PUBLIC TRANSPORT | Projects + News + Gallery

[KaneD]

Yes, exactly - Certainly the obvious notion is that it is for tourists. But it is very important that the council plan it for use by locals too. But some issues that I have come up with that the council need to consider:

1) How to make the operation financially viable.

The cost of the extension is expected to be about $11 or so. Given that tourists currently pay $14 per Adult Fare, with a profit of last year of only $120k, this would seem to suggest that it will be a hard ask.

2) How to make it faster

The Chch trams are sooooo sloooow... While this is nice for tourists who have a little more time to relax, it isn't the case with busy commuters etc. Maybe there should be two trams? The old iconic ones for tourists which run on the existing loop, and newer faster ones to do the full loop with faster trams.

3) Pricing of fares

Obviously it needs to integrate with MetroCard. If using the tram as a connecting transport mode (from say a future central railway station?) to the city centre then the fare needs to be part of the original journey (aka like a transfer ticket)

Now public transport projects are usually topped up with government funding through Regional Governments (Ecan) and Central Government (Transit/Land Transport) - I wonder how much money the CCC will get for this project? Or will central government tell our council to go shove it as they're busy paying 80% of Eden Park instead (unlike AMI Stadium that doesn't get a dime - Just my ten cents worth)

[KIWIKAAS]

Originally Posted by KaneD

The Chch trams are sooooo sloooow... While this is nice for tourists who have a little more time to relax, it isn't the case with busy commuters etc. Maybe there should be two trams? The old iconic ones for tourists which run on the existing loop, and newer faster ones to do the full loop with faster trams.

I agree. I think any future commuter orientated network would need to be on seperate routes. The existing tram loop is a lovely, quaint bit of fun but would be near impossible to incorporate into a ''serious'' tram network. Luckily the Christchurch CBD has plenty of streets that could be used (god bless grids).

[sensible]

Originally Posted by KIWIKAAS

I agree. I think any future commuter orientated network would need to be on seperate routes. The existing tram loop is a lovely, quaint bit of fun but would be near impossible to incorporate into a ''serious'' tram network. Luckily the Christchurch CBD has plenty of streets that could be used (god bless grids).

i dont see an issue with the current loop being incorporated, its just the current operations that make it not 'serious' at the mo... as in its operated as an historic tourist attraction so they actually only need to go 0.05km/h whereas if it became part of the comuter network (in the CBD at any rate) it would go faster. Basically i dont think its a 'physical' issue, i dont see how having a 'seperate' network in the CBD would make a natter of a difference. In anycase i see the current loop continuing to operate largely as it does and the new routes being built more in line as modrn light rail although i dont see what the harm would be to spin some commuters around it.

KaneD, im a bit confused as to what you mean by 'financially viable' as im doubtful whether any form of public transport (including Metro Buses) makes a profit without subsidies. If the tram extension is part of a sightly bigger picture (i.e part of the commuter network) the only financial issue would be that it isnt a 'waste' of funds ie as in 'its benificial in X amount of ways to carry commuters around the CBD in tram/lightrail form'... however on all those other points i totally agree.

The Christchurch City Council have consistently stated that they envisage extensions to the CBD tram as moving towards a more commuter based operation. Certainly our mayor does.......

[KaneD]

Originally Posted by sensible

KaneD, im a bit confused as to what you mean by 'financially viable' as im doubtful whether any form of public transport (including Metro Buses) makes a profit without subsidies. If the tram extension is part of a sightly bigger picture (i.e part of the commuter network) the only financial issue would be that it isnt a 'waste' of funds ie as in 'its benificial in X amount of ways to carry commuters around the CBD in tram/lightrail form'... however on all those other points i totally agree.

Sorry.. to clarify that slightly better...

Yes, agreed that almost ALL public transport systems require a moderate amount of subsidising from taxpayer funded coffers. The main issue on being financially viable that I was getting at is that it has to be cost efficient to subsidise in the first place - by that I mean, is spending $11m or more on laying tracks for a fairly limited commuter system effective when it could simply be better handled by half a dozen buses for probably a quarter of the price?

The main issue is that certainly as overseas experience has showed, trams are showing a bit of a renaissance and PT is seen as being more 'attractive' to users if is run with trams instead of buses... but if taxpayers have to fund four times the price to get say 20% more bums on seats (or in a London sense - more people crammed in the aisles!) over what they might with buses say, then is that extra worth it?

[eastadl]

Originally Posted by KaneD

Sorry.. to clarify that slightly better...

Yes, agreed that almost ALL public transport systems require a moderate amount of subsidising from taxpayer funded coffers. The main issue on being financially viable that I was getting at is that it has to be cost efficient to subsidise in the first place - by that I mean, is spending $11m or more on laying tracks for a fairly limited commuter system effective when it could simply be better handled by half a dozen buses for probably a quarter of the price?

The main issue is that certainly as overseas experience has showed, trams are showing a bit of a renaissance and PT is seen as being more 'attractive' to users if is run with trams instead of buses... but if taxpayers have to fund four times the price to get say 20% more bums on seats (or in a London sense - more people crammed in the aisles!) over what they might with buses say, then is that extra worth it?

being from a city that has in the last year, extended our 1 tramline through our city centre (about $30 mil), I can tell you it is definitely worth it. Patronage is increased by 30%, our city is much more cosmopolitan and vibrant, trams are tourist friendly, they are much quieter than buses, and the extension is so successful they our state govt has announced a further extension to be completed within 24 months. Do it CHC

[metroman]

Adelaide is our sister city and a city which was designed by the same planners.

[sensible]

Originally Posted by KaneD

Sorry.. to clarify that slightly better...

Yes, agreed that almost ALL public transport systems require a moderate amount of subsidising from taxpayer funded coffers. The main issue on being financially viable that I was getting at is that it has to be cost efficient to subsidise in the first place - by that I mean, is spending $11m or more on laying tracks for a fairly limited commuter system effective when it could simply be better handled by half a dozen buses for probably a quarter of the price?

The main issue is that certainly as overseas experience has showed, trams are showing a bit of a renaissance and PT is seen as being more 'attractive' to users if is run with trams instead of buses... but if taxpayers have to fund four times the price to get say 20% more bums on seats (or in a London sense - more people crammed in the aisles!) over what they might with buses say, then is that extra worth it?

Totally get what you are saying and its an impt point........

personally i dont think its a 'bus' or 'tram' choice, its a 'do it or dont' kind of thing. It could make the CBD so much more vibrant, and help attract more people to live there. i dont think a bus would do that.... i guess what im saying is that its an investment beyond mere basic commuter needs....

[woody]

Originally Posted by metroman

Adelaide is our sister city and a city which was designed by the same planners.

I spent a few very pleasant days last January In Adelaide and the tram was my prefer`d choice of transport. Clean, fast, cheap ,my only complaint the seats are hard as hell..............







They are light years away from Christchurch quaint tourist tram, but I love`m both.

[Kiss the Rain]

The cashshel street's new pavement is finished, they laid rectanglar stones for the centre. I reckon it's ideal to install tramway rails on it, the width seems about just right.

[Davee]

We so have to do what they have done in Adelaide, Portland, Dresden, The Hague...just to name a few. What we have is pathetic

Thanks for the nice pics Woody.

[woody]

Originally Posted by Davee

We so have to do what they have done in Adelaide, Portland, Dresden, The Hague...just to name a few. What we have is pathetic

Thanks for the nice pics Woody.

Your welcome davee, but I would not call your "heritage" trams pathetic, ok they could never be called "commuter transport" but they do fulfil a service, us tourists love`m.

[Davee]

27 June 2008
The Christchurch City Council is now looking at more options for extending the city’s tramway after approving the laying of tracks and allowing for trams in City Mall.

Read report on Submissions to City Mall SCP and Tram Extension

http://www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/proce...ttachment1.pdf

THIS MAKES FOR VERY INTERESTING READING.

[Kiwi_Rich]

Further to that Davee...

Council ponders $11m tram project
By Charlie Gates - Canterbury | Saturday, 28 June 2008

Email a Friend | Printable View | Have Your Say
Joseph Johnson
GOOD BUSINESS: New Regent Street cafe owner Fred Sesum says 60% of his summer business comes from tram customers.

The Christchurch tourist tram network could more than double under controversial plans being considered by the city council that would cost as much as $11 million.


Critics claim the tram extension would place the tourist above the commuter and interfere with bus routes, while advocates say it would boost tourism and help businesses along the route.

Christchurch City councillors this week voted to spend $550,000 installing tram tracks on a short stretch of High Street and Cashel Street. They will decide next year if the new tracks will ever be used when they consider a tram extension as part of long-term spending proposals.

The tracks will be laid during the refurbishment of City Mall to save money by not digging up the street again if the extension is approved.

Council staff are exploring possible extensions leading from the current route on Worcester Boulevard, down Oxford Terrace, along City Mall, down High Street as far as the Catholic Cathedral or Tuam Street before looping back to Cathedral Square.

The more ambitious extension, stretching to the Catholic Cathedral on Barbadoes Street, would more than double the network and estimates show it would cost between $8.9m and $11m.

Chrissie Williams and Yani Johanson questioned the extension plans.

The two Christchurch 2021 councillors believe the tram system should be considered as part of strategic commuter plans.

Environment Canterbury (ECan) is also concerned a tram extension would interfere with bus routes.

The Christchurch bus network is straining under soaring passenger numbers.

"The extension of the tram route may not be the best use of available resources as there are currently more pressing issues facing public transport in Christchurch," ECan said in a submission on the proposals.

Council principal adviser for central city and projects Dave Hinman said the short-term aim was to attract more tourists, but he said the new rails could support a commuter network.

"In the long term, if a light rail system comes into the system, some of these tracks could be used by light rail as well," he said.

"A light rail system would require much more planning and funding. It is a much larger beast."

Businesses along the current route said the tram brought in tourists and customers.

Pronto Cafe owner Fred Sesum said about 60 per cent of his customers during the summer were from the tram

[KaneD]

I see the technical documents and consent applications for the Southern Motorway are posted on Transits website... It would be good to have this thing built... It is such a drag driving into town from Rolly each day.

Maybe I need to move closer to town?

[Davee]

...........here is the link everyone. It's a big document.

http://www.transit.govt.nz/projects/...n-motorway.jsp

I hope they just get on with it soon. It is vital for CHC's growth and development.

[sensible]

i agree we need better roading access into christchurch from the south (hell i live near rolleston). This motorway is indeed vital... but it was vital 30 years ago. We still need it but we also need more. For a start the current plan is very 'half ass' it doesnt even extend all the way back to SH1. I feel that the following is needed.

*The motorway needs to bypass Templeton and rejoin the highway just south of there.
*SH1 from Templeton to Rolleston should be four laned.
*Better public transport should be introduced. Park and ride at the railway station (for bus service) should be built with the goal of converting to a rail service in the next 10 years or so
*There needs to be a serious look at extending the motorway further at the other end along the southern border of the CBD and onto the Opawa expressway.

Anyway thats just off the top of my head.

[Milan Luka]

Makes perfect sense to me.

To think this could have should have all been completed in about 1975.

[KaneD]

Originally Posted by Milan Luka

Makes perfect sense to me.

To think this could have should have all been completed in about 1975.

The 1960's Master Transport Plan (with all it's grandiose plans of the day) was intended for completion when the greater christchurch population reached 400,000. Originally it was estimated that this point would occur in about 1980, however economic turbulence in the late 1970's and the ending of the 'baby boom' years slowed the city's population growth somewhat.

Well, we are about there now but look at how fuck all we have got from that 1960's plan - not that I agree with all of the plan, but much of what we have already, or is proposed is basically just a [massively] cut down version of it bar a few notable exceptions.

[metroman]

So basically we are paying catch up. What was on the plan back then?

[Paulsy]

So no entrances or exits that don't already exist??? Halswell Junction Rd left at two lanes (even though there is space for 4 lanes reserved there). The raceway overpass is to be filled in (that bridge is useless nowadays anyhow). IMO it would be better to bridge Collins St over, demolish the houses on Brougham and take the end of it closer to town (say Selwyn St). It still seems to be a motorway to nowhere but I guess its a start. How many hundred years before construction starts?

Don't we actually need a northern arterial first (to complete another half-arsed unfinshed motorway)?