From:
Joe Hewitt
To:
Grant Fletcher
Subject:
FW: Rapid transit definition for RLTP
Date:
Friday, 29 January 2021 1:09:00 pm
Attachments:
image001.png
image002.png
Do we need to discuss this further? Cheers, Joe
From: Andrew Wharton <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 29 January 2021 11:09 am
To: Jason Holland <[email address]>; Fleur Matthews
<[email address]>; Stewart McKenzie <[email address]>;
[email address]; Hamish Wesney <[email address]>; John
McSweeney <[email address]>; Kate Pascall <[email address]>
Cc: Amy Helm <[email address]>; Amy Kearse <[email address]>; Joe Hewitt
<[email address]>; Sherilyn Hinton <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Rapid transit definition for RLTP
Hi all,
Sherilyn’s, Kate’s and my view is still that
identifying rapid transit networks, services and stops is
the role of the Regional Land Transport Plan. This is a regional rail network cutting across council
boundaries, with services determined by national agency and regional council investments. It’s
the RMA plans’ role to determine the appropriate
land use controls around the train stations
and other public transport stops.
We are concerned that the RLTP’s lack of clarity in identifying rapid transit stations will cause
extra challenges on definitions that each council will have to address separately.
Whether a rail line section and its stations are rapid transit is a question of fact and
interpretation. This should be identified consistently and regionally – not subject to the vagaries
of individual district plan Section 32 analyses, submissions and separate decisions. Saying that
the relevant Councils should identify rapid transit stops in our view risks differing interpretations
of the GPS definition along the same rail line!
Because of this we don’t support Jason’s changes to the RLTP text, though we agree with the
sentiment in the email.
A possible way forward:
I hear that the time for further edits to the draft RLTP may have passed. But there may be an
opportunity for the Council land use and transport planners to get together to take a hard look
at the data on upgrades and frequency changes, to address Kapiti and Porirua’s concerns. Then
we could lodge a joint Council staff submission on whether any stops, or sections of rail line,
are/are not currently rapid transit stops.
Regarding Matt’s comment that the rail and service upgrades may not be enough to be judged
“reliable and high capacity”, again this is something the RLTP should sort out as this judgement is
based on the RLTP’s improvement works, and projected frequency. In the interim, if it’s unclear
whether “planned” RLTP investments in reliability/capacity, and Metlink’s increases in train
frequency, will elevate the Kapiti Line to rapid transit status in the medium term, then there may
be an option to end the rapid transit part of the Kapiti line prior to Pukerua Bay, for now.
Something to discuss further.
Regards,
Andrew Wharton
Principal Advisor LGWM Interface | Wellington City Council
021 365 051
From: Jason Holland <[email address]>
Sent: 28 January 2021 5:12 PM
To: Fleur Matthews <[email address]>; Andrew Wharton
<[email address]>; Stewart McKenzie <[email address]>;
[email address]; Hamish Wesney <[email address]>; John
McSweeney <[email address]>; Kate Pascall <[email address]>
Cc: Amy Helm <[email address]>; Amy Kearse <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Rapid transit definition for RLTP
Hi everyone
Thanks for the opportunity to comment and very useful to be aware of others views too.
To us, it feels a bit rushed for the RLTP to get too black and white about this.
We’d prefer more indicative wording for now until the case is clearer that the RLTP is likely to
include the right investments at the right time to keep up with future growth in our district.
Stewart’s questions around frequency also seem pertinent to us – including whether there are or
are not investments planned to substantively improve frequency (and capacity) up the
Manawatu line to the Otaki station.
I attach some amendments for your consideration, accepting that there may be other ways to
achieve the outcome we’re seeking.
Cheers
Jason
PS: perhaps just semantics – this isn’t about the RLTP “defining” these terms is it? I think we are
talking about how the NPS-UD definitions in question might be applied to the specific context of
the Wellington region railway system.
Jason Holland
District Planning Manager
Kāpiti Coast District Council
Tel 04 296 7792
Mobile
www.kapiticoast.govt.nz
From: Fleur Matthews [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: Thursday, 28 January 2021 2:54 PM
To: Andrew Wharton <[email address]>; Stewart McKenzie
<[email address]>; Jason Holland <[email address]>;
[email address]; Hamish Wesney <[email address]>; John
McSweeney <[email address]>; Kate Pascall <[email address]>
Cc: Amy Helm <[email address]>; Amy Kearse <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Rapid transit definition for RLTP
Kia ora Andrew et al
Thanks for all your work so far on this. The reason the TAG wanted to remove the station names
was because some TAs were of the view that potentially not all of the stops on these lines would
be considered rapid transit stops as per the NPS UD definition. So adding in the suggested
additions below would be counterproductive to the concerns raised. Does that make sense?
Fleur
From: Andrew Wharton <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 28 January 2021 1:31 PM
To: Stewart McKenzie <[email address]>; Fleur Matthews
<[email address]>; Jason Holland <[email address]>;
[email address]; Hamish Wesney <[email address]>; John
McSweeney <[email address]>; Kate Pascall <[email address]>
Cc: Amy Helm <[email address]>; Amy Kearse <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Rapid transit definition for RLTP
Hi Fleur and friends,
Kate Pascall and I agree it’s a good idea to fix up the Map 6 by removing the station names and
icons. This should also remove the issue of the circle highlighting Tawa, Linden, Kenepuru and
Porirua stations … but missing Takapu Road and Redwood stations. Also the stations in the
Johnsonville line and some stations in Porirua City are missing.
To balance the removing of the stations from Map 6, can we please amend the text above in the
fourth paragraph, for clarity, to read:
“The rapid transit network, stops and services for the Wellington region comprise the Kāpiti,
Hutt, Melling and Johnsonville rail lines, and all stations on those lines.” Of course my colleagues
in other councils may recommend further changes; for example if Kapiti was concerned about
this description and Map 6 so that stations north of Pukerua Bay are “passenger rail network”
not “rapid transit network”, I defer to those councils on this!
Regards,
Andrew Wharton
Principal Advisor LGWM Interface | Wellington City Council
021 365 051
From: Stewart McKenzie <[email address]>
Sent: 28 January 2021 11:01 AM
To: Fleur Matthews <[email address]>; Jason Holland
<[email address]>; [email address]; Hamish Wesney
<[email address]>; John McSweeney <[email address]>; Kate
Pascall <[email address]>
Cc: Amy Helm <[email address]>; Amy Kearse <[email address]>; Andrew
Wharton <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Rapid transit definition for RLTP
Kia Ora all,
For RMA land use planning purposes, PCC has been working under the assumption
that the stops on the Kapiti Line within or very close to the District will meet the
definition of a ‘rapid transit stop’ as defined by the NPS UD (the stops in question are
Kenepuru, Porirua, Paremata, Mana, Plimmerton and Pukerua Bay). Trains run at a
20min frequency during peak times and during the day, with express services between
Plimmerton - Wellington and Porirua - Wellington at peak times. Overall this frequency
appears to support the assumption that these are ‘rapid transit stops’ servicing a ‘rapid
transit service’.
However, as services run at an hourly frequency at night and stop by midnight, there is
a question mark over whether this service still meets the definition of a ‘rapid transit
service’, or if night time frequency even needs to be considered. We are likely to be
challenged on this through an RMA Schedule 1 process. We would be interested in
knowing more about investment signalled through the RLTP aimed at increasing off-
peak frequency and peak time capacity to accommodate growth on the Kapiti Line.
Bearing the above in mind, PCC can tentatively support the definition of rapid transit
service proposed to be appended to the RLTP, although note this is not a formal
endorsement from our Council.
Kind regards,
Stewart
Stewart McKenzie MNZPI
Manager Environment and City Planning
Kaiwhakahaere Taiao me te Whakamahere Tāone
Tel: 04 237 1376 | Mob:
poriruacity.govt.nz
Check out our Proposed District Plan
From: Fleur Matthews <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 January 2021 1:35 PM
To: Jason Holland <[email address]>; Stewart McKenzie
<[email address]>; [email address]; Hamish Wesney
<[email address]>; John McSweeney - Wellington City Council
([email address]) <[email address]>; Kate Pascall
([email address]) <[email address]>
Cc: Amy Helm <[email address]>; Amy Kearse <[email address]>; Andrew
Wharton <[email address]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Rapid transit definition for RLTP
Importance: High
Kia ora koutou
The Regional Land Transport Plan TAG met this morning and discussed how the RLTP will define
‘rapid transit’ in the Wellington region, using the guidance on the NPS UD and various national
transport documents. The TAG agreed to include the attached text, with amendments to the
map to remove the names of the stops (so just referring to the names of the rail lines) and
remove the purple lines. This document was developed by the GW Transport team with input
from WCC, Waka Kotahi and me.
Can you please provide any feedback by
5pm tomorrow (Thursday 28 January)? Apologies for
the short turnaround time.
The attached text and map will be included in an Appendix to the RLTP in a section called ‘Our
Transport System’. It will be one of a series of maps.
Keep in mind the context for this definition and that being considered a rapid transit stop
doesn’t automatically mean 6 storeys, and likewise, an area with good transport links (that’s not
strictly rapid transit) can be intensified as appropriate. We will need to continue working on this
wider picture to ensure we have a regionally consistent approach to it.
Ngā mihi
Fleur
makaurangi
Fleur Matthews (she/her)
Kaitaki-a-tīma | Team Leader, Environmental Policy
Greater Wellington Te Pane Matua Taiao
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter |
gw.govt.nz
ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If
you are not the named recipient and receive this correspondence in error, you must not copy,
distribute or take any action in reliance on it and you should delete it from your system and
notify the sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions expressed are
solely those of the author, and do not represent those of the organisation.
Disclaimer
---
The content of this email is confidential, may be legally privileged and is intended only for the person
named above. If this email is not addressed to you, you must not use, disclose or distribute any of the
content. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender by return email and delete
the email. Thank you.
--- .
ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s)
only. If you are not the named recipient and receive this correspondence in error, you must
not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it and you should delete it from your
system and notify the sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of the organisation.
