Category: Get Welly Moving

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

Basin Reserve Precinct Transport Plans – Latest Diagrams, Details and Technical Papers Released

Posted on by stb_nyltr0

For a long time, since the final defeat of the previous Basin Reserve flyover proposal in 2015, all we’ve had to go on are private assurances that whatever plans eventually emerged would not include a new Basin Reserve flyover. But it’s taken until the past few weeks, with the release of a slew of Let’s Get Wellington Moving reports and technical documents, to get some idea of what those plans entail.

The good news is that those private assurances have now been backed up by publicly released information. The roading changes proposed around the Basin do indeed seem to avoid bridges or flyovers – though there is an underpass proposed for walking and cycling use for those entering the ground from the north, and without careful design, underpasses can be exactly the sort of places pedestrians and cyclists don’t want to go.

LGWM Proposed Scheme around the Basin Reserve Area

October 2018 Recommended Programme of Investment Basin Reserve Concept

The redoubtable and well-informed “Leviathan” has put up an excellent and very informative post on the Eye of the Fish blog on LGWM’s plans for the Basin Reserve area, evidently drawing on the recently-released trove of LGWM documents, and including the two diagrams above plus Leviathan’s own drawings of how these might look in context:

http://eyeofthefish.org/public-transport-network/

The diagrams released by LGWM were developed in the assumption that Karo Drive undergrounding would be included in the funded package – but it wasn’t. So a current question is: what if any design changes near the Basin will result from that?

While the overall picture of Let’s Get Welly Moving with regards to the Basin is encouraging, the level of detail available to the public remains vague enough that continued vigilance is needed – just as it is to ensure that the project meets its overall goals of reducing transport emissions, reducing dependence on private cars, and promoting walking, cycling, public transport and rapid transit.

Zero fossil fuel powered vehicles in Wellington City by 2040: Councillor Roger Blakeley’s presentation to the 2018 Save the Basin Campaign AGM

Posted on by stb_nyltr0
(Note: The view expressed in this presentation are Councillor Blakeley’s personal and professional views, not those of Greater Wellington Regional Council)

by Tim Jones

Another year has gone by, and we still don’t know what will be in the Let’s Get Wellington Moving Recommended Programme of Investment – in other words, the Ngauranga to Airport transport plan that we’ve been awaiting for the last three years.

It often seems as though the whole thing will end up as a messy political compromise. But what if the guiding principles were such things as:

  • making Wellington liveable
  • making Wellington fair, safe and healthy
  • making Wellington beautiful, vibrant and culturally rich?

And what if, in place of Let’s Get Welly Moving’s continued refusal to treat the climate change impact of its plans as a key or even important factor, a central goal of their work was to ensure zero greenhouse gas emissions from Wellington transport by 2040?

Does that sound like a pipe dream? It isn’t. Because Councillor Roger Blakeley, with input from a number of people with community expertise in Wellington transport, has come up with a plan to do all that and more. And he presented it to the 2018 Save the Basin Campaign Annual General Meeting:

Essentials of a 21st Century Transport Strategy

We encourage you to read it. We encourage you to think about it. And we encourage you to support it – or, if you wish, suggest further improvements.Roger-Blakeley-circle2

It’s great to see one of our elected representatives engaging in detail with the work that needs to be done to make Wellington a city fit for its residents – and fit for the future. Thanks, Roger!

 

Save the Basin Campaign Inc. 2018 AGM, Thursday 22 November: “Essentials of a 21st Century Transport Strategy” and Panel Discussion

Posted on by stb_nyltr0

The Save the Basin Campaign Inc. 2018 AGM will be held as follows:

When: Thursday 22 November, 5.45pm

Where: Mezzanine Room, Central Library, 65 Victoria Street

Programme: AGM at 5.45pm followed at approx 6.15pm by guest speaker Councillor Roger Blakeley, and a panel discussion featuring Cllr Blakeley and Save the Basin Campaign Inc. co-convenors Jo Newman and Tim Jones.

All are welcome to attend the AGM, listen to the speaker, and participate in the panel discussion. However, only people who are formal members of the Save the Basin Campaign Inc. will be able to participate in the business of the AGM.

About our speaker

Following the conclusion of the formal AGM, Dr Roger Blakeley will be our guest speaker. Dr Blakeley is a Councillor in the Greater Wellington Regional Council and Member, Capital and Coast District Health Board. He is a former Chief Executive of the Ministry for the Environment (1986 to 1995), and has held many other significant roles in central and local government. He has a deep knowledge of and interest in transport issues.

Cllr Blakeley’s topic will be “Essentials of a 21st Century Transport Strategy”, and following his presentation, there’ll be a panel consisting of Cllr Blakeley and Save the Basin Campaign Inc. co-convenors Jo Newman and Tim Jones. We expect to finish the formal business of the AGM by 6.15pm, and then have approximately 20 minutes each for Roger’s presentation and the panel that follows – so we’ll finish around 7pm.

About the panel discussion

The panel discussion following Cllr Blakeley’s presentation will feature Cllr Blakeley together with current Save the Basin Campaign Inc. co-convenors Jo Newman and Tim Jones.

There are some questions Cllr Blakeley may not be able to respond to due to his elected roles. However, individually or collectively, the panel should be able to address a wide range of Wellington transport topics, ranging from broad issues of transport strategy, to current and forthcoming Wellington transport developments, to current and planned future developments at the Basin Reserve.

Tim Jones
Co-Convenor
Save the Basin Campaign Inc.

Save the Basin Campaign: Basin Reserve Confusion And Mixed Transport Messages Weaken Welcome Light Rail News

Posted on by stb_nyltr0

The Save the Basin Campaign has welcomed elements of the “Let’s Get Wellington Moving” Wellington transport plans revealed last night, especially the news that light rail is to be included as a priority element of those plans.

But Save the Basin, which was one of the groups that helped defeat the 2011 Basin Reserve flyover proposal, has criticised the continued uncertainty over the future of the Basin Reserve area, and the mixed messages contained in the leaked plans.

Save the Basin Campaign spokesperson Tim Jones said “If the Dominion Post report is accurate, there are some good things in these plans. Save the Basin supports the development of a high quality, sustainable Wellington transport network, and getting on with implementing a light rail spine using an appropriate route would be a major contribution to this. So that’s great news.”

“Yet many other things in these plans aren’t so great,” Mr Jones continued. “First of all, Save the Basin has consistently supported at-grade roading changes at the Basin – that is, changes at the current street levels. But these latest plans appear to include grade separation, which means some roads going over or under others. The Dominion Post article talks in very vague terms about tunnels near the Basin, but detail is completely lacking. Save the Basin is absolutely opposed to a Basin Reserve bridge or flyover, and we cannot support any grade separation plan for the Basin that doesn’t explicitly rule out such bridges or flyovers.”

“It’s great to see that cycling would get a boost in these plans,” Mr Jones said. “But, as a group that supports walkability, we are disappointed that walking appears to have been treated, yet again, as the unwanted guest at the party.”

“But the worst thing about these proposals,” Mr Jones commented, “is that they continue to entrench the dominance of roading, by proposing to spend billions more dollars on State Highway 1. Despite the Government’s stated commitment to evidence-based decision making, this proposal appears to ignore the immense body of evidence that says that building more road capacity merely ends up putting more cars on the roads.”

“One of Let’s Get Wellington Moving’s stated objectives was to reduce Wellingtonians’ dependence on private vehicle travel,” said Mr Jones. “Where is the evidence that these proposals pay any more than lip-service to this objective? Where is any attempt to make the sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that the city and the nation have already committed themselves to make?”

ENDS

Tim Jones
Spokesperson
Save the Basin Campaign Inc.

 

Let’s Get Wellington Moving: a case study of the failure to apply adequate cost-benefit analysis that includes climate change and other health costs

Posted on by stb_nyltr0

Guest post by Liz Springford

This case study from Liz’s Productivity Commission Low Emissions Economy submission is a powerful critique of LGWM’s failure to apply adequate cost-benefit analysis that includes climate change and other health costs.

Case study: Let’s Get Wellington Moving

The recent “Let’s Get Wellington Moving” (or not) joint project between NZTA, GWRC and WCC is a case study of the failure to apply adequate cost-benefit analysis that includes climate change and other health costs.

In 2016, WCC agreed on a Low Carbon Plan 2016-2018 with city-wide targets for reduced emissions by 10% by 2020, 40% by 2030, and 80% by 2050. When Wellington’s emissions were last measured a few years ago, these had dropped less than 2% from baseline. The Plan acknowledges that more than half of Wellington’s emissions are from transport. GWRC has a Climate Strategy to reduce regional emissions, although no specific targets.

Although both Councils’ plan and strategy need updating to match NZ’s new net zero trajectory by 2050, Wellington’s emissions reductions targets were not included in the Let’s Get Wellington Moving consultation. Instead, a vague “Clean and Green” principle to “improve environmental outcomes for Wellington city and the region” was amongst a dozen principles – in response to the first wave of public consultation.

Four scenarios were presented for public consultation late last year. This was basically, one scenario in four sizes: Small, Medium, Large, and Extra-Large – ranging from “a little more active and public transport provision plus a little more roading”, to “a lot of active and public transport provision plus a lot of roading”. The capacity of improved active and public transport to decongest existing roading provision was ignored. Likewise, induced increases in private fossil fuelled vehicles by increasing roading provision were also ignored.

Climate impact analysis was limited to noting under the “Clean and Green” principle that for each sized scenario there will be “No significant change to greenhouse gas emission at a regional level”. Construction costs of each scenario were detailed for the public, but not the running costs – that is, the impact on Wellington’s transport emissions contributing to the ongoing operational costs over the lifetime of the infrastructure.

Another wave of public consultation appears to have sent a strong climate-protecting message. However, this case study indicates the urgency in introducing accurate up-to-date shadow pricing across the state sector and influencing local government to follow suit. Delay risks wasting taxes and rates, plus inheriting high-emissions white elephant infrastructure that limits our capacity to move towards net zero NZ fast enough.

Transportation 2040: Vancouver’s Blueprint for Sustainable Transport, with lessons for Wellington: Wednesday 4 July, 6:30-7:30pm

Posted on by stb_nyltr0

Date, Time and Venue

Wednesday 4 July, 6:30-7:30pm
Sustainability Trust, 2 Forresters Lane, Te Aro (off Tory St)
Who: Hosted by Congestion-Free Wellington

What’s This About?

Wellington is facing major transport and land-use choices as we decide on the Let’s Get Wellington Moving process. Will we choose a compact, low-carbon city supported by world-class public transport, walking and cycling? Or will we choose tunnels, flyovers and sprawl?

How have other cities made progress? Learn more in this public presentation from Dale Bracewell, Vancouver’s transport manager. 

Transportation 2040 is Vancouver’s high-level vision for all modes of transport, with specific mobility and safety goals. Vancouver achieved its interim target of 50 percent of all daily trips by sustainable modes, and is on track to achieve two-thirds of all daily trips by walking, cycling and public transport in 2040.

The presentation will include learnings from Dale’s experiences applied to Wellington.

Facebook Event and Further Information

Facebook event – please share:
https://www.facebook.com/events/453349428446867/

Links
http://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/transportation-2040.aspx
https://nacto.org/person/dale-bracewell/

Image: https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2017-Dale-Headshotprint-res-e1506697321280-200×185.jpg

Tired Motorway Sales Pitch Falls Flat, Says Save The Basin Campaign

Posted on by stb_nyltr0

The leaked transport proposals for Wellington read like a sales pitch gone badly wrong, said Save the Basin Campaign spokesperson Tim Jones.

“The tired, dated ‘four lanes to the planes’ concept is well past its sell-by date,” said Mr Jones. “A Government that’s focused on making climate change, public health and transport choices that work for everyone just isn’t going to hand over the billions of dollars required for new motorways.”

“When it comes to the Basin Reserve, all we have yet again are rumours and suggestions,” Mr Jones continued. “Until Save the Basin is presented with clear, detailed design proposals, we cannot and will not endorse any proposal that is not at the same grade as current roading, or that may threaten the Basin Reserve,” Mr Jones said.

“We need a transport system that works for everyone’s future in a changing climate,” said Mr Jones. “That means major investment in better walking and cycling, with a light rail route running through the CBD, continuing to Newtown and the hospital, and going out to Miramar and the airport. Light rail is the most efficient way to move people who don’t need to use the roads, and that helps free up the roads for those who do need them – including people on buses.”

A possible Basin Reserve flyover has emerged again in a new “surprise survey” from LGWM

Posted on by stb_nyltr0

The Save the Basin Campaign Inc has written the following letter in response to the new Let’s Get Welly Moving “surprise survey” which LGWM chose not to notify stakeholder groups, such as Save the Basin, about:

The STBC, as a stakeholder group in the LGWM consultation process, takes strong issue with your organisation on a number of matters in relation to the existence of this survey:

  1. The survey has taken everyone at STBC by complete surprise. What is the purpose of the survey and who has it been distributed to? There was no prior notification to STBC (as a stakeholder) that LGWM would be commissioning the survey and it was only by chance that a member of the STBC committee was alerted to its existence. This is alarming and shows a complete lack of transparency and questions the validity of the survey.
  2. The process for public engagement on the LGWM scenarios closed in November last year – and in March this year LGWM released the summary of the feedback process on future transport scenarios for Wellington. Your website currently says “We’re using the feedback from the November 2017 public engagement to help guide our work as we develop a recommended programme of investment.” However, you continue to be asking for more views and ideas through this latest survey – with no information about this available to the public through your website.
  3. Of great concern is the fact the survey implies that a bridge/fly-over around the Basin Reserve is still an option – especially in the way the questions are constructed and presented.  For example in relation to design, one survey respondent said that the preferences for infrastructure around the Basin gave options for a bridge or tunnel on one page – suggesting that there were only two options – then on the next page the last part of this question appeared offering an at grade option.
  4. Although we are not circulating the survey to our members to complete, we know that others who have been alerted to the survey may.  If the survey was designed to be filled in by certain individuals or organisations, either targeted or randomly selected, the results will be invalidated if others complete it.  No-one should trust the results of this survey.

We would appreciate a response to this email.
[etc]