Political Parties, The General Election, And The Basin Reserve Flyover Decision

Tags

How you vote is up to you. But political reaction in the wake of the Board of Inquiry’s draft decision to decline resource consent for a Basin Reserve flyover suggests that you have a very clear choice when considering the view of political parties on the Basin flyover issue.

Politicians’ reactions on social media

As word of the draft decision spread, Save the Basin’s Twitter account got a large number of congratulatory and supportive messages, including these:

Julie Anne Genter ‏@JulieAnneGenter  Jul 22

Reason prevails!!! We won. I am SO thrilled right now. #noflyover http://www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/Basin_Bridge/Pages/Basin_Bridge.aspx … @save_the_basin

Gareth Hughes ‏@GarethMP  Jul 22

Basin Reserve decision a victory for common sense & the community! http://www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/Basin_Bridge/Pages/Basin_Bridge.aspx … awesome work @save_the_basin

Grant Robertson @grantrobertson1 · Jul 22

Basin Flyover decision damning on NZTA- didn’t properly consider alternatives, sig destruction of heritage +amenity, big ?s over time saving

(My apologies to Peter Dunne, @PeterDunneMP – try as I might, I can no longer find his tweet – I should have saved it at the time! But he has been a consistent opponent of a Basin Reserve flyover.)

Press statements

Political parties, including NZ First, also released press releases supporting the Board’s draft decision:

Labour Party: Basin Flyover Decision An Opportunity For Capital: http://campaign.labour.org.nz/basin_flyover_decision_an_opportunity_for_capital

Green Party: Basin Reserve Decision Victory for Common Sense: https://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/basin-flyover-decision-victory-common-sense

NZ First: Opportunity Knocks for Wellington with Light Rail Link: http://nzfirst.org.nz/news/opportunity-knocks-wellington-light-rail-link

I haven’t seen a statement from Internet Mana on the issue, but the Mana Movement had previously expressed opposition to the proposed flyover.

The Government Reaction: Gerry Brownlee

In stark contrast, the Government expressed dismay and mystification over the decision, as exemplified by Gerry Brownlee:

http://money.msn.co.nz/businessnews/national/8879103/brownlee-disappointed-by-basin-decision

So, as we approach the General Election, voters have a clear choice. Four parties – Labour, the Greens, United Future and NZ First – have expressed clear and consistent opposition to a Basin Reserve flyover, while the Mana Movement has previously expressed opposition.

In contrast, the National Party appears unable to conceive that the NZTA might have got it wrong, or that any other solution than a flyover is possible. The return of a National Government will increase the risk that a flyover is pushed through outside the normal RMA processes, such as by empowering legislation.

Chicken Little versus Reality: Reactions to the Draft Flyover Decision

As you probably know, the Basin Bridge (i.e. flyover) Board of Inquiry released its draft decision on Tuesday 22 July. In its draft decision, the Board:

Cancelled the Notice of Requirement (NoR) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of State Highway 1 in Wellington City between Paterson Street and Buckle Street/Taranaki Street, and to construct (and where necessary operate and maintain) work that avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse effects.

Declined the resource consent applications.

In other words, they turned down the flyover proposed to them by the New Zealand Transport Agency. Parties (including the applicant and submitters) now have until 19 August to submit comments on any factual errors they find within the draft report, and the Board will release its final decision by Saturday 30 August. Parties then have the opportunity to consider making an appeal on matters of law.

You can download the draft decision from the EPA website (PDF, 6MB)

Media reaction

Not surprisingly, there was a flurry of media reaction when the decision was announced – far too much, in fact, to link all of it here. You can get a good flavour by following the flyover coverage categories in Wellington Scoop and in the Dominion Post. Patrick McCombs’ article Pain, Cost and Embarrassment … Because the Transport Agency Didn’t Listen does a great job of highlighting the many deficiencies of NZTA’s case, and the sloppy arrogance with which the Transport Agency approached the Board hearing.

This pair of posts from Wellington’s Eye of the Fish blog – one before and one after the decision – reflect the surprise many pundits felt about the Board’s decision:

There were also a number of congratulatory messages and supportive statements from political parties including Labour, the Greens, United Future and NZ First, which I’ll cover in a subsequent post. (If I’ve missed any parties out from that list, please let me know!)

The sky isn’t falling, and there is a Plan B

Given previous Boards’ track record of approving Government proposals, it’s understandable that many people were surprised at the decision. What’s less understandable is the failure of a number of local business and civic leaders to either accept or adapt to the situation.

Plainly, many flyover supporters had proceeded on the assumption that the project would be rubber-stamped. The weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth extended from Kirkcaldie and Stains to certain inhabitants of various Council chambers.

Well, here’s some news for the Chicken Littles of Wellington: the sky isn’t falling, and contrary to what a number of local and national politicians have said, there is a plan B – in fact, several other options are on the table and were taken seriously by the Board in its report.

For example, here’s what the draft Board decision says about the Basin Reserve Roundabout Enhancement Option (BRREO) developed by Richard Reid & Associates for the Mount Victoria Residents Association, and presented to the Board hearing:

We concluded that the BRREO concept was not suppositional and was at least worthy of consideration. While not delivering equal transportation benefits to the Project, we found that it may nonetheless deliver measurable transport benefits at considerably less cost and considerably less adverse effects on the environment. We bear in mind that BRREO is still at a provisional or indicative stage and could be subject to further adjustment by further analysis. (pp. 438-9)

So. Options are on the table. Pending the final decision, a flyover isn’t one of them. It’s time for an open, reality-based discussion about what happens next.

 

 

http://www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/Basin_Bridge/Pages/Basin_Bridge.aspx

 

Save the Basin Campaign congratulates Basin Reserve flyover Board of Inquiry on making the right decision

The Save the Basin Campaign today congratulated the Basin Bridge Board of Inquiry for declining approvals for the proposed Basin Reserve flyover.

Save the Basin Campaign spokesperson Joanna Newman said that the Board of Inquiry had made the only logical decision based on the evidence that emerged during the four-month enquiry hearings. “During the hearing,” said Ms Newman, “it became evident that the proposal would have a profound impact on the historic heritage of the Basin Reserve cricket ground and surrounding area, for very little transport gain, and NZ Transport Agency had conducted a biased and incomplete evaluation of alternatives to their flyover plan and ignored all of the improvements already underway in the adjoining War Memorial Park tunnel development.”

The Board seems to have listened to the many residents, cyclists, walkers and motorists who explained the unique character of the area and its value to Wellington and the nation, which would have been destroyed by the project. “We’re delighted that the Board has said no to what would have been an unnecessary, expensive, ugly and hugely damaging project,” said Ms Newman. “The Board heard from a number of experts that there are major changes underway in how people use transport systems. This decision represents a great opportunity for Wellington to move away from the outdated motorway-and-flyover model of transport planning and towards the sustainable methods of providing access and mobility that are appropriate to a modern capital city in the 21st century.”

“We hope that the NZTA and the Government have seen sense and will not attempt to overturn this decision,” Ms Newman concluded. “However, if they do try to overturn it, the community will certainly be ready for them.”

Save the Basin Campaign criticises retrospective approval for War Memorial Park creche move

The Save the Basin Campaign and the Mt Victoria Historical Society have jointly written to the Basin Bridge Board of Inquiry to criticise the Government’s granting of retrospective consent to the move of the Home of Compassion Creche. The groups contend that the creche has not been legally moved under the War Memorial Park Act, and that the Basin Bridge Board of Inquiry should consider the Basin Bridge proposal as if the Creche remained in its original position. The Board is currently considering whether to grant resource consent approval to the proposed Basin Reserve flyover.

Commenting on the Government’s move to grant retrospective resource consent to the move via Order in Council, Save the Basin Campaign spokesperson Tim Jones said “This is yet another abuse of power and due process by the current Government. In Christchurch, the Government tried to use the laws passed to deal with the Canterbury Earthquake to make larger zoning changes, until the High Court stopped them. Here, the Government is using the construction of a War Memorial Park which is meant to be a solemn commemoration of war and the fallen as a cynical ploy to try to improve its chances of gaining approval for a pet roading project.”

Mr Jones continued “During the Board hearing, lawyers for opposing groups demonstrated that the New Zealand Transport Agency had badly messed up the process with respect to its planned movement of the Creche, which it wants out of the way so that the proposed flyover can go through and over the creche’s former site. Instead of rethinking the ugly, expensive and unnecessary flyover project, the Government has chosen to circumvent the democratic process by pushing through a retrospective Order in Council.”

“We believe this is an abuse of due process and the rule of law. This Government acts as if it believes that it is above the law. It needs to be brought back down to Earth,” Mr Jones concluded.

 

What Happens Once The Basin Reserve Flyover Hearing Ends?

Here is how things stand:

The Basin Board of Inquiry hearing is scheduled to end on Wednesday 4 June. The Board will then continue to meet to review the evidence and reach their draft decision, which is scheduled to be released on or before Saturday 19 July 2014.  The Board will then give 20 working days for comment on the draft conditions, before releasing its final decision on or before Saturday 30 August 2014.

There is then the opportunity to appeal the final decision on legal issues. This appeal period will extend beyond the 2014 General Election, so the outcome of the election – if there is a change of Government – may also be significant to the final outcome. Bear in mind that five political parties: Labour, Greens, NZ First, Mana and United Future – have expressed opposition to the proposed flyover.

What this means for Save the Basin is that we will know which way the Board intends to jump by the 19th of July – since, on past practice, there is relatively low likelihood that the final decision will depart significantly from the draft decision, other than in the matter of conditions if the project is approved. If the draft decision does not go in our favour, and if we do consider there are grounds for appeal, then fundraising will become a high priority.

Of course, we hope it won’t come to that. We think that Save the Basin and other groups opposed to this unnecessary, ugly and expensive project have presented a very strong case as to why the project should not proceed. But that ball is now in the Board’s court.

The Proposed Basin Reserve Flyover Pedestrian/Cycleway: Too Narrow To Be Safe?

In presenting their case for the motorway flyover they want to build at the Basin Reserve, the NZ Transport Agency has made great play of the shared pedestrian/cycleway they plan to build along the flyover’s northern edge. NZTA witnesses even made the extraordinary claim that adding a pedestrian/cycleway to the proposed flyover would somehow stop people thinking of it as a flyover.

Unfortunately, NZTA seems to have become so enthusiastic about the “decorative” potential of the pedestrian/cycleway that they have neglected to focus on more fundamental aspects of design: making it usable and safe.

During the Basin Reserve Board of Inquiry, both walking and cycling advocates have criticised the design of the proposed pedestrian/cycleway, and in particular its planned width – a mere 3 metres, when, to meet the environmental conditions found at the Basin Reserve, a shared facility for pedestrians and cyclists should be at least 4 metres wide, and preferably wider.

In his submission, cycling advocate Patrick Morgan pointed out a 3m pedestrian/cycleway becomes effectively even narrower when the width of bike handlebars is taken into account: handlebars shouldn’t be scraping the guardrail, or banging into other users. And Living Streets Aotearoa’s Ellen Blake also pointed out how hazardous such a narrow pedestrian/cycleway could be for pedestrians, when the grade, frequent windy conditions, and the need to avoid cyclists and other pedestrians is taken into account.

So why haven’t NZTA designed walking and cycling facilities that meet standards? The answer appears to be that to make the proposed pedestrian/cycleway any wider may mean having to change the designation under which they have applied for the project – and that would land them in all kinds of legal difficulties.

When it comes right down to it, NZTA is all about cars and trucks and motorways. Pedestrians and cyclists are afterthoughts, despite the figures that show an increasing trend away from the use of private motor vehicles. NZTA thought they could get away with designing an inadequate and potentially dangerous “solution” for pedestrians and cyclists because that would make the flyover look less offensive. It seems they thought wrong.

 

Cricket Experts: Basin Reserve’s Future At Risk

Basin Reserve rainbow. Photo: Patrick Morgan.

Basin Reserve rainbow. Photo: Patrick Morgan.

It was a typical Wellington day yesterday at the Basin Reserve. The sun shone, the wind blew, the rain fell – and then, just as the day’s proceedings at the Basin Reserve flyover Board of Inquiry finished, this beautiful rainbow crowned the day.

But the outlook for Test cricket at the Basin Reserve would be a lot less attractive if plans to build a motorway flyover along the northern and north-western boundary of the ground go ahead.

At the hearing yesterday, such distinguished formers cricketers and cricket administrators as Martin Snedden and Sir John Anderson warned of the risks the proposed flyover would pose to the future of cricket at the Basin. Martin Snedden called flyovers “hideous”, and was concerned to learn that, according to the Transport Agency’s own expert witnesses, moving traffic on the flyover would still be visible from the playing surface and to spectators even if the Transport Agency’s proposed screening options are put in place.

Spectators might vote with their feet. The International Cricket Council might withdraw the Basin’s accreditation as Test match venue. The only sure way to prevent a flyover putting the Basin’s future at risk is for the flyover not to be built.

Here is domestic and international media coverage of the day’s cricket evidence:

Big. Really, Really Big.

NZTA has stubbornly resisted calls to create a 3-D model of the proposed Basin Reserve flyover – presumably because it would make the scale of this project all the more visible.

Instead, they offered a guided ‘walkthrough’ of the route of the proposed flyover, and this morning, I turned up at the Basin Reserve with about 30 other people to hear what NZTA’s Greg Lee had to say.

But in the event, the most striking thing about the walkthrough wasn’t what he said, but where he and others pointed – the top of a lamppost here, a second-story window there. Those were the heights, many metres above our heads, that the flyover would pass if it was built. 10 metres of height may not sound like a lot, but it sure looks like a lot when you’re standing below where that roadway would be.

And then there were the widths – a huge span especially when the proposed pedestrian/cycleway is added in – and the massive pillars beneath.

NZTA’s design images show a light-coloured flyover almost merging with the blue sky above as young, attractive pedestrians amble by or lounge underneath (I’m pretty sure I saw Scarlett Johansson in one picture – who needs Hollywood when you have a flyover to recline under?)

If this thing is built, the reality will be very, very different. It will be large. It will be ugly. It will be dark, and equally dark in the shadows underneath. It will be a monstrosity, And so it must not be built.

The Basin Reserve: An Asset We Mustn’t Destroy

Wellington has got a very good thing in the form of the Basin Reserve. But sometimes, as New Zealanders, we have a tendency to undervalue what we have.

Award-winning Australian architect and urban design expert Jan McCredie is is no doubt what a good thing we have, and how much the proposed Basin Reserve flyover would put that at risk. As reported by the Dominion Post, she told the Basin Reserve flyover Board of Inquiry, now nearing the end of its third month of hearings, in no uncertain terms just what an asset the Basin is for Wellington:

McCredie told the four-member board the Basin Reserve was currently one of the most stunning entrances to a city you will find anywhere in the world.

Putting a flyover beside it would devastate Wellington’s reputation as a walkable city because it would instantly put tourists off moving through the Basin heritage area, she said.

It would also destroy one of Wellington’s major architectural points of difference on the world stage.

“In Sydney, you would do everything you can to retain and enhance the Opera House and the Harbour Bridge. They are major points of difference.”

Jan McCredie had a lot more to say about the negative effects of the proposed flyover on pedestrians and visitors to Wellington, and she threw her weight behind the alternative Basin Reserve Roundabout Enhancement Option (BRREO), which involves only at-grade (ground level) changes.

Jan McCredie illustrated how badly building a flyover in an iconic location would reflect on Wellington and New Zealand:

The transport agency was kidding itself if it thought the flyover as an “elegant” bridge, she added.

“It’s not a light, fine structure. It’s carrying cars and it’s quite meaty … no one is going to come to Wellington and rave about seeing the flyover.”

Let’s value what we have. Let’s not destroy it with an unnecessary, ugly and expensive one-way flyover.

 

Save the Basin Campaign press release: Transport Agency witness makes revealing admission at Basin Reserve flyover hearing

Landscape architect Gavin Lister, appearing for the New Zealand Transport Agency, has made a revealing admission at the Board of Inquiry hearing into the proposed Basin Reserve flyover. Under questioning by Board of Inquiry member Mr David Collins, Gavin Lister said:

“Flyovers are anathema to urban design thinking because of what they represent. They represent a car dominated city, a sprawling car dominated city which is kind of the antithesis of the compact,  mixed use, high intensity city supported by walkability and public transport”

Commenting on this admission, Save the Basin Campaign spokesperson Tim Jones said “Under detailed questioning from the Board, Gavin Lister admitted what the Save the Basin Campaign has been saying all along: that the idea of building a flyover at the Basin Reserve is a relic of the antiquated, car-dominated transport thinking that modern cities all around the world have abandoned.”

“Having made this admission, Mr Lister then made a rather extraordinary turnabout to say that these were exactly the same reasons the proposed flyover was needed. He did not explain why.”

“When the Transport Agency’s own witnesses make such trenchant criticisms of flyovers, it’s a clear sign that the Basin Reserve flyover project has been badly thought through and inadequately assessed against alternatives.

“Wellingtonians are innovators and forward thinkers. It’s time the Government and the Transport Agency consigned flyovers to the dustbin of transport history and started developing modern, meaningful transport solutions,” Mr Jones concluded.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers