Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

07-06-2006, 2:35 p.m. Student Joined on 07-05-2006 Posts 1 Re: Abandoning the metal cave... All of those who have posted their speil on the matter of regional transport have validity to their arguments.  From this perpective do you think that keeping all of the Greater Christchurh population happy is easy?  Give the Council's and Transit a break, they are only working within the bounds of the legislation RMA, LGA, LTMA etc etc.  They do not intentionally 'stuff things up'. The UDS  as I see it, is a fantastic strategic planning tool to recognise the  needs of future Cantabrians.  The whiners within this forum are forgetting the bigger picture.  Contemporary lifestyles are not sustainable!  To build more roads for unsustainable private transport is obsurd.  Recent petrol price increases are only the tip of the iceberg as far as future prices are concerned.  In the near future, certainly within our lifetimes we will see major changes to cost involved in accessing employment, school, recreation etc.  And remember its not only New Zealand that enjoys the level of mobility that the private motor vehicle provides.  As China and India develop further, their desire to be as mobile us will put huge strains on the worlds oil supplies (a major reason for higher future petrol prices).  So to think that light rail, improved public transport or more concentrated urban form will solve issues of congestion is a long term joke.  As a society we need to become more sustainable and our lifestyles will have to adjust accordingly.  The way forward according to the academic literature is to integrate land-use planning with transport planning.  Read any current policies (Regional Land Transport Strategy etc) and you will find that the integration of land-uses and transport is a top priority. So the direction towards sustainability is within the mind-sets of planners and councils.  Where am I going with this?? I guess to conclude, planners will never be able to keep everyone happy.  They make decisions based on tried and trued methods which take time.  Cost/benefit evaluations conclude that light rail is not a viable option, especially from areas with low population densities.  So before you start passing the buck onto planners and the Council, think twice about driving to work by yourself tomorrow.       Report

07-14-2006, 11:36 a.m. Citizen Joined on 07-13-2006 Posts 1 Re: Welcome to our discussion about public transport Public transport, by its nature, encourages dense urban use around the access points (eg train stations, main bus stops), therefore a well designed public transport system can be used to guide the desired urban form.    Report

07-18-2006, 9:58 p.m. GetReal Joined on 06-21-2006 Posts 3 Re: Welcome to our discussion about public transport Montoya has the right idea... but it's still not that feasible. Allow me... 1) "Rail in Christchurch isn't as hindered as much as you think." Sure, a number of satellite towns around the city make good candidates for rail transport. But the combined population of those towns is say 100,000 in 20 years time. That's not enough to justify 3 rail lines - Like I said earlier, maybe when we have a million people it'll work. 2) "Transfer between Trains and Busses isn't a hindrance" Not in its own right it isn't, I agree, but it does lengthen the total trip door to door. And it's the total trip time relative to what it is with other modes of transport which makes it work. Most cities with excellent public transport are far more congested. When I lived in London, my 50-60 commute to work was principally "5 min walk + 10 min wait + 5 min bus + 5 min wait + 20min train + 10min walk". While the core train ride was quick, the overall speed was still very slow. It's only London's congestion (and costs) that make it an incentive to use public transport. 3) "The link from the main north line to the main south line can be fixed by a new realignment" Where would that realignment run? Once the council decides its a good idea, the only vacant land 'so to speak' will be that of Hagley Park. Now there's a conundrum for the Greenies. Park or Trains? Knowing them, they'll lobby the council for a $100 million tunnel under Hagley Park so they can "have their cake and eat it!" - Either way that just adds to the cost, which adds to the cost of the train ticket, thus making it less appealing 4) "Speed isn't a problem on our tracks" In Sydney the average speed of a train is 80km/hr. Thats competitive over there because the average car speed is a lot slower than it is here. 5) "Safety is an issue" Hurrah - Montoya agreed with me... but only partly. I count about 10 level crossings on the Lyttelton Line, about 11 on the Southern Line to Rolleston, and about 20 on the Northern Line to Rangiora. The Blenheim Road Deviation is costing $15m (last I heard). 41 crossings times $15million equals $615million. Since the council won't build them all today, you need to inflation adjust those costs so we can kiss goodbye to about a billion bucks.... Hmmmmm. 6) "Closest station to Central City is on Moorhouse Ave" It is unless the underground link to the city centre is built (at exorbitant cost of course). And cost is the very issue here. Double tracking is expensive and although some of it is already double tracked, the condition of some of the secondary tracks is questionable. I'm not sure if the signalling system in use by Toll Rail actually uses all of the track available, or whether much of the track is mothballed. 7) "Pegasus is poorly sited" And how many other subdivisions are going to be placed away from rail corridors? Buses are a help, but they still add to the cost of providing good, cheap, reliable transport. I'm not saying don't have busses at all, but surely having busses run from every small subdivision to a rail station isn't very efficient. 8) "The 1960 Master Plan was exactly that - 1960's" That's true, but commuter rail transport was also very 1960's too!. Remember that the 1960's plan included a rather glamerous motorway system as well as the existing commuter rail system of the day. Cost is always a factor. Yes, the cost of using the motor vehicle is going up too with fuel up to around $1.76 per litre. But market forces will encourage demand for the development of more efficient vehicles such as the latest diesel vehicles from Peugeot and the hybrid vehicles from Toyota etc. As for Sydney... well in the early 1980's, Sydney pretty much had an embargo on the building of motorways and instead, seemed to direct a lot of funding into the SCATS traffic signal control system which optimises the timing of traffic lights to better improve traffic flows. (Yes, I think it is a wonderful system too - we use it here in Chch as well). While it did work for a while, it ultimately failed. Why? Well, having smart traffic signals doesn't manufacture a greater capacity at an intersection, it just alters the patterns of traffic traversing the intersection to improve the efficiency of it. The early pundits of the SCATS system believed it would solve all problems. In fact, all it really did was delay the inevitable - They needed more roads. Why has Sydney built so many new motorways since the mid nineties? They already had an excellent public transport system and still do. But they still needed all those motorways because they realised that a good roading network was essential to a healthy economy. And for the record, Auckland IS an embarrasment. Why? They didn't plan adequately for public transport, but they didn't plan adequately for roading either. They too had a 1960's master plan and if that too had have been completed, along with a good rail/bus transport network, they too would not have the problem they have today. For the record, Germany built many hundreds of miles of autobahn after the war, and look how its economy changed (They are in the doldrums economically at the moment because of the cost of reunification). Also former president Eisenhower masterminded the US Interstate highway plan - it too saw the US economy hum along. Australia is now realising that too - Just look at all the new roads on the Gold Coast, Melborne and Sydney. And their economy is doing better than ours. We just need the will power (and a lot of money) to sort this mess out. For too long, too many councils have done too many studies, waited too long doing nothing, doing yet another study because the old (1960's) one was out of date, waiting longer because the price has gone up, therefore doing another study, then uplifting the designation of land for roading, therefore necessitating yet another study, to find the options reduced to unpopular ones, which will be dragged through the resource management act, and environment act, thus costing more, causing more delays, while a change in government, has a different plan, so they allow building of towns not along rail corridors, therefore requiring yet another study, only to find that it's too hard to find a solution, so they wait for the next government to do something about it, who will do nothing but another study... and it goes on.    Report

08-07-2006, 12:00 p.m. MJJ Joined on 08-06-2006 Posts 1 Re: Welcome to our discussion about public transport The problem with Pegasus is that the people who live there are going to be quite wealthy given the high cost of sections in the new development. Therefore are more likely to drive their cars to work than use public transport (be it buses or trains) due to their high incomes. So a rail connection to Pegasus probably wouldnt do very much.    Report

08-09-2006, 5:08 p.m. Richard Joined on 08-08-2006 Posts 1 Re: Welcome to our discussion about public transport Is there any thought to a bus "exchange" near the city council's preferred new headquarters by Orion/Manchester Car park? This would reduce the impact of shifting so many employees to the new site in terms of car parking for people currently working near the Orion site. This could help with reducing congestion at the current exchange AND encourage CCC/Orion staff to use the bus in the future. Days like this week it wasn't so bad getting from Civic offices to the bus exchange, but I'd get rather wet trying to use the bus from Orion site currently.      Report

08-15-2006, 11:16 a.m. UDS Moderator Joined on 03-06-2006 Posts 5 Re: Welcome to our discussion about public transport Thank you for your posting. Please note that you can attend one of the three following community meetings to be updated on what's happening in the run up to drafting the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy. ·       Selwyn Community Meeting: Monday 28 August, 7pm to 8.30pm, Lincoln Community Centre (opposite Challenge Station), Lincoln. ·       Christchurch City Community Meeting: Tuesday 29 August, 7pm to 8.30pm, Limes Room, Christchurch Town Hall. ·       Rangiora Community Meeting: Wednesday 30 August, 7pm to 8.30pm, Waimakariri District Council Chambers, Rangiora.   Kind regards, The Moderator.      Report

08-15-2006, 5:22 p.m. Montoya Joined on 03-25-2006 Posts 3 Re: Welcome to our discussion about public transport Hang on... allow me... 1) Yep, lets wait until the population hits one million then do something about it then... THAT kind of thinking is why we are in the "mess" we are in now. 2) Id like to point out that most people don't have a reserved park outside their office door (maybe you do? i don't know but most of us don't) or other place of work wether it be in the CBD or a suburban hub. Most people have to walk a good 10 mins or even more to get from their car to work. I know of many people who work in the CBD who park on the Linwood side of Fitzgerald ave. The point is its not just congestion that makes public transport viable its parking issues/cost and petrol costs. 3) I never said the railway could go through Hagley Park anyway. Greenies need not be in arms. There are other ways to reinstate the north line/lyttelton line connection at Addington, not on the original alignment though as thats been taken up by the roading deviation. 4) Ummm not many other cities have commuter rail systems that travel a lot faster than that. At least not in the style of system Christchurch would try and emmulate. Melbourne (Broad guage track), Perth (narrow guage), Brisbane (narrow again), Wellington (again narrow guage) etc all operate systems at similar speeds and are successful. Having lived for a time in Brisbane i can say their roading congestion is not much worse than here. 5) Your count of level crossings is misleading. Yes there are that many crossings, granted, but not all of them will create saftey issues. On the Lyttelton line, off hand, i can think of only 3 areas of concern. On the Southern it would be 2. Not all level crossings need to be over or under passed!!! The northern line is a different kettle of fish, however again not ALL crossings will need to be over or under passed like you suggest. So you can rest easy, a billion buckos will not need to be kissed away. There is no justifiable reason to eliminate ALL 41 crossings. To suggest so is ridiculous. 6) Double tracking exists and is in use from Templeton right through to Heathcote. Remember there is a 24/7 coal train operation on the south and Lyttelton lines and these work around regular freights as well. There were once 4 tracks from Middleton to Waltham and though these are still in place physically i doubt they are signalled or in good condition. Perhaps that is what you are reffering to? As it stands only Templeton - Rolleston and the North Line and Lyttelton tunnel aren't double tracked. Templeton - Rolleston was at one time which means that the land is probably there to put it back in place at less cost. Double tracking of the north line could be welcomed by central govt because it would also benefit freight operations. central government subsidised Aucklands western line double tracking. All in all double tracking may not be needed every inch of the network to keep it viable. Cost is not going to be as costly as you predict. 7) Ummm it is very effecient. It works, and has worked for years, in many cities world wide. Wellington is a perfect example. You make a very good point however, perhaps planners SHOULD think about citing villages next to rail corridors. Pegasus may prove to be just such a model to convince these people. 8) Well you've missed that point entirely.   Regarding Sydney... yes they are building more roads but... they are also building new railways! The Epping to Chatswood line is currently under construction. They have also invested heavily in new rolling stock, entered into a new programme to restructure and simplify the rail lines so hold ups won't occur so often. You've missed the point, investment in both is good. Yes good roads are needed, but so is a good public transport system! As it is our public transport system doesn't serve our growing areas, to the north and south in particular, very well at all. The reason that people are talking rail is because it is becoming obvious buses just wont cut it on the main arterial routes by themselves. Something more is needed that has its own right of way and has huge potential to carry hundreds, thousands of people in a short space of time. Rail fits the bill. Talking about Germany's autobahns either means im in the wrong place or your clutching at straws. In anycase ill point out that Germany also developed the excellent ICE train network post WWII and this is as much a symbol of German economic prowess as their autobahns, if not more so. Yep and all the new roads in Australia are fantastic couldn't agree more. Take the new excellent Gold Coast highway... which was built at the SAME TIME as a nice new NARROW GUAGE railway that operates at speeds up to 130km/h!!! In anycase we are way off topic here, to conclude on this crazy point Australias economy is doing better than ours and yes they are building great roads but they also generally have much better public transport than us... much much better. And unlike New Zealand continue to build and refine their networks. Not like us, we keep closing and under investing. So you see, I could use the same argument you just did!!!! Finally we come to the point where you admit putting things right and sorting this mess out will take a lot of will power and money....  after arguing tooth and nail that a commuter rail system for Christchurch is incomprehensible because of excessive cost.... makes perfect sense to me. GetReal I respect your opinions and mean no offence with this post, im just commenting on it as i see it and the way I see it is if Christchurch is going to be anything more than an overgrown provincial center then we are going to have to invest heavily in efficient forward thinking ways of living and getting around. Continuing to allow potential public transport infrastructure to rot away and be under used is simply not investing in our future. I have not argued against building new and improved roading solutions for Christchurch, I have merely pointed out the folly of rejecting other forms of moving people around in addition to roading solutions.   On another note is it possible that this forum could speed up a bit... it takes forever for a post to turn up and im sure is putting people off in taking part.    Report

10-31-2006, 6:33 a.m. Sevicke Joined on 10-30-2006 Posts 2 Re: Welcome to our discussion about public transport tough luck matey why did u go and live on the moon in the first place catch the bus    Report

10-31-2006, 6:53 a.m. Sevicke Joined on 10-30-2006 Posts 2 Re: Welcome to our discussion about public transport way to go harry dont go live on the moon and then bleat about traffic stack them up vertical. UDS is a dog and the crets study is a pig no i like dogs and pigs but not the UDS and crets study back to the drawing board.    Report

11-06-2006, 12:45 p.m. Jenn Joined on 11-05-2006 Posts 1 Re: Welcome to our discussion about public transport Its so saddens me that with all this talk about "letting the cars sit in the queue" it seems that our poor environment has been forgotten, CO2 emmissions have increased by 43% in the last ten years, yet our stupid CCC in the new urban development plan (out today) lare letting another 11,000 peole live out in the boom docks (Lincoln) and travel 50km round trip to work and back everyday!! wheres the sense in that?? CCC have rolled over like little puppy dogs - Selwyn Council are assured more $$$ in their pockets as more rate payers in the vast Selwyn District. So they have decided to stick another road - $2.5 million, to take them out and back to Lincoln?? Theres 4 already, heck lets just throw in another one! More emmisions!! Global warming here we come, smog increases, our health gets worse, more crashes, more traffic jams, omg it goes on and on. And dont forget about the people whos lands these new road will go through!! Sensible pepole who decided to live close to the city - of CCC didnt bother to tell anyone though - best to keeop it hush hush and try to get it through with no submissions against - but they sure let peolpe know who will benefit from it!! Thousands of $$$ lost in land devaluation, no more walking or horse recreation in Halswell area, you wont be able to cross the road!, youll get mowed down by 14,000 vehilces per day doing 100km on a road that now sees 20 cars per day tops. Typical council, filling their own pockets, take it away from the tax payer!! So its time the Govermnet decided to take some control over local councils whos plans only include how much $$$ we can squeeze out of the rate payers, if global warming is such and issue Helen Clark you need to Govern your councils so they dont make asses of themselves. Hard to fix up the ballsups years later - its too late, just look at Auckland!! What else can I say!!!!    Report

11-07-2006, 10:57 p.m. Jones Joined on 11-06-2006 Posts 1 Re: Welcome to our discussion about public transport These comments are to the UDS partners to help in their adoption of a final strategy.... There are some very articulate and well read people talking public transport here. Unfortunately they seem to be preaching selective examples to support their particular arguments which are neither appropriate or relevant. To me it isn't about pro or anti-car sentiment either, so the undertones of certain postings are pretty facile and ultimately futile. It's about balance folks, and currently it is a fact that there is imbalance towards investment in private vehicle infrastructure because there is a culture of car use and an economy that supports that culture. Land use planning to date also supports this car culture, by making it uneconomical to provide public transport to new development. Whilst it is important to maintain access, efficency and safety for private vehicles, it mustn't mean more and more capcity for cars add infinitum. That would be buying ourselves problems. What is needed is more serious investment (and delivery!) in integrated land use with public transport, cycling and walking networks. If this is done, traffic congestion will level off and ultimately reach a state of equilibrium. We can rely on the price of oil doing that for us in the next 25 years. What we will be left with is a land development pattern and a transport system that offers the flexibility to choose between a range of convenient travel options according to the value we place on certain trips. A few points of detail in relation to public transport... Rail would be great if the private sector came and paid for it? It seems that the message just isn't getting through that we cannot afford it from rates alone. There is a reason why the private sector isn't kicking the Council's door down to build us a network - the answer? They wouldn't make any money out of it because there aren't enough of us. My prediction is that the demand (even at 2041) would at best support a half hourly train service in the commuter peaks. Why would you use that when buses could run every 5 minutes at a fraction of the cost. Fine to preserve existing corridors but I agree that until the rail line catchments reach significantly higher populations, lets not hold our breath for this apparent silver bullet (although that would be a great name for it). I see bus priority facilities and bus lanes in particular as the biggest challenge (why do we still prioritise parking on arterial roads above actually using that space to move peole - car, bike or bus?). These allow service frequencies to build as patronage grows, allowing a graduation to higher capacity vehicles like articulated buses and maybe eventually to road based light rail as demands dictate. In general I think the UDS is spot on in terms of transport and land use (except for the disastrous West Melton). My concern is that it doesn't get followed through by current and future Councils / Transit boards. What guarantee do we have that the UDS will deliver? The answer is we must ensure we elect people with strategic focus and an interest in the greater good.            Report

12-13-2006, 9:12 p.m. GetReal Joined on 06-21-2006 Posts 3 Rail Transport Jones has the right idea... See it would appear that buses are ideal for passenger transport for any small city (say up to 750k). Cities that have a greater population will benefit more from rail. (and in fact would require it) So doesn't that mean that this is the very point that the council is missing? As Chch grows towards the 500k mark, shouldn't our council be planning a city that would eventually be considered as 'rail ready'? That is, have development for the next 20 years focussed close to rail corridors such as the zone between Templeton and Rolleston, or between Kaiapoi and Rangiora. Seriously, Rail isn't viable as Jones points out because we don't have a large catchment of people where the rail lines are. So, if places like Prebbleton, Lincoln, West Melton, Pegasus and Woodend are allowed to develop (along with suburbs like New Brighton, Sumner etc), then when Chch approaches 500-600k, the experts will still tell us that rail is uneconomic because we'll still have most of that population living away from a rail corridor. Would it not be sensible for the council to now start planning for 'eventual' rail services by encouraging new living zones dotted all the way along rail corridors so that when we have 500k, it will be more viable to introduce rail by easily double tracking the existing line and placing stations down the length. Look at Auckland... The North Shore to be precise. The biggest disaster with that place is that the harbour bridge was built without provision for rail. OK, they wouldn't have ever built a rail line then because there weren't enough people there. Now that there is 400k people on that side of the bridge, they need a rail line... but ooops, they didn't think of that and now they have no room or practical way to put one in. Even if they do one day find a way... oh the enormous cost. I can see the same happening here... Pegasus, Woodend, Waikuku, Tuahiwi will all prosper but there'll be no rail line nearby... and no way to put one in either. Likewise for Prebbleton and Lincoln... Though there is still the remains of an old rail corridor if the council wanted it... but when those towns have prospered in 20 years time, that old rail corridor will be long gone. And so we'll still rely on busses... like Auckland mostly does... and look at the terrible mess they are in now.    Report

Page 3 of 3 (42 items) < 1 2 3

» Urban Developme... » Public Transpor... » Rail Transport