Thanks to everyone who came to the 4th Canterbury Rail and Housing Workshop last week. We had some good discussion with 30-odd people debating the pros and cons of 6 different options for mass rapid transit in Christchurch.
To kick things off Glen presented on some of the similarities and differences between the three main modes available for mass rapid transit:
- Heavy rail
- Light rail
- Bus rapid transit
This summary slide shows the key points he explained.
We looked at the maps and discussions we had during the first workshop, and developed the most common ideas into six options. These didn’t capture every idea, but we wanted to have a manageable number of options to work with, rather than the hundreds that were discussed. Note that these are not mutually exclusive – it may be that we want to combine two or three of these. Also note some of these are just a “what do we do first?” sort of scenario. In the long term, hopefully we’ll have a more comprehensive network than this, but we need to start somewhere.
The options are summarised below, explained in more detail as part of the full set of the evening’s slides:
- Bus Rapid Transit along Riccarton and Papanui Roads
- Bus Rapid Transit along Northern Corridor
- Heavy Rail to Rolleston
- Heavy Rail to Rangiora
- Light rail to Halswell
- Light rail along to University
We then went through a multi-criteria analysis, ranking each option by the objectives we came up with together in workshop 3. I summed up the scores from the six groups, and have shown the average scores below (the raw sheets are here).
This shows that there was a pretty strong leaning towards heavy rail on the existing tracks. Both routes scored very similarly. People saw heavy rail as providing more reliable travel times than both light rail and bus rapid transit. It also scored higher in environmental outcomes, and was seen as using space more efficiently.
Light rail along Lincoln Road was scored next highest. People marked this highly in terms of perception/experience of public transport, improved environmental outcomes, and better/more efficient use of space.
Riccarton Road light rail was marked significantly worse than Lincoln Road light rail, due mainly to two categories. People didn’t see it resulting in lower cost housing/transport, presumably relating to the fact it is the only option that exclusively services developed areas, rather than opening up potential greenfield development areas. It also scored relatively low in terms of better/more efficient use of space.
People marked both bus rapid transit options lowly. People didn’t see them as providing the same travel time reliability as the other options, particularly the Riccarton and Papanui Roads option. People also thought they wouldn’t have the same high perception/experience as the heavy and light rail options. People marked them down for environmental benefits – this may be due to people comparing it to the existing diesel buses we have now. They also marked them lower for better/more efficient use of space.
We asked for participant’s thoughts on the evening via a Menti survey and will take the limited feedback received into consideration.
Our final workshop will be Monday, 8 July at Tūranga (TSB Space on level 1) where we’ll discuss how we go about making this happen, particularly focussing on funding and implementation.
What do you think of this scoring? Heavy rail came out conclusively on top, being marked highest for almost every category. Does this align with your gut instinct?