DOCSLIB.ORG

Default Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Default Document ENHANCING THE RESILIENCE OF WATER AND ROAD TUNNELS WITH A FOCUS ON THE WELLINGTON REGION Eleni Gkeli, Senior Engineering Geologist, Team Leader, Opus International Consultants, Wellington David Stewart, Senior Engineering Geologist, Opus International Consultants, Wellington Pathmanathan Brabhaharan, National Technical Director (Geotechnical), Opus International Consultants, Wellington The Wellington region has a number of water and road tunnels, to convey critical lifeline utilities. The often aging tunnels are designed to lower standards and are subject to deterioration, hence require monitoring and maintenance to ensure operational integrity and resilience to earthquake and other hazard events. Authorities in the Wellington region and elsewhere, have been supported by Opus International Consultants (Opus) in managing the risk, through periodic inspections to identify key vulnerabilities, prioritisation and intervention. Best practice investigation and strengthening techniques were applied to ensure resilience and cost effectiveness. The paper presents case histories that highlight the value of geotechnical inspections in understanding risks, and how these influenced mitigation solutions. Case histories include the retrofit works of the 3.5 km long Orongorongo water tunnel, the strengthening of the concrete lining of Carey’s Gully stormwater tunnel at the Southern Landfill, the risk assessment of the Westport Water Supply Tunnels and the seismic strengthening of the Hataitai Bus and Mount Victoria road tunnel portals. Management of the safety risks during inspection, investigation and construction is also discussed. Keywords: tunnel, risk, lifeline services, lifeline routes, resilience, maintenance, strengthening Introduction seismicity. The risks in the tunnels relate to both challenging rock conditions and The Wellington Region is characterised by seismicity as a result, maintenance and rugged terrain. Urban infrastructure upgrading strategies should address both development on this terrain often requires issues. A number of case studies are important lifeline services, such as water presented in this paper, for tunnels managed supply pipelines and major transportation by a variety of authorities. For the locations of routes to be conveyed through tunnels. the tunnels in the Wellington Region, see Considering that most of these tunnels were Figure 1. constructed in the beginning of the last century, regular maintenance and upgrade are key elements to extend their operational lives and enhance resilience in earthquake and other hazard events. Wellington Region is primarily underlain by a Hataitai Bus rock complex commonly known as Wellington Tunnel Greywacke, consisting of sandstone, Carey’s Gully mudstone (argillite) and localised volcanic Tunnel rocks. The rocks are metamorphosed, highly Wainuiomat deformed and variably weathered, often with high degree of fracturing and shearing (Begg Wellington et al., 2000). Further, the Wellington Region is among the most seismically active areas in Mount Victoria Orongorongo New Zealand. The active faults located within Tunnel Tunnel the Wellington Region, such as the Ohariu, the Wellington and the Wairarapa faults, as well as the proximity to the subduction zone Figure 1: Location of tunnels in Wellington are the main contributors to the high Region Some of the tunnels have been previously uncontrolled water seepages at various discussed by Stewart (2008). locations. Regular inspections allowed recording of the most adverse locations and Orongorongo Water Supply Tunnel – monitoring their evolution over time. Wellington Water Ltd. Recommendations for remedial works were presented for consideration by GWRC. The Orongorongo tunnel was constructed in the 1920’s. It carries a 700 mm diameter water supply pipeline from the Orongorongo River to the catchment upstream of the Wainuiomata Water Treatment Plant. The tunnel was previously operated and managed by Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) and currently by Wellington Water Ltd. The tunnel is 3.2 km long, 2.0 m high and 2.0 m wide and is excavated in Wellington Greywacke. About 50% of its length is concrete lined, while the rest is unlined (see Figure 2). Figure 3: Jigger used for staff access in Orongorongo tunnel In 2013, GWRC secured the required funding, and carried out considerable stabilisation and maintenance works in the tunnel. Opus designed the stabilisation measures and supported GWRC in the tendering and construction phases. The stabilisation works were carried out at the areas of highest risk identified in the previous Opus inspections (2005 to 2012) and at additional locations identified during Figure 2: General view of the Orongorongo construction. The areas of highest risk were Tunnel selected for stabilisation, based on experience of the tunnel behaviour through Opus has provided regular geotechnical the years, practical observation during inspections and subsequent assessments of construction and available funds. risks in the tunnel since 1997 when the water pipe was constructed. The inspections occur The risks previously identified in the tunnel every two to three years and are also part of were addressed through the stabilisation / the safety requirements for the small gauge maintenance works shown in Table 1. With railway line that goes through the tunnel to the completion of the stabilisation works, the allow jigger access for staff (Figure 3). risk of rock fall and roof / lining collapses in the tunnel is lower. Some residual risks The main geotechnical risks identified in the remain in the tunnel, and on-going tunnel were rock falls and lining failures of geotechnical inspections are being carried- various volumes (up to 1-2 m3). Factors out, to observe the overall tunnel condition indicating higher degrees of deterioration and and the behaviour of stabilisation measures risk of collapse are localised roof collapses and identify possible new risks. The most and loosening of rock mass in the unlined recent inspection in November 2015, sections; cracks and other damage in the concluded that the tunnel is generally in good concrete lining sections and significant condition. between the lining and the surrounding Table 1: Mitigation measures applied in bedrock, with the potential to impose loading Orongorongo Tunnel on the lining due to either ground convergence or roof collapse. The risk of Identified Risk Applied mitigation collapse of sections with substandard Small rock falls removal of loose concrete lining was considered high and the blocks (scaling) possible consequences are unacceptable for Potential rock falls of scaling where the operation of the landfill and subsequently moderate to appropriate and for the environment. WCC undertook significant size application of spot rock immediate measures to mitigate the risk of bolts to stabilise the collapse, such as re-construction of the roof blocks lining along the highest risk 160 m long Roof collapses localised pattern of section at the downstream end and rock bolts and steel supporting the rest of the tunnel with timber mesh installed on the tunnel roof (Figure 4) braces. WCC also engaged Opus to assess Areas of significant drainage holes the risks along the length of the tunnel and water flows develop options for managing them. Damage to the Sealing of cracks, tunnel lining localised stabilisation with rock bolts and installation of drainage holes Figure 5: A general view of Carey’s Gully Stream Tunnel in 2005 Opus, carried out inspections in 2002, 2004 and 2005 aiming to understand the behaviour Figure 4: Stabilisation of tunnel roof of the tunnel and identify areas of distress, cracking and deformation of the lining that Carey’s Gully Stream Tunnel might indicate a high risk of collapse (Figure 6). Following the assessments of 2002 and Carey’s Gully Tunnel was constructed in the 2004, it was concluded that although there 1990’s to carry the Carey’s Gully stream was no immediate risk of collapse, due to its under the Wellington City Council (WCC) inadequate thickness, the lining was not able Southern Landfill in Happy Valley. The tunnel to carry the anticipated long term static and is 530 m long, fully lined, with a rectangular seismic loadings. Options considered to section 1.8 m wide and 1.6 m high, and was mitigate the risks included: excavated through highly fractured • Installation of a new circular pipe Wellington greywacke (Figure 5). Soon after throughout the substandard section the construction of the tunnel, the risk of • Formation of a new concrete arch along substandard concrete lining was identified. the roof of the tunnel • Grouting of the void between the concrete The lining was of inadequate thickness in lining and the surrounding rock many sections, indicated to be as little as 50 to 75 mm, while voids were suspected • Construction of a new tunnel over the substandard section • Installing beams to support the roof lining Figure 7: Investigation works in Carey’s Gully Tunnel The findings of the investigation indicated Figure 6: An example of a problematic that the wall lining was largely adequate section identified during inspections (>150 mm thick) however the roof lining was thin and unreinforced. The concrete quality As part of the proposed remediation strategy was generally satisfactory and the roof Opus recommended and carried out cavities were small (<0.8 m). The final investigations to better understand the risks solution developed in conjunction with WCC, and refine the mitigation option (Figure 7). involved installation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • COMPILATION Report Wellington Public Transport Spine Study
    COMPILATION REPORT WELLINGTON PUBLIC TRANSPORT SPINE STUDY CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 9 2. Public Transport in Wellington 15 3. Study Engagement 21 4. Study Approach 25 5. The Problem and Desired State for Public Transport 29 6. Future Development and Transport Trends 33 7. The Options 37 8. The Option Results 59 9. Staging of options 71 10. Supporting Policy Interventions 75 11. Treasury Better Business Case 79 12. Conclusion 89 Appendix A International Review Case Studies 91 Appendix B Mode Description and Application 93 Appendix C Option Costs 99 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 | Compilation Report | Wellington Public Transport Spine Study Background The process The Public Transport Spine Study (PTSS) is The PTSS approach has progressively narrowed about determining what a future public transport down the number of options (long list, medium solution for Wellington might be. The study list, short list), with each stage providing a more was commissioned by Greater Wellington detailed analysis of those options. Regional Council, Wellington City Council and the New Zealand Transport Agency. These The option assessment was underpinned by three agencies have worked in partnership findings from an international review of public throughout this study to ensure it is aligned transport systems which informed the study of with the economic and transport needs in the characteristics of different transport modes, Wellington City and the wider region. success factors, design issues, constraints, available technology and procurement processes. A key action from the Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Plan (2008) was to provide major improvements to Transport modelling, using a suite of regional public transport to provide a high quality, reliable models and the latest land use and transport and safe service between the Wellington Rail forecasts, has informed the assessment, along with Station and the regional hospital.
    [Show full text]
  • Let's Get Wellington Moving
    Let’s Get Wellington Moving: Time To Re-focus © Copyright Karori Residents’ Association Author Bill Guest 2 March 2021 Introduction In 2001 the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) began considering how to connect the Wellington foothills motorway to the planned second tunnel through Mount Victoria. The new tunnel was to be located slightly north of the present tunnel, and parallel to it. 14 years later, after years of bickering and court cases, the proposed bridged highway on the north side of the Basin Reserve was defeated by the decision of the High Court not to overturn the decision of Commissioners to decline the resource consent required to proceed. While the Mayor of Wellington at the time, and several Councillors expressed pleasure at the decision, the only positive solutions suggested seemed to be “mass transit/light rail” and “cycleways” without a clear strategy or justification for either. In 2016 NZTA reached an agreement with Wellington City Council (WCC) and Greater Wellington City Council (GWRC) to form a joint planning group to devise and implement solutions to the growing congestion problems in Wellington City. The group became known as Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM). Karori Residents Association is concerned about LGWM and believes that it is urgent that WCC asserts its position as the planning authority for the city and seeks a significant re-focus of the work of LGWM. Background When the Wellington foot-hills motorway was built in the late 1960s, the intention was to swing eastwards after passing through the new Terrace tunnel, and to cross over Aro Flat to meet the both the old (1931) and a new Mt Victoria tunnel.
    [Show full text]
  • Wp2 - Background Trends and Issues (Final) Page 1 of 89
    Wellington's Regional Land Transport Plan Working Paper 2 – Background Trends and Issues Data & Analysis Team For more information, contact the Greater Wellington Regional Council: Wellington PO Box 11646 January 2015 T 04 384 5708 F 04 385 6960 www.gw.govt.nz www.gw.govt.nz [email protected] Contents 1. Introduction 5 1.1 Policy context for RLTP working papers 5 1.3 Outline of this working paper 8 2. Population 9 2.1 Recent trends 9 2.2 Population projections 12 2.3 Wellington City’s CBD intensification 13 2.4 Population age structure 13 2.5 Trip rates by age group 15 2.6 Employment trends and forecasts 16 2.7 Summary 21 3. Vehicle ownership 23 3.1 Light vehicle ownership per capita 23 3.2 Access to a motor vehicle 24 3.3 Vehicle ownership and VKT 26 3.4 Vehicle licence holders by age group 27 3.5 Summary 28 4. Wellington region’s transport network 29 4.1 State highway network 29 4.2 Local road and bus network 31 4.3 Rail network 32 4.4 Freight transport 33 4.5 Access to the airport 33 4.6 Summary 33 5. Census travel patterns and trends 35 5.1 Regional journey-to-work trips by origin (local authority area) 36 5.2 Regional journey-to-work trips by destination (local authority area) 37 5.3 Intra- and inter-sector journey-to-work trips, by origin and destination 38 5.4 Regional journey-to-work trips to Wellington City CBD 39 5.5 Total regional journey-to-work trips 42 5.6 Summary 44 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Let's Get Welly Moving
    Scenario Costing Wellington City Council 13-Nov-2017 Let's Get Welly Moving Scenario Costing P:\605X\60508819\6. Draft Docs\6.1 Reports\Final\Inner City Routes Report Final.docx 13-Nov-2017 Prepared for – Wellington City Council – ABN: N/A AECOM Scenario Costing Let's Get Welly Moving Let's Get Welly Moving Scenario Costing Client: Wellington City Council ABN: N/A Prepared by AECOM New Zealand Limited Level 3, 80 The Terrace, Wellington 6011, PO Box 27277, Wellington 6141, New Zealand T +64 4 896 6000 F +64 4 896 6001 www.aecom.com 13-Nov-2017 Job No.: 60508819 AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to ISO9001, ISO14001 AS/NZS4801 and OHSAS18001. © AECOM New Zealand Limited (AECOM). All rights reserved. AECOM has prepared this document for the sole use of the Client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. No other party should rely on this document without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any third party who may rely upon or use this document. This document has been prepared based on the Client’s description of its requirements and AECOM’s experience, having regard to assumptions that AECOM can reasonably be expected to make in accordance with sound professional principles. AECOM may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third parties to prepare this document, some of which may not have been verified. Subject to the above conditions, this document may be transmitted, reproduced or disseminated only in its entirety.
    [Show full text]
  • Wellington Town Belt Management Plan
    Wellington Town Belt Management Plan JUNE 2018 Version Date Description 1.0 August 2013 Major review of the 1995 Wellington Town Belt Management Plan 1.1 April 2017 Updated to be consistent with the Wellington Town Belt Act 2016 1.2 June 2018 Addition of Abel Smith Street land to the Wellington Town Belt ISBN: 978-0-947521-05-9 Wellington Town Belt Management Plan Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 The Town Belt Concepts ................................................................................................. 4 1.2 What is the Wellington Town Belt? .................................................................................. 5 1.3 The Wellington Town Belt Management Plan .................................................................. 6 1.4 Key guiding policies and plans ....................................................................................... 11 2 Wellington Town Belt legislative and policy framework ....................................... 19 2.1 How is the Wellington Town Belt managed? .................................................................. 19 2.2 Wellington Town Belt principles ..................................................................................... 20 2.3 Wellington Town Belt legal status .................................................................................. 22 2.4 Wellington Town Belt Protection and Enhancement ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Programme Business Case Report DRAFT Released 21 June 2019
    Programme Business Case Report DRAFT Released 21 June 2019 This report and supporting LGWM technical documents are being released in draft on Friday 21st June 2019 for the purposes of public information and to inform LGWM partner decision making processes. This programme business case has not been approved by the NZ Transport Agency, the Wellington City Council, and Greater Wellington City Council, nor has funding approval for any further stages been given. The contents of this draft report may change and do not necessarily represent the final position of LGWM or its partner organisations. Copyright information This publication is copyright © NZ Transport Agency on behalf of the LGWM partners. Material in it may be reproduced for personal or in-house use without formal permission or charge, provided suitable acknowledgement is made to this publication and Let’s Get Wellington Moving as the source. Requests and enquiries about the reproduction of material in this publication for any other purpose should be made to: Manager, Information NZ Transport Agency Private Bag 6995 Wellington 6141 The permission to reproduce material in this publication does not extend to any material for which the copyright is identified as being held by a third party. Authorisation to reproduce material belonging to a third party must be obtained from the copyright holder(s) concerned. Disclaimer The NZ Transport Agency, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and Wellington City Council have endeavoured to ensure material in this document is technically accurate and reflects legal requirements. However, the document does not override governing legislation. The NZ Transport Agency, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and Wellington City Council do not accept liability for any consequences arising from the use of this document.
    [Show full text]
  • TRANSCRIPT of PROCEEDINGS BOARD of INQUIRY Basin Bridge
    TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF INQUIRY Basin Bridge Proposal HEARING at AMORA HOTEL, WAKEFIELD STREET, WELLINGTON on 18 February 2014 BOARD OF INQUIRY: Retired Environment and District Court Judge Gordon Whiting (Chairperson) James Baines (Board Member) David Collins (Board Member) David McMahon (Board Member) Page 1147 APPEARANCES <DAVID JAMES DUNLOP, on former oath [9.47 am] .......................... 1148 <CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MILNE 5 CONTINUING [9.47 am] ................................................................. 1148 <CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS ANDREWS [12.30 pm] ......... 1211 <RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON [12.43 pm] ................ 1218 10 Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1148 [9.46 am] CHAIRPERSON: Yes, good morning everybody. Sorry to keep everyone waiting, it is my fault this morning. I was walking here thinking I had 5 plenty of time and about 20 past I was at Cuba Street, and the phone rang in my satchel and I realised it was my wife’s phone and I had her satchel, so I had to go all the way back to Citylife again. MR CAMERON: I am pleased you have those moments is all I have got to 10 say. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I wondered what the strange sound of this phone was ringing in my satchel. Anyway, so I am sorry to keep you waiting. The rest of the team thought I had bunked and gone to the Basin 15 Reserve for the historic day. MR CAMERON: I had been asked on behalf of all counsel to ask for an adjournment for two hours, sir. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Well, we might at 1 o’clock. MR CAMERON: It is more a site visit.
    [Show full text]
  • Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010-40 Approved September 2010
    Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010-40 Approved September 2010 Quality for Life Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010-40 Approved September 2010 For more information: Greater Wellington Published October 2010 142 Wakefield Street GW/CP-G-10/157 PO Box 11646 Manners Street [email protected] Wellington 6142 www.gw.govt.nz T 04 802 0301 F 04 385 6960 Contents Executive summary .......................................................ii 8. Policies .................................................................37 1. Introduction ...........................................................1 8.1 Network management ........................................ 37 8.2 Travel demand management ............................. 38 2. Vision .....................................................................2 8.3 Safety ................................................................ 38 3. Regional transport network – 8.4 Environment and public health ........................... 38 pressures and issues ..............................................3 8.5 Integrated planning ............................................ 41 3.1 Current transport network performance ............... 4 8.6 Securing transport funds .................................... 41 3.2 Key transport pressures ........................................ 4 8.7 Implementation .................................................. 41 3.2.1 Growing and aging population .................4 8.8 Programme prioritisation and funding ................ 42 3.2.2 Growing economy .....................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Wellingtonʼs Transport History
    Wellington’s transport history April 2016 Executive summary plans did recognise public transport as a transport option, no specific action was recommended at the time. Wellington’s geography has dictated the location and form of transportation links, from the earliest Māori settlements through to the first land surveys in the 1840s From the 1990s onwards, transport thinking evolved. Public transport was and later European settlement. Many of the original routes continue to influence the championed and invested in. A compact and contained city was achieved, which transport planning efforts to shape the city. It is a contained city, developing up from intensified the land use and encouraged walking. Environmental sustainability the valleys to hills – its road network is constrained by this topography – and there became more prevalent in decision making and is further helping to achieve the is an extensive public transport network. However, the capacity of the transport city’s goals. network to meet current and future demands is limited. Most recently, the focus has shifted to cycling, accessing the key Port and airport This paper will look at the history of Wellington transport planning. Of particular ‘gateways’, and the interface of the CBD urban form with major transport corridors. interest is the Ngauranga to airport corridor. This review provides context for what Cycling requires limited road space (compared to private vehicles or public transport) was, is, and could be planned to further develop the transport network. and has significant public health and environmental benefits, if safety issues can be addressed. The port and airport trips have particular needs in terms of reliability and The context of Wellington nature of traffic accessing them.
    [Show full text]
  • Global-Research-Full-Analysis-Report
    Global Research 150 Office Rd Merivale Christchurch 8014 New Zealand +64 3 355 4562 www.globalresearch.nz 2 | Page Let’s Get Wellington Moving – Public comment analysis 3 | Page Let’s Get Wellington Moving – Public comment analysis 4 | Page Let’s Get Wellington Moving – Public comment analysis 5 | Page Let’s Get Wellington Moving – Public comment analysis Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM) is a joint initiative between Wellington City Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and the New Zealand Transport Agency. We’re working with the people of Wellington to develop a transport system that improves how the city looks, feels, and functions. Our focus is the area from Ngauranga to the airport, including the Wellington Urban Motorway and connections to the central city, port, hospital, and the eastern and southern suburbs. In 2016 we talked with people around the region to learn what people like and dislike about Wellington and how they get around the city. Using feedback from more than 10,000 people, we developed a set of urban design and transport priniciples to guide our work. We then collected extensive transport data, and used the principles and ideas from the public to develop scenarios to improve Wellington’s transport and support the city’s growth. In November and December 2017, we released four scenarios for Wellington’s transport future and promoted these in a region-wide public engagement programme. The scenarios were presented in the document Have Your Say…on Let’s Get Wellington Moving and on the website yourvoice.getwellymoving.co.nz. As a result, LGWM received 1,994 online and hardcopy-form responses, 147 letter/report style responses (including 55 from stakeholder groups), and 35 Facebook posts.
    [Show full text]
  • Before a Board of Inquiry Basin Bridge Proposal Statement of Evidence Of
    Before a Board of Inquiry Basin Bridge Proposal Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) In the matter of a Board of Inquiry appointed under section 149J of the Act to consider the New Zealand Transport Agency's notice of requirement and five resource consent applications for the Basin Bridge Proposal. Statement of Evidence of Peter Terence McCombs for the New Zealand Transport Agency (Transportation) Dated 25 October 2013 BROOKFIELDS / KENSINGTON SWAN Solicitors acting: A F D Cameron / Level 9 A M B Green / F R Wedde 79 Boulcott Street PO Box 25-306 Contact: F R Wedde Featherston Street DDI: +64 4 498 0847 Wellington Email: [email protected] Ph +64 4 499 9824 Fax +64 4 499 9822 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF PETER TERENCE MCCOMBS FOR THE NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY Contents 1 Introduction 1 Qualifications and Experience 1 Previous involvement 2 Code of Conduct 3 Scope of Evidence 3 2 Executive Summary 4 3 History of the Project 5 Strategic Role 5 Key Previous Studies 6 Associated Improvement to Public Transport at Basin Reserve 8 4 The Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010-40 8 Forward Vision and Purpose 8 RLTS Objectives and Outcomes 10 5 Implementing the RLTS 12 Corridor Studies 12 Giving Effect to the Ngauranga to Wellington Airport Corridor Plan 13 Project Timing 15 6 Proposed Basin Bridge and Associated Improvements 16 Project Objectives 16 Scope of Works 16 7 Wellington City District Plan 19 Road Network 20 Central Area 23 8 Adelaide Road and the Wellington Urban Development Strategy 25 Adelaide Road Precinct 25 9 Traffic Patterns 27 History of Traffic Growth 27 Before and After Traffic Patterns 28 10 Provisions for public transport 32 11 Cyclists and pedestrians 32 12 Response to Submissions 34 13 Conclusion 44 1 Introduction Qualifications and Experience 1.1 My full name is Peter Terence McCombs.
    [Show full text]
  • Ngauranga to Airport Strategic Study Technical Report III: Recommended Strategy
    NGAURANGA TO AIRPORT STRATEGIC STUDY Technical Report 3: Recommended Strategy Ngauranga to Airport Strategic Study Technical Report III: Recommended Strategy Contents Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................... i 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The Project.................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Previous work................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Scope and Purpose of Technical Report Three: Recommended Strategy................................... 2 2 Strategic Planning Framework............................................................................................................. 5 2.1 New Zealand Transport Strategy (2002)....................................................................................... 5 2.2 Regional Policy Statement ............................................................................................................ 7 2.3 The Regional Land Transport Strategy ......................................................................................... 7 2.4 Wellington City Transport and Urban Development Strategy ....................................................... 8 3 Approach...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]