Category: Dominion Post

What Principles Should Be Used To Assess Wellington Transport Proposals?

Posted on by stb_nyltr0
Image from FIT Wellington
Image from FIT Wellington

The Ngauranga to Airport Governance Group has completed the first phase of the Let’s Get Welly Moving process, and is now calling for proposals on proposed transport solutions.

But what principles and what process will be used to assess those proposed solutions? Given NZTA’s approach to the Basin Reserve flyover project, in which the movement of cars was prioritised above all else, it’s vital that the assessment process acknowledge that moving cars from Point A to Point B is neither the only, nor the most important, priority.

With many other groups, Save the Basin took part in a process in 2015 to develop engagement and assessment principles under the aegis of Grant Robertson MP. These principles were agreed upon and delivered to the Governance Group before the engagement process started. The Save the Basin Committee has recently reviewed them, and we still think they are the best basis on which to conduct the assessment. Here they are:

  1. THAT transport solutions at the Basin precinct are developed as part of tangible steps to reduce the City’s carbon footprint.
  2. THAT the cultural, heritage, recreational and amenity values of the Basin Reserve precinct are protected and enhanced.
  3. THAT public access to and use of the Basin precinct is preserved and improved.
  4. THAT access planning balances the needs of all transport flows – walking, cycling, and public transport, as well as private vehicles.
  5. THAT public access and traffic improvements are robustly informed.
  6. THAT the focus for improvements start with simple at-grade solutions.
  7. THAT conflict between different access modes is minimised.
  8. THAT a transparent and replicable approach is adopted to the sharing of data and information, enabling all parties to understand bring expertise to the table.
  9. THAT alternatives / future options are kept open (future proofed).

Principles 1 and 9 are of particular note. With the Government now having committed to greenhouse gas reduction targets under the Paris Agreement, and with Wellington City Council’s recent CEMARS certification, it is now even more critical that whatever solution is developed needs to actively contribute to meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and targets – and should certainly not make greenhouse gas emissions worse, for example by inducing traffic.

As for Principle 9, the rapid changes in both transport behaviour and transport technology to which attention was paid at the Basin Bridge Board of Inquiry, have since continued and intensified. This means that this would be a particularly bad time to be committing Wellington to major new roading infrastructure that might rapidly become a stranded asset. This provides further support to Principle 6, which is where we believe the focus for solution development in and around the Basin precinct should be placed.

Plus….

It was good to see some respect for Save the Basin in this Dominion Post editorial on the future of the Basin Reserve: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/80486839/editorial-speed-up-the-renewal-of-the-basin-reserve

Places, Please: The Next Basin Act Is About To Begin

Posted on by stb_nyltr0
Summer at the Basin - no flyover in sight
Summer at the Basin – no flyover in sight

It’s been a quiet first few months of 2016, at least in the public eye, as far as post-Basin Reserve flyover transport planning for central Wellington goes. But a burst of articles, presentation and comments in the media signal that this intermission is almost at an end.

Before this post-Christmas intermission, the previous act finished with the drama of the defeat of the New Zealand Transport Agency’s appeal to the High Court, and the news that the Ngauranga to Airport Governance Group, consisting of representatives from Wellington City Council, Greater Wellington and NZTA, had been given official responsibility for determining what should happen next. In December, representatives of Save the Basin and a number of other groups involved in the High Court action met with the Governance Group. Since then, at least in public, the curtain has been down on developments.

But now the players are taking their positions and the next act is about to begin. We understand that a public engagement process designed by the Governance Group, which we hope has taken into account input from Save the Basin and other community groups, will be launched in April. After Andy Foster had a quick say, Ngauranga to Airport programme manager Jim Bentley made a presentation to Wellington City Council earlier this week.

In its article reporting on this, the Dominion Post repeated two common errors: firstly, it assumed that an expensive piece of infrastructure was needed to “fix” congestion at the Basin, and second, it assumed that congestion in central Wellington’s roads stemmed from the Basin itself.

In Wellington Scoop, Lindsay Shelton succinctly debunks both arguments. The Transport Agency themselves have said that incremental at-grade (ground-level) improvements can be made around the Basin – while we believe a wider engagement process is necessary, we support short-term incremental improvements as well.

There are grounds for hope that NZTA may be moving away from the “bigger is better” approach that has bedevilled their transport planning in the past. A focus on making simple, readily affordable changes around the Basin would be a good start – and you can see what other steps we proposed for the Basin in the aftermath of the High Court decision.

Beyond the flyover: what’s next for the Basin Reserve? A seven-point plan from Save the Basin

Posted on by stb_nyltr0

 

Basin Reserve rainbow. Photo: Patrick Morgan.
Basin Reserve rainbow. Photo: Patrick Morgan.

Save the Basin’s feature article on post-flyover next steps appeared in the Dominion Post last Friday. The core of the article is this seven-point plan of next steps at and around the Basin. This has received a good reception so far, but we’re still trying to get to grips with the consultation process on post-flyover options. We’ve been told that it will be open and consultative, but it remains shrouded in secrecy so far.

But when the six-member Governance Group is ready to listen, we’re ready to talk. Here is our set of proposed next steps:

  1. Reframe the Basin as a sporting, urban development and heritage area as well as a transport corridor. The politicians and the NZTA need to grab the opportunity to engage the community in thinking about the future of the Basin and its surroundings.
  2. Create a master plan for the whole area. Its national significance needs to be given appropriate recognition: instead of seeing the Basin, Pukeahu National War Memorial Park, the Governor General’s residence, numerous local schools and the heritage of Mt Victoria as isolated pieces, the rich history of the whole area should be celebrated.
  3. Go through a robust process to evaluate which of the transport options highlighted by the Board will have the most benefits. Start by carrying out small improvements to bring relief to frustrated transport users, and evaluate these before considering whether a more expensive option is justified. .
  4. Upgrade the Basin and strengthen and preserve the Museum Stand.
  5. Prioritise a Reserve Management Plan for the Basin (as already agreed by the City Council) that will establish key principles on how the ground should be preserved.
  6. Put in place heritage protection for the whole ground in the City Council’s District Plan.
  7. Re-develop Kent and Cambridge Terraces as grand public and private spaces well connected to the Basin – which could include uncovering Waitangi Stream that flows between them.

Chicken Little versus Reality: Reactions to the Draft Flyover Decision

Posted on by stb_nyltr0

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

 

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.

 

Three Months, Two Flyovers, And Some Branded Umbrellas

Posted on by tjonescan

Last week was quite a week for the campaign to stop a motorway flyover being built at the Basin Reserve. Events happened so rapidly that we never got round to covering them here, so here is a quick recap of the week.

Three-month extension to Basin Flyover Board of Inquiry

It had been evident for some time that the Basin “Bridge” Board of Inquiry was not going to meet its original, or even its revised, timetable. To their credit, the Board wrote to the minister and asked for an extension, which the Minister has now granted.

The Board was due to present its final report on 31 May. It now has until 31 August to report, which means that its final report, and any consequent legal action, will be happening around the time of the General Election.

Subsequent to this decision, the Board released a revised draft hearing timetable.

If you are a submitter who is making an oral submission, someone calling witnesses, or an expert witness, make sure you check this timetable and the further changes that have already occurred. Some submitters have already found that they have been scheduled to appear twice. Most individual submitters will now be scheduled to appear on Fridays. Due to the extension, there may also be a change in the hearing venue, which is currently the Amora Hotel.

Coverage of the three-month extension

Three-month extension announced – Minister “disappointed” (Wellington Scoop)

Reaction to decision (including Save the Basin’s reaction) (Dominion Post)

Delay to flyover hearing “good news, inevitable” say Labour MPs (Wellington Scoop)

Correspondence from Board’s lawyers shows that strength of cross-examination from flyover opponents was a major factor in the Board’s request for an extension (Wellington Scoop)

Other highlights of the week

New pictures give clearer view of Basin flyover impact (Dominion Post)

Radio New Zealand investigates all the money the New Zealand Transport Agency has been splurging on promoting the Government’s Roads of National Significance Projects – aka its plan to cover the country in motorways. (Although it’s the smallest item discussed, I particularly liked the fact that NZTA spent some  money on ‘branded umbrellas’. I feel we can all sleep more soundly knowing how well public money is being spent.)

The Wellington Civic Trust raises an issue that’s been bubbling under at the flyover hearings: the likelihood that approval for one Basin Reserve flyover would soon lead to a second flyover, running in the opposite direction, being built. (Dominion Post)

NZTA forced to combat allegations that it added the sub-standard combined pedestrian walkway/cycleway to the flyover proposal as a sop to Wellington City Council. (Dominion Post)

NZTA Admits It Has Worked On Plans For A Second Basin Reserve Flyover

Posted on by tjonescan

At the Basin Reserve flyover Board of Inquiry, NZTA’s Wayne Stewart has been forced to admit that planning has been done for a second Basin Reserve flyover. The currently proposed flyover would be a one-way road going from east to west – that is, from the Mt Victoria tunnel towards War Memorial Park. Under questioning from the Board of Inquiry, NZTA have confirmed that they have done planning for a second flyover going from west to east.

Richard Reid, appearing for the Mt Victoria Residents’ Association, has previously raised the concern that one flyover would soon lead to another. Despite NZTA’s attempts to minimise the issue, it has been placed firmly on the table at the Board of Inquiry hearing, which has been told by NZTA’s Wayne Stewart that in 2010 the agency looked at duplicating the War Memorial Park tunnel and building a second flyover at the Basin going from west to east.

“Lines were drawn on a map,” he is reported as saying, though he claimed planning had not gone any further.

As Richard Reid has noted, if NZTA gets approval for its present one-way flyover proposal, it will be much harder to fight a proposal for a second flyover. So one flyover could well bring a second in its wake.

I think we know what tends to happen once NZTA starts drawing lines on maos – unless they are stopped now, before any further damage is done.

NZTA’s Basin Flyover Plans In Serious Trouble: Media Agrees

Posted on by tjonescan

Opponents of NZTA’s proposed Basin Reserve flyover have said all along that NZTA behaved in an arrogant and high-handed manner during the supposed “consultation” process on its Basin Reserve flyover plan. Now that arrogance and high-handedness has come back to bite NZTA – and it’s not just us saying it.

The updated Basin Bridge Project Traffic and Transportation Peer Review (PDF, 4.1 MB), commissioned by the Board and prepared by Abley Transportation Consultants, raises such severe criticisms of the project that NZTA’s only honourable course of action would be to withdraw their current proposal and think again. (Of course, NZTA has dismissed the Transport Peer Review’s criticisms and announced its intention to press on regardless.)

There has been a striking shift in the tone of the Dominion Post’s coverage of the proposed flyover this month, and Michael Forbes of the DomPost has prepared this excellent summary of the key criticisms contained in the Abley Report:

Serious red flags raised over flyover: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington/9639260/Serious-red-flags-raised-over-flyover

Wellington Scoop, which has a distinguished track record of investigative journalism on the issue, expanded on the Dominion Post article, noting previous criticisms by Save the Basin:

More (and more) confirmation that there are better alternatives than the flyover: http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=63947

This article highlights the transport evidence to be presented  at the forthcoming Board of Inquiry hearing by one of Save the Basin’s expert transport witnesses, David Young:

David Young, who for eight years was Transit NZ’s national planning manager, confirms that there is a low-cost at-grade option for solving Basin traffic problems without a flyover. He asks why the Agency failed to allow Wellingtonians the choice of this non-flyover option. Had it been been identified and included in the consultation process, he says, it is likely that it would have been preferred by affected parties “and would, or at least should, have been selected by the Transport Agency.”

This expert witness also says the “grossly uneconomic” flyover will cause significant adverse environmental effects and he asks why the Agency is understating environmental issues related to the flyover.

Wellington Scoop’s report of the original version of the Transport Peer Review is here: 49 key concerns about the flyover: http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=63947

Radio New Zealand also covered the issue on Checkpoint: Basin Reserve flyover plan criticised: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/234062/basin-reserve-flyover-plan-criticised

As a campaigner, it can be easy to feel like a lone voice in the wilderness. Not any more!

Basin Reserve Flyover Flaws Revealed for All to See

Posted on by tjonescan

We knew the NZTA’s plans to build a flyover at the Basin Reserve were fatally flawed. Now several days of highly critical media coverage, with pictures of what a flyover would look like if NZTA’s plans go ahead, mean that a lot more people can see these flaws. What’s more, it’s a peer review panel of experts that has been the source of much of the criticism.

So let’s take a moment to review the recent coverage on Wellington Scoop and the Dominion Post:

UPDATE: Check out these before-and-after images (without and then with a Basin flyover) from Transport Blog: http://transportblog.co.nz/2013/11/27/photo-of-the-day-basin-bridge

The Emperor’s new clothes are well and truly off, and the proposed flyover’s flaws are laid bare for all to see.

Gareth Morgan Calls For An Urgent Review Of Wellington Region Roading Policy

Posted on by tjonescan

If you read one article online today, make it this one:

Gareth Morgan and Geoff Simmons: An urgent review of roading policy is needed to prevent Wellington going up a blind alley: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/9306413/Headed-in-the-wrong-direction

It takes a scathing look at the inadequate or nonexistent analysis underlying the Government’s Roads of National Significance plans for the Wellington region. It does list the proposed Basin flyover as one that has a mooted Benefit-Cost Ratio of greater than 1, but a little more digging would have revealed that the Basin BCR is only greater than 1 because NZTA rejigged their calculations to make it so.

When even such mainstream figures as Gareth Morgan are calling for a rethink, the Government and the relevant local authorities ought to see that they have a real problem with roading policy.