by Tim Jones
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 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.
Tim Jones is spokesperson for the Save the Basin Campaign.
Contact
Newsagent
Login
Great to know that they’re talking about undergrounding. Appalling that they could still be considering a flyover option. After not one but two legal defeats – with so much documentation demonstrating why such a structure is not acceptable – they shouldn’t be wasting their time by having any flyover option on their agenda.
Who are these lobbyists?
It is not a road design question about underground versus flyover versus whatever. It is about a LGWM strategy that needs to reflect the clear messages from Wellingtonians to encourage public and active transport, and discourage non-essential private car use. A clear strategy sets the parameters that ensures right designs that reflect the agreed principles and outcomes.
Thanks for getting us motivated.
Why is LGWM so obsessed with a motorway slicing through our liveable city? Our local streets – Vivian, Arthur, Buckle, Ellice, Sussex, Dufferin, Paterson, Ruahine Sts, Kent Tce and Wellington Rd- are not a state highway. No matter how hard NZTA tries to turn them into one, it goes nowhere except to Cook Strait.
LGWM’s own data shows at morning peak 82,000 people travel to or through the CBD, but only 800 people southbound on Aotea Quay use it as a through route, and only 1050 people continue from the Terrace tunnel to the Mt Victoria Tunnel. Surely they don’t need a motorway.
bill english wants the flyover. he referred to its opposition as non progressive. if they get back in i’d expect a law change to force the flyover.
Separating a four laned State Highway One from CBD traffic will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from stop and start traffic and make Wellington more “liveable”. A flyover is a cheap but dumb idea aesthetically. We need to go under the Basin or remove it.
SueW. Can you point me to the LGWM traffic counts please.
“LGWM’s own data shows at morning peak 82,000 people travel to or through the CBD, but only 800 people southbound on Aotea Quay use it as a through route, and only 1050 people continue from the Terrace tunnel to the Mt Victoria Tunnel. Surely they don’t need a motorway.”
If < 2000 vehicles (1850) during peak time are causing the horrible traffic jams at both peak times, then the roading must surely need fixing fast?
TrevorH's point is absolutely right.
Tim. Congratulation on your summary of the workshops and the concerns about NZTA and the Basin Reserve. I too have my doubts that NZTA can change its spots and work toward coming up with truly progressive solutions that will lead to Wellington becoming a congestion free city.
SueW is absolutely correct when she questions why we need a through route when the LGWM data indicates so few people are passing through the city. Durden, the figures she quotes can be found on page 14 of the LGWM Progress Report of Feb 2017
LGWM will fail.
I also attended the LGWM workshop and sadly my worst expectations were realised. What had the potential to be a serious rethink of transport options starting with a clean slate quickly revealed itself to be a minimally changed rehash of the failed Spine Study. We were asked to rate what level of priority (level of segregation/ priority at intersections etc) we would like to give to public transport but it was clearly stated that these were all based around a single Golden Mile route using buses (oh dear I’m getting Baldrick images again) with no mention of the fact that the Spine study concluded this would be completely inadequate. There was no suggestion of rail options except as a ‘maybe in the future’ step up from buses (read- this is never going to happen). The only tunnel option was the same 2 lane Mt Victoria Tunnel that the NZTA had tried to foist upon us previously. No suggestion was given about any consideration of what is really required which is a high quality fully dedicated across town rail based corridor and no suggestion that any dedicated PT corridor to the airport is being considered.
I was left wondering what is actually going on. It’s hard to believe they have taken this long to come up with the rehash we were presented with. And it is hard to reconcile the ‘scenarios’ with Chris Laidlaw’s talk about a ‘rapid transit corridor worthy of the name’. Clearly, as Tim says, there has to be a whole lot more going on behind the scenes ( or maybe they have all just spent a lot of time going out for coffee!). I guess in time the public (the clients they are supposed to be working for) will be told what has been decided for us.
You can selectively quote figures all you want but observation and experience confirm the increasingly serious congestion that exists for hours each day both ways across town to and from the airport because of the inadequacy of the tunnels and the impediments posed by the Basin Reserve. It’s going to get worse when the Shelly Bay development gets underway and, God forbid, the runway extension. The last major initiative to address congestion on this route was in 1931. Perhaps LGWM will issue its conclusions by 2031?
Spot on Trevor. What I’m finding seriously funny (and why I keep coming back to read Scoop) is how misinformed people are about how intertwined all transport modes actually are. I asked one of the LGWM peeps how many people understood that if they wanted the uninterrupted free and easy active and public modes through and around the city (ie medium/high response) this necessitated an equivalent medium/high response to the roads? The sad response was that “they generally had no idea”.
Anyway – I was sceptical that LGWM was going to end in a failure akin to the Basin Bridge fiasco. But, from what I have just seen, they are looking at everything and how each response interrelates, so I am pretty confident there are going to be good outcomes for the city.
Agree with 100% with TrevorH.
Hey Chris CalviFreeman: get the flyover off the table. Can’t believe this is back. More tunnels & motorways will not getWellyMoving, [via twitter]
Some hefty misconceptions here:
Trevor H thinks ‘four lanes to the planes’ will reduce greenhouse emissions and make Wellington more liveable. This is plausible so long as you ignore supply and demand, assuming that cheaper driving does not attract more drivers. In the real world the most congested cities are those that have spent most on roads.
The contrasting effects can be seen in Wellington, which has ‘tram suburbs’ such as Roseneath and Newtown, laid out for easy walking to public transport, and ‘car suburbs’ such as Churton Park and Newlands, laid out for easy access to the motorway. The car suburbs are much more costly to build, and much harder to properly serve with public transport.
banana thinks it obvious that a medium/high response for public transport also demands a medium/high response for ‘roads’, which are assumed to be for cars. This is plausible while you assume that the way things are done today is the only rational response.
In the real world light rail (x 15), walking (x 7), cycling (x 6) and bus-only lanes (x 5) all have much greater person-carrying capacity than motor traffic lanes. The figures are the average increase in people capacity obtainable by converting a 3.0 m lane from private motor vehicles to another mode, for example from 600-1600 people an hour in cars (average 1100), or 8000-9000 people an hour walking (average 8500). Figures are from the Global Street Design Guide (2016).
In Wellington, ‘four lanes to the trains’ for public transport would have a minimal effect on motor traffic capacity, dwarfed by the new people-carrying capacity:
— Buses on the existing golden mile would carry fewer passengers than at present, with no delays, say 2000 people an hour.
— Light rail on the waterfront (at Frank Kitts Park, with other options to both north and south) would carry say 5000 people an hour initially, with up to three times greater capacity available if and when needed.
— The only capacity loss would be one or two lanes on the waterfront, much less than the capacity gain from light rail.
Why double the Mt Victoria tunnel, when light rail is so much cheaper?
@GlenSmith puts his finger on the central problem with LGWM. In spite of Chris Laidlaw’s statement that “Every option is on the table”, the one option that would offer a congestion free service, a dedicated rail corridor with feeders to aggregate demand along the corridor, is off the table. All the evidence shows that the solution to congestion relies, not on creating more road capacity, but on a concerted effort to reduce the number of private vehicles on the city’s roads. The proposals LGWM makes for public and active transport will not do this, although the traffic demand management interventions might.
Which brings me to @banana’s insight. If @banana is correctly reporting the LGWM view, that “uninterrupted free and easy active and public modes … necessitated an equivalent medium/high response to the roads”, LGWM already knows its proposed public and active transport interventions are not fit for purpose. They are just a smokescreen to justify building more roads.
So the LGWM strategy boils down to this: let’s keep doing what we have always done, and this time the result will be different. But LGWM earns bonus points for “future-proof for light rail.” The concept of future conversion appeals to politicians as it appears to save money, at least in the short term, but it doesn’t usually make much sense in engineering or operational terms and often ends up costing more in the long run. And it appeals to officials because “future-proof” sounds like prudently managing the Crown’s risk, and when the future arrives, it’s Someone Else’s Problem.
Where are LGWM’s reference cities for a “future-proof for light rail” approach that has been successful? Until they give references, I’ll side with @GlenSmith, “this is never going to happen.”
Trevor/Banana. Where is the evidence on which you base your assertion that four lanes to the planes will solve Wellington’s congestion problem? Personally, I find Kerry’s well-researched measured comments make far more sense.
Michael: There is no magic bullet that will solve all Wellington’s congestion problems. These have been building up as a result of dithering and obstructionism. Wellington needs fast, efficient and reliable road transport connections to the wider region and the rest of the country to grow its economy. Four-laning to the airport will ameliorate current problems and provide some future-proofing. We also need to separate as far as possible state highway traffic from CBD traffic. The Basin Reserve and Karo Drive need urgent attention in this regard, and going “cut and cover” here seems logical. CBD commuters must be encouraged to use public transport which in turn needs to be convenient and quick. A congestion tax on vehicles entering the CBD between say 7am and 9am would be achievable, as would designated time-bound car pooling lanes on the motorways.
a lot of those on-street car parks would be better off as peak-time bus ways, allowing buses to bypass the congestion.
along tinakori rd from the botanic garden to bowen st in the mornings, and from cambridge tce to the bus tunnel for example.
Thank you for this, Tim. I attended the same workshop as you, and came away with the same frustrated feeling, that LGWM is really only a glorified traffic engineering exercise. All the conversation was road-oriented; even in the most extreme PT intervention, light rail was only something to be ‘future-proofed’ for. The elephant in the room – the lack of a city rail link to give public transport a better chance of competing with car commuting via SH 1 & 2 – continues to be ignored. Even though the lack of such a rail link through the CBD is Wellington’s distinguishing deficiency in the world of rail transit. (Auckland is the only other city I know of that stops its rail transit at the CBD edge – and look at the amount being spent there to overcome the handicap!)
Great-just get on with it
Two lanes for the trains. Time to stop building more and wider roads, cities are for people not cars.