After many long years, LGWM have finally offered us 4 shiny new options for us Wellingtonians to savour and think about, bedecked in shiny new colours to match the LGWM logo. Its almost like they have been planning this event for years…
So…. What this means is….
Option 1 – below – This version has a couple of key features – a big new diagonal Bus transport tunnel going from the Basin under Mt Victoria and over to Wellington Road in Kilbirnie is one (the blue lines). Unfortunately it shares the tunnel with general traffic, while the existing Mt Vic tunnel is now repurposed for walking, scooters and cycling. But the existing thing is the proposal for a Light Rail route – dedicated Light Rail ! – from the Railways station down along the Quays, down along Cambridge/Kent The, and then somehow sneaking up behind the car yards to meet up with Sussex St and then to the Hospital. Once in Newtown it will somehow share the road and continue on down to Island Bay, making room for a huge boom in additional housing along the route. Berhampore: your time for quiet suburbia is over – its growth time baby !
Option 2 – below – this the Option for those who really like Buses – basically exactly the same two routes as before, but both of them to be Bus routes. If you like buses, then vote for this one – if you don’t want buses, then avoid like the plague!
Option 3 – below – is presumably a much cheaper option – Buses will stay using the existing Hataitai bus tunnel and somehow the existing Mt Vic Tunnel will stay used for cars, cycles, pedestrians, and is somehow better than it was before. Otherwise, the Light Rail route to the Island Bay is unchanged.
Option 4 – below – much the same as option 3, but routing the Light Rail up Taranaki St and then it appears to snake down Frederick St or Haining Street across to Tory St and then the rest is all pretty much the same as before. I’ve written about Haining St before and I know it well – similarly with Frederick – and its not really wide enough to run a single car down, let alone a 2 way iron railroad. For practicality reasons alone therefore, that’s a No from me.
The official on-line launch was a bit of a disaster if you ask me – the live feed kept crapping out and then failed completely for about 15 minutes, so I’m completely unsure what Michael Woods or David Dunlop had to say. But I did find this lovely picture online, of what the Quays route might look like:
That’s quite a posh bit of rendering there, so it gives us a good idea of what it could possibly look like. I’d catch that ! And here is another gussied up aerial shot, with a view from a little higher up, looking south…
I was wondering where the route could go up behind the car yards as shown in most of these options – so I made a quick sketch of how it might work. There would be some very tight radius for turning into, and no doubt may be tweaked or changed quite a bit between now and then – sneaking up Fifeshire Ave ( a grand name for a very ungrand small street) and then through some old sheds and possibly Council properties, to line up with the stub of Sussex St and continue to travel south. Good work guys – you had me fooled! Well done David Dunlop ! Have a look at this:
then, finally, I’ll leave you with this picture of where the growth areas might be…
Over to you lot for commentary ! Which one do you like best?
Post-script: The wonderful Joel MacManus of the Dominion Post has got some interesting new pics, in this new post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtmlfuEukMs
Thanks Starkive. I thought you were going to link me to the WCC meeting! That’s a much more enjoyable reference, thank you! (Did you like what I did with the title…?)
Hi Nemo and Starkive – we did the whole presentation on Monday, and all the Q and A’s and then got told that the live feed had failed at least for Dave Dunlop’s bit – so he, and one of our lovely sign language translators heroically did that segment again.
The rabid nutters over on the Stuff Website are at it already – I’m reading them with amusement. Here’s a relatively sane one from one “John O’Connell” who says: “None of these proposal will work in reality and here’s the problem; none of the planners live in the real world. They operate like a person who has only studied Economics 101- all things being equal, what happens if we change one factor. They are unable to think multi-dimensionally. Further they are hobbled by their ideology of “Active transport” viz cycling and walking. History has shown us that traffic will increase over time, additionally people will use the most convenient mode of transport to them i.e. vehicular/motor car e.g. they will use a car to go to the airport because it is more convenient especially if they have children and multiple bags. Picture, if you will, a family of 4 going to the airport using “cargo bikes”, in a “howling southerly”, kids on the back and bags on the front. Farcical!”
Hi Nemo – the key point we really need everyone from every perspective to get is that one size will never fit all – different people, at different times, for different journeys and in different circumstances, will choose to use different ways to get from A to B (to C to D etc). Mr O’Connell is undoubtedly right about the family trip with baggage to the Airport for weeks or more away, but another trip will be perfectly appropriately taken without a car. IMHO we need to provide for efficient journeys by car while encouraging a greater proportion of trips being taken on foot, bike or public transport. An integrated transport and urban development approach is key to that.
and Sims4 says: “The LGWM team need to get a grip on reality. The Terrace tunnel needs another lane at least. The Mt Vic tunnel needs at least another two lanes or a separate two lane tunnel to carry the traffic currently struggling to get through it. The Basin needs to be bowled, it can be a major Hub for the local transport networks. Do I care if we use bendy buses or light rail or cars NO but we need something that works and can be delivered while there is still the population to use it.. We need to build a tunnel bypass that circumnavigates the city for North/South traffic and reduces traffic in the centre. But given the pace of decision making and construction in the Wellington region (viz a viz Transmission Gulley) I suspect this will just be another talk and paper fest.”
Sims4 – you are a dickhead supreme. The Basin Reserve is not the problem and does not need to be “a major Hub for the local transport networks.”
and Julian: “5 bus lanes through Mt Vic, in 3 different tunnels… but only 2 car lanes? You can imagine how popular LGWM is going to be. Laughable.”
Have to agree. A huge amount of tunneling to add no road capacity. Yes cars are bad for cities – not totally bad but generally bad – but I can’t see that a 2 lane tunnel will cut it when it needs to be part of the existing 4/6/8! lane bypass of the city. It’s not like there’s a 4 lane tunnel and they’re trying to expand it to 6. There will be bottlenecks in the merges up to the new tunnel just like there is now, and just like the Terrace Tunnel. The social benefits of all this will be ruined by the idling merging cars.
But Chico, you would have to agree with Julian, wouldn’t you? I tend to agree, but there is the giant idealogical bind. The pro-Light Rail brigade also have an element of “but not another foot of extra road space” within them. The pro-Car brigade will of course only agree to Light Rail as long as it does not come at the expense of any additional roads. What to do?!?! Well, the answer would seem to be: build a new car tunnel, and build a new LR only tunnel too, and convert the existing crap tunnel to peds and cycles, but sadly that is not offered up as one of the solutions….
Chico, I’m not sure you’ve accounted for a drop in traffic if people in the eastern suburbs use the buses. If you’re right, how about this for a solution. Build Option 1. If the bus lanes are a dramatic failure and aren’t utilised for whatever reason, give the cars the four lane road tunnel, and build a new rail line through the existing ‘crap tunnel’ to the eastern suburbs. The cars being now fully seperated the rail line could be easily built in small sections, ultimately all the way through Kilbirnie to the airport. That way the state highway should flow freely, and the rail line has the benefit of larger catchment of where people actually live.
And…the narrower width of rail compared to car lanes in the existing tunnel, should allow for seperate cycling and walking with the trains. Can someone confirm if this last part is true? Is it feasible to have trains, cycling and walking in one tunnel?
Pedge – short answer, is probably no, you can’t. Light Rail train cars are generally a little narrower than a bus, but only a small amount, and because they are on steel tracks, their road corridor is a little narrower – but not enough to let people walk around in the same space.
But I like your idea. Makes sense to me.
Good ideas Chico – please make a submission. Pedge – likewise! I would expect that you would achieve more certainty because of what is travelling through the tunnel and therefore potentially be able to widen (cantilever) the pedestrian / walkway. Also would mean people walking/biking (not particularly nice experience at the moment especially walking) wouldn’t have to put up with the current levels of noise and fumes.
and yet another old boomer banging on: “Then tax the cyclists as they should be paying for the cycle lines.”
Yawn …
Cut the agism darling – or at least use your real name in this discussion. When I last looked at my Wellington gym car park it was full of giant SUVs and diesel utes being driven by millenials and even younger. But that doesn’t justify agism, or help in your arguments with people.
Sorry for offending you, Boomer.
Tamati – thanks for calling me darling, I appreciate that!
so what name should I call the prats who always come out with the cliche “Then tax the cyclists as they should be paying for the cycle lanes.” ? I mean, seriously, it is such a stupid thing to argue. Just… don’t! But thank you for your comment!
Just for some sanity as an alternative, here’s a great opinion piece by Isabella Cawthorn of Talk Wellington:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/wellington-top-stories/300438813/opinion-the-people-have-spoken-now-its-time-to-reshape-our-city
“OPINION: If you feel like Wellington is drifting, here’s the reason: we’ve spent the last few years letting a small number of noisy people and over-cautious bureaucrats block things that the great majority of us have said clearly we want and need.
Our urban fabric – our streets and buildings, the places we go and how we can get there – defines our everyday choices. And we’ve made our desires clear.
During interactions with the council around reshaping our city, Wellingtonians overwhelmingly support pro-walking, sustainable options. In just the last 12 months, more than two-thirds said we want our city to densify before expanding outwards, and a whopping 92 percent prioritised Wellington becoming zero-carbon by 2050, no matter what….”
The render of the Basin Reserve clarifies the weird dog-leg of rail/BRT – looks like they are planning on rerouting the whole of Cambridge Tce – which certainly makes more sense. Whilst the poor Crèche looks like it is going to be moved again, we may fortunately loose the questionable buildings along that stretch of the Basin. I do wonder if this will put the WB development on hold in that area.
Opt.01 is certainly the best out of the proposals – it is a shame that Vivian Street remains as is. Be interested to see what led to that decision.
Talking about comments – for some reason the Green’s (or Genter at least) is pushing for option.04. Which on paper looks like the worst option.
I don’t understand why they didn’t add ‘significant improvements’ to the basin in all of the options. I would love to know the data, metrics, experts and reasoning that the accountants used to come up with these proposals.
follow the link that Greenwelly posted up here a few lines further down the page – LOTS of stuff in there
It might be because with option 4 Arras Tunnel is doing the work that the upgrades would do in the other 3 options.
Hey nemo, I was also reading the stuff comments yesterday with dispair also. Hopefully that is a vocal minority and Wellingtonions really understand the problems better than we think. People keep saying LGWM is ideologiclly driven, but the benefits of public and active modes of transport to cities are so clear and I think our elected officials have been pretty bad at outlining the facts and selling them to the public. We aren’t reinventing the wheel here, there are cities all around the world to draw data and examples from, are there any in the world where high private car use is ideal?
I’m with you on option 1 by the way. The only one from a dissapointing selection to create real change.
Welcome to my World! Where everyone thinks they are in the majority and are not afraid to tell you! The reality is that we have many strongly entrenched positions in Wellington, and whether they are in the majority or not, the LGWM project needs to pick their way through these views and stand true to principal objective – which loosely is “optimal use of road space”.
I am wondering what happened to cut+covering SH1 from the Terrace Tunnel to Pukeaku – I thought NZTA was dead set on that, but all these options seem to show SH1 still running down Vivian.
I have a bad feeling that this is one of those consultations where we will end up with option 2 no matter what the submissions say, I hope to be proved wrong.
That’s not to say I think widening SH1 through the city (tunnelled or not) is necessarily a good thing, of course. I just wonder how the traffic sewer that is Vivian St will be fixed (if at all).
It can be solved as I showed in my previous post… and they’ll do it one day, I’m sure. After all, they still own all the property, and haven’t sold it off yet. So it is still on the cards – but the pack of cards marked “secret – for later”.
Cut and Cover of Karo Drive and additional Terrace tunnel were determined by the government to be out of scope about two years ago. Pity, because for my money the cut and cover of Karo Drive had the potential to be hugely transformation for the Aro area.
Thanks for that info Daran. But, so… one day in the future, maybe…?
Although its not totally true they were totally out of scope .
The trenching /Cut and Cover of at least parts of Karo drive survived in the short list assessment in 2021 as part of option RPI V1 ,
https://lgwm-prod-public.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/public/Documents/Nov-1-MRT/2021-10-22-LGWM-PSLO-Report.-Final_Redacted.pdf
This option was eventually killed off in the final weighting
A cynic might say this assessment was only done after the LGWM objectives and weightings were changed in July
https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=137353
Once the reweighting occurred the “mode shift/climate change weighting” went up from 30-40%- pretty much ensuring that and options that majorly assisted car use were doomed,
Greenwelly – personally I think the weighting exercise was very arbitrary. There was a desire originally to settle on a preferred option, but we argued that through and concluded it is better to have a very genuine set of options for people to have a say on. There are undoubtedly pros and cons with each option. It’s up to everyone to weigh them up. As a LGWM Governance Group we have not come to any position on preferred option(s). It’s all about helping facilitate good informed discussion and creative thinking (Eye of the Fish excels in these), with the knowledge that the decision makers are genuinely open minded.
looks like all the juicy stuff is here
https://lgwm.nz/all-projects/mass-rapid-transit/related-documents/
Note that options 3 and 4 include a new and seperate tunnel for walking and cycling.
A new tunnel just for walking and cycling? That is not what appears to be shown on the plans Daran. The way I read them, there is an existing bus tunnel, and an existing Mt Vic tunnel, in both options 3 and 4. There is no new third tunnel that I can see…
If you look and read closely there is a new walking and cycling tunnel for both options 3 and 4.
My fault – I’m a visual person – if it is not drawn, then it doesn’t happen. Who reads words these days anyway?!
Let’s be happy that there are three options which will fix things at the Basin. No bridge. Grade separation by extending the Arras Tunnel. And lots more open green space in front of the cricket ground. What’s not to like.
I’m very happy ! Bring it on ! Start digging this week as far as I’m concerned !
Definitely hearing the ‘let’s get on with it’ message – whichever version of it the correspondent favours.
I am very keen to get spades in the ground asap, as I know are Chair Ponter and Minister Wood. I think – especially in the August readership of Eye of the Fish (so full of architects, designers, builders etc) – that you would all be aware that once we have chosen an option there is a serious need for detailed design, any property acquisition, ensuring optimal project phasing etc etc!
Am I misreading or there is no LRT option going to the East? Is that for real? After all these years during which this was touted as a given (LRT from the railway station to the airport), something has flipped somewhere and taken it off the table. Do we know what?
None at all. No trains to the planes. Just buses to the cusses…
It’s farcical. None of the options deliver the 2019 route.
Why should they Conor? The purpose of the business case process is to test the rationale for propositions which have sometimes been quite loosely put on the table. That has now happened and long story short is that the original proposal didn’t stack up.
Daran – many reasons. Mainly because that is the option that councils and cabinet universally supported. You don’t have a mandate for anything else. A business case should include it, with costing, even if to rule it out. Also, it casts huge doubt on the competency of LGWM. If you spent 4 years giving us a lemon before 2019, what’s to say you haven’t spent another 2.5 years giving us more lemons? Also, if you are being guided by business case logic, stop wasting our time on consultation.
Also, can you point me to the part of the business case that shows mrt in mixed traffic to a low density suburb with no high patronage destinations makes sense?
All the mandate in the World Conor. The job is efficient use of road space. That means that what might have been conceived of as good ideas initially get put to the axe if they don’t meet the grade. Which suburb are you referring to Conor?
If you have “all the mandate in the world” why are you consulting? And what percentage of the mass transit cost is GWRC committing to pay? There’s only one suburb that has mrt in mixed traffic in all 4 options. Below you’re saying it’s just “high level proposals” at this stage, so I guess it will all change again anyway.
Hi Conor – what’s really changed is the interconnection between urban development (especially housing) and transport. It became increasingly clear that development capacity in Kilbirnie and Miramar is seriously constrained by natural hazards. LRT and to a slightly lesser extent BRT need significant density (which I know you strongly support) to underpin their economics.
We are absolutely in regular discussion as partners with the Minister(s) as we go through this journey.
The mixed running (ie MRT sharing road space) makes sense (especially from a cost perspective) where there is no congestion, but MRT needs its dedicated corridor in the more congested central parts of the city.
Hope that helps. Kind regards
A
The pretty picture ( which I am sure if you question it will be described as indicative only) with the Light rail in Bunny street is a HUGE mistake,
Wellington’s climate is crap, its windy and often wet, having to walk from the railway station out to a simple covered platform is a hugely sub-optimal outcome,
The light rail should be integrated with the railway transport hub,,,, either by using the car parks near platform 9, or by running it all the way across to Rutherford house, which will allow for verandas and linked shelters- as opposed to the heritage station where you can’t build a ramp without a heritage consultation….
Agreed. I think the line should really end at the ferry terminal anyway, so Rutherford house, down Thorndon Quay would be nice.
Its just a concept sketch at present, I think, (its what they will say) – in the grand European way of having the Tram out the front door of the Hauptbahnhof…
High level proposals at this stage. If you think there should be closer integration with the Railway Station, for all options) then you should say this in your submission.
Thanks for the analysis and images to give an idea of where the corridors may lie in the future. we are in Berhampore and cant wait for it to be even more bustling – luckily the times of it being sleepy suburbia ended looooong before we moved here!
Cant wait to see these corridors become reality, my only issue being the timing – does planning and business case development need to be three years??
Want to sell your house? I’m picking Berhampore as the next big ticket in housing… Is it really bustling though? Still seems sleepy to me Darko ! Its all rather… one storey high. Going to be a big jump, not to two, or to three, but four, five or six storeys high..!
Yes, it is Nemo. But unless you react to it, concept could easily become reality. If you want a more seamless and “dry” experience then you need to say so.
I just want to take this opportunity to say thank you to Clr Daran Ponter – and to Mayor Andy Foster – for their willingness to engage, and ability to react / interact with the public via a medium like this. I really like that. Gives me hope that if we can all hold sane and rational conversations, then we might, just might, be able to come to a good collective decision.
I second this comment. Good work Darn and Andy. It can’t be easy.
Thank you Nemo and John. It’s not easy – but it is important that as much as time allows we engage in good, open, listening, testing discussion. Forums like Eye of the Fish are really valuable for this.
Just in case anyone wants to go back in time (no DeLorean, sorry) and look at what was proposed in the past, here are the Options presented back in 2017:
https://eyeofthefish.org/the-magic-roundabout/
Have you got 2019 too Nemo?
There’s this from Feb 2019 https://eyeofthefish.org/lets-get-wellington-funded/
and something else from November.
Here’s Stuff on the May 2019 announcement. Labour didn’t think the 2017 announcement was ambitious enough I recall. https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/112725656/multibilliondollar-transport-plan-announced-for-wellington
Thanks for the deLorean moment Nemo – pretty clear that there wasn’t a lot of detail in either 2017 or 2019. We aren’t there yet, but we are absolutely making progress and determined to see this through to spades in the ground delivery. I know – I am sure we all understand – that whatever is ultimately settled on different people will like / dislike bits of it but when it comes to transport that is absolutely to be expected. At least we will make sure we land on a package that is integrated including with urban development, and coherent. It is about setting our city up for a sustainable, inclusive future.
Is this a divide and rule tactic where the light rail support is spread amongst three options allowing the bus only option to come out as the “most popular” option?
Sigh… sadly, that is indeed possibly true. I think that Wellington people actually need to think tactically about this, and vote massively for one of the options, hopefully Light Rail, and then rely on the local government partners to have enough gumption to back it. I’ll be posting on this more, no doubt, hopefully with a proper analysis at some stage – but for now, I’m just going with my gut instinct: vote for Option 1.
Hi Nemo and Luke – no – this is not about a vote. I genuinely don’t know where we will land, and have not got a preferred option. There are pluses and minuses with each option, and I am sure there will be creative suggestions about amendments to any or all of them. You can think of the four options as a bit of mix and match. In effect you could cut the question a different way – Q1 – LRT / BRT; Q2 tunnel and where / design; Q3 Basin option.
Also really important not to forget the interconnection with urban planning in all of this.
I feel like that party meme where everyone is having a good time saying “yay light rail” but I’m off in the corner thinking this is bad. when I look at this I see:
No reason to bifurcation of the system into busway bypassing people and a light rail line with compromised performance that even bypasses much of Newtown. A new road tunnel to enable this strange busway bypass. A rapid transit route that goes around the city rather than through it. Andnetwork that will be less legible and split capacity unnecessarily (bus routes that would be consolidated and removed have to remain). A new road tunnel both in expense and on an alignment that’ll make future conversion to light rail for the eastern suburbs basically something that’ll never happen.
If this long tunnel is just about public transport it needs justifying why it would put it there. It’s clearly IMO for cars with adding bus lanes the candy to sell it even though it’s a shit route for transit and results in a convoluted transit network.
Like what is even the point of light rail in this proposal? It doesn’t add a new hierarchy. It doesn’t consolidate routes. It mixes with traffic for half of it. It misses half of Newtown when it is almost right there. It mixes with buses from the busway for a bunch of its route. It’s not needed to improve performance in pedestrian areas since it bypasses the city. A dedicated light rail ROW mysteriously stops at the edge of Newtown and then it’s just used to replace the #1 bus. It fails to make use of everything light rail is good for so why use light rail? (And I’m a big light rail fan obviously having wasted too many hours on it in the past, but light rail should not just be done for the sake of it if.)
Yes, you’re probably right Erentz, and the initial euphoria will wear off soon – but this is why we need to put in some really well thought out submissions, to influence the finished outcome into a more useful long term solution.
The problem that LGWM have, is, IMHO, that they need more tunnels than they can afford. Let’s look at what we have at present:
A) a single, one-way only, ex-tram/trolley tunnel that now functions as a bus tunnel. At the very least the capacity of this tunnel needs to be doubled ie a second tunnel needs to be created to allow PT to flow more smoothly.
B) another tunnel, only just wide enough for cars and trucks, with a distinctly inadequate pedestrian/cycle pathway alongside that badly needs replacing. Plus, it then has an irritating long dogleg to actually get somewhere useful.
C) a pilot tunnel that is too small for anyone to make any serious use of and it is too hard to make it bigger.
Of course, what we really need is very different:
D) we need a dedicated public transport tunnel so that trains / LR can speed through from one side to the other, and probably one that doesn’t have a massive dogleg either.
E) we need a new road traffic tunnel that is adequate for the flow of traffic, now and into the future, but this has to be subject to D) coming along first.
F) we need a far better cycle and pedestrian route, but that’s unlikely to be affordable with a new tunnel, so it’ll have to be one of the others, repurposed.
So, while there is a proposal for one new tunnel, optimistically sized to offer the needs of both D and E together, we really need these to be two separate channels. And if you give the purpose of F) over to the former (existing) Mt Vic tunnel, you’re going to need two new tunnels, not one.
If you get d) can’t you convert the bus tunnel into the cycling/pedestrian tunnel (f)?
What would you like to see etentz? Light rail down Lambton quay going first to the hospital and then the airport via a tunnel near the zoo? I think the Lambton Quay option is done as digging it up twice back to back is probably a bridge too far.
Yes, you could convert the existing bus tunnel into a pedestrian and cycling tunnel – it’d be a bit damn spooky, but it would be OK with masses of new lighting I guess.
You could then drill a new PT tunnel – just for LR or Bendy stupid bloody buses – and then leave the existing tunnel as is, perhaps just a little wider if you removed the present walkway. But you just know that the howls of indignation from the assorted mass car-drivers of Wellington would soon make that all a very unpleasant experience, especially for anyone in a position of power in the local government…
The way I see it, the Car Brigade will settle for nothing less than an extra lane each way, but that would rile the Bike Brigade just as much.
I think that politically, that’s why LGWM are proposing a new combined car and bus tunnel – so that they could build 4 lanes through the mountain, 2 each way, and safely placate everyone by saying there are only 2 lanes for cars and 2 for buses. Of course, the Car people will things they will be able to eventually reclaim all 4 lanes for them, But the LR fans will be pissed that the LGWM team are forcing the PT to sit idling in traffic with the cars, thereby slowing it to the speed of all the everyday congestion.
That’s the great unsaid problem: we all know that two new tunnels is the answer, but politically and financially, that’s just unpalatable. If we get anything at all, it will be just one new tunnel.
@Conor, why would we dig up Lambton Quay twice? I think that’s the point of having a proper plan before you start such works. It’s also why I’ve been asking LGWM for their work show how they decided on the Quays route when they announced the golden mile plan, because you have to have predetermined your transit routes beforehand. But they have been unable to respond.
I do think the route as you suggest results in a much better transit network. Whether it runs along part of all of Lambton Quay and the rest of the golden mile shouldn’t be determined until a more detailed study is done once preliminary alignments are selected.
Some factors that influence the use of the golden mile, it’s an import destination on its own, it places stops within reach of much-much more of the CBD/Te Aro, it’s very wide in a lot of spaces so it’s so no reason not to use it there, if using light rail then it can operating safely within pedestrian zones so there’s no automatic reason there not to either, it leaves the Quays available for future extension of suburban lines into Wellington. The Quays are great if you’re trying to get everyone to the railway station as fast as possible, but that isn’t really what we’re trying to do, and if it is we’re better served investigating the extension of suburban lines to a terminus at Taranaki St or Kent Tce around the Quays.
@nemo, you think a submission is going to help? It seems the problem with that is there needs to be an Option 5. Introduce Light Rail as a layer in the transit hierarchy along the route Conor mentioned. Around which we reform the bus network to feed it.
You’re totally right about needing more tunnels. Though the proposal for a four lane tunnel in Option 4 appears to be a very long, expensive tunnel. And if it’s four lanes with shoulders (without which doing light rail through it in future will be very suspect) then wowzer that is going to be an expensive beast. We need to see analysis of the costs of that vs a new single twin lane tunnel for cars in Mt Vic and a shorter light rail tunnel at the Zoo->Kilbirnie point.
Keep thinking creatively Nemo, Erentz, and Conor.
I’m not disagreeing with you re Lambton Quay. But I think the pedestrianisation work is much further along and politically I don’t think they’ll press pause on it. Obviously was hoping they would use their last 2.5 years to provide detail for the 2019 mass transit option rather than rerouting the whole thing.
Also I don’t get the diagonal tunnel? Seems excessively long? Don’t you want tunnels as short as possible from a cost pov?
On pedestrianization, pity. They should start by just laying down some paint and planters and save some money until we have a solid handle on what we are doing with transit. Better to do it right than rush it, it’ll be infrastructure decisions that shape the city for 100 years.
I agree re tunnels. Actually I’m digging into a backlog of stuff made available on the LGWM website now and I see up until maybe 2 years ago the thrust of the network design was in fact to be the single spine, and prior work on the “Rapid transit network options” did highlight just about everything I would’ve highlighted. I’d niggle with parts of it but it was broadly correct, and very correct IMO in concluding LRT fits better on the golden mile, it shouldn’t be mixed with buses, etc. Yet those considerations have been tossed out the window somewhere along the way.
https://lgwm-prod-public.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/public/Documents/Technical-Documents/25-June-2019/4-Rapid-transit-network-options-Ian-Wallis-Associates-Ltd.pdf