I am a relative newcomer to Wellington, and have only been aware of the bypass controversy as a background to my new life here. It has now, after many years of impassioned argument, been given the go-ahead. Last year I wrote draught of a letter which I never quite got around to editing to the correct size and sending.
Subject: Wellington Bypass
Date: 3 July 2003 7:08:09 PM
To: The Editor
The present plans for the so-called Wellington "bypass" are a terrible idea, which has fortunately been delayed long enough to a time where at last the public are beginning to get the idea - cars are destructive and motorways are massively intrusive, and ultimately providing ever increasing numbers of roads for cars is futile anyway. If there really is considered an unarguable need for a through-way from the present motorway to the airport, the only environmentally sound one is a "cut and cover" approach, along with a new tunnel under Hataitai park to the airport, to rejoin the ordinary road at Cobham Drive, i.e. the motorway would be built like the original London Underground, in a deep cutting (preserving and moving aside the buildings in the meantime), the motorway covered and the buildings re-erected over - in fact this might even improve the city by allowing some of the very busy roads presently used to be pedestrianised. Some of the buildings are so shoddy that newer, well designed buildings in a human scale could again actually improve the town. The cost would be much greater but, if you added up the total acreage used by the through-way, which would then be returned to productive use (how much is central Wellington land worth per acre?), then perhaps the sums would not be that much different. But if the city can't afford to do it properly as suggested above, then it most definitely should not do it at all.
Yours sincerely,
Dr J K Monro.
It was with a real sense of deja vu then, that I read in the Dominion the other week that the original proposal for this "bypass" (which really should be called a through route) was to have a "cut-and-cover" solution, but the cost was deemed too high. I had no idea this was the original plan, but it seems typical enough, having spent a vast fortune, I imagine, to push the existing motorway through to where it now peters out, finance and nerve then failed. We now have this second-rate "solution" which is guaranteed to fail. Spending less money badly is much less sensible than spending sufficient money wisely. The solution will fail because:
It will merely move the existing congestion back to the Basin Reserve and Adelaide Road
It will not solve the increasing congestion in the Victoria Tunnel
The "bypass" will still be very congested, and there will be no room for much extra traffic. eg It would be good to move the majority of waterfront traffic, which is very damaging to the waterfront amenity, to the "bypass" but it just won't be able to accept this.
The present arrangement is not so bad that it needs fixing, particularly in this inadequate way. The time savings in particular will be minor
The new partial solution will do nothing to relieve the town of traffic and noise.
Apparently Guznee St will be returned to two way traffic. This is idiotic. Having spent so much money moving the through traffic to Aro, this road should be at least partially pedestrianised, where Cuba St crosses, so that the next section of Cuba St can be pedestrianised as well. This would be partial compensation for the damage this proposal otherwise will cause.
It transfixes or bisects what could have been made into a rather nice characterful part of the town with an impenetrable barrier, and ruins the attractive Upper Cuba St
I would congratulate all those who over the years have striven mightily but unsuccessfully to prevent this short-term, cheapskate and damaging "solution" to Wellington's traffic issues. Your are in the right and you all deserve a medal. But you have been facing a Council and a New Zealand government that has a long way to go before it starts to catch up with modern thinking on these issues. This is a 1960s solution to a 2004 issue, and is woefully past its use-by date.
However to be fairer to the council, the Wellington topography is not helpful, and there is an undoubted need to get traffic from the north to the south of the town, especially to the airport. Indeed I understand that Prof Jan Gehl, whom I mention on the "Auckland Growth" page, is supportive of this bypass. The reasoning being, I am sure, that this could divert traffic from the waterfront. He finds the race of traffic along this prime area to be one of the main problems with improving the waterfront and city environment. I agree, but I am convinced that the present by-pass proposal just won't be able to accommodate this; a much more thorough solution is required. If a cut-and-cover approach can't be afforded, then a light rail from the station to the airport and Miramar would be much better, and forget about the cars. Additionally we might still have electricity when we can't get any petrol.
Map Transmission Gully route. The proposed route is in green. The original map can be found at Gully Now
Although the letter that follows is not related to the bypass (nor is it my letter), it is concerned with Wellington transport issues. I will briefly outline the major issue in the region. This is the problem of transport out of the city on State Highway 1 (The Western Corridor). At present, for some 16 kms or so, the road is a two lane highway tucked close to the steep coastal hillsides north of Porirua. This is basically the only route north out of Wellington, the other is over the Rimutaka Hills to the Wairarapa. Over the last 30 years, continued expansion of coastal settlements such as Waikanae, Paekakariki, Paraparaumu and Otaki, and have meant much increased commuter traffic, as increasing numbers of people make the long 40 km commute to Wellington. There is also a continuing increase in heavy commercial traffic, and lorries and cars don't mix that well in the confined and busy stretch of road south of Otaki. The road is now oversaturated, and many fatal head-on collisions make this the second most dangerous road in New Zealand. There has been a thought that a route along a rather steep gully, Transmission Gully (so named because it is a route for a major electricity transmission line) would bypass this coastal route, but the low urgency of the perceived need and the high cost have always put such an idea on the back burner. The estimated cost now of the Transmission Gully route is about $1.4 billion. An alternative proposal to increase the width of the coastal highway to four lanes seems now to be the most preferred option, but it too comes out at a high price, though much less than the Transmission Gully proposal.
Gradients along the mooted Transmission Gully road. Compare with the coastal route. Which route will lorries take?
There is along the coastal route a railway line, but much of it is single tracked. It is the main line north of Wellington. The problems related to New Zealand's rail network require a whole page or their own, but I do mention them on
another page, scroll down to
Tranport Issues. Consideration of this part of our rail network has to be an integral part of any solution to Wellington's transport issues.
When the subject was the subject of much media scrutiny earlier this year, it was my intention to write my own letter to the Dominion Post about the matter, but this letter, written by
Tom Beard, is exactly to the point, succinct and literate. I couldn't do as well myself, so why bother?
To the editor, Dominion Post 28/7/05
Vaughan Maybury (Letters July 25) claims that development of land adjacent to the Transmission Gully route should be counted as a side benefit.
Yes, that's exactly what we need: more sprawling suburbs, and "lifestyle" blocks, far from public transport and services. More car journeys, more greenhouse emissions, more stormwater run-off, more demand for car parks and "bypasses" in central Wellington, more countryside and productive land sacrificed in favour of cul-de-sacs and toy farms, more property value obsessed residents to complain whenever something actually useful (such as a wind farm) is proposed for the land.
It's bad enough that increasing traffic to the Kapiti Coast will accelerate unsustainable patterns of development on the coast itself, but development along the Transmission Gulley route will despoil the very "natural beauty" that it is claimed will draw residents to the Gulley.
Urban sprawl is not a benefit of motorway development, it is the underlying problem that drives the calls for such costly and damaging projects in the first place.
Tom Beard, Te Aro.
The debate about this matter is fascinating, because it is an excellent example of all the issues regarding urban development, transport and the economy anywhere in the world. It is also an excellent example of the practical issues related to oil depletion, global warming and social change, including large-scale immigration. It is also, unhappily, an excellent example of how not to approach this problem. It seems to me, and I stand to be corrected, that the various parties involved in these decisions, still have not got their heads around the revolutionary changes that oil depletion and global warming in particular are going to cause us. Each party, from the councils, to the government, the AA and transport parties, to the local populace, are more interested in talking and shouting past each other than coming up with a viable, long term (and by this I mean at least 50 years) solution. The basic problem, as I see it, is that New Zealand is a country with no long term vision. So much of what passes for policy is the ad hoc reaction to events as they unfold, rather than any long term or strategic vision for what sort of country New Zealand will be in fifty or a hundred years time. Until New Zealand develops this vision, and with this vision, a direction, we will continue to muddle around, surviving, but hardly prospering, in the 21st century. We will continue to occupy the rather lowly place that we seem stuck on in comparison with other OECD nations.
So what has this rather grand statement got to do with Wellington's transport issues? Everything. Firstly the government is very much involved in these matters, as they will be putting put a good deal of the money, State Highway 1 being a government responsibility. But here are some big issues
How many people? In other words, immigration is a big factor in the ever increasing demand for services, including transport service. It is also a factor in the demand for housing, development and the urbanisation of previously productive land. The councils have no control over this issue, though it would be true that councils, stuck as they are in the pro-development, ever-increasing economic activity model, actually like the problems that a burgeoning population brings. It makes them feel important and the continued destruction of amenity doesn't seem to be an issue for them.
Oil depletion. This problem still has to register with councils, government, business and road users. The overweening interests of the car and road transport lobby still seem to control most decision making. While New Zealand lacks a long term strategy to deal with this issue, we will continue to build expensive white elephants. In addition, can any one tell me of any single place in the world where road congestion problems have been improved by building more roads?
Global warmining, the use of fossil fuels to power our transport is our biggest contribution to global warming. The government have just reneged on their carbon tax promise, so it is quite obvious that our government still have not come to terms with this country's need to deal with global warming. (An example of this shortsightedness is in Auckland, where there is a great plan to improve railway services to the west of the city, by double tracking etc. Wonderful foresight, about thirty years late! But the government and the council are still undecided about electrification, and are urgently needing to consider what type of rolling stock they will need and diesel seems to be the preferred option. I find it incredible that these people still have not got the message.)
The national rail network has deteriorated to the point of absurdity. It is hardly a functioning entity. The government, to its credit, are paying some attention to the fact that no country is likely to be able to exist as an economic force without a reliable and efficient rail network. But the cost will be huge, but more rail investment will take many lorries off the road and back on to rail where it belongs. A major commitment to the rail service along the coast, double tracking to Otaki, improving the speed of trains, the frequency of services and new rolling stock, is the basic minimum in this regard. To consider road improvements before committing to this upgrade of the rail network is absolutely, positively so twentieth-century. But an example of what is still going wrong is the recent purchase by Toll New Zealand of a large new ferry for the Cook Straight. I'm sure it is a fine ferry, but it has no facilities for taking rail rolling stock. There may be sound commercial reasons for this purchase, and of course Toll also runs the rail services, but it seems to me that this purchase must limit the flexibility of cross-strait rail services. Is Toll NZ taking an integrated approach to rail transport? Is the country?
Urban planning, population issues. What plans are there for the seaside settlements? There is an urgent need to consider how further development might proceed, or if it is allowed to proceed at all. We need to consider much higher density housing, mixed areas, local services, close to railway services. We need to stop the continuing sprawl of low density housing and we need to preserve valuable agricultural land for market gardens, orchards etc, when transport costs burgeon. If people are so attracted to this coastal region, perhaps we need to consider offices and businesses, which presently are based in Wellington, moving out to this part of the region, rather than continuing to consider the Kapiti coast as a dormitory for Wellington City. Increasing broadband take-up, another contentious issue in New Zealand, might mean much less commuting is required. Simple measures, such as encouraging car sharing has the potential to save not only the need for major road expenditure but also save oil usage. What about increasing housing densities in Wellington? The waterfront area, particularly the proposed redevelopment of the quayside area and around the Westpac stadium, could house many thousands of people in well planned, apartment style living. Other areas of the city which are ripe for redevelopment should be done as an overall plan, say fifty years, so that apartments and living areas are harmonious and meet high environmental and energy efficient standards, in mixed residential and commercial areas.
The list could go on, but the point is, that without an overriding vision, we won't make the sort of decisions we need to to ensure a harmonious or sustainable future. I would encourage you to visit
Tom Beard's blog, he has a very deep interest in Wellington and the region, and can recommend lots of good pubs! If you wish to explore the matter further there is this
blog, with the usual excessive language and emotion. For an official view visit this
Greater Wellington Regional Council page, and here is a
Transit New Zealand view, and here is a pro-Gully
ginger group. Alternatively, just Google "transmission gully nz" and browse the subject. It is interesting that, apart from Tom Beard's site, in none of the sites mentioned above is there any attempt to present an overview of transport issues in the Wellington region. It is seen purely as a roading issue, and therein lies the problem. For a very comprehensive analysis, and a sound ecological one, please read this
document written by Brent Efford, Environmental Sustainability Representative, Wellington Regional Land Transport Committee. As an appendix, Brent Efford supplies a fascinating examination of a light rail extension from Wellington Railway Station to Courtney Place. (I would like to see such a line proceed to the Airport/Miramar, and a branch line to the Hospital in Newtown.) He also examines a possible tram route along Aotea Quay to Courtney Place. It is galling to read how many previous plans to get such a needed facility built have been stymied by the road-building lobby, and shortsighted business and private interests. Come on Wellington, you can do better! An anti-Transmission gully site is
GAIN, and another document from the "Transport 2000" group, opposing the continued building of roads, can be found
here.. Another organisation promoting public transport is the "Option 3" group, its internet site is
here.. One can't help noticing the extreme polarisation of views, and the strong political opinions, right vs. left, about this issue. It is my submission that in this matter, as in many other matters, New Zealand is a highly polarised nation, the recent general election confirmed this, and is one of the reasons that New Zealand's progress is lagging behing other OECD nations - there is a lack of common ground and this is the fundamental cause of the lack of an agreed long-term vision. The map below shows the major rural/urban divide, but doesn't illustrate the divide in so many other aspects of New Zealand society.
Update 12/3/07 - a
report by a Wellington Regional Council transport sub-committee has been release, strongly supporting the Transmission Gulley route, much to the delight of that parliamentary petrol head, and local MP, Peter Dunne, and much to the chagrin of the Greens. The Dominion Post asked people for feedback about this, according to the paper the overwhelming majority were in favour of spending a billion dollars and more on the Transmissionn Gully option, with just a few suggesting that rail transport should be the option. One of these opinions was mine, this is what I wrote:
I truly wonder what passes as forward thinking in New Zealand, we seem to live in a never-never land where time stopped still in the 1960's. With the devaluing dollar, diminishing oil supplies and ever increasing oil prices, there are two completely predictable outcomes in regard to the Transmission Gully proposal. One is that costs of construction will be at least 50% more than presently estimated, and the other that petrol will be so expensive no-one will be able to afford to use it. That commuters, whose personal choice it is to live so far from Wellington, think it reasonable to also bring along 1 to 2 tons of metal, cluttering up the road, cluttering up Wellington, and perhaps killing a few people on the way, is absurd and destructive, both of our economy and our environment. The only sustainable, logical and efficient option is the "Option 3" - double track and electrify the railway to Otaki, improve the line to increase speeds and invest in modern rolling stock. The present road should have the central crash barrier installed and other improvements to make it safer. Continued arguments about Transmission Gully vs. the coastal road are anachronistic and futile.
