DOCSLIB.ORG

Global-Research-Full-Analysis-Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. We commissioned Global Research to analyse, collate, and summarise the responses in this report. To learn more about the scenarios and the public engagement programme, or to join our mailing list, please visit www.getwellymoving.co.nz. LGWM will use the feedback from the public engagement to help direct our work and develop a recommended programme of investment. This will lay out LGWM’s preferred approach to Wellington’s transport in the future. We plan to publish our recommended programme of investment and seek the public’s views later this year. Best wishes The Let’s Get Wellington Moving team 6 | Page Let’s Get Wellington Moving – Public comment analysis This report presents the findings of the Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM) engagement process, which is focused on the future of Wellington’s transport network. As a result of the public engagement, LGWM received 2,176 contributions from community individuals and organisations, in these amounts: 1,914 online and 80 hard copy LGWM form submissions; 55 letter/report-style submissions from stakeholders; 92 letter/report-style submissions from members of the public; and 35 Facebook comments. This report commences with Let’s Get Wellington Moving key themes, which combines multiple interconnected topics, discussed in detail throughout the report. The presentation of the topics reflects the interconnected nature of challenges and opportunities that the LGWM initiative faces. The next section, Scenario Assessments, presents a synthesis of all the comments that were received by respondents on the four Scenarios, A,B,C,D, in their response to the prompt questions: “What do you like about it?”, “What don’t you like about it?”, “What would you change?” (12 prompt questions); the form responses to the question “Is there anything else you would like to tell us?”; plus, all the stakeholder and the community responses provided in their own response formats. The analysis is divided into six themes: Transport mode discussion; Transport infrastructure discussion; Transport pricing discussion; Future thinking discussion; LGWM delivery discussion, and; Outcomes for Wellington discussion. Note that in answering questions, respondents didn’t solely discuss aspects that they liked in the “What did you like about it?” section or things that they didn’t like in the “What don’t you like about it?” section. We have analysed comments within the section where each comment was made, interpreting answers based on what the respondent stated. For each topic, under each of the six themes, the body of the report first presents a summary of the comments made by stakeholders and community members in their own formats, and then a summary of the responses made to the 12 prompt questions. A synthesis of the comments made in response to each of the 12 prompt questions, on each sub-topic, is presented in the Appendix of the report. There are links provided within the report which take the reader from the summary sections to the full discussions of what respondents liked/didn’t like/would change in each Scenario, and back, if required. Hyper-links attached to page numbers enable the skips between the different report sections. The report then presents, the Analysis of Scenario preferences section. The number of respondents who selected each Scenario in answering the question, “How far would you go?” (options were A,B,C,D or Unsure) is presented in charts and tables. A summary of the comments made by respondents in explaining why they preferred the particular scenario they selected in answering the question “Why?” is 7 | Page Let’s Get Wellington Moving – Public comment analysis then presented. A full synthesis of all the comments made by respondents in answering this question is presented in the Appendix. The final section of the report presents a summary of comments made on key places around the Wellington region. These summaries have been collated from all responses that included comments on these places, in earlier sections of the report. As with the other report sections, a summary is presented in the body of the report and full analysis is provided in the Appendix. The number of points/comments made on each theme and topic are presented throughout. These numbers indicate the weight of discussion on particular issues, making comparisons possible regarding the general amount of interest. The numbers alone do not indicate that a theme or topic is more or less significant than others though. There are many reasons why more comments were received on some topics, and less on others. Reasons included: agreement or disagreement with what was presented in particular scenarios and also the amount of discussion stimulated within the community; for example, light rail received a high level of community interest and subsequent discussion. The numbers though allow a comparison between the relative level of interest respondents had on particular topics, in this phase of LGWM. The reader should be aware that each comment does not contain the same amount of information or detail (some are a few words, while others are a few paragraphs), and so again, the quantification of amounts should be treated as indications of general interest in topics. In the report we have consistently called the amount of discussion on each topic ‘comments’, but depending on the number of words contained in each, they could equally be considered to be ‘points’ or ‘ideas’. The following descriptors have been used throughout the discussions to consistently describe the number of comments made: Very large amount/number of comments = 150+ Large amount = 100–149 Sizeable = 75–99 Substantial amount = 50–74 Considerable amount = 25–49 Moderate amount = 15–24 Several comments = 8–14 Small number = 4–7 Few = 3 Couple = 2 The use of specific portions such as: “half”, “three quarters” or “two thirds” of a particular section, have also been used when appropriate. It is important to note that these proportions are only for the particular section being described, and do not represent the proportion of respondents who hold a particular view point across the whole project. In most cases the topics within each theme are ordered by greatest to least number of comments. The exceptions are when similar topics were considered more informative when grouped together, such as light rail and trams. 8 | Page Let’s Get Wellington Moving – Public comment analysis Direct quotes are included from participants to illustrate specific points; they are italicised and indented from the margins. Each of the 2,177 community and stakeholder contributions has been read and categorised into appropriate topics by Global Research analysists when preparing the findings in this report. This analysis process was assisted by NVivo qualitative analysis software. Similar ideas contained in different comments were organised into common topics. Most comments contained many ideas. In total, over 49,000 ideas were identified in the 2,177 contributions made by individuals and organisations. The analysis enabled a complete and objective presentation of the ideas, points and opinions expressed regarding the proposals presented in each scenario, and the collective aspirations that Wellingtonians have for their future transport network, city and region. 9 | Page Let’s Get Wellington Moving – Public comment analysis The following key themes emerged from all the comments received and the analysis completed on LGWM. They combine the key interconnected topics identified by LGWM respondents and present overarching challenges and opportunities for Wellington City and its transport. Public transport was LGWM’s most discussed topic, with nearly 6,000 points made. Public transport that delivers network improvements through greater reliability; shorter travel time; reduced fares; better routes and timetables; dedicated lanes; and integration of different transport modes, including payment systems, were sought. Often walking, cycling and public transport were grouped together as a collective future solution. A large number of respondents suggested changes to improve the existing bus network, including: encouraging increased passenger use, possibly through reduced fares; better connectivity between the bus service and the wider public transport network (buses and trains); more and better routes, particularly to the North and East; improved passenger and pedestrian comfort and safety, and; improved reliability and efficiency.
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]
  • The Broderick Family of Glenside by Diana Flatman Nee Broderick, 2020
    This material is provided as a historic research, and is copyright to the Glenside Progressive Assn. Inc. If quoting from this article, please acknowledge the copyright and source of the material. For further information contact the Glenside Progressive Assn. Inc. or email [email protected] The Broderick family of Glenside By Diana Flatman nee Broderick, 2020 Introduction This is the story of Creasey and Sarah Ann Broderick, who migrated to New Zealand in 1843 and lived at the Halfway/Glenside from 1845. Their Broderick descendants farmed in Glenside until 1968. Broderick Road in Johnsonville is named for Creasey and Sarah Ann Broderick and the Broderick Inn, which opened on 8 December 1973, was named for its location on Broderick Road. Creasey Broderick (c1810-1884) and Sarah Ann Broderick nee Walters (1806-1888) Photo held: Diana Flatman Collection Page 1 of 27 Background My great great grandfather Creasey Broderick was christened in Boston, Lincolnshire, England on 26 July 1810. He was one of six (perhaps more) children born to John and Mary Ann Broderick (nee Bagshaw). John was a clock and watchmaker in Boston, Lincolnshire, following in the profession of his parents Jessie Creassy Broderick and Elizabeth (nee King). My great great grandfather Creasey became a tailor by profession and worked in London. He married Sarah Ann Walters in St Mary’s Church, Lambeth, Surrey on 24 June, 1827. They set up home in London, mainly in the East End. Five of their seven children were born in London and christened in St Leonard’s Church, Shoreditch. London. The sixth child, Selina, was born in New Zealand and their seventh child was born in Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Landmark of Faith – Johnsonville Anglican Church
    LANDMARK OF FAITH View across Johnsonville from South 1997 St John’s interior view 1997 A SHORT HISTORY OF ST. JOHN’S ANGICLAN CHURCH JOHNSONVILLE 1847 – 1997 ORIGINAL SHORT HISTORY OF ST. JOHN'S ANGLICAN CHURCH JOHNSONVILLE, NEW ZEALAND, BY THE REV. J.B. ARLIDGE, B.A. WITH ADDED MATERIAL 1925 - 1997 BY J.P. BENTALL' A.N.Z.I.A. Published by St. John's Church Johnsonville, Wellington, New Zealand © 1997, 2014 ISBNs: 0-473-05011-0 (original print version) 978-0-473-29319-2 (mobi) 978-0-473-29320-8 (pdf)\ 978-0-473-29317-8 (epub) 978-0-473-29317-8 (kindle) Original publication typeset and printed by Fisher Print Ltd Electronic version compiled and laid out by David Earle Page 2 CONTENTS INDEX OF LINE DRAWINGS IN THIS BOOKLET WHICH ILLUSTRATE ITEMS USED AT ST. JOHN'S .... 4 FOREWORD .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 1972 PROLOGUE AT THB 125TH ANNIVERSARY ............................................................................................. 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................ 8 CHAPTER 1: EARLY DAYS 1847 - 1855 ................................................................................................................ 9 THE FIRST CHURCH .............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Strategic Nature of the Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2007-2016
    THE STRATEGIC NATURE OF THE WELLINGTON REGIONAL LAND TRANSPORT STRATEGY 2007-2016 by Patrick Farrell Thesis ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 593 [2008] A 90 point thesis submitted to Victoria University of Wellington, As partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Studies School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences Victoria University of Wellington [March 2008] i THE STRATEGIC NATURE OF THE WELLINGTON REGIONAL LAND TRANSPORT STRATEGY 2007-2016 Patrick Farrell ABSTRACT The purpose of the RLTS is to guide the region’s transport spending over the next ten years. This study seeks to determine how strategic it is in terms of key environmental, economic and social outcomes: amenity and amenity access, air quality, accessibility, and low-income groups’ transport affordability. Strategic is defined as how well the RLTS will function under potential future circumstances and its internal coherency and consistency. The resilience and adaptability of the RLTS to that range of potential futures is also analysed. The RLTS’ priority is increasing regional accessibility, however due to 20+ years of underinvestment in the PT infrastructure, especially rail, targets set towards that goal are limited. Amenity and air quality are both considered to not require much intervention, but amenity services would be more adequately served if they were considered on par with air quality. Transport affordability to the community and users, especially low-income groups, was not given warranted attention. Therefore, four out of five of the outcomes appear to be well balanced. The RLTS objectives and outcomes are rather resilient, while the implementation plans are adequately adaptable with annual monitoring reports and final decisions which are also made on an annual basis.
    [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]
  • Johnsonville 15 Minute Peak Trial 20 September 2014
    Johnsonville 15 minute peak th trial 20 September 2014 For more information, contact the Greater Wellington Regional Council: September 2014 www.gw.govt.nz [email protected] Contents 1. Johnsonville Trial Plan 1 2. Operational Setup 2 3. Actual Trial 2 4. Outcomes 2 5. Recommendations 2 1. Johnsonville Trial Plan There were two objectives to the trial held on the 20 September 2014. The first was to investigate the possibility of running 4 trains an hour; this being what is required to achieve RS1. The second was to try and bring stability to the timetable to allow 100 percent on time performance to 5 minutes. Three months’ worth of RTI data was used to define the run and dwell times that reflected reality; the only issue was that the crossover below Wadestown, which isn’t separated out of the run time, had to be collected manually. Austrics was used to construct a timetable giving a 15 minute frequency from Johnsonville to Wellington and at the same time building in 5minutes recovery time at Johnsonville and 7 minutes at Wellington. GWRC meet with TranzMetro to discuss the proposal; developed modifications that built in recovery times at the crossovers for the trains going against the peak loading. That is the down trains get priority in the morning peak and the up trains get priority over the down train in the afternoon peak. The theory was to build resilience into the timetable. From the meeting and the revised timetable it was decided to run a trial simulating a morning peak an off peak and an afternoon peak on a Saturday.
    [Show full text]
  • Ngauranga to Airport - Travel Demand Management Let's Get Wellington Moving
    Ngauranga to Airport - Travel Demand Management Let's Get Wellington Moving Stage 2 Report | Final 13 November 2017 928PN Stage 2 R eport Let's Get Wellington Moving Stage 2 Report Ngauranga to Airport - Travel Demand Management Project No: IZ073200 Document Title: Stage 2 Report Document No.: Revision: Final Date: 13 November 2017 Client Name: Let's Get Wellington Moving Client No: 928PN Project Manager: Claire Ashburn and Bruce Walton Author: Terri Bell File Name: J:\IE\Projects\02_New Zealand\IZ073200\02 Documents\Stage 2\Ngauranga to Airport Stage 2_RevE_Final.docx Jacobs New Zealand Limited Level 3, 86 Customhouse Quay, PO Box 10-283 Wellington, New Zealand T +64 4 473 4265 F +64 4 473 3369 www.jacobs.com © Copyright 2017 Jacobs New Zealand Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright. Limitation: This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this document by any third party. Document history and status Revision Date Description By Review Approved A 22 May 2017 Draft for Workshop CA AL BW B 31 May 2017 Final Draft for Comment CA AL BW C 23 June 2017 Working revised report for client comment TB BW AB D 7 July 2017 Rev D report for client comment TB BW AB E 13 November Final revision TB BW AB 2017 i Stage 2 Report Contents 1.
    [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]
  • Western Corridor Plan Adopted August 2012 Western Corridor Plan 2012 Adopted August 2012
    Western Corridor Plan Adopted August 2012 Western Corridor Plan 2012 Adopted August 2012 For more information, contact: Greater Wellington Published September 2012 142 Wakefield Street GW/CP-G-12/226 PO Box 11646 Manners Street [email protected] Wellington 6142 www.gw.govt.nz T 04 384 5708 F 04 385 6960 Western Corridor Plan Strategic Context Corridor plans organise a multi-modal response across a range of responsible agencies to the meet pressures and issues facing the region’s land transport corridors over the next 10 years and beyond. The Western Corridor generally follows State Highway 1 from the regional border north of Ōtaki to Ngauranga and the North Island Main Trunk railway to Kaiwharawhara. The main east- west connections are State Highway 58 and the interchange for State Highways 1 and 2 at Ngauranga. Long-term vision This Corridor Plan has been developed to support and contribute to the Regional Land Transport Strategy (RLTS), which sets the objectives and desired outcomes for the region’s transport network. The long term vision in the RLTS for the Western Corridor is: Along the Western Corridor from Ngauranga to Traffic congestion on State Highway 1 will be Ōtaki, State Highway 1 and the North Island Main managed at levels that balance the need for access Trunk railway line will provide a high level of access against the ability to fully provide for peak demands and reliability for passengers and freight travelling due to community impacts and cost constraints. within and through the region in a way which Maximum use of the existing network will be achieved recognises the important strategic regional and by removal of key bottlenecks on the road and rail national role of this corridor.
    [Show full text]
  • LGWM-Data-Report.Pdf
    1 Introduction Let’s Get Wellington Moving is a joint initiative between Wellington City Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council and the NZ Transport Agency (the project partners). Together, we’re working with the people of Wellington to deliver an integrated transport system that supports their aspirations for how Wellington City looks, feels and functions. We are following a robust process drawing on three key streams of information: feedback received from the people of Wellington through comprehensive public engagement data collected on current travel patterns and recent trends transport activity and Wellington’s economy 2 Purpose & context This report summarises the data that has been collected for Let’s Get Wellington Moving, together with data that is collected annually by the programme partners. It provides multi-modal insights in relation to current travel patterns and recent trends. This data has been used by the project partners to: understand travel patterns and network performance, identify current pressures and issues, informing the Case for Change inform the development of a suite of transport modelling tools that will provide information to support decision making The purpose of this report is to provide a visual and factual representation of some of the data that has been collected, together with some of the insights that can be drawn from this data, so that people know what information is being used to support the work that is being undertaken and the decisions that are being made. Going forwards, this data will provide an evidence base that will form the foundation of any case for change and help establish the existence and scale of any problems worthy of action.
    [Show full text]
  • Traffic Assessment
    Wellington City District Plan Proposed Plan Change 83 Kiwipoint Quarry Traffic Assessment prepared by: Tim Kelly Transportation Planning Ltd for: Wellington City Council (Infrastructure) po box 58 mapua027-284-0332 nelson 7048 [email protected] www.tktpl.co.nz August 2018 R e f e r e n c e : wcc pc83 kiwipoint traffic review v2 aug18 transportation planning limited tim kelly Plan Change 83 Kiwipoint Quarry: Traffic Assessment i Contents 1 BACKGROUND & SCOPE ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 SCOPE & METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 EXISTING QUARRY OPERATION .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 LOCATION ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 KIWIPOINT AREA .................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 QUARRY OPERATION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Water Supply Resilience Update STAKEHOLDER UPDATE
    ISSUE 6 AUGUST 2016 Stakeholder Water supply resilience Update STAKEHOLDER UPDATE Resilience remains a priority for Wellington Water At its recent quarterly meeting, Wellington Water’s Board reiterated its priorities for the company. Completing the Water Supply Resilience Programme Business Case and Wastewater Resilience Strategic Case featured on the list. This means our efforts will remain focused on highlighting the issues, fostering relationships to create an environment for success, and developing activities for incorporation into councils’ 2018-28 Long Term Plans. Our investigations, however, have unearthed some information that can’t wait until 2018 to progress. For example, our investigations have confirmed that because of the geography of our region and the impact this has on the susceptibility of our water supply network, residents and businesses need to be self-sufficient for seven days following an event such as a major earthquake – a change from past advice. So we’re coordinating with councils and other partners to get that message out as soon as possible. A new bulk ring network One of the high priority projects within the water supply resilience programme is the investigation of a new bulk ring network. We’re looking at ways of designing and building a new, more resilient bulk water network to ensure each of our cities has two resilient sources of bulk water. A new network would also improve day-to-day operations and reduce likely downtime following an event such as a major earthquake. Two new bulk ring mains are proposed to carry water between Waterloo and Silverstream, and from Porirua to Wellington.
    [Show full text]