This submission is written by me as a concerned individual, resident and rate payer in Wellington. Thank you for your attention. I would also be interested in giving an oral submission.
My name is Dr John K. Monro. I am sixty-one years old, and I work as a GP locum in the Wellington area. I live in Hataitai, Wellington. I emigrated to New Zealand twenty years ago from the UK. I have lived in Wellington about five years, I moved to Wellington to enjoy the facilities of a small compact city in a beautiful setting and I find in Wellington the nearest I can enjoy in New Zealand to the style and quality of life that pertains in most small European cities. One exception to this though is the relatively poor public transport infrastructure and the major continued capitulation to the private motor vehicle. Areas of the city that could be transformed by converting to pedestrian and cycle access only, as in most European cities, still await a visionary council to achieve. I own two cars, one of which I am thinking of selling, and presently I cycle to work in Willis St. So whilst I have very strong feelings about the problems of the private motor car, this is not because I am "anti-car" as such. I have four daughters, my concern for many years was to bequeath to them a planet worth living in, my concern now is that I'll have a planet worth living in for myself.
I have for some year been very concerned about global warming, peak oil, environmental damage and population issues. So I approach this submission using a very wide angle lens to start with.
What is particularly disappointing about the Ngauranga to Wellington Airport Draft Corridor Plan, which I will call the Draft Plan from now on, is the failure to sufficiently recognise the importance of three overriding principles, condemning this transport strategy, or any other similar strategy, to irrelevance in the face of the massive changes coming to our society.
Global warming.
This is the single biggest challenge facing mankind. It may not be the most urgent, I believe peak oil is more urgent, but for the sheer scale of the resources that will be required to deal with it, global warming is on a par with fighting the Second World War. Thus any transport plan which fails to recognise the fact that in New Zealand about 40% of our CO2 emissions are related to transport, and that 25% of New Zealand's CO2 emissions are due to private transport, (private vehicle emissions are increasing by 2-3% per year), is not adequately addressing the problem. (Link)
All transport policies should be predicated on the urgent need to reduce our CO2 emissions, and in this case such policies should be designed to actively restrict the use of private internal combustion engine motor vehicles and, as much as feasible, provide a public transport system that is itself not reliant on fossil fuels. The Wellington City Council wishes to see a carbon neutral Wellington, this goal is not feasible without a very substantial reduction in vehicular traffic in the city. (Link)
Peak oil.
For some years I have been writing to successive energy ministers about the imminent likelihood of "peak oil", only to have my concerns repeatedly derided. (Link)
Now oil is approaching $150/barrel, there seems to be a much wider acceptance of the reality of a peak in oil production occurring about now, and the likelihood of continued increasing prices for oil and imminent oil product shortages. (A temporary fall in prices due to world-wide recession does not negate this argument). For instance, it is likely that diesel fuel supplies will become even more restricted yet diesel is much more important than petrol to our economy. Again, any transport policy that does not recognise the importance and the severity of peak oil is going to fail. There is a truly urgent and overwhelming need to formulate transport policies that promote greatly reduced reliance on private cars and that seek to invest in public transport that does not rely on diesel and can make use of renewable energy resources. The revolutionary nature of peak oil and the severity of the effects it will have on our economy do not yet seem to have registered on our government or local councils or business. (Link) (Link)
The private motor vehicle is the problem, not the solution.
Whilst the two principles above are related to our incontinent use of fossil fuels, I believe there are issues concerning the private motor vehicle that are important on their own, whatever motive force propels them. The main problem of the private motor vehicle is traffic congestion. Accommodating increased private road traffic may supply a very temporary transport gain, but the inevitable outcome of such policies is continued increase in traffic until such facilities are plagued by the gridlock that they were designed to ameliorate in the first place. (Link - "There is a growing international realisation that 'supply based' or 'demand satisfaction' approaches, which aim to satisfy future travel demands rather than seeking to manage those demands, are not the solution to our transport problems".
No transport strategy can be worth considering if it continues to suggest that accommodating or encouraging increase private motor vehicle travel is a solution to urban transport problems, it cannot work there are countless examples overseas and, in New Zealand, Auckland provides a classic example of how not to plan an urban transport network, by accommodating a complete reliance on the private motor car and failing sufficiently to invest in a modern, speedy, efficient and passenger-friendly public transport network. Indeed this very Draft Plan is itself the result of such congestion, which has occurred despite our expensive motorway and so-called "bypass". Such planning of course also includes restrictions on urban sprawl and viable high density walkable housing and industrial developments, relevant to urban transport planning but not strictly to this submission. Such cities are at risk of collapse if peak oil means that its residents can no longer get to work or make use of the city's facilities. It will be recalled that Prof. Jan Gehl visited Wellington four years ago, I attended one of his lectures. Recommendations that he made to the WCC at that time can be found on your WCC web site. (Link)
These include:
I can't find a single mention here of accommodating increased vehicular traffic flows, it seems our transport planners have forgotten Prof. Gehl's visit. The second major problem with an over-reliance on the private motor vehicle is the very high costs associated with this. The costs of the cars themselves, all of which are imported, the infrastructure of roads and parking needed to accommodate them and serious injury and deaths due to traffic accidents. These costs are mostly externalised, i.e. they are not taken account of in urban planning, because mostly they are not met by councils or government, but by the individual car owner, but that doesn't mean they are less real. New Zealand's oil import bill is now over $6 billion, (Link) which is a great deal more than the gains we have made in milk prices, yet these costs are almost entirely ignored. In the energy expensive and restricted world we now live in, we can no longer afford the luxury of ignoring such costs, and they should be included in all transport planning costings, but never are. This is a major distortion, particularly as it affects plans for public transport, where costs seem so much more immediate. Such distorted accounting means poor planning outcomes.
Even since my first submission, in response to your Strategic Transport Study, oil prices have continued to increase, now to nearly US$150/bbl. Perhaps oil prices may temporarily decline, as there is likely to be a severe world wide recession, but essentially the days of cheap oil are over. (Link)
I understand that car traffic in Wellington has already substantially decreased, thereby making redundant most of the assumptions made about the growth of private car traffic in your studies, and supporting my contention that transport plans not taking account of peak oil are seriously flawed. ( Radio NZ report 2/7/08, reporting WCC, "record petrol prices have reduced traffic in the capital by up to one fifth")
The job of transport planners now is to ensure that this city can still function in an age of high oil prices and indeed of oil shortages. One can for instance envisage that airport traffic will respond to these high oil prices by reducing services and flight numbers, thus relieving this transport corridor of a certain amount of through traffic. (Link)
Having covered these three overriding principles of sound, sustainable, transport development, I will now examine some of the proposals in the Draft Plan.
First, this Draft Plan should explicitly state that the problems of global warming and oil depletion make it imperative that restrictions will be placed on the use of the private motor car, and that transport options will be concentrated entirely on public transport, and by encouraging cycling and walking for shorter trips around Wellington. I also believe there should be encouragement and provision for people making journeys on motor scooters and electric scooters. Restrictions will include excluding vehicles from certain streets, congestion charges and/or local petrol taxes, reducing car parking spaces, and by refusing to accommodate any increased car traffic. I would like to see a plan evolve that allows a through route for bicycles that excludes cars, or at least where cars have to give way to cycles on traffic calmed routes. I understand that the WCC is exploring a policy for bicycles in the city, and I trust that improved facilities for bicycles will become part of the thinking for this Draft Plan.
Light Rail corridor.
The Draft Plan provides a short summary of the pros and cons of a possible light rail from the railway station to the hospital. Whilst this is welcome, it really doesn't explore the light rail option to anything like the depth required. It is almost certain that a speedy, well constructed and traffic isolated double tracked light rail from the station to the hospital and Newtown, and eventually to the airport, would be the single biggest contributor to a sustainable, attractive, energy efficient and commerce enhancing transport infrastructure. In particular it fits in with the strategic vision of growth along the Adelaide Rd and Newtown transport spine, and extended to the other growth area of Kilbirnie. The light rail option is deserving a far more thorough investigation, and positive support, than it is in this document. If it could be extended back to the ferry terminal as a valuable option for travellers to the South Island, and in addition a station by the ocean liner mooring terminal in Aotea Quay would provide a valuable facility for the thousands of cruise liner visitors, who presently have to negotiate an unpleasantly dirty industrial area to get to the CBD and other attractions, not at all a good first, or last, impression of Wellington.
Many new tram or light rail systems are being installed around the world. In the USA, Portland has been voted Money Magazine's "Best place to live", giving much of the credit for this to a "superb light rail network, and streetcar system making it a cinch to get around". Light rail usage in Portland has tripled in thirty years, and continues to increase. In Dallas, within five years of the opening of their $860 million light rail line (Dallas Area Rapid Transit or DART), over $1 billion in direct private business development has been invested near the train stations. (link) In Denver, light rail usage was 35% higher than anticipated in its first year of operation. (Link). Property prices are 10-15% higher in areas served by trams in many different UK and European cities, attesting to the universal popular appeal and economic benefits of a local tramway. (Link). Other studies have shown direct economic and regional income benefits from moving people out of cars on to public transport. (Link An excellent comprehensive overview of the benefits of light rail and tram networks for cities all over the world. ). Trams and light rail are the preferred public transport options of many, particularly drivers. (Link) Your own consultation document said this: Light rail vehicles are often perceived by users as providing a higher quality service than conventional buses, potentially increasing public transport use.
This single transport option has the capacity to transform public transport in Wellington for the rest of the century, and it is the only truly viable, sustainable option, running as it will on renewable electricity generation as promised by the present government, (Link) and acting as a catalyst for inner city regeneration and major economic benefits. This document's dismissive attitude to the light rail option sells light rail, and the city, short. You state for instance, that no light rail options were found to be feasible in the next ten years. We are not given the figures on which this statement is made, but I would strongly disagree. High oil prices, constraints on diesel availability, pollution, peak oil and global warming make a light rail option, running on renewable electrical energy, extremely attractive, and likely to prove a powerful catalyst for sustainable development along this part of the transport corridor. You do not need to wait for development to occur before installing a light rail service, a light rail service will be sufficient stimulus for this development to occur in any case. (Link) (Link)
Your estimated cost for a light rail option (as far as the hospital) is $140 million. This is less than the cost for either tunnel duplication project, and would be of much greater permanent public benefit. Please reconsider the case for a light rail option, opposition to this makes no long term sense.
Airport check-in facilities and parking next to the station.
If a light rail system were to be installed, one could envisage have a flight check-in and car parking next to the station, with passengers taking the light rail to the airport. This would save much through traffic in Wellington along this corridor.
Encourage cyclists to bike to their local railway station.
One way to get a reduction in traffic along this corridor would be to encourage more use of the park and ride facilities at railway stations along the three rail corridors, or even better, parking for cycles at railway stations or if cycles are needed at the city end improved facilities for carrying cycles in the coaches. Of course, this in turn depends on investment in rail infrastructure and rolling stock. I am pleased the present Labour administration is supporting railway renewal, we will be very pleased indeed to have a functioning railway system when oil prices continue to increase.
Rail
Now the government have bought back the entire rail network (Link), I am more hopeful that major improvements in rail infrastructure, rolling stock and services will be forthcoming. An efficient, speedy, reliable and passenger-friendly rail commuter network, serving the Hutt Valley, the Kapiti Coast and Johnsonville will do more to reduce peak hour traffic congestion than any amount of money spent in a futile effort to accommodate such traffic by duplicating tunnels, building flyovers or other efforts to accommodate increased vehicular traffic. It is vitally important to get people out of their cars for commuting, but they are not going to wish to do so as long as public transport alternatives are slow, crowded, uncomfortable or unreliable.
There is in New Zealand at least thirty years of failure to invest in public transport infrastructure, and it is undoubtedly going to cost a large amount of money to correct this state of affairs. If one could estimate this failure at $250 million per annum, a very conservative figure, this means we are now faced with a bill of at least $7.5 billion to correct this failure. Nor should we seek selfishly to fund this shortfall by borrowing large amounts against our future, this would be a form of intergenerational theft; it is our failure, we should be the ones to meet the costs and we will just have to grin and bear it. However, I am hopeful; a modern, electrically powered railway network, running on renewable energy resources would be a wonderful, sustainable asset to the people of this region, and to our descendants. It has the potential to dramatically reduce road traffic into Wellington City.
Population Growth
Population in the Wellington region, by your estimate, is expected to increase by 12% over the next eighteen years. Why? How are we going to better off with yet more people crowding into our capital? New Zealand has experienced two large waves of immigration over the last fifteen years (Link) and our population increase is one of the main causes of our continued need for more housing, more energy and more transport facilities and we are having great difficulty in providing them, after all this is what this submission is entirely about. I know that the Wellington Council is not responsible for immigration policies, but I would suggest that the council petitions the government to reduce high levels of immigration to more sustainable levels, thus relieving pressure on the Council to accommodate ever increasing numbers of people.
Flyover by the Basin Reserve
The proposals for duplicating the Terrace tunnel, and the Mt. Victoria tunnel have now been relegated to the back page of your Draft Plan corridor strategy, though obviously they remain lurking there to be revived at short notice or by stealth, but one proposal that has remained is a flyover by the Basin Reserve. As I remarked in my previous submission, any attempt to improve traffic flows by accommodating private motor vehicles along one part of this corridor will only have the effect of shifting congestion points to another part. If a serious attempt was made to effectively reduce the amount of private car traffic, there would be no need for a flyover by the Basin Reserve. In addition, the Basin Reserve is the only cricket ground in New Zealand to have a Historic Places status (Link). To be considering a car flyover just on its boundary, intruding visually, noisily and malodorously over our premier cricket ground seems highly irresponsible. An artist has been employed to illustrate this option, I can see just four cars on the elevated road, rather than the likely nose-to-tail jams that will likely be the case at peak hours. Interestingly the same picture shows a tram or light rail running along the middle of Kent and Cambridge Terraces, an option which this document elsewhere discounts. A fast efficient light rail option would discount the need for any flyover.
Cobham Drive roundabout improvements
Additional lanes are to be created here, "to accommodate increase traffic flows, resulting from planned residential and employment growth, and the indoor sports arena." Again, rather than seeking to contain traffic flows, you are trying to accommodate them. People travelling along Cobham Drive will either be travelling to and from Miramar, the airport or Kilbirnie. A fast efficient light rail system, including an extension as far as Miramar, could provide for much of this traffic, including the proposed indoor sports arena. Again, increasing costs for oil, and the need to provide the public with a genuine, sustainable alternative should predicate an alternative solution.
Cycling.
I am pleased to see that the WCC is considering a cycling policy. I understand that at present about 2% of commuting in Wellington is by cycle, (I have mislaid the link here, but it is the most accurate estimate - I had previously found a figure of 7% but this is far too high) which is a very low figure.
I believe the city should have an aim of increasing this figure substantially, to 5% within 5 years, and 10% within 10 years. Many continental cities have much higher numbers of cycling commuters. (Link an excellent overview of cycling in Europe. 36% of all journeys in Copenhagen is by bicycle, but high figures obtain in many other European cities. Basle 23%, Cambridge 27%, Ferrera (Italy) 31%, Parma 19%, Freiburg (Germany) 20%, etc. )Most of the cyclists that I see (I have been cycling to work in Wellington for six months now) are young men in Lycra, with bulging thighs, apparently practising for their next triathlon! I would like to see much more effort and money spent on cycling routes, traffic calming schemes and other measures to encourage older people and women to use cycling as a preferred method of commuting, and children in getting to and from school. Because Wellington is very hilly in some of the suburbs, electric bicycles would make the uphill push much easier. I welcome the increase provision of cycle stands, but if people are to use more expensive electric cycles, lockup cycle cubicles, rented or paid for by a coin, would be very useful. I understand that the amount of money spent on cycling facilities represents a very tiny fraction of your transport budget, it would be good to see this amount increased to an amount more commensurate with the actual number of cyclists in town (and much fairer). I would also like to see cycle shops encouraged to sell good quality commuting cycles with mudguards, chain guards, lights, hub gears, etc. all fitted, and electric bicycles, these latter would be ideal for Wellington's hilly terrain.
The Draft Plan envisages increased bus priority measures and lanes for buses. I would like to see these lanes being made sufficiently wide that cyclists can safely use these lanes as well, this would be an ideal time to put this into practice. (Link)
It seems obvious that measures to increase traffic flows through the city by accommodating increase vehicular traffic would be inimical to improving the safety and comfort of cyclists or pedestrians. Conversely vehicular traffic restrictions and improvements in cycle, pedestrian, and general road safety go hand in hand. There is also an excellent case to be made out on safety grounds, and possibly also on oil consumption grounds, for reducing the speed limit for all vehicular traffic in Wellington to 40 kph, and down to 30 kph in residential roads or service lanes and connecting streets. I hope that such a measure can be seriously considered. (Much overseas research would back the benefits of the 30 kph residential limit in particular. (Link))
Careful consideration of a well-designed, traffic separated cycle way along Ruahine and Wellington Rd. is needed and how it would join the cycle and pedestrian path through the Mt. Victoria tunnel and connect with Cobham Drive. The intersection at Ruahine St. and Wellington Rd. is in dire need of rethinking. For cyclists this area is fraught, with an almost constant heavy flow of fast-moving traffic and similarly for pedestrians trying to cross over Ruahine St. Going out of town and trying to turn right into Wellington Rd to get to Newtown along Constable St. is very dangerous for cyclists, I cycle along the pavements here. Ruahine St is also dangerous for motorists, leaving or entering Hataitai Park or Goa St. A dual carriage is of no use on its own, as this would presuppose construction of a duplicate tunnel. The only sustainable solution is to reduce the amount of traffic and to use traffic calming measures. There is research that indicates that many cycle lanes can increase accidents, if they are poorly designed or do not allow cyclists priorities and other help at intersections (Link). Wikipedia has a good article on "utility cycling" covering some of these points and many others (Link).
It is salutary to compare the amounts of money that different transport options can command. Whilst the Mt. Victoria tunnel option is not discussed in the way it was in your previous Strategic Transport Study, there is still provision to assess this scheme, costing $6 million. Yet the total cost of cycling infrastructure improvements is I understand about $250,000 only (Link). So it is proposed to spend 24 times as much money on a mere study for motor vehicular traffic than is going to be spent on the total needs of cyclists. There is something seriously wrong in transport planning priorities in this case.
Pedestrians
There is welcome emphasis too on a walking policy. Wellington being such a compact city there is very good reason to further encourage walking (Link). I hope the plans that are being made will see to a continued increase in walking as a commuter and travel option for those for whom this is a feasible option. Both cycling and walking provide the obvious further advantage when compared to motorised transport of improving the health of the public. I have heard it said that every hour of cycling or walking statistically gives one an extra hour of life. With the increasing problems of obesity and physical inertia in the population, cycling and walking would be an excellent antidote and should definitely be encouraged, the health benefits are well researched. (Link) (Link)
Buses
There are welcome acknowledgements of the benefits of buses, and some of the ways that our bus services can be improved, with dedicated bus lanes and other measures. I support such measures. However there are problems with our buses. They run on diesel, and do not meet the latest emission standards as say in Europe. Diesel particulates are very damaging to the environment and health. They contain many different noxious substances, associated with cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular problems. (Link) (Link)
Whilst there is no argument about a continued need for bus transport, and improvements to services, it would have been good to see some effort made to acknowledge the urgent need for less polluting vehicles, expanding the trolly bus services where appropriate, or experimenting with battery powered buses. Some of the comparisons with trams or light rail will remain unfair if such problems as diesel pollution, global warming and oil depletion remain external to the accounting procedures used to compare the competing costs of various transport options.
Trolley Buses
After much argument and fuss, it was finally agreed that Wellington's ancient trolley buses would be renewed. However it is noted that these trolly buses are only slowly being replaced. Also I understand that the cost of power for these buses is excessive, due to very high charges by Vector, and that the WCC get subsidies for diesel costs for their diesel buses (Link).I also understand that substations, overhead wires and other infrastructure for the trolly bus network is in dire need of expensive overhaul and renewal. I am a strong supporter of trolley buses, and other electrically powered public transport, they are clean, non-polluting, energy efficient and can make use of renewable power generation (Link).
I would like to see all necessary expenditure on infrastructure completed, and an examination of the possibility of extending trolly bus routes and use. Diesel costs are rising dramatically, trolly buses provide a guarantee of availability and costs which diesel powered buses no longer can, in addition, power for trolly buses comes from New Zealand resources and does not have to be imported.
Traffic Demand Management
There is welcome acknowledgement of the need for Traffic Demand Management. These are unfortunately not detailed. In your earlier draft strategy, it is estimated that such TDM measures might reduce car trips by 5-10%, this without consideration of congestion charging. In London congestion charging has reduced traffic consistently by about 16%, and improved journey times by 14% (Link).This figure is remarkably similar to the 18% growth in Wellington traffic to 2016 predicted in your previous Draft Strategy, suggesting that a congestion charge in Wellington would be sufficient on its own to prevent entirely this projected increase in traffic and the need for any new roads at all. This would not only save several hundred million dollars in expenditure, but the money raised by the charge could be appropriated for public transport infrastructure and running costs, thus making public transport even more attractive, a transport virtuous circle. A similar, shorter lived congestion charging scheme in Stockholm produced a 25% reduction in traffic numbers. 32 Other traffic demand measures such as flexible working hours, working from home, internet conferencing, policies to encourage care sharing, priority lanes for vehicles with more than one occupant, etc., have the potential also to substantially reduce traffic flows, and will cost but a small fraction of some of the roading options (Link).
The Transmission Gully motorway proposal
Whilst not directly related to this Draft Plan, the proposal for Transmission Gully is to produce a four lane motorway standard highway connecting the Kapiti Coast to Wellington. The effect of this motorway will be to improve travel times and to encourage yet more car use along the Western Corridor, and further housing and commuter developments along the Kapiti Coast. I am strongly opposed to the Transmission Gully, for many reasons, but for this submission any development such as this that encourages more car journeys to Wellington is going to unavoidably put extra pressure on the Ngauranga to Airport corridor. As explained elsewhere this is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. Wellington needs more vehicles as much as a coronary thrombosis needs more platelets! I trust the WCC will continue to strongly oppose further expenditure on the Transmission Gully route. The money saved should be put in to double tracking and electrifying the rail network to Otaki, and improving the speed and reliability of the service by removing bends and providing modern comfortable rolling stock. There is no reason why the majority of commuters from the Kapiti Coast should not use rail, and indeed petrol costs will enforce this in any case (Link) (Link).
Summary
It is good to see some effort being put into dealing with Wellington's transport issues, in this case the Ngauranga to Airport corridor. On page 4 you state that priority will be given to public transport, but this is belied by the fact that the majority of spending, particularly if either tunnel duplication takes place, will be on car and other vehicular traffic. I would strongly suggest that your priority to public transport is met by sufficient financial resources, and that any expenditure on road traffic should be merely for maintenance and safety reasons. Additional funds should be raised by congestion charging and local fuel taxes. 
The main critique of this document, the Draft Plan, is its almost total reliance on what are now outmoded ways of thinking. Apparently being developed from assumptions from last century, it fails in any adequate way to acknowledge global warming and oil-depletion as major threats both to our economy and way of life, disturbing and ultimately fatal omissions which blight this document from the very start. Add to that its continued promotion of increasing car usage and traffic volumes, its lukewarm or dismissive attitude to light rail and its avoidance of the main issue in regard to every city's traffic problems, that cars are not the solution, but are indeed the very problem, then it is difficult to take this document and the proposals contained therein seriously.
The Draft Plan fails to promote an overriding principle that all practical efforts should now be made to reduce the amount of vehicular traffic attempting to use Wellington's roads, because of carbon emissions, oil depletion, congestion, cost and safety concerns. (See my previous comments in regard to the Transport Agency about reducing private traffic flows.) Once this principle is established then everything else flows from this, and all the competing interests of private motoring versus public transport, or cycling, etc., completely disappear. Not only that, but it is likely that the cost of doing this will be substantially less than the sort of costs envisaged for further roading projects. Of course, it should go without saying that the public and drivers will only tolerate this if our public transport infrastructure is up to scratch in the first place, only a resolute commitment to public transport will achieve this with the degree of urgency required.
There is no vision to this document, merely a modified continuation of the way we've been doing things in the last fifty years. The twentieth century was over eight year ago, as are all that century's assumptions regarding cheap and abundant energy; energy issues will dominate all our economies for years to come and high oil prices to $140 are just the start (Link - An energy policy for the 21st century).
Every aspect of our lives will be put under the microscope to see how they can be simplified and made more efficient, as the cheap energy infrastructure that has underpinned all our present economic activity disappears like a puff of exhaust from an SUV. Yet we still seemed determined to keep driving down an energy cul-de-sac, investing in a roading infrastructure that literally has no future, and the longer we continue to mis-invest in this manner, the harder and more expensive it will be to reverse out. We are seeing this already in rapidly increasing prices for all sorts of raw materials, such as steel, concrete, construction equipment, asphalt, coal, and other energy supplies (Link).
We can't afford to make any mistakes, or think that if we do, we can just knock things down and start again. It is vitally important that we get things right first time; for the first time in the last fifty years cars are not going to be part of getting things right.
A vision for our wonderful city of Wellington will be to see how we can operate sustainably and efficiently with the least damaging impact on our local environment and the planet that supports us. There will be no place for petrol or diesel in this city, and no place for complacency either; it will be difficult, it will mean jettisoning many preconceived ideas and looking forward to a future which we can't quite discern. That's unsettling, but it's also very exciting. None of this is reflected in this Draft Plan, and it should be.
Dr John K Monro, Wellington, 4 July 2008
