A discussion that seems to be doing the rounds at the moment is whether last weeks announcement on the Christchurch Central City Plan amounts to a dumping of the big transport projects, specifically the plans for light rail. The “100 day blueprint” for the central city, to be drawn up by the new Christchurch Central Development Unit, will not include the big-ticket transport items, such as light rail, and instead they will be given “greater consideration” at a later date. The Greens have voiced disappointment at the move, saying that the government needs to give further consideration to the idea of light rail, although that does seem to be what is intended (or is it?).
At the end of the day, the light rail and other transport aspects have certainly been put to the side, and not dumped. However, if they are to survive, then changes will be on the way, that is for sure. Questions will surely be asked about each of them, and it may just be that the Government has desired outcomes (i.e, they don’t want to “limit” car access, nor waste money on transport items that they believe won’t be used due to continued high car use). We know the current government is not a fan of rail and public transport in general, especially Brownlee who I believe once slandered rail as outdated 19th century technology (obviously he never read that the automobile is also a product of the 19th century, nor does it seem he has ever been overseas!). The big questions will be exactly what message Gerry Brownlee is trying to send here, and what the next steps are. The answers to those two questions will determine the fate of the transport plans.
Brownlee’s decision to put transport issues aside while the Christchurch Central Development Unit puts together its 100 day blueprint for the central city is basically nothing short of disaster. How can you plan a city well when you don’t consider what transport outcomes you are wanting? Land-use planning and transport planning go hand-in-hand. If you want a city that functions well, you need to consider them together as one. The form and function of the central city hinges on things like the future of the one-way system, the slow core-street concept, improved public transport, and car parking policy. That is my biggest disappointment out of this.
It is extremely odd that Brownlee has called the plan “good” and that they are effectively accepting it as it is (well, volume one anyway), yet he has “put aside” probably some of the most important aspects of it for “further consideration”, hasn’t adopted volume two, and has appointed a new unit to draw up what will effectively be a new plan – minus transport. However, they are planning to effectively redraw it, and most of it is being put to one side for the time being with no decision yet made on how to move forward. All that in four months! To me, that is not agreeing to it!
Nevertheless, what is done is done, we have to live with it. So what happens now with transport? That is an interesting question, and it was extremely disappointing that there was no indication given by Brownlee as to what the next steps are. Ultimately, transport will have to be considered (preferably now, but hey, thems the breaks), but exactly what, how, and by who are the big questions. Being optimistic, you would hope that everything is considered, but there are no guarantees on that. There are also no guarantees that another appointed business leader will not be given a brief to go through it all and “sort it out” – Gerry style. My hope is that the Council now have a chance to respond to government concerns, and show how they can develop a rail system that is both affordable and effective as part of a wider transport plan. My worry is that they won’t, and recent history suggests that might be a distinct possibility. It also seems abundantly clear that the Government does not agree with the CCC and ECan that it is desirable to increase public transport usage, this is despite the fact that even under a business as usual model public transport use in Christchurch will have to double to avoid chronic congestion. You would think the Government were smart enough to learn from history. Obviously not.
Whether rail is still a possibility at all hinges on what is exactly meant by “further consideration”. Who will consider what, and how? Ultimately, it depends on whether the Government agrees with the CCC’s views that increasing public transport use into the CBD is highly desirable, and the indications so far is that it is not the case. Nevertheless, it isn’t completely dumped, yet, but until we know what is going to happen with transport, we just don’t know what the future holds. In any case, I think we can kiss goodbye the “light rail network” as outlined, although that may have always been the intention – plus it was kind of ambiguous, and really just an indication anyway. Something may still be possible, but I imagine it will be something very much watered down for consideration, and it all depends on whether there is an opportunity given to do that. What that watered down version of a rail plan might be, well, I plan to speculate on that in the next post (probably one of my last!).
jhumm
marsoe
Been Benuane
April 25, 2012
Look; I tired to tell you all that an immediate light-rail focussed approach was the wrong way to go. It’s simply too expensive and has too low a BCR off-the-bat.
Christchurch wants rail? start with heavy rail and then work a tram system from it once it gets established. And for that to work in Christchurch they’re going to need a CBD terminus closer than the failed site at Moorhouse Avenue.
And forget al of these airy-fairy uninforemd ideas about tram-trains, because that will not happen (and Christchurch could ahve something better anyway).
MrV
April 26, 2012
Still waiting for your funding plan for a new central station in Chch Mr Benuane?
As much as I think a central station would be good, realistically Moorhouse/Colombo is probably as close as you’re going to get.
Been Benuane
April 28, 2012
Oh okay you think they can come up with money for Motorways for Christchurch but not a CBD terminus?
If the already-failed site at Moorhouse ave is as close as they can get it’s only because of the lack of pragmatism and vision in Christchurch. If there was a political will (and competency) it would happen. Instead there is this bizarre situation where despite most of the CBD being demolished people still can’t face the reality that the CBD will never be the same and want it back to how it was.
[shakes head and laughs]
Frabj
April 29, 2012
Too bad that as a country we do not seem to mind spending 1.3 billion on the rugby world cup but we do not want fork out money for some decent public transport infrastructure that will have economic, environmental and social benefits for decades to come.
bismarck
May 13, 2012
$1.3bn on the World Cup Rugby… Where did you get that figure from? If I recall the figure was something like $30 million?
MrV
May 1, 2012
@BB Haven’t you just argued against your own point. I.e. you say the CBD will never be the same. If you made Moorhouse/Colombo the transport hub would a new CBD not spring up around it, given time?
Been Benuane
May 1, 2012
Well did a new CBD spring around this busy intersection the last time?
bismarck
May 13, 2012
Been, there would be nothing wrong with a possible central rail station around the Colombo/Moorhouse corner… I frequent and efficient tram running up and down Colombo st to the city would be fine.
Been Benuane
May 18, 2012
It didn’t work last time, and that was before automobiles became much easier and more convenient.
And there’s no guarantee that a tram service would be back anyway. More likely an undesirable bus transfer. Colombo/Moorhouse simply isn’t central enough.
I really don’t understand why some Cantabs have such an aversion to any idea of a convenient CBD terminus. The city is almost a clean slate…
MrV
May 20, 2012
Nobody is saying it’s a bad idea per-se, just very difficult to FUND.
Been Benuane
May 20, 2012
So how are these plans to fund expressways for Christchurch coming along?
MrV
July 2, 2012
They seem to be getting funded quite nicely, primarily because most people think nothing of driving and spending money on roads.
For public transport to be competitve it is going to need to make the absolute most of existing infrastructure (as imperfect as it is), with minimal additional spend. Ie use exisiting rail lines as the basis of a network etc. Luckily this network already passes by many busy areas, and using some soon to be redundant Auckland rolling stock, the beginnings of a network could emerge.
Once this network is up and running attention can be focussed on areas of improvement.
Been Benuane
July 8, 2012
So how about: using the funding for those money-draining roads on a CBD terminus instead?
Ilya Snowdon
June 11, 2012
Start by building The new transport station were the current temporary bus station Is.
Instead of Creating the first light rail connection Between University and town, put a heavy rail subway up colombo street connecting to the main line (like britamart).
Then you have initial destinations like Lyttelton, Opawa, Hornby, Prebbleton, Ashburton, Papanui, Kaiapoi, Rangiora, Greymouth and Picton.
Then you can electrify the lines and then start building light rail connections into other suburbs and malls. Like Pegasus, Eastgate, riccarton and the airport.
MrV
June 13, 2012
I know it’s a nice idea, but what is the cost of twin-bore underground tunnels? Several billion probably ! Thats before you factor in the costs of dealing with Canterburys now infamous sub-surface conditions!
Been Benuane
July 8, 2012
I doubt it would cost even 500 million dollars.
Been Benuane
July 8, 2012
It wouldn’t be bored either, it would definitely be a cut-and-cover trench.
Been Benuane
July 8, 2012
I’m all for a CBD rail terminus for both commuter and LD trains. I just don’t see why it should be a subway now Christchurch’s CBD is almost a clean slate. A subway would also probably face some opposition after the Earthquakes and liquefaction too.
Just have a surface spur integrated into the surroundings like the rather attractive Jack London square station in Oakland California.
Robert Miles
September 11, 2012
Possibly a Hornby-Lyttelton railcar service with five multi unit 150 seat capacity railcars with a cost of $25 m for the railcars and $25m extra for restoring stations and begining to redevelop the Moorhouse facility. The $400 million estimate for a City -university tram link is excessive- for one thing good condition trams can be obtained second hand from Europe and 1960s era Brisbane and Melbourne trams might be used to run the service in.
The obvious way to proceed is to extend the historical tram loops from High St to the Polytehcnic and then by double track over the rail lines (opposite the reopened Moorhouse tation) to Sydneham ( reinvigourated with new shops and clubs) and take advantage of the fact that new double track tram track was installed in l951 from Sydneham to the Red Rocket at the foot of Columbo and Cashmere track. Given the allignements should be in place that 3.5 kilometres of double track should be liftable and new track put in for about $45 million and the City -Princess Margaret track and electric installation should be possible for about another $80 million.
In terms of the university link simply extend of the existing tram loop, Nth of Christs College thru the park to Moana Vale- single track fast running reservation up Fendalton Rd and a loop of Ilam Rd, University Drive and Clyde Rd with three passing loops and a 25 minute interval service to the varsity with 150 seat multiple unit trams should be installable for about $55 million.