This is a guest post by Brendon Harre. It’s the fourth and final part in a series about Christchurch, it’s history, and what needs to change to fix it’s transport woes and this part has been published on Brendon’s medium.
You can read part one here, part two here, and part three here.
Christchurch is the largest city in Australia or New Zealand without a mass transit system. A critical question is how long the city will wait for a modern transit system.
Christchurch is experiencing congestion as described in the paper Christchurch’s Roads Are As Fast As They Will Ever Get. It has the slowest 10km distance driving time of New Zealand’s towns and cities. Currently the time to travel this distance is increasing by 20 seconds a year. Over the space of a few years this is not a significant problem. In five to ten years’ time this will be a serious problem that should have a planned remedy. If it is not fixed for twenty or thirty years, then this is the sort of problem that will be devastating to the continued success of the city.
The fundamental solution to road congestion is to give people better choices than driving. If more people can use alternative transport options, then those people who have to drive will face less crowded roads.
Not many people are aware of Christchurch’s multi-modal transport past but a deep dive into Christchurch transport milestones shows the structural bones of the city was built around street running trams integrated with the main rail corridors of the city. Even to this day many workplaces, schools and other significant destinations are near this rail corridor. I think the underlying structural bones of the city is a good indicator of what form its future transit system should take.
Recently Environment Canterbury (ECan) voted to approach KiwiRail to assist in preparing a business case for a Rangiora to Rolleston passenger rail service.
Councillor Joe Davies moved the motion, which was passed unanimously by councillors. He said a Rangiora to Rolleston service would be ‘‘an easy win’’, compared to the proposed mass rapid transit rail service in Christchurch, as the infrastructure is already in place. ‘‘We can’t wait 20 or 30 years; we need it in five to 10 years. ‘‘There’s a corridor already in place so there would be significantly lower set up costs compared to the mass rapid transit proposal, and this is an opportunity to link Rangiora and Rolleston to the city.’’
The proposed route covers 54.7km and links Rolleston and Rangiora with central Christchurch and serves 13 stations.
John MacDonald from Canterbury Newstalk ZB had a supportive take on the Rolleston to Rangiora rail proposal, saying.
ECAN is showing that it’s thinking about the future, which is exactly the kind of thing I want to see not just from ECAN, but all our councils.
Tell that to Waimakariri MP Matt Doocey, though.
He’s saying today: ‘Rather than coming up with pie in the sky motions, ECAN should focus on reducing rates which have rapidly increased – putting more pressure on ratepayers in a cost-of-living crisis.’’
Compare that to the likes of ECAN councillor Joe Davies who is saying we can’t wait 20 or 30 years, and we need a solution in the next five to ten years.
He says: ‘There’s a corridor already in place so there would be significantly lower set-up costs, and this is an opportunity to link Rangiora and Rolleston to the city.’’
So, he sees opportunity. Matt Doocey sees obstacles.
ECAN sees opportunity and is doing something about it, which is the approach I want to see a lot more of from our local councils.
Unfortunately, not all of Christchurch’s significant destinations are near the Rolleston to Rangiora rail corridor. The university with its 25,000 students is not on the corridor, neither is the main hospital which is the largest employer in Canterbury and nor is the city centre itself. So, ultimately it will make sense to connect those significant destinations using an integrated tram and train network like the city has done in the past. Something like the light rail loop depicted below.
If the rail corridor is built first, then initially a high frequency bus service between Canterbury University and the city with stops at the rail corridor and hospital should provide the connection to those significant destinations. Thus, the first steps of a MRT network could be delivered relatively quickly and quite simply. When additional capacity is required then the high frequency bus services can be upgraded to light rail which can carry more passengers per vehicle. This would be like the proposed phase one of the MRT service, except the Riccarton end would go to the University not Church Corner.
Light rail in Christchurch when it is needed should be much simpler and less costly to build than what was proposed in Auckland or Wellington. As it doesn’t require tunnelling, and it could be built in stages.
Eventually the light rail corridor could be expanded into a circle. The length of this proposed loop is similar to the Helsinki Light rail scheme. Which is an arc not a circle and takes about an hour to travel end to end. A Christchurch light rail loop as depicted above with vehicles travelling in both directions would mean that nowhere on the circle is further than 30 minutes away, and most destinations would be significantly less than that.
Hopefully Ecan will get commuter rail between Rolleston and Rangiora up and running in the next five to ten years. If the central government politicians in Wellington find Canterbury’s missing transport funding (the region consistently pays more into the National Land Transport Fund/NZTA Waka Kotahi than it receives back in transport funding), then there is the money available to do it.
In the medium to long term for New Zealand cities to properly implement modern transit systems in my opinion they will require a new and better type of collective organisation with a transit focus. This organisation(s)will need its own specific infrastructure funding tools. KiwiRail with its freight focus is not adequate. Neither is NZTA Waka Kotahi with its state highway building history and its main infrastructure funding tool being sourced from motor vehicles.
Both Auckland and Wellington have existing transit schemes yet are struggling to expand their networks. Both transit systems have quality issues, such as, a large amount of out of service delays and cancellations. So, the existing transit provision model of local councils partnering with NZTA and KiwiRail has not delivered good outcomes. Especially as it has required a series of ‘one-off’ ad hoc funding injections from central government, which itself faces in the coming decades a tightening fiscal budget due to the pressures of an aging population. New Zealand could do better.
There are overseas transport funding models that New Zealand could and should copy. For instance, urban planner George Weeks, in a video titled art of the possible – shows how French cities funded the rebirth of mothballed tram services in ways that stimulated urban development and increased the number of city residents who could access significant destinations in a timely manner. This included some French cities that are much smaller than Christchurch.
This paper started out investigating why Greater Christchurch’s roads are getting slower, but it has ended up talking about Christchurch the hero. The city has faced challenges, the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes, and the missing transport funding in the 2020s, have been particularly bad. Going forward if congestion is not address due to underfunding city building infrastructure this could be devastating. Yet despite these challenges 1 in 10 people have chosen to live in the city. This is not the 1 in 3 people who choose to live in Auckland or the 1 in 2 people who live north of Taupo, but 1 in 10 New Zealanders is not nothing.
In a good tale, the hero triumphs over the villain. It is my hope that Christchurch overcomes its challenges. New Zealand cannot afford for a large chunk of its population to be unsuccessful. New Zealand needs all its cities to succeed.
This post, like all our work, is brought to you by the Greater Auckland crew and made possible by generous donations from our readers and fans. If you’d like to support our work, you can join our circle of supporters here, or support us on Substack!
Processing...
Great work Brendan- thanks for the insightful stories
Your welcome.
I have being away from Christchurch so long that I can hardly recognise it. However a bus route from the Central city to the airport via the hospital and the university seems like a good idea. But I imagine they already have that. The train from Rangiora to Rolleston would be equally logical as the tracks already exist. However a large upgrade would be required if anything more frequent than an hourly train each way was deemed necessary. Still we need to start somewhere. Te Huia has 2 return services per day perhaps that is how it should be started.
Rolleston to Rangiora would be a great start using battery electric trains with station based or specify section recharging. But oh dear, Matt Doocey, all the vision of a wet blanket.
Thanks for writing this series Brendon.
I don’t live in Christchurch but have used public transport there more times than most residents.
I have a Metrocard which was sent to me in Auckland.
https://www.metroinfo.co.nz/metrocard-and-fares/where-to-buy/
Relatively few people (and voters) in Christchurch, and NZ as a whole, use public transport. That means it’s not expedient for politicians to support big public transport projects.
In Auckland, we have three determined individuals (one not a politician) to thank for the rail network surviving, Waitematā Station (Britomart) being built, and the City Rail Link getting started. (Obviously many other people were involved too.)
Maybe Christchurch too needs a politician/s to champion public transport if it is ever to get a major transit upgrade.
Thanks for the great post Brendan. Rail in Canterbury absolutely makes sense to me, but I’m having a hard time categorizing the actual building of a service as anything but a subsidy to the residents of Selwyn and Waimakariri. My instinct is that the way this would play out in NZ, a huge amount of public money would be spent, and the benefits would mostly go to private landowners who would see their property values increase if they are close to a station.
Still, better than adding more motorway capacity for diminishing returns. If we must play the game of subsidizing sprawl, rail has the advantage over motorways of not completely ruining cities.
For what it’s worth, my preference for funding model would rely on some capture of the increase in the value of land created by a new rail line. This is how the railway barons did it, and it is because it makes economic sense. We need to get a good deal out of our infrastructure, otherwise it is just another way of public money making its way into the private hands of whoever is lucky enough to benefit directly.
Check out land readjustment as done Japan TomD. I briefly describe this land value capture method in the latest edited version of my article on medium. See details below.
Some comments:
a) Chch is a low density almost circular city well served by radials and an orbital bus route.
b) On top of the existing bus lanes, just about every other bus route in Chch needs bus lanes added to better service the existing population layout.
c) The rail system should then be added (designate for double tracking as needed). This would allow:
i) TODs
ii) Congestion tolls
iii) Park n Ride
iv) The north to east connection to be reestablished
v) An underground CBD tunnel eventually
d) Under an RMA framework I struggle to see how the proposed Metro light rail will work. It will be very difficult to force development along the corridor when many buildings haven’t yet reached the end of their economic life and Selwyn & Waimak Districts are natural escape routes for development. Traffic management along the already most congested streets in Chch (Papanui Rd & Riccarton Rd) for the Metro will also be very challenging.
In fairness I think getting development around the existing rail network would be even harder.
I agree though, the battle to get any meaningful light rail clearway on Riccarton Rd and Papanui Rd would be just as tough as Dominion Rd.
Rail is easy really. You just have to find a whole bunch of people who all want to go to the same place, who all want start their trip at the same place, and who all want to go at the same time. Then you have to find several thousand times that number of people who want to pay for their trip for them.
it’s crazy they haven’t figured out how to put train stations between the start and end of a rail line, oh well maybe one day
Yeah. It’ll never catch on.
It catches on every time elected people decide that everyone else should subsidise travel for the well off. Regressive taxes are popular in many cities.
already do that with roading infrastructure. i suppose you want dirt tracks everywhere, zero maintenance needed
I reject that premise, but also note that it frees up congestion on the roads, per the framing of the OP, which is great for mr and ms hoi-polloi.
Aviation is easy really. You just have to find a whole bunch of people who all want to go to the same place, who all want start their trip at the same place, and who all want to go at the same time. Then you have to find several thousand times that number of people who want to help subsidise their trip for them through ratepayer and taxpayer airport expansion, not charging GST on many flights and not having international aviation as part of the ETS.
You may remember Miffy that Canterbury is a region that doesn’t get back its transport user pay charges. If we did there would be the funding available to build MRT. I detail this aspect when.ai edited my piece. But unfortunately it didn’t make the cut for this GA article. Please follow the link I provide below for the details.
I usually have mixed feelings about rearranging bureaucratic deck chairs these days. Through maybe, it’s time for stand alone pubic transport agency and funding being managed by The Ministry of Transport even though it’s to give them some more to do because let’s honest what useful thing have they done since traffic policing and the MetService were spin out from it?
I think NZ needs capable transit focused organisations with their own infrastructure funding tools. I outline the rationale in the edited version of my article as detailed below.
Thanks GA for publishing this work. I have updated this last section quite significantly but it didn’t make the cut. Issues like land value capture and improved funding models were better discussed.
You can check these thoughts out on my medium website.
https://brendon-harre.medium.com/christchurchs-roads-are-as-fast-as-they-will-ever-get-7cbe7d66d757
Scroll down to the section titled
Christchurch transit where are we at?
Urban metro passenger rail services between Ranigora, Burhham and Darflied and possibly to Lyttleton would a better option with interconnecting light rail or high frequency bus loop.
This would be backed up with frequent Waipara to Timaru regional passenger rail services.
Fantastic news for of the week for Cantabs and happy for them!!!! Finally a Heavy Rail project in the waiting in NZ for funding! Funding EMU Heavy Rail correct choice for future of Christchurch’s rapid transit systems! Correct mode choice, so Heavy Rail passenger service can be further extend to Ashburton and even to Timaru in-future! Far too many Cantabs battling long commutes to work during peak without rapid transit which bypasses general traffic during peak hrs and weekends meaning lesser ‘Quality of life’ as a result! Heavy Rail will completely bring better ‘Quality of life’ for Cantabs and meaning Canterbury has opportunity to open up ‘fast long distance Heavy Rail service’ to & from Christchurch!
The Christchurch Heavy Rail station should be based beside where Environment Canterbury (ECan) building and current Christchurch Bus interchange is currently located and have current streets converted into Heavy Rail designated corridors. Current streets that should be converted to Heavy Rail lines option 1: Tuam ST, Hagley AVE & trenched Riccarton AVE with walkable overhead bridge for park goers to cross over the line, option 2: Colombo ST.
As for Hornby – Belfast rapid transit, that should become a Busway not any form of MRT which requires it to be overhead communities and doesn’t make the area look ‘nicer’! Would become a ‘blight’ for Cantabs if MRT existed in Christchurch. MRT would encourage crime offences due to lighting underneath of the overhead rail and enclosed walkable which makes it ‘sketchy’ area for communities affected underneath MRT. Building a Busway like Eastern Busway in Auckland would be more appropriate for Christchurch since it looks ‘nicer’ and won’t have to worry about ‘blight’. If a Busway existed, Cantabs would be better off than MRT, be able to have other ‘bus numbers’ using the busway as quicker means of driving to other transfer stations and shopping centres. Instead of buses sharing road with general traffic during peak hrs and weekends. When buses commute through general traffic sharing with private vehicles, they get congested and commute times are longer. With a Busway included Cantab, will be better off, no bus stuck in congestion and commute time reduce by at least half or more! A busway is perfect utilisation! Building a Busway for Hornby – Belfast would be more practically ideal!
if beautifying the suburbs is your concern, grass tracked light rail would be even better than an asphalt busway
Christchurch won’t be going back to shity outdated PT that runs 50km/h slow in this case light tram! That’s a promise! Light tram won’t allow local/frequent bus routes use the corridor when needed. The corridor requires multiple local/frequent ‘bus numbers’ onto the corridor. Light tram won’t be able to provide let buses share corridor, only Busway the solution! Light tram wrong step for Christchurch! And also don’t need a vanity collection for ‘mode enthusiast’s out there!!!!
oh so you’re going to convert local streets to 80km/h highways for your busway, then?
also you are going to be so surprised that light rail systems can run at the same speed as a bus; up to 80-90km/h. But you don’t want to let facts stand in the way of your mode fetishism for heavy rail and buses, i guess
“local streets to 80km/h“
That’s a huge exaggeration! Riccarton RD/Main South RD and Papanui ST are ‘main corridors’ to getting into Christchurch CBD.
Light tram goes 50 km/h with compulsory stops of waiting a min or two mins just so door is shut and ready for next station within 400-500 m of each other to include waits at busy intersection meaning wait at traffic lights. Which is considered really slow and not mobile! While a bus goes can go 100km/h on a dedicated busway for buses doesn’t face compulsory stops at each station and can go pass unless passenger at station waves hand to driver or somebody inside bus presses ‘bus stopping’. Meaning less stoppages more time saved for commuters and less time commuting! Also bus wouldn’t face traffic light stoppage as much like with light tram since light tram includes its own traffic light system like with a regulars train.
okay so you’re going to turn houses or roads into this 100km/h magic busway, wonderful. you haven’t thought this through at all.
also, you clearly aren’t aware that the Eastern Busway has a 50km/h speed limit since it is an urban busway with at-grade intersections.
how much property acquisition do you think you would need to build busway of yours, hmm? Especially if you want this 100km/h speed limit, you’re going to need motorway type alignment, wide curves etc.. How will that fit into Christchurch’s urban fabric? how will that efficiently replace the current frequent bus network which HAS frequent ~400m spaced stops?
putting light rail in its own dedicated right-of-way would allow it to go exactly the same speed as buses on a busway, btw. here’s a video of light rail in San Diego doing ~80km/h https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PFGQF7Jer7E
all your reasons against light rail are regurgitated myths that assume the only type of light rail is a MOTAT tram in mixed traffic. light rail CAN have dedicated tracks separate from traffic, like a bus, and the tracks can be set in grass instead of concrete for more environmentally friendliness, green space and better natural stormwater drainage. light rail CAN have signal pre-emption and its own traffic lights that mean it never has to wait at intersections. light rail overseas has 30 second dwell times, 800m spaced stops, and can be built for the same price as a quality busway. everything you say about light rail is a biased lie.
“how much property acquisition do you think you would need to build busway of yours, ”
Same as what you’d get with light tram! What a stupid question, delirious…. Let’s leave the modified outdated PT mode out of NZ from existing and not create more vanity collectors enthusiast PT mode item.
“all your reasons against light rail are regurgitated myths that assume the only type of light rail is a MOTAT tram”
You’re outdated modified type of light tram! Outdated PT mode that’s not adequate to function in NZ cities. Yes outdated modified type of light tram travels 50 km/h in places like Melbourne & Sydney with 400-500m station stops apart, to include general traffic lights, ‘specialised light tram signal’. Also modified light tram shares road and doesn’t share road on motorways. While a bus doesn’t have a ‘specialised signal’ to deal with. The buses wouldn’t be faced with stops after stops since passengers only need to press ‘bus stopping’ whenever like to stop at station or passenger at station waves to driver at each station unlike your light tram with instant deceleration to acceleration after stopping at each station and idling for 1-2 mins each station with potential ‘specialised signal’ red light along the way to deal with and general traffic lights that share road of private vehicles. Buses don’t have issue with your 45 degree “wide curves” with speed consistent without needing to decelerate and apply any breaking. Light Tram would require slower speed approaching to deter heavy breaking for passengers standing & sitting while 45 degree for light tram turns and needing to decelerate and accelerate when turn finished, like trains do! Light tram gets wheel inspections cause of vibrations to wheels for 45 degree turns due to rear and tear. Same applies for trains. Also buses/busways don’t have issues with what Christchurch needs would be more beneficial for the community of Canterbury, fast, greater utilisation and versatile! We don’t need to be bringing Aussie ideas, let’s leave their ideas in Aussie and let them create more crime and silver plated ideas!
“800m spaced stops”
That’s terrible when comparing to a bus, which results commuters missing important potential business areas or corridors cause of light modified tram outdated mode of PT which have a bus on corridor, meaning riding bus better and building busway better! Whist that you’re lying about “spaced stops” and say that it be 400-500m each station apart for Dominion RD and even say 800m for Dominion RD every station apart. Which is it, can only be one! meaning Heavy Rail only solution in Auckland!
so you just stuck your fingers in your ears and went “LALALALALALA” like a tantruming child because i disproved your claims?
How about some more proof? This video shows that Auckland’s heavy rail in fact has far slower door opening and closing and station dwell times than the New York Subway, the Singapore metro, and the Bordeaux light rail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey1e-Dr52Pg
Here’s the light rail in Tampere, Finland, going around a 45 degree corner with ease just as fast as a car or a bus. Your claim that they can’t is once again nonsense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gctPewIG6u8
Whist that you’re lying about “spaced stops” and say that it be 400-500m each station apart for Dominion RD and even say 800m for Dominion RD every station apart. Which is it, can only be one!
HAHAHAHA, oh you poor thing, you don’t understand anything about walkable catchments. Let’s break it down together:
– 400 metres is about a 5 minute walking distance. 800 metres is about a 10 minute walking distance. Therefore this is a good metric for the walkable catchment of public transport stations/stops
– Light rail stations 800 metres apart means that along the route you will never be further than 400 metres from a station. Someone living halfway between two stations will be able to walk to either of them in 5 minutes.
– This is good for inner city and inner suburbs with high population density and dense development. Because they are closer to the city speed is not the most important thing anymore.
This post by GreaterAuckland shows why light rail is better for dense urban routes closer to the inner city, like Dominion Road. Many more people within a 5 minutes walk of a station than with the wider, more expensive underground station spacing of heavy rail; combine light rail with apartment redevelopment and there’s even more people with easy, accessible, frequent mass transit on their doorstep.
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/LRT-Walking-Catchment-analysis.jpg
The same goes for Christchurch. 800 metre station spacing is an optimal balance of maximum walkable catchment with 50-70km/h speeds, and thus suitable for urban mass transit like light rail and the Eastern Busway.
here’s trams and buses in London taking the same 90 degree turn at comparable speeds – oh, and what’s this? A modern tram stopping for only 15 seconds at a station?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd2LkOtp7pI
here’s a fast, modern light rail going as fast as a heavy rail…
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hcrfJ6N9_jE
…modern low-floor light rail in Paris running just like a heavy rail train…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4DrE89nhV0
Well clearly unfortunately, you don’t care about health& safety of commuters
The distance between the wheels (wheelbase) and the track gauge (distance between rails) can affect a light tram’s ability to navigate sharp curves.
Light Trams are long vehicles, and when turning, the rear of the tram swings outward, potentially encroaching on adjacent lanes or even striking objects! While trams are designed to stay on the tracks, the combination of tight curves, speed, and other factors can increase the risk of derailment. In tight corners, the tram’s length and turning radius can pose hazards to pedestrians and cyclists, particularly if they are unaware of the tram’s movement. Also too the trams in Christchurch have suffered derailment before previously in the past!
oh you poor thing, so desperate to cling onto your delusions about light rail.
clearly they must have addressed concerns about light rail’s turning capabilities, because there are nearly 400 cities around the world using tram or light rail systems!
and again, i emphasise. Newly built Light Rail would get its own right of way even when running down roads. A central median with tracks set in grass and protected by kerbs stops cars getting in the way. Traffic light preemption makes sure the lights are always green when the light rail trains approach an intersection. Functionally the same as an urban busway like the Eastern Busway; 60km/h speeds, dedicated separate lanes from car traffic.
you pose technical questions like they’re a deal breaker for light rail, yet you happily turn a blind eye to the operational deficiencies of Auckland’s heavy rail system (remember the huge closures, the speed restrictions, the Britomart derailment in 2018?), or the spiralling costs and deferment of Stage 4 in the Eastern Busway. There is no perfect mode; only ones that best fit what’s needed, balancing transport needs with costs.
and before you call me a hypocrite – no, i am not blanket against heavy rail or busways. i am against the anti-light rail ideology and religious devotion to heavy rail that ignores or denies its drawbacks.
Heavy rail would be quicker to set up in Christchurch than the MRT for service to Rolleston and Rangiora; possibly Lyttelton as well.
It could be a contender for Onehunga–Auckland Airport, depending on the cost of double-tracking Penrose–Onehunga. This is the only reasonable heavy rail extension to Auckland’s rail network, because it means you could run a simple 2-line high frequency rail network as follows:
– Swanson to Auckland Airport via CRL, Newmarket, Onehunga; every 7 minutes (8-9TPH) at peak, every 10 minutes (6TPH) off-peak.
– Pukekohe to Manukau via Newmarket, CRL, Panmure; every 7 minutes (8-9TPH) at peak, every 10 minutes (6TPH) off-peak.
of course you can then add on extra routes as needed, like a crosstown pattern via the Avondale-Southdown line, or Southern Line express services terminating at Waitematā/Britomart. But the core of the network should be no more than two lines, so trains to Swanson, Auckland Airport, Pukekohe, and Manukau can run at least every 10 minutes off-peak, and at least every 7.5 minutes at-peak (potentially up to every 5 minutes) off peak. That means no more branching services.
The North Shore and Northern Busway are NOT suited for heavy rail. The busway is too steep and too lightly constructed for easy conversion to heavy rail. Light rail and light metro can handle the 5-6% gradient between Sunnynook and Constellation station and have axle loadings closer to buses. Light metro can move the same number of people as heavy rail. There is nothing wrong with having a new standalone rail system separate from our current 1067mm gauge heavy rail.
A busway will be sufficient for the Auckland Airport–Puhinui–Manukau–Botany corridor in terms of capacity. Motorway express buses using shoulder lanes, and pop-up busways/bus lanes mean you can improve bus service for low cost.
The thing is once you’re having to spend light rail type money to build an expensive overengineered busway like the Eastern Busway – you might as well build light rail with green grass tracks that act as natural stormwater drains; get higher capacity, futureproofing, and a nicer streetscape.
Also FYI, as a common reference, there were 0.03 deaths per track kilometre and 3.33 injuries per track kilometre for light rail and trams in Australia over 2016-2024.
Over the same period there were 0.02 deaths per track kilometre and 0.023 injuries per track kilometre for the ENTIRE 36,000km Australian rail network; including the large stretches of rural lines through the outback. Cut that down to just the urban rail networks in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, and Adelaide (~3000km of track instead of 36,000km), where the majority of deaths would take place, and the rate of deaths and injuries per track km will increase. So i think it’s fair to say Light Rail is no more dangerous than Heavy Rail.
“oh you poor thing, so desperate to cling onto your delusions“
Actually lookout for Christchurch residents more like! They don’t want their city being trashed to become a ‘high crime’ city and be easier place to commit crime! Becomes easier to commit crime since private vehicles can’t cross other side of track, same applies to emergency vehicles. In CBD area it’ll become far easier to commit crime, cause on access way for private vehicles on main roaring corridor since converted to walkway/light tram corridor. Attractive place to bring busking to CBD, negative for businesses in CBD and they’ll continue to keep coming and not go away. Exactly what’s happening in Sydney! Sydney roads converted into light tram tracks and no road users on the corridor light tram serves in CBD area.
Frequent buses wouldn’t cause crime to rise! Wouldn’t be blocking one side of road or preventing CBD road from private vehicles using meaning both bus and private vehicle can share road. Same applies to busway except it wouldn’t feature higher crime cause creates safe environment for all commuters from CCTV, station design and no dark places. the CBD area since wont feature a busway and it be featured on main roading corridors that lead to Christchurch CBD!
It appears you have delusions of blatant arrogance and lack of disregard for residence of Christchurch health & safety and want crime their to become bigger like Sydney. We can leave Aussie in Aussie!
ohhhh i get it now, you’re an old silverhair. no wonder you have this weird jingoist obsession with “not being like other countries” and “light rail brings crime” and all that crap. classic winnie-the-peters rhetoric. people like you are what hold public transport back.
keep rambling on about how “a tram will cost $15 billion while heavy rail will cost $100 million ”
anyway let me continue debunking your nonsense
I guess Te Irirangi Drive or any road that has a raised planted median also causes crime since cars can’t cross the median, mmh? oh wait, there’s this thing called intersections. where you can make u-turns. and alternate routes on different streets. and making sure drivers know to pull clear of the ambulance or fire truck’, like they do in Europe.
Also you are so laughably out of touch. George Street in Sydney has been a raging success for more pedestrians and all the businesses along it. Pedestrian volumes increased. Smaller emergency service vehicles can still use pedestrian malls in emergencies, and cargo bikes can be used for deliveries.
Literally there is a solution for every feeble “WAAAH LIGHT RAIL NO WORK” argument you make.
and speaking of health and safety, let’s talk about particulate pollution from rubber tyres… steel wheels on steel rails don’t have this problem.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyres-produce-more-particle-pollution-than-exhausts-tests-show
also also – police on e-bikes, police on foot. Bollards and permanent planter boxes protecting pedestrian streets so there aren’t any ram raids.
CCTV can be installed at light rail stations just as easily as bus stations. You can design light rail stops to have “no dark places”.
And crime is inherently reduced when the government fulfils its side of the social contract; funds good public services and meets the needs of its citizens. Good mobility through cheap, frequent public transport is a part of that.
You’re just clinging to desperate arguments at this point. I have no arrogance, I would be open to reasonable arguments about cost, design, capacity, and service frequency. You’re projecting your arrogance and refusal to concede that heavy rail and busways aren’t automatically the Only Mass Transit Options™
+1
someone who +1s their own posts is not someone worth listening to.
Oh no… you’re wrong! It’s worth spreading the ‘real facts’ and needing to provide correctness leading to ‘golden plated projects’ in the making! You’re just a “burrower” who copies examples from other countries which don’t work here and hide anonymously! Shameful!
yet you’re the one calling yourself “Anon”. Interesting… sounds like projection to me.
I’m genuinely intrigued by this Anon ” The buses wouldn’t be faced with stops after stops since passengers only need to press ‘bus stopping’ whenever like to stop at station or passenger at station waves to driver at each station ” – are you saying an advantage for busways is that no one needs to get on or off the buses?
i’m starting to think they’re an old Jon Reeves/PTUA/NZ First type, because they seem beholden to this very selfish way of thinking about public transport; against transfers, against actively reducing car dependency, thinking light rail can only possibly be a slow heritage tram and that heavy rail can have the highest possible capacity and speed with flat junctions and close station spacings; damn the laws of physics or any sort of critical thinking when it comes to constructability.
like, this “buses don’t have to stop” sounds very much like the people who for a while demanded the old Auckland bus networks back, with routes that went all the way to the central city or their destination. Damn be higher frequency and more convenience for more different trips, they want public transport to be their personal taxi. While the whole point of mass transit is a guarantee that it’s going to stop at every station; and if you want a faster trip well there has to be the demand and justification for limited stop express services.
I think this argument of heavy rail versus light rail is completely academic. We are “blessed” in NZ with a relatively narrow heavy rail gauge. Can’t we just have the same rail vehicles running on both the heavy rail lines and the tram lines? Why do they have to be heavy? This gives so much more versatility of through-running through stations so people could go for instance from Papanui to the university without having to change vehicles.
Yes, tram-trains are an option; but they have their drawbacks as all modes do.
You’d have to either pick low-floor tram-trains, and lower all the platforms on the mainline (which could render them inaccessible to mainline long distance carriages like the TranzAlpine and Coastal Pacific, or require additional modifications to have bi-level platforms or ramps), or high-floor tram-trains needing raised platforms on the street sections.
Papanui to the UoC via the Christchurch CBD seems circuitous compared to the more direct route the Orbiter frequent bus takes.
and there is a point where opposition to changing vehicles, even easy transfers between high frequency transit services, becomes silly. hub and spoke type transit networks built around transfers are best practice for maximising the number of journeys that are convenient to take using public transport.
but yes, Andre Brett in his book ‘Can’t Get There From Here’ proposes a two line tram-train network for Christchurch on page 294: Rangiora to Rolleston via the Christchurch CBD and Airport to Lyttelton via the Christchurch CBD. Each line could potentially run up to every 6-7 minutes at peak times.
An at-grade equivalent to the CRL would be built through Hagley Park, past the hospital, through Central Christchurch then down past the stadium and Ara Institute before joining back up with the Main South Line. A street running section would be built from the Riccarton junction with the Main North Line, running via Riccarton Mall, the University of Canterbury, Ilam, and Burnside to the Airport. The Main North Line and Main South Line would need to be double-tracked where they currently aren’t.
In this eventuality it would probably also be wise to build a heavy rail bypass from Hornby/Islington to Belfast to get freight trains and the Coastal Pacific out of the way of the suburban tram-trains.
No we can’t! It’s not possible!
Heavy rail vehicles are generally larger and heavier than those used in light tram meaning leading to distinct track characteristics and Heavy rail systems often adhere to stricter national standards for safety and operations! Light tram systems often have different regulatory and safety requirements compared to heavy rail. Light rail and heavy rail systems have different track gauges, power systems(voltage required/maximum voltage withstanding and either use of AC or DC electrical current), in-which light tram won’t have capability of withstanding amount of voltage and station requirements!
Karlsrhue begs to differ. https://youtu.be/9sGHqsD0DRM?si=By1Sz6GgB9ZLR8KC
Multi-voltage light rail vehicles for 25kV AC and 750V-1500V DC overhead wires can be made, same as any heavy rail electric locomotive for multiple voltages.
Light rail tracks can be made to match heavy rail tracks in shape and gauge with according wheel profiles.
There are many examples of tram-train operation in Europe, so clearly all the reasons you give why “light rail can’t run on heavy rail” are dogmatic nonsense. Those technological problems can easily be solved.
also pretty typical of you Anon to crawl away when you’ve been thoroughly debunked, then start your anti-light rail bleating in another comment thread like nothing happened. Coward.
anyway here’s more footage of light rail tram-trains running on heavy rail tracks in Sheffield, UK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHP4ICdVqr0
The tram-train in Hungary running at-speed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvDPsrVZIDg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4nuT2Y0ay0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvLahaMUr9k
A station used by both Metrolink light rail and British mainline trains in Manchester
Light tram-train has high initial costs, potential inflexibility due to fixed tracks, and challenges in integrating with existing infrastructure. Tram-trains require specialized tracks, overhead power lines, and potentially modifications to existing railway infrastructure, which can be costly and time-consuming. Maintaining tram-train infrastructure and vehicles can be expensive over the long term. Integrating tram-trains with existing railway networks and traffic management systems can be complex and require significant coordination. Tram-trains operating on shared tracks with other vehicles can pose safety risks, particularly in mixed traffic scenario. Tram-trains are confined to their designated tracks, making it difficult to reroute or adapt to changing needs or unexpected disruptions like road closures or accidents. Tram-trains operating on shared tracks with other vehicles can pose safety risks, particularly in mixed traffic scenario.
Not even possible to service your ‘Motat vanity collection item’ and integrable for Christchurch! Besides Christchurch don’t want all their streets converted into PT lines, they’d like minimal amounts of PT lines so they can park their private side of curb and do 180 degree turn if needed!
Cantabs don’t want any form of light tram at all and not turn their city to Sydney’s George st and be a place for the homeless lay rest and become a begging location! Looking out of Cantabrians!
oh my god you are so ridiculous. “as few public transport corridors as possible” that shows your true colours. gtfo this comment section, keep your rightie boomer ramblings to your retirement village friends.
Well that settles it! Busways(later in future bi-articulated buses) and Heavy Rail corridors is future for Christchurch growth and connectivity! Is the only modes needed for Christchurch. Not going adding more ‘vanity vehicle collection’ such as ‘modified light tram’ or any such vehicles just to present exhibition like MOTAT just to show off new vehicle! NO! We’re not serving the needs of everyday Cantabrians by doing that!
At the moment, the bus network in Christchurch is handling 14m journeys/year for a population of 400,000 people. So, 35 bus journeys per person per year. Canberra, with a similar population, has a system handling 20m passengers per year, so, 50 bus journeys per person per year.
Edinburgh has a population of half a million people, and prior to the pandemic, its bus system was handling 125m passengers per year – 250 trips/person/year. And a further 7m or so on the tram line.
And to add to the above, I don’t think any big investment would make enough of a difference, even with a heavy or light rail link into the Square. The main issue for Christchurch is that the jobs which used to be within the Four Avenues have been scattered to the proverbial four winds, from what I can see. And public transport, of any mode, cannot work well with dispersed origin-destination patterns.
What might work? Hiking service frequency, which is why Edinburgh’s network works as well as it does.
I would have to completely disagree worth you! More Busways & Heavy Rail infrastructure & corridors indefinitely needed in Christchurch and its worth the investment! Your ‘Edinburgh Hiking service’ is hugely unrealistic idea. Those out in Papanui & Hornby aren’t going to be doing that! Majority of people don’t have time & energy to be doing it. Or even have the fitness to be doing that from 5-20 km away from Christchurch CBD. Your idea simply lack of ambition, just simply one of those”give up on investing big infrastructure it’s too hard to build” and in complete denial that big infrastructure can be completely built will be fully finished & operational! It’s definitely possible to invest in more Busways & Heavy Rail! It’s a fantastic investment but expensive yes and operationally cheap. But worth purchasing in long term and serve main corridors of Christchurch!
Hiking service frequency as in price hikes, Anon…
But an adult “walking work bus” would be fun, too 😀
Actually, on second thoughts – I do agree with you on busways and bus priority systems. They are cost-efficient and even cost-effective. Rail, not (in this setting) so much.
Also, “hike” = “increase & improve”.
Anon does seem to be advocating for a 100km/h Northern Busway type alignment along the Christchurch MRT corridor though… very obsessed with speed to the point of denying the benefits of catchment