From:
Alastair Cribbens
To:
Luke Elliott (AT)
Cc:
Amanda Harland
Subject:
Draft RLTP content re NPSUD (AC and AH edits)
Date:
Wednesday, 8 December 2021 10:09:22
Attachments:
Draft RLTP content re NPSUD (AC and AH edits).docx
Hi Luke, as discussed here’s an updated version with a few more minor changes from Amanda
and myself. I’ve added WK into the last paragraph as I assume they’d be involved but please
check this (and that the phrasing) is correct.
Alastair
link to page 2
1.4 Rapid transit and the National Policy Statement on Urban Development
The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS) defines rapid transit as: “a quick,
frequent, reliable and high-capacity public transport service that operates on a permanent
route (road or rail) that is largely separated from other traffic.”
The National Policy Statement for Urban Development (NPS-UD) shares this same definition
and defines it as either existing or planned service. Planned means planned in a regional land
transport plan such as this RLTP.
The National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) NPS-UD introduces a new
requirement for Auckland Council to ensure the Auckland Unitary Plan enables building
heights of at least six storeys within at least a walkable catchment of current and planned
rapid transit stops. The NPD-UD defines P”planned” as meanings “planned in a regional land
transport plan” such as this RLTP.
This requirement is intended to ensure that intensification in urban areas and in desirable and
suitable locations is enabled in plans. This is to contribute support to a "well-functioning
urban environments and improve housing affordability through competitive land markets” as
described in the NPS-UD. , and s There are some exceptions to the requirement exist where
enabling these changes wil not contribute to this goaloverall intent.
Auckland Council is working through the implications of the NPS-UD for the Auckland Unitary
Plan. It intends to consult with the public on these changes later in 2021.
OneAn implication of the NPS-UD requirements is that investment identified in this, or future
RLTP’s, may necessitate changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan. The purpose of this section is
to set out outline in one place the status of Auckland’s rapid transit network fol owing the
investment set outidentified in this RLTP. It also reflects the frequency of services described
in the current Regional Public Transport Plan 2018-2028 (RPTP).
Commented [AH1]: I’m struggling to follow this. I got lost
from “combined with…”. Maybe the sentence needs to be
Given the importance of the existing and planned rapid transit network to these
broken up?
considerations under the NPS-UD, the purpose of this section of the RLTP is to clarify the
extent of the existing rapid transit network investment contributes to ‘planned’ rapid transit
services. This be used in Auckland Council’s work on the implications on the NPS-
UD.Auckland’s rapid transit network will continue to develop over time. While some projects
in this RLTP will improve the service characteristics of routes to such a a stage degree that
they can meet the criteria to be considered part of Auckland’s rapid transit network, other
projects are a steppingstone on the way to achieving this status in fol owing decades.
Auckland’s existing rapid transit network consists of the Northern Busway (between
Constellation and Akoranga Stations), and the Western, Southern and Eastern rail lines
1.
Within the 10-year timeframe of this RLTP, this the network wil be expanded to include the
City Rail Link, Northern Busway to Albany, the new Eastern Busway, and an extension of the
Southern Line to Pukekohe.
The locations of stops on planned services are finalised through processes outside of the RLTP
(such as designations under the RMA). Auckland Transport and Auckland Council will work
1 Some of these services do not currently meet the frequency requirements for rapid transit; however,
they are proposed to do so by 2028 in the RPTP.
together to determine where stops are for the purposes of meeting the NPS-UD’s
requirements.
Figure XX below outlinesidentifies:
• existing and planned rapid transit services routes (i.e. the rapid transit network that
wil be in place at the end of the 10-year timeframe of the RLTP). These services are
considered rapid transit for the purpose of the NPS-UD
• investment towards the future rapid transit network routes (as outlined in the
Auckland Plan 2050) for which some investment is identified in this RLTP but that will
not meet the standard of rapid transit within the 10-year timeframe of this RLTP. This
is not considered to be ‘planned’ rapid transit service, for the purpose of the NPS-UD
• parts of the future rapid transit network that , whiledo not meeting the definition of
rapid transit now or in the future but, are intrinsically tied to important in supporting
the operation of the rapid transit network and important to understand from a
network management and planning perspective(for example, such as the Onehunga
Commented [AH2]: This is quite complicated – a lot of ideas
branch line and northern busway section along the motorwayState Highway 1 and the
trying to be communicated in the one bullet point,
Deveonport ferry service). These is isparts of the network are shown as the
‘supplementary network’. It also includes the Devonport ferry service which, due to
current legislative arrangements, is not under the control of AT and so does not have
sufficient certainty as to future frequency.
Commented [AH3]: Do you want to include reference to the
Devonport Ferry where you had it before?
• where services currently or are planned to operate, or where infrastructure exists
today, but which do not meet the definition of rapid transit under the NPS-UD (i.e.
they are not frequent, or on route that is separated from other traffic). This is shown
as the ‘supplementary network’ and is not considered to be existing or ‘planned’ rapid
transit service, for the purpose of the NPS-UD.
From:
s7(2)(a)
To:
Luke Elliott (AT)
Privacy
Subject:
RE: Rapid Transit - NPS/RLTP
Date:
Friday, 12 February 2021 10:36:05
Attachments:
image001.png
image003.png
Luke
Thanks for getting back to us.
This has quite a way to go in Wellington as there has been understandably a great deal of
interest in what we are designating as rapid transit and why.
Like you we’ve stayed away from designating particular stops as rapid transit even thought a
number of planners would like us to do that. Two rail lines in particular have attracted attention
for different reasons.
The first is the Johnsonville line that runs wholly within Wellington City. One views is that this is
neither rapid nor can it sustain the frequency that rapid transit might suggest. However,
Wellington City are keen to have it as rapid transit because of the intensification opportunities
that it offers particularly at Johnsonville itself. While the line can’t take any more trains – it’s
single track and runs on a 13 minute headway at peak, it has capacity growth. It is built for six
car trains and currently runs 4-car only at peak. And the integration of its ticketing into the
broader Metlink system, be it Snapper or Project Next could see Johnsonville become a hub with
bus services feeding it rather than proceeding down the Ngauranga Gorge.
The other question is the northern end of the Kāpiti Line where Paraparaumu and Waikanae are
suitable for intensification but some of the intermediate stops such as Pukerua Bay and
Paekakakariki are not. This has raised the questions about some stations being designated as
rapid transit and others not, and the types of services that would stop or not stop. One line of
thought has it that express services would only stop at rapid transit stops on the outer stretches
of the network whereas local all stop services would not be regarded as rapid transit. Our draft
PT plan which goes out with the RLTP notes that “Metlink will work with Territorial Authorities
to further define rapid transit corridors including to define access points to rapid transit.”
The other in my mind complicating factor is the use of the phrase “rapid transit,” as it is broad all
encompassing turn. Metlink in Wellington talk about a “high quality, high capacity, high
frequency core network” which encompasses most but not all of the rail network and certain bus
routes which while they do not meet the definitions of rapid transit serve the same purpose
which is to provide an attractive alternative to private motor vehicle use along key passenger
corridors.
So to answer your specific questions:
a. On the train lines, the Wairarapa line is not considered part of the rapid transit service
with between two to five services a day each way on it. With respect to why the other
lines are in, we’ve used the draft Regional Growth Framework which defines a rapid
transit network – so we’re being consistent. We’re also cognisant of the draft One
Network Framework which calls out metropolitan rail lines as rapid transit;
b. Buses are not part of the network unless they become part of the Let’s Get Wellington
Moving MRT network although they do form part of that “high quality, high capacity,
high frequency core network”
c. The designation of zoning around the stop is in our view for the TAs as rapid transit is
only one of the conditions, not the trigger.
Cheers
Grant
s7(2)(a)
Kaiwhakahaere Waka-
Privacy
ā-rohe|Manager, Regional Transport
Greater Wellington Te Pane Matua Taiao
M: s7(2)(a)
100 Cuba St, Te Aro, Wellington 6011
Privacy
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter |
gw.govt.nz
From: Luke Elliott (AT) <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 10 February 2021 5:06 PM
To: s7(2)(a)
s7(2)(a) Privacy @gw.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: Rapid Tranist - NPS/RLTP
Privacy
Kia ora s7(2)
(a)
Thank you for the information you provided, and apologies for my delayed reply. I’d hope to get
Privac
y
back to you with what we’ve agreed here in Auckland but we’re still going through the process of
that, especially making sure that our colleagues at Council are happy with it.
I can give you an example of our thinking though. We’ve used some of the early parts of your
text as a starting point, modified for the Auckland context, to talk about the NPS, GPS and RLTP
relationship and the implications for Council’s planning.
We’ve agreed with Council it’s not the RLTP’s place to list out the stops. We have been specific
about which parts of our train and busway network we expect to be rapid transit within 10 years
though. Some parts of our rail network we’ve said don’t meet the definition as they aren’t/won’t
be frequent enough.
Here’s a map we’ve used to explain it – only existing and 10-year are considered rapid transit for
the NPS’ purpose:
The ‘supplementary network’ are the parts where we don’t think the level of service meets the
definition of rapid transit under the NPS.
Bus services in painted bus lanes aren’t being considered rapid transit, but the busway is. I’m
curious as to how you tackled the issue of some train lines having low frequency – it looks like
you’re still considering this rapid transit, and leaving it to the local council to determine if they’ll
change the zoning around the stop?
I’ll send our finalised text once we’ve agreed it.
Kind regards,
Luke
From: s7(2)(a)
<s7(2)(a)
@gw.govt.nz>
Privacy
Privacy
Sent: Wednesday, 3 February 2021 11:33 a.m.
To: Luke Elliott (AT) <[email address]>
Cc: Mark Fleming (AT) <[email address]>; s7(2)(a) Privacy
<s7(2)(a) Privacy
@gw.govt.nz>; s7(2)(a) s7(2)(a)
@gw.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: Rapid Tranist - NPS/RLTPPrivacy
Privacy
Luke,
We’ve had a long debate in Wellington about what it is and isn’t with quite a range of views
about what needs to be in the RLTP to meet the requirements of the NPS-UD.
I’ve been keen not to deviate from the GPS and NPS-UD definitions for a number of reasons:
a. it’s relative: quick and frequent are relative to what was there before. A quick light rail
service moves at a different speed than a metro rail service which may be different from a
busway; high-capacity is again relative to what. New Zealand’s high capacity may well be
different from Japan or Singapore;
b. the challenge of what that definition is trying to achieve in terms of human behaviour and
what may achieve that in New Zealand. My research from a few years’ ago and Metlink’s
approach under previous plans was that for public transport to be attractive, the service
frequency needs to be 10 minutes or less (15 mins at a push for example evening or early
morning services); stops have to be within 10 minutes walk of the stops; and this level of
service needs to be maintained over the entire service period ie having rapid transit in
peak time only will not lead to an overall behaviour change. My concern here is that we
may designate a rail line as rapid transit but if it doesn’t change overall human behaviour
then there is little point.
c. In Wellington we have a number of bus routes (our high frequency bus routes) that get
close to providing the levels of service which are attractive ie they run 10-15 minutes
during the daytime (greater at evenings and weekends)
d. Looming definitional work that the PT team in Waka Kotahi, the One Network Framework
have underway and in Wellington the draft Regional Growth Framework that has defined
a rapid transit network.
e. Our view that the RLTP should not be the vehicle to define land use which we believe
should be the land use planners role. Some of them believe that the RLTP should be
designating the stops.
So our approach has been to stick to the GPS and NPS-UD and use the Regional Growth
Framework defintions which are the four urban rail lines (excludes Wairarapa service – Metlink
operated, and Capital Connection – Kiwirail operated) and the mass rapid transit network
proposed by Let’s Get Wellington Moving once defined.
Below is the text which will be going to RTC next week for consultation. This text will be in both
the Wellington RLTP and RPTP which will be jointly consulted on from 15 Feb.
I’ve copied Mark Fleming in who is the TSIG rep and s7(2)(a) Privacy
who is the lead on the
RLTP.
Let me know what you think and any questions and happy to talk. I’d also be curious if you are
treating the busways that you have as rapid transit.
Regards
s7(2)
(a)
Priva
s7(2)(a)
cy
Kaiwhakahaere Waka-
Privacy
ā-rohe|Manager, Regional Transport
Greater Wellington Te Pane Matua Taiao
M: s7(2)(a)
100 Cuba St, Te Aro, Wellington 6011
Privacy
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter |
gw.govt.nz
A.3.2 Rapid transit in the Wellington
Region
The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS) defines rapid transit as: “a
quick, frequent, reliable and high-capacity public
transport service that operates on a permanent route (road or rail) that is largely
separated from other traffic.”
The National Policy Statement for Urban Development (NPS-UD) shares the same
definition for rapid transit service but extends it
to any existing or planned service. Planned means planned in a regional land transport plan
such as this RLTP.
The NPS-UD introduces a new requirement for Wellington’s regional policy statement and
the district plans of Wellington City, Hutt City, Upper Hutt City, Porirua City and Kāpiti
Coast District to enable building heights of at least six storeys within at least a walkable
catchment of current and planned rapid transit stops. This means that
rapid transit identified in the RLTP has a connection to the land-use controls in these
Resource Management Act (RMA) documents.
However, whether or not intensification is appropriate around rapid transit stops will be
considered as part of each council’s district plan
processes.
The NPS-UD also has directions to enable building heights and density commensurate to
levels of existing and planned public transport generally. The RLTP and the Wellington
Region’s
RMA documents work together to enable more people, businesses and community
services to be located in areas well-serviced by existing and planned public transport.
The rapid transit network and services for the Wellington Region comprise the Kāpiti, Hutt,
Melling and Johnsonville rail lines. The mass rapid transit network proposed by the Let’s
Get Wellington Moving programme (once the rapid transit network and stops are
confirmed) will also form part of this rapid transit network.
The rail lines are part of Metlink’s core public transport network. Plans to upgrade this
network to increase service frequency and
capacity are contained in the Wellington Regional Public Transport Plan and reflected in
the significant activities in section 4
Regional
programme. The Let’s Get Wellington Moving mass rapid transit corridor will be developed
as part of the Let’s Get Wellington Moving
programme.
Urban intensification opportunities around public transport stops will be planned through
the district plans of the Wellington Region’s district and city councils.
From: Luke Elliott (AT) <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 3 February 2021 10:33 AM
To: s7(2)(a)
s7(2)(a) Privacy @gw.govt.nz>
Subject: Rapid Tranist - NPS/RLTP
Privacy
Hi s7(2)
(a)
As discussed, we’re having the same debate around what exactly to put in our RTLP to respond
Privac
y
to the NPS-UD on rapid transit.
We settled on not listing stop locations, which sounded like your approach, too.
I was interested in your idea of a nationally consistent approach – if you could share your
wording that would be much appreciated, and I can give you what we come up with too if you’d
like.
Many thanks,
Luke
Luke Elliott | Principal Planner Rapid Transit Network
Integrated Network Planning | Planning and Investment
Level 6, 20 Viaduct Harbour Avenue,
Auckland Central
P 09 355 3553 |
DDI 09 448 7077|
M 027 310 4407
www.at.govt.nz
We all have an important part to play in helping to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in our
communities. Find the latest information and advice from Auckland Transport. For the latest news
from the Ministry of Health go to the Unite Against Covid-19 website.
Important notice: The contents of this email and any attachments may be confidential and subject to legal privilege. If
you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and
attachments; any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is prohibited. Any views expressed in this
email may be those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Auckland Transport.
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.
Important notice: The contents of this email and any attachments may be confidential and subject to legal privilege. If
you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and
attachments; any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is prohibited. Any views expressed in this
email may be those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Auckland Transport.
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.
From:
Amanda Harland
To:
Alastair Cribbens
Subject:
Draft RLTP content re NPSUD (Al C edits)
Date:
Wednesday, 10 February 2021 21:19:35
Attachments:
Draft RLTP content re NPSUD (Al C edits).docx
Hi Al
I think it still needs more work. I’ve deleted some parts to try and simplify it but in the process I
have probably omitted some important points. Let me know.
Amanda
link to page 12
1.4 Rapid transit and the National Policy Statement on Urban Development
The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS) defines rapid transit as: “a quick,
frequent, reliable and high-capacity public transport service that operates on a permanent
route (road or rail) that is largely separated from other traffic.”
The National Policy Statement for Urban Development (NPS-UD) shares this same definition
and defines it as either existing or planned service. Planned means planned in a regional land
transport plan such as this RLTP.
The National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) NPS-UD introduces a new
requirement for Auckland Council to ensure the Auckland Unitary Plan enables building
heights of at least six storeys within at least a walkable catchment of current and planned
rapid transit stops. Planned means planned in a regional land transport plan such as this RLTP.
This requirement is intended to contribute to a "wel -functioning urban environment” as
defined in the NPS-UD. , and s There are some exceptions to the requirement exist where
enabling these changes wil not contribute to this goal.
Auckland Council is working through the implications of the NPS-UD for the Auckland Unitary
Plan. It intends to consult with the public on these changes later in 2021.
Formatted: Highlight
OneAn implication of the NPS-UD requirements is that investment identified in this, or future
RLTP’s, may necessitate changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan. The purpose of this section is
to set out outline in one place the status of Auckland’s rapid transit network fol owing the
investment set outidentified in this RLTP combined with the frequency of services described
in the current Regional Public Transport Plan 2018-2028 (RPTP).
Commented [AH1]: I’m struggling to follow this. I got lost
from “combined with…”. Maybe the sentence needs to be
Given the importance of the existing and planned rapid transit network to these
broken up?
considerations under the NPS-UD, the purpose of this section of the RLTP is to clarify the
extent of the existing rapid transit network investment contributes to ‘planned’ rapid transit
services. This be used in Auckland Council’s work on the implications on the NPS-
UD.Auckland’s rapid transit network will continue to develop over time. While some projects
in this RLTP will improve the service characteristics of routes to such a the degree that they
meet the criteria to be considered part of Auckland’s rapid transit network, other projects are
a steppingstone on the way to achieving this status in fol owing decades.
Auckland’s existing rapid transit network consists of the Northern Busway (between
Constellation and Akoranga Stations), and the Western, Southern and Eastern rail lines
1.
Within the 10-year timeframe of this RLTP, this the network wil be expanded to include the
Northern Busway to Albany, the new Eastern Busway, and an extension of the Southern Line
to Pukekohe.
The locations of stops on planned services are finalised through processes outside of the RLTP
(such as designations under the RMA). Auckland Transport and Auckland Council will work
together to determine where stops are for the purposes of meeting the NPS-UD’s
requirements.
Figure XX below outlinesidentifies:
1 Some of these routes do not currently meet the frequency requirements for rapid transit; however,
they are proposed to do so by 2028 in the RPTP.
• existing and planned rapid transit services routes (i.e. the rapid transit network that
wil be in place at the end of the 10-year timeframe of the RLTP). These services are
considered rapid transit for the purpose of the NPS-UD
• investment towards the future rapid transit network routes (as outlined in the
Auckland Plan 2050) for which some investment is identified in this RLTP but that will
not meet the standard of rapid transit within the 10-year timeframe of this RLTP. This
is not considered to be ‘planned’ rapid transit service, for the purpose of the NPS-UD
• parts of the future rapid transit network that , whiledo not meeting the definition of
rapid transit now or in the future but, are intrinsically tied to important in supporting
the operation of the rapid transit network and important to understand from a
network management and planning perspective(for example, such as the Onehunga
Commented [AH2]: This is quite complicated – a lot of ideas
branch line and northern busway section along the motorwayState Highway 1 and the
trying to be communicated in the one bullet point,
Deveonport ferry service). These is isparts of the network are shown as the
‘supplementary network’. It also includes the Devonport ferry service which, due to
current legislative arrangements, is not under the control of AT and so does not have
sufficient certainty as to future frequency.
• where services currently or are planned to operate, or where infrastructure exists
today, but which do not meet the definition of rapid transit under the NPS-UD (i.e.
they are not frequent, or on route that is separated from other traffic). This is shown
as the ‘supplementary network’ and is not considered to be existing or ‘planned’ rapid
transit service, for the purpose of the NPS-UD.
The locations of stops on planned services are finalised through processes outside of the RLTP
(such as designations under the RMA). Auckland Transport and Auckland Council wil work
together to determine where stops are for the purposes of meeting the NPS-UD’s
requirements.
From:
Luke Elliott (AT)
To:
Alastair Cribbens; Amanda Harland; Mark Fleming (AT)
Cc:
Sean Cavanagh (AT); Kelly Seekup (AT)
Subject:
Draft comments for RLTP re: NPS-UD
Date:
Friday, 5 February 2021 17:18:21
Attachments:
Draft RLTP content re NPSUD.docx
Hi all,
As we’ve been discussing, we need to ensure the draft RLTP is clear on what investment is and is
not considered existing and planned rapid transit for the purpose of the NPS-UD.
Based on discussions with Council, I’ve put together the attached (which is partly based on a
draft we received from Greater Wellington on the details of their wording). This is a starter for
10, but hopefully gives an idea of what we should say and show.
Alastair and Amanda, I’m keen for your feedback on the wording. Mark, this is really an FYI at this
point to make sure you’re across it.
I’ve suggested where it might sit in relation to the draft of the RLTP I’ve seen, but I’m happy for it
to go anywhere as long as we’re clear.
Hopefully this is helpful. Happy to discuss.
Kind regards,
Luke
Luke Elliott | Principal Planner Rapid Transit Network
Integrated Network Planning | Planning and Investment
Level 6, 20 Viaduct Harbour Avenue,
Auckland Central
P 09 355 3553 |
DDI 09 448 7077|
M 027 310 4407
www.at.govt.nz
Important notice: The contents of this email and any attachments may be confidential and subject to legal privilege. If
you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and
attachments; any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is prohibited. Any views expressed in this
email may be those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Auckland Transport.
1.4 Rapid transit and the National Policy Statement on Urban Development
The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS) defines rapid transit as: “a quick,
frequent, reliable and high-capacity public transport service that operates on a permanent
route (road or rail) that is largely separated from other traffic.”
The National Policy Statement for Urban Development (NPS-UD) shares this same definition
and defines it as either existing or planned service. Planned means planned in a regional
land transport plan such as this RLTP.
The NPS-UD introduces a new requirement for Auckland Council to ensure the Auckland
Unitary Plan enables building heights of at least six storeys within at least a walkable
catchment of current and planned rapid transit stops. This is intended to contribute to a
"wel -functioning urban environment”, and some exceptions to the requirement exist where
changes will not contribute to this goal.
Auckland Council is working through the implications of the NPS-UD for the Auckland
Unitary Plan. It intends to consult with the public on these changes later in 2021.
Given the importance of the existing and planned rapid transit network to these
considerations under the NPS-UD, the purpose of this section of the RLTP is to clarify the
extent of the existing rapid transit network investment contributes to ‘planned’ rapid transit
services. This be used in Auckland Council’s work on the implications on the NPS-UD.
Auckland’s existing rapid transit network consists of the Northern Busway (between
Constel ation and Akoranga Stations), and the Western, Southern and Eastern rail lines.
Within the 10-year timeframe of this RLTP, this wil be expanded to include the Northern
Busway to Albany, the new Eastern Busway, and an extension of the Southern Line to
Pukekohe.
The locations of stops on planned services are finalised through processes outside of the
RLTP (such as designations under the RMA). Auckland Transport and Auckland Council wil
work together to determine where stops are for the purposes of meeting the NPS-UD’s
requirements.
Figure XX below outlines:
• existing and planned rapid transit services (i.e. the rapid transit network that will be
in place at the end of the 10-year timeframe of the RLTP). These services are
considered rapid transit for the purpose of the NPS-UD
• investment towards the future rapid transit network (as outlined in the Auckland
Plan 2050) that wil not meet the standard of rapid transit within the 10-year
timeframe of this RLTP. This is not considered to be ‘planned’ rapid transit service,
for the purpose of the NPS-UD
• parts of the future rapid transit network where services currently or are planned to
operate, or where infrastructure exists today, but which do not meet the definition
of rapid transit under the NPS-UD (i.e. they are not frequent, or on route that is
separated from other traffic). This is shown as the ‘supplementary network’ and is
not considered to be existing or ‘planned’ rapid transit service, for the purpose of
the NPS-UD.
From:
Luke Elliott (AT)
To:
Alastair Cribbens; Amanda Harland
Subject:
RE: Aligning rapid transit in RLTP and Baseline re: NPS-UD
Date:
Thursday, 4 February 2021 10:39:35
Attachments:
RE Rapid Tranist - NPSRLTP.msg
Happy to still meet.
We really need to progress with finalising the Baseline – this is the last outstanding issue, for me.
See attached for Greater Wellington’s approach in their RLTP.
Speak soon,
Luke
From: Alastair Cribbens <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 4 February 2021 10:20 a.m.
To: Luke Elliott (AT) <[email address]>; Amanda Harland
<[email address]>
Subject: RE: Aligning rapid transit in RLTP and Baseline re: NPS-UD
Ok, this isn’t particularly helpful but I’d still be keen to have a brief discussion at 11.
From: s7(2)(a)
s7(2)(a)
@nzta.govt.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 4 February 2021 9:48 AM
Privacy
Privacy
To: Luke Elliott (AT) <[email address]>; Alastair Cribbens
<[email address]>; Amanda Harland
<[email address]>
Subject: RE: Aligning rapid transit in RLTP and Baseline re: NPS-UD
Hi all,
Sorry I can’t make today’s meeting. In general I think we’ve covered off the definitions of rapid
transit really strongly in the baseline report.
Attached is some more detailed work that we had done for us late last year, to help inform the
development of some nationwide policy stuff for rapid transit. I’m not sure I’m allowed to share
this yet, so please keep to yourself but feel free to dig out any useful nuggets.
Thanks
s7(
-----Original Appointment-----
2)
From:
(a)
Luke Elliott (AT) <[email address]>
Priv
Sent:
acy
Tuesday, 26 January 2021 3:05 PM
To: Luke Elliott (AT); s7(2)(a)
; Alastair Cribbens; Amanda Harland
Subject: Aligning rapid transit in RLTP and Baseline re: NPS-UD
Privacy
When: Thursday, 4 February 2021 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (UTC+12:00) Auckland, Wellington.
Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting
Hi all,
Alastair and I were chatting about what we’re putting into the RLTP in regards to the NPS-UD, and
we came to the topic of needing to align that to what’s in the Baseline. This conversation follows
up on the one we had at the end of last year.
Let me know if this time doesn’t suit.
Thanks,
Luke
________________________________________________________________________________
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting
Learn More |
Meeting options
________________________________________________________________________________
Important notice: The contents of this email and any attachments may be confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you
have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and
attachments; any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is prohibited. Any views expressed in this
email may be those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Auckland Transport.
Important notice: The contents of this email and any attachments may be confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you
have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and
attachments; any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is prohibited. Any views expressed in this
email may be those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Auckland Transport.
From:
s7(2)(a)
To:
Luke Elliott (AT)
Privacy
Cc:
Mark Fleming (AT); s7(2)(a)
; s7(2)
Subject:
RE: Rapid Tranist - NPS/RLTP
Privacy
(a)
Date:
Wednesday, 3 February 2021 11:33:21 Privacy
Attachments:
image007.png
image002.png
Luke,
We’ve had a long debate in Wellington about what it is and isn’t with quite a range of views
about what needs to be in the RLTP to meet the requirements of the NPS-UD.
I’ve been keen not to deviate from the GPS and NPS-UD definitions for a number of reasons:
a. it’s relative: quick and frequent are relative to what was there before. A quick light rail
service moves at a different speed than a metro rail service which may be different from
a busway; high-capacity is again relative to what. New Zealand’s high capacity may well
be different from Japan or Singapore;
b. the challenge of what that definition is trying to achieve in terms of human behaviour and
what may achieve that in New Zealand. My research from a few years’ ago and Metlink’s
approach under previous plans was that for public transport to be attractive, the service
frequency needs to be 10 minutes or less (15 mins at a push for example evening or
early morning services); stops have to be within 10 minutes walk of the stops; and this
level of service needs to be maintained over the entire service period ie having rapid
transit in peak time only will not lead to an overall behaviour change. My concern here is
that we may designate a rail line as rapid transit but if it doesn’t change overall human
behaviour then there is little point.
c. In Wellington we have a number of bus routes (our high frequency bus routes) that get
close to providing the levels of service which are attractive ie they run 10-15 minutes
during the daytime (greater at evenings and weekends)
d. Looming definitional work that the PT team in Waka Kotahi, the One Network Framework
have underway and in Wellington the draft Regional Growth Framework that has defined
a rapid transit network.
e. Our view that the RLTP should not be the vehicle to define land use which we believe
should be the land use planners role. Some of them believe that the RLTP should be
designating the stops.
So our approach has been to stick to the GPS and NPS-UD and use the Regional Growth
Framework defintions which are the four urban rail lines (excludes Wairarapa service – Metlink
operated, and Capital Connection – Kiwirail operated) and the mass rapid transit network
proposed by Let’s Get Wellington Moving once defined.
Below is the text which will be going to RTC next week for consultation. This text will be in both
the Wellington RLTP and RPTP which will be jointly consulted on from 15 Feb.
I’ve copied Mark Fleming in who is the TSIG rep and s7(2)(a) Privacy
who is the lead on the
RLTP.
Let me know what you think and any questions and happy to talk. I’d also be curious if you are
treating the busways that you have as rapid transit.
Regards
s7(2)
(a)
s7(2)(a)
Priva
Kaiwhakahaere Waka-
Privacy
ā-rohe|Manager, Regional Transport
cy
Greater Wellington Te Pane Matua Taiao
M: s7(2)(a)
100 Cuba St, Te Aro, Wellington 6011
Privacy
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter |
gw.govt.nz
A.3.2 Rapid transit in the Wellington
Region
The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS) defines rapid transit as: “a
quick, frequent, reliable and high-capacity public
transport service that operates on a permanent route (road or rail) that is largely
separated from other traffic.”
The National Policy Statement for Urban Development (NPS-UD) shares the same
definition for rapid transit service but extends it
to any existing or planned service. Planned means planned in a regional land transport plan
such as this RLTP.
The NPS-UD introduces a new requirement for Wellington’s regional policy statement and
the district plans of Wellington City, Hutt City, Upper Hutt City, Porirua City and Kāpiti
Coast District to enable building heights of at least six storeys within at least a walkable
catchment of current and planned rapid transit stops. This means that
rapid transit identified in the RLTP has a connection to the land-use controls in these
Resource Management Act (RMA) documents.
However, whether or not intensification is appropriate around rapid transit stops will be
considered as part of each council’s district plan
processes.
The NPS-UD also has directions to enable building heights and density commensurate to
levels of existing and planned public transport generally. The RLTP and the Wellington
Region’s
RMA documents work together to enable more people, businesses and community
services to be located in areas well-serviced by existing and planned public transport.
The rapid transit network and services for the Wellington Region comprise the Kāpiti, Hutt,
Melling and Johnsonville rail lines. The mass rapid transit network proposed by the Let’s
Get Wellington Moving programme (once the rapid transit network and stops are
confirmed) will also form part of this rapid transit network.
The rail lines are part of Metlink’s core public transport network. Plans to upgrade this
network to increase service frequency and
capacity are contained in the Wellington Regional Public Transport Plan and reflected in
the significant activities in section 4
Regional
programme. The Let’s Get Wellington Moving mass rapid transit corridor will be developed
as part of the Let’s Get Wellington Moving
programme.
Urban intensification opportunities around public transport stops will be planned through
the district plans of the Wellington Region’s district and city councils.
From: Luke Elliott (AT) <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 3 February 2021 10:33 AM
To: s7(2)(a)
s7(2)(a) Privacy @gw.govt.nz>
Subject: Rapid Tranist - NPS/RLTP
Privacy
Hi s7(2)
As discussed, we’re having the same debate around what exactly to put in our RTLP to respond
(a)
to the NPS-UD on rapid transit.
Privac
y
We settled on not listing stop locations, which sounded like your approach, too.
I was interested in your idea of a nationally consistent approach – if you could share your
wording that would be much appreciated, and I can give you what we come up with too if you’d
like.
Many thanks,
Luke
Luke Elliott | Principal Planner Rapid Transit Network
Integrated Network Planning | Planning and Investment
Level 6, 20 Viaduct Harbour Avenue,
Auckland Central
P 09 355 3553 |
DDI 09 448 7077|
M 027 310 4407
www.at.govt.nz
We all have an important part to play in helping to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in our
communities. Find the latest information and advice from Auckland Transport. For the latest news
from the Ministry of Health go to the Unite Against Covid-19 website.
Important notice: The contents of this email and any attachments may be confidential and subject to legal privilege. If
you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and
attachments; any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is prohibited. Any views expressed in this
email may be those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Auckland Transport.
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.
From:
Kelly Seekup (AT)
To:
Alastair Cribbens
Subject:
RE: Specific rapid transit routes
Date:
Friday, 20 November 2020 09:54:53
Thanks Alastair
Much appreciated
Regards Kelly
From: Alastair Cribbens <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2020 8:39 p.m.
To: Kelly Seekup (AT) <[email address]>
Subject: Specific rapid transit routes
Hi Kelly,
Good to chat yesterday. I promised to send through the table I had setting out the initial
thoughts I’ve had about the future major contenders for rapid transit status, but sorry it took me
a little while to tidy it up. Here it is, hope it makes sense.
Route
Description
Comments
Rail network exc
Planned to run 10 minute peak (plus
Wouldn’t meet a 10 minute frequency
Onehunga
additional peak services) and 15
requirement.
minute inter and off frequencies
Onehunga branch
Remains at 20 min peak and 30 min
Not getting close to sub-15 minute
trains
off-peak frequency for the next 10
frequencies. Not rapid.
years.
Northern busway
Runs completely separate from traffic
Northern busway enhancements will
for approx 10 km nth bound and 12km
help, but will they be enough for it to
sth bound (post NCI) from Albany to
meet service characteristic levels
Akoranga and Harbour Bridge
outside of the busway? Need to wait for
(respectively).
business case (and funding).
But from there to city (3.8km HB to
city), in CC (NX1 1.25km, NX2 2km)
and nth of Albany (12.5km) uses bus
lanes or general traffic lanes.
(Future) NX3 /
Planned to be frequent by 2028. Runs
Similar approach required for all three.
Currently the 866
from Albany to city along the busway
Three obvious options:
then to Newmarket along Ponsonby
Road.
1) Whole route rapid
2) Only rapid when on busway
70
Route running from Botany to city
centre. Travels along the Eastern
3) Whole route not rapid
Busway (for part of the route).
Two main issues/questions:
72
Route running from Botany to Panmure
1) Only on busway may run counter to
via Howick. Will run along part of the
ideal approach for NX1 and NX2 (i.e.
Eastern Busway.
would be not rapid in CC or nth of
Albany)
2) What impact does the non-busway
section have on reliability – could lead
to delays and/or bunching?
Option 2 – only rapid when on busway
is probably the preferred option
(Future)
Once Puhinui upgrade in place new
Transit lane makes this easy – not rapid
AirportLink/38
route to run Airport-Manukau via
unless far more separation is in place.
Puhinui.
Described in the RPTP as rapid transit
Will run in Transit lane along Puhinui
Road and to Manukau.
North Western
Need to find out more about these
…
routes
routes
All these examples only look at individual frequent routes, there will also be bus routes that use busways
(especially the eastern busway) for part of their route that by themselves aren’t ‘frequent’ but which
together could be considered so.
Alastair
Alastair Cribbens | Principal Transport Advisor
Growth, Transport & Infrastructure Strategy
Auckland Plan Strategy and Research, CPO
[mobile number]
Auckland Council, Level 22, 135 Albert Street, Auckland, 1010
Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Auckland 10 years together
CAUTION: This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be
LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and
erase all copies of the message and attachments. We do not accept responsibility for any viruses or similar carried with
our email, or any effects our email may have on the recipient computer system or network. Any views expressed in this
email may be those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Council.
Important notice: The contents of this email and any attachments may be confidential and subject to legal privilege. If
you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and
attachments; any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is prohibited. Any views expressed in this
email may be those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Auckland Transport.
Document Outline
