At the end of last week I put together my letter of response to NZTA regarding the Waterview Connection and the concerns I have about it. NZTA have invited the feedback as part of their “consultation” regarding the preferred route of the Waterview Connection. People are invited to send their views to watervew.connection@nzta.govt.nz so I did.
I invite people to use the letter below as a basis for letting NZTA know about your concerns when it comes to the Waterview Connection.
Waterview Connection Feedback
Thank you for providing the opportunity for consultation and feedback on the Waterview Connection options. I certainly hope that the exact details of the motorway link are still up for some level of debate and might be changed at some stage of the development process.
I have a number of points to make on the Waterview Connection, and these are outlined below:
1) Concerns about the accuracy of the costing of the preferred option
2) Concerns about the economic justification for the project
3) Concerns about the environmental effects on Alan Wood Reserve
4) Concerns about the effect of the project on the Avondale-Southdown railway corridor
5) Concerns about the effects of the small surface area near the northern end of Blockhouse Bay Road
6) Concerns about the effects on Great North Road and immediate surrounding area
7) Concerns about the planning process1) Concerns about the accuracy of the costing of the preferred option
The primary justification for NZTA not pursuing the ‘full tunnel option’ that have been previously preferred is that option is seen as too expensive. Whilst this may well be the case, there appear to be some anomalies around the costing of this project that lead me to believe that the $1.4 billion price tag is unrealistic.
To start with, the $1.4 billion include $240 million of upgrades to state highway 16, so those costs can be disregarded when comparing the cost of options for the Waterview Connection alone. That leaves approximately $1.16 billion for the construction of the actual Waterview Connection. When one compares the amount of works proposed for this option (including a 1.2 km bored tunnel and significant areas of cut and cover tunnelling) with the previous options identified in the Ministry of Transport’s Business Case for the Waterview Connection[1] it appears that the cost of this option are not consistent with those of previous options.
What I mean by this is that the cheapest option identified on page 18 of that report was a $1.456 billion 4 lane “Open Cut” option. The preferred option has been identified as being $300 million cheaper than that option, yet includes significant areas of tunnelling where that other option did not include any areas of tunnelling. How can the preferred option do so much more for $300 million less? That leads me to believe that there may be inaccuracies in the way that the costing of this option has been calculated and that it might end up costing a lot more than $1.4 billion (including SH16 upgrades) to build.
If that is the case, then the full tunnel option should be further analysed as it wouldn’t actually be much more.
2) Concerns about the economic justification for the project
The cost benefit analysis of the ‘full tunnel option’ detailed that most of the project’s benefits would be in the form of “time-savings benefits”. Time savings benefits are criticised internationally[2] as potentially not really existing, because over time people just make longer journeys rather than actually saving any time on their existing journeys. While obviously there are benefits for travellers from completing a motorway link such as the Waterview Connection these should be measured in a different way that is more robust.
Even if NZTA accept the use of time-savings benefits as the primary way to calculate the benefits of a project, in my opinion these benefits are likely to be significantly over-stated. Auckland’s state highways have had declining traffic flows in recent years due to higher petrol prices and better public transport services. In the future, NZTA’s own studies[3] indicate that traffic volumes are likely to plateau in the next 8 years and may even continue to decline. In the longer-term traffic volumes may not rise above current levels if land-use patterns change appropriately.
It seems highly likely that the traffic modelling done to create the $2.6 billion in time savings benefits ignores the effects of rising oil prices and ignores the current trend of declining traffic volumes. Furthermore, it appears to have a number of strange outcomes like “98% of traffic from the North Shore to the airport would use the Waterview Connection”. I strongly suggest that the traffic modelling for this project is completely re-analysed and the benefits of the project are calculated in a different manner.
Furthermore, the “costs” of the previous full tunnel option did not include social and environmental costs. I imagine this is because the full tunnel option largely avoided those costs. It is essential that this is recalculated to measure the environmental costs of the project (on Alan Wood Reserve in particular, but also the CO2 emissions and other vehicle emissions) and also the significant social costs of the project on the local community. The environmental and social costs of the project should take into account effects during the construction process and not just at its completion.
3) Concerns about the environmental effects on Alan Wood Reserve
Although the part of Alan Wood Reserve that the motorway is planned to travel through is not zoned Open Space, there are areas of the park both to the north and south of the railway corridor that are zoned either Open Space 2 or Open Space 3 in the Auckland City District Plan. The planned motorway will have an enormously adverse effect upon these parts of the park, effectively cutting the park in half. These effects need to be measured in the cost-benefit analysis, but also significant mitigation measures need to be put in place to compensate for the destruction of this park by the motorway.
The mitigation measures should include establishing a long-term stormwater solution to the Oakley Creek catchment, to ensure that it does not flood during storm events. They should also include the establishment of sound-walls on each side of the motorway to block the sound of the motorway for those wishing to enjoy the remaining parts of the park. Oakley Creek through the park should be restored to a natural condition and landscaped in a very pleasant manner to attract people to the area and also to provide a quality environment for the stream itself.
If NZTA are truly serious about mitigating the effects of the motorway through Alan Wood Reserve then they should consider burying the motorway in a trench and providing a number of walkways across it – as this would significantly reduce the effects of the motorway on Alan Wood Reserve.
4) Concerns about the effect of the project on the Avondale-Southdown railway corridor
The proposed motorway is to run directly through the area currently designated for railway purposes and for the construction of the Avondale-Southdown railway line. While the plans do show that there will be room for the railway line to be constructed to the north of the motorway, the cross-sections appear to show that the railway line would not be able to be constructed within the existing railway designation.
This is a critical problem if the motorway is constructed, as it would make it much more difficult for the Avondale-Southdown railway line to ever be constructed. It would mean that OnTrack would have to do a new designation and acquire further land, even though there is clearly enough land at the moment within the railway designation for the construction of a double-tracked railway line.
It is essential that the motorway is located in such a way that the railway line could be fully constructed within its existing designation. NZTA would be unable to designate additional land for the railway line, as they would be for something other than the purpose of the NZTA designation. Therefore it is essential that the motorway be constructed far enough to the southern end of the existing railway designation to allow for the railway line to be properly built at some stage in the future.
5) Concerns about the effects of the small surface area near the northern end of Blockhouse Bay Road
The proposal has a small area of surface motorway between the northern portal of the tunnel and the section of the motorway that will go underneath Great North Road. From an urban design perspective, and also from an air quality perspective that would seem very much less than ideal. It would appear as a huge “hole” in the neighbourhood, with the motorway well below the surface and would also generate a lot of air pollution pushed out of each tunnel by the movements of the cars.
I consider that it would be a vastly superior outcome for that part of the motorway to also be covered up in a similar way to how the motorway under Great North Road will be covered. A park could be established on top of that area and serve as mitigation for residents who will have either lost their homes or lost their neighbouring homes. In the scheme of the whole project it appears unlikely that the additional cost of doing this would be significant.
6) Concerns about the effects on Great North Road and immediate surrounding area
Clearly the work to be undertaken to put the motorway underneath Great North Road will be a challenging traffic management and engineering task. The traffic effects during the construction phase are a concern, as are the effects on residents in the immediate area during the construction phase. This will require very careful planning and excellent mitigation with regards to dust, noise and traffic during the construction phase. The works should be undertaken within the existing road corridor so that the parkland in the Oakley Creek area and the row of houses along Great North Road are fully retained.
It should be required that bus lanes are provided along Great North Road once the project is complete.
7) Concerns about the planning process
I am very concerned about the prospect of this project being “fast-tracked” under the new RMA laws. In order for local residents, who will be significantly affected by the project, to have their say heard properly I strongly request that the Waterview Connection project have a local hearing for its Notice of Requirement and not a Board of Inquiry.
The reason I place “consultation” in inverted commas is that proper consultation does not have a set outcome when you commence it. Proper consultation has an open mind to possibilities and it just doesn’t seem like NZTA are doing that. Make your voice heard.
More contact details for NZTA are here.
Processing...
All good points.