Wellington Scoop

LGWM updates objectives, “to help assess options and guide next steps”

News from LGWM
A greater focus on climate change and reducing carbon emissions is just one of the changes to emerge from an update to the objectives of the Let’s Get Wellington Moving programme. The recent review has also highlighted the importance of safety as a core underpinning principle of the programme. While all the original objectives remain, two have been adjusted for the current operating environment.

The Regional Council approved the changes this week, following an earlier endorsement by the Wellington City Council. The changes have also been agreed by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency.

A weighting has been established for each objective, to help assess options and guide the programme’s next steps in making Wellington a more liveable and connected city. This follows recommendations by the independent Health Check report in late 2020.

Councillor Daran Ponter, Chair of Let’s Get Wellington Moving’s Governance Reference Group and Greater Wellington Regional Council Chair, says the consensus built through the objectives review is a significant step towards strong and united decision-making on preferred options that will deliver transport and economic benefits to Wellington.

“This process has clearly demonstrated the Let’s Get Wellington Moving partners are aligned on the goals of a vibrant and prosperous future for Wellington and our region. These are at the heart of why the programme exists,” Councillor Ponter says.

“We have looked closely at our objectives in light of what’s been learned during the initial business case work and taken account of new and emerging issues. These include climate change, COVID-19, population growth, housing supply and policy direction changes since the programme began.”

Councillor Ponter says the three programme funding partners are also committed to prioritising safety for all road users to help prevent deaths and injuries.

“In addition to safety being integral in the design of all potential solutions, it is included as a weighted objective to enable a clear understanding of the trade-offs between potential options, as part of multi-criteria analysis and other evaluation processes. Safety already features strongly in the projects being delivered and consulted on first, including Thorndon Quay/Hutt Road and Central City Pedestrian improvements, safer speeds along State Highway 1 and a new, safe Cobham Drive crossing.”

The confirmed objectives are for a transport system that delivers:

greater liveability, including enhanced urban amenity and development
more efficient and reliable transport access
reduced carbon emissions by increasing mode shift away from reliance on private vehicles
improved safety for all users, and
resilience and adaptability to disruptions and future uncertainty.

Mayor Andy Foster says Let’s Get Wellington Moving’s aim of moving more people with fewer vehicles to achieve its vision hadn’t changed, but the adjustments reinforced a clear and united voice among the partners.

“Continuing and accelerating our long-standing work to move more people on foot, bike or public transport is essential to reducing congestion and addressing our carbon challenges.

“These well-defined objectives give the programme a strong and clear mandate to get on with its job and stay focused on what matters most to our communities. There is also a strong alignment with the liveability goals of Council’s Planning for Growth programme. Later in the year I look forward to hearing public feedback on the Let’s Get Wellington Moving programme proposals and the weightings that underpin them,” Mayor Foster says.

Waka Kotahi Director Regional Relationships Emma Speight says the programme’s objectives also lined up closely with the Government Policy Statement (GPS) on land transport.

“The GPS is our guide for improving safety for everyone using the transport network, providing new and better options for people and freight, improving urban form, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport,” she says.

“The updated and prioritised objectives pave the way for us to really deliver the change Wellingtonians have been asking for.”

lgwm objectives

Let’s Get Wellington Moving is a $6.4 billion multi-decade programme of investment in Wellington’s transport and urban development future. It is a joint initiative between Wellington City Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, with support of Mana Whenua partners Taranaki Whānui and Ngāti Toa.


  1. bsmith, 1. July 2021, 11:07

    Right, so LGWM is about moving, but only if you move by cycle/walk and train. Bring on the next local body election.

  2. Julienz, 1. July 2021, 11:27

    Interesting to see resilience doesn’t count for much. The same thinking is exhibited in the rush to put up tall buildings. Seems poor logic given our seismic vulnerability.

  3. Guy M, 1. July 2021, 11:47

    Your comment, bsmith, illustrates how little you understand. Firstly, that LGWM is not something or somebody that you can vote for, seeing as it is a conjoint effort between the WCC, the GRWC, and the NZTA – you may be able to vote for the Councillors, but you / we / the public have no vote over the Council Officers who actually make up the membership of LGWM. So there is Zero point in “bringing on the next local body election.”

    Furthermore, probably the best chance you will have of driving your car more smoothly around town, is if there are less cars on the road. Agreed? Less cars = less congestion = smoother journeys for bsmith, right? And so the best way of getting cars off the road is if more people take Public Transport, ie take a Bus, or a Train, or a Ferry, or walk, or ride a bike, right? So therefore, it is in your best interests if all those other modes of transport are advanced as best as possibly able, as quickly as able, so that traffic volumes of single occupants sitting in cars, idling in traffic, can both reduce in number, and also zip along on their way and get the hell out of the city that the rest of us happen to live in.

  4. Greenwelly, 1. July 2021, 12:15

    Interesting…. As of last year the weightings were:
    – Liveability 30%
    – Access 20%
    – Reduced car reliance (mode shift) 30%
    – Safety 10%
    – Resilience 10%

    So LGWM is now proposing solutions that provide less Liveability and Access. This sounds like they are walking back on using the MRT to facilitate changes in Urban Form…which tends to be a weakening of the case for tracks.

  5. Dave B, 1. July 2021, 12:16

    bsmith, calm down. No-one is suggesting you will lose your car or your ability to drive it pretty much wherever you like (except maybe in parts of the CBD). All that is being proposed is a shift away from giving cars absolute priority over everyone else on the roads, and absolute priority over transport-funding streams. The aim of LGWM is to strengthen people’s ability to choose not to go by car when they don’t need to or don’t want to. That choice has been progressively eroded since the 1950s and needs to be restored.

  6. D'Esterre, 1. July 2021, 13:32

    Guy M: In virtue of what would you conclude that this commenter doesn’t understand the issues? Assumptions of that sort don’t help to further your cause. And while I’m at it – pedantry rules, ok! “Fewer” cars, not “less”. (You can say “less traffic”, because “traffic” isn’t a count noun.)

  7. Helene Ritchie, 1. July 2021, 14:23

    Good process here Mr Chair, although I would have given carbon emissions and mode shift even greater weighting (and priority for action).
    How are you and we going to know how many carbon emissions will be reduced and by when? I know they are measured at Baring Head, which is not quite Wellington, and only in one place in the city? Is that correct?
    Perhaps you could let us know in a simple but complete tabulation how you and we are going to exactly keep track of the baseline carbon emissions, and then reduced carbon emissions. (We know already that the occasional diesel bus will be replaced progressively…).

  8. Greenwelly, 1. July 2021, 15:00

    Helene Ritchie, you don’t need to measure emissions from transport by sampling the air, it’s much much easier to just measure fuel sold in the region…there is a well accepted conversion factor for petrol/diesel into Co2.

  9. Claire, 1. July 2021, 15:19

    Helene: you have hit the nail on the head. There need to be expert people telling councils how to do this. It’s very adhoc at the moment. For example putting cycleways first is least likely to pack an emission punch. So let’s get an expert plan. Climate cost analysis giving a plan for what will make the most difference to emissions. And how to put it into action. Then let’s measure the results for Wellington.

  10. Daniel, 1. July 2021, 15:43

    That’s a great tip about count nouns, I had no idea. Just so I’m sure I understand correctly, is this math correct: fewer pedants = less counts?

  11. bsmith, 1. July 2021, 15:46

    Dave B, I’m perfectly calm Dave, thanks for caring. My point is, that you can throw whatever you like at public transport, and preach till the cows come home, but kiwis love their cars, as it allows them to do what they like, when they like. Public transport will never come close to that. I’m also getting a little sick of the catchcry that throwing billions of dollars of ratepayers/taxpayers money at public transport/cyclists/pedestrians “will make my car journeys quicker, as no one will be one the roads” … utter rubbish.
    D’Esterre …. touche ! I think.

  12. Helene Ritchie, 1. July 2021, 17:01

    Greenwelly, if liveability is one of the objectives of LGWM then (all) carbon emissions and reductions from not only transport in LGWM should be measured and reported on by GWRC shouldn’t they? They are inextricably linked aren’t they?

    Your proposal to just measure fuel sold in the region does not do that, (and as well would take into account fuel sold for other than cars – eg. aeroplanes, which are not part of LGWM.) Surely we need to understand the totality of emissions and reductions in the region (and country), not just from a selected part? Otherwise how can we know that we are reaching zero carbon etc goals.

  13. Heather, 1. July 2021, 17:22

    Helene – measure it outside my house in Miramar. The ‘new’ diesel buses leave a greasy black film all over my house and car every day. Goodness knows what my children are breathing when they play in the front garden.

  14. John Rankin, 1. July 2021, 17:54

    That “kiwis love their cars” appears to be a case of Stockholm Syndrome. Being a Canadian living in NZ (and a NZ citizen) I would like kiwis like bsmith to refrain from imposing their preference for cars on everyone else. Some of us would like to have more choice about how we get around. When did giving people more choice become a Bad Thing? Is it un-kiwi not to love cars?

  15. Dave B, 1. July 2021, 18:03

    But bsmith, you’re ignoring a present-day reality that kiwis in their 1000’s use public transport/walking/cycling every day, and thereby save a whole lot of potential extra peak-time car journeys. Look at the skyward trajectory of Auckland’s rail-usage and North Shore Busway usage since these quality services have been available. Half of all peak-time commuters over the Harbour Bridge are said to be on buses now. And Wellington’s peak-time rail services are bursting at the seams or at least they were prior to Covid-19. These are real people choosing to use public transport in spite of its limitations and present-day inadequacies. These modes need expanding and developing to make them more-usable and widen their reach, as we are currently witnessing with Auckland’s City rail Link.
    You are wrong to believe that a quaint concept of Kiwis loving their cars and their pavlova sections should trump all other considerations in the 21st century. A lot has changed since the 1970s including how a new generation of kiwis think, and we really need to move on.

  16. Cr Daran Ponter, 1. July 2021, 22:06

    Bsmith – LGWM is about finding a balanced set of solutions. There will be plenty for everyone to fight over when the options land.

    Heather – If you live in Miramar then the reality is that most of the buses passing your way are not in fact new diesels (i.e Euro VI)- they are likely to be older diesels. However, if you are on Route 2, then by this time next year the majority of your buses will be fully electric.

    Greenwelly – definitely no walking back on MRT – in fact the higher rating for reducing carbon emissions and mode shift is only likely to further reinforce MRT. Also worth noting that rather than separate business cases for MRT and State Highway improvements these business cases are now being run as one – so in a few months you will see a suite of options that span both MRT and State Highway improvements.

  17. pedge, 2. July 2021, 8:20

    bsmith, I’ll second what Guy, Dave and John are saying. And add that the fact that kiwis love their cars is not some set-in-stone fact. Kiwis have grown to love their cars because we live in a country that has prioritised car use for decades. It’s not some born preference, it was created by our society, and can be undone. The benefits of undoing this mindset are huge.

  18. Claire, 2. July 2021, 8:50

    Pedge: I have been laughing, reading some of these comments. Earnest preaching I call it. A proportion of cars are here to stay. Likely electric and buses and bikes.

  19. Wellington Commuter, 2. July 2021, 8:55

    The actual moving element of LGWM (“provides more efficient and reliable access”) is now reduced to only 15% of the programme. I would suggest “Moving” be dropped from the name to reflect the real object of the LGW programme … [via twitter]

  20. Mince, 2. July 2021, 9:48

    If it’s reduced to LGW does the meaning change to Let’s Get Woke?

  21. el Sharpo, 2. July 2021, 10:41

    How does efficient and reliable service only have a 15% weighting? Carbon emissions (40%) and safety (10%) make up 50% of the total weighting. So using that logic, they will achieve 50% of their targets by stopping the services, and mothballing the buses. [via twitter]

  22. Cr Daran Ponter, 2. July 2021, 12:21

    El Sharpo – Because climate emissions also includes mode shift. Mode shift means measures that promote active modes and PT.

    Wellington Commuter – not true at all. Focus on mode shift has gone up significantly.

  23. pedge, 2. July 2021, 12:41

    Claire, you are coming across as someone who is scared of change. I think you need to come to terms with the fact that you live in a city, not some small town. Nobody is advocating for the abolishment of cars, just less dependency. I own a car and will probably continue to do so, but why is it so hard to understand the benefits of an extensive and well used public transport network?

  24. Mickey Mouse, 2. July 2021, 13:03

    LGW: Let’s Get Weary ?

    Weary defined as Adjective 1. “Feeling or showing extreme tiredness
    2. Reluctant to see or experience any more of”

    Verb: “Grow tired or bored with”.

  25. bsmith, 2. July 2021, 13:40

    Pedge, duly noted your seconding. I concur with you that it was created by our society. Society took that step, as the horse was so damn slow. Please by all means, go backwards if you so wish.
    I agree with you Dave B, we need more public transport, that is a given. And the people using it need to be congratulated, for the inept service they put up with. Buses are the answer (far more practical/convenient), but to do this, roads need to be created, common sense I would think.
    John Rankin, as a New Zealander living in NZ (and obviously a NZ citizen) to use your vernacular, I won’t refrain from stating my preference, on this or any subject – thank you.

  26. Claire, 2. July 2021, 15:08

    Pedge: I don’t own a car. Walk a lot, and uber and bus. I don’t need to change and have adjusted my lifestyle accordingly. The problem is your comment – as I said, a preachy attitude.

  27. Jane, 2. July 2021, 15:51

    Walking and buses are great but it’s a good idea to avoid Uber if your lifestyle adjustment has been made for environmental reasons. Services like Uber are worse than someone using their own car, for both climate impact and traffic congestion.

  28. John Rankin, 2. July 2021, 15:54

    In fact, bsmith, the problem with horses in cities was not their speed but the emissions coming out of their tail pipes. Fast forward a century and here we are again. Buses are only part of the answer. Unfortunately, “common sense” is simply wrong: on the Wellington region’s busiest corridors, the only way to move large numbers of people with a frequent, reliable service is some form of rapid transit. Every city eventually learns this hard geometric lesson. It seems that New Zealanders are slow learners, but LGWM is at last taking us in the right direction, moving more people with fewer vehicles. I am heartened by LGWM’s progress, but like everyone else, frustrated at the slow pace of change.

  29. pedge, 2. July 2021, 15:59

    Claire, you comment on this site so frequently about character protection, but when people like me, John and Dave above are advocating for improved mobility around this city, (specifically cycling and rail) you call it preaching? Electric cars might save on emissions but they are still going to be the most inefficient way in terms of space to move many people around a city.
    bsmith, where do you imagine we will build all the new roads for buses that you seem to think will solve the problems of this city?

  30. Claire, 2. July 2021, 19:56

    Pedge: character protection is only part of it. Did you see the Newtown plan. Great places for buildings highlighted. I am doing a lot already for climate change. I imagine a lot of people are.

  31. TrevorH, 2. July 2021, 22:08

    I love my car. It means freedom and capability. It is a beautiful artefact made possible by superb design and engineering skills. It is energy efficient, much more so than the empty diesel buses I see on the local routes after 9 am. If you prefer a bike, good for you.

  32. Toni, 3. July 2021, 9:17

    Pledge, I doubt anyone is against the use of an extensive and well used public transport network. The problem is = We Do Not Have One!
    And, until we do, it is a waste of time to continually focus on reducing car useage, when there is not a damn good public alternative. Overseas, major cities have great public transport networks that go out beyond their central city, while we struggle just to get one organised in the city.

  33. D'Esterre, 3. July 2021, 9:22

    Daniel: “..fewer pedants = less counts?”

    The Pedants’ Society wishes it to be known that using count nouns as if they were the non-count variety is the sort of thing up with which we will not put. I wouldn’t normally remark upon grammar: it’s a reaction to the tone of some of the comments here. Commenters note that bsmith is simply pointing out the fact that ideology about transport runs slap up against the reality that cars work much better for most people than biking or public transport. That’s an inescapable fact. No amount of preaching or haranguing people will change it. Many car owners take no notice of adjurations to walk/bike/use public transport, as evidenced by the numbers of vehicles on our streets. Or if they do take notice, the desire to use public transport is trumped by logistics.

    Making it more difficult to bring cars into the CBD renders it inaccessible to us and many like us. We live in the northern suburbs; we used to go to the CBD by train, and walk or bus the rest of the way. However: increasing age and infirmity have made that difficult to impossible. So we now avoid the CBD, except when absolutely necessary.

  34. Julienz, 3. July 2021, 10:01

    I don’t see Claire as wanting to lock in the city exactly as it is now. I see her asking for community-led placemaking, rather than developers getting almost complete freedom to pepper pot high rises anywhere they can find land. Like Claire, I would have liked to have seen a spatial plan with less formulaic colouring of the map and more thoughtful consideration of how to get more housing that will fit in, meet present and future needs, conserve and repurpose what we have, and stand the test of time. We were promised density well done but that feels like a platitude. In all the debate about character pre-1930 housing near to the CBD, the western and northern suburbs are being overlooked, especially Johnsonville and suburbs on the limited-capacity, timetable-constrained and slow Johnsonville Train Line who are being asked to do an awful lot of the heavy lifting in terms of densification.

  35. Claire, 3. July 2021, 10:51

    Julienz: well put. The character suburbs became a battleground promoted by Gen Z and the media. Really those suburbs are not going to solve anything. And what about Tawa and Johnsonville with rapid transport? Ignored.

  36. D'Esterre, 3. July 2021, 14:16

    Julienz: ah yes, the Johnsonville line. It’s fallen victim to the regional council’s determination to characterise it as MRT. This despite obvious evidence to the contrary; and despite residents’ efforts to point out its manifest unsuitability for said characterisation.

    Both the city council and the regional council will be forced eventually to accept that it cannot be MRT. The same topographical issues that stymie its transformation will also prevent the construction of multi-storey housing along most of its length. There is development of that sort in Johnsonville, and there will doubtless be more. But that is likely to be the extent of it.

  37. John Rankin, 3. July 2021, 18:17

    TrevorH states that his car is energy efficient. About 10 seconds of research yields evidence to cast doubt upon this claim. For example, from here:

    For forward motion, we need energy. Regardless of the mode of transportation. Even on foot, a person weighing 70 kg has an energy consumption of around 0.075 kWh per kilometre. This makes walking the second-most efficient form of transport. Only cycling is a more energy-saving form of transport, with a peak value of 0.025 kWh. At the other end of the scale is the car (0.56 kWh), according to the Federal Environment Agency. According to the French energy and environmental agency ADEME, aeroplanes (0.52 kWh) and motorbikes (0.51 kWh) are similarly inefficient. The most energy-saving form of public transport is the tram or underground train, at just 0.05 and 0.08 kWh per kilometre travelled.

    It’s not hard to understand why. Over 60% of the energy a car uses is lost as heat. Over 60% of the remaining energy is lost moving the weight of the vehicle (the average new vehicle sold in NZ today weighs some 25% more than 10 years ago). Rail is energy efficient because it uses electric motors and runs on steel (much lower rolling friction than rubber tyres). TrevorH is of course correct that a bus with no passengers is even less energy efficient than a car. No doubt this is why LGWM is proposing significant investment to improve the quality of Wellington’s bus service, starting with improvements to the Golden Mile.

    After decades of over-investment in roads and prioritising cars, walking is difficult, biking is dangerous and public transport is often infrequent and unreliable. It’s not surprising people prefer to drive. It’s long past time we took a more balanced approach to investment in urban transport. In overseas cases where, as Toni says, “cities have great public transport networks” people use public transport more and their cars less.

  38. D'Esterre, 3. July 2021, 23:16

    John Rankin, it seems to me that you have misunderstood what TrevorH actually said about his car, which was: “It is energy efficient, much more so than the empty diesel buses I see on the local routes after 9 am.” He’s right about that.

    I note your observations about walking, biking and public transport. With reference to Wellington, walking isn’t difficult at all. I have done a great deal of it over many years, until increasing age-related infirmity forced restrictions on me. Biking has always been variably dangerous here: it isn’t just the traffic, it’s the topography and the weather. As to the bus service, my recollection was that services here were pretty good (we even had electric buses) until GWRC decided to “improve” them. The rest is history, as the saying goes.

  39. John Rankin, 4. July 2021, 12:02

    D’Esterre, I can only go by what TrevorH wrote, I can’t guess what he may have meant. If he had written, “It is more energy efficient than the empty diesel buses I see on the local routes after 9 am” then I may agree, but he didn’t. He made the statement that “it is energy efficient” and as I pointed out, this statement is inconsistent with the facts about the energy efficiency of various modes of transport. As a fellow member of the Pedants’ Society, I think choice of words matters. To compute the energy efficiency of a bus, you have to work out its average occupancy, which naturally varies over the day. Otherwise, you are just cherry-picking your data to suit your argument.

    Optimising bus utilisation is a genuine problem. Once upon a time, the city where I worked did a study to figure out the optimum number of bus barns it needed, and where they should be located. It turned out that they could make a big improvement to operating efficiency if there was a large bus barn in the city centre. Sadly, that’s also the most expensive land and vehicle storage is a really low value land use, so the economics just don’t work.

    Living in the central city, I walk a lot. Much of my time is spent waiting for permission to cross busy roads, at traffic lights optimised for the efficient movement of traffic. If I don’t press the beg button in time, I have to wait through almost two complete signal cycles. At some intersections around Cable St and Wakefield St, pedestrians have to cross 2 or 3 streets (asking permission each time) instead of one. Heading south on Taranaki St, it is impossible to cross Manners and Dixon on one walk light unless you run. If you are a slow walker, you will run out of time crossing the 6 (sometimes 7) lanes of the waterfront quays. I could go on. Pedestrian friendly cities overseas got rid of beg buttons decades ago. People on foot automatically get a walk light. It’s long past time for Wellington to get with the programme.

  40. TrevorH, 4. July 2021, 18:07

    John Rankin. My car is efficient on a number of levels. Modern cars, of which mine is one, are far more fuel efficient than 10 or 20 years ago. My car can help me accomplish half a dozen tasks in a morning which would be impossible by public transport, bicycle or walking. So it’s a very efficient way to live. And yes my car is more efficient and much cleaner than the dirty old GWRC diesels that drive around empty for much of the day. I love my car.

  41. Kerry, 7. July 2021, 9:05

    TrevorH. Your car may be relatively efficient, but most cars must inevitably be taken off the roads to meet the demands of climate change.
    Your car is extremely inefficient in another way: it uses far too much road-space. All the alternatives: walking, cycling, or public transport, are much better. The NACTO Global Street Design Guide gives these figures:
    Private motor vehicles: 600-1600 passenger an hour
    Mixed traffic with frequent buses: 1000-2800 pass/hr
    Dedicated public transport lanes: 4000-8000 pass/hr (the difference is the reason for dedicated bus lanes)
    Footpaths: 8000-9000 pass/hr
    On-street transit (bus or rail): 10,000-25,000 pass/hr

  42. Mike Mellor, 7. July 2021, 10:44

    TrevorH: could you tell us the source of your information that dirty old GWRC diesels (no argument with that, fortunately in the process of being fixed) “drive around empty for much of the day”? The ones I use are often heavily loaded at all times, often having standing passengers – and a bus with even a few passengers is at least as efficient as a car with just the driver.

    One thing Kerry didn’t mention is the space taken up by parking, which is even less efficiently used than the road space used by moving vehicles.

    So even your amazingly fuel-efficient car is the most inefficient form of urban transport, by far – and we are all subsidising your car use, whether we like it or not.

    D’Esterre: you seem not to have noticed that electric bikes conquer topography; that people ride bikes whatever the weather; and that it’s the presence of cars that causes the danger to bikes (and pedestrians), not the presence of bikes (or people).

  43. John Rankin, 7. July 2021, 14:56

    Kerry and Mike, I think TrevorH’s problem runs deeper. He says “My car can help me accomplish half a dozen tasks in a morning which would be impossible by public transport, bicycle or walking.” This suggests to me that he has chosen to live somewhere with few local amenities and has to travel long distances to do the things he wants to do. He appears to have chosen not just a spatially inefficient form of transport but rather a spatially inefficient lifestyle. Instead of taking responsibility for the consequences of his lifestyle choice, he expects the government to subsidise his behaviour, in the form of more road projects.

    People who live in amenity-rich neighbourhoods routinely “accomplish half a dozen tasks in a morning by public transport, bicycle or walking.” In cities, space is necessarily a scarce resource. A responsible government promotes spatially efficient land uses (e.g., LGWM’s move more people with fewer vehicles).

    It would be easy to tell if my reading of TrevorH’s comments is valid: how many kilometres per year does he drive? If he drives more than about 4000 km per year, he may live in an amenity-poor neighbourhood.

  44. bsmith, 7. July 2021, 15:06

    Trevor … good on you. I love my car too. Actually that’s a lie, I love all my cars, my motorbikes (plural), not to mention the ride-on mowers/scrub bars / chainsaws as well. Call me a philistine, I don’t care.

  45. IanS, 8. July 2021, 6:27

    Mike: it is clear TrevorH lives on the NIS route.

  46. bsmith, 8. July 2021, 13:07

    IanS, kinda jumping to conclusions where Trevor lives arent you?. In this day and age most routes, during some period of the day, are NIS Routes.