Opus International Consultants
Transportation Team Leader
David Dunlop

29 December 2009

Tena koe David Dunlop

My name is Benjamin Easton. I am certain you will have heard of me and my present energies presently tackling the Manners Mall declaration to revoke the pedestrian status, and as well with submissions in with the Supreme Court relative to the due process failed of the public leading up to the agreement by Councillors to put buses through the mall on June 04 2009. I state in my submissions that the decision was commercial and required to implement the Ngauranga Gorge to Wellington International Airport corridor plan. The plan was implemented in an SPC meeting of October 09 2008 and in that decision Manners Mall was accepted as the preferred option. I take several issues with this decision. The most fundamental is that the Mayor Kerry Prendergast is a director of the Airport taking personal fees for decisions required to be in the interests of the shareholders, being Council 34%, and Infratil 66% as the major shareholders. Infratil as you are aware are the owners of NZ Bus and I am concerned that they are considering putting this business onto the market.

As a citizen I believe I am right to be concerned if Infratil have been assisting Council to make decisions to develop their capital investment and on the implementation of a significant transport decision such as the buses through Manners Mall may be seeking to capitalise on that decision. However, and of course, I realise that these matters are not your concern. My concern with this information, though is it does identify a culture of commercialism and ‘big business’ and when this concept is openly one of trade with the ratepayer’s purse, all components of such a decision must be given serious consideration.

This email is my first inquiry into the Opus Report of May 2009, as I have not read the report to date, being more concerned with the matters of due process before the civil court in judicial review. Yet on my first reading (and still incomplete), I have identified some matters that require my inquiry and I hope you will provide me with information I need. As there is a very short period (January 11) for a Notice of Motion to be filed with the Environment Court, (a first approach has been made on December 24 2009) and the information requires some collation and the Opus Report is the primary document supporting the revocation, I believe it is important to approach Opus first. I am of the mind and if required to subpoena this information. I do realise that Council can in fact provide me with some if not all of the information I require, yet there are some technical issues that may not be able to be identified by Council or within their records where specific to Opus’s own research.

Firstly, and predominantly for this opening email, I wish to draw your attention to the pedestrian and cyclist, fundamental question on traffic congestion and public safety.

Opus Report May 2009

I note: Page 13, Chapter 5.2 Key Design Criteria: (i) allows passenger transport services to operate in both directions using the same roads.

I note: Page 13, (iii) prioritises passenger transport vehicles ahead of other motorised traffic where access for goods and servicing can be maintained.

I note: Page 13, (iv) minimises the disruption to pedestrian movements in the city centre.

I note: Page 14, Chapter 5.3 Engineering Standards Passenger Transport Lanes – aim for 4.2 wide (where cycles might be permitted) minimum width of 3m.

By making these observations I wish to qualify that Manners Mall is presently one of the highest pedestrian areas in the city centre.

Additionally it is clear that cyclists are unlikely to be permitted in the mall given that the carriage lanes are recommended to their minimum.

I note: Page 28, Table 11 – Option D Route (Manners Mall) Minimum Lane Width for Buses Southbound 4.2m

I do not understand the measurement of a minimum of 4.2m where the bus lanes are a minimum of 3m and ask you explain this figure please?

I note: Page 31, Figure 6.7 – Option D & D (i) Manners Mall Bus stop Design (Probable Option)

I cannot read the measurement prints on this figure, and additionally, while I appreciate it may only be an artist’s impression am concerned given the practical safety issues relative to large and frequent buses (growing in number presumably as the city swells through to 2016) a) whether or not the measurements are to real scale and b) why there are no rear view mirrors on the buses?

I note: Page 32, Route constraints / Departure from Standard The major route constraint relates to the width of the blocks (Willis to Victoria Street to Cuba Street) and the limitations this provides for throughput of buses and the location of bus tops.

I inquire where the term used here is “major route constraint” why this major constrain on a significant issue was not highlighted or referred to in any capacity in Opus’s Executive Summary or more importantly in the Conclusion Page 62 Chapter 11?

I note: Page 62, Chapter 11, Conclusion

The commentary on the Wakefield Street option confuses me where it not only provides greater savings with a top saving of 167 seconds against Manners Mall 162; and

i. It incorrectly states that the Wakefield Street option “considered to offer little to the Manners Mall environment” – where it saves it from destruction; and

ii. The option has less ‘impact’ on vehicles, but more impact on the pedestrians where the ‘mall’ is now less important than ordinary vehicles.

I look forward to your urgent reply to my comments and inquiries.

Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
The Political Busker

ENDS

© Scoop Media