Wellington Scoop

LGWM looks for more advice


by Lindsay Shelton
Let’s not get carried away by today’s LGWM announcement that they are seeking contractors for the next stage of engineering, design and planning work for Wellington’s mass rapid transit and a second Mt Victoria Tunnel. Keep reading and you discover that this “big step forward” (their words) is only for business cases:

“The business case for mass rapid transit will inform decisions about the type of mass rapid transit (mode) and the preferred route.
“The business case for the state highway improvements project will identify preferred options for the Basin Reserve and an extra Mt Victoria tunnel.

I had to read the announcement twice before I realised that they aren’t actually making plans yet. They want people to do some more research and then tell them what the plans should be:

“We need to determine the most appropriate route and type of mass rapid transit, and how it integrates with the wider transport system, particularly the bus network, and other projects in the programme including the state highways package.
“The state highways package will investigate which improvements at the Basin Reserve will provide the best outcomes for the transport network and the community. It will also investigate the extra Mt Victoria tunnel, and how the wider transport system will operate with these improvements.

The business case work is not expected to be completed till early in 2021.

And whoever gets the job of writing the mass rapid transit business case, they’ll have to pay attention to details which seem to have been decided already, as specified on LGWM’s website:

Mass transit will improve travel choice through the city with attractive public transport on a second spine along the waterfront quays. Mass transit will help shape a more compact and sustainable city and region. Mass transit will be part of the wider public transport network, with:
High frequency services (every 10 minutes or less)
Modern, high capacity electric vehicles with superior ride quality
Fast loading and unloading
Dedicated lanes with signal priority
High quality stations with level boarding

At the same time, LGWM is also trying to decide what to do on the Golden Mile – but for this work they aren’t seeking anyone to write a business case. Instead they want advice from the public. Cheaper of course.

One way or another, there’s still no sign of urgency about getting the city moving.


  1. Alan, 14. November 2019, 18:35

    One gigantic talkfest in which the LGWM people draw a salary the longer they stretch it out. By the time they come up with a ‘solution’ the problem will no doubt have doubled that what it is today.

  2. Helene Ritchie, 14. November 2019, 19:44

    I did wonder about this announcement. It is almost identical to one a few weeks ago that also gave the impression that “LGWM” were actually letting tenders to get on with light rail..

    Anyway who is LGWM these days with a new mayor, new Chair of GWRC, new Chair of NZTA, new Board members, a whole bunch of new councillors and a Ministerial direction giving priority to light rail. Have any of these people met in “LGWM”? Who does?

    What are the terms of reference for the business cases, who will undertake them, who will decide what next ..one day?

    Finally I understood that light rail was to be considered/tendered before the second Mt Vic tunnel…wasn’t that what all the unnecessary fuss was about during the election campaign?

  3. mason, 15. November 2019, 0:16

    Hard to get excited about guided bendy buses or further traffic inducing roads.

  4. Glen Smith, 15. November 2019, 9:00

    This announcement may be a sign that LGWM are actually going to do their job properly…finally. Our planners appear to be slow learners. It took them 5 years to figure out a second across town PT corridor was required (remember the Spine Study tried to run everything down the Golden Mile – excuse me while I bang my head against this small brick wall).
    The best way to get increased transport capacity across Mt Victoria for the 4 required modes is a large bore multipurpose tunnel. I realised in 2013 this would require an expert international tunnelling company and approached one for advice who confirmed the viability of this option. Have LGWM even considered this? Who knows – everything is done in secret. The best way of permanently removing the potent mode transfer penalty at the Station to produce a seamless Regional network is to ‘trackshare’ Matangis going to the Station with ‘lighter’ across town units. Germany has large experience with track sharing. Have any experts from there been consulted? Based on performance to date one I doubt it.

  5. Ralf, 15. November 2019, 14:41

    @Glen note that the tunnel is for the state highway.
    “The business case for the state highway improvements project will identify preferred options for the Basin Reserve and an extra Mt Victoria tunnel.”
    It won’t be used for the mass rapid transit solution. That would slow down the cars and defeat the purpose. Also as per our mayor, mass rapid transit will be done only once we sorted out the cars (and as we all know, that cannot be done thanks to induced demand and missing mass rapid transit alternatives).

  6. Glen Smith, 15. November 2019, 20:56

    Ralf. As I say – slow learners. This failure to grasp even basic transport concepts seems to be infective with Andy Foster (despite his long history leading transport planning for the Council) parroting the LGWM cognitively challenged thinking when he said of light rail “It’s a lovely idea. But the benefit relative to the cost, at the moment, looks pretty marginal… According to LGWM figures, only 4 or 5 per cent of people are expected to enter the CBD on mass transit by 2036.”
    This ignores the main purpose of mass transit (preferably seamless rail) which isn’t to get people from the east or south TO the CBD but to get PT commuters ACROSS the CBD.
    Topographically Wellington is like an hourglass with large populations north and south of the narrow ‘neck’. This ‘neck is occupied by the CBD, blocking the passage of the tens of thousands of people who want to travel across each day. This is why The Terrace Tunnel was built – to get car users PAST the city – and in 2016 it serviced almost 42,000 trips daily, none of whom were going to the main CBD.
    Public transport users have no way past the CBD – they all have to go down the Golden Mile. The need for an across town mass transit corridor is a pretty simple concept – yet Andy Foster wants to increase road capacity even more but have no proper mass transit corridor.

  7. John Rankin, 16. November 2019, 14:12

    @GlenSmith: the other problem with Mayor Foster’s comment is that he seems to see rapid transit as only about transport. It’s not. Unlike road-building, the business case for urban rapid transit largely rests on the catalytic effect of rapid transit lines in promoting economic development around the stations. The stations on the line become centres for mixed-use commercial and residential development. Some say that this is the main reason Tokyo, with the most expensive land in the world, has housing more affordable than in urban New Zealand.

    At this stage in the process, I reserve judgement on your proposal for a combined road-rail tunnel through Mt Victoria. The starting point, in my view, is the total development potential around stations on possible routes, because this creates new economic value. The business case ought to be “highest value for money” not “lowest cost”.

    Whether he intends to or not, the message Mayor Foster conveys is, “Rapid transit is a cost we can’t afford.” We need to move past this to, “Rapid transit is an investment in our future; make sure it’s a good one.”

    If I could wave a magic wand and make one wish, it would be for LGWM to find a way to build autonomous (ie no human driver) rapid transit. For the same cost, we can run trains half the length twice as often. Frequency is freedom.

  8. steve doole, 17. November 2019, 6:10

    John, Docklands Light Railway trains have no drivers, yet the trains are frequent. Computer control allows trains to approach a train infront to just 10m. A staff member on each train only operates doors – which is more reliable than customer & computer operation. The railway has been automated since beginning in 1987. Daily patronage is above 300,000.

  9. Glen Smith, 17. November 2019, 9:37

    John. Agree completely about Transport Orientated Development. The beauty of seamless rail to the airport is that it achieves 4 major objectives in one relatively short stretch of rail. It opens up the Southern CBD for work commuters from the north, it provides a PT bypass of the city for the 40,000+ across town daily trips, it services the projected 49,000 daily trips to/ from the airport and it opens up destinations enroute for TOD’s, particularly the large flat areas of low density housing in the east.
    However I disagree with your assumption that economic development can only occur around rail stations rather than on high quality bus routes, and that we therefore have to distort the best route (shortest, fastest and amost certainly cheapest and most achievable) by going via Newtown (best serviced by the major North/South and East/West bus line) and Miramar (justifying its own direct rail or bus line – unless we adopt CCF’s interesting idea in a Dompost letter of taking rail to the airport first via a tunnel, then continuing to the Miramar flats as the final destination).

  10. D.W., 17. November 2019, 10:57

    The train captain on the Docklands Light Rail was introduced because of passenger fears about travelling on a driverless train. The Captain can take over controls but of course it will depend where he/she is as to whether the reversion to manual control is effective. The DLR is segregated track. I can’t see Wellington Light Rail ever going driverless. The cost issue will be unions wanting LRT drivers to be paid lots more than a bus driver – negating the operational savings and making LRT more expensive than bus operations.

  11. John Rankin, 17. November 2019, 17:21

    @SteveDoole and @DW: I have travelled a lot on Vancouver’s SkyTrain, which is much newer than the Docklands Light Rail. No human driver, no train captain, short trains, high frequency all day every day (eg every 5 minutes at 9pm). I timed the average dwell time at stations at about 20 seconds, plus or minus about 5 seconds. I think you have to design for autonomous operation from day one, not plan to introduce it down the track. As I say, that’s my magic wand wish; we’ll see what LGWM comes up with. In my experience in western Canada, the ride on autonomous light rail vehicles is much smoother than on LRVs controlled by human drivers.

  12. John Rankin, 18. November 2019, 20:31

    @GlenSmith: it’s not an “assumption” that transit oriented development occurs around stations and doesn’t occur around bus stops, it’s what successful grown-up cities do. Cities foster transit oriented development with light rail or BRT, but there is not enough room in Wellington for BRT. Examples with which I am familiar are Vancouver and Edmonton, both of which have excellent bus services; their planners expect most population growth for the next 50 years to occur along rapid transit corridors, not bus routes. Cambridge in the UK is planning an autonomous BRT network to support its projected growth.

    To put it another way, “I live close to a bus stop so I don’t own a car” said no-one ever. Hoping to encourage transit oriented development using “high quality bus routes” is a high risk strategy unlikely to succeed. It’s not cheap if it doesn’t work. Good luck convincing property developers to build medium density, mixed use developments (without car parks, to make them more affordable) on a bus route.

    Neither Miramar first then Airport nor CCF’s Airport first then Miramar is ideal. However, if my autonomous light rail vehicle wish comes true, there is another option. Take advantage of the higher frequency that autonomous operation makes practical and split the line, one leg to Miramar, the other to the Airport. Without the high frequency that autonomous operation makes affordable, longer wait times swallow the travel time saving from a split line.

  13. Ross Clark, 19. November 2019, 6:14

    @John Rankin
    In terms of using BRT to promote transit-oriented development, a Google search did bring up several scholarly papers.

    To put it another way, “I live close to a bus stop so I don’t own a car” said no-one ever..
    Well, maybe not in New Zealand, but in Edinburgh, the rates of bus use (250 trips/person/year) are better than for several comparably-sized cities in Europe with LRT lines (Bonn, Nantes, and I’ve lived here for many years without needing a car). The LRT community has often, in my view, let itself down by not making it clear that LRT is a means to an end, that of promoting a particular model of urban development. Much of the BRT “community” argue for it as a cost-efficient transport investment, which it often is; and the result is that a lot of the argument is conducted at cross-purposes.

  14. Groggy, 19. November 2019, 13:13

    Is Dave Armstrong’s article brilliant satire or depressing reality? Sadly the latter.

  15. Wellington Commuter, 19. November 2019, 19:01

    @John Rankin. The claim that buses do not reduce car ownership is simply not true. There are, of course a number of studies that show Bus Rapid Transit does promote transit oriented development such as the 2013 study from the Institute for Transportation and Development (ITDP). But even in New Zealand, the superior ability of a great bus service compared to any train service to reduce car ownership was clear from the 2013 Census:

    Census 2013 Top 5 Train Area Units, % Train usage vs % Car usage and %household has no car:
    Tawa South – Train: 27%. Car: 66%. Households have no car: 4%
    Tawa Central – Train: 26%. Car: 67%. Households have no car: 9%
    Waterloo West – Train: 25%. Car: 65%. Households have no car: 9%
    Linden – Train: 24%. Car: 68%. Households have no car: 11%
    Waterloo East – Train: 23%. Car: 67%. Households have no car: 10%

    Census 2013 Top 5 Bus Area Units, % Bus usage vs vs % Car usage and %household has no car:
    Berhampore West – Bus: 32%. Car: 46%. Households have no car:.24%
    Newtown East – Bus: 30%. Car: 36%. Households have no car: 28%
    Kilbirnie West-Hataitai South – Bus: 29%. Car: 49%. Households have no car: 20%
    Newtown West – Bus: 28%. Car: 32%. Households have no car: 28%
    Karori Park – Bus: 26%. Car: 63%. Households have no car: 11%
    Even without any bus priority, the great bus service has over 20% of households with no car while the best any suburb serviced by train is only 11%. Just think what mode shift could be achieved in Newtown and Kilbirnie if their buses weren’t still stuck in traffic.

  16. Ross Clark, 19. November 2019, 23:42

    @Wellington Commuter. Thanks – this is very interesting. The critical distinction is to look at commuter modal choices for people working in the CBD, where both bus and rail do a lot better. The use of public transport for workplace journeys outside the CBD is generally much lower, whether or not an area has a rail service.
    Separately – and coloured by my experience here, admittedly – there is a lot which could be done to promote bus use; and you are right, decent bus priorities are a highly efficient, and effective, way to start. If we can’t get this right, we won’t get anything right.

  17. John Rankin, 21. November 2019, 12:31

    @WellingtonCommuter: (1) We agree that BRT can foster transit oriented development (see my post of 18 Nov which uses Cambridge in the UK as an example). But Wellington does not have the space BRT requires (4 lanes at the BRT stations), whereas LRT only needs 2 lanes. So for transit-oriented development in Wellington, LRT is the only game in town (at least until trackless trams are proven).

    (2) I think you may have the car ownership versus bus usage causality backwards. In New Zealand cities, much bus usage is by those on lower incomes (who tend not to vote). As the statistics you quote illustrate, suburbs designed as car-oriented have high car ownership. The train service is designed for CBD commuters and is not much use for most of the trips people who live there make, so they drive. I suggest that many of the people who take the bus in Wellington do so because they cannot afford to buy and run a car, not the other way round as you state.

    (3) I agree with you and @RossClark that “decent bus priorities are a highly efficient, and effective, way to start. If we can’t get this right, we won’t get anything right.” Policy-makers need to treat our bus service as a high quality transport mode in its own right, not a lowest-cost social service for those with little choice. Thankfully, attitudes are changing and I am delighted to see WCC and GWRC working together on bus priority measures for the city. Better late than never.

  18. Guntao Stem, 21. November 2019, 12:51

    JR – light rail is not need to foster people living in ever smaller boxes. It will happen anyway if immigration continues at the rate of the last decade.

  19. steve doole, 23. November 2019, 6:26

    D.W. have another look at the DLR history, as you omitted the lengthening of trains from 2 cars to 6 in regards to staff on trains. A major benefit from having staff control the doors is short dwell time – potentially shorter time to resolve obstruction of closing doors. Also, staff can take control at stations but do not drive operation trains – no acceleration, speed, or braking control.
    John, how does skytrain deal with door obstructions, and similar ?

  20. D.W., 23. November 2019, 9:20

    SD – Sydney is building a driverless Metro and they are installing platform doors to speed ons and offs. The era of humans driving trains and staffing stations is coming to an end. Long live the bus!

  21. John Rankin, 23. November 2019, 12:14

    @SteveDoole: I have not observed any issues on the SkyTrain. The doors are wide, the platform and train floor are at the same level, the space inside at the doors is open (meaning there are fewer seats than on an articulated bus of similar length, and there is room for a few people bringing their bikes, strollers or wheelchairs onto the trains). In Edmonton, there are buttons on the inside and outside which passengers have to push to open the doors. This slightly increases the average dwell time (about 20 sec in Vancouver, closer to 30 sec in Edmonton).

    Shorter trains running more often (because there are no staff costs) means there are not many doors per train. So in Vancouver, paying people to keep the doors clear would be throwing money at a non-existent problem. DLR is an older system; perhaps newer systems are just better. Or perhaps it’s because Seth Rogan voices the on-board announcements reminding people to stand clear of the doors, not to put your feet up on the seats, etc.

  22. Wellington Commuter, 23. November 2019, 23:57

    @John Rankin as a light rail fan is at least persistent in his attempts to eliminate bus-based mass transit as a viable option. However, the key issue is not whether one can fit BRT into Wellington but whether a bus-based mass transit service that could be built with $2.4B would provide a superior PT service than the LRT equivalent. You claim there is not space for BRT stations but $2.4B could underground the buses from Lambton Interchange to Courtenay Place. It is good and right that LGWM is still considering bus-based mass transit as an option.

  23. TrevorH, 24. November 2019, 8:08

    While I’m a great fan of trams, I doubt a business case can be made for a mass rapid transit system centred on light rail from the CBD to the airport. Who will use it, other than inner city commuters along its route who already take the bus or walk? Tradesmen won’t, protective parents delivering schoolchildren are unlikely to, many airline passengers from beyond the CBD will still go to the airport by car etc. For large parts of the day it will be running empty.

  24. John Rankin, 24. November 2019, 9:52

    @GuntaoStem: if we build medium density houses without a proper rapid mass transit network, the people living in them will still be dependent on the private car for most of their travel needs. This will push up the cost of the houses (because they need car parks) and increase congestion. The intent of transit-oriented development around rapid-transit stations is that the people who choose to live there can also choose not to own a car. On our present trajectory, Wellington’s housing will become less and less affordable and congestion will increase year on year. That’s why I support a different approach.

    @WellingtonCommuter: I do not understand why LGWM thinks it’s going to cost $2.4B to build a 10 km on-street light rail line. They have not published their workings as far as I am aware. For that budget, cities in Canada build completely segregated light rail lines (underground through the city centre, elevated or on separate rights of way elsewhere). In the UK, the Cambridge Autonomous Metro project I mentioned is an example of a segregated BRT network. I agree with WellingtonCommuter that if we built such a BRT network, it would be an excellent solution. I’m a fan of light rail because I have lived in cities with light rail and LGWM’s light rail proposal looks workable. The only BRT proposal we have seen was in the Spine Study, and it was BRT in name only; it did not meet the minimum requirements of even basic BRT. LGWM has not published a BRT proposal so far, so how can I take BRT seriously? If LGWM is considering bus-based mass transit, as WellingtonCommuter states, is it doing so in secret? A “trackless tram” is not “bus-based mass transit” (according to Peter Newman, its biggest fan, trackless tram is light rail on virtual tracks).

  25. Neil Douglas, 24. November 2019, 11:24

    Sydney LRT costs have soared to A$2.9billion (call it $3 billion NZ) for their 12.8km CBD-SE LRT ($234 million a km).

  26. Wellington Commuter, 24. November 2019, 13:36

    @John Rankin. LGWM are still considering bus-based mass transit. I’d guess they are not highlighting it because they do not want to stir up light rail fans who don’t want BRT to be considered in detail in case it is found to be the best mass transit option for Wellington City … again.

  27. Kerry, 25. November 2019, 8:13

    In principle there is nothing wrong with considering bus-based mass transit — it is still GWRC policy — but it doesn’t work in central Wellington. It works in Auckland because the stops are all off-road and can be laid out so that buses never delay each other. On Wellington’s golden mile they even delay each other off-peak; they often run in groups of three, a stop-full, and at peak hours the queues can be much longer. The route is heavily overloaded, and LGWM wants even greater capacity, so something has to give.
    BRT in Brisbane does clog up sometimes, even with stops twice the width of Manners St, so where to find space for stops? and how many busy junctions will need flyovers?
    Trackless trams are electronically guided BRT, which has a reputation for being replaced with light rail. It is unproven and could be a very costly mistake.
    What proven alternatives to light rail are there?

  28. John Rankin, 25. November 2019, 10:39

    @Kerry, I think it’s a category error to classify trackless tram as “electronically guided BRT”. All the descriptions have stations very much like LRT stations — there is no obvious reason why trackless tram would require “stops twice the width of Manners St”. That’s because trackless tram on paper has capacity closer to LRT than traditional BRT. You cannot necessarily take conclusions valid for BRT and generalise them to trackless tram.

    On the route LGWM currently prefers, BRT is not practical and alternative routes would be worse. Trackless tram, with higher capacity, could work, but as @Kerry says is unproven. The Spine Study “BRT” proposal was not BRT. We can follow @WellingtonCommuter and @Kerry and call it “bus-based mass transit” but let’s not pretend it’s rapid transit.

    Could @WellingtonCommuter name the “light rail fans who don’t want BRT to be considered in detail”? Perhaps he could also write a Scoop article setting out how he proposes to deliver at least Bronze-standard BRT on LGWM’s currently preferred route, or another route he thinks would be better. @Kerry has set out why he has concluded BRT can’t work in Wellington several times on this site; nobody has proved him wrong.

    To answer @Kerry’s question, the only alternative to light rail that can deliver mass rapid transit in Wellington is trackless tram and it is unproven.

  29. John Rankin, 25. November 2019, 11:22

    @NeilDouglas: if we are going to budget based on Sydney’s costs, let’s use the money to build an elevated light-metro line with autonomous vehicles, like Vancouver’s SkyTrain.

  30. Wellington Commuter, 25. November 2019, 11:23

    @Kerry talks about Bus Rapid Transit in Brisbane clogging up even “with stops twice the width” but you fail to mention how many buses are running through these stops when they do clog up. A 2015 story talks about “… the 225 buses crossing Victoria Bridge each hour is 45 more than it is meant to carry. During the morning rush hour, a bus goes through the Cultural Centre bus station every 15 seconds.” Yet this has nothing to do with our bus congestion along the Golden Mile today which has had no investment for two decades. Sure, if you invest nothing and just add bus services you get worse bus congestion. This does not mean that the current bus congestion cannot be made better by spending say $40,000,000 (like the LGWM Early Delivery Programme) and I’m sure we could increase bus capacity towards BRT levels if we invested say $2,400,000,000 … even if you don’t.

  31. Neil Douglas, 25. November 2019, 14:14

    JR – best of luck with the heritage people – they stopped the flyover so I imagine they would oppose an elevated railway. By the way, Sydney took their monorail down as it was considered an eye-sore. Cost them millions in breaking the contract which ironically was with a French company that owned……the Darling Harbour Light Rail.

  32. John Rankin, 25. November 2019, 16:08

    @NeilDouglas: so we should make our “rapid transit” slower and more expensive to operate, but prettier, and not count all the people who will be in their cars instead of on the train, because the train is too slow, too infrequent and too unreliable? I hope we’re better than that.

  33. Neil Douglas, 25. November 2019, 18:43

    JR – bus and rail (whatever it is) has to fit in with the urban environment. It’s not all about the users but residents, businesses etc and how the city fits together. Put bluntly, aerial rail won’t happen in Wellington.

  34. Kerry, 27. November 2019, 9:23

    Wellington Commuter – You say the busway on Brisbane’s Victoria Bridge was overloaded in 2015, carrying 225 bus/hr. This is less than double the golden mile’s 120 bus/hr. Both are two-lane, so the golden mile can carry 120 bus/hr comfortably, if the junctions are adapted to give buses sufficient green-time.
    The problem is not the route but the stops.
    Brisbane’s BRT stops are off-road and four-lane, so that when a bus is delayed, other buses have no trouble overtaking it. On the golden mile there is no space for such bus stops, even on the wider sections, and the trouble-free capacity is about 60 bus/hr. This is clearly explained in the 2011 Bus Review, limited by a process which the consultants call ‘cascading delay.’ Even off-peak, at about about 60 bus/hr, buses on the golden mile can often be seen running in groups of three, a bus-stop full. Cascading delays even work off-peak.
    Yes, golden mile bus capacity can be improved fairly cheaply, but with fairly severe limits on what can be done about the stops. LGWM are expecting bus and light rail passenger numbers to grow by 60% by 2036 (LGWM recommended programme, bar chart on p 24), which is nowhere near enough if Wellington is going to take climate change seriously.
    Something BRT-ish will work in Wellington if done well, but not for long.

  35. D.W., 27. November 2019, 9:50

    Kerry but Brisbane buses have passengers on them! One half of Wellington’s buses have next to nobody on them whilst they meander through the city because of the ill-conceived bus plan by an ex-drainage engineer. Brisbane’s problems were solved by a bus tunnel. One of the reasons LRT has been ruled out is the cost to strengthen the bridge.

  36. John Rankin, 27. November 2019, 11:33

    @NeilDouglas: lead me by the hand, please. Why have some cities chosen to build elevated light metro and what is it about Wellington which stops it happening here?

  37. Dave B, 27. November 2019, 11:54

    Wellington Commuter, just picking up on your comment of 19 November purporting to show that bus-services reduce car-ownership more than rail-services do. I think car-ownership levels in the suburban examples you give are influenced much more by factors other than whether they are rail-served or bus-served. The main reason for lower car-ownership in Newtown, Kilbirnie and Karori, as-compared with Tawa, Linden and Waterloo, is that they are much closer to Wellington’s CBD. And bear-in-mind that Tawa, Linden and Waterloo have bus services as well as rail serving them.

    A more pertinent comparison of the efficacy of rail services compared to bus is data from the 2015 Regional Land Transport Plan which states that: 44% of all commuters to the CBD from rail-served parts of the region use public transport (mostly rail, because that is what is provided), as against only 29% from bus-only suburbs of Wellington. And this was before the bustastrophe which may have depressed that 29% further. The clear message is that the Hutt and Kapiti Lines work very well at attracting mode-share. How much they reduce car-ownership is harder to correlate because of other factors influencing this.

  38. Neil Douglas, 27. November 2019, 13:39

    @JR – I suggest you put in your proposal with some artist’s impressions to LGWM and see what eventuates.

  39. John Rankin, 28. November 2019, 9:14

    @NeilDouglas: (1) that’s way above my pay grade; (2) LGWM is about to shell out big dollars to contract people who are qualified to do the job; (3) the governance group has a duty of care to ask why, for the amount LGWM has budgeted, other cities can build a light metro line that is safer, faster, more frequent, more reliable and with higher capacity. @WellingtonCommuter is asking the right question: is what is being proposed the best way to spend $2.2B of public money on mass rapid transit?