Rail and trams are expensive to build and inflexible in use. NZTA will not subsidise light rail in Chch so it is an added burden on the city's ratepayers.

Chch drivers can't cope now, so if the project goes ahead it will be chaos on the roads as they encounter trams.

Has anyone asked how much the existing tram operation makes now? I heard it is nothing. If correct then ratepayers are subsidising these joys rides for rich tourists.

Forgot to add in an earlier post that ECan does the planning and contracting for busroutes and CCC is responsible for putting up bus stops and bus shelters. I was dumbfounded when I heard that-isn't one of the goals for efficient business having all the related functions owned by one busienss unit.

Jim and Bob can talk all they like about what they are going to do, but neither has indicated how they will create some buy-in from ECan over this. Like who is going to order the railcars for the lines we already have - all three of which could support park and ride strategies.

I'm getting the feeling that there's alot of sunshine being blown up you know what, and once again we will end up seeking and implementing the wrong solution to something which the rest of the developed world got sorted decades ago. Jim and Bob, more detail please.

talk is easy. www.peterwakeman.org

Michael #22, not only what but how we and the generations who inherit our city will pay for what is done, and I have some worries there. In some areas both Jim and Bob seem to me not to be aware of the problems and challenges faced by other cities that have gone down simil. paths to what they are advocating. Future generations are owed better. There are also going to be huge issues over competition for space, and for resources around water, food and infrastructure that neither Bob nor Jim can see yet.

I am personally in favour of leaving the existing exchange as and where it is and creating smaller exchanges around the city. Better concentration on times as we seem to run a lot of empty buses.

Secondly - if we're spending our money on buses in an effort to reduce traffic congestion, well why not concentrate some money on these arterial routes. I know they are building a motorway to take traffic south of the city, but the north, west and east is just as bad. I vote for ditching roundabouts,increasing lanes (that have movable barriers to cope with flow like ALK harbour bridge) to keep traffic flowing. Over passes etc... we need to think beyond 2010 - 2015 coz what we spend our money on now is what we want to have in the future, why spend millions now to pull it all down in 5 years to build something else.

Just a thought

Here the benefit of light rail are;

If we want world class tourism on our city.

Led to possible strategic tourism value.

Led to employment opportunity.

By seeking forward more preferable sense.

Jim Anderton is wrong and his 'policy' smacks of 'anything to be different' and 'everyone else is wrong'. Anywhere else in the world the bus central terminus / interchange would be adjacent to the rail/light rail infratructure, its called intermodal planning I think; not by itself in a hole in the ground. Anyone who has travelled even as close as Queensland will see this - how can we be planning to do this when numerous Councillors and senior council managers have been there and and other places to see the best futureproofed systems. Christ, Bob and tony went round the world looking at this stuff.

The bus interchange for christchurch must go on Moorehouse at the previous train station with the yellow electric buses as CBD feeders. Having dozens of huge buses servicing suburbs blasting around the narrow CBD streets is very 1960s. Some form of light rail needs to ordered now to use existing rail links to Lyttleton, Rolleston (Ashburton?) and Rangiora.

Suburban interchanges are needed to create points to hop between routes. These will be positioned at places which will be long term attractors - read Malls. There is an empty petrol station opposite Eastgate which would be perfect - I guess the price has just gone up. The council could lease that next week and get everybody off the footpath as a first step - Smoke Free though please.

Auckland's light rail taught local and central planners one lesson - build it and they will come.

One Question:- Who currently owns the owns the land identified for the sunken bus terminal?

Folks commenting here should keep in mind that rail systems are very costly and have not been found viable in cities with populations under 1.25 million. Also, so much has already been invested in our bus system, and this can more economically be further developed. It seems to me both Jim and Bob want to spend up big for different projects and while I support the development of public transport in Christchurch neither of them have it right. Their policies are framed around getting elected or re-elected. Long term, financially, all candidates' policies require in-depth scrutiny.

I wonder if some of the commentors on the "waste of money - we don't need it" theme have ever actually used the bus service? It's likely that these commentors are the ones that do not let buses out of thier bus stop, pass as the bus is pulling out, complain about buses on the road, complain about bus lanes...

I have used the light rail in Melbourne and loved it!But wake up Bob, chch does not need light rail and it would not work here!