Category: Flyover

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.

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.

Monday At The Basin Reserve Flyover Hearing: Transport Evidence Going Against NZTA

Posted on by tjonescan

When I arrived at the Basin Reserve flyover Board of Inquiry hearing this morning, I walked right past an anxious-looking gathering of NZTA’s hearing team. I’m not surprised they were looking anxious, because the hearing has been going badly for them right from the start way back on Monday 3 February – and matters have most certainly not improved since the hearing moved on to consider transport evidence.

You might think that the one area in which the New Zealand Transport Agency might exhibit some level of assurance is transport. I mean, it says “Transport” in their name, right? But so far, not only have they been forced to repeatedly shift the grounds on which they are advancing their long-cherished flyover project, but they have not been able to find a convincing comeback to the very cogent and detailed criticisms of their proposal put forward by witnesses called by Save the Basin and other organisations.

A star witness in this regard has been John Foster. Himself a former transport planner, he was able to point out flaws in NZTA’s evidence as his appearance began last week, as covered by the Dominion Post:

The traffic predictions used to justify the Basin Reserve flyover were based on dodgy calculations, critics say.

Retired transport planner John Foster set about discrediting the New Zealand Transport Agency’s transport modelling at the flyover’s board of inquiry hearing this morning.

Mr Foster, who previously worked on the Transmission Gully highway, Dowse Interchange and Wellington’s Inner City Bypass, appeared for flyover opposition group Save the Basin.

In documents presented to the four-member board, he said the benefits of the $90 million project had been overstated, mainly due to errors on the transport agency’s part.

(For more, see Critics question benefits of flyover.)

On Monday morning, John Foster was able to point out further basic errors in NZTA’s figures and assumptions – and after he finished, Richard Reid, appearing as an expert witness for the Mount Victoria Residents Association, provided a very clear and cogent presentation of his “Basin Reserve Roundabout Enhancement Option” (BRREO), which lays out a plan for improving traffic flows around the Basin Reserve at-grade, without needing to build either flyovers or underpasses.

All NZTA has proved able to do in return is attack the witness – not his evidence.

All of which leaves me with two thoughts:

1) A phrase I’ve used about building a flyover at the Basin Reserve is that it would be ugly, unnecessary and unjustified. The hearing so far has been shown how it’s unjustified, because NZTA avoided consulting seriously on any option that wasn’t a flyover. Now the hearing is being shown how a flyover is unnecessary to meet transport needs. And in coming weeks they’ll be hearing a whole lot about how ugly a massive motorway flyover imposed on an iconic part of Wellington would be.

2) The more I see of NZTA’s hearing evidence, the more surprised I am at its low quality. For an organisation that brags about its expertise, it has done a very poor job of presenting its case. Perhaps over-confidence is the problem, or perhaps NZTA’s case is fundamentally deficient to begin with?

Cloud Cuckoo Land

Posted on by tjonescan

At the Basin flyover Board of Inquiry hearing:

First NZTA said that a Basin Reserve flyover would save 7.5 minutes on vehicle trips – and we soon showed that, even using their own methodology, six of those minutes were imaginary, or cross-claimed from other projects.

Then NZTA said a Basin Reserve flyover was necessary to enable a “step change” in public transport use – and today, WCC witness Geoff Swainson admitted that the term “step change” was inappropriate, that it was at most a very gentle slope, and that modelling showed hardly any extra trips would occur as a result of a flyover being built.

Today’s “justification” for building a large motorway flyover at the Basin Reserve is that it would improve the experience for pedestrians and cyclists.

And next week, they’ll be saying we need to build a flyover to make our city more beautiful.

Welcome to Cloud Cuckoo Land, courtesy Wellington City Council officials, the Government, and the New Zealand Transport Agency.