The draft Government Policy Statement is a very significant change from the previous Government’s motorway-dominated policies – the policies that led to the now-defeated Basin Reserve flyover proposal. As far as Save the Basin is concerned, it’s a vital and welcome change of direction.
But it’s only a draft, and it’s under threat.
The powerful roading and trucking lobbies are marshaling their forces to push back against the GPS. That’s why we need you to submit and say that you support the direction laid out in the draft Government Policy Statement.
Only got time to make a quick submission? Please read the next section – it’s got all you need!
Make a quick submission
We suggest you email gps2018@transport.govt.nz with the subject line “Providing feedback on the Draft GPS 2018” and say something like this:
I support the Government’s new transport policy direction. It’s good for the climate, good for public health, and it provides better transport choices so fewer people need to rely on private cars.
I especially like the increased funding for public transport (including rapid transit), walking, cycling and rail, and the decreased funding for state highways.
Make a detailed submission
Possible submission points
There are plenty more points you can make if you wish, and we’re certainly not claiming the draft GPS is perfect. Here are some detailed points of support, and suggestions for improvements, you could make in your submission:
I strongly support:
a) the strategic priorities of safety, access, environment, and value for money
b) increased funding for public transport (including rapid transit), walking, cycling and rail
c) emphasis on integrated planning and mode neutrality
d) a second-stage GPS “to fully realise Government’s direction for transport investment” (draft GPS, p5)
Here are some things I’d like to see changed:
a) allocating funding by Activity Classes that are largely defined by mode is inconsistent with the theme of “a mode neutral approach to transport planning and investment decisions” (p23)
b) environment (“reduces the adverse effects on the climate, local environment and public health”, p7) should be a key strategic priority (like safety and access), rather than a supporting one
c) continuing the very high level of funding for state highway improvements does not appear to be consistent with the strategic priorities
d) recognising the safety implications of mode choice (eg the risk associated with travelling by car is roughly ten times greater than the risk of travelling by public transport)
e) greater support for demand management, such as congestion charging
f) ensuring distributional effects and equity effects of policy tools are managed properly – so insofar as there are adverse effects, the changes in transport funding and mode provision don’t hit poor people disproportionately hard
Background information
The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport sets the Government’s policy direction on transport. It’s revised every three years, and the last one was issued in 2015 by the then-National Government.
The last government were going to issue a new Government Policy Statement this year that reaffirmed their fixation with prioritising building motorways. Now, Minister of Transport Phil Twyford and Associate Ministers Julie-Anne Genter and Shane Jones have a very different vision for transport: a vision that prioritises reducing dependence on private cars, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving public health. This potentially means a modern, sustainable transport system is coming Wellington’s way.
You’ll find the draft GPS and related documents here:
The official submission form is a downloadable PDF that has to be filled in and submitted by email or post. You may find it easier to simply send your submission in the body of your email.
Further reading
Here are two articles that do a good job of summarising why the draft GPS is worth supporting:
While we wait to see what emerges from the Let’s Get Welly Moving engagement process that was held just before Christmas 2107, other transport planning processes are continuing.
One of them is the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) Mid-Term Review – a rather strange beast which ranks a number of Wellington region transport plans in priority order, without providing much detail about any of them. Not surprisingly, whatever emerges from LGWM in terms of a detailed proposal is ranked #1 – but that’s far from the only proposal in the RLTP that would affect the Basin Reserve and its environs.
Below is the Save the Basin Campaign (STBC) submission to the Let’s Get Welly Moving (LGWM) engagement process on its four proposed scenarios for Wellington transport. Thanks to all the individuals and groups who submitted in favour of a modern, sustainable transport system for Wellington, and against a transport system which would perpetuate the failed proposals of the past – such as one or more Basin Reserve flyovers.
As you’ll see, Save the Basin’s submission focuses on the role of the Basin Reserve as a valued part of Wellington heritage, identity and urban design, and supports transport proposals that do not imperil that role, and enhance Wellington’s status as a liveable city designed to meet the needs of people, not cars.
In supporting Scenario A, STBC also urges that it be accompanied by additional actions such as transport demand management and serious option development and assessment of public transport options such as light rail. This could be called Scenario A+.
Submit before 15 December. You don’t have to go through the whole LGWM form. You can just comment on Scenario A (Step 1, near the bottom of that page), then skip to Step 6 to fill in your details and submit the form.
Tell LGWM something like:
Scenario A may be acceptable. However, I need more detail of what Scenario A involves before I can be sure. I reject Scenarios B, C and D.
or
Scenario A+ from FIT Wellington looks very promising and improves on Scenario A. I want to see Scenario A+ developed further. I reject Scenarios B, C and D.
The Government Policy Statement (GPS) on Land Transport is the context in which all Government land transport policy is developed – and ever since the current National-led Government came to power, successive Government Policy Statements have been heavily focused on roading, despite the clear evidence that building more roads does not solve congestion.
Its strategic priorities are unchanged from the 2015 GPS (p. 8):
The three strategic priorities, continued from GPS 2015 are:
economic growth and productivity
road safety
value for money.
Strikingly missing from these strategic priorities is the environmental performance of our land transport system. Perhaps that’s because it’s already bad and rapidly getting worse: whether in regard to the serious local health effects of particulate emissions from transport, the effect of motorway-building on urban environments, or the urgent need to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport.
The New Zealand Government has ratified the Paris Agreement, taking on a commitment for a substantial reduction in New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. Land transport is responsible for around 20% of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, and the volume of transport emissions has been rising steadily. Land transport is second only to agriculture as a greenhouse gas emitting sector.
The Government is relying mainly on a move to electric vehicles to reduce transport emissions. However, the composition and replacement rate of the New Zealand vehicle fleet both mean that, even if such a change were to occur, it would not occur either fully or quickly enough to produce the level of emissions reduction required.
Therefore, one of the aims of the Government Policy Statement should be to drive a rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transport. This can be achieved by prioritising the use of public transport and of active modes and the provision of the necessary infrastructure, and by deemphasising the provision of infrastructure for private motor vehicles, which will in turn encourage more journeys by what is currently a highly polluting motor vehicle fleet.
Based on this draft Government Policy Statement, the ratification of the Paris Agreement is not being reflected in actual Government policy.
How to submit
Submissions on the draft Government Policy Statement close at 5pm on Friday 31 March 2017. Details of how to download the draft Strategy, and make submissions, can be found on the Government draft GPS page at
Heavy trucks: not a good fit for busy city streets
Wellington Airport is seeking resource consent to extend its runway 363 metres into Cook Strait. The economics of this move are dubious – not to mention the question of how much money ratepayers would have to shell out to pay for it – and there are significant adverse environmental effects.
But, from a Save the Basin perspective, the main concern right now is the effects of planned construction traffic on Wellington’s transport system, and particularly on State Highway 1 in the area of the Basin Reserve.
The airport company is planning to run 23-metre long heavy trucks day and night, from 9.30am-2.30pm and 10pm-6am, along State Highway 1 for 3-4 years (and possibly up to 10 years) to transport up to 1.5 million cubic metres of fill between Horokiwi and Kiwi Point quarries and the airport – and then those empty trucks will rumble and bounce their way back to the quarries.
The planned route goes around the Basin Reserve and through the Mt Victoria tunnel – and the airport company is projecting up to 620 of those heavy truck movements a day, at a frequency of up to one heavy truck movement per minute.
Stop and think about that for a minute. Whether you’re a pedestrian, a cyclist, a bus user or a driver, do you think those 620 heavy truck movements a day will improve your transport experience? And how about if you are a resident who is trying to live, work or sleep next to the route?
If that’s something you’d prefer not to experience, you can make a submission against the proposal using the form at http://www.actionstation.org.nz/wellington_airport_extension – you’ll find suggested submission points on the left-hand side of the form. Submissions close at 4.30pm on Friday 12 August.
Up to 310 extra heavy trucks a day rumbling from quarries in Horokiwi and Ngauranga, down State Highway 1, through the Terrace Tunnel, past the Basin Reserve, through the Mt Victoria Tunnel, and on through residential streets to Wellington Airport, day and night, for up to 3 years – and then rumbling back.
That’s what Wellington International Airport Ltd wants to inflict on Wellington’s residents and ratepayers. They are seeking $90 million from Wellington City Council, and more again from other Wellington-region councils and central government, to extend Wellington Airport runway 363 metres into Lyall Bay. And their resource consent application makes it clear the scale of the disruption their plans will entail.
There are many arguments against this plan – and you will find a lot of them on the Guardians of the Bays website. But even people who may not be opposed to a runway extension per se need to pay attention to the construction traffic implications, because they are serious both for road users and for those living near the planned route who value their lifestyle – and their sleep.
If you like a long read, Technical Report 9 is the core of the matter. This shows that the airport company wants to run up to 30 trucks an hour – that’s up to one truck every two minutes – through their central Wellington route during these times:
9:30am to 2:30pm weekdays; and
10:00pm to 6:00am weekdays.
So, in trying to avoid peak-hour and school pickup traffic, the airport company has opted for truck movements throughout the night instead. And it’s not just on State Highway 1 – the current plan envisages those trucks rumbling down suburban streets in Kilbirnie and Rongotai as well: day after day, night after night.
Right now, Wellington City Council, Greater Wellington and the airport company are batting the resource consent application back and forth. The Councils have expressed serious concern about the airport company’s construction traffic plans, and there may yet be changes before the resource consent application is publicly notified.
But unless the airport company’s plans change radically, you might want to ask yourself: does the Wellington transport system really need another 310 heavy trucks going back and forth a day? And do I want those trucks rumbling through my suburb? And if your answer is “no”, then you might want to make a submission about that when you get the chance in a few weeks’ time.
The first phase of the Ngauranga to Airport Governance Group’s Let’s Get Welly Moving process, which is designed to find out what principles people in the Wellington region think should underlie Wellington transport planning, draws to a close at the end of May.
The next phase will be a call for proposals to rethink Wellington transport. We encourage you to put forward proposals that enhance Wellington role as a city for people, not a city for cars – and that ensure the Basin is not again put at risk.
Basin Reserve rainbow. Photo: Patrick Morgan.
Save the Basin Campaign Inc: Submission in response to the “Let’s Get Welly Moving” Engagement Phase
Introduction
As set out in its Constitution, the Save the Basin Campaign Inc has the following purposes:
(a) Promote, preserve and protect the historic character of the Basin Reserve area
(b) Promote high quality urban design and environmental management of the Basin Reserve area
(c) Promote an appropriate role for the Basin Reserve area in the development of a high quality, sustainable transport network, recognising the importance of the Basin to the public transport spine, and the importance of walkability and public transport for the users of the area
(d) Do anything necessary or helpful to the above purposes.
These purposes both explain why our Campaign was completely opposed to the proposed Basin Reserve flyover and took part in two successful rounds of legal action to prevent it gaining resource consent, and why we will oppose any future attempts to build a flyover or other transport infrastructure at the Basin Reserve that threatens the character, landscape, urban design or heritage of the Basin precinct – whether or not such infrastructure is presented as part of a larger package of resource consent applications.
Equally, however, these purposes allow us to participate in discussions about appropriate, sustainable transport developments that involve the Basin Reserve precinct, and thus we are pleased to see the breadth of the engagement process that the Ngauranga to Airport Governance Group has chosen to engage in as the first phase of its Let’s Get Welly Moving process.
Our submission covers three broad areas: the wider transport context, our comments and concerns about the rest of the planned consultation process, and our views on what should be done at the Basin Reserve.
Save the Basin took part in the development of the engagement and transport planning principles for the post-Basin environment submitted under the aegis of Grant Robertson MP, and those principles should also be regarded as part of our input to the engagement process.
The broader transport context
The present engagement process is being carried out at a time of rapid and disruptive change in transport thinking, transport behaviour and urban design – change which means that business-as-usual thinking is no longer appropriate.
These changes include:
the Government’s signing of the Paris climate change agreements and its commitment to an associated greenhouse gas emissions reduction target, meaning that serious steps will need to be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport
increased readiness by both central and local government to fund and provide infrastructure for active modes and public transport
the increasing acceptance that building new roads induces further traffic congestion, as amply demonstrated by many local as well as overseas examples
the post-2007 breakdown of the previously accepted correlation between population growth and growth in VKT, as notably seen in changes in young people’s transport thinking and behaviour
the advent of disruptive technologies such as the wider uptake of car-sharing arrangements; electric vehicles; and driverless cars, with their associated requirement for far less road space
a refocusing of urban design, in cities as diverse as Seoul and New York, to put people first rather than cars first.
In our view, a prudent response to these developments by the Governance Group should be to focus on transport behaviour change while also looking to make incremental improvements in transport infrastructure that do not commit the city to major infrastructure developments which may well be rendered redundant by transport behaviour changes, and which would foreclose other, more appropriate responses.
The engagement process: comments and concerns
While we welcome the change in approach represented by the “Let’s Get Welly Moving” (LGWM) process, we still have some concerns about how this is being carried out, and suggestions for improvement:
Methodology and weighting of responses received
The first phase of the LGWM process has been carried out region-wide. However, given the potentially competing interests involved, we submit that there should be a methodology which gives most weight to those most directly affected by potential infrastructure changes along the Ngauranga to Airport Corridor: that is, those who live closest to them.
Calling for proposals
The next stage of the process includes calling for proposals. As such proposals can be both time-consuming and expensive to develop, especially for community groups with limited access to professional resources, we submit that the Governance Group should make available independent advice to assist those who wish to make proposals to do so – similar to the role the “Friend of the Submitter” plays in complex resource consent hearings.
Modelling: assumptions and processes
The modelling tool(s) chosen, and their underlying assumptions, will be of crucial importance in assessing the proposals received and developing scenarios based on them. Therefore, we submit that an “open Government data” approach should be taken to the development and use of these modelling tools. This approach should both
allow and encourage the involvement of those in the wider community with expertise in the analysis and use of Government and modelling data to engage with the modelling process and challenge modelling assumptions and processes, with the aim of producing a modelling process that truly reflects the realities of the rapidly changing transport environment, and
take account of the range of ways in which the Wellington transport system may develop.
Consultation on scenarios
This is currently scheduled for January to March 2017. However, our experience is that it is extremely difficult to get people engaged in consultation processes during January and early February due to family commitments over the summer holiday period. Therefore, we submit that this consultation period should not begin until February 2017.
The future of the Basin Reserve: Save the Basin’s position
We believe that the starting point for consideration of the Basin Reserve’s future needs to be the final report of the Basin Bridge Board of Inquiry. We are disappointed that, so far, this does not appear to have been the case. While the immediate response of the applicant was to comb the report for possible grounds for appeal – an approach which proved unavailing in the High Court – the Governance Group should instead pay careful attention to the Board’s findings, which make clear the significance of the Basin Reserve and its environs for Wellington and its residents.
As those findings make clear, a narrow, transport-only focus on the Basin won’t work. What is needed is a long term vision and plan to protect and enhance an iconic cricket ground, create more open and green space, end urban blight and develop a transport space that accommodates pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and cars.
The Board identified that the following options were worthy of further consideration:
the Basin Reserve Roundabout Enhancement Option (BRREO) – an at-grade option that doesn’t involve bridging or tunnelling;
Option X proposed by The Architectural Centre; and
a tunnel option suggested but then discarded by NZTA.
Given the rapid and disruptive changes to transport outlined above, we believe that the best option for the Basin is the one which involves the least infrastructure development and provides the most flexibility for future developments. This is the BRREO, or a similar at-grade option. However, the other options foregrounded by the Board should also receive careful consideration.
What should happen next? Here is our 7-point action plan, some of which is now underway:
Reframe the Basin as a sporting, urban development and heritage area as well as a transport corridor.
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.
Go through a robust process to evaluate transport options. 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. Ensure that, following the Wellington City Council’s “transport pyramid” approach, the needs of walkers, cyclist, and public transport users are given precedence.
Upgrade the Basin and strengthen and preserve the Museum Stand.
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.
Put in place heritage protection for the whole ground in the City Council’s District Plan.
Re-develop Kent and Cambridge Terraces as grand public and private spaces, well connected to the Basin
The Basin Reserve is a place of local, national and (especially in its role as an international cricket ground) international significance. We support options that preserve and enhance its status. We do not support options that put that status at risk.
Submissions on Wellington City Council’s Low Carbon Capital Plan close on Friday – and now there’s a helpful submission guide you can use, prepared by Wellington climate action group Keep a Cool World.
Why should you submit? Because Wellington City Council has learned how to talk a good game on climate change, while continuing to make decisions that result in increased greenhouse gas emissions that make climate change worse – like supporting further road-building that will lead to increased emissions from induced traffic, or backing an airport runway extension that, if it goes ahead, is projected to lead to a major increase in both truck movements through the central city, and aviation emissions.
Wellington City Council claims to be a leader on climate change action, but for that claim to be credible, its actions have to match its words.
Wellington City Council’s Basin Reserve Masterplan
Wellington City Council is finally developing a Basin Reserve Masterplan. That’s good: the lack of such a plan was adversely noted at the Board of Inquiry hearing. But it could also be bad: the Council may use it as a pretext to demolish the Museum Stand, which houses the New Zealand Cricket Museum, and to make other changes which may adversely affect the Basin.
So we need to be vigilant, and we need to have our say. It’s not yet possible to submit directly on the Masterplan itself, but the seeds of it are sown in the Council’s 10-year Long Term Plan at http://www.our10yearplan.co.nz/ – itself a very important document to submit on, as other planning documents are derived from it:
The general supporting documents for the LTP are below:
P. 37 mentions the Basin Reserve Masterplan. Cost is at $21m. Note that the actual master plan will be brought back to Council later in the year. The actual detail is not in the Plan which will make it a bit difficult to feed back on but think it important that high level feedback is given through this process.
The supporting document that discusses the Basin Reserve makes it clear that the future of the Museum Stand is still under threat – there’s a risk it may be demolished, and with it the Cricket Museum which it houses. So you might want to submit on these points:
No flyover or similar transport project should be allowed to threaten the future of the Basin!
Preservation of the Museum Stand and the New Zealand Cricket Museum
Emphasis the importance of the Basin to Wellington, not just as a cricket ground but a recreation facility.
Greater Wellington (aka Wellington Regional Council), while busily supporting more motorways and longer airport runways, is at the same time developing its climate change strategy, which is meant to cover both actions the region should take to reduce its contribution to climate change, and actions needed to adapt to the effects of climate change, such as sea level rise, storm surges, coastal erosion, flooding, and increased extreme weather events.
You have until Friday 10 April to have your say on the draft plan, which might be a good opportunity to point out any contradictions you see between the Council’s words and its actions, as well as recommending actions you think the region needs to take: http://haveyoursay.gw.govt.nz/climate-change
