Local Govt | National News Video | Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Search

 


CBC asks Transfund to defer bypass consideration

CBC asks Transfund to defer consideration of the bypass

Campaign for a Better City asks Transfund to defer consideration of the Inner-City- Bypass proposal

Campaign for a Better City today tabled a submission to the Transfund Board for consideration at Monday's meeting, requesting that the Board reject the funding application by Transit, pending the supply of further analysis of the proposal and other options.

"Transfund asked Transit to justify the project and other options against the criteria in the new transport legislation. Transit claims to have undertaken a robust analysis in only three months. Transit says it has assessed eight options, but only the Bypass proposal is evaluated in any depth. Transit's analysis is strong on rhetoric and weak on evidence."

"Based on the information available, the Transfund Board cannot lawfully agree to fund the proposal. If a decision is made to fund the Bypass, Transfund will be opening itself up to judicial review of its' decision. We are confident that a court would find in favour of the applicant and force Transfund to go back to the drawing board."

"Transit is playing 'fast and loose' with the law in its funding application to Transfund because it knows that CBC cannot take then to court. An award of costs against CBC by the High Court in favour of Transit and the Historic Places Trust means that CBC is unable to pursue further legal action. As a consequence, Transit feels free to simply ignore its legal requirements under the Land Transport Management Act"

"Transit is agressively pursuing costs against CBC in order to extinguish the anti-Bypass movement. But they can't make us give up the fight for Te Aro."

"Transit itself has never claimed that the Bypass would improve travel times to the hospital and airport. This assertion is a figment of Kerry Prendergast's imagination. Even Transit's regional manager has admitted that the project will not alleviate congestion. All the Bypass would do is move the congestion point to the Basin Reserve."

"Kerry Prendergast claims that the Bypass would assist economic development. The value of the land in the route of the Bypass is valued at $100 million, land that is better used for furthering Wellington's economic development potential as an innovative, people-friendly city"

"The proposed route is in close proximity to five schools, increasing the risk of injury to children. How can Transit claim that the project 'assists safety and personal security'?"

"Transit and the Wellington City Council have colluded to spin a web of untrue assertions about the benefits of the project. We hope that Transfund will see beyond the hype and decline to fund the current proposal."

ENDS

Attached - CBC submision to the Board of Transfund New Zealand

Please note: Anti Bypass activists will be protesting outside Transfund's Board meeting, Monday May 3 at 9am. BP House, Customhouse Quay, Wellington.

30 April 2004

Campaign for a Better City Inc.
PO Box 11 964
Wellington
Info@cbc.org.nz


Wayne Donnelly
Chief Executive
Transfund New Zealand
PO Box 2331
WELLINGTON


Funding Decision for the Wellington Inner City Bypass (WICB)


Thank you for your letter dated 27 April 2004.

Campaign for a Better City Inc (CBC) welcomes the opportunity to provide further written submissions that will be made available to the Transfund New Zealand Board for its consideration, although we would certainly have appreciated an opportunity to have also made an oral submission.

Please find enclosed CBC’s submission to the Transfund New ZealandBoard. CBC asks that the Transfund New Zealand Board consider the submission and table it at its Board meeting on 3 May 2004.

In the opinion of CBC, inadequate time has been allowed between the release of Transit’s papers and the meeting of the Transfund Board to permit the Transfund Board to make a proper decision on funding.

The Transit Board notes in its decision to apply for construction funding that the peer review report by David Ashley and Denvil Coombe of Sinclair Knight Merz will not be made available to the Transit Board until 30 April 2004. Accordingly, CBC asserts that there is insufficient time for the Transfund Board to properly consider this report and that neither has any opportunity been afforded to other interested parties to consider this document. Please note that CBC has not received this report so have had no opportunity to consider any findings contained therein.

CBC requests and recommends that the Transfund Board to:

1. Reject the funding application from Transit New Zealand and maintain the status quo;
2. Defer making any funding decision on 3 May 2004;
3. Request Transit to properly define the land transport problem that the bypass is intended to solve;
4. Request Transit to complete a more robust and in-depth analysis and assessment of a variety of land transport alternatives and options, including the Abel Smith Street and non—roading alternatives and options;
5. Undertake its own independent assessment of land transport options and alternatives to the ‘land transport problem’.


Yours faithfully


Natasha Naus LLB BA(Hons)
Secretary Campaign for a Better City Inc.

SUBMISSION TO THE BOARD OF TRANSFUND NEW ZEALAND
The Chairperson
The Board of Transfund New Zealand
30 April 2004


CONTACT

Natasha Naus
Secretary
Campaign for a Better City Inc

PO Box 11-964
Wellington
New Zealand

Info@cbc.org.nz

CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 3
2. SUMMARY 3
2.1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 3
2.2 SAFETY AND PERSONAL SECURITY 3
2.3 ACCESS AND MOBILITY 3
2.4 PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF PUBLIC HEATH 3
2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY 4
2.6 EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS 4
2.7 THE CONSIDERATION OF LAND TRANSPORT OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES 4
2.8 AVOIDING ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT 4
2.9 VIEWS OF AFFECTED COMMUNITIES 4
3. REQUIREMENTS OF LAND TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT ACT 2003 5
3.1 ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK 5
3.2 SECTION 20: APPROVAL OF ACTIVITIES AND ACTIVITY CLASSES 5
3.3 SECTION 20(3): TRANSFUND OBJECTIVE 7
3.4 SCHEDULE 4: TRANSFUND 8
4. ASSESSMENTS 9
4.1 HISTORICAL ASSESSMENTS 9
4.2 INDEPENDENT REVIEW BY TRANSIT NEW ZEALAND 9
4.3 FAILURE TO EVALUATE SPECIFIC LAND TRANSPORT OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES 10
4.4 CAPITAL COST 11
5. CONSULTATION 11
5.1 VIEWS OF AFFECTED COMMUNITIES 11
5.2 FAILURE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE VIEWS OF AFFECTED COMMUNITIES 11
6. CONCLUSION 12
7. REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12

1. Introduction
This submission by Campaign for a Better City Inc (CBC) addresses key issues affecting the decision by the Board of Transfund New Zealand (Transfund) in relation to the application made by Transit New Zealand (Transit) for funding of the Wellington inner-city bypass (WICB).

This submission is intended to demonstrate that Transit has not properly complied with certain statutory requirements and that it would be neither appropriate nor lawful for Transfund to approve the funding application made by Transit.

This submission has been prepared at the invitation of Transfund to supplement earlier written submissions made to the Transit Board which, together with that earlier information, will be made available to the Transfund Board for consideration in relation to this matter. It is prepared based on information provided by Transit New Zealand and received by CBC on 27 April 2004.

The Transit Board notes in its decision to apply for construction funding that the peer review report by David Ashley and Denvil Coombe of Sinclair Knight Merz will not be made available to the Transit Board until 30 April 2004. Accordingly, CBC asserts that there is insufficient time for the Transfund Board to properly consider this report and that neither has any opportunity been afforded to other interested parties to consider this document. Please note that CBC has not received this report so have had no opportunity to consider any findings contained therein.

2. Summary
2.1 Economic Development
There is no evaluation of travel delay between economic nodes.
There is no evaluation of congestion points at the Mt Victoria Tunnel or the Basin Reserve, and no evaluation of congestion under the WICB proposal at the complex Willis / Abel Smith / Victoria Street intersection.
There is no acknowledgement under the WICB proposal that only small changes to peak period travel time will be experienced
The WICB proposal claims that benefits will only be sustained with the implementation of other Traffic Demand Management Initiatives.
2.2 Safety and Personal Security
There is no evaluation of the effect of the WICB proposal on vulnerable users like child pedestrians, the elderly and cyclists.
There is no evaluation of crashes and fatalities, including the increased risk to children under the WICB proposal.
There is no evaluation of the impact of the WICB proposal on the Upper Te Aro pedestrian-cased areas
2.3 Access and Mobility
There is no evaluation of the severance issue in the Upper Te Aro Area
There is no evaluation of the impact of access to transport, including the delays to public transport uses and commuters that travel through the Willis / Aro / Abel Smith / Victoria Street intersection
2.4 Protection and Promotion of Public Heath
There is no evaluation of the effects of vehicle emissions on public health, including the effects of the WICB on five schools and perceived risk to children pedestrians
There is no evaluation of the impacts of the WICB proposal on current pedestrian movements in the Upper Te Aro area
There is no evaluation under the WICB proposal of the limited benefits to short strips of cycle lanes to health
2.5 Environmental Sustainability
Not enough weight is given in the Review to the retention of heritage resources under alternatives and options
There is no in-depth evaluation of noise and vibration issues under the options reviewed
There is no in-depth evaluation of air quality issues under the options reviewed
There is no evaluation of greenhouse gasses under the WICB proposal
There is no evaluation of the effect of the WICB proposal on non-renewal resources, which includes archaeological resources. There is no evaluation of alternatives or options that retain this valuable resource
2.6 Efficiency and Effectiveness
The Transfund Board cannot be satisfied that the WICB proposal contributes to Transfund’s objective, including its social and environmental responsibility in an efficient and effective manner.
There is no up-to-date evaluation of the benefit-cost ratio for alternatives or options. The Abel Smith BCR was assessed in 1998. There is no evaluation of benefits and costs for non-roading options and alternatives. There is no discussion of the costs of intangibles.
2.7 The Consideration of Land Transport Options and Alternatives
CBC contends that only roading options and alternatives were assessed by Transit and that non-roading options and alternatives were not considered. Transit’s Independent Review does not accord with the provisions in the LTMA and does not satisfy the conditions that the Transfund Board asked Transit to meet.

Transit’s Independent Review was not a thorough assessment or robust analysis of roading options and alternatives. There was no assessment of non-roading options and alternatives.
2.8 Avoiding Adverse Effects on the Environment
Transit New Zealand has not undertaken an in-depth assessment of Environmental Impacts for the Wellington Inner City Bypass and has not completed any Environmental Impact Assessments on other land transport alternatives and options.

The claim of mitigation measures does not accord with the provisions under the LTMA. The avoidance of adverse effects on the environment could be achieved through the utilisation of other land transport alternatives and options. Transit has failed to consider this.
2.9 Views of Affected Communities
The views of affected communities, who are affected by the WICB proposal, have not been taken into account by Transit. Transfund is under a statutory obligation to ensure that Transit has taken these views into account.

3. Requirements of Land Transport Management Act 2003
3.1 Assessment Framework
In submitting a proposal for funding, Transit must go through an evaluative process.

First, the problem must be properly defined.

Secondly, Transit needs to select appropriate criteria for evaluating alternatives to the status quo, that is, alleviating the problem. Transit must develop, assess and compare all options on an equal basis, i.e. applying the same level of analysis to each option. Outcomes must be projected for each option using an evidence-based assessment process.

Transit must ensure that there is thorough consideration of alternatives and options undertaken in all cases and that the scope of any preparatory studies have been sufficient in terms of breadth, depth and credibility.
3.2 Section 20: Approval of Activities and Activity Classes
Section 20(2)(a) sets out criteria that Transfund must take into account when making a funding decision. In approving a proposed activity or activity class, Transfund must take into account -
(a) how the activity or activity class-


(i) assists economic development

Transit relies on the Wellington City Council’s Economic Development Strategy 2003 and has not completed its own assessment or outlined the reasons for how the proposal will assist economic development.

Transit has claimed that the WICB will only sustain its benefits in conjunction with other Traffic Management Demand initiatives. The Mt. Victoria Tunnel and the Basin Reserve will still place capacity constraints and will remain points of congestion. However, it is interesting to note that there is no information or traffic modelling by Transit to substantiate the claim that the WICB will deliver greater benefits of access to the regional hospital and airport.

CBC submits that the Upper Cuba Street and Willis Street pedestrian precincts will be adversely affected by Transit’s proposal. Under Transit’s proposal the Upper Te Aro area will be adversely effected economically by its dissection of the Vivian Street arterial route, Abel Smith Street, the WICB arterial route and Webb Street.

CBC submits that under Transit’s proposal valuable inner-city land that has the potential for high-density commercial and residential development will be lost. The proposal is an unsustainable use of land, which could be offset, by the use of existing roads under the Abel Smith Street proposal. There are no reliable figures available but the potential value of the affected land could be estimated to be as much as $80 million. CBC would strongly encourage Transfund to commission research to determine the opportunity cost of the project based on current market value if the project was not to proceed.

CBC submits that there is little difference in the assistance of economic development under the WICB proposal and the Abel Smith Street proposal but under the Abel Smith Street proposal there is the retainment of heritage precincts, which hold tourist attractiveness; pedestrian precincts to sustain small businesses; and the sustainable development use of land. The economic development assistance claims under the WICB proposal could be achieved under the Abel Smith Street proposal at a fraction of the $38.9 million that Transit has estimated that WICB will cost.

(ii) assists safety and personal security

The WICB proposes to move an arterial route closer to five schools within the designation, thereby increasing risk to the safety of children, commuters walking to the CBD and other pedestrians in the Upper Te Aro Area.

The Review anticipates growth in traffic volumes along the WICB route, particularly heavy traffic. There is no assessment of the impact of this projected traffic growth on safety. The WICB creates a substantial and growing risk to safety that increases the probability of more casualties.

CBC submits that Transit has omitted the effects of the WICB on child safety. There is no assessment of the risks to children of increasing traffic close to three schools: Moriah College and Kindergarten combination and the Aro Valley Pre-School.

Research has shown that that this type of project will deter children walking to school and has associated impacts on health. Evidence on child pedestrians was presented by Ashleigh Bloomfield at the 1998 Environment Court hearing on the designation.

Other alternatives deliver as well or better for cyclists. The Abel Smith Street proposal offers the possibility of a cycle route along the existing designation.

Transfund’s Allocation Process document states that ‘short lengths of cycleway and improved crossing facilities are not likely to yield substantial fitness outcomes’


(iii) improves access and mobility

CBC submits that the WICB proposal provides no analysis of the impact on access and mobility in the Upper Te Aro Area and that it is highly unlikely that the WICB will improve the walking environment of the affected areas, e.g. Upper Cuba Street, Willis/Abel Smith Street intersection, or Victoria/Abel Smith Street intersection. Access and mobility will be significantly disrupted for people who live, work, go to school and move across the area under the designation.

The Review does not discuss severance in Upper Te Aro. There is no impact assessment by Transit of severance on general accessibility into the city from the South and West by foot. The Review does describe problems of having arterial traffic on Abel Smith Street but fails to identify problems created by placing traffic 50m further South in a curve.

CBC is not aware of any reports or statistics showing how the project will improve access and mobility. There are no reports about the effects of the WICB on the access and mobility of people travelling on bus routes from Brooklyn and Aro Valley along Willis Street or effects on public transport along Victoria Street. There is no discussion of the delays and impacts on those travelling by car from the suburbs or Brooklyn, Aro Valley, Highbury and Karori.

CBC submits there is no discussion of the delays of public transport at the Basin Reserve, which is a point of congestion. Public transport measures are claimed to be associate with the WICB but there is no demonstrated link between them. There is no evaluation of the impact of enhanced public transport on reducing congestion.


(iv) protects and promotes public health

The Review claims that air quality will be improved, particularly at the Victoria / Vivian Street “hotspot”. However, there is no discussion of significant traffic congestion in Southern Te Aro at the complex Victoria/Abel Smith/Willis/WICB intersection. CBC is concerned that there is also no discussion of the impact of the proposals on congestion at the Basin Reserve. CBC notes that the Wellington Regional Council has recently installed air quality monitoring equipment at this intersection.


(v) Ensures environmental sustainability

CBC notes that proponents of the WICB argue that the benefits of the WICB proposal are underpinned by the implementation of an integrated package of proposals. However, there are no specific or new commitments to ensure that the benefits claimed for the WICB are sustained.

CBC understands that a review of the WICB commissioned by Transfund in 2001 determined that under the WICB proposal queues at the Terrace Tunnel would be the same two years after completion.

CBC submits that for the Board to meet its objective under subsection 68(2)(a) LTMA it must avoid, to the extent reasonable in the circumstances, adverse effects on the environment. This subsection requires a reasonableness test. CBC submits that fulfilling this test necessitates the Board to require Transit to submit an in-depth Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for:
1. the WICB
2. the Abel Smith Street alternative
3. the do-nothing alternative with Traffic Demand Management options
4. the other three alternatives that Transit has put forward under the Review
5. and, other non-roading options or alternatives.

CBC understands that there is little or no evidence that a proper EIA has been completed in relation to the above since the inception of the project in the mid-1960s.

CBC submits that the preferred option proposed by Transit, i.e. the WICB, does not avoid adverse impacts on the environment in its attempt to ‘solve’ a specific land transport problem. While mitigation of adverse impacts on the environment must be contrasted with the stronger meaning of avoid, consideration must be given to the hierarchy and use of mitigate in section 5(2)(c) Resource Management Act 1991.

CBC understands that there has been no recent or sophisticated analysis of, among other things:
1. The destruction of two registered historic precincts areas:
Cuba/Tonks and Willis/Abel Smith.
2. The destruction of a large number of unknown archaeological sites, including at least 15 archaeological buildings.
3. Noise pollution
4. Air pollution
5. Community severance in the areas South, West and East of Abel Smith Street
6. Risk to children attending the five schools close to the proposed WICB route
7. Unsustainable use of valuable inner-city land that is under the current designation.

CBC is aware of a recent Environment Court decision (C35/2004) relating to a proposed new state highway in Nelson. The decision placed emphasis on the consideration what might generally be called public health and environmental sustainability issues as adverse effects.
3.3 Section 20(3): Transfund Objective
Section 20(3) sets out criteria that Transfund must be satisfied about when making a funding decision about an activity.

(3) In approving a proposed activity or activity class, Transfund must be satisfied that –

(c) the activity or activity class contributes to Transfund’s objective, including its social and environmental responsibility, in an efficient and effective manner

Section 20(3) LTMA requires that Transfund be satisfied that the WICB contributes to Transfund’s objective. Transfund’s objective is defined in section 68 LTMA. To fulfil its statutory objective under s68 LTMA Transfund must exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility. CBC submits that the word exhibit obliges Transfund to show or reveal publicly its sense of social and environmental responsibility.

Transfund is obliged to give early and full consideration to land transport options and alternatives in a manner that contributes to avoiding, to the extent reasonable in the circumstances, adverse effects on the environment and take into accounts the views of affected communities.

CBC submits that the LTMA creates a statutory presumption that adverse environmental effects are to be avoided. CBC also submits that the onus must be on Transit to clearly demonstrate that there are particular circumstances that make it not reasonable to avoid adverse effects on the environment.

The obligation of Transfund to undertake early and full consideration to land transport options and alternatives means that it is alternative ways of solving land transport problems that must be addressed, not simply roading alternatives. This is consistent with the principle of ensuring that the right roads are built for the right reasons which is entirely consistent with the statutory purpose of the LTMA: “to contribute to aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable land transport system”.

In the evaluation of alternatives Transfund needs to consider what sort of options it can give effect to so the problem of congestion is tackled. There are other mechanisms like funding public transport initiatives; funding for research in demand management strategies.

Transfund may need to resolve to “do nothing” in cases where better solutions to the land transport problem can be implemented by other bodies. In such cases, Transfund ought to encourage other initiatives to be implemented and allow opportunity for the assessment and development of their effectiveness before committing to less flexible, capital intensive infrastructure investment that may deliver marginal or negative benefit. This is particularly true where such initiatives are considered to be consistent with roading proposals.

Therefore, CBC submits that Transfund should reject the application for construction of the WICB and encourage Wellington City Council and Wellington Regional Council to institute other demand management strategies, such as creating a more efficient and sustainable public transport system.
3.4 Schedule 4: Transfund
Clause 5 Entity must act consistently with objective and statement of intent

The board must ensure that the entity acts in a manner consistent with its objective, including its social and environmental responsibility, with its current performance agreement, and with its current statement of intent.

Schedule 4 LTMA is binding on Transfund. Clause 5, Part 1, Schedule 4 provides that:
“The Board must ensure that the entity [i.e. Transfund] acts in a manner consistent with its objective, including its social and environmental responsibility, with its current performance agreement, and with its current statement of intent.” (emphasis added)

CBC submits that clause 5 further requires Transfund to act to ensure that its objective under section 68 LTMA is fulfilled. This means Transfund must make certain or secure that this objective is fulfilled. CBC submits that the provisions of clause 5 applies to the decision of Transfund regarding the funding application by Transit for the WICB.
4. Assessments
4.1 Historical Assessments
CBC submits that it is important to consider that the WICB is a project dating back from near the middle of last century and has never been subjected to any proper evaluation or assessment process. It must be appreciated that, although an old project, little if any social or environmental assessment has been conducted since its original inception.

In 1980 a comparative study was made of the benefits and disbenefits of possible roading options for the proposed motorway extension. Engineering and traffic considerations exclusively influenced design selection. This report considered social and environmental impacts of options after options had been determined. Social and environmental factors did not influence the development or prior selection of options or alternatives.

In 1988, a Social and Environmental Impact Assessment Group (SEIAG) was established to undertake an impact assessment of the proposed motorway extension. The impact assessment was to “identify and report on social, environmental , and community issues that need to be taken into account during the design and construction phases of the Arterial Extension.” However, SEIAG was not asked to assess the need for the Extension nor consider alternative alignments.

In 1991, an Independent Review Panel (IRP) was established to consider the trenched motorway option. The IRP considered that evaluation of the need for the Extension and consideration of alternative alignments would have been part of a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scrutiny. The IRP made the important observation that ““the project has not been through full EIR procedures with public submissions and audit by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.” It is important to note that such a significant finding could be drawn nearly 30 years after the project had been proposed and since initiated and partially constructed.

Accordingly, CBC considers that it is untenable for Transit to claim that other options or alternatives have previously been considered and evaluated.
4.2 Independent Review by Transit New Zealand
The LTMA requires that ‘land transport options and alternatives’ must be considered and assessed. This includes land transport demand management options and alternatives. This clearly incorporates non-roading options and alternatives and implies that such assessment should not be limited to roading alternatives.

CBC understands that Transit determined the alternatives for Review. CBC had previously suggested six roading alternatives. Transit added one further roading alternative to the WIBC to comprise a Review of the WICB and seven other roading alternatives. There were no non-roading alternatives for consideration or evaluation.

Evaluation of the options and alternatives was not neutral. The Review process was limited exclusively to consideration of views from bodies that support Transit’s proposed option, i.e. the WICB. CBC strongly requests that an Independent Reviewer be appointed by Transfund to fully evaluate and give a robust analysis to all land transport options and alternatives, including non-roading options and alternatives. The Reviewer makes the comment, in the analysis, that there was insufficient information to make a judgement on some alternatives.

Such assessment should be undertaken as follows: proper definition of the land transport problem that the WICB is thought to be addressing. Before undertook evaluation or analysis of options or alternatives it publicly promoted the WICB as the preferred option. CBC submits that the 3 months between Transfund requesting that Transit review the WICB and Transit making its revised funding application has not provided adequate evaluation of options and alternatives. The Review was largely non-existent, dominated by assertions and rhetoric with little evidence or robust analysis and there was little time for the alternatives to be properly considered or evaluated. CBC submits that the alternatives have not been properly considered or evaluated.

CBC notes the concern of CEO Transfund expressed to Acting CEO Transit that “that a very major emphasis is being given to confirming the current option is still the preferred option and this may have resulted from the order in which Transfund’s resolutions were stated.” CBC understands this to mean that Transfund to have expressed concern that Transit has not given proper consideration to options or alternatives.

The analysis and assessment that has been completed includes conspicuous inconsistencies. For example:
1. Heavy Traffic Local Streets
(a) is a problem with alternatives to the WICB;
(b) but is not a problem with the WICB proposal to use Vivian Street;

2. Constraining Land Use
(a) Abel Smith Street is a problem;
(b) but a new road with greater constraints is advantageous.

The Reviewer’s analysis of alternatives de-emphasises benefits of retaining heritage buildings on site and emphasises mitigation measures. Transit has given no consideration to avoiding adverse impacts on heritage and archaeological values in its assessment of alternatives.

The proposals are evaluated against Wellington City Council documents rather than actual effects or independent evaluation. The letter from to CEO Transit from Chief Financial Officer Wellington City Council shows that the Wellington City Council has been focused on the WICB proposal since the early 1990s. Accordingly, reviewing a project using material of a strong proponent of the project is unlikely to result in a neutral, independent evaluation to assist good decision making.

The Review focuses almost entirely on so-called WICB traffic with a heavy emphasis on freight. There is no analysis of local traffic circulation, except when criticising the Abel Smith Street proposal.
4.3 Failure to Evaluate Specific Land Transport Options and Alternatives
CBC emphasises that Transfund must ensure that a thorough consideration of alternatives and options has been undertaken and that the scope of any preparatory studies has been sufficient in terms of breadth/depth/credibility.

Most analysis of the preferred option has been undertaken prior to the requirements of the LTMA becoming effective. CBC submits that Transit New Zealand has failed to evaluate specific land transport options and alternatives that are a requirement under section 77 LTMA and Transfund’s requirement under section 68 and subsection 20(3)(d):

In approving a proposed activity Transfund must be satisfied that –
“The activity has, to the extent practicable, been assessed against other land transport options and alternatives”

CBC submits that there is no evaluation of a Demand Management / Traffic Management Option on a city-wide basis. The Review claims “city-wide” benefits for the assessment of the WICB but ignores the role of demand management as an alternative. In essence the claim is that demand management cannot provide an alternative to new roading.

CBC submits that specific demand management / minor works alternatives have not been evaluated, for example:
(a) Another lane at the Ghuznee Street off-ramp;
(b) Increased coupon parking charges;
(c) Improved traffic signal coordination across the whole network;
(d) Expanded public transport system; and
(e) A variable speed limit on the motorway to manage inbound congestion.

CBC submits that the clear statutory requirement to assess the proposal against other (non-roading) land transport options and alternatives has not been fulfilled. Transit has not given any evaluation or analysis to these other options and alternatives.

CBC requests that the Transfund Board defer making a decision on the funding application and asks Transit New Zealand to provide the Board with assessments of other options and alternatives so the Board can discharge its obligation that the Board be satisfied the WICB has been assessed against other options and alternatives.
4.4 Capital Cost
CBC observes that it is not insignificant cost escalations of the project over the last 10 years as further research and design effort has been expended. CBC understands that prior to 1998 the project was costed at approximately $18million, in 1998 it was costed at approximately $25million, and now it is costed at $39.8million.
5. Consultation
5.1 Views of Affected Communities
Transfund is required to show that is ensuring that Transit has taken into account the views of affected communities. CBC submits that Transit has not fulfilled this requirement and that Transfund has a legal duty to direct Transit to do so which is sufficient reason for Transfund to defer its decision.

Transit has consistently told affected communities about the proposal. In 2001 Transit formed the Community Advisory Group to advise the community about the proposal. The Group did not allow the limited number of invited people to express their opinions about the proposal or preferred alternatives. Transit abandoned the Panel after a short time.

Transit has not given early and full consideration to land transport options and alternatives to avoid adverse effects on the environment or take into account the views of affected communities.

CBC does not know of any land transport options or alternatives that have been assessed against the proposed bypass in respect of these matters. This includes from either the perspective of avoiding adverse effects or of taking into account the views of the affected community.
5.2 Failure to Take into Account the Views of Affected Communities
The Independent Review by Ken Tremaine refers to a half-day workshop that consisted of the reviewer, Tim Kelly, relevant Transit staff, and officials from Wellington City Council and the Wellington Regional Council. It appears that no attempt was made to seek the views of affected communities as part of the assessment process of any of the eight options under Review. CBC submits that this was a breach of Transit’s social and environmental responsibilities under section 77 LTMA.

CBC is aware of no attempts generally to ascertain the views of affected communities in terms of land transport options and alternatives to the inner-city bypass. The WICB is the only proposal that Transit has given any analysis to. It is the only proposal that they have given for consideration to affected communities. No alternatives have been given full and thorough analysis or submitted to affected communities for their comment. CBC submits that these actions do not fulfil the requirements of giving early and full consideration under subsection (b)(ii).

CBC submits that for the Transfund Board to meet its objective under the LTMA it should direct Transit to comply with the provisions establishing the need for Transit to take into account the views of affected communities; give early and full consideration to land transport options and alternatives that would avoid adverse effects on the environment.

CBC submits that Transit has not met its objective under s77 of the LMTA and that at this time the Transfund Board should therefore defer making a decision on the funding application until Transit has complied with the above provision.

6. Conclusion
CBC submits that:

1. The eight options have not been subject to an equal level of analysis.
2. The assessment is cursory and time constrained to permit a proper robust analysis of land transport options and alternatives.
3. Transit has not satisfied its statutory objective under section 77 LTMA;
4. The information that Transit has given to the Transfund Board for consideration in its funding application is inadequate;
5. Based on the information available to the Transfund Board, the Board cannot discharge its responsibilities under the LTMA.
6. The WICB proposal does not contribute to a safe, integrated, responsive and sustainable land transport system;
7. It would not be proper for the Board to allocate resources to the WICB at this time.

7. Requests and Recommendations
CBC requests and recommends that the Transfund Board to:

1. Reject the funding application from Transit New Zealand and maintain the status quo;
2. Defer making any funding decision on 3 May 2004;
3. Request Transit to properly define the land transport problem that the bypass is intended to solve;
4. Request Transit to complete a more robust and in-depth analysis and assessment of a variety of land transport alternatives and options, including the Abel Smith Street and non—roading alternatives and options;
5. Undertake its own independent assessment of land transport options and alternatives to the ‘land transport problem’.


Yours faithfully


Natasha Naus LLB BA(Hons)
Secretary for Campaign for a Better City Inc.

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 

Also, Loan Interest: Productivity Commission On Tertiary Education

Key recommendations include better quality control; making it easier for students to transfer between courses; abolishing University Entrance; enabling tertiary institutions to own and control their assets; making it easier for new providers to enter the system; and facilitating more and faster innovation by tertiary education providers... More>>

ALSO:

Higher Payments: Wellington Regional Council Becomes A Living Wage Employer

Councillor Sue Kedgley said she was delighted that the Wellington Regional Council unanimously adopted her motion to become a Living Wage employer, making it the first regional council in New Zealand to do so. More>>

ALSO:

Scoop Images:
Dame Patsy Reddy Sworn In As Governor-General

This morning Dame Patsy Reddy was sworn in as the New Zealand Realm’s 21st Governor-General. The ceremony began with a pōwhiri to welcome Dame Patsy and her husband Sir David Gascoigne to Parliament. More>>

ALSO:

Ruataniwha: DOC, Hawke's Bay Council Developer Take Supreme Court Appeal

The Department of Conservation and Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company (HBRIC) are appealing to the Supreme Court over a conservation land swap which the Court of Appeal halted. More>>

ALSO:

With NZ's Marama Davidson: Women’s Flotilla Leaves Sicily – Heading For Gaza

Women representing 13 countries spanning five continents began their journey yesterday on Zaytouna-Oliva to the shores of Gaza, which has been under blockade since 2007. On board are a Nobel Peace Laureate, three parliamentarians, a decorated US diplomat, journalists, an Olympic athlete, and a physician. A list of the women with their background can be found here. More>>

Gordon Campbell: On The Key Style Of Crisis Management

At Monday’s post Cabinet press conference Key was in his finest wide- eyed “Problem? What problem?” mode. No, there wasn’t really a problem that top MPI officials had been at odds with each other over the meaning of the fisheries policy and how that policy should be pursued... More>>

ALSO:

Mt Roskill: Greens Will Not Stand In Likely Post-Goff By-Election

“The Green Party’s priority is changing the Government in 2017, and as part of that we’ve decided that we won’t stand a candidate in the probable Mt Roskill by-election... This decision shows the Memorandum of Understanding between Labour and the Green Party is working." More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regional
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news