From:
Andrew Wharton
To:
Kim Kelly
Cc:
Amy Kearse; Grant Fletcher; Amy Helm; Lucie Desrosiers; Moana Mackey
Subject:
RE: LGWM - rapid transit
Date:
Wednesday, 27 January 2021 9:35:36 am
Attachments:
image001.jpg
image002.jpg
image003.jpg
image004.jpg
image005.jpg
image006.jpg
Hi Kim,
See my comments in green below.
Andrew Wharton
Principal Advisor LGWM Interface | Wellington City Council
021 365 051
From: Kim Kelly <Kim.Kelly@gw govt.nz>
Sent: 27 January 2021 8:43 AM
To: Amy Kearse <Amy.Kearse@nzta govt.nz>; Grant Fletcher <[email address]>; Amy Helm <[email address]>; Andrew Wharton
<[email address]>
Subject: RE: LGWM - rapid transit
Some comments/question on your comments – mine are in RED
From: Amy Kearse <Amy Kearse@nzta govt nz>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 5:11 PM
To: Kim Kelly <Kim.Kelly@gw govt.nz>
Cc: Grant Fletcher <[email address]>; Amy Helm <Amy.Helm@gw govt.nz>; Andrew Wharton <Andrew.Wharton@wcc govt.nz>
Subject: LGWM - rapid transit
Kia ora Kim
I know there are a few tweaks being made to the WRGF document, and the GWRC team are busy finalising the RLTP content. I’d previously flagged the rapid
transit map in both may need review.
I think a couple of adjustments to map 6 (directly below) and also our main visual (further below).
Change reference to LGWM to ‘Future mass rapid transit (LGWM)’ The only reference I can see on this is the main visual where it is called “ Lets’ Get
Wellington Moving Growth Corridor”. Is the wording you are suggesting changing? If so I don’t know that this is a good idea as (a) all the councils
including WCC have signed off this visual as part of their overall signoff and WCC or GWRC did not raise the name as an issue (b) if we were changing it
then it does not make sense to change it to a name related to transport as none of the others have similar names – it would make more sense to call it
“Wellington growth corridor” – however I still come back to Point (a). If I have missed something and there is wording somewhere else let me know.
The reference is on Map 6. It’s currently called “Future rapid mass transport” when the technically correct name is “Future mass rapid transit”. I’m ok
with the main Growth Corridor diagram staying the same, except that the g in “Get” in “Let’s Get Wellington Moving Growth Corridor” needs to be
capitalised.
Take out the two port icons as it just adds complexity to the map. We could do this on the rapid transit network map as I note these icons are on the
strategic road network and freight map which makes more sense. Agree
Other document changes:
The fact that we don’t have a key for the grey line in the LGWM area created some confusion with Wellington City councillors and it is probably too
definitive for how we are considering MRT at the moment.
A couple of options here:
Take out the grey line completely, as most people understand what is proposed with LGWM (ie, MRT, it also includes cycleways, etc) and all we
have noted down is the SH as an existing route – this is my preference
Or create another (perhaps rectangular (horizontal) box in grey inside the LGWM growth corridor and label this ‘Future mass rapid transit
(LGWM)’
What is the WCC/LGWM preference here Andrew? If it is the second option above, could you mark up where this should go and send it back to me. Also I
would note that most people reading this document do not understand/know what is proposed for LGWM – if you think about the wider regional audience.
WCC staff’s current preference is the same as Amy’s – take out the grey line. It’s not mentioned in the Legend so the general public won’t know what it is
anyway and the routes and destinations of MRT are not even short-listed yet. It’s more confusing than helpful at the moment.
Welcome others suggestions on what might be most straightforward and consistent with LGWM communication to date.
Ngā mihi
Amy
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.
