““It would turn the area to the north of the Basin into one very large, complicated, traffic intersection with multiple sets of traffic lights. It would be very difficult to make it work for traffic, public transport, cyclists and pedestrians.”

Have they not seen the proposed configuration for the flyover option? All kinds of embankments and dank pedestrian tunnels. The whole northern section becomes a wasteland. Those shops on the corner, and Regional Wines are gone, replaced by a big curvey 2-lane road that dives underneath the 2-lanes of eastbound traffice and 2-lanes of westbound traffic of SH1. (Along with the mentioned ugly pedestrian and cyclist tunnels.)

Wait and see I suppose, but I still think they are being very constrained about this, they’ve essentially decided it has to be a flyover, so now they’re looking at how to do it. If their scope and objectives were larger (say all the way to Taranaki St) they would come up with very different solutions.

And I still haven’t been able to get a straight answer out of the Council about the long term planning surrounding this, their spokesperson has agreed there is none, that the Council is sitting on the fence in terms of strategy, but yet they do this anyway without consideration for what follows. So the real costs down the line may in fact be higher than the 35-50 million.

Also note how all benefits to cyclists, pedestrians, and public transport are *not* the reason for it, just these benefits engineered into it after the fact. Whereas if they started with the aim of improving those three things first, again, they’d possibly end up with something very different.

“But it is very early days in terms of design concepts – and all sorts of ideas are up for grabs and being discussed.”

Let’s hope that is really true.

‘Enclosed’ Basin Reserve flyover an option

Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast says the option of a raised road to separate traffic heading around the Basin Reserve appears to be the best of a number of early options being considered to streamline public transport and cross-town traffic.

While planning is still very much in the early stages, Mayor Prendergast says she wants and expects to see the project progress quickly. “This project is absolutely critical to Wellington’s future. We need to free up traffic flow to and from key sites around the city, and make this junction easier to use for other road-users such as walkers and cyclists, too.”

Mayor Prendergast says the three parties involved in the project – Wellington City Council, the New Zealand Transport Agency and Greater Wellington – agreed this is a high priority for the region, as part of the recent Ngauranga-Airport Transport Study.

“We have a major – and growing – airport that relies on ease of access, so from an economic development point of view, we simply cannot delay. Other important regional sites such as the hospital also rely on us getting this right.

“Doing nothing about our growing traffic problems and public transport bottleneck at the Basin Reserve is not an option.”

Mayor Prendergast says that, contrary to recent media reports, there is a great deal of support for the flyover option. “I’m hearing a lot of support from the business sector, and the Ngauranga-Airport Transport Study included a public survey that found 67% of people supported a flyover adjacent to the Basin.”

Mayor Prendergast says one of the ‘bottom-line’ agreements between Greater Wellington Regional Council, the City Council and the NZ Transport Agency is that the ambience and relative tranquility of the Basin Reserve will not be compromised by any changes to the road.

“That’s why we’re looking at ideas such as enclosing the flyover within buildings and other structures. Such an approach would be aimed at removing visual and noise impacts.

“But it is very early days in terms of design concepts – and all sorts of ideas are up for grabs and being discussed.”

In conjunction with the Basin Reserve Trust, the City Council is a guardian of the Basin Reserve and, as such, would not be party to any work around the ground that would ruin its status as one of the world’s oldest and best cricket venues.

The problem with the Basin is that it is already at the centre of one of the world’s largest traffic roundabouts. Apart from the meeting of State Highways 1 and 2 at the foot of the Ngauranga Gorge, it is the region’s busiest traffic junction. However, unlike the Ngauranga Gorge, the Basin roundabout is also on the main bus route serving the city’s southern and eastern suburbs and has to also accommodate cyclists, pedestrians, cricket fans and the Basin’s neighbours – including three schools and Government House.

Mayor Prendergast says there is no option of going underground, so the remaining options are a series of ‘at-grade’ possibilities that would keep the road junction at ground-level, or some raised-road options.

“Our early studies of the pros and cons of different options leads us to a flyover or raised road as the best option. It would have far less impact on the area than a ground-level junction.

“The engineers and urban designers say a ground-level junction designed to accommodate increased traffic flows, while at the same time speeding up public transport around the Basin, would blight the neighbourhood terribly.

“It would turn the area to the north of the Basin into one very large, complicated, traffic intersection with multiple sets of traffic lights. It would be very difficult to make it work for traffic, public transport, cyclists and pedestrians.

“It would turn an area that’s already dominated by traffic into something far worse – certainly not a suitable northern entranceway to the Basin.”

A flyover, on the other hand, would carry westbound traffic from the Mt Victoria tunnel over the traffic heading to and from Adelaide Road and the southern suburbs. It would remove the ‘choke point’ around the Basin and make movement far easier for public transport, cyclists and pedestrians heading north and south.

It would also more effectively leave open the possibility that, in the future, light-rail tracks could be installed on the north-south route without the problem of trains having to cross State Highway 1 – the city’s principal east-west route.

Mayor Prendergast says that despite the installation of traffic lights around the Basin, traffic congestion is steadily worsening, especially during rush-hours midweek and during the day at weekends. The conflict between State Highway 1 traffic heading to and from the Mt Victoria Tunnel, and traffic heading to and from the southern suburbs, means rush-hour travel is a misery for most – including bus passengers who are caught in the snarl-ups.

The Basin Reserve has been causing headaches for transport planners for decades, because the principal east-west/north-south junction cannot be shifted anywhere else.

The Basin Reserve Trust has indicated that it supports improvements to traffic flow around the ground – including a possible flyover – provided there are adequate design features to mitigate its effects on the ground. It has already been proposed that a third grandstand could be built on the north side of the ground – as much to increase the seating capacity of the Basin as to block any view of a raised roadway.

Mayor Prendergast says she wants to see the Basin project ready to go as soon as possible. Plans are underway to consult with the public in the first half of next year on a number of options.

As you can tell by the amount of interest, and the public meeting last night, and setting up of a Save the Basin group, etc, this is an area that people within this city feel very strongly about. No doubt there are many people sitting in cars at a traffic snarl-up around the Basin who would love to see a solution go ahead as fast as possible, while there are definitely others such as the members at the meeting last night according to Moorglade http://moorglade.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/save-the-basin-summary/ who are passionately against the concept already.

So: what to do? Well the promise of future consultation is excellent, but from the results of past consultations that may have been less than successful, then Deborah Hume, Greg Campbell, and Jane Davis may have to excuse us if we try to get some pointers in first. There is still massive resentment to the botched job that was the Bypass, and a fear that more may happen again. There is also a resentment on spending money (whether ratepayers or taxpayers, in the end it comes out of all of our pockets) on a transport solution for a mode of transport that some perceive as being on a very short time span with the whole peak oil / peak energy / peak damn-well-everything-we-have-to-slow-down-now-folks scenario.

Personally, and I know what I say won’t be popular with some of the greener, more bicycular members of the public, but I’m quite keen on building a new tunnel through Mt Vic – for God’s sake, the last one was built in 1931 when there were 3 million fewer people, and probably 3 million fewer cars in the country. Tunnels aren’t hard – if they could dig one then with pickaxes and steam shovels and horse drawn drays, through the rotten rock of Wellington’s twisted geography, then we can do it again now, and a damn sight easier too with a modern TBM (tunnel boring machine). The air in Mt Vic tunnel is fetid and awful for cyclists and pedestrians, and we need a better solution – plus there are ridiculous traffic jams each way every single day. Something definitely needs to be done.

But what we need to make sure is that the right thing is done. Greg Campbell notes that a flyover would “massively cut congestion” – although it flat out won’t unless the second tunnel is built. We here at Eye of the Fish would also like to note that a similar fantastic cut in congestion was promised with the Bypass – and most in Wellington would agree that it has not been a success at all. Transit still haven’t released their internal audit on whether it has worked or not, but from the congestion I see every day between Brooklyn to City traffic (ie N-S) vs Bypass traffic (ie E-W) it seems clear that the wrong solution was backed by Transit. A continuation underground of the East-West traffic by one or two streets more (ie under Willis and arguably under Victoria too) would have had a massively beneficial effect on vehicular traffic movements, but the pedestrian strategy would also have to have changed.

I look forward to seeing some intelligent, creative, and modern responses to the traffic problem, and not just a tired old re-trotting out of De Leuw Cathers 1963 scheme proposals.

One way to do this may be to make sure that pedestrians are considered First, not as a last minute tag on after Cars.

…Responding to recent comments from people concerned about the perceived impacts of proposed roading improvements around Wellington’s Basin Reserve, representatives from Greater Wellington Regional Council, Wellington City Council and NZ Transport Agency say proposals for change are not finalised and the community will get its chance to comment when planned consultation is held in 2009.

Greater Wellington Regional Council Transport Policy and Strategy Manager Jane Davis says she appreciates these people are passionate about retaining the Basin Reserve, but they are two-steps ahead of where plans are at.

“We are only just starting to consider what we could do to the road around the Basin Reserve, specifically looking at how we improve public transport connectivity across the city and revitalise the district. Our plans include the potential to create a ‘grand entrance’ to the sports ground pulling together our core aim of strengthening public transport, walking and cycling options around the city.”

Ms Davis says in order to achieve this vision for Wellington the Basin Reserve road needs to be reconfigured. This means improving the layout around the Basin to separate east-west and north-south traffic flows and provide better flow for buses along Kent/Cambridge Terraces and Adelaide Road.

This concept for the Basin was included in full consultation on the draft Ngauranga to Airport Plan, a concept which received 67% support in a public survey carried out by independent researchers.

Greg Campbell, Wellington City Council’s acting Urban Development and Transport Director, says a proposed flyover outside the Basin would “massively cut” traffic congestion around the ground and improve the flow of public transport to and from the southern and eastern suburbs, which is at the heart of the corridor plan.

Mr Campbell rejects suggestions that traffic improvements around the Basin would put the ground at risk.

“The City Council and the Basin Reserve Trust are guardians of this internationally-renowned ground. We’re collectively working to ensure the solution for the Basin retains the look and feel of this fantastic venue. We’re involving our best urban designers to help develop creative solutions that will integrate into the fabric of the city.”

NZTA Wellington Regional Director Deborah Hume says that in order to provide better passenger transport facilities in the city, more space needs to be made available, which would have flow on effects for improving walking and cycling opportunities as well.

“We appreciate that this group are keen to have their say on this issue, but we are yet to have public consultation on options for the Basin Reserve. By all means, give us your point of view, but let us have a two-way conversation about this when we have finalised options to consider in the New Year.”

Ms Hume says she is aware some artists’ impressions have been prepared depicting one view of what a flyover could look like at the northern end of the Basin Reserve. She was quick to point out that these sketches would not meet the standards of the three organisations looking at these changes.

“The graphics are an interesting interpretation but not reflective of what we would consider. This type of structure would certainly not meet our design expectations and we will make it clear to whomever we do employ to design the chosen options for the road that they must be sympathetic with the surrounding area, the Basin sports ground in particular.”

We have existing crappy arterial routes cutting through Te Aro, crappy for traffic and crappy urban design. Politically I just can’t see them ever being removed. But I can see a good argument that if money is being invested into them then do it in a way that enhances, not degrades the quality of the central city.

There are great examples of pre-war arterial roads around the world that are attractive parts of their urban fabric. Think of some of the old tree lined Avenues in Melbourne, or the great Avenues in Paris (which were chopped through the old medieval city). The modern issue seems to be the gulf between traffic engineering and urban design.

While I opposed the construction and Karo Drive, if a new surface road really had to be built then it could have been done so much better. A new urban boulevard created, integrated with the urban fabric, not just brutally hacked through it. However that means having to deal with the road as part of the fabric of the city with all the land use and urban form that makes for a successful living city street.

So yes I am totally convinced we could do a whole lot better around the basin without the need for a pig ugly flyover.

I don’t think it is unfair to say that it is a fait accompli that this money will be spent on roads. I would love to see this money spent on improving our dismal public transport, or improving walking and cycling. But opposing roading projects is very hard. Think back to the (unfortunate) failure to stop the bypass, the phenominal way that PT and consultation was ignored in the N2A study, and the simple fact that at the moment transport funding is geared towards roads. That last one is a bigger fight that will take longer.

I would rather see $50m spent in Wellington than not.

As it stands the proposed fly over has no benefits other than possibly improving travel times by a 50 seconds. In fact, in order to really be beneficial it requires the completion of another tunnel, and other such works.

Outside of traffic, there are absolutely no benefits, in fact numerous negative impacts to the urban environment and the Basin Reserve. However, there are other roading projects which have benefits beyond just moving cars.

In particular what I’m thinking of is burying Buckle St under the future memorial park which also has $10m in funding. Dig a trench for 4-lanes, and as part of the memorial park design a cover for it. Intersections at the Basin Reserve would be at-grade. 4-lanes of 2-way traffic would run down to Cambridge/Kent and up into the tunnel. The 2-way traffic from Taranaki St would cross around the western side of the Basin Reserve. Benefits (beyond the travel time improvments):

1) Allows memorial park to be free of the 30,000 vehicles that otherwise will cross it. This is naturally more deserving for a park that contains our national memorials.

Someone at the talk mentioned something about National Roads of Significance, and fast track spending, and if the road through our national memorial park is not a national road of significance I’m not sure what is.

2) The south-east corner of the Basin Reserve (where the schools are) would become pretty much car free, just pick ups and drop offs.

3) Removes traffic from Kent Tce, allowing more room for a future linear park and public transport (perhaps Light rail) right of way.

4) Stops the basin from being a round-about race track for boy racers.

5) Removes traffic from Vivian St between Taranaki and Cambridge. Allows this section of Vivian St to be reverted to 2-way traffic. This further removes traffic from Courtenay Plc, which would help the battle to close courtenay place.

6) I think if the sums were done it would still improve flow as much as the fly over would. Anyone here a traffic planner?

7) Positions for the bypass to be buried one day if a future generation wanted to do it. (May seem an abhorrent suggestion to some.)

8) Avoids the whole problem of shifting Buckle St closer to MT Cook School, and the associated polution affects on the children.

Downside: Increased southbound traffic on Taranaki St between Vivian and Buckle.

So I’m wondering what people think, and if it wouldn’t be more constructive to try sway opinion to spending the money on something like this rather than the fly over. I know to many the fact that it is spending money on roads is itself the problem, but if you accept that changing the transport funding is not going to happen fast enough, and you can see the opportunity for having a project that improves the urban environment rather than destroys it…

Anyway thoughts appreciated.

all those trucks picked up by the wind and deposited on families enjoying the cricket and children walking to school I would imagine it could be a possible terrorist target as well, maybe the US and can be persuaded to join the fight against the construction.

But why oh why is the Council doing this? Who really wants it?

Flyovers are ugly… always

Time saved by the new route will be minimal and not cost justified … would you pay a toll to use it??

So people will get to the airport 5 minutes earlier….

Thats probably all the tourists desperate to leave and escape the increasing proliferation of bland buildings in the central city that are held in place by the belt of the city by-pass seemingly squeezing more into less until the city is forced ever upwards with street levels reserved for cars.

There is not a traffic problem in Wellington that wouldnt be improved by significantly cheaper alternatives such as investments in joined up public transport system and a little bit of pressure on drivers so that they question why use the car and how often.

For those travelling into the city how about a decent park and ride scheme on Aotea Quay for city commuters or for air travellers maybe an Airport transfer point at Kaiwharwhara.