All posts in the topic Light Rail for Christchurch (Short link)
Summary
- There are 10 posts — by 8 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Tim Kerr at Sep 27 06:14 UTC
Bob, Thank you for your thoughtful post on this subject. Light rail seems like a great topic to discuss, so I'll copy your post to this "Light Rail for Christchurch" topic, which will leave the "Guest Speakers" topic for talking about Guest Speakers. Others, if you'd like to post about Light Rail, please do so by replying to this email, leaving the subject line unchanged, or by adding to this topic on the web (follow the link in the message footer, below). To assist people to explore the forum, this topic is related to (at least) the following other topics. Peak Oil and implications for Christchurch http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6fQFCJtbzVpswCCU1y47Mp Traffic congestion http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2iFwmhySAGzn1a0Yo8ob28 The Growth Addiction? http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3ZttLwGFJlFMv5qy37EMny cheers Dan . . . . Bob Parker posted the following in "Guest Speakers". http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/post/S20gN4UFPyJBx2ZCF6liv Hello, and thankyou for the interesting (even provoking) dialogue on peak oil and the issues you have raised around motoring habits and public transport, and the urban response to them. Following is a long, and I hope, useful answer. In my view the issue is not just peak oil, but also a wider awareness of energy issues and moving toward to a more sustainable pattern of development and transport at the centre of which is an efficient public transport system. A system that is so convenient that we will use it as a matter of choice, preference even. As the Chair of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) for the past two years it is something close to my heart, and that I have spent much time thinking about as well as talking to some of the experts in the field. Roads will continue to have a vital role. We have some pressing roading issues that we need to resolve. One is the completion of the Southern and Northern arterial routes that connect the City to the state highway network – these are planned, part-funded, and are a priority to finish based on current traffic requirements – including safety and public bus transport. One of the goals of the UDS is to access special funding from Central Government – much as has been the case in Auckland and Wellington but so far with no success in Christchurch – by presenting a comprehensive and detailed sub-regional development plan for the “Greater” Christchurch area. Another issue is the increasing number of “bottlenecks” within our existing urban network that need to be resolved. Here we do have a number of innovative opportunities that can better utilise existing roads in a less capital-intensive manner: bus lanes, clearways and incentives for car-pooling are just a few of them. That will help deal with current issues but it is far from the complete answer. Our road based bus service is another key – and with technological advances in electric and other “alternative” fuel systems it will have a large part to play. Already bus patronage is rising to levels we haven’t seen for a generation. In Christchurch cycling is still the alternative mode of transport of preference that is more popular than buses – and we can do better here as we continue to build our cycleway networks (again, as per the UDS). But right now something is missing, and that is a technology that around the world is playing a vital role in enabling urban regeneration and intensification, the rebuilding of social connectedness, and the emergence of a more sustainable development form. It is “light” rail. In my view we need to make a commitment to begin the planning and redevelopment of rail-based public transport. Not overnight, but staged and over time. In other words passenger carrying or “light rail”. I prefer to think of it as modern, fast, efficient trams. So lets imagine that a majority of residents of Christchurch, after a good community discussion, come to the same conclusion and empower us as politicians to explore this path. What could it look like? I grew up in a Christchurch that still had passenger rail transport – and most of the railway lines that were utilised then are still in place. These are often referred to as “heavy rail” or lines with the capacity to carry large amounts of freight as well as passengers. We could begin with passenger services based on those existing lines and offer services with at least three distinct routes: (1) Rolleston - Hornby - Addington – City (2) Rangiora - Kaiapoi - Belfast - Papanui - Riccarton - Addington – City (3) City - Linwood - Opawa - Heathcote - Lyttelton Here then are three routes that would need suitable rolling stock and platforms with connections to parking and buses. As the South West of the City continues to grow we also have the remnant of the old Hornby to Lincoln line (which currently finishes near Prebbleton). We should consider extending this into the Halswell catchment. We should also turn our minds to planning and reserving land for a new eastern line connecting at Belfast, travelling down the coast behind Brighton and looping back and joining the existing heavy rail in the Linwood area. This would then complete the “Circle Line” around the City, and which would run through some of the most densely developed residential areas in Christchurch. How about a new main City station at Jade Stadium linked to a bus exchange with a light rail link which also travels through the south of Lichfield precinct (“SOL”) into the heart of the City – perhaps to Cathedral Square. The next step, a new light rail network that forms the “spokes” within the outer circle line and, in some cases, crossing it to bring in outer suburbs. Within that are a couple of special links. The University is connected back to the Central city – perhaps to SOL, bringing back the energy and vibrancy of a strong young group of citizens right into the heart of Christchurch with a range of inner city accommodation. I believe that we should plan for a central city (lets say inside the four avenues) where the use of a private car is the least likely transport choice a resident would make. Walking, cycling and a light passenger rail (modern tram) system provide all of the access and mobility required for resident and visitors alike. I believe we can do this, not overnight but over time, by engaging as a community around this vision. Some experts may say that we don’t have the urban densities or the capital to be able to realistically afford to have this vision – and I disagree. There are compelling economic, social and environmental reasons why I believe this can be achieved. Again, not overnight, but staged and over time. If we wait until the sceptics believe we have reached critical economic mass (in the narrowest sense of economics in my view) before we plan and envision our future then we may find that, just like Auckland, the train has already left the station – and we have been left behind. If we look to our future with optimism then I think we will say we can afford to plan for the resurrection of passenger rail in Christchurch. Bob Parker Central city and Akaroa, CCC Info about Bob Parker: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/parkerbob
It's great to hear that the return of commuter rail services to Christchurch is
a real possibility. I also agree that the public transport infrastructure in
the city is going to be key to it's sustainability.
To that end, I suggest that we should be revisiting the City Plan with an eye
to maximising the synergy between the arterial transport network and the areas
of greatest population density. At the moment we have a "bullseye" sort of
population distribution, i.e., rings of decreasing density spreading out from
the central city. I agree with Bob that this does not make public transport
unworkable, it just makes it a lot less effective.
The better zoning model would be to encourage increased density of development
along the arterial transport corridors to maximise the number of people living
close to public transport routes. In other words, we need a hub-and-spoke
zoning pattern rather than the bullseye we have now.
Such a pattern would be self-reinforcing, i.e., more people would want to live
on or near a good public transport route, which would in turn create the demand
necessary to increase levels of transport services on that route.
Christchurch's geography provides a natural disincentive to go this way, but
Wellington is a good example of a city that has the relatively good fortune of
having natural transport and living corridors, resulting in a very effective
commuter rail system for the city. Unfortunately for Christchurch, setting up
something similar will require a good deal of political effort, so best of
luck, Bob !
Cheers, Andrew.
The City plan http://www.cityplan.ccc.govt.nz is one of those hard to understand things (especially without a GIS type view) but it full of very interesting stuff try a search on rail or cycle or city mall or lanes
This is a diabolical format for constructing rich meaningful content about
matters of considerable import. I have just lost several hours of considered
reply. I shall not expend the effort on this forum. Its not that i see it as a
waste of my time (it was) but rather point out that as a format is is
intellectually regressive to continue to 'expect' of this medium anything
informational. The Canterbury Issues forum needs to be on a better technical
platform.
I suspect that is why we are seeing many people leave. It is the logical
equiavlent of using 78lp's in a world of IPods.
You'll find my comments about this elsewhere - best ask me in one of the
mayoral forums!.
In brief, and to those who read this and know of my background on the subject I
commend one to overview the Bellagio Memorandum. (one cannot even conveniently
hotlink, I struggle with the dumbing down of what Canterbury Issues could be,
I'll leave the reader to google and sadly note the inconvenience.)
That all said, I'm with John Peet. Flexibity must be an inherent and valued
quality in any public transport proposal. Light rail is a property/land
developers dream but not IMHO the ideal model for construction a
biopsychosocial transport model in a post Kyoto climate. (*try modeling the
evacuation of the beach suburbs without buses for example).
In that I anticipate that our road networks will become, post peak oil our best
available and probably under utilised resource. We need only figure how we
build into the here and now what will be useful in the there and then. Bus
Rapid Transport will be core to that strategy. Light Rail is not embued with a
fraction of the flexibility.
/Blair
*a significant storm surge from a deep depression is a far more likely scenario
than a tsunami (as recently practiced and widely reported). [Add sea level
rise, increased atmospheric energy, sea temperature and density, easterly
winds, a king tide and then we've really got problems. In disbelief? Ask an
Insurance actuary and then apply for a fifty year mortgage on anything more
than a double garage RockingHorse Road! The news on this front is not good and
we not even having that conversation.
Light Rail discussions have gone very quiet. Guide Rail Bus being a desirable implementable low cost entry point into enabling any efficient public transport deserves a more thorough examination and work needs to be done here on this so we don't get the same ol'knee jerk response we had to our civic buildings where political expediency overrode civic engagement. The ramifications of ANY transport option clearly has huge implications for property developers. Notably our current Mayor's election was funded by one in particular (not suggesting that it was specifically for this reason alone) but this is about our rates funding base. Light rail as has been suggested (is unaffordable and narrow in its delivery whereas guide-rail bus (and freight) is not. An informative video resource on Guided Bus on Youtube: This PDF file contains an excellent image of HOW steel tracked tram and Guided Bus can both work together ie: evolve flexibly and in parallel. http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%209-3S%20Phillips.pdf Note: There are several reasons why the busway is guided rather than a bus-only road. A guideway requires less land than a normal road. Because buses travelling in opposite directions are constrained within the two kerbs of the guideway, they can travel close together. Therefore the total width of the guideway is less than a standard road. This means we spend less money on land purchase and also have a lesser impact on the environment. A guideway is better in terms of drainage than a solid tarmac road, as water can drain away between the guideway beams. A bus only road would need to have stringent measures to stop other vehicles travelling on it. The guideway will be unsuitable for other vehicles. The smoothness of guideway provides higher ride quality for passengers and a greater ability for level boarding. Studies have shown that the level of use is greater than that for bus lanes or bus-only roads. (see Cambridge Guided Bus info at http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/guided/what/whyisthebuswayguided.htm ) Lets see if we can move beyond the current stasis on urban planning and the preponderance of depending on our TRAM company and ECAN/CCC to come up with some solution space. Endeavors to-date have been lacklustre with current options being an extention down High Street and up Cashel for our existing tourist tram. That does nothing for anyone, other than expect the ratepayer to subsidise a few hundred [potential] daily tourists to see what they could see on foot. Lets hear from some of those resourced and caring city 'developers'. (yeah right!)
Hi All,
The prime advantage is that it is flexible which track-based options aren't.
The big disadvantage, of course, is NIH (not invented here)!
It's got an established track record (20+ years) in a variety of
environments so the experience should be there to assess it's suitability.
Very worth considering if you are presenting to the RPS Change 1 hearings.
I certainly will.
We need to have a complete rethink on how we move light freight around as well. That requires an infrastructure that can respond to change and can be engineered to meet local demand. There is nothing difficult in this IF the early urban design parameters embody this flexibility. I have research papers and relationships with the authors that follow this line thinking. As to submitting them (in a Christchurch context)absent resources to prepare and (to bring) expertise to present this concept the entire process of consultation is flawed. I am still regaling the loss of opportunity to integrate heavy rail and airport (intercity) and the abrogation of due process over the CCC offices AND bus hub that doing this stuff for SFA [nothing] is the logical equivalent of banging ones head against a brick wall while paying for the privilege of so doing. We have elected a 'RAIL my way or nothing' nutter predicated on the beleif that he was elected and I (alternative ideas/thinking) wasnt. Thats absurd and contrary to best practice. I have seen no evidence that things are changing. We will get a tourist tram that will continue (at our expense) to be slow, noisy, inefficient and useless. It will do nothing to take ONE car off the road while failing to meet ANY objective goal in post GHG/Peak Oil urban planning. We need a structural rethink... ground up. No ostentatious 'grand plan' based if I might paraphrase a pre-mayoral debate discussion on this issue "that the public have a facination with rail". The public may well do, they have a facination with Antarctica too but that doesnt mean we need to paint the town white. Curiously, I have harped on about dirty desiel (PM10 and PM2.5) for so long now that the idea of another diesel engine idling (we cannot even get the RED BUS's to turn OFF the stinking engine while they wait at the curbside - how offensive is that) in the innercity abhors me, but the emerging research which I have copied judiciously to ECAN for the past 8-10 years about the health implications has been steadfastly ignored, while ECAN's own website pays lipservice to the hazards. New research (continues to) validate these concerns... see http://blairformayor.blogspot.com/2008/06/more-premature-deaths-than-previously.html Perhaps next time I will ask some candidates to stand for "SAVE OUR AIR".
Firstly, to hark back to Bob's comment that "One of the goals of the UDS is to access special funding from Central Government" three questions need to be asked. 1) Has hypothecation of the petrol tax been dropped from the Bill that legalises the regional fuel tax? (Currently it is this unhypothecated 18.45 c/l poetrol tax that is being used to fund the Crown contributions to regional land transport plans that Bob refers to as funding from Central Government) 2) Is either CCC or ECan monitoring Canterbury's allocation from the NLTP of the nationally and regionally distributed funds to ensure that we are actually reciving the extra $200m over ten years that Treasury identified in Cabinet breifing paper dated 9/12/04? 3) On what basis has Canterbury historically only recieved back two-thirds of the money it pays into the land transport fund, which is significantly worse than Waikato (3/4) and Auckland and Taranaki (both 5/6)? Secondly, why does Bob's proposed solution only address the uncompleted core component of the 1963 Master Transport Plan, with railways replacing the motorways and the central station replacing the interchange connecting the three main motorways? http://www.petroltax.org.nz/PDF/ChChMasterTransportPlan1963.PDF Where is the carfree solution to the rest of Christchurch's transport network in a post peak oil world? How does Bob propose to deal with commercial deliveries in the city? My suggestions on how to address these issues assume that renewable electricity can be provided in sufficient quantities. That is a legitimate concern for CCC and ECan. The solutions are surprisingly simple because, contrary to popular belief, trucks and buses are more amenable to electric or hybrid electric propulsion than light vehicle. Firstly, fitting additional components such as batteries and control modules is easier than on a car simply because space is available between the chassis rails. Secondly, electric motors and diesel engines have an important common point, they both deliver torque in abundance at low revs which is what heavy vehicles need to be usable. Thirdly, the operating characteristics of commercial vehicles have a much greater proportion of idling and stop/start operation and, perhaps most importantly, predictable daily distances travelled. Fourthly, although the extra components have to be more robust in a heavy vehicle that still adds less percentage cost onto the current price than is the case with electric or hybrid cars. The solution for delivery vehicles is to either let the market take it's course or to have an assistance package similar to clean heat. Fedex and TNT(UK) already have fleets of electric delivery trucks and vans so the product is proven and available. Many manufacturers including Hino, Mercedes and Volvo sell hybrid trucks and vans. The solution for buses comes from studying why diesel buses replaced trams. Mainly it was because the trams needed massive maintenance and capital expenditure, diesel was cheap and buses could meet the needs of the quarter acre subdivisions the government was building in the 1950s. Although diesel is no longer cheap we are stuck with the need to provide public transport in those quarter acre subdivisions. The ideal solution is a hybrid trolley bus that can run on batteries in the suburbs and connect to overhead wires when running on arterial roads to/from the bus exchange. The wires could be bought from an LRT supplier without the expense of buying tracks, trainsets and stations. That gains the energy indepence and zero carbon of LRT while retaining the flexibility of conventional bus services. I believe that if we had had modern solid state electronics in the 1950s this is what we would have chosen as a replacement for the old tram technology instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It would make the CBD a much more attractive place to shop too.
It would seem from my four years' research on guided busways that these are
mostly used between towns rather than within cities. Densely built-up areas do
not readily allow space for additional transport corridors, whatever their
width and whether they are intended for road, guideway or rail.
However, we would do well over the long term to look at constructing guided
busways between Belfast, Kaiapoi, Woodend and Rangiora for use by the Northern
Star service, as well as other provincial towns where bus services are already
running (e.g. Templeton-Rolleston-Burnham, Hornby-Prebbleton-Lincoln) or where
services may be planned for the future (e.g. Yaldhurst-Darfield, Northern
Motorway, Woodend-Amberley, Rangiora-Amberley, Rangiora-Oxford). Dedicated
corridors in rural areas can allow BRT vehicles to operate at higher speeds
than is legally or practically possible on normal roads, so BRT services can
make up for dwell times and cover the distance between towns in less time than
a car. That would be money better spent than on an expensive and inflexible LRT
service.
Good point Paul.
I think bus ways are a good idea BETWEEN suburbs as you have pointed out. I
think bus lanes along, say, Colombo Street are an uneconomic nuisance.
I have had seven or eight buses pass me in the inner city as I am standing
on the footpath. They are noisy and a damn nuisance. many have only a few
passengers in them. Give me plenty of cars and bicycles in the city - not
large buses!
With dedicated bus lanes (where geographically possible as Paul has
explained) then we may be able to overcome the issue I pointed out in my
previous diatribe... you could get commuters from, say Belfast to Hornby.
Routes to the CBD's are of less importance than trans-suburban transport....
If that makes any sense.
I still believe residents sort out their own commuting requirements and
capital development can actually distort the "scarcity of petrol" signals
that are required to regulate car usage and where one should live...
But I have digressed...
Cheers,
Tim Kerr