There has been a predictable reaction from the NZ Transport Agency to the Architecture Centre's innovative designs for the Basin Reserve - it's too hard and too expensive. According to the Capital Times:
The NZTA, is quick to dismiss the idea. "It would be a major engineering challenge to build a tunnel under the Basin Reserve - the ground conditions are very difficult and the water table is high. It would also be a expensive solution, and the necessary funding is not available", says Rob Whight, Wellington state highways manager.
So let's take a look at NZTA's claims.
Claim 1: Problematic Construction
Firstly, Rob Whight says that the "ground conditions are very difficult" which would make construction of the Architecture Centre's cut-and-cover tunnels an engineering challenge - but is this true? As we know from an Official Information Act request, the NZTA has admitted that no geo-technical investigations have been conducted on the Basin Reserve, so Mr Whight really has no idea how "difficult" - or otherwise - ground conditions will be. Without those investigations, Mr Whight is simply engaging in conjecture.
It could well be that there are very real challenges due to the fact that the land rose 1.8 metres in the 1855 earthquake, but if this is the case then construction of the massive footings necessary to support his preferred flyover will be equally complex and expensive. He can't have it both ways; either there are faults and related geotechnical issues that will hamper all construction projects equally, or there aren't. Perhaps NZTA should conduct some actual on-the-ground research before arbitrarily ruling out construction options.
Conclusion: Mr Whight is deliberately spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).
Claim 2: Expense
Mr Whight then goes on to claim that the "necessary funding is not available" for the Architecture Centre's approach. This is a simply astounding statement, given that NZTA is currently hosing public money into all manner of roading projects that will never see an economic return for New Zealand. For instance, the Agency is prepared to spend $1 billion on Transmission Gully when it will produce economic benefits of $600 million - a net loss of $400 million (before cost over-runs) to the taxpayer. And this is in the context of an $11 billion spend-up on the roading network.
In addition, the Agency has just announced approval of the Puhoi to Wellsford extension at a cost of $1.4 billion, despite the fact that this road carries a mere 22,000 vehicles per day. Allegations are now swirling around the blogosphere that the sole reason for the road is to improve travel times for John Key and Steven Joyce as they drive to their holiday homes.
So it would appear that the Agency has plenty of money to spend. But if we're to take Rob Whight's comments at face value, they only have money to make Wellington a worse place to live - improving our urban environment as the Architecture Centre has proposed is off the agenda. And cricketers should take note - this probably means that a second stand to hide the worst excesses of the flyover will fall victim to the necessary funding not being available.
Conclusion: Mr Whight is sending a very clear message that money is only available for cars, not for the people who have to live amidst the flyovers.
Hi there,
I am a watcher from Auckland.
Is there a similar group/groups getting together around the transmission gully project?
Is there clear discussion in the blogosphere of otherwise on the Transmission Gully $1billion expenditure, $600M loss (over what time? and what assumptions?) Keen for some transparency or wiki-ing on these projects NZTA is pushing through.
Carl
Is there a group? Not that we know. Certainly, from the people who live outside the Wellington central area, ie those on Kapiti Coast, they are probably all for it. Travellers who use the highway regularly - may well be all for it. Wellingtonians, generally, couldn't give a rats arse about it, as long as they don't have to travel on it - its as relevant to us as the Puhoi to Wellsford motorway is for people who live in Ponsonby.
However, there has been some excellent commentary on the Transmission Gully on a local website called Eye of the Fish - have a look at http://eyeofthefish.org/boondoggle-gully/
cheers, Maximus
To be fair to Mr Whight, any of the ideas that were proposed would be more tricky, and would therefore involve more time to think, and plan, and examine in detail. But with all due respect to Mr Whight, the actual roading details are quite probably beyond him - he's a project manager, not a roading engineer at all.
With Rob Whight having had a background in the Navy and working on train line projects in Britain, its surprising to see that he has become the figurehead of roading projects here in NZ. First he headed the Transmission Gully project, and just recently he has swung into action over the Basin. He will have been given a brief - "Your mission, Rob, should you choose to accept it, is to put a motorway overbridge over the edge of a cricket ground, without annoying the locals, or more importantly, without stopping the traffic." Its probably not within his brief to consider any alternatives.
But it is within our brief, as members of the public.
We should, and must, demand a wide ranging look at ALL the alternatives, before accepting any of the proffered options that will be offered to us on Feb 22.