Attachment 11 Email correspondence with Greater Wellington Regional Council FINAL.pdf

From:
s 9(2)(a)
To:
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 s 9(2)(a)

From:  s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>
Sent: Friday, 29 January 2021 11:09 am
To: s 9(2)(a)
@kapiticoast.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
<s 9(2)(a)
@gw.govt.nz>;s 9(2)(a)
@poriruacity.govt.nz>;
s 9(2)(a)
.govt.nz; s 9(2)(a)
@huttcity.govt.nz>; s 9(2)
s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>
( )
Cc: s 9(2)(a)
@gw.govt.nz>; Amy Kearse <[email address]>;s  s 9(2)
<s 9(2)(a) @wcc.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
wcc.govt.nz>
9(2 ( )
Subject: RE: Rapid transit definition for RLTP

Hi all,

s 9(2)(a)
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 s 9(2) 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 s 9(2)  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

www.kapiticoast.govt.nz

From: s 9(2)(a)
@gw.govt.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 28 January 2021 2:54 PM
To: s 9(2)(a)
wcc.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
s 9(2)(a)
@poriruacity.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
@kapiticoast.govt.nz>;
s 9(2)(a)
@uhcc.govt.nz; s 9(2)(a)
@huttcity.govt.nz>; s
s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>;
@wcc.govt.nz>
9(2)
s 9(2)(a)
s 9(2)(a)
Cc: s 9(2)(a)
gw.govt.nz>; Amy Kearse <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Rapid transit definition for RLTP

Kia ora s 9(2) 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: s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 28 January 2021 1:31 PM
To: s 9(2)(a)
@poriruacity.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
@gw.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
@kapiticoast.govt.nz>;
s 9(2)(a)
@uhcc.govt.nz; s 9(2)(a)
@huttcity.govt.nz>; Js
s 9(2)(a)
wcc.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>
9(2
Cc: s 9(2)(a)
gw.govt.nz>; Amy Kearse <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Rapid transit definition for RLTP

Hi s
and friends,
9(2)
s 9(2)(a)
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,

s 9(2)(a)

Principal Advisor LGWM Interface | Wellington City Council
s 9(2)(a)

From: s 9(2)(a)
@poriruacity.govt.nz>
Sent: 28 January 2021 11:01 AM
To: s 9(2)(a)
@gw.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
s 9(2)(a)
@kapiticoast.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
@uhcc.govt.nz; s 9(2)(a)
@huttcity.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>; s
s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>
9(2)
Cc: s 9(2)(a)
@gw.govt.nz>; Amy Kearse <[email address]>; s 9(2)
s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>
( )
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,
s 9(2)(a)

MNZPI
s
Manager Environment and City Planning
9
Kaiwhakahaere Taiao me te Whakamahere Tāone
Tel: s 9(2)(a)
Mob:

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.

From:
Amy Kearse
To:
s 9(2)(a)
Subject:
Updated PT classifications
Date:
Wednesday, 17 March 2021 10:14:10 am
Attachments:
image001.jpg
image002.jpg
image003.jpg
image004.jpg
Public Transport section of ONF Detailed Design.pdf
Kia oras 9(2)(a)

As discussed, updated ONF PT classifications.

If you could please keep this close for now, as we still need to close the loop with AT/TSIG, along
with advising timing for publication/next steps.

I’ll include you in that communication.

Ngā mihi
Amy

Amy Kearse / Lead Strategic Planner
System Planning, Transport Services
DDI
/ M

E [email address] / w nzta.govt.nz
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
Wellington / Level 4, Chews Lane, 50 Victoria Street
Private Bag 6995, Marion Square Wellington 6141, New Zealand
_________  _____________________________________________





This message, together with any attachments, may contain information that is classified
and/or subject to legal privilege. Any classification markings must be adhered to. If you
are not the intended recipient, you must not peruse, disclose, disseminate, copy or use the
message in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email and then destroy the original message. This communication
may be accessed or retained by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency for information
assurance purposes.

From:
s 9(2)(a)
To:
Amy Kearse
Subject:
RE: Updated PT classifications
Date:
Wednesday, 17 March 2021 12:48:00 pm
Attachments:
image001.jpg
image002.jpg
image003.jpg
image004.jpg
Thanks Amy.

On your other request, our Regional Public Transport Plan submission is still being drafted and
tidied up, and I don’t have access to the full version yet, but some of the content is likely to
include:

We support the vision and direction, and the three strategic areas of focus
We support LGWM and implementing the Bus Priority Action Plan
We are looking forward to a PT fare review to address our concerns about fairness and
affordability.
Minor corrections to rapid transit network references, based on draft RLTP text and
legislative definitions.
Clarifying Metlink’s role in working with territorial authorities to identify other rapid
transit corridors, including which rail stations provide access to rapid transit services, to
ensure transport and land-use planning around rapid transit stops is done in an integrated
and iterative way.
GW and territorial authorities to work together to investigate whether some Park and
Rides could have apartment development above them, as part of transit-oriented
development.
Correcting references to growth calculations in the Regional Growth Framework
Saying that options for LGWM MRT include light rail, articulated buses and trackless
trams.

If you’re curious about any of these points, feel free to call back for a chat. Please use the above
summary only for your own reference in preparing your own submission.

Regards,

s 9(2)(a)
(he/him)
Principal Advisor Planning (LGWM) | City Design and Place Planning | Wellington City Council
s 9(2)(a)

From: Amy Kearse <[email address]>
Sent: 17 March 2021 10:14 AM
To: s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Updated PT classifications

Kia oras 9(2)(a)

As discussed, updated ONF PT classifications.

If you could please keep this close for now, as we still need to close the loop with AT/TSIG, along
with advising timing for publication/next steps.

I’ll include you in that communication.

Ngā mihi
Amy

Amy Kearse / Lead Strategic Planner
System Planning, Transport Services
DDI
/ M

E [email address] / w nzta.govt.nz
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
Wellington / Level 4, Chews Lane, 50 Victoria Street
Private Bag 6995, Marion Square Wellington 6141, New Zealand
_________  _____________________________________________





This message, together with any attachments, may contain information that is classified and/or
subject to legal privilege. Any classification markings must be adhered to. If you are not the
intended recipient, you must not peruse, disclose, disseminate, copy or use the message in any
way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email and
then destroy the original message. This communication may be accessed or retained by Waka
Kotahi NZ Transport Agency for information assurance purposes.

Sent: 28 January 2021 11:01 AM
To: s 9(2)(a)
@gw.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
s 9(2)(a)
@kapiticoast.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
@uhcc.govt.nz; s 9(2)(a)
s 9(2)(a)
@huttcity.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>; s
s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>
9(2)
Cc: s 9(2)(a)
@gw.govt.nz>; Amy Kearse <[email address]>; s 9(2)
s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>
( )
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,
s 9(2)(a)

s 9(2)(a)

Manager Environment and City Planning
Kaiwhakahaere Taiao me te Whakamahere Tāone
Tel: s 9(2)(a)
Mob:
poriruacity.govt.nz

Check out our Proposed District Plan

From: s 9(2)(a)
@gw.govt.nz>

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.

From:
s 9(2)(a)
To:
s 9(2)(a)
Cc:
s 9(2)(a)
; Amy Kearse
Subject:
RE: Definition of Rapid Transit
Date:
Tuesday, 26 January 2021 10:39:02 am
Attachments:
image001.png
Hi s 9(2),
( )
It looks good, but the last paragraph still has the request to include a summary statement about
the change in service frequency proposed. I support including those summary statements before
the draft text is finalised, so that readers have a high-level understanding of how the rail service
timetables will become more frequent and reliable – which is important for a “rapid transit”
service. I’m hoping GW’s Metlink/public transport team can add in some summary sentences
here.

Cheers,

s 9(2)(a)
Principal Advisor LGWM Interface | Wellington City Council
s 9(2)(a)

From: s 9(2)(a)
@gw.govt.nz>
Sent: 26 January 2021 9:36 AM
To: s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
@gw.govt.nz>;
s 9(2)(a)
@gw.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>; Amy Kearse <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Definition of Rapid Transit

Hi

I meant to say that its’s still the document at the link on Sharepoint.

Thanks

s 9(2)
( )makaurangi
s 9(2)(a)
Kaiwhakahaere Waka-ā-rohe|Manager, Regional Transport
Greater Wellington Te Pane Matua Taiao
M:
100 Cuba St, Te Aro, Wellington 6011
Follow us online: Facebook | Twitter | gw.govt.nz

From: s 9(2)(a)
r
Sent: Saturday, 23 January 2021 10:42 AM
To: s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
@gw.govt.nz>;

s 9(2)(a)
.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
wcc.govt.nz'
s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>; 'Amy Kearse' <[email address]>
Subject: Definition of Rapid Transit

All

I’ve a review of the wording for this definition. Subject to s 9(2)(a)
at this on Tuesday, are
people now happy that this is ready to go into the consultation document?

We would like to take the working to TAG on Wednesday morning after which we can circulate
the draft wording to the original group

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks

s 9(2)
( )makaurangi
s 9(2)(a)
Kaiwhakahaere Waka-ā-rohe|Manager, Regional Transport
Greater Wellington Te Pane Matua Taiao
M:
100 Cuba St, 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.

From:
Amy Kearse
To:
s 9(2)(a)
Subject:
ONF changes
Date:
Thursday, 11 February 2021 12:18:41 pm
Attachments:
image001.jpg
image002.jpg
image003.jpg
image004.jpg
ONF Proposed change to PT classification presentation to TSIG 11 Feb 21.pdf
Kia ora s 9(2)(a)

Just dropping a quick note to say thanks for your input and suggested changes to the ONF PT
classification.  I believe I’ve picked up on most of the suggestions you raised s 9(2) , particularly
the point around more flexibility between how modes are classified.
( )

I’m going to present these at a TSIG meeting today and am seeking feedback over the next week,
so if anything else comes to mind please let me know.

See attached presentation.

Ngā mihi
Amy

Amy Kearse / Lead Strategic Planner
System Planning, Transport Services
DDI
/ M

E [email address] / w nzta.govt.nz
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
Wellington / Level 4, Chews Lane, 50 Victoria Street
Private Bag 6995, Marion Square Wellington 6141, New Zealand
_________  _____________________________________________

From:
Amy Kearse
To:
s 9(2)(a)
Subject:
One Network Framework
Date:
Tuesday, 22 June 2021 10:42:30 am
Attachments:
image001.jpg
image002.jpg
image003.jpg
image004.jpg
ONF Movement and Place Classification- Detailed Design - Final.pdf
Kia ora s 9(2)

( )
Please find a copy of the ONF attached. I will call you shortly to discuss.

Ngā mihi
Amy

Amy Kearse / Lead Strategic Planner
Strategic System Planning, Transport Services
DDI
/ M

E [email address] / w nzta.govt.nz
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
Wellington / Level 4, Chews Lane, 50 Victoria Street
Private Bag 6995, Marion Square Wellington 6141, New Zealand
_________  _____________________________________________





This message, together with any attachments, may contain information that is classified
and/or subject to legal privilege. Any classification markings must be adhered to. If you
are not the intended recipient, you must not peruse, disclose, disseminate, copy or use the
message in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email and then destroy the original message. This communication
may be accessed or retained by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency for information
assurance purposes.

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.

s 9(2)(a)
District Planning Manager
Kāpiti Coast District Council
Tel s 9(2)(a)

Mobile

www.kapiticoast.govt.nz

s 9(2)
@gw.govt.nz]
Sent:
(a)
Thursday, 28 January 2021 2:54 PM
To: s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
s 9(2)(a)
@poriruacity.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
@kapiticoast.govt.nz>;
s 9(2)(a)
@uhcc.govt.nz; s 9(2)(a)
@huttcity.govt.nz>; s
s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>;
wcc.govt.nz>
9(2)
s 9(2)(a)
Cc: s 9(2)(a)
gw.govt.nz>; Amy Kearse <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Rapid transit definition for RLTP

Kia ora s 9(2)(a)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?

s
9(2)
From: s 9(2)(a)
@wcc.govt.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 28 January 2021 1:31 PM
To: s 9(2)(a)
@poriruacity.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
<s 9(2)(a)
@gw.govt.nz>; s 9(2)(a)
@kapiticoast.govt.nz>;
s 9(2)(a)
@uhcc.govt.nz; s 9(2)(a)
s 9(2)(a)
@huttcity.govt.nz>;s
@wcc.govt.nz>;
@wcc.govt.nz>
9(2)
s 9(2)(a)
s 9(2)(a)
Cc: s 9(2)(a)
@gw.govt.nz>; Amy Kearse <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Rapid transit definition for RLTP

Hi s 9(2)(a)  friends,

s 9(2)(a)
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: