|
Andy Foster — Your City Councillor |
|
ONSLOW-WESTERN |
|
Transport—Continued Congestion—Continued 71. This part of the network is well known to be under significant pressure already. The network from the City, through the Basin Reserve, Mount Victoria Tunnel and Ruahine Street and Wellington Road is probably the most congested part of the regional network. Mitigation solutions are under discussion as part of the Ngauranga to Airport Corridor study. Suffice to say they are very expensive, and will also need to go through that regional funding prioritisation process, and consultation and consent processes. There are significant impacts to be considered. Placing further, unnecessary pressure on a congested network is clearly something of considerable concern to residents in the Eastern suburbs, and airport users, freight and transport operators alike. 72. I understand that the logic for not doing any assessment includes the rationale that the indoor stadium is simply a replacement for the existing Hataitai netball courts, and therefore it is merely moving the same traffic down the road. 73. This logic is flawed for several reasons. First it is clear that the intention is that Hataitai will continue to be used. Paulette O’Reilly for Wellington netball says that 175 teams currently at Motu Kairangi will move to Hataitai, replacing the 245 teams currently there. While I accept that Motu Kairangi is also in the Eastern Suburbs, there is clearly the expectation of growth as result of additional space, and there would be little point in constructing the indoor stadium if there were to be no increase in capacity ! 6 – 8 % growth per annum is anticipated. (Mr Delich. 26) 74. Secondly, netball is just one of the sports and activities expected to use the centre, and there appears to be no comment in the application as to how space will be allocated so in consent terms one can’t even rely on the ‘replacement of Hataitai argument’ even if it held water. The simple fact is that the indoor stadium would draw many users outside of netball. 75. I’d note that there is an expectation implicit in the application that the ‘anchor codes’ would get first priority in use of the stadium. Certainly the applicant said that so called ‘minority’ sports would miss out if the stadium were smaller. I am unaware of any policy decision of Council that says that any preferential allocation has been done, nor that any pricing arrangements have been made. I am unaware that any code or sport has made any financial contribution to the proposed facility. This is relevant in further questioning the ‘replacement of Hataitai’ rationale. 76. Thirdly, were the city’s major indoor sports facility built in the CBD, it would reduce the numbers of people needing to travel on this highly congested part of the network into the Eastern Suburbs for sporting and recreation activity. While obviously it would require Eastern Suburbs residents to travel that congested network to get to a Stadium location, unless they were already working in the CBD, it would mean that the (presumed – given it is billed as a ‘city’ facility) majority of users would not have to use that part of the network. Reducing pressure on this part of the network would clearly be very beneficial in delaying the huge cost of new infrastructure. 77. Fourthly a Stadium location would be much more accessible for public transport and active modes, again reducing pressure on the network. 78. None of these issues appear to have been addressed in the application. Consequently and with respect, I consider the ‘transport’ analysis to be seriously deficient. 79. The assessment criteria clearly require congestion to be addressed. I suggest to you that merely addressing the immediately neighbouring streets and intersections is completely inadequate. 80. The tenor of the criteria and their explanation is crystal clear. A high standard of service is required for transport modes other than the private car. The application comprehensively fails this test. The key trigger for notification is the proposed provision of in excess of three times the permitted number of car parks. This car dependence certainly does not meet the objectives and policies of the District Plan. 81. We all know that the most congested part of the regional network is from the city to the Eastern Suburbs with key choke points at the Basin Reserve, Mount Victoria tunnel and intersections along State Highway One east of the tunnel. 82. Wellington City Council officially and consistently recognises this to be the case. 83. The Council Transport Strategy says “Imbalances exist in our strategic roading network, resulting in choke points from Ngauranga to the CBD in the north and between the airport and the CBD in the south.” 84. The Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy notes the area round the Mount Victoria tunnel as one of a number of ‘bottlenecks’ subject to ‘severe congestion.’ 85. The reality is that this application will add to that congestion. 86. There is no evidence presented by the applicant that contends the application will not have an impact on congestion of the transport network as a whole. 87. In fact Mr Dunlop (109-110) says ‘further mitigation measures should be investigated in order to reduce the effects on the wider transport network, the community and the environment’. In terms of Section 105 D this clearly recognises that there are effects and that they are of an extent that requires mitigation. He suggests mitigation include education and that pricing carparking could have an impact on mode share. I agree that pricing could have an impact but unfortunately it is likely that surrounding residents would suffer as users parked in residential streets. This would not be the case for a facility located at the Concourse. I also note that no decisions have been made in the application about carparking pricing, and whether this is should be a component of the funding regime. The clear assumption is that car parks would be free to the user, though not to the ratepayer. Of course were pricing imposed it would be likely to have a resource management implications. 88. Mr Kelly for the applicant says that early in his peer review he raised concerns that “initial transport assessments were confined to a relatively tight geographical area” and did not consider the wider impacts on the road network. 89. He notes (21) that ‘traffic demands and hence delays would be increased for the assessed weekday evening peak and Saturday periods, but that the effect would not be sufficient to give rise to any widespread congestion on the network.’ 90. I agree that logically there will be an increase in demand and hence delays on an already congested network with a poor level of service. What I have not seen substantiated is that there would not be any widespread congestion on the network. ‘Widespread’ – whatever that means, is of course not the test the application has to meet. The question is ‘are the effects more than minor.’ 91. Mr Kelly also notes (40) that consideration of location was not within the scope of his review. I think it is clear that there has been only limited assessment of wider network and transportation effects. It is curious that the question of location appropriateness is addressed here in terms of the basketball code’s views about proximity to schools without gyms. 92. Mr Kelly goes on to say that (41) ‘It is important to recognise that there are existing issues around traffic congestion along the route to the airport.’ He goes on to say that there will be ‘marginal change’. 93. I think we all know there is significant congestion at peak times on the route. This congestion is predicted to get worse over time. What the applicant has not done at any stage is to prove that the additional impacts of this major facility are marginal or less than minor. 94. Mr Dunlop in the planning officer’s report (66) notes that the required roundabout will see ‘the level of service for users on Cobham Drive will be slightly reduced.’ The meaning of ‘slightly’ and the substantiated information behind that assessment are not apparent. 95. More critically the planning officer says (68) there will be ‘significant levels of additional traffic flows to and from the area during peak times’ and (69) it is acknowledged that some uncertainty exists regarding the effects on the wider network as a result of the limited level of wider network modelling that has been undertaken.’ 96. The officer’s report goes on to quote Mr Dunlop at length (70). A much larger traffic modelling snapshot ‘would have been of significant benefit when assessing the impact of the ISIC on the Kilbirnie area.’ I agree, though even here the comments are limited to the Kilbirnie area rather than the network as a whole – that is to and including the City, Basin Reserve and Mount Victoria tunnels. It seems to me that the assessment has been far too limited in its geographical reach. Something better than a ‘genuine attempt’ (76) is required, especially when that attempt relates only to a limited number of intersections. 97. The identified peak times for the facility coincide to a considerable degree with peak demand on the transport network. In this I disagree with Mr Kelly (23). 6 – 10 weekdays means that at least the first session/sessions will travel during the transport peak. Weekends are notoriously busy through the Basin, Mount Victoria tunnel, and Ruahine Street/Wellington Road already. The proposal will add to that congestion. Public Transport provision 98. Critically the proposal is almost wholly car dependent. To suggest that the expected mode shares of 3 -6% (weekend/weekday) represent ‘a high standard of public transport access’ is frankly laughable. Likewise the expectation of 1% weekend and 3% weekday access by active modes can’t be said to meet the assessment criteria. The application clearly and completely fails to meet the requirements of the Plan.
99. Tim Harrod (30.f) suggests it is a ‘high risk strategy’ to expect transport to work at another site (ie Westpac Concourse) as it does for the Westpac Stadium. 100. This misses the point. 101. The applicant acknowledges that a much higher proportion of people would access a Concourse venue by public transport. 102. That is the point and demonstrates that even the applicant recognises that a Concourse site would better meet the requirements of the District Plan. 103. The applicant says that Cobham Park is on major bus routes. I agree. Cobham Park is on several routes. A small number of other routes go through Kilbirnie town centre, approximately 10 minutes walk away. However the majority of bus services and of course train services don’t go anywhere near Cobham Park. Consequently people from these areas would need to change services, a huge disincentive to using public transport. The table below sets out the services. The more significant services are bolded. Where not otherwise noted the terminus is in the CBD. (Wilton to Kilbirnie is classified because it takes a tortuous route to get to Kilbirnie)
104. In contrast the Westpac Concourse is right beside the Wellington Railway station. 105. It is also within 8 minutes easy walk of Lambton Interchange and ten minutes from Lambton Quay, and less than 5 minutes from the Railway Station. Almost every single train and bus route in Wellington City, and any intercity (Hutt City, Eastbourne) services goes through those three points. 106. The major difference between Westpac Concourse and Cobham Park is that all the users of the following services would have to change buses/trains to reach Cobham Park. They would need to use only one service to reach Westpac Concourse. 107. I cannot tell you how many more people would use public transport to reach the Concourse than Cobham Park, but it would be an order of magnitude higher.
|
|
28 November 2008 Consent Hearing Page 3 |
