (THMs), which
can cause cancer, birth defects and other health problems.