Waterview Tunnel Gets Nod

in Auckland Featured Motorways by AKT — May 25, 2011 at 1:32 pm | 9 comments

The Waterview tunnel will be built. A  draft decision has been given by the Board of Inquiry to grant the NZTA consent to construct the Waterview Connection – the first ever roading project to be considered using the new national consenting process.

NZTA says as a result of the decision, it remains on track to awarding the construction in late August and construction will begin shortly after.

The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that the Waterview tunnel Project will have substantial transportation and traffic circulation benefits, “but recognises that it is only a part of the overall regional transport picture. ”

As part of the Board of Inquiry’s draft decision some changes have been made to the NZTA’s proposed set of conditions. These changes include moving the location of the ventilation buildings and stacks and additional open space requirements.

“Following considerable assessment we held that there would be potentially severe adverse effects resulting from the proposed (“as lodged”)  location of the northern ventilation stack.

Mitigation of this effect is to occur by a new location on the eastern side of Great North Road.  The support buildings will remain in the originally proposed lodged location on the western side  of Great North Road, but are to be constructed in a significantly modified form, with some housing reinstated on the affected section of the Great North Road frontage.

A need to protect open space, and concern about visual and amenity effects, has promoted the need to move the southern ventilation building, stack and control buildings a further 70-80 metres to the south east side of the originally proposed location.

Considerable work has been done by  parties on mitigation of what would otherwise have been severe adverse effects on the Waterview School and Waterview Kindergarten, and moderate adverse effects on other institutions in the subject communities.  A number of institutional and  corporate parties, and NZTA, are to be commended for ultimately producing detailed agreements ensuring significant avoidance, remediation and mitigation of adverse effects.”

NZTA presented this view of the stack as it would be from a primary school yard

The commission says that the economic benefits claimed by the proponents and supporters of the project resonated with them.

“The economic benefits will very largely be derived at a regional and national level. The costs in terms of reduced amenity and environmental detraction will conversely be borne at a local level by the communities through which the proposed motorway is to pass, albeit that there was evidence of likely creation of jobs in the locality as one would expect.”

It adds that post construction it has “identified strong net social benefits in roading, connection improvements, and economic growth.”

Cycle Action Auckland is thrilled to find the Board of Inquriy decided positively on a cycleway and $8m funding will be provided to build it.

With reference to the submission it said:

“Mr Pitches of the Campaign for Better Transport made an oral representation to the Board, as did Mr M Tritt, a local resident. Both questioned the alleged benefits of the NZTA proposal and expressed a preference for a greater variety of transport options.  [175] We were not however able to pay significant regard to the concerns and views of these submitters.

“Our Board is a creature of statute: it  has very closely defined powers and duties and these do not extend to enable us to question the designating authority’s objectives, or even its choice of alternatives (except that we must consider whether adequate consideration has been given to alternatives).”

Nor did it accept an argument about fuel prices.

Its report states:

“Campaign for Better Transport submitted that the benefits of the Project had not been properly evaluated in the context of rising fuel prices.

This was, however, a matter that was addressed in the evidence on behalf of NZTA by Mr AP Murray, transportation engineer.  He did this by reference to the Traffic Modelling Report in the AEE, Technical report G.25.

It is relevant that the report models fuel prices for 2026, at $2.75/litre, noting that such a value is in real 2026 terms, thereby showing a 77 percent increase over the 2006 fuel price.  The benefit cost ratio, as calculated from the ART3 model, utilises that pricing. [183] We note that Campaign for Better Transport did not file any evidence of its own; it simply addressed representations to the Board through its agent Mr Pitches.

So, no sworn evidence was offered, and in particular, the group’s thinking was not put forward in a way that could be tested by cross examination by other parties.  Further, Mr Murray was not cross examined by any representative of Campaign for Better Transport. [184] We have no basis for holding that future fuel prices have not already been considered in the modelling and the benefit cost calculations.

On the issues of rail corridor land, the report says:

Issue 1:  Inclusion of the rail designation in quantum of existing open space.

It was Mr McKenzie who raised this issue, but all others disagreed with him.  He sought to include the presently open green railway  corridor in calculating existing open space, thereby demonstrating that there was a greater shortfall in the Project’s open space quantum.

The other experts disagreed because the rail land is not zoned open space, and its future is not guaranteed as such, and any temporary leasing agreements are just that – temporary.

We consider that the majority view is correct.  To include the presently open green rail corridor space in overall open space calculation would be too speculative.

Issue 2:  Use of future rail corridor land.

This was a topic on which agreement was reached, to the effect that the rail  corridor itself, behind Hendon Avenue, is not suitable for public access and should be inaccessible and excluded from open space calculations because it is an isolated strip of land, it is not overlooked, there are concerns about security for people and property, and it is not appropriate to preclude future use of the land for rail.

The experts agreed that while the land would still have an open landscape flavour, the revised UDL plans should signal greater diversity in planting (than flax) within the rail corridor, and that this topic should be delivered through condition OS.2.

Having ourselves inspected the land concerned, and properties surrounding it, particularly in the neighbourhood of the Pak ‘n Save supermarket, we agree.”

Alan Wood reserve in the middle of the project

The conclusions in its report include in the Board’s words:

Tags: NZTA Waterview Connetion Waterview tunnel