I believe strongly that the current woes with the Council need to be sorted out. It is beneficial for the city to have a united and democratic City Council going forward, not one that is made up of appointed commissioners. While there have been some truly woeful moments from the Council of late, there have been a lot of good things too. Don’t forget the draft Central City Plan. When I read through that, I marvel at the short timeframe they turned that out in, as well as the high-quality of the document. It is a really good blueprint for the rebuilding and recovery of the city, and it was a very open, reflective, and transparent  process that it came out of. There is simply no guarantee that those type of things would continue under a Council that is made up of appointed commissioners.

That may sound fine to some people. Simply “get on with it”, is the call I hear being made by many. The problem is that the decisions that are being made now are going to have huge ramifications down the line. These are decisions that are being made that require careful thinking, analysis and planning, and rushing too much could well be the difference between Christchurch becoming a Hamilton and a Melbourne (many apologies to Hamiltonians). We are looking at long-term gains here as well as short-term ones. A quick buck or saving is not going to cut it if we want this place to prosper in the future.

Today the Council is holding a crisis meeting with Local Government Minister Nick Smith. The intention of this meeting is to get some harmony around the Council table, and to set some “ground rules”. This is a positive move, and it is good to see that the government are offering assistance rather than pulling the plug on democracy in Christchurch completely. However, I can’t help but ask where we go from here? We know that elections are supposed to be held for ECan again in 2013. I was never ECan’s biggest fan, but felt that the way the councillors were dismissed was simply wrong. Nevertheless, I think it would be a shame to simply reinstate things to the way they were without taking the opportunity to look at local government reform. For a start, I think it would be good to look at what scope there is for council amalgamation and the possibility of a unitary authority. I have my own ideas about how that might possibly look, but for now I just want to say that it should be looked into, particularly with the growing urban satellite areas in mind.

There are other things I think could be looked into as well, in addition to and in lieu of amalgamation. This includes looking into an independent transport authority. It is painful when you start to look at how things work and what has to happen to get certain public transport projects rolling along. ECan, the CCC and Waimakariri and Selwyn District Councils are all involved and hold influence over certain areas. I have always felt that there needed to be an independent Canterbury transport agency, with a close association with the CCC and District Councils. ECan’s role running public transport has never cut it with me, especially with the large rural focus and mandate it has. Public transport policy, planning and implementation should be in the charge of an urban focused and mandated agency. It would be much easier to implement such an agency if there is a kind of “Greater Christchurch Council” in existence, but in lieu of that I think that a more formalised greater Christchurch relationship between the key authorities needs to be established, perhaps at the same time as an independent transport authority being set up.

Today the PM warned that the Government would use its powers to remove any stumbling blocks to the rebuild of Christchurch. A veiled warning perhaps? I feel that the Government will only be so drastic as to replace City Councillors with commissioners should it be deemed a political advantage. At the moment, I think they know that there will simply be too much opposition to the concept, and it will be cannon fodder to Labour who will be keen to take advantage of any big issue to swing support in Christchurch back to red. Nevertheless, the Council have been doing a pretty good job of making such a move more popular among the electorate, so the outcome of today’s meeting will be of much importance.

“The challenge now is for local authorities to use these powers to free up new land. The residential red zone settlement process is progressing well.” – John Key

Other little tidbits in the PM’s announcement that rebuilding Christchurch is at the top of his priority include what seems to be a warning to local government to allow more development of greenfield land. We have seen this in Auckland as well, so there are no surprises there. Nevertheless, it is a worry as I simply do not think that the Government has the background and skill set to know how to develop and plan a city. The PM says this could potentially release 45,000 new homes. Sounds great, right? But in addition to what? The big question for me is how much could such a move compromise existing and desired long-term plans, and how much do we actually need to compromise those plans to accommodate people moving from redzones and a larger than expected influx of migrants associated with the rebuild? We seem to be jumping to one answer here, one that sounds good and gets all the “get on with it” types waving their flags, but could compromise a lot of long-term goals and positive outcomes. Like I said, the decisions that are being made now are going to have huge ramifications down the line and we must not rush all decisions, but balance pace with a careful and well thought out approach. 

The meeting between the Council members and the Local Government Minister is due to start at around 2.30pm, with a joint press conference between Bob Parker and Nick Smith to be held afterwards.

The annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey appears to be a kind of lobby tool to support relaxed land-use planning rules – or in other words, it supports policies that allow unmitigated urban sprawl. If you wanted anymore proof of that consider this:

“Co-author and Christchurch resident Hugh Pavletich said that for metropolitan areas to rate as affordable and ensure housing bubbles were not triggered, housing prices should not exceed three times gross annual household incomes.”

Hugh Pavletich is a commercial property developer, so no surprises that he backs such concepts (a quick google search brings up a lot of lobbying for sprawl).  Who wins when fringe land can be developed unhindered? More importantly, who loses? Who pays for all the infrastructure used by so few people, or the congestion that sprawling auto-dependent areas would cause?

According to the survey, the recovery in Christchurch has been delayed because authorities have failed to release affordable fringe land. I simply don’t see that as being the case. Apart from the fact that I don’t think housing affordability is actually what is ”delaying” any recovery right now, there are simply dozens of housing developments going on around Christchurch, particularly in the north-east, south-west, Selwyn and Waimakariri areas. I have never seen anything that remotely suggests that these developments can’t handle people shifting from red zones and expected population growth during the rebuild. Sure, there are possibly some issues with prices as demand goes up in some areas, but I see no link between availability and affordability overall. It appears that there is plenty of land within the metropolitan limits to develop for future growth, and there is enormous scope for urban renewal in existing suburbs. We should always be open to some tinkering of the limits where it makes sense (who is to say we got it right the first time or that situations won’t change, I guess) but they are actually there for a good reason.

Flexibility of the urban limits I feel can have some benefits, but unmitigated urban sprawl brings a lot of negative impacts onto the table, including increased infrastructure costs, increased transportation costs (in this day and age??!!), increased living costs, and overall poor planning outcomes. Urban limits were put in place for a reason, to avoid all of the above. Further, as I have already mentioned, I have yet to see any real evidence that there is a chronic shortage of land in Christchurch. Just because there is a limit in place, doesn’t mean there isn’t land that can be developed on the “fringes” (or are they more concerned with what land they can develop, and how much land they could make money off into their retirement years?). As previously noted, the evidence seems to show that there is plenty of land either currently being developed, or in the planning stages. Just look at the huge developments planned for Kaiapoi, or the Prestons and Highfield developments, or even Rolleston. Therefore, using housing affordability to justify unmitigated fringe development just does not cut it with me. Perhaps their definition of “Christchurch”, much like Statistics NZ’s, is a little more confined than reality (to suit their argument?).

I warned a while ago that the earthquake would be used by property developers to lobby for the relaxation or total abolition of urban limits. This seems to be yet another attempt to do just that. Perfect timing too as we currently have a local government crisis at hand, which makes it very easy to manipulate the issue as “just another Council cock-up”. We have good foundations in place (the Greater Christchurch UDS, the draft Central City Plan) that will serve us well in the recovery and rebuild period. Lets not mess with them too much, they were put in place for a good reason.

“…even with the loss of the 500 public servants, developers are unlikely to turn their backs on the central city. It is bound to be resettled by a substantial number of companies and their office workers because of the convenience and ambience it will offer.”

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Law firms for example, particularly big ones, are very keen to get back and get the rebuild underway. They need to be near the courts, near other law firms, and in close proximity to other key institutions and facilities that offer the kind of services that you see in any world-class city including, restaurants, bars, hotels, and decent pub. Suburban office parks don’t come close to that, and they never will. In short, our big firms need a CBD, and the rest will follow.

“…after February 22. The talk was about the parking convenience and safe habitation at the outer encampments. But over the months, opinion has changed. Many people now regard themselves as working in a semi-industrial wasteland, with no public transport and far from their homes. Memories of the advantages of working in the old central city are pleasant and strong.”

I have heard this story many times. There were initially some suggestions that we should abandon the concept of a CBD following is virtual half-destruction almost a year ago. Apparently, people liked working out in the ‘burbs, plus people overwhelmingly use their cars anyway and suburban office parks offered parking spaces in abundance. This point of view  ignored the fact that the dependence on car transportation was actually a bad thing, and not desired. The nature of these office parks makes it difficult to live in their vicinity, let alone have any kind of easy access to key facilities and services. Running errands, going for lunch or coffee, getting to work, meeting clients and so on suddenly shows up all the short comings of relying on sprawling office parks, especially for the larger, key firms. For some businesses, they may be fine, but they seem to be inadequate for the ‘bread and butter’ companies (law firms, financial institutions etc). You only have to look at other cities to see that a strong and vibrant CBD is essential.

Now, I don’t deny that creating multiple nodes around the city (‘villages’ if you will) is a good thing. In those cases though, the nodes are linked by good roads and public transport corridors, and have a mix of business, retail, and residential in and around them. They don’t sprawl but are higher density areas and are confined. They are essentially mini versions of the CBD, with strong links to the CBD and the surrounding neighborhoods. Proposals for the rebuilding of suburban centres reflects this kind of thinking. When it comes to a “decentralised” city, this is the kind of concept I think of, not sprawling and soulless office parks.

“Proximity to other offices will be useful, even in an age of electronic communications, public transport will be on offer almost at the doorstep and accommodation will be first class.”

We know that traffic is getting worse. If Christchurch wants to recover, grow, and prosper, then we have to acknowledge that the days of planning solely around the automobile as the main means of transportation are over. The final draft Central City Plan reflects that by suggesting a greater (but not total) focus on active and public transport modes. It will be the kind of thing that will attract business and people to Christchurch and Canterbury. Good public transport access to the CBD will therefore be crucial to the recovery of the CBD as well as the entire city and region.  In turn, having a recovered, successful CBD is crucial to the future of the city. Office parks simply don’t lend themselves to good public and active transport, which causes a whole bunch of obvious issues, and an over-reliance on them will simply get us nowhere.  The sooner we make a move back to being a city with a heart the better, and I sincerely believe it will happen.

This development is not entirely surprising, and ultimately shouldn’t have too much of an effect on the overall system or its future. One of the real problems with having 3 services to the airport was the timetabling – three buses turning up 15 minutes apart meant that the first to leave (the #3, which remains) would get the most passengers. The #3 Airport-Sumner also runs every 30 minutes, against the #29 and #10 once-an-hour timetables. Not surprisingly, regular services win.

For those interested in such things, the demise of the #10 has some significance as it is pretty much the successor to the former bus route number 1, which in turn was preceded by tram route 1 (Papanui-Cashmere), the busiest and last tram route to operate in Christchurch (closed 1954). How times change.

The change in services will take effect on 4 February.

Lonely Planet rightly point out some of the innovative responses since February, like the gap filler project, the container mall, and so on, and provide information on where classic eateries and bars have moved to. In particular, there is quite a lot of focus on the “SoMo” area (“South of Moorhouse Ave”), being Addington and Sydenham, where much of the bar, cafe, fashion and entertainment scenes have moved to, calling it  ”Christchurch’s most dynamic neighbourhood”.

It is certainly great to see some positive attention, and is a sign perhaps that we are on the road to recovery. It is also eye-opening to see how much is actually out there, and how interesting it all is. Definitely a far cry from “dullsville”.

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.

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!

So what were the transport milestones of 2011? Undoubtedly, the setting up of Central Station was incredibly important to the function of the existing public transport network. It might not look like it yet, but it is probably more important to the city than people realise. I really like it too, it looks good and seems to work well. Most importantly, it is working – the bus system is resembling something along the lines of normality, and patronage is recovering. It will be crucial to the reopening and initial rebuilding of the CBD, and allows a platform from which to begin improving the network.

The introduction of new bus routes has shown that Metro can adapt to the needs of a city whose form and function is currently fluid, and will likely change a number of times over the next few years. It is early days yet, and perhaps some might say it is not enough, but the fact is they have made rapid changes in very difficult circumstances, the system has come a long way from where it was (stranded like a beached whale), and patronage is on the rise.

The CCC produced a draft Central City Plan in very quick order. No matter what your ultimate view, it was a bold document and broke new ground. It proposed a very different city, built around the needs of people rather than cars – which had been asked for in the excellent “share an idea” concept. Core transport ideas included more space and safety for pedestrians, a bigger emphasis on public transport (including a rail system) and active transport (improved cycleways), removal of the one-way system and an upgrade of the avenues. A final draft was produced before Christmas, and approved by the Council.

The event that was on the tip of everyone’s tongue though was the proposal for reintroduction of rail. Not seen in the city since 1976 when the last Rangiora commuter train ran, the proposal which came out of the Central City Plan did not propose anything specific, but it did show that the Council want to use the existing heavy rail network and develop new lines to create a rapid transit network. It has not been without controversy (some people still want to develop a car-fans wet-dream) and there are differing views about how it should operate and so on, but it is early days yet. Heavy rail, light rail, tram-trains, or a combination of any of them, it simply doesn’t matter at this stage – rail is now firmly on the agenda, and that has got to be a good thing. A business case is now the next step, and this will allow such debate to be undertaken in a more informed environment.

There is a lot to look forward to in 2012. Will there be much, or any, kickback from the government on the Central City Plan? So far, the government has been cautiously supportive of the direction set by the Council – the PM even seemed to back the rail idea! The rebuilding of the city is an emotional issue, and it has been very clear that many of the core ideas of the Plan have widespread support from the community. The current government got a lot of support from Christchurch in the 2011 election, which was unprecedented for such a red city, so I imagine they will be playing their hand very carefully. That may just mean support for projects like rail may be forthcoming, but it is by no means guaranteed from this road/sprawl-loving government.

The rail business case will get underway during 2012. This may mean we get drip-fed further details and some rough concepts, or at least I hope that will be the case. If this happens it will certainly stir up a lot of debate, and get a lot of interesting discussion going. I for one can’t wait, and am just happy to see this finally getting some legs.

We should also see some further progress to improving the bus network during 2012. As the city starts to settle there may be further responses; new routes, further changes to existing routes and so on. We may even start to see some progress in areas that have been on hold. Perhaps implementation of the proposed changes to Northern Star services? Bus priority? Suburban interchanges? Metrocard improvements? One thing is for sure, expect something to happen.

Another key milestone to occur during 2012 will be the reopening of the tramway. Indications are that this will include the mostly built extensions that were supposed to open last year – although how possible that might be remains to be seen. The Central City Plan proposes reevaluating the role of the heritage tramway within the public transport system, so I say get on with it and reduce the fare and allow the metrocard to be used on it. It might be a good way to spur growth in the reopened CBD, and once the extension is opened it will link up a number of the “hubs”. In anycase, it will be a significant milestone.

I can’t forget the roads in all this. First, we have the repairs to damaged roads and bridges which should start to see some significant progress during 2012. Then we have the RoNS. CSM1 will be nearing completion, and we should see further progress on CSM2 and the SH1 four-laning to Rolleston. We should also see further progress on the Western Corridor, including the Memorial Ave flyover, as well as the Northern Motorway extension towards the city. We might even find out further details on the new RoNS for north and south of Christchurch – I am picking they will be the proposed extension of the Northern Motorway to bypass Woodend, and improvements to SH1 through Rolleston (grade separation?) and/or four-laning of SH1 beyond Rolleston.

So 2012 is a year of much promise. I , for one, am looking forward to it, and am pretty confident we will see a lot of amazing things happening over the next 12 months. 2011 can go on the scrap heap. I do wonder what things will look like when Christmas 2012 comes around. Will I be shaking my head in disbelief or will I look back on where we were as I write this and be shocked at what has been achieved. I hope it is the later.

As you can see I am now back from holiday. Hope all who read this blog have had a safe and happy time over the last few weeks.

For the last few days I have been pouring my eyes over the final draft Central City Plan. Due to being unwell, I just haven’t had the time to put together the series of posts I really wanted to but, before I go away on holiday, I have decided to take a look at the rail sections and have a look at what has changed, where we are at, and where we are going with it – mainly because I know that is what most people who read this blog are likely to be interested in. In the new year I plan to take a look at other areas such as buses, cycling and walking, and the road system as well as analyse the rail proposal in a lot more detail. In the meantime, make sure you check out the final draft Plan here (it is worth checking out the appendices, they are actually much more interesting than the plan itself).

What has been produced on rail in the final draft is really a vision only, although it is now slightly less vague than the earlier draft. It looks like some things have been set straight (ish), such as the strange lack of reference to Rangiora or Rolleston in the initial proposals, and more about the type and nature of the system. The next steps from here are a $4 million two-part feasibility study/business case which will go ahead from 2012 – a study for the system, and a study for the first stage (which is now no longer necessarily the line to the University). $400 million is still set aside for that first stage, whatever it will eventually be (that is probably to be decided in the first part of the study).

STUDY Stage 1
The initial phase of the study is focussed on the production of a Preliminary Business Case study for presentation to central government. This will be informed by the interpretation of the Treasury’s Better Business Case analysis approach and explore the potential role of a Christchurch rail system to support the regeneration, business and economic growth stimuli for the Christchurch and sub-regional economy. The terms of reference for such an analysis will be a matter for early agreement between Council, CERA, NZ Transport Agency, Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Economic Development, Environment Canterbury and, as appropriate, the UDS partnership and possibly KiwiRail.

A key dimension of this initial study, which later studies will only progress based on positive outcomes, will be an early understanding of potential synergies between land use developments and redevelopment and alignment with rail route and hub (station) opportunities. An additional issue for early exploration will be the potential for innovative funding opportunities, such as private/public sector funding partnership opportunities.

My hope is that the CCC learn from the Auckland inner-city rail link business case debacle. It looks like their approach is playing to the rules of the key players, so there is hope. The message I am getting from this is that the CCC are willing to be flexible to get what they want from the get-go. That can be both a good and bad thing!

STUDY Stage 2
Once the outcomes of the preliminary business case study are confirmed (Stage 1), positive results would lead to a more detailed feasibility study examining the possibilities for system design, construction, operation and maintenance of a light rail/commuter rail system on a notional five Christchurch/Greater Christchurch corridors

Key outputs would likely include but not be confined to:

• Review of 2011 CCC outline corridor studies
• Examination of the need for corridor protection
• Consideration of appropriate mode/rapid transit systems along each corridor
• Consideration of the route(s) and stop/hub locations
• Relationships with existing and possible future land uses
• Consideration of routes to and through the Central City and need for appropriate corridor protection
• Further analysis of the total potential re-generational impacts of each corridor, along with an overview of the regeneration impacts of the corridors combined on the Central City, and implications for appropriate phasing/staging of system delivery
• Patronage estimates, with and without future re-generational land use changes
• Consideration of the rolling stock/vehicle requirements and projected timetable operation
• Examination of the extent to which changes to planning rules/regulations can assist Transit-oriented development
• A review of funding and business case considerations identified in Project Stage 1 as a result of aforementioned outputs
• Associated traffic engineering, management and parking implications – corridor by corridor
• Links to other modes, especially integration with bus networks existing and future
• Potential governance models for system development, delivery and operational management once operational
• Further comparable best practice examples (or otherwise) that can help inform sound decision-making
• Examination of the extent to which the proposed system will correspond to Council and Government policy, such as Connecting New Zealand, Regional Land Transport Strategy, CERA Land, Building and Recovery Plan

Once the above are determined (and assuming positive outcomes) then it would be possible to move to STUDY
Stage 3 (STAGE A SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT) of the project, which would likely be the Build, Operate, Maintain
phase for a Stage A Christchurch rail system, as set out in the Draft Governance structure

The over-arching deliverables of this project are likely to be:

• A preliminary business case study for delivery to central government as the key deliverable from Stage 1 of the study project
• Studies of notionally five Individual corridors, taking account of the issues itemised in the project description
• Determination of operating model, i.e. rail-based transport versus traditional bus-based public transport
• Determination of appropriate funding, system procurement and governance models for a successful system
• An updated business case taking into account the findings of the corridor studies

While it is recognised that large parts of each notional corridor are located outside of the Central City, each
of the above study elements will be expected to reflect the principles of the Central City Plan and the CERA
Building and Infrastructure Recovery Plan

Additionally for the Central City, detailed transportation and related project objectives will include:

• Transport safety in the Central City is improved, especially for walking and cycling
• Central City (and Regional Land Transport Strategy) targets and objectives for travel choice, notably increased use of public transport, walking and cycling and for trips to and within the Central City
• Any rail-based system will achieve maximum synergies with bus-based public transport systems;
• The Central City has increased access, connectivity and legibility for all users
• Existing and new open spaces in the Central City are vibrant, popular and used
• Central City residents and workers can access a wide range of services and connect within local neighbourhoods

It is clear, from the get go, that the section on “commuter rail” (or “light rail” – they really do seem to be using the two terms intermittently) is about establishing a need to look at how rail can play a role in the transport system, rather than making a solid proposal. Nevertheless, it is less vague than the initial draft Plan, providing a lot more detail on the type of system that they do vision. There are clearly two types of lines (“existing/heavy rail” and “new/light rail”), and the current view seems to be to fully integrate them, possibly utilising tram-train technology. Below is a new indicative map of a possible rail system for greater Christchurch:

They have clearly differentiated between services on existing lines to Lyttelton, Rangiora, and Rolleston and those that will be new to the Airport, New Brighton, and through the Central City. The key is a little confusing but seems to be a communication error as in the appendices the map’s key is labelled “new lines” and “existing rail”. The nature of the lines is explained in this excerpt from the appendices:

Why Rolleston and Rangiora are in brackets, I do not know (perhaps because they are outside the CCC’s jurisdiction?). It looks like the line from Rangiora would utilise the Main North Line for most of its length, only undertaking street running to access the CBD (hence the reference to Fendalton). I think that is the best option, and have always been against the whole “put light rail/tram-trains down Papanui Rd” view, especially when the rail line can be taken advantage of until Riccarton Rd. The two lines with majority on-street running are the new ones, of course. Some segregation might be possible, perhaps something similar to bus lanes, while some sections, such as along Memorial Ave toward the Airport, and along Ensors/Pages Rd toward New Brighton, might have room for a fully segregated corridor. I think there is going to have to be a major rethink on the form of some key roads though, especially Riccarton Rd. A difficult, but not impossible task, and one that could have plenty of positive implications for the local area.

Something else worth commenting on is that it is becoming increasing clear, to me at least, that the heritage tram line is considered a completely separate entity. I don’t think it is at all proposed that it form part of the light-rail proposal, rather like how Portland’s streetcar line is separate from the MAX light rail system. That would kind of take care of the “gauge issue” as well as any other issues like tight corners or lack of segregation.

Indicative costings for the five line system are given, which comes out in total to $1.72b. When you consider this is likely to be phased, and amount to about 80-90km of route length, it isn’t too bad. In terms of whether it is value for money, I don’t think any conclusions can be made until the business case is finalised. We still don’t really know what kind of system might be put forward as a final proposal, and therefore it is hard to judge its effectiveness.

An interesting part of the appendices is the examples of international and local best practice to follow, or bad examples not to follow. It gives a good insight into the thinking going on and what kind of systems and concepts they are looking to learn from and adapt for local use. Karlsruhe is in there, as the birth place of the tram-train, with the lesson to be learnt that “the use of cutting edge technology (in this case the rolling stock design) can assist in overcoming technical problems.” Portland is in there as an example of the regenerational implications of light rail. Edinburgh is in there as a bad example. Auckland was there too, but confusingly had this to say:

This seems a little odd. First, light rail has not been developed from heavy rail in Auckland (they have always had a heavy rail network with commuter services, which has been developed immensely in recent years – with electrification and new trains to come – and extended underground closer into the CBD). It also means the comment about gauge is redundant. What is being proposed here for Christchurch, even if it is just a vision, has never been done in New Zealand before. Ever. This seems like a silly oversight, but one they can ill afford to make. When the business case comes around, they will have to be well on top of it and can’t afford mistakes like this. Nevertheless, it is a very good point about the risks of over developing a road network without developing an adequate public transport network. Have I not bored you to death using Auckland as an example of that?

To me, the big news out of all of this is that a business case is to be put forward. That is the message being sent here. That study will put something solid on the table, from which a first stage can be cut. While there is a strong indication that the CCC view the idea of tram-trains very favourably, I must stress that this isn’t set in concrete, and the Plan itself seems to go out of its way to communicate this. A lot can change between now and when the business case is finalised. This Plan merely sets the scene that Christchurch is serious about rail being a part of the city’s new transport solutions, while giving an indication of the way they intend to do it if it continues to prove a cost-effective solution. Who knows, perhaps the existing heavy rail lines and the proposed new lines (which more fit the bill of “light rail”) may be segregated should the concept of running the two together as one inter-operable system prove too costly or difficult. As I have already mentioned, other modes may come into the mix, especially with the two new corridors. On the other hand, it may be entirely possible to integrate the existing heavy rail lines into the proposed light-rail system via the application of tram-train technology. I guess that is what the business case is all about, and I await it pretty eagerly (even if I have to wait until 2013!).

Anyway, I hope you all have a great Christmas and a happy new year. I plan on taking some time off from updating this blog, spending time with family and friends and doing a little bit of travel. After my return I will look at the final draft in more detail, initially looking at the other (non-rail) areas. Until then.

Ecan believe that this has a lot to do with recent improvements such as Central Station, new routes, and the reintroduction of key cross-town routes. The reopening of Cashel Mall has also probably had an impact, as I imagine going by bus, particularly on weekends, would be quite a stress-free way of getting there.

Revenue recovery is currently at 35 percent (for November) which means that it is slowly moving back up to the 50 percent threshold put in plave by the NZ Transport Agency. This is promising, and it will be quite a milestone when it is reached.

I have said plenty of times that the first step is to get the public transport network back to, or close to, “normal”. I think we are not far off from that happening really, and the reopening of the core of the CBD in April coupled with a move further toward that 50 percent farebox recovery threshold should get us there. Well, as close as can be reasonable expected given the circumstances.