The NZTA and it’s partners presented an update to the transport committee yesterday on what is currently happening with the Waterview Connection project. Most of the update was pretty straight forward, explaining what the project is, why it is needed and how it will be built. Also the images shown are the same as in this post from December however you can watch the videos of the entire presentation along with the questions and comments about it here: (sorry I can’t embed these ones)
1. The presentation from the NZTA.
2. A presentation from a council official working on the project about what council is doing.
3. Questions and comments part 1.
4. Questions and comments part 2.
5. Questions and comments part 3.
One aspect though has raised the hackles of a number of some councillors and the local board members is something first mentioned late last year which is that the NZTA is considering moving the northern tunnel ventilation stack. The issue is that it was initially intended to be on the Western side of Great North Rd, something the locals weren’t happy about and fought strongly at the board of inquiry (BOI) that was set up for the project. In their ruling the BOI required that the NZTA move the ventilation stack and its associated building to the Eastern side of the road. Since that time the alliance that won the tender has decided to use a tunnel boring machine that can get under Gt North Rd without it needing to be dug up at all so want to be able to move the stack back onto the other side of the road and further north. Whether any change to its location actually happens will have to be seen but one thing is for sure, if it has to go back through the BOI process it could take a long time.
Processing...
Questions & comments 2 & 3 are duplicated. One of these links should be to player/838.html
The north stack location shift has been in the media since last year, http://www.bettertransport.org.nz/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3020&p=93272&hilit=waterview+stack#p93272
This fact makes the rantings from Cr Cathy Casey even more bizare.
Nice to hear where the Herald got Mike Lee’s “blood in the streets” headline from.
Cr Graham Easte forgets that shifting the stack north was one of the options put forth, along with moving it near BP. He makes a good point that the new northern stack location would be a similar (actually further) distance from the school.
The aliance representative was quite young, and certainly no geologist, a good portion of the route is not below basalt, eg Avondale Heights & everywhere west of Oakley Creek. The completion date has slipped from 2015, he didn’t answer that question.
The point raised about the fencing in Alan Wood reserve is valid. Approaching from the north, there are no signs or any explaination of why the walking track is fenced off, or maybe a detour route.
On the subject of NZTA selling excess land to the council, it is not “the” local board, there are multiple local boards in this area, e.g. Whau. As for areas of land adjacent to reserves being offered to council, how about the 3200m2 of bare land that adjoins Oakly Creek near the intersection of Blockhouse Bay Rd & Gt Nth Rd that is currently for sale, and several adjoining properties.
Fixed that link. Also from all the videos I have seen it seems like Cathy Casey is always like that
What Anthony seems to forget is that the local community has gone through a year of high-stakes, high-profile negotiations, court hearings etc… – and of course THEY weren’t paid for their work there, in fact they had to raise money if they wanted to engage any experts for themselves to balance the significant numbers of NZTA-sponsored experts.
So the prospect of another months-long drawn out fight – after everything was settled – of spending, again, enormous amounts of time out of your life, simply to re-litigate something that was decided… the fact that the new locations COULD be the same or better doesn’t exactly outweigh that for the locals.
Also, the matter of boring all the way under GNR, without a cut-and-cover tunnel, seems to me quite separate from the vent stack question. More power to the contractor if they can avoid the surface disruption, but should these questions not be discussed separately?
PS: The NZTA has communicated that the vent stack question would not go back to a Board of Inquriy, but rather would be a (likely publicly notified) consent change process with Council. So commissioners would hear the matter, presumably with changes discussed limited to this specific facet.
The decision by NZTA to (attempt) to move the vent after the BOI decision is a smack in the face for local residents and IMO makes a complete mockery of the whole process. Why did we even bother with the hearings if NZTA plans to simply backtrack on all the mitigation they were required to carry out but never really wanted to. What’s next? I guess they’ll start finding ways to avoid doing the cycleways too.
I should also point out that the representatives that NZTA sent to the community meetings didn’t have a clue about the history of why the stack was moved and from what I could tell were simply sent there to regurgitate some pre-written texts – to me it simply demonstrated that NZTA really don’t care what the community wants. They seem more interested in minising the temporary disruption to cars on Gt. North Rd. all of whom are getting a $2 billion motorway than the long-term i.e. permanent effect this vent will have on the local community.
“Why did we even bother with the hearings if NZTA plans to simply backtrack on all the mitigation they were required to carry out but never really wanted to.”
I don’t see it like them trying to avoid mitigation – in fact, it is conceivable that a variation of the consents could ADD further mitigation to balance any perceived or actual effects from a different stack location.
I just see it as poor tactics & communication choices, to revisit this now. That said, it is my understanding that this remains an OPTION – i.e. they may not even go for the consent variation in the end, and just keep it as is. Which would probably be an outcome the locals prefer, despite the hassle they are going through now – yet then, all the frustration created right now would have been even more pointless… bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t, at this stage.
The fact that an issue as significant as the stack location can be up for discussion again after the BOI decision is quite an insult to the community. that this old proposal is allowed to be back on the table because of the method of tunneling under GNR seems both very convenient and unjustified
The proposal of shifting the stack to the northern portal has now been buried again…
Surprise surprise. Perhaps NZTA will now learn that consent conditions are generally not negotiable.
In their defense, they were fully aware that this would have required a change of the consent conditions, including a new notification and hearing. In the end, combined with the severe opposition I understood they were getting, they apparently decided not to proceed with the change idea.
A hearing by commissioners, and only about this aspect (and any mitigation or related changes that could have become necessary), of course – not re-hearing the whole Waterview application.