Author: tjonescan

Let’s Get Wellington Moving: give your views on four mass transit and State Highway 1 options by Friday 10 December 2021

Posted on by tjonescan

Let’s Get Wellington Moving: time to give your views on four mass transit and State Highway 1 options that affect the Basin Reserve precinct

view of wellington centring the basin with the sea in the background

Six years after the Basin Reserve flyover proposal was finally defeated in the High Court, Let’s Get Wellington Moving has announced four options for mass rapid transit and State Highway One changes in Wellington. Based on the information that’s been released including the detailed documents, none of the options that have been presented threaten the future of the Basin Reserve itself. However, Options 1-3 would represent major changes to the area around the Basin.

We’ve evaluated the four options against our 2019 position statement and in the light of written answers LGWM provided to our questions as well as LGWM’s FAQs.

We’ve decided not to recommend a specific option, but outline factors that we believe you should take into account when considering the four options. When making your submission, you don’t have to back a specific option – instead, you can say what you do and don’t like about each option, or whether you have a different proposal.

LGWM will be releasing a preferred option in 2022. It may be a combination of features from these four options.

If you already know what you want to say, make your submission by Friday 10 December. (Note: You have to skip through a few screens to reach the point you can start submitting.)

The four options in brief

Option 1: Light rail to Island Bay running along Cambridge Tce, Sussex St and Adelaide Rd, plus a new diagonal bus tunnel through the Mt Victoria ridge, south of the present tunnel. Existing Mt Victoria tunnel repurposed for walking and cycling. Hataitai Bus Tunnel still used for local buses. Cost: $7.4 billion

Option 2: Bus rapid transit to Island Bay running along Cambridge Tce, Sussex St and Adelaide Rd, plus a new diagonal bus rapid transit tunnel through the Mt Victoria ridge, south of the present tunnel. Existing Mt Victoria tunnel repurposed for walking and cycling. Hataitai Bus Tunnel still used for local buses. Cost: $7.0 billion.

Option 3: Light rail to Island Bay running along Cambridge Tce, Sussex St and Adelaide Rd. Buses continuing to use the Hataitai Bus Tunnel and private cars to use the existing Mt Victoria Tunnel. A new walking and cycling tunnel to be built to the immediate north of the existing Mt Victoria Tunnel. Cost: $6.6 billion

Option 4: Light rail to Island Bay running along Taranaki St, then joining Adelaide Rd via Rugby St. Buses continuing to use the Hataitai Bus Tunnel and private cars to use the existing Mt Victoria Tunnel. A new walking and cycling tunnel to be built to the immediate north of the existing Mt Victoria Tunnel. Cost: $5.8 billion


Implications for the Basin Reserve and immediate environment

Option 1-3 would make substantial at-grade changes to the Basin Reserve precinct. Mass transit would go past the Basin on the Sussex St side, and Sussex St would pass over an extended Arras Tunnel. LGWM’s concept art (see p. 27) shows what they think this would look like at the Cambridge Tce end of the Basin, but we don’t yet have detailed designs.


Option 4 would result in only minor changes to the Basin Reserve precinct, mainly to improve access to the proposed new walking and cycling tunnel.

Read more about the proposals for the Basin Reserve

Implications for the wider area around the Basin

Options 1-2 include provision for a new public transport tunnel between the vicinity of St Mark’s School diagonally through the Mt Victoria / Matairangi ridge to the vicinity of the Wellington Rd-Ruahine St corner – in Option 1, it’s for regular buses, and in Option 2, it’s for bus rapid transit (i.e. high-capacity buses running on dedicated busways). This diagonal tunnel would be much longer than the present Mt Victoria tunnel.

The walkable catchment for mass rapid transit, which is expected to be the area of greatest housing intensification, covers more of Te Aro and less of Mt Victoria in Option 4, compared to Options 1-3.

One of STB’s criteria for these LGWM proposals is that they should not add any additional capacity for private cars. While this is true of all the options as they stand, Options 1 and 2 do add additional road capacity for public transport, so it is possible that a future Government with different transport priorities could choose to repurpose those public transport tunnels for cars. We understand that this possibility has been raised during the options development project.

What about the Eastern Suburbs?

There appears to have been a major shift in LGWM’s thinking in 2019. At that time, they were planning for the mass transit route to go from the CBD via Taranaki St to Newtown, past the hospital and the zoo, and then out to the Eastern Suburbs via a tunnel under Mt Alfred.

Now, the proposed main mass transit route runs to Island Bay. LGWM have said that this change has been made firstly because mass transit enables housing intensification, and secondly because the eastern suburbs are especially vulnerable to a range of hazards, including sea level rise and liquefaction, meaning that they’re not a good place to intensify housing. However, Option 2 includes more intensification in the eastern suburbs and less in the southern suburbs.

Which option is best for the climate?

Option 4 is a clear winner when it comes to lifetime greenhouse gas emission reductions, as this article explains. LGWM’s initial “leaf” ratings for climate impact were misleading and soon withdrawn.

Read LGWM’s detailed climate analysis of the options.

That said, none of the options reduce emissions as quickly as is needed to meet Wellington City Council’s Te Atakura emissions reduction plan.

Which option is most affordable?

Option 4 is the cheapest option, but LGWM has assured us that all options are achievable within LGWM’s funding envelope. Bear in mind that 60% of the funding for LGWM projects comes from the Government, and 20% each from Wellington City Council and Greater Wellington.

Read LGWM’s detailed analysis of project costings.

Other issues to consider

This submission guide focuses on the matters of most importance to the Save the Basin Campaign. But these are big, complex proposals. We encourage you to check out submission guides from other groups (such as this guide from Talk Wellington) and think about what options are best for you, your community and the future of our city.


Make your submission by Friday 10 December!

Save The Basin’s March 2021 Briefing For Transport Minister Michael Wood

Posted on by tjonescan

With the big Let’s Get Wellington Moving decisions on Wellington’s transport future expected later this year, it’s time to review how we got here and look ahead. Our March 2021 backgrounder to the Minister of Transport summarises why a motorway flyover at the Basin Reserve was rejected by a Board of Inquiry and again by the High Court, and why it’s time Wellington invested in mass rapid transit, not new roads or road tunnels.

The Briefing

From the get-go most people behind the creation of Save the Basin Inc (STB) have been passionate cricket followers, with the group’s membership and supporter base made up of people from across Wellington City. In 2011 STB launched a community campaign in response to the NZTA’s plan to build a three-story motorway flyover around Wellington’s historic and iconic Basin Reserve cricket ground, designed to connect the Arras Tunnel with Mt Victoria tunnel. In 2014, after many months of hearing arguments from all sides about the flyover, a Government-appointed Board of Inquiry (BOI) declined resource consent for the proposal. An appeal by NZTA against the BOI decision was declined by the High Court in 2015.

It is worth reiterating that the BOI was highly critical of the NZTA’s flyover plan, as demonstrated by these direct quotes from the Board’s final decision[1] and report:

  • “… the quantum of transportation benefits is substantially less than originally claimed by the Transport Agency.”  [p1317]
  • “… we do not consider the Project can be credited with being a long-term solution.”  [p504]
  • “… we have found that there would be significant adverse effects.”  [p1182]
  • “… it is our view that it is impracticable to avoid this structure dominating this sensitive environment.”  [p985]

Following the High Court decision, Wellington’s territorial authorities and NZTA formed the Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM) initiative to seek to address the transport issues impacting Wellington City. STB was recognised as one of six key stakeholder groups to be consulted during the process that led to LGWM’s formation, and we retain a keen interest in LGWM’s structure, processes and outcomes.

From the start STB has actively engaged and participated constructively in LGWM meetings and forums to contribute to solutions that would enhance the ability for people to efficiently and easily move around the city, as well as preserve and protect the Basin and its environs as a leading domestic and international cricket venue and as a community resource.

STB has submitted and publicly argued for significant investment in multi-modal transport solutions that would make a serious impact on car dependency, such as an integrated light rail system, buses, dedicated cycling lanes and walking. Media analysis of the recent Health Check review of LGWM made for disappointing reading. STB wants to see real progress made on transport issues not paralysis.

STB is working with other entities in the region to amplify the community voices who are wanting a progressive and sustainable approach to the region’s transport future. We do not agree with major investment in roading projects that will exacerbate car dependency, contribute to more congestion, increase carbon emissions and impose a range of other negative consequences on the city. We are concerned that LGWM’s published plans and documents continue to regard the construction of an additional road tunnel in the Mt Victoria area almost as a fait accompli. STB’s position is that it would only support such a tunnel if it is for dedicated use by public transport, cycling, scooters and pedestrians.

[1] Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Basin Bridge Proposal, August 2014

What Happens Once The Basin Reserve Flyover Hearing Ends?

Posted on by tjonescan

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?

Posted on by tjonescan

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

Posted on by tjonescan

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.

Posted on by tjonescan

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

Posted on by tjonescan

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

Posted on by tjonescan

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.

Moving Beyond Autopia

Posted on by tjonescan

When a lot of one’s time and energy is going into a particular transport issue, it’s easy to forget that the proposed Basin Reserve flyover, or the Kapiti Expressway, or whatever other specific project the Government is trying to foist on us is just one part of their overall plan to build motorways up and down the country.

Auckland academic Jaqs Clarke (see credit note below) has recently come back from overseas with a new perspective on the Government’s motorway plans, which she discusses in her article

Beyond Autopia: the high social cost of New Zealand’s road building programme

I recommend that you read it in full, but in summary, she starts by saying

After ten months in an urban laboratoire in Paris on a post-doc residency I returned to Auckland recently, to realise that the city of my home and imagination has been most busily morphing into a belated version of sci-fi Autopia.

and goes on discuss Auckland in detail – but this paragraph suggests that the NZTA leopard doesn’t change its spots when moving from one city to another:

In Auckland in 2014 we might not be parking flying saucers, but the journey through these smoothing corridors, that propel us from A-to-B, are as close to flying as one gets at ground level. Nothing could be further from the sensory overload and teeming humanity of the streets of Paris, than the Autopia that is belatedly materialising in the Auckland landscape. Seduced by these cruise control fantasy zones, the lack of clutter not to mention pedestrians, the seconds-savings of our journey, we now move across landscapes that have lost all reference points, as the visual field is cleansed of messiness by concrete fresco walls and sound-barriers set against monocultures of New Zealand native plants.

Turning to Wellington, she writes:

Moving south the brave citizens of Wellington are currently attempting to place limits upon the architects of Autopia’s offering of a flyover. A flyover is an Autopian architectural typology that regards the landscape underneath it as clutter. A flyover lifts us from the forces of gravity and allows us to hover unimpeded, even temporarily.

and goes on to discuss how the natural flow point at the Basin Reserve has been repurposed – a problem that a flyover would only exacerbate.

She concludes:

The most resilient cities of the 21st century are not Autopian. The most resilient cities do not privilege cars, but sustain a complexity of urban values, are built upon a positive urban dynamism in which intimate pathways are given as much consideration as those of national significance. As New Zealanders we deserve our cities to be designed around best practice resilience models, not throwbacks to an era of fantasy and delusion.

Unfortunately, the current Government and the NZTA still have their heads firmly fixed in that era of fantasy and delusion. But the coming General Election offers an opportunity to change that.

About the author: Jaqs Clarke (PhD) is an urban theorist and writer. She completed her PhD in the Philosophy of Architecture at the School of Architecture and Planning at the University of Auckland in 2012. She recently returned from a post-doc residency in the urban laboratoire AMP at Ecole Nationale d’Architecture Paris La Villette . She currently has a short term research position at the University of Auckland and is completing her first book. Amphibious: six liquid metaphors for a 21st century creative imagination. Other writings can be found on her blog:  http://ecologyurbanismculture.wordpress.com

Basin Flyover Hearing Heads To The Basin Reserve

Posted on by tjonescan

With the three-month extension to the Basin Reserve flyover hearing, the hearing has had to find a new venue – and it has settled on the Norwood Room in the RA Vance Stand at the Basin Reserve, where the hearing will be held from today (Monday 31 March) onwards.

It seems appropriate that a hearing on a project that could, according to cricket witnesses called by the Basin Reserve Trust, place the future of Basin Reserve as a Test cricket ground in jeopardy, is heading to ‘the scene of the crime’. There remains a lot to be said at the Hearing about the urban design, heritage, landscape and cricket-related flaws of NZTA’s flyover plans. It will be easier to make those flaws vivid when the setting that would be affected is right outside the window.

A recent Dominion Post article highlights the threat to the Basin Reserve as a cricket ground from the proposed flyover:

Flyover view may dismiss Basin Tests.

There’ll be more to come!