Wellington Scoop

LGWM unveils options including extra tunnel, light rail or long buses

mass transit

News from LGWM
Let’s Get Wellington Moving has officially unveiled four options to help transform the Capital, focused on mass rapid transit, improvements at the Basin Reserve and an extra Mt Victoria Tunnel as part of a multi-billion dollar plan to move more people with fewer vehicles, enable more housing, and help reduce carbon emissions.

“This is a once-in-a generation opportunity to make transformational change. Wellington is saying hello to a brighter future that will be welcoming more people. We are going to need more places to live, and smoother greener ways of getting around with fewer vehicles,” says Let’s Get Wellington Moving acting programme director David Dunlop.

“Our goal is to build a world-class Capital that we can all be proud of with streets that are beautiful and safe so that new housing and business will flourish. We won’t need to use our cars as often so can cut back on our carbon emissions. This is about building a better future for the city and region that we love,” says Mr Dunlop.

The four options for public engagement are:

1. South coast light rail + new public transport tunnel – Moving the most people possible to and from Island Bay and surrounding suburbs, beautifying the Basin Reserve, supporting the most housing and urban development, and making our streets better for everyone

2. Bus rapid transit to the sea and skies – Moving more people to and from Island Bay and surrounding suburbs, eastern suburbs and the airport, but with less housing and urban development than option 1.

3. South coast light rail – Connecting the most people between Wellington Railway Station, Island Bay and surrounding suburbs, encouraging the most housing and urban development, making our streets better for everyone, and providing some public transport improvements to Hataitai, Miramar, and the airport.

4. South Coast light rail via Taranaki – Light rail to Island Bay and surrounding suburbs but via Taranaki St, bypassing the Basin Reserve, beautifying streets and encouraging the most housing and urban development, for the lowest cost.

“From November 2 we’re inviting everyone to visit lgwm.nz/hello, learn more about the options, and have their say on Wellington’s future,” says Mr Dunlop.

Mass rapid transit to enable up to 21,000 more houses

The centrepiece of the four options in the transformational programme is mass rapid transit, either light rail or spacious elongated electric buses.

“We know that internationally, mass rapid transit systems encourage cities and suburbs to flourish and grow,” says Mr Dunlop.

Mass rapid transit will improve connections and travel options between the central city, and the southern and eastern suburbs. It will see complete renewal of streets along the route and enable more housing in a large part of the city.

It’s expected that between 50,000 and 80,000 more people will call Wellington home over the next 30 years. New mass rapid transit, improvements at the Basin Reserve and an extra Mt Victoria Tunnel are needed to support this growing population.

“As Wellington’s population grows, we’ll need to build more homes that we can afford and are closer to where we need to be. And we need to act now on climate change. To do this we need state-of-the-art public transport to move more of us around Wellington quickly and reliably.”

“We’re looking at major changes to two routes – a southern suburbs route from Wellington Railway Station to Island Bay that has big potential for more housing. And an eastern suburbs route through Mt Victoria – an important connection, but with less potential for housing.”

“Alongside the WCC district plan and urban development changes, such as those proposed with bipartisan political support on 20 October, mass rapid transit can help transform the city and enable up to 21,000 extra houses by 2050. That’ll mean more jobs, more businesses, and a more vibrant city.”

“The options are about enabling more people to live centrally and be closer to jobs and education. Getting around will be safer, easier, and healthier, with less reliance on cars. You’ll have high quality public transport that’s more reliable, and better ways to walk and cycle around the city,” says Mr Dunlop.

Mass rapid transit to dramatically improve public transport journeys

Two high-capacity mass rapid transit types are proposed as part of the options:

· Light rail – offers roomy and comfortable rides for up to 300 people.

· Bus rapid transit – carries fewer people but can extend to other key destinations in future, such as the northern suburbs.

Both vehicle types would run on dedicated lanes, bypassing congestion through busy parts of the city, and on shared lanes where traffic is lighter.

Mass rapid transit would make trips through the central city much quicker and more reliable. By the mid-2030s, compared with standard buses, public transport trips in busy morning times are estimated to be:

Up to 12 minutes shorter from Island Bay to Wellington Railway Station (from 35 minutes down to 23 minutes).
Up to 14 minutes shorter from Miramar town centre to Wellington Railway Station (from 32 minutes down to 18 minutes).

· Up to 8 minutes shorter from Wellington Airport to Wellington Railway Station (from 25 minutes down to 17 minutes).

Better connections at the Basin Reserve and an extra Mt Victoria Tunnel

The options include improvements at the Basin Reserve and an extra Mt Victoria Tunnel. These will provide better connections within the city, to and from the southern and eastern suburbs, and between the region and Wellington Regional Hospital and Wellington Airport.

“The Basin Reserve and Mt Victoria are critical points in our transport network.  They are where our plans for mass rapid transit and the state highway intersect. What we decide on mass rapid transit will shape decisions on the state highway,” says Mr Dunlop. 

In options 1-3, local traffic would be physically separated from northbound state highway traffic. The Basin Reserve would no longer be a busy roundabout but would be completely transformed to make it easier for everyone to breeze around, through or beside the Basin. In option 4, the Basin would remain a roundabout.

All four options would result in an extra Mt Victoria tunnel, adding separate space for people to walk and cycle. Options 1 and 2 would add new dedicated lanes through Mt Victoria for public transport, making daily commutes safer and more enjoyable.

“This public engagement is about which elements should be in our transformational programme, NOT the details of those elements,” says Mr Dunlop. “Considerable work has been done on the programme to develop these options, but we need to check in with the community before going further. We’ll develop detailed designs in the next stage of our work.

“Information and images are indicative only, and subject to change. Multiple options are still on the table and any impacts on individual properties are unclear at this point,” says Mr Dunlop.

“Your feedback will help us decide which option moves forward for more detailed investigation. We want to hear from people what you like, dislike, or think is missing from our options.

“We’ll share what the community has told us and there will be further opportunities to have your say on more detailed proposals in the next stage.”

Smarter transport network – changing the way we travel

Mass rapid transit, along with Let’s Get Wellington Moving’s wider plans to improve public transport, walking and cycling, will provide high-quality alternatives to private vehicle travel for many trips in the city.

“We want to encourage Wellingtonians to consider other ways of getting around, which will help reduce the number of cars using our streets and make travel more reliable for those who need to use a vehicle in the city and to and from the wider region.

“Ideas include working with schools and workplaces on new options and ‘pricing’ incentives such as parking levies or congestion charges. We will be consulting further on these in future phases of the programme,” says Mr Dunlop.

LGWM plan offers “great public transport”

Nemo analyses the four options.


  1. Mavis, 1. November 2021, 16:52

    Aaah Option 2. Bus rapid transit to the sea and skies. What is this option? We are all going to heaven on an LGWM machine?

  2. Dave B, 1. November 2021, 18:41

    What a pity Wellington ripped out its light rail system in the 1960s. But for that, we would already have the routes in place – from the Railway Station to both Island Bay and the Eastern Suburbs. Chances are we would already have upgraded to the kind of new vehicles and PT-priority that are now being proposed. Now we are seeking to re-create from scratch at high cost, a small portion of the tram network Wellington once had. And if bus rapid transit is chosen, let’s not forget we also had a system of overhead wiring in place along much of the proposed routes, for powering the vehicles direct from the electricity supply rather than by heavy batteries and expensive charging equipment. But of course we ripped all the trolleybus equipment out in 2017.

    The thing that most needs doing is to extend the metro rail system to link up the disconnected southern part of the region, but this still fails to register on LGWM’s radar.

    Otherwise, well done LGWM. At least something has been released for yet more consultation.

  3. K, 1. November 2021, 18:49

    Why is the Hataitai bus tunnel greyed out in options 1&2, but is incorporated in options 3&4? Shouldn’t it be used in all four plans? I imagine it isn’t getting closed. Would make a good cycle and pedestrian tunnel in addition to the other new tunnels for mass transit or cars. Or perhaps that is the reason it isn’t shown on options 1&2, as it quickly becomes apparent that having two tunnels dedicated solely to cycling and walking is absurd. Good option would seem to be repurposing the current Mt Vic tunnel for mass transit (while retaining the existing raised pedestrian/cycleway in the tunnel) as well as repurposing the Hataitai bus tunnel for pedestrians and cyclists also, and making the new tunnel for cars.

  4. Mickey mouse, 1. November 2021, 19:00

    What a shambles. Worse than congestion. Two statements from LGWM … contradicting themselves and making little sense. Just about the only thing that is not mass rapid transit is a bicycle, (oh, and another tunnel). How come light rail takes only 300 passengers? Roomy though it is? That’s not correct. How come LGWM are ‘building’ houses in Island Bay and along the route?

    Foster in the second statement talks about three options. But there are four? Joel McManus got so confused – he wants us to forget about the second Mt Victoria tunnel, ’cause he’s building a second Mt Victoria. (Perhaps he’ll change his mind when he edits his article.)

    Anyway, we can sure of one thing …. It will be TRANSFORMATIONAL..because they’ve told us it will be, several times.

  5. Cr Daran Ponter, 1. November 2021, 20:56

    Mavis- Sea = Island Bay; Skies = Airport/East.

  6. nemo, 1. November 2021, 21:08

    Simple: don’t vote for Option 2 ! Vote for Option 1 – the only real version that would improve Wellington all round… https://eyeofthefish.org/look-blue-go-purple/

  7. J Chris Horne, 1. November 2021, 22:11

    Congratulations to LGWM on almost all fronts. You’ve produced so many excellent 21st-century-style proposals for moving more people, more quickly while slashing greenhouse gas emissions. Well done!

    Sadly, it is entirely predictable that Waka Kotahi/NZ Transport Agency, the roading lobby, the oil companies and the automotive industry appear to have failed to relinquish their pipe-dream of having a second Mt Victoria Tunnel. “Four Lanes to the Planes” is a 20th-century pipe-dream. It has no place in an era when runaway climate change, much of it caused by motor vehicle pollution, is of such concern that the COP26 conference in Glasgow is hosting 26,000 delegates from around the world, all seeking to stop the world heating by more that 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-Industrial Revolution levels. LGWM: Please can the plan for a second Mt Victoria Tunnel. Then your document will be of enormous benefit to future residents, visitors and the environment. We’ll proudly live in the “Carbon-neutral Capital”.

  8. Georgina Campbell, 1. November 2021, 22:58

    There were four options for Let’s Get Wellington Moving in 2017 as well. I can’t believe I was writing about four options in 2017 and am still writing about four options in 2021. When will the four options become one! [via twitter]

  9. Nicola Willis, 1. November 2021, 23:10

    Here’s an inconvenient fact from the glossy docs: Govt says no construction will start on major projects until 2028 – at the earliest! [via twitter]

  10. Ralf, 2. November 2021, 8:25

    This sounds great. If all goes according to plan, Wellington will have something in 2043 (2028 as the start date plus 8..15 years of construction as per the plan, which means 15 years for LR I assume, 8 if we use busses like currently). It would take just one election to throw this plan off by another decade or century.

    Well, as councillor Ponter already stated “I have no doubt that the options will deliver much debate.” This is just an exercise in consultation and none of these options will ever be realized.

  11. JennyKay, 2. November 2021, 8:56

    All options include a second Mt Victoria tunnel but where do they want to put it? [via twitter]

  12. Ann, 2. November 2021, 9:12

    Could LGWM please provide drawings for each of the Island Bay options and how they are going to work at the Reef Street terminus.

  13. Kara, 2. November 2021, 9:22

    Is Island Bay the only suburb in this city? What about the suburbs east, west, north, southeast and northwest without building more tunnels.

  14. Cr Daran Ponter, 2. November 2021, 9:55

    Ralf: Actually, there is every chance that one of the four options, with potential amendments, will be moved forward. And the timeframes could be shortened. So, if you have views on the options you should make a submission.

  15. André Brett, 2. November 2021, 9:57

    My hot take is that all four of these options are mediocre and unambitious. It’s also quite remarkable that light rail seems to be deliberately talked down on the consultation website as “challenging to extend to other suburbs”, which is not true! [via twitter]

  16. Thomas Nash, 2. November 2021, 10:54

    Even the most expensive light rail option is very similar to the bus rapid transit option – $7.4bn vs $7bn and the construction time and complexity is not much different given most of the work is road bed, services etc. So the “light rail too expensive” argument is dead really. [via twitter]

  17. Cr Daran Ponter, 2. November 2021, 11:51

    Kara: many other suburbs will benefit from bus priority improvements. There are nineteen bus priority projects being progressed. But East and West is where the bulk of intensification is proposed, and therefore where we need to respond with MRT. If you don’t like intensification in the South and East, then you need to submit on the WCC district plan consultation.

  18. Cr Daran Ponter, 2. November 2021, 12:15

    Ann: these are four high-level options. Detailed design work, such as what happens at Reef St, won’t be undertaken until one of the four options, or a variation, has been accepted by the partners.

  19. Claire, 2. November 2021, 12:22

    Daran: the intensification population numbers are faulty. And the idea that light rail or bendy busses can spark this off without vast pipe improvement is a bit magical.

  20. Alan, 2. November 2021, 12:59

    By the time any of these major projects are realised, heavens knows what the final cost might be and I predict by then (2028? 2048?) the city will be totally choked and we’ll be looking at LGWM 2.

  21. Jim, 2. November 2021, 13:27

    Daran Ponter – I think the consensus is that the timeframes are ridiculous. That needs to be worked with urgency. It’s been 6 years and we are barely into the concept design stage.
    In regards to the options – 01 appears to be the best. However it is disappointing to see no mention of changes to Vivian Street which is an awful, poorly executed road. Why not have this shifted to Karo Drive and included in these works – Pukeahu Park could then be extended west/east and north. The Eastern route should cater for flexibility so that it can be converted into light rail in the future – it’s concerning that the comments on the options already seem to exclude this.
    Opt. 03 & 4 seem to be waste of times when it comes to the eastern route. The Hataitai choke point remains and will hinder any improvements. Don’t know why these options were even tabled to be honest. For once – lets do it right the first time.

  22. Dave B, 2. November 2021, 14:15

    What is the reason for proposing two separate systems (LRT to Southern suburbs and BRT to the Eastern), when this will mean two separate construction regimes, two sets of equipment to source and install, two different entities to maintain, and two disparate operating regimes? With only two proposed routes in a small city such as Wellington, wouldn’t it make more sense to standardise on the same system for each? Presumably that would be BRT, since it appears LRT has already been banished from the eastern suburbs.

  23. Henry Cooke, 2. November 2021, 14:58

    It baffles me that there seems to be no political debate over the fact that all the LGWM mass transit options don’t begin until 2028. i can see merit in most of the proposals, i can’t see any merit in waiting 7 more years to do anything. [via twitter]

  24. Greenwelly, 2. November 2021, 14:59

    Dave B. No, there are no options that give both LRT and BRT that operate concurrently; the only option with BRT is option 2. All the other options with LRT (1, 3, 4) have “bus priority” AKA bus lanes + signalling priority, heading out east.

  25. Wellington Inc, 2. November 2021, 16:22

    Seven years? That’s nothing. This major Wellington transport announcement from 2013 (integrated ticketing) took eight… so far.

  26. Cr Daran Ponter, 2. November 2021, 18:29

    Claire2: Rather than the mode driving intensification, it is the level of intensification that determines the mode. If you want less intensification, then you need to say that to the WCC in their district plan consultation. If there is less intensification, then you effectively drop down the levels from LRT, to BRT to bus priority lanes. Option 2, for example, pulls back on the level of intensification in the Greater Island Bay area. The consequence is a drop from LRT to BRT. To get LRT going, both South and East would require significantly more intensification in the East and the Airport more fully embracing public transport than it has shown willing to do to date.

    Jim and Henry Cooke: The timeframes are largely determined by the current planning exercise, detailed design process, consenting, procurement and then construction (I realise that in Thunberg terms this sounds like, blah, blah, blah, but it is Treasury process that we are shackled to – and it is not without its merits). Having said this, 2028 is an interminably long time which is why the three partners have started discussions about how we can move faster – note though that moving faster will mean front loading more of the budget which will have an earlier impact on rates.

    Jim: Options 3 and 4 are as valid as Options 1 and 2 in relation to the objective for LGWM – which is essentially using road space more efficiently (my loose wording). Each of the options has its pros and cons and there will be people and communities who quite definitely favour particular options, including Options 3 and 4.

    Andre Brett: Unambitious the options may be. Your challenge is to describe and sell an approach that you consider will meet our future needs. Where could LGWM be more ambitious? How does your ambition relate to the District Plan and the proposals around urban intensification?

    Alan: The Project costs will of course rise, which is all the more reason to start as soon as we can. The four options are only part of the LGWM programme – a significant amount of “actual” work is being undertaken on other LGWM initiatives – Golden Mile, Thorndon Quay, intersection and walking improvements, and bus priority (19 projects) across the City. Separately, Greater Wellington is finalising a proposal to government on the purchase of new trains to supplement our existing fleet working in the north of the region.

    Dave B: The mode is driven by the extent of predicated population increase (which will largely be driven by intensification). As Greenwelly points out, there is no option that delivers both LRT and BRT. Options 1, 3 and 4 are LRT to the south and bus priority to the east; with Option 2 being BRT to both the East and South. That should not stop you advocating for LRT in both directions, but your argument will be stronger if you can indicate where the patronage uplift in the east is going to come from to justify LRT.

    Wellington Inc: Good point on integrated ticketing – and we may yet still see a simple move to embrace Snapper across the Network if NZTA don’t get a wriggle on. Snapper trial on the Johnsonville line starts on 14 November.

  27. Jim, 2. November 2021, 20:06

    Daran – firstly thanks for taking the time to respond to everyone. Fair point regarding 3&4 – just being grumpy.

    From a timeline point of view – hopefully central Government can step up and get it together. The frustration comes from the lengthy periods already spent on this project. I was in my mid-20s when it started and will be in my 50s when it’s projected to be completed. Nearly half of that timeframe is consultation/business cases/design. Not ideal.

    As a side note – what has happened to the SH1 improvements since the initial consultation in 2017? Reroute of Vivian in particular.

  28. Ray Chung, 2. November 2021, 20:23

    Why do people continue to say that we’re going to get 50,000 – 80,000 people in the next 30 years when the stats department said these estimates were based on the 2013 census and are way out of date. They also stated that for planning purposes, the median should be used that equates to more like 36,000. Notwithstanding this, will the submissions on this be heeded or will the GWRC and LGWM ignore them all and continue with what they have planned regardless?

  29. Benoit Pette, 2. November 2021, 20:52

    When it was suggested, earlier this year, that Mass Transit could actually go South instead of East, I thought this was a joke or a test, to get people talking. But now, having Mass Transit to the East is not even an option. The direct, smooth ride between the railway station and the airport is gone, and I wonder why: why wouldn’t we want the best transport mode for visitors from the region wanting to go to the airport? Not that I think we should invite people to fly more (quite the opposite actually), but I thought this link was the most congested, and the crux of the last local election. So can anyone explain why this option is not even considered?

  30. Cr Daran Ponter, 2. November 2021, 21:13

    Jim: The re-routing was all taken off the table when the Government took Karo Drive cut and cover and the Terrace tunnel duplication off the table.

  31. Wellington Inc, 2. November 2021, 21:24

    Jim, initial consultation in 2017? This has been going on in various guises long before that and long before LGWM was created. Remember Ngauranga to Airport and then the Basin Bridge? At one point an expressway a mile wide adjacent to Ruahine Street was proposed and I’m sure it was going on for years if not decades before that.

  32. Geoff, 2. November 2021, 22:14

    As Greta Said. Blah Blah Blah.

  33. Ross Clark, 3. November 2021, 0:00

    Why do we need more road capacity? I am aware that Cr Ponter explained that a road/bus tunnel had a higher B/C when compared with an extra bus-only tunnel; but it seems to me that a strategic decision is required, that we are not going to invest in any more road capacity, with its attendant generated traffic, before attending to the significant net deficit in public transport capacity we are only now addressing. That is – we are specifically favouring public transport, rather than the chimaera of a “balanced” transport policy which merely retains the status quo.

    I can recall a conference many years ago in which I asked Dave Watson whether the WRC of the time wanted more road investment or more public transport investment. He replied, as I recall, “We want both!” At that stage, that meant a full-blown commitment to Transmission Gully. This was done to keep the Kapiti Coast District onside, as much as anything, but Dave was well aware that TG would have consequences for the use of rail in that area.

  34. JAB, 3. November 2021, 14:02

    How can anybody make sensible comments when the population figures, as others have pointed out, are all over the place. Are we going back to mass inwards migration/colonisation unbeknown to us all? 21,000 houses in Island Bay – really?
    In the short term, why can we not just use dedicated bus lanes and clearways much more widely over the peak times of the day which are 2-3 hours in total. Even if it means clearing private transport off the roads for 15 minutes here and there, instead of building new lane ways.
    Transport isn’t really an issue for about 21 hours of every day so why not use what we have more efficiently. And why bendy buses instead of 2 – one behind the other??

  35. Jim, 3. November 2021, 15:06

    JAB, Ray and Claire – it’s amazing the amount of evidence you will ignore to convince yourselves that Wellington doesn’t need more houses.

  36. Claire, 3. November 2021, 15:54

    Jim – Wellington does need houses, just saying the population forecasts are wrong.

  37. JAB, 3. November 2021, 16:07

    Jim: Why are we constantly being fed overblown and inconsistent figures? Who is running this agenda and why? What do they have to gain from it? It does lower trust in any other statements made too and prevents good decision making. And for the record once again, I believe our young people deserve better than landlord and developer created slums.

  38. Ray Chung, 3. November 2021, 19:19

    Jim, I absolutely believe that we do need more housing! I’m just critical of the information and population growth figures that we’re being given! I’m also critical of the councillors who have no idea of the cost of building medium and high density housing that won’t give “affordable” housing! Just look yourself, how many apartments can you find that you’d describe as “affordable?”

  39. Cr Daran Ponter, 3. November 2021, 23:15

    Ross Clark: Without extra tunnel capacity public transport to the East is effectively restricted to the Mt Victoria Bus tunnel, which is sub-optimal if the projected population increase in the East arises. None of the options provide for any additional general traffic lanes.
    JAB: No, 21,000 dwellings across the south and East corridors, starting in the CBD (not 21,000 houses in Island Bay). Note that Option 2 is predicated on 16,000 dwellings. Yes, 19 areas for bus priority are already being worked on for early introduction (this is called “City Streets”). And yes, this will involve clearing car parks, in some cases whole streets may need to be swept clean of car parks, at least in peak periods.

  40. Jim, 4. November 2021, 8:48

    Ray – I can find more “affordable” apartments than i can find houses. Namely because of the incredible cost of land. Affordability is a bit of a misnomer in this city as what counts as affordable? Everything involved is expensive – but the more houses you can get onto one of the most expensive parts – the land – the better. A single house on a new greenfield section in Johnsonville/Newlands/Woodridge is not going to be cheaper.

    JAB – The agenda is simply to provide more housing. You may repeat the statement about density = slums but there is little evidence to back this up. There are good developers and bad developers, but if these people have the means to develop a Brownfield site into 400 apartments – the quality of these needs to be controlled through the RC/BC process. Why shouldn’t three couples be able to pool their money to buy a piece of land and then build a house each on it? Currently that would be long=drawn out process costing money many people don’t have – the new proposals should enable this to occur. It’s still important that we build for the future. Long term planning is better than building for the short-term.

  41. Claire, 4. November 2021, 9:24

    The apartments that are cheaper are very small. Then you have insurance and body corporate fees. In Wellington these keep going up. Lower buildings are better – no lifts required, cheaper to build, fit in with other lower buildings and often a pleasing design.

  42. Ross Clark, 4. November 2021, 10:07

    Daran. Thanks for the clarification! Appreciated.

  43. JAB, 5. November 2021, 7:33

    Jim: There is little evidence that all older houses are dumps or that Nimby’s are the issue (try excess immigration) but cities like Detroit and others overseas give ample warning as to how intensification turns into slums.

  44. Jim, 5. November 2021, 10:47

    JAB – no one has claimed that all older houses are dumps, just that the are a good number in poor condition that are not healthy to live in. Detroit become the way it is because it lost its industry. Not because they built higher density. Why not look at the cities such as Amsterdam, Frieberg, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Munich, Barcelona, Dusseldorf, Vienna, Delft, even Melbourne … and many more. The density = slum arguments are nonsense.

  45. Claire, 5. November 2021, 13:51

    Jim: Melbourne is in the process of reviewing its density rules. Too much high-rise, not enough green space. Pretty sure it’s the state Govt that has prompted the review. Housing estates all over Britain are being demolished and smaller lower designs are coming into play. This is a deeply complex area not a tin of baked beans that would be covered by supply and demand.

  46. Jim, 8. November 2021, 8:02

    Claire – Melbourne is reviewing its plans because of too many skyscraper types (over 100m), not 3-6 storeys. People seem happy to point out high-rise areas that have failed but ignore the vast areas that work well. The same commentators claim to be for the provision of more housing – but oppose everything. No infill housing, no apartments, no public transport, no cycleways, no townhouses. Lots of opposition without any sensible alternative solutions to our issues.

  47. Claire, 8. November 2021, 11:06

    Jim: myself and others are not for blanket zoning through the middle of a heritage suburb. There are other brownfield sites in Newtown and people have plans to do it. These could be six storey.

  48. Gwynn Compton, 8. November 2021, 17:52

    Given other cities have, or are pushing hard to implement mass rapid transit from their CBDs to their airports, the lack of light rail to Wellington Airport in Let’s Get Wellington Moving is a decision we’ll regret for decades to come.

  49. André Brett, 8. November 2021, 17:53

    Frustrates me too. The corridor to the airport and nearby suburbs will need light rail. If not installed in a new Mt Vic tunnel at the outset, the disruption of doing it later will be cited to further delay improving Welly transit. LGWM have strange narrow ideas about light rail.

  50. Cr Daran Ponter, 8. November 2021, 19:17

    Andre Brett and Gwynn Compton – MRT decisions will largely be made on the basis of the job MRT will have to do in the future. So the real question is how much and where urban intensification will occur. The WCC district plan changes are signalling much more significant intensification to the South than the East. The Airport is important but really only the size of a medium sized suburb based on use of PT to date. So in itself the Airport was unlikely ever to drive the mode choice other than as a vanity project. The benefit of a business case is that it assists to flush out the basis for making decisions.

    [Comments are now closed as we’ve reached the maximum number that our system can cope with.]