Waterview must proceed as Quickly as Possible

The Centre for Resource Management Studies
From Owen McShane, Director.
Media release (immediate) 2nd February 2009

"The Waterview Connection must proceed as Quickly as Possible but without the unnecessary tunnels."

Note: This release is also attached as a pdf file.

The Government's proposed review of the Waterview Tunnel project has been welcomed by many and greeted with dismay by others.

The Nature of the Objections.
The objections to the review fall into four main camps.

The first group says we must complete the Waterview link to complete the Western by-pass as soon as possible and that such dithering just delays the infrastructure investments programme and further delays the time when Auckland can claim to be 'a world class city'. The objectors do not seem to realise that the proposed review will focus on whether the tunnel option which has been selected, and which has blown out the budget for the completion of the link, is the best use of public money. Indeed a regular at-grade motorway would be completed much earlier and deliver its benefits much earlier, so the Auckland "boosters" should not be concerned by a review of the tunnel proposal.

The second group, characterised by Brian Rudman writing in the Herald, chide the foolish Minister for failing to appreciate that the options have been canvassed and that everyone agrees the tunnel is the best option and the best use of public money.

The third group claim that much money could be saved by taking the link to Rosebank Road which would destroy fewer houses.

The fourth group claim there is no need to complete the link because cars are no longer sustainable and all the money should be spent on trains to places like the airport.

Responses to the Objections.
First, the Government should declare that it recognises the need to complete the western bypass as quickly and as cost- effectively as possible. The hundreds of millions that have been invested in the motorway already built from South Auckland to Mt Roskill will not deliver its full benefit until it makes the connection to the North Western Motorway and completes the by-pass.
I for one look forward to the day when I can drive from Northland to the International Airport without having to cross the Harbour Bridge. If this bypass is completed quickly and the Western suburbs allowed to develop freely (without having to fight the ARC all the way) the residential development will move towards the west and so will commercial and industrial development to provide local employment and reduce long distance travel for everyone.
This natural "churning" may soon reveal that a second harbour bridge is no longer necessary as traffic diverts from the present route through Spaghetti Junction to the Western By-Pass. This would be assisted by information systems advising drivers entering the network from both North and South of comparative drive times over the two routes.

Second, the previous analyses, which concluded that tunnels were the preferred option, were a farce, driven by political motives. The former Prime Minister had declared that the motorway would pass through Mt Albert "over her dead body".
Presumably, the officials decided it was prudent to bury the motorway, rather than the Prime Minister.
Also, the surveys focused on the adverse effects on a few score neighbouring households rather than the hundreds of thousands of people who would have to drive through the tunnels, and who would much prefer to enjoy the scenery and open aspect, and avoid the claustrophobia of tunnels, especially in the event of accidents or breakdowns.

Third, Rosebank Road has never been the preferred end point of the bypass, for good engineering reasons, and is not worth revisiting on the basis of the number of houses in the way, or likely to be affected.

Fourth, the anti-car brigade have no idea how cities actually work and consistently fail to realise that roads are necessary to carry buses, shuttles, taxis, and commercial vehicles and that public transport and rail in particular makes no contribution to the efficient movement of freight and other commercial trips.

The Unconsidered Option.
The previous so called cost-benefit analysis maintained an ongoing failure of our approach to compensation of private landowners for confiscations and takings in the name of 'the public good'.

We have always been reluctant to properly compensate private property owners for compulsory purchases under the Public Works Act. The natural result is that as soon as a public work project is proposed, those likely to be affected, fearing inadequate compensation, campaign against the project or, in this case demand that it be placed underground where it will be out of their sitght and remove the need to purchase most of their properties.

The first proposal sold to the residents of Mt Albert was for a pair of two lane tunnels and this set the original "tunnel" budget. But analysis (including my own) soon revealed that this was totally inadequate and at least three lanes in each direction would be needed. This generated the blow-out which is properly concerning the Government given that these difficult times require that all investments of public and private money deliver as great a benefit as possible.

The Government should immediately consider a proposal which would offer all those claiming to be adversely affected, and those whose houses must be demolished for a surface route, to be fully compensated including a premium of say 20% in recognition of the fact that they are not willing sellers.

In these times many would leap at such an offer because they would have the chance to upgrade their housing by buying in another market.

I was involved in planning land uses and regulations around the proposed interchanges for the motorway network back in the sixties. Having watched those areas develop it is clear that they become desirable locations and the land use churns to provide for higher densities and/or light commerce and industry or, as we see around Greenlane, professional offices for doctors and so on.
In other words, the State could hold these properties and once the work was complete sell them back into the market at a profit.

This approach would save billions and everyone would be a winner. Some land owners might decide not to sell and instead look forward to future gains. The choice is rightfully theirs.
But if interchanges have all the adverse effects claimed by the Mt Albert 'community' then large areas of Remuera, Ellerslie, and Newmarket would now be "blighted neighbourhoods."

They are not.
Earlier Submissions.
The Centre's submissions on the Waterview Connection are attached along with a shorter commentary "Five Questions which must be Answered."

5Questions.PDF

ENDS

© Scoop Media