Category: Uncategorized

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

Save the Basin Campaign 2019 AGM and Guest Speaker Hugh Tennent

Posted on by stb_nyltr0

You’re warmly invited to the Save the Basin 2019 AGM on Tuesday 12 November, doors open 5.30 for 6pm sharp start, St Joseph’s Church, Mt Victoria (entrance at 152 Brougham St):

https://www.facebook.com/events/2476191475976604/

The AGM itself is scheduled for 6-6.30pm. Following the AGM, Hugh Tennent of Tennent Brown Architects will talk on their role as masterplanners for the Basin reserve, Basin projects they have undertaken, and urban design issues associated with  the Basin and LGWM proposals that are in the public domain. A broader conversation around transportation infrastructure and  urban development of this most important precinct is welcomed.

Wellington Transport Announcements: The Big Picture Looks Promising, But The Details Are Murky

Posted on by stb_nyltr0

Save the Basin Campaign spokesperson Tim Jones today congratulated the Let’s Get Wellington Moving project partners on the positive aspects of today’s Wellington transport announcement, but said that many questions remained about the detailed plans for the Basin Reserve and the Basin Reserve precinct.

“Overall,” said Mr Jones, “there is a lot to like about this morning’s announcement. We applaud the change of emphasis from the motorway madness of the past to a future that is better for the climate and better for people. Better walking, cycling, public transport and mass transit, plus transport demand management, are all welcome parts of the plan.”

“But as usual,” said Mr Jones, “the devil is in the detail. And when it comes to the detailed documents released today by the transport planners behind LGWM, the picture starts to look less promising.”

Save the Basin was one of the groups that help to defeat the previous Basin Reserve flyover proposal. At the announcement today, politicians admitted that the previous flyover plan had been a mistake. “That’s great to hear,” said Mr Jones, “but the problem is that the detailed documents released today include a picture that looks a whole lot like ‘Flyover 2.0’.” (1)

“Clearly there has been a mind-shift among many political leaders over the future of Wellington transport,” said Mr Jones. “But we’re not so sure that the New Zealand Transport Agency has deviated from its desire to build a Basin Reserve flyover. The pictures chosen for these documents tell a story that’s at odds with the bold and welcome statements made at today’s launch. Likewise, we have many questions about the announced plans for a second Mt Victoria tunnel.”

“Save the Basin remains committed to safeguarding the future of the Basin Reserve as a unique and defining environmental and heritage feature of Wellington, and to working towards a future Wellington transport system that moves away from dependence on private motor vehicles and helps to make the urgent greenhouse gas emissions reduction that both the Government and Wellington City Council agree to be necessary. We will be analysing these documents carefully and considering our response as the process moves forward,” Mr Jones concluded.

(1) See October 2018 Recommended Programme of Investment, https://getwellymoving.co.nz/assets/Documents/The-Plan/6575-LGWM-Recommended-Programme-RPI-v6.pdf, p. 2

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.

Forum to canvass Wellington Transport and Energy issues Thursday 27th July 5.30pm to 7pm

Posted on by stb_nyltr0

A forum to canvass Wellington Transport and Energy issues
Thursday 27th July 5.30pm to 7pm 
Venue: Sustainability Trust, 2 Forresters Lane, Te Aro, Wellington

This forum will follow Sustainable Energy Forum’s AGM, and will be chaired by Steve Goldthorpe focussing and expanding on issues raised in the current EnergyWatch issue 79.

The following people will speak for 5 to 10 minutes on their topic.
Time will then be allowed for further discussion.

Tim Jones: Transport scenarios for Wellington
Ellen Blake: Walkability is the most energy efficiency transport
Steve Goldthorpe:  Why EVs are a distraction
Isabella Cawthorn: Mobilising for mobility: lessons for Wellington from Auckland’s public transit campaigns
Paul Bruce: Why trains and trolleys are a good investment!
Sea Rotmann: Airport runway extension – a highly suspect project!
Frank Pool: Key sustainable energy issues for NZ

Other topics covered in EW 79 and open for debate
Crony Electricity market unfit for purpose
Energy efficiency levels in the building code
Wood burner potential for mitigation greenhouse gases
Fuel economy incentives
Stop looking for oil

Further information:
Steve.Goldthorpe@xtra.co.nz
www.energywatch.org.nz/index.shtml

Sore Losers: Nick Smith and the Government Water Down the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund

Posted on by stb_nyltr0

The rules of the Ministry for the Environment’s Environmental Legal Assistance Fund, which groups including Save the Basin have used to help fund legal challenges to infrastructure projects, have now been changed so that such applications can be arbitrarily declined, by:

The inclusion of a new criterion to consider whether providing ELA funding to the applicant for its involvement in the legal proceedings, will contribute to impeding or delaying the ability of people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being in relation to important needs, including employment, housing and infrastructure.

 

I was rung by a Stuff journalist about this and responded on behalf of Save the Basin:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/94323541/quiet-change-to-public-fund-for-environmental-legal-challenges

A subsequent exchange in Question Time (see below) makes it very clear that Nick Smith had the Government’s Basin Reserve flyover defeat in mind when he made this move.

Nick Smith and the Government appear to think that fits of pique make good public policy. We beg to differ.

Question Time

9. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: By how much has annual funding for the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund been cut since 2013/14?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The budget this year is $600,000 per year, as it was last year and the year before. For the 4 years prior to that the budget was $800,000 per year but was repeatedly underspent. The spend in 2013-14 was $555,000, and the average actual spend was $520,000. As much as I like the Minister of Finance, I do not like under-spending my vote so I reduced the budget in 2015-16 and transferred it to increased support for collaborative processes. This is also consistent with our blue-green philosophy of supporting people to find solutions rather than spending it on legal aid to fight disputes.

Eugenie Sage: Can he confirm that he created a new criterion for the fund recently so that community groups wanting to challenge council decisions in the courts are likely to be denied funding if their case might “impede or delay” a development project?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have changed the criteria. A new consideration is the issue of housing and infrastructure. The Government makes no apologies for making it harder for groups to get Government money to stop houses and infrastructure from being built. It does not prevent funding being provided in those sorts of cases, but it requires the panel to give consideration to the broader public interest. It simply does not make sense for the Government to be using public money to stop transport projects being built and stop houses being built with legal aid funding.

Eugenie Sage: Does he believe that Forest & Bird would have received funding to mount a legal challenge to Bathurst Resources’ proposed coalmine on the Denniston plateau if this new criterion had been in place?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is an independent panel that makes the decisions on the issue of the legal aid. What I have added to the criteria is that, alongside the environmental things, issues like infrastructure, jobs, and housing have to be a consideration. But it still will be an independent consideration for the panel.

Eugenie Sage: Can he confirm that last year he gave himself the power to decide which cases and which community groups would get environmental legal aid, stripping this power away from the Ministry for the Environment’s chief executive?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Each year Ministers make a decision about the level of delegations. In this particular case, I decided not to delegate to the Ministry for the Environment, albeit I note that I followed the panel’s advice in every case. In the event that I do not follow the panel’s advice it will be a matter of open public record.

Eugenie Sage: Why will he not just own the fact that his Government is trying to stop legal challenges that might impede environmentally destructive development, like the coalmine on the Denniston plateau, the Ruataniwha Dam, and the Basin Reserve flyover?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I know of many Wellingtonians who would be concerned that the Government was spending money on stopping roading through to the airport being constructed with legal aid funds. So the Government has deliberately put into the environmental legal aid criteria that the panel needs to consider issues like infrastructure and housing. To quote the Minister for Infrastructure: “We are the infrastructure Government.”, and we want to see New Zealanders being able to get around and have a roof over their heads.9. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: By how much has annual funding for the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund been cut since 2013/14?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The budget this year is $600,000 per year, as it was last year and the year before. For the 4 years prior to that the budget was $800,000 per year but was repeatedly underspent. The spend in 2013-14 was $555,000, and the average actual spend was $520,000. As much as I like the Minister of Finance, I do not like under-spending my vote so I reduced the budget in 2015-16 and transferred it to increased support for collaborative processes. This is also consistent with our blue-green philosophy of supporting people to find solutions rather than spending it on legal aid to fight disputes.

Eugenie Sage: Can he confirm that he created a new criterion for the fund recently so that community groups wanting to challenge council decisions in the courts are likely to be denied funding if their case might “impede or delay” a development project?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have changed the criteria. A new consideration is the issue of housing and infrastructure. The Government makes no apologies for making it harder for groups to get Government money to stop houses and infrastructure from being built. It does not prevent funding being provided in those sorts of cases, but it requires the panel to give consideration to the broader public interest. It simply does not make sense for the Government to be using public money to stop transport projects being built and stop houses being built with legal aid funding.

Eugenie Sage: Does he believe that Forest & Bird would have received funding to mount a legal challenge to Bathurst Resources’ proposed coalmine on the Denniston plateau if this new criterion had been in place?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is an independent panel that makes the decisions on the issue of the legal aid. What I have added to the criteria is that, alongside the environmental things, issues like infrastructure, jobs, and housing have to be a consideration. But it still will be an independent consideration for the panel.

Eugenie Sage: Can he confirm that last year he gave himself the power to decide which cases and which community groups would get environmental legal aid, stripping this power away from the Ministry for the Environment’s chief executive?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Each year Ministers make a decision about the level of delegations. In this particular case, I decided not to delegate to the Ministry for the Environment, albeit I note that I followed the panel’s advice in every case. In the event that I do not follow the panel’s advice it will be a matter of open public record.

Eugenie Sage: Why will he not just own the fact that his Government is trying to stop legal challenges that might impede environmentally destructive development, like the coalmine on the Denniston plateau, the Ruataniwha Dam, and the Basin Reserve flyover?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I know of many Wellingtonians who would be concerned that the Government was spending money on stopping roading through to the airport being constructed with legal aid funds. So the Government has deliberately put into the environmental legal aid criteria that the panel needs to consider issues like infrastructure and housing. To quote the Minister for Infrastructure: “We are the infrastructure Government.”, and we want to see New Zealanders being able to get around and have a roof over their heads.

Back to the Dirty, Smelly Past for Wellington’s Buses?

Posted on by stb_nyltr0

by Paul Bruce

Congestion Free Wellington held its first public meeting on 25th May with strong support for its Declaration. The meeting also showed strong support for the extension of our 100% clean and zero emission trolley buses on the east/west route at least until 2015, or when light rail should be commissioned.

The Sustainable Transport Committee on 21st March heard a request that a Business Case be carried out for Wellington’s trolley bus network, as the Council had at no time during the process, done this. The petition was supported by the Civic Trust, Sustainable Energy Forum, Living Streets Aotearoa, FIT, Save the Basin, OraTaiao and Dr Susan Krumdieck.

GWRC publicly stated goal is an all-electric bus fleet. It follows that the council make an objective assessment of the trolley buses contribution to city transport needs and environmental impact.

More than 300 cities around world are operating and expanding trolley bus networks. They are more popular because they are clean, quiet and quick. Lyon, France has new trolley buses, San Francisco and Seattle have large trolley systems and Beijing and Shanghai Beijing are reconverting failed battery buses to trolleys. Other cities such as Zurich and Istanbul, are building trolley buses with new technical developments to improve trolley bus performance.

Despite discussion and some Councillor support, the response through the Chief Executive was to reaffirm the decision to not renew the trolley contracts on 30 June, apart form short term extensions to aid transition to a new fleet.

We are deeply saddened by Council’s unwillingness to assess objectively the value of Trolley Buses, and also note the lack of transparency in confusing statements by the Chair maintaining progress towards a low emission fleet.

The proposed Wrightspeed hybrid replacement of the trolley buses by NZBus utilising a gas turbo (diesel) motor appears to be in trouble, with a wall of silence from all parties. Cr Daran Ponter said that it was unclear why the delays had occurred, and the patience of some councillors was wearing thin.

There are two aspects to emissions: air quality and greenhouse emissions (GHE), and the two should not be lumped together as higher air quality standards don’t always lead to lower GHE.

Scoop looked at what the new tender documents might mean:.

“When you look at last week’s announcements about new bus contracts, the Tranzit plan is described as building 228 new buses, all of them diesel though with Euro 6 certification, the highest global emission (air quality) standard…”  

Recent revelations relating to filters installed on vehicles, indicated that in the real world, performance was quite different to “in factory”.  Euro 5 and especially euro 6 filters are expensive to maintain on diesel buses, and the temptation will be to not renew so that their effectiveness will diminish over time. Euro 6 standards are still unable to remove the very small 2.5 micron particles which are responsible for cancers and respiratory disease leading to the WMO classifying diesel as a class one toxic carcinogenic equal to asbestos.

And we will never know how effective the filters are, as no testing is required in New Zealand – GWRC rejected my proposed amendment allowing for spot tests in future contracts.

There will be a jump in both greenhouse emissions and in particulates with more diesels on the golden mile, contrary to the claims of Chair Chris Laidlaw.  The Wrightspeed model will also lead to a decrease in air quality and an increase in greenhouse emissions. There is also serious concerns about their viability as no where else in the world have they been tested as part of an operational public transport fleet.

The public are asked to have faith that a profit driven operator will keep to set standards – a game of smoke and mirrors.

Meanwhile NZ Bus chief executive Zane Fulljames is saying his company hasn’t yet decided whether to buy Wrightspeed hybrids – it will decide during the testing process. Scoop reports Keith Flinders as saying:

Wrightspeed is hybrid technology and after 12 months since the first trolley bus conversion started it hasn’t been on trial yet. One might conclude that the GWRC is being misled on the suitability for this technology given Wellington’s terrain, and alas GWRC officers don’t have the engineering knowledge to decide either way.

The decommissioning of the Trolley Bus overhead electrical network is scheduled to commence in November 2017 with a planned completion date 12 months later.

Public Meeting for a Congestion Free Wellington: Thursday 25 May, 6pm, Wellington Central Library

Posted on by stb_nyltr0
  • What: Public Meeting for a Congestion Free Wellington
  • When: Thursday 25 May, 6-7.30pm
  • Where: Mezzanine Meeting Room, Wellington Central Library

The “Let’s Get Welly Moving” official process was supposed to deliver modern, sustainable transport options for Wellington. But it increasingly looks like a smokescreen for “four lanes to the planes”.

This public meeting will help us fight back against motorway madness and in favour of a liveable capital city that puts people first. It’s been called by a coalition of local groups concerned about the future of Wellington’s transport system, including Save the Basin.

Come along, invite your friends, and let’s make sure the outcome of this process is a liveable capital city with great public transport, streets, walking and cycling.

Let’s Get Welly Moving’s Engagement Process: A Smooth Surface, But Lots Of Paddling Beneath

Posted on by stb_nyltr0

The Let’s Get Welly Moving (LGWM) public engagement process has gone through another of its seemingly endless permutations, with a series of workshops and meetings during March and April giving participants the chance to state their priorities in areas including public transport improvements, state highway improvements, encouraging active transport (walking and cycling) and transport demand management.

But while the public face of LGWM is this slowly unfolding public consultation process, there’s a whole lot more going on behind the scenes. Some officials, politicians and lobbyists are pushing strongly for state highway “improvements” to soak up the lion’s share of the funding available for Wellington transport.

If that happens, then consequences could include building duplicate Mt Victoria and Terrace tunnels, four-laning State Highway 1 as it passes through the city, or undergrounding at least part of State Highway 1’s route through the CBD.

And what about the Basin Reserve itself? Well, after the comprehensive and epic defeat of the New Zealand Transport Agency’s Basin Reserve flyover proposal, LGWM is still talking about the possibility of … a Basin Reserve flyover! Maybe a smaller flyover, maybe a flyover with nicer decorations and a better colour scheme, but a flyover nevertheless.

To be fair, we have no evidence yet that LGWM has settled on a Basin Reserve flyover as its preferred option for that part of the transport system. LGWM’s High and Medium state highway improvement options include grade separation at the Basin Reserve. That could be achieved by a flyover, a tunnel, or a cut-and-cover option. But it’s very clear that a flyover is still on the table as a potential option.

Which raises the question: does the Transport Agency still think, as its own internal report on its failure at the Board of Inquiry suggested, that the main problem with the flyover was that they didn’t sell the idea well enough? Because if they think that was the biggest problem with their proposal, then they really need to go back and read the Board of Inquiry findings on why a Basin Reserve flyover was such a terrible idea.

When Let’s Get Welly Moving started out, it was supposed to be a chance for a rethink, a chance for the three constituent bodies – NZTA, Wellington City Council and Greater Wellington – to move away from the outmoded transport approach that more motorways meant less congestion and a better transport system, when the evidence both New Zealand and worldwide clearly shows the opposite.

More roads means more congestion, a worse transport system, a less liveable city and yet more greenhouse gas emissions at a time when the Government, the City Council and Greater Wellington have all made commitments to reduce such emissions.

So it’s depressing, if not surprising, to hear that the road-builders are making the play once again – even though one of the key objectives of the project is to reduce dependence on private vehicle travel.

The only thing that will save the day and ensure that the central city is not ruined by still more roads is public pressure. If you think that coming up with good solutions for Wellington transport should involve:

  • taking meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
  • becoming less, not more, dependent on the private motor vehicle
  • improving public and individual health through encouraging activity and reducing harmful particulate emissions
  • making Wellington a more liveable city
  • preserving and enhancing public spaces such as the Basin Reserve
  • making Wellington better and safer for pedestrians and cyclists
  • moving towards setting up a modern, efficient light rail system along with a bus system that meets users’ needs
  • concentrating on managing travel demand
  • and avoiding burning massive amounts of public money at concrete shrines to the car

then it’s time to speak up. Tell your local and regional councillors that you don’t want the car-dependent future that the road-building and heavy haulage lobbies are trying to foist on you. Make that message very clear to your MPs and local election candidates at the forthcoming election. Don’t vote for candidates who want to focus transport spending on motorway building.

Engagement is great – so long as that engagement is meaningful. Officials may want the pond to stay unruffled, but the time has come to start making waves.