Libertyscott
20-12-09
reply to this
I spent most of my life in Wellington.
Quite simply, I support efficient road building. Projects with a good benefit cost ratio should go ahead. From this package I can observe the only good projects are bypassing Paraparaumu and Waikanae, and four laning from Peka Peka to Otaki. Kapiti has been appalingly served by its councils and a safer state highway is positive, but…
1. There is no capacity problem between Pukerua Bay and Mackays Crossing worth addressing. Paekakariki has an intersection problem, but that should be addressed specifically.
2. Pukerua Bay ought to be bypassed on its own.
3. Mana/Paremata has no real congestion issues anymore with the recent upgrades. The case for a bypass is modest, but would be so expensive as to be a low priority.
4. Aotea Quay-Ngauranga Gorge hard shoulder running would be cheap and worth considering, but perhaps best as toll lanes. That’s too innovative for New Zealand today.
5. A second Terrace Tunnel and second Mt Victoria Tunnel are only worth proceeding with if the old Tunnellink Urban Motorway extension is built. Frankly I’d do all of that ONLY if congestion pricing is also introduced to finance it, to significantly pedestrianise the CBD and narrow Jervois Quay.
6. Basin Reserve flyover should be part of a proper bypass, until then it’s a small patch up job.
I hoped for far better from the Nats.
I know there are far better road projects in Wellington with the Petone-Grenada link road and in eliminating all traffic light based intersections on SH2 from Upper Hutt to Melling, but that’s what you get when a “road of national significance” is announced.
The solution of the Greens is naive and makes no better sense, the real solution is to have a peak time only cordon around Wellington’s CBD and to make progressive upgrades to SH1 as the cost/benefit analysis justifies. The congestion charge would substantially boost the viability of public transport.
Time to go back to BCR thresholds of 2.5/1 for roads, sadly the Nats (and Labour before them) threw away economic efficiency.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The problem with "congestion charging" is that the set up costs are so enormous that you have to levy a huge fee to even break even. The London C-Charge made no money for many years without the complex and unfair fining system. And now they try to confuse the statistics with Enron-style accounting to pretend it does make money. I was a Member of the London Assembly (the body which is supposed to hold the Mayor to account) and I lost count of the number of times I asked why you were fined 50 pounds sterling if you paid after 10pm on the same day! And of course when you tried to call the call centre at 9.45pm, mysteriously you were answered at 10.01pm and instantly fined. But they had to do all this because without that enormous revenue, it would have lost money - even with a five pounds sterling daily charge. So how will it pay for transport changes? Before rushing headlong into this idea that it makes shedloads of cash, cost it yourself first. It makes money, btw...for the contractors.
Post a Comment