What Could Mass Rapid Transit in Christchurch Look Like?

Brendon Harre
23 min readMar 4, 2022

Rural and urban people when surveyed indicated the main good thing of living in a city was convenience and access to amenities, while the main negative thing was bad traffic, traffic jams and public transport.

Copenhagen S-Bahn Source

This paper is effectively part two of the Christchurch the Chicago of New Zealand paper, which focused on the city’s spatial planning history. This piece of work is more futured focused.

Why Christchurch Needs MRT

Greater Christchurch being New Zealand’s second largest urban area should seek to avoid Auckland’s growth mistakes.

New Zealand’s largest city has been profoundly affected by traffic congestion that inhibits movement and a housing crisis that undermines egalitarian values. Poor productivity growth and a slow reduction in transport carbon emissions are also outcomes that Auckland’s model of growth has struggled to come to terms with.

Auckland’s travel speed increased rapidly between 1950 and 1970 due to investment in replacing urban gravel roads with sealed bitumen roads. Growth slowed to a peak in 1990 before congestion caused a decline in speed.

Auckland made some key mistakes in the second half of last century. It downzoned urban development opportunities and it did not make timely investments into alternative transport modes. These mistakes meant when transport speeds started to decline in the 1990s and housing demand switched to more convenient inner-city locations, housing supply was unresponsive which led to excessive house price increases. A 262% increase between 1978 and 2018 rather than a modelled counterfactual outcome of an 80% increase.

If Auckland had not downzoned and had made timely investments (and interventions like congestion charging) to avoid declining travel speeds then house prices could have been 69% lower

Research and analysis from New Zealand’s Infrastructure Commission — Te Waihanga shows that over the long run unresponsive supply has had a larger effect on house prices than demand factors, such as, population growth, migration, and income growth. Also probably interest rates, although a good long-term data series is lacking for this factor. All these factors were higher for previous generations when New Zealand had slower house price growth.

Prices now rise more rapidly because housing supply is slower to respond to demand. We estimate that when demand for housing increases, we now build one-quarter to one-third fewer homes than our grandparents did (Te Waihanga).

The research found that New Zealand’s planning legislation over the last century became less about the planned integration of infrastructure with land-use to meet future residents needs and more about protecting ‘effects’ for existing residents.

Resource management planning became more complex, consultation and extensive public participation was increasingly mandated, yet infrastructure considerations were gradually dropped from planning legislation.

Infrastructure project costs are among the worst in the world due to a lack of good institutions, poor decision-making processes and a lumpy pipeline of future projects, combined with increasing costs at a litigious consenting consultation stage.

In this context, infrastructure deficits have grown — including a lack of investment in alternative transport modes for Christchurch — especially mass rapid transit.

There have been recent reforms to planning legislations meaning housing supply is now more flexible. Infrastructure is the next issue that needs to be tackled.

Travel speed in Greater Christchurch is likely reaching its peak. There has been some recent improvements in mobility which declined immediately post the 2010/11 earthquakes when a significant proportion of the road network needed repair. The Northern, Southern and Western corridor motorways have been competed which may have a localised increase in speed effect — at least until induced demand kicks in.

Ultimately though, an expanding number of motor vehicles travelling on a urban road network that is largely fixed in size will lead to congestion and falling travel speeds. Like Auckland, Christchurch will require investment in alternative more spatially efficient travel modes.

Why Use the Existing Rail Corridors?

A key question for transit provision is what mode — passenger rail on its own right-of-way track, versus on-street light rail, or bus rapid transit (BRT). The main focus of this paper is outlining what upgrading the existing rail corridor option could be like, although it will also look at a variation that includes building on-street light rail at an early stage.

Very broadly a Greater Christchurch mass rapid transit network could eventually consist of 29 to 35 railway stations using three existing rail corridors, one new corridor, and a city centre rail link. There are some possible variations, especially at the initial stages which will be detailed later.

The network could be built in stages to spread costs over a multi-decade timeframe.

Using the existing rail corridors is a low-hanging fruit opportunity to provide a world-class transit service for a more affordable price.

From page 294 of the book “Can’t Get There From Here” by History lecturer Dr André Brett

Existing rail corridors with the exception of the missing city-centre link and the lack of a connection to Canterbury University are well located. If these rail corridors are upgraded to include passenger services this would better cater for Greater Christchurch’s ‘fat banana’ growth pattern (read above excerpt from “Can’t Get There From Here”) rather than solely relying on roads, motorways, and car dependency.

Greater Christchurch’s ‘fat banana’ is filling in fast with car dependent sprawl. Plenty of development is taking place at both ends of this spatial region. There have been proposed new towns, such as the proposed 800 section development in Ohoka which is away from the rail corridor.

The southern end of the banana in the last 12 months received planning change applications that would lead to the construction of 11,000 homes. This would boost Selwyn District Council’s population to around 100,000 people — which is fast catching up with the rail suburbs of Lower Hutt in the Wellington region.

At least one long standing property developer wants Waka Kotahi to future proof its transport investment in the region so that mass transit rail between Christchurch and Selwyn is not excluded. Effectively they are endorsing a Greater Christchurch passenger rail vision and are calling for the various rail corridors to be protected for future mass transit services. This is particularly significant because it is the Carter Group which has very close links to the National Party. Philip Carter who leads the private sector company has a brother — David Carter — who was the Speaker of the House in the John Key government.

Using rail as the public transport spine has the potential to service a good proportion of Greater Christchurch’s urban population — especially when feeder high frequency bus routes are considered. Also, Christchurch would be a good candidate for integrating cycling and micro-mobility devices with train stations as modelled by similar flat cities in the Netherlands and Denmark. Like feeder bus services this expands the catchment area of transit.

Utilising existing rail corridors would allow a higher quality transit service to be built for a lower per km cost. This means a larger more patronised network can be built.

The rail corridor is more grade separated than on-street options. Meaning it will be safer, faster, and in the future more easily automated. The long-term per passenger operating costs will be lower, as higher capacity and/or more automated trains create economies of scale opportunities.

The background analysis for this transit proposal comes from the paper Christchurch the Chicago of New Zealand which looked at Christchurch’s spatial planning history. This analysis showed a lack of spatial planning meant Christchurch is the largest city in Australasia without mass rapid transit. Which has resulted in the city’s built-environment not orientating to multi-modal transport corridors and, as a consequence, public transport being poorly patronised. Like Auckland, that faced a similar problem in the post-WW2 decades, this could create a difficult to fix after-the-fact infrastructure problem.

For the proposed re-establishment of passenger rail in Christchurch many of the lessons from Wellington, Auckland and Australasia have been copied. In particular, the rail and land-use legislation used to electrify and double track the Hutt Valley, the cut-and-cover tunnel and Britomart Transport Centre, rail trenching which allowed the successful upgrade of New Lynn station, and the way that Auckland progressed mass rapid transit in doable stages.

In general, existing off the shelf technological solutions have been favoured to minimise unforeseen issues and expense.

The above map from the Christchurch is the Chicago of New Zealand paper depicts some historic stations along the proposed staged development of the rail corridors but does not illustrate the future station possibilities well (maps of the proposed future stations are at the end of the report).

Theoretical Framework

Good urbanism should do two things. 1. Increase natural land rents — which can be taxed or ‘captured’ in some manner to create a virtuous cycle and 2. Reduce extractive land rents — the increase in land values resulting from restrictive planning rules and a lack infrastructure.

The underlying theory of localised infrastructure provision required for this proposal is introduced in the paper Brendon Harre connects the lessons from Henry George to the outrageous housing price problems of today. Note — the paper also describes land value capture which helps the economic viability of transit projects.

There is an over-simplified idea in New Zealand that land values must fall for housing to become more affordable. This is not necessarily true as the following explanation illustrates.

From an urban land-use perspective the affordability of land for housing is a function of the cost of land divided by how many dwellings can be constructed on the land. Transit dramatically increases the spatial efficiency of urban areas — dwelling numbers from Australasian and overseas examples can be many times the amount of comparable car dependency areas. Therefore, as long as, land price increases are less than the increase in dwellings that can be viably built on a given size plot, then transit can enable more affordable housing. Note — the overall objective is to increase natural land rents whilst reducing anti-competitive extractive land rents.

In the real world this does occur, Tokyo compared to London has higher urban land prices yet because of more permissive land-use regulations it is more affordable to buy a new-build 70sqm apartment in inner Tokyo than inner London.

It is also important that as Christchurch grows into a larger built-environment it avoids the UK productivity curse detailed below. This is especially important issue to resolve for attracting and retaining workers who otherwise might favour cities with a better combination of livability and affordability.

“Britain’s sprawling suburbs of low-density housing, often poorly connected to city centres by weak transport links (where a large proportion of population is over 30 minutes from the city centre), were a key reason why British cities are less productive and pleasant places to live than their European equivalents.” — Source

In the proposed transit network only the final stations between Kaiapoi and Rangiora would have a travel time of more than 30 minutes to the central Christchurch bus and train interchange — so building MRT would dramatically tighten Greater Christchurch’s transport links.

Because of Marchetti’s constant (people have a fixed transport time budget), stronger rail transport links will lead to an equilibrium shift away from motor vehicles and towards rail (plus towards it compliments — buses, on-street light rail, micro-mobility, and active modes), whilst improving travel time and reliability for all transport modes.

In terms of carbon emissions, Canterbury is one of New Zealand’s most polluting regions. Car ownership and vehicle kilometres per capita are high. Source MoT 2019 data.

Canterbury’s population (0.65 million) is just 37% of Auckland’s (1.7 million), yet the region has 45% of Auckland’s vehicle movements. Regional data shows Cantabrians drive 10,900 km per capita per year, compared to 9,140 km for Auckland (16% less) and 7,840 for the Wellington region (28% less). Note — Canterbury has a similar proportion of rural versus urban dwellers as the Wellington region.

Data from the 2018 census shows Cantabrians drive and cycle to work at a greater rate than the national average, but are car passengers, walk, or use public transport at a lower rate. The travel to education data shows a similar pattern.

The built environment supply from the new “15 minute” centres will be more ‘up than out’. It will be more urban than the suburban built environments that New Zealanders are familiar with. This will provide new choices and more opportunities.

Chicago at night. Cities are typically more built-up in the centre and their built environments follow transport provision. In Chicago’s case a strong road grid layout.

Like other worldwide cities the size of each 15 minute neighbourhood will increase the closer they are to the city centre. Further, the amount of built-floorspace in the walkable vicinity of the stations will be greater than non-transit areas. Added to this effect, there will be more built floor-space as transit becomes more effective compared to other transport modes i.e. the faster, the more frequent, and the more reliable transit travel is compared to road traffic. Going forward, as Christchurch grows and the road network becomes busier and more congested — a high capacity congestion-free mass rapid transit network will become increasingly more attractive.

What is the MRT Vision for Christchurch?

Canterbury is New Zealand’s second largest housing construction market after Auckland. It is in these two regions where New Zealand’s land-use is changing the fastest, with up to 7,500 houses being consented per year in Canterbury and over 20,000 in Auckland.
Canterbury and Auckland have the highest rates of building per capita. Both responded strongly to the building stimulus of low interest rates in 2020/21. These facts indicate Canterbury should have a strong land-use response to transit provision.

Given the large number of stations — about 30 eventually — land-use can be competitively supplied from a wide range of sites — intensification of existing residential areas, brownfield development of industrial areas, and transit-oriented development of greenfield sites. The resulting competitive and affordable housing supply in New Zealand’s second largest house building market in the medium to long-term will have a national effect in countering the housing crisis.

Source — New Zealand’s bipartisan housing reforms offer a model to other countries.

Because the rail plan will more than double Greater Christchurch’s potential housing supply it will help fulfil the district planning requirements set down in the RMA — National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) which is likely to be transferred to the upcoming new legislation replacing the RMA — the Strategic Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act.

Note a good overview of the effect of this bipartisan planning reform process has had on increasing construction rates is detailed in this piece — New Zealand’s bipartisan housing reforms offer a model to other countries.

The overall vision for MRT in Christchurch is to create a high capacity, fast, frequent, and reliable (not affected by traffic congestion) spine for the public transport network that links upzoned, walkable and active mode “15 minute” centres which are also fed by a grid of bus routes and cycleways covering the rest of the city.

A world-class MRT network will provide Greater Christchurch with a vital missing piece in its infrastructure framework. It will help transform Christchurch into a modern, successful, growing yet sustainable, mid-sized city that provides affordable livable opportunities across the income-spectrum, allowing it to compete on its own merits against other Australasian cities.


Re-establishing passenger rail in Christchurch will help address a range of issues. In particular it addresses the housing crisis, climate change, and productivity — it is a once in a generation chance to reshape the city.

Network Considerations and Public Expectations

An important consideration of the proposed Christchurch rail network is stations would be located as often as possible on arterial roads that have high frequency bus routes. The rail corridors predominantly run north/south and east/west. These rapid transit rail spines can connect with high frequency bus routes to make a city-wide public transport grid.

Some high frequency bus routes over time could be upgraded to light rail.

Given the importance of these bus/rail connections, it makes sense for the rail level crossings to be gradually removed. Lessons — including value for money — could be learnt from the Melbourne level crossing removal project.

There is a growing public expectation that Christchurch deserves a multi $billion mass transit project. There have been media articles, such as, Doesn’t my city deserve world-class public transport too? and Christchurch must invest in high quality public transport.

Greater transit investment has strong community support. Councillor Peter Scott has said there was “significant public support” for rail transport when Environment Canterbury (ECan) councilors voted unanimously to investigate opportunities to progress passenger rail on existing tracks, focusing on the greater city area. This vote resulted in a request for a report ahead of their next Canterbury Regional Transport Committee meeting in May. ECan’s vote followed years of passenger rail campaigning from Councillor Tane Apanui.

What is Happening with MRT Planning for Christchurch?

There is Cabinet endorsement that Christchurch should get mass transit and that a plan should come to Cabinet in 2022 (Auckland light-rail decision to progress Cabinet Paper — paragraphs 31 and 89).

It has been hard to keep track of how rapid transit for Christchurch is progressing. The article Rapid Transit — What’s Happening gives a good breakdown of the timeline of events.

Quote from Infrastructure Quarterly — January 2022, New Zealand Infrastructure Commission — “Figure 2 shows a breakdown of expected project spending by year for Canterbury. These projections will always show a drop towards the end of the time frame. However, Christchurch has a particularly steep decline in project activity. This decrease is driven by several large projects finishing up and suggests some capacity in the Canterbury vertical construction market from around 2024/2025.”

New Zealand as detailed by the Infrastructure Commission in its January 2022 Quarterly update has difficulty with inflating construction costs — not just post-Covid — but higher than most other comparable countries since 2016. If mass transit construction in Christchurch began around 2024 it could take advantage of spare capacity in Canterbury’s construction market — meaning pricing pressure should be reduced.

Canterbury without a credible infrastructure investment pipeline is in danger of having a ‘feast and famine’ investment cycle which is less efficient at project delivery because it leads to non-standardised design, poor workforce management, and a lack of investment in equipment and processes that would raise productivity.

The Greater Christchurch Partnership — which includes Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, ECan, Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council and Selwyn District Council — last year released a report that examined how MRT could work as Greater Christchurch grows over the next 30 years, by assessing three scenarios — using the existing heavy rail corridor, and two street running scenarios using either buses or light rail. Under all three scenarios, the report found that MRT was feasible but there would need to be higher population density around the stations to secure its viability. Cost estimates ranged from $2 to $4.5 billion, with on-street light rail being the most expensive.

Four Proposed Stages of MRT Development for Greater Christchurch

MRT should be built in digestible stages over a long timeframe. Each stage should be a natural project in its own right. Each stage should provide a significant upgrade to the transit network. And each stage should induce demand for the next stage.

Below is a proposed four stage MRT development plan.

Stage One: Re-establish passenger rail on the existing track between Rolleston and Rangiora — stations in brackets to be built later — if and when they become viable. Existing west facing rail corner at Addington retained (not shown in above map).

Stage Two: New western facing rail corner at Addington built. Rail tracks between Addington and Moorhouse dropped into a trench. Two new grade separated stations to be built — the Addington and Moorhouse stations. This removes a large number of level crossings between Lincoln Road and Colombo Street. Also importantly it means the stations can be built under the arterial road meaning pedestrians and those connecting with Lincoln Rd and Colombo St rapid bus services have a fast, direct and safe route to the station (without needing to cross busy roads).

Proposed integrated Central Bus and Train Interchange. Colombo St runs north/south on the left. Manchester St runs north/south on the right. Tuam St runs east/west on the bottom

Stage Three: 900m cut and cover tunnel connecting Moorhouse station to a new city centre station that is integrated with the Central Bus Interchange. Note this tunnel would have a higher quad-track capacity than the Britomart tunnel to avoid the capacity constraints that Britomart experienced prior to the Auckland rail loop (CRL) being constructed. The Lyttelton passenger rail corridor would be re-opened at this stage.


There would be different options for creating the central city spur from the south — as shown above. There would need to be a design phase to determine the best option. This should be done early at stage one, even if stage three is quite a few years later so the rail corridor can be designated and the land acquired to prevent the route from being overbuilt. Note Britomart in Auckland was only possible because the area around the proposed station and tunnel was derelict.

The 200m long platforms depicted above could allow regional trains like the TranzAlpine and Coastal Pacific to arrive and depart from the Christchurch central station.

Stage Four: Rail spur at Hornby extended through greenfield land to Lincoln. Timely land acquisition of the corridor is needed to prevent the route being overbuilt.

Map (H/T @svdweerden) showing MRT integrated with the requested $108 million upgrade of Greater Christchurch’s five core bus routes to achieve 7.5 min frequencies between 7am and 7pm weekdays. The Yellow bus route from New Brighton to Rolleston has been rerouted to Prebbleton and Lincoln while the Blue bus route from Cashmere to Rangiora has been rerouted to Woodend and Pegasus.

Adding in a Light Rail Variation at Stage One

Map (H/T @svdweerden) with a Light Rail line from the Airport to Christchurch Central

On-street light rail could be built at an earlier stage. It could start with a short 5km route from the University to Christchurch Central (so even shorter than the above map).

Like all connections between high frequency buses and the rail corridor the aim would be to manage the intersection of light rail and heavy rail at Riccarton Road with grade separation — probably by trenching the existing railway line and creating a transfer station underneath the road.

The thinking behind introducing the light rail variation earlier is it combines the strengths of the existing rail corridor and the strengths of on-street light rail to give an outcome greater than the sum of its parts.

The existing rail corridor concentrates on moving passengers at speed across the entire city network using relatively spread out stations (and initially the number of stations could be much less than depicted in this paper).

City centre section of proposed on-street light rail route with an extension north to Cathedral Square and the north-west corner of Victoria Square.

On-street light rail has more route flexibility so can provide transit access for high demand areas that are away from the existing rail corridors. Also, on-street light rail is better when there are shorter distances between stops and a shorter overall length meaning the lower speed of light rail is less of an issue.

On-street light rail could activate Riccarton road and the central section of Colombo street into a higher capacity public transport, walkable, and active mode corridors. Private motor vehicles could be largely redirected to parallel routes like Blenheim Road.


As discussed in the article Could Boulevards be the Answer to Auckland’s Light Rail Woes? on-street light rail requires a reallocation of motor vehicle road space (or a widening of the street). For example the central section of Colombo street would be a natural inner-city conversion to a pedestrian and light-rail street. This sort of street conversion has been successful overseas as the below depiction of Coolsingel, Rotterdam illustrates. Christchurch already has successful pedestrian streets — Cashel Street and Oxford Terrace for example — so the concept has precedence in the city.


Fortunately for Christchurch, its inner-city has by far the most inner-city access streets compared to other cities in New Zealand, so making one or two of them specialised public transport and active mode streets will significantly increase access to the inner-city whilst having only a minor effect on motor-vehicles.

Light rail as proposed would service existing high demand areas, with stops at the University, Riccarton Mall, plus the Christchurch Public Hospital and Metro Sports facility. Also the city centre from the Bus Interchange stop, to a stop servicing the Cathedral Square, Convention Centre, Performing Arts Precinct, and Central Library, and through to a stop at the northern corner of Victoria Square to service the Town Hall and Casino.

The light rail line could be extended at a later stage to the airport and out to Papanui/Northlands or possibly out to New Brighton or Sumner.

Over the very long-run all the high frequency bus lines could be upgraded to light rail.

Why not Tram-Trains?

Tram-trains that travel on existing heavy rail corridors and on-street are a possibility for providing a city-centre link. They would be a better transit option than doing nothing. But there is an element of silver bullet thinking in the proposal. That somehow a tram-train can provide a better service than a purpose-built on-street light rail service and specialised grade-separated passenger rail lines.

There are a number of hidden costs to using tram-trains in Christchurch. These include.

  1. On-street tram-train stations would need to located before or after road crossings. This means some connecting passengers would have to walk across major arterial roads — which can be difficult and time consuming.
  2. Tram-trains like on-street light rail have low height floors and low height platforms (you can’t have 80cm standard rail platform in an active street environment). This low height means the entire carriage floor cannot be above the wheel bogies. This affects loading capacity and the number of doors — so network capacity and the speed of loading/unloading.
  3. On-street transit vehicles will be very difficult if not impossible to automate in the future.

What about a longer western tunnel that can service Christchurch Hospital or even a rail loop?

Interim MRT Report heavy rail map

The Interim MRT report suggested a longer western rail tunnel with two underground stations. The first station servicing Christchurch hospital the largest employment site in Canterbury and the second station being the central exchange.

This western rail tunnel if combined with this paper’s discussed southern city link tunnel from Moorhouse station would make a city centre loop.

The western tunnel is over 2km in length compared to the tunnel from Moorhouse station of under 1km. So significantly more expensive — especially considering underground stations are also very expensive to construct. This would be a large cost hurdle that could not be broken down into a series of smaller more deliverable transit projects.

It is not clear that a western tunnel and an eventual rail loop would be more beneficial than a high capacity Moorhouse station accessed route — especially if combined with an early upgrade to light rail for the University to city-centre route that would service the hospital and other high demand locations.

Possible and probable proposed stations on existing rail corridor are listed below.

Rolleston Line — 9 to 10 stations

1. Christchurch Train and Bus Interchange

Stage-Three creating a central rail hub integrated with the existing Bus Interchange.

Located near the corner of Tuam and Manchester Street.

900m cut in cover tunnel down the south end of Manchester Street. Unlike central Auckland and the CRL the lower end of Manchester Street has less commercial activity that would disrupted. Like cities such as Paris, the flat gradient means the cut and cover tunnel will be less deep (and therefore less expensive) than the cut and cover parts of Auckland’s CRL tunnel. Christchurch’s high water table means the tunnel will need to be waterproofed (like a swimming pool) and anchored down — but these a known engineering problems with standard solutions.

Like Britomart in Auckland a good quality central station has the potential to stimulate a large amount of commercial, retail and hospitality development.

2. Moorhouse Station


Moorhouse Station could also be the location for a new regional rail station hub servicing the existing TranzAlpine West Coast line and the northern Coastal Pacific Picton line. Hopefully in the future a re-established southern line could be viable too.

Located where Colombo Street crosses the rail corridor.

Trenched station meaning the rail overbridge can be dropped to ground level which decreases the severance effect.

Colombo street is a high frequency bus route.

Likely to stimulate commercial and to a lesser degree residential activity.

Could create a SoMo (South Moorhouse) district linking South City with Sydenham.

3. Addington Station

Stage-Two — replacing the existing Tranz Alpine station.

Where Lincoln Road crosses the rail tracks — a trenched station.

Another shoulder city area where a lot of commercial activity will be stimulated. After the 2010/11 earthquakes many office buildings were rebuilt along Lincoln road.

Lincoln road is a high frequency bus route.

There is a possibility to construct a pedestrian and active mode tunnel under Moorhouse Ave to South Hagley Park between Grove Road and Hagley Ave. This would encourage the pedestrian, biking and e-scooter connection with Christchurch Public Hospital — the largest employer in the city.

4. Tower Junction Station

Stage-Two (or Stage-One for the light rail variation) — replacing the existing Tranz Alpine station.

Located where Whiteleigh Ave crosses the rail corridor.

The high frequency Orbiter bus route uses Whiteleigh Ave.

Tower Junction is a large box retail shopping area owned by Ngai Tahu. High quality transit with good ridership numbers will stimulate this shopping area transitioning towards a more walkable district where built floorspace and pedestrian access replaces some car parking.

5. Middleton Station

Between Annex and Matipo Streets.

A location where there is a large KiwiRail site — large enough for 1600 housing units. Other cities as their economies evolved shifted there rail and port facilities to logistic hubs in peripheral city locations. Christchurch has done this with its inland port for freight near Rolleston and could do the same with its industrial city rail facilities.

6. Sockburn Station???

Main South Rd

7. Hornby Station

Carmen Rd

Hornby is Christchurch’s south-western retail hub. Suburban rail would improve the transport links to this area, stimulating further activity.

8. Islington Station

Waterloo Rd/ Parker St

Opportunity for residential and greenfield land intensification.

9. Templeton Station

Railway Terrace / Kirk Rd

Opportunity for residential and greenfield land intensification.

10. Rolleston Station

SH1/ Rolleston Dr

Rolleston is Selwyn’s fastest growing township

Opportunity for residential and greenfield land intensification.

Rangiora Line — 10 to 14 stations

Share Addington Station onwards to the city centre train station

4. Riccarton Station

Located where Riccarton Road crosses the rail corridor

Riccarton road is a high frequency bus route servicing the city centre, Christchurch Public Hospital, Riccarton Mall, the University, and the Airport.

This route is likely to be the first route feasible for upgrading from high frequency bus to light rail.

Opportunity for residential intensification.

5. Mona Vale Station

Located where Fendalton Road crosses the rail corridor.

Fendalton road is a more direct airport bus route option.

Opportunity for residential land intensification.

6. Wairakei Station

Located where Wairakei Road crosses the rail corridor

Opportunity for residential land intensification and some commercial intensification of the existing commercial area.

7. Papanui Station

Located where Harewood Road crosses the rail corridor

Near Northlands mall (the Mall is between the railway line and the Main North Road).

The high frequency Orbiter bus route turns from Harewood Road into the Main North Road near Papanui Station. The high frequency Cashmere to Rangiora (which could be rerouted to Pegasus) bus route uses Papanui Road which becomes the Main North Road.

Opportunity for residential and commercial land intensification.

8. Northcote Station

Located where Northcote Road crosses the rail corridor

Opportunity for residential land intensification.

9. Redwood Station???

Sturrocks Road

Opportunity for residential and industrial land intensification.

10. Belfast South Station

Radcliffe Road

Near Northwood Supa Centa shopping mall.

Opportunity for residential, commercial, and greenfield land intensification. Would benefit from a master planning approach.

11. Belfast North Station

Factory Road

Opportunity for residential and greenfield land intensification. Would benefit from a master planning approach.

12. Kainga Station???

Link Road

Possible future site for greenfield transit oriented development.

13. Woodford Glen Station???

Courtney Stream

Possible future site for greenfield transit oriented development.

14. Kaiapoi Station

William Street

Opportunity for residential and commercial land intensification.

15. Silver Stream Station

Kaiapoi River

A good candidate for a park-and-ride location as it is close to an existing motorway interchange.

Opportunity for residential and greenfield land intensification.

16. Southbrook Station???

Boys Road

Possible future site for greenfield transit oriented development.

17. Rangiora Station

High Street

Opportunity for residential and greenfield land intensification.

Lyttelton Line (Stage-three) — 6 stations

Share from Moorhouse Ave station — (Switchback track?)

3. Lancaster station

Near the former Lancaster Park stadium

KiwiRail Depot area that could be repurposed

4. Woolston Station

Ensors Road

The high frequency Orbiter bus route uses Ensors Road

Some KiwiRail land available

5. Opawa Station

Garlands Road

Opportunity for residential and industrial land intensification.

6. Hillsborough Station???

Large site of Lyttelton Port Land that could be repurposed (they have already built an inland port near Rolleston).

7. Ferrymead Station

Near Trusscotts Road

Opportunity for residential and greenfield land intensification, especially if master planning land remediation takes place to reduce flooding and liquefaction risk.

8. Lyttelton Station

A high-quality transit service could stimulate the port town to reconnect with the harbour by constructing high amenity value public and private spaces similar to what Auckland and Wellington have achieved.

Lincoln Line (Stage-four) — 5 stations

8. Prebbleton North Station

Springs Road near Hodgens Road

Possible future site for a greenfield transit oriented development.

9. Prebbleton South Station

Trices and Toswill Road

Possible future site for a greenfield transit oriented development.

10. Ladbrooks Station

Robinson Road

Possible future site for a greenfield transit oriented development.

11. Lincoln North Station

Tancreds and Springs Roads

Possible future site for a greenfield transit oriented development.

12. Lincoln Station

Springs and Ellesmere Roads

Possible future site for a greenfield transit oriented development.



Brendon Harre

When cities make it harder to build houses is that because landowners have lobbied lawmakers so they can earn without toil?