|
Andy Foster — Your City Councillor |
|
ONSLOW-WESTERN |
|
Concourse vs Cobham |
|
Introduction There has been a lot of public debate about this issue. This website item is not aimed to continue that debate so much as to record our considered opinion, particularly given some recent ongoing letters to various editors. I worked with a professional team on the Concourse proposal including respected project manager Ian Maskell, architects Stephenson and Turner, and structural engineers Dunning Thornton. Fletcher Building, Beca (fire engineering) and Rider Levett Bucknell (QS) provided supporting information. The team between them contributed significantly to the design, built, and set up the operation of the Westpac Stadium so were very familiar with the Concourse site. Sir John Anderson’s report back to Council in April 2009 concluded that Cobham was the best option. We agreed to accept the outcome of his review. We were nevertheless deeply disappointed with the outcome and disagree with several key conclusions. The report was developed with the assistance of several specialists. There are several parts of the report where the summary and conclusions don’t seem entirely consistent with the views of the supporting experts especially in transport. We considered that the Concourse was, and is, a viable proposal which would have been in the long term best interests of the city. We know a very large number of Wellingtonians will be similarly disappointed. We also disagree with the weighting placed on the decision criteria. Our view remains that all the key issues are answerable and the Concourse remains the better option. Below is a brief summary of some the main arguments. There are several folders of information that lie behind all this which I am happy to discuss. A number of people have also observed that there is no compelling reason that all courts have to be in one location. While this suited sports codes administration there are obvious significant transport downsides and given the approx $6 million per annum cost of the proposed facility it is hard to see much merit in the argument that ‘all in one place is cheaper’ ! Sir John Anderson Report key conclusions in support of Cobham · Indoor Sports Centre should only be for indoor sports – essentially not any level of multi use (despite banquet capability being part of the only full consultation Council ever conducted when it was 8 courts) · Cobham cheaper to build by $16 million including land/airspace costs (we disagree with the cost difference as set out below) · Cobham cheaper to run by $800,000 per annum (again we disagree) · Potential show stopper 1 for Concourse - fire egress in emergency situation (resolvable) · Potential show stopper 2 for Concourse - entrance location and drop off – lifts for children. (overstated and resolvable) · Whether a DIN rated floor could be achieved at Concourse over a steel frame floor (disagree) · Poor access to the building (along or under the concourse – again resolvable and overstated) · Would take four years to complete instead of two (because of consultation/ land use agreement requirements and Rugby World Cup rather than construction timeframe) Strengths of Concourse Transport and Urban Development Issues · It’s walkable from the CBD. Compactness and walkability is one of Wellington’s greatest strengths. · City Transport and Urban Development Strategies – Key areas of focus are enhancing a diverse, vibrant central city, and location of development where it is most accessible by public transport, walking and cycling to reduce pressure on the roading system, energy use and emissions. The Concourse meets this. Cobham does not. The report seemed to place minimal weighting on these big picture factors · Access by public transport (only 1 in 4 bus services and no trains run past Cobham) · The report clearly downplayed the benefits of proximity to the central city, with its 80,000 workers. · Approximately 95% of Cobham users are expected to arrive by private vehicle. Concourse mode share would be better. How much is uncertain, but we think the report was too pessimistic on this. · We see the Concourse allowing synergies with shopping or entertainment. In short it would allow people to do more things in a single trip than they currently are able to do, or would be able to do with a Cobham Park location. This would be better for the city’s transport system, its environment and economy, and add to the vitality of the Central City. It is precisely the same set of public transport oriented, centrally located synergies that Wellington has celebrated since Westpac Stadium replaced Athletic Park. That vitality is critical for our region. We saw the Concourse as being the chance to reinforce it, where Cobham would undermine it. · The Cobham resource consent application did not address wider network issues. The Council's own consultant's evidence stated 'It was initially agreed with WCC that the assessment (of Cobham) should focus on local (immediately around Cobham Park) traffic impacts, and the impacts on the wider network (eg Basin Reserve-tunnel) would not be considered for the resource consent application.' ' · Sir John’s report concluded that the level of traffic growth from a Cobham indoor sports centre would equate to four years growth (from all sources) in one hit. I think we all understand what that means for the already congested routes to the Eastern Suburbs, with impacts on the airport and hospital. Where we disagreed with his conclusions was that we considered this was far more important than the report allegation that it would be difficult to get children from ground level to a Concourse based sports centre. · It’s on transport that the report summary seems most significantly out of kilter with the advice from the report team’s transport expert’s assessment which stressed how congested the route to Cobham already is. The traffic volume through Mt Victoria ‘equates to 1800 vehicles (per hour) per lane which is virtually at capacity for a single lane and indeed it is hard to think of a two way road with higher average daily traffic in New Zealand.’ · The traffic expert also notes that the extra traffic will also impact on Newtown and Oriental Bay as congestion forces traffic away from the tunnel. ‘The Newtown route would force motorists through the highly congested John St/Adelaide Rd/Riddiford Rd intersection which is one of the most congested intersections within Wellington and then along Constable St which is deemed to be a public transport spine. Equally travelling along Oriental Bay brings general traffic into conflict with cyclists and pedestrians.’ · The report’s rather optimistic conclusion in spite of its own traffic expert is that this issue isn’t a real problem because the Ngauranga to Airport Strategy includes roading capacity expansion. What it glosses over is that the proposed Basin Reserve flyover will be highly controversial – there is already a campaign against it. It also ignores that the other proposals – duplicating Mount Victoria tunnel, widening Ruahine St and Wellington Road require feasibility assessments, removing houses, a lot of money, and they will also be very controversial, and are in any case further than 10 years away. So it seems there is a reliance on completing best part of $300 million of what will inevitably be highly controversial roading capacity expansions across 4 separate projects, most of which are not scheduled to commence until beyond 10 years, at earliest. Good luck ! · The latest traffic counts – daily average over 365 days per annum - on SH1 Patterson St Sth of Basin reserve 38,663 (Both directions) · so at this stage it appears that the two lanes along Waterloo Quay carry 80% of the one lane along Ruahine Street, and 71% of the one lane through Mt Victoria tunnel.
Operational · Multi Use: Multi use is treated as a negative by Sir John’s report to the extent that it appears that multi use is a no-goer. The report essentially saw holding even the occasional banquet (conventions are worth millions to the city) or business house sport as negatives. We fundamentally disagree. · While we agree that Wellington’s indoor facility has to be managed principally for sports do avoid the squeezing out that occurred at TSB Arena, we really cannot afford as a city to have it solely for sport. However we thought we’d been very clear in meetings with the review panel about how that might be addressed, so that the priority is very clearly placed on sporting activity as opposed to non-sporting, but does allow for some multiple outcomes to be delivered. This is absolutely a manageable issue. · It is not hard to set performance standards about use. If we don’t think it is possible then we have no confidence in either our own management or the management of any relevant CCO (Council Controlled Organisation). · Helpfully David Gray (Westpac Stadium CEO) says in an email of 20 March 2009 in papers saying that the Stadium Trust would want to manage the facility says: “I know previous reports have considered that Stadium management is too profit focused but that view ignores the requirements of our Trust Deed and the demands of our Board. We would expect different performance criteria for an indoor centre.” · The obvious danger for the city is the potential for three stand alone facilities to be pursued – for indoor sport, for concerts, and for conventions. Too often there is a focus on one current ‘need’ to the exclusion of wider aspirations. · Even the Cobham consent allows for 2 large banquets and the original statement of proposal in 2006 – the only one that Council has consulted on includes banquet facilities - assuming that they are practical given the limitations of the Cobham facility for this purpose in terms of location, kitchen and catering facilities, transport, and ventilation. It’s probably not that attractive to a major convention organiser to consider transporting 2500 – 4000 people from the CBD to Kilbirnie. · While we understand that desire of the sports codes not to share a facility with any other use(s) – even it seems business house sport – the code administrators have consistently captured Council’s decision making on location, size, nature of operation. The codes were interviewed again in the report process. Business house sport was not, nor were other potential users. · The view in the report that multi use was a no goer should have been a policy decision for Council to make, not the report to assume. Council’s decision in June 2008 Pleasingly the report discarded several of the most questionable reasons given last June for choosing Cobham. · Overbridge Cost: In June last year officers’ advice to councillors was that the Concourse would cost up to $96 million, (compared with $46 million for Cobham excluding land) including a $30 million overbridge over the rail lines on Waterloo Quay. I never agreed that the overbridge was required or would be a result of a Concourse sports centre, and it was gratifying that Sir John’s report similarly discarded the overbridge. The shame is that red herring had not been removed last June. Councillors might have come to a different conclusion, and then asked for more work to be done so that both Cobham and Concourse were at the same stage of design development before a decision. That would have given certainty over supposed potential ‘show stoppers’
· Proximity to Schools: Sir John’s report also pleasingly dismissed the June 2008 advice that there were twice as many schools within 5 km of Cobham. This was regarded as ‘persuasive’ for the June 2008 review. They’d missed out over 20 schools and large colleges within 5 km of the Concourse. The two sites are essentially equal on this score. (45 for Concourse, 44 for Cobham) · Extra Courts: The report also dismissed as irrelevant the capacity to add 3 extra courts at Cobham, concluding it is more likely that another larger (eg 8 – 12 courts) indoor sports facility will be wanted in the future, and would be built somewhere else. This does beg the obvious question of why build everything in one location now ! · Public Transport: The June review surprisingly concluded there was superior public transport (PT) access to Cobham. Sir John’s report said concluded the obvious that there is much better PT service to the Concourse, but considered that was undermined by poor access along/under the Concourse itself, so the two sites were more or less equal. We think that some better lighting and possibly cameras would be more than enough to address those concerns and make the Concourse significantly superior in PT terms. · Parking: This was a showstopper in June. It remains an issue but there’s some recognition it can be addressed, if not 100% then at least for 95% plus of the time. The Stadium Trust doesn’t appear to see any problems that a commercial arrangement cannot overcome on non event days, and there’s clear room to move on smaller/medium event days. We wish this level of review had been done earlier, when we were comparing apples with apples, not apples with apple pie about to go into the oven. · Obviously in this review Cobham had a substantial advantage because $4.5 million has been spent on getting it to this detailed design stage with tenders received. · The Concourse has progressed from concept to preliminary design but that still leaves many details to be concluded. In terms of this review that clearly means some questions were not fully answered. · The review has taken the risk averse position that completed answers were generally necessary rather than it being enough that there was a reasonable expectation that a satisfactory answer was likely to have been developed.
|
