This is now officially major enough to warrant it's own thread...

The guts of what they want:

*A flyover around or near the basin reserve to streamline traffic to the Mt Victoria Tunnel

* A second Mt Victoria Tunnel to improve traffic flow

* Improvements and widening of roads between Taranaki St and the airport including a significant overhaul of the dangerous Ruahine St corner.

* A total of between 10 and 20 properties to complete the upgrade

Stuff has presented the recommended plans here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/5222289/Basin-flyover-start-set-for-2014

Basin Flyover Option A (the favoured option)
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9370/26029829.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/708/26029829.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Plan A requires the purchase of at least 2 properties...

Basin Flyover Option B (more costly)
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2805/61035788.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/5/61035788.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Plan B requires the purchase of at least 5 properties.

The favoured options were mailed out to Wellingtonians and businesses over the last few days... Options C through F were not presented in the public mail out but are available. They include variations to the flyover and an extended tunnel through to Taranaki St.

My thoughts? - In the public mailout no renders were given of the view of the overpasses from inside the basin... these views were in the more detailed plan presentations but deliberately excluded from the plans given to the general public... devious? perhaps. The renders certainly struck fear into this cricket loving Basin patronising punter - Particularly as the option they favour (being the cheaper of the realistic options) is the one that damages the stadium the most.

Your thoughts?

Utterly horrific. I am still hoping I'll wake up and this proposal will be a bad dream....

In the year 2011, flyovers should be an absolute last resort. They should in no circumstances be the first choice because financial cost is the most important consideration.

I look forward to Wellington's "green" mayor killing this one off.

My folk's place is listed as one of the 'effected' properties due to the new tunnel running practically below the house. Wonder when NZTA will get around to giving us more info on how we will be effected (vibrations, noise etc)

Is it wrong that I kinda like it? You know, horrific costs aside...
I (like many of you) have been stuck in this area of the city for far too long sometimes (my job at the time required half a dozen daily trips between the east and the city).
Looking at it pragmatically I feel it would really make a difference to the flow of traffic in the area.
And to the people who say it's hideous and ruins the look of the area, let's be honest, that area has very little going for it in terms of aesthetics already, because of the amount of traffic going through there. I love the Basin and wouldn't wish any ill upon it, and given these designs I think it's foolish to think it would be negatively affected in any realistic way.

Btw I'm all for investing in public transport and alternatives to car based commuting, but converting a city built for cars into a city built for sustainable movement is not an easy or quick task, especially for our current officials ;)

Eye of the fish's current round of discussions... http://eyeofthefish.org/plans-for-the-basin/

and Re: spotila and the area being an eyesore.. it's true... there's some ugly bits around there, but that's what the memorial park is supposed to fix so it's a fairly moot point. unless that is, unless the memorial park ends up being nothing more than a token stretch of land alongside a new overpass.

also... our city wasn't built for cars... it was designed by a bunch of dumbasses in london for carriages and it was designed to be on the flats in petone... which is the problem with trying to fit more and more cars into it.

agreed - the designing done all those years ago was poor and never meant to facilitate a 21st century city. We can all agree the neglect of the transportation systems around the city in the last 60 years has got Wellington into this mess.
Fact is however, it is in this mess. Again I'd love to see massive boosts in public transport, light rail definitely, but at this stage the fact is (doing nothing is not an option) that east-west and north-south traffic does need to be separated. The number of vehicles using the basin area will not decrease in any hurry, or ever, even with public transport increases and oil shortages. A tunnel under would be nice, but very expensive, and you can't go through the basin, so what other option is there? Newtown? Evans bay?

No anger though, I love discussing this stuff, especially hearing from points of view that aren't my own~

What about recreating the Basin somewhere else?

A tunnel/cut and cover option could connect Taranaki St with the Mt Vic Tunnel, running right through where the Basin is now. On top you recreate a park with trees etc.

A purpose built test ground - with all of the Basin's charm - could be built somewhere else. Perhaps next to Westpac, taking advantage of the train access.....

Extreme, I know.

Now the Basin reserve will be like our beloved Elmwood road from Jonah Lomu rugby

Cut-and-cover makes sense. Flyovers are tagger magnets, from overseas experience.

Utterly horrific. I am still hoping I'll wake up and this proposal will be a bad dream....

In the year 2011, flyovers should be an absolute last resort. They should in no circumstances be the first choice because financial cost is the most important consideration.

I look forward to Wellington's "green" mayor killing this one off.

I bet you have never had to endure a painful trip through the city to the airport in peak traffic?

If you want to argue “green”, then the flyover is the answer. The stop/go/idling cars around the basin reserve in rush hour traffic are far from “green”. A flyover would save time, fuel costs, and would even be better for the environment.

Wellington CBD is expanding. And to keep up, better roads/infrastructure needs to be build to support the growth.

I bet you have never had to endure a painful trip through the city to the airport in peak traffic?.

I'd be interested to know just how "less painful" the trip would be at peak after a flyover.

I'm guessing 10mins maxium - at peak. So a very small benefit to be enjoyed for only 6hrs (morning/lunch/evening) over a 24hr day.

For the cost and blight on the environment, it doesn't seem worth it.

I'm guessing 10mins maxium - at peak. So a very small benefit to be enjoyed for only 6hrs (morning/lunch/evening) over a 24hr day.

Thats 20minutes a day? You consider that small??? :bash:

Thats 20minutes a day? You consider that small??? :bash:

20 minutes out of 1440? Absolutely.

And I reckon I'm being very generous with the 10min each way claim, given the plans for the other side of the hill. Apparently new traffic lights are going to cancel out most of the time-saving benefits there.

Traffic needs to move from point A to point C, running through point B. This moves more traffic, quicker, from point A to point B, but doesn't get them to point C any quicker in the end.

20 minutes out of 1440? Absolutely.

And I reckon I'm being very generous with the 10min each way claim, given the plans for the other side of the hill. Apparently new traffic lights are going to cancel out most of the time-saving benefits there.

Traffic needs to move from point A to point C, running through point B. This moves more traffic, quicker, from point A to point B, but doesn't get them to point C any quicker in the end.

traffic lights aren't there to speed up traffic, they're there to ensure it moves evenly through town... the bonus is that by better controlling car movement (and in some cases slowing cars down) you can improve the overall performance of the network..

but that's besides the point... virtually every option presented will go some way towards improving over the efficiency of the current network.

the real question is how much you value other concerns such as pedestrian access, the appearance of the city etc... it's hard to put a price on the value of how a city feels to it's inhabitants. certainly the basin reserve is an icon that's seen around the world and it would be dangerous to mess with it's effectiveness... but realistically a balance has to be found... i'm not sure a flyover directly on top of it is a careful balance, but then a half a billion cut and cover is probably too far in the other direction.

20 minutes out of 1440? Absolutely.

And I reckon I'm being very generous with the 10min each way claim, given the plans for the other side of the hill. Apparently new traffic lights are going to cancel out most of the time-saving benefits there.

Traffic needs to move from point A to point C, running through point B. This moves more traffic, quicker, from point A to point B, but doesn't get them to point C any quicker in the end.

Traffic does not need to go through point B. It goes over it, that the whole idea of the flyover.

Traffic does not need to go through point B. It goes over it, that the whole idea of the flyover.

My point was, will you get to point C significantly quicker afterwards?

While it will improve things immediately after opening, these types of developments induce demand, and given the changes on the other side, I think its up for debate just what the benefits will be long term. And that's before, in 30yrs time, residents want to rip it down because its downright ugly.

Who knows - maybe the flyover is the best or only option, but we don't really know, do we. Because NZTA's approach to problem solving is dominated by two thought processes; firstly, roads - with an emphasis on the private traveller - is always the best solution. Secondly, the lower the construction cost the better. Well, you get what you pay for - and a cheap option will deliver a less than desirable result.

Well consider this then, from Basin Reserve, which way is the better way out of Wellington city? Terrace tunnel/Wellington City Motorway, SH1.

or Cambridge TCE/Wakefield/Jervois Quay/Customhouse Quay .... Aorea Quay... Motorway, SH1

Its much the same thing, just in the other direction.

Who drives the other way? Especially in peak traffic. Sure the current motorway is also packed, but traffic moves. I have sometimes spent more time sitting bumper to bumper on Jervois Quay than the entire rest of my journey home.

Its not about developments inducing demand, its about keeping up with demand. I don’t see anybody today wanting to rip down the current (unfinished) motorway, that would just be plain stupid.

Its not about developments inducing demand.....

That might not be the intention, but it will almost certainly be the result because That's what building motorways does - it encourages more people to drive.

If Auckland is anything to go by, we are going to spend north of $500m for time savings (only enjoyed during 25% of each day) that will eventually be wiped out in 5yrs time.

What will we be left with? Same problem, only a bigger bill to fix it this time. Oh, and a concrete monstrosity as a momument to short term thinking.

That might not be the intention, but it will almost certainly be the result because That's what building motorways does - it encourages more people to drive.

If Auckland is anything to go by, we are going to spend north of $500m for time savings (only enjoyed during 25% of each day) that will eventually be wiped out in 5yrs time.

What will we be left with? Same problem, only a bigger bill to fix it this time. Oh, and a concrete monstrosity as a momument to short term thinking.

Whats wrong with driving? :bash: People seem to be so anti driving these days :nuts:

Its not a concrete monstrosity - stop exaggerating. Its a flyover, and if done nicely it can complement the areas. Sort of like what they have done in Tauranga. Its either this or more lanes, which is far worse.

http://transportblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/basin-flyover.jpg

http://architecture.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Capture6.png

I thought the Basin had plans to build a stand in front of the flyover, could be a win-win.

Whats wrong with driving? :bash: People seem to be so anti driving these days :nuts:

I'm not anti-driving, I love driving. I'm anti making-stupid-costly mistakes over-and-over-again and not learning from them.

Its not a concrete monstrosity - stop exaggerating.

Ever been to Sydney? The Cahill Expressway is exactly what is being proposed here, and its one of the most despised roads in the CBD, such is the blight on the landscape. I thought most cities were pulling down inner city flyovers wherever they could, not putting them up.

But you have missed my point. If the flyover is the best solution, so be it. But we can't say it is, because you've only been given two options by NZTA, and both involve an elevated highway. And that's because decision-making is bound by a roads-first and "construction cost is the only relevant cost" mentality.

But you have missed my point. If the flyover is the best solution, so be it. But we can't say it is, because you've only been given two options by NZTA, and both involve an elevated highway. And that's because decision-making is bound by a roads-first and "construction cost is the only relevant cost" mentality.

to be fair... there was a couple of non road options presented too... the trench/tunnel idea and a widening of existing roads. one was too expensive and the other (the cheapest option) did not provide enough advantages over the current situation... the tunnel was by far the best option as far as results and appearance goes... but it cost 3 times as much as the cheapest overpass option... which is the crux of the issue..

how much are we prepared to pay for the best solution?

Well there's talk of adding a new stand to the Basin, with modern facilities and all the trimming

Basin flyover deal includes $11m stand

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/5317223/Basin-flyover-deal-includes-11m-stand

The Basin Reserve will get a new $11 million grandstand courtesy of the New Zealand Transport Agency, if the agency's preferred flyover option gets the green light.

The new stand would be part of a deal to counter the ill-effects of the proposed road on the sports ground.

Public consultation is now open on two flyover options: the preferred $75m option, 20 metres to the north of the sports ground, and a $90m option which takes the road about 65 metres north of the Basin.

The Basin Reserve Trust has thrashed out an agreement that it says is legally binding for NZTA to fund a new stand if the agency's preferred option goes ahead.

The stand would span the ground's northern gateway from the existing RA Vance Stand to the edge of the grass embankment.

It would hide the eight-metre-high flyover from nearly every vantage point in the ground.

A new entrance would replace the existing "Soviet-style toilet block" and other unsightly structures.

Spectator seating and corporate boxes in the stand would increase the ground's current 11,000 capacity, and beneath the stand would be state-of-the-art player facilities.

http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1311156884/277/5317277.jpg

an interesting development... it does go some way to addressing some of my concerns specifically regarding the basin

So the main stand is to replicate the one on the other side of the RA Vance stand - good job.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/new_zealand/wellington_basin2.jpg

If they replicate that middle section (in the render) on the other side, the Basin would look really good - practically one half of the oval in stands which compliment each other, the other in an embankment.

Well there's talk of adding a new stand to the Basin, with modern facilities and all the trimming

Basin flyover deal includes $11m stand

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/5317223/Basin-flyover-deal-includes-11m-stand

The Basin Reserve will get a new $11 million grandstand courtesy of the New Zealand Transport Agency, if the agency's preferred flyover option gets the green light.

The new stand would be part of a deal to counter the ill-effects of the proposed road on the sports ground.

Public consultation is now open on two flyover options: the preferred $75m option, 20 metres to the north of the sports ground, and a $90m option which takes the road about 65 metres north of the Basin.

The Basin Reserve Trust has thrashed out an agreement that it says is legally binding for NZTA to fund a new stand if the agency's preferred option goes ahead.

The stand would span the ground's northern gateway from the existing RA Vance Stand to the edge of the grass embankment.

It would hide the eight-metre-high flyover from nearly every vantage point in the ground.

A new entrance would replace the existing "Soviet-style toilet block" and other unsightly structures.

Spectator seating and corporate boxes in the stand would increase the ground's current 11,000 capacity, and beneath the stand would be state-of-the-art player facilities.

http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1311156884/277/5317277.jpg

Whats that odd looking bit inbetween the 2 stands in the render?

That odd looking bit reminds me of the old Panasonic Stand at Eden Park.

I don't like the render much at all, would perfer to see the RA Vance stand continued around.

That odd looking bit reminds me of the old Panasonic Stand at Eden Park.

I don't like the render much at all, would perfer to see the RA Vance stand continued around.

That was my initial thought, but then I thought about the old stand on the other side (see the photo I posted). Bad render aside, I think the result would look really good - two identical old-style stands on either side, with the (relatively) modern RA Vance stand in the middle, ensuring one complete side of stands, complimenting each other.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/new_zealand/wellington_basin2.jpg http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1311156884/277/5317277.jpg

The key though would be for the new middle section to be replicated on the other side. The problem is, the Basin will have to pay for that out of their own pocket, so it won't happen. And who is going to sit in those new stands anyway? The place is hardly ever full, and most people prefer to sit on the grass don't they....

Could be filled up for ODIs and 20/20s if they moved those games from the Caketin which looks pretty horrible with 20,000 empty yellow seats.

Probably won't be special stand, as it's basically compensation, more likely see a generic 1 tier stand with a flat roof. Maybe I'm being pessimistic.

Shows how the stands would integrate:

http://eyeofthefish.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/newstand.jpg

Yeah still don't like it much.

Yeah, they never shuld have made the cake tin round. Would be great to see the cake tin kept for football / rugby, and develop the basin for cricket only.

My understanding was the cake tin was made round / oval to accommdate rugby and cricket.. But its hardly ever used for cricket, and when it is, it hasnt sold out for years I dnt think..

A typical year for the cake tin:

Cricket:

About 4 1 day cricket or 20Twenty games. (Jan/ Feb and then Nov/ Dec

Rugby / League / Football:

7 or 8 Super Rugby Games
1 or 2 All Black tests
7 or 8 NPC games
Perhaps an NRL game or League Test
Pheonix games 5 or 6 A League games?

So, seems silly it was oval round in the first place.

Could they one day overlay a rectangular seating configuration to fit nicely into the round shaped stadium? Someone with too much time could do this up on photoshp??

Then keep slowly enhancing the basin, to host all cricket games, and get one dayers / 20Twenty back t the basin.. Thoughts??

I would love that. Huge supporter of having all cricket at the basin. Its the best ground in the country but my god does it need an upgrade.

I'm a fan of new stands however those renders look pretty lame.

:banana::banana::banana:

A $90 million flyover has been chosen as the preferred solution to traffic congestion around Wellington's Basin Reserve, with the New Zealand Transport Agency dismissing calls for a tunnel as "impractical, disruptive and expensive".

The agency will now seek resource consent to build its so-called Option A - a one-way east-to-west bridge 20 metres north of the historic cricket ground linking Paterson St (west of Mt Victoria Tunnel) to Buckle St.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington-central/7492396/NZTA-confirms-Basin-Reserve-flyover-plan

http://static.stuff.co.nz/1345147178/077/7496077.jpg

http://static.stuff.co.nz/1345148683/219/7496219.jpg

It'll be ugly, but it'll do the job.

Looks like the Cahill Expressway in Sydney. A much loathed piece of infrastructure because of its impact (visually) on the area. So much so that its going to be torn down soon....

Anybody know of any other developed country still building flyovers through its city center in the 21st century?

On the bright side, it will do its job well (initially anyway), and the renders look nice.....

Looks like the Cahill Expressway in Sydney. A much loathed piece of infrastructure because of its impact (visually) on the area. So much so that its going to be torn down soon....

Anybody know of any other developed country still building flyovers through its city center in the 21st century?

On the bright side, it will do its job well (initially anyway), and the renders look nice.....

At the end of the day... Its just a viaduct.
Plenty of other developed countries are building them, just maybe not for traffic.

NZ never did a good enough job at building good roads to start off and I will go as far as saying we not really a very developed country. Many third world countries have far better road infrustructure to ours. So this is just part of playing catchup. Other countries that are pulling theirs down have other alternatives, ie underground tunneling, excelent PT, and most importantly "Alternative trafic routes"

Other countries that are pulling theirs down have other alternatives, ie underground tunneling, excelent PT, and most importantly "Alternative trafic routes"

That's because they have actually spent money on those alternatives. See the irony?

"We have to have A because we haven't got B"

"Why haven't we got B?"

"Because we are spending money on A"

Huh? Dumb.

Like the Cahill Expressway (CBD section) we'll be pulling this down in 30yrs because its ugly and inadeqaute. So why not do the job right first time - tunnel it. It will be more expensive now, but much cheaper than doing it later.

That's because they have actually spent money on those alternatives.

"We have to have A because we haven't got B"

"Why haven't we got B?"

"Because we are spending money on A"

Huh? Dumb.

Like the Cahill Expressway (CBD section) we'll be pulling this down in 30yrs because its ugly and inadeqaute. So why not do the job right first time - tunnel it. It will be more expensive now, but much cheaper than doing it later.

Tunneling in Wellington is not an option... Duh! :bash:

It would be like building a tunnel through a swamp. Because of the hilly terrain, a tunnel would be very steep and construction would have high maintenance costs because of the need for round-the-clock lighting, monitoring and ventilation.

The flyover would be built to withstand a one-in-2500-year earthquake, whereas a tunnel would be much more vulnerable.

Tunneling in Wellington is not an option... Duh! :bash: Tell that to the guys who are designing the new Memorial Park, and the road underneath it. Duh.

"It would be like building a tunnel through a swamp. Because of the hilly terrain, a tunnel would be very steep and construction would have high maintenance costs because of the need for round-the-clock lighting, monitoring and ventilation."

Haha - "round the clock lighting". Yeah - that will break the bank, won't it...

Yes, its more expensive than construction of a flyover. We know that. But is it more expensive than building a flyover, then tearing it down and replacing it with a tunnel - you know, the inevitable?

Tell that to the guys who are designing the new Memorial Park, and the road underneath it. Duh.

"It would be like building a tunnel through a swamp. Because of the hilly terrain, a tunnel would be very steep and construction would have high maintenance costs because of the need for round-the-clock lighting, monitoring and ventilation."

Haha - "round the clock lighting". Yeah - that will break the bank, won't it...

Yes, its more expensive than construction of a flyover. We know that. But is it more expensive than building a flyover, then tearing it down and replacing it with a tunnel - you know, the inevitable?

So u proposing a deep tunnel a couple of hundred meters from one of the greatest fault lines on this side of the globe?

I would have rather not bothered about the Basin. A better option would have need to build the road right through it.

So u proposing a deep tunnel a couple of hundred meters from one of the greatest fault lines on this side of the globe?.

You mean like the one just announced earlier this week?

Any potential threat from fault lines and seismic activity can be countered by appropriate engineering (the techniques of which decrease in cost over time)

Yes, its more expensive than construction of a flyover. We know that. But is it more expensive than building a flyover, then tearing it down and replacing it with a tunnel - you know, the inevitable? Even if that were true (that it is inevitable) the NPV of building a tunnel in 30 or 40 years is zero. Hence, yes, a fly-over is cheaper; and a fly-over will be built now.

Changing subjects: 1 in 2500 years doesn't sound like much; by that standard it wouldn't have survived the ChCh earthquakes...

Even if that were true (that it is inevitable) the NPV of building a tunnel in 30 or 40 years is zero. Hence, yes, a fly-over is cheaper; and a fly-over will be built now

Changing subjects: 1 in 2500 years doesn't sound like much; by that standard it wouldn't have survived the ChCh earthquakes...

Yes, a tunnel doesn't have an NPV, but it does have a future cost. But it seems we never take this into account in NZ, hence some of the very shortsighted (e.g. Half-baked) decisions on infrastructure.

While we are on the subject of values, what's the value of the urban environment before and after? Probably impossible to value except to say that it will be lower with the addition of a flyover. It will be an urban disaster - why else would the proposal rely on an extraordinary amount ($11m!) Of what is effectively damages to the basin, to mitigate (through a new stand) the effect
the flyover will have. Ridiculous.

I think this is the next TG. A NZTA disaster that will be tied up in red tape for at least a decade.

Yes, a tunnel doesn't have an NPV, but it does have a future cost.

Huh? The net present value of the future cost of a tunnel is zero (or near enough) because the cost isn't incurred for 30-40 years. 1/((1+r)^30)

NZTA are saying that the reduced value of the urban environment without the stand is >$11m but is less than the extra cost of the tunnel now option. Hence they go with the fly-over + extra stand option. Seems clear enough to me. Doesn't mean I like fly-overs, but the analysis has to take into account the cost of tunneling now vs. either never tunneling, or tunneling a long time in the future. There has to be a point at which tunneling would be too expensive, and it sounds like that point was well-and-truly crossed in this case.

Tunneling is expensive. For example with the money Brownlee's spending on his pet project to tunnel up through road through light industrial Wellington to extend the memorial park, we could have rebuilt the Cathedral or Cranmer Courts in ChCh. I don't know where Brownlee lives in Wellington, and we know he doesn't like "old dungers", but let's just say his priorities when it comes to the urban environment are not universally shared.

False economy seems to have been raised by NZTA et al to an art form - spend little now & pay heaps later for maintenance, as opposed to getting it right the first time & reducing costs in the long run.

Costs aside, flyovers are tagger magnets, no matter how many trees and bushes are planted.

Yes, a tunnel doesn't have an NPV, but it does have a future cost. But it seems we never take this into account in NZ, hence some of the very shortsighted (e.g. Half-baked) decisions on infrastructure.

While we are on the subject of values, what's the value of the urban environment before and after? Probably impossible to value except to say that it will be lower with the addition of a flyover. It will be an urban disaster - why else would the proposal rely on an extraordinary amount ($11m!) Of what is effectively damages to the basin, to mitigate (through a new stand) the effect
the flyover will have. Ridiculous.

I think this is the next TG. A NZTA disaster that will be tied up in red tape for at least a decade.

How would you do a tunnel though?
To connect with the Mt Victoria tunnel you would need a very steep gradient coming up from under the Basin Reserve.
You would basically have to extend the tunnel all the way under Mt Victoria to make it work.

Btw. I know it has been proposed a number of times in the past but as far as I know there are no firm plans to dismantle the Cahill Expressway at Circular Quay.

Costs aside, flyovers are tagger magnets, no matter how many trees and bushes are planted.

So sort out the tagging problem. :bash:

Where on earth will the traffic be redirected while this thing is being built.

Specifically with where SH1 runs along in front of the Carillon towards the Mt Vic tunnel.. Feel like this is going to be a bit of a headache.

I dont see how the on-ramp can be constructed without closing off traffic coming out of mt vic tunnel. Where will the on-ramp start exactly? There's just no room. 2 schools and flats on the left, a church on the right. I just cant fathom how or where this thing will start from.

So sort out the tagging problem. :bash:

lol.

you don't stop it by cracking down, arresting, fining, punishing or even painting over... as all that does is add in to the anti-establishment cool it has - making it more likely more people will tag.

this thing will be a tag/graf magnet, it will smell like urine and homeless people and thanks to the shade, will kill any plant life that's put in to make it more attractive.

but hey... cars will get quicker access to the mt vic tunnel so people wont have to linger there too long.

More flyover designs are being made available this week.

http://static.stuff.co.nz/1353347529/325/7972325.jpg

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington-central/7972319/New-design-for-Basin-flyover-revealed

Richard Reid Architects has presented an alternative design for SH1 to the WCC but this hasn't been made public yet. Dunno about you but I'm dying to see it.

http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=50336

That looks ok.

Dude reading the paper should really look where he's walking though, otherwise he'd get hit and the WCC will reduce the speed limit to 10kph. :lol:

That looks ok.

Dude reading the paper should really look where he's walking though, otherwise he'd get hit and the WCC will reduce the speed limit to 10kph. :lol:

He's a double-strapper -- he had it coming.

The size of that shadow for the smaller bridge appears to defy the laws of physics. (Best not to show nasty shadows on a render though, I suppose - might not get the job commissioned if it has nasty shadows)

Im a big fan of thios project but am struggling to see how it all fits in the space provided. Surely some buildings are going to be compromised?

Second tunnel could replace Basin Reserve flyover idea (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10855239)

A second Mt Victoria tunnel could be the solution to Wellington's traffic congestion problems. After a long night of discussions, the Wellington City Council has voted in favour of exploring alternative options to the proposed Basin Reserve flyover. The decision came the same day Auckland architect Richard Reid announced he has drafted a solution to the traffic congestion, without needing the $90 million dollar flyover proposed by the New Zealand Transport Agency. Councillor Justin Lester said the council will apply $50,000 toward looking at different options including Mr Reid's idea of a second tunnel. The vote was won eight to seven.

Dude reading the paper should really look where he's walking though, otherwise he'd get hit and the WCC will reduce the speed limit to 10kph. :lol:
He's a double-strapper -- he had it coming.
What's a double-strapper?

Second tunnel could replace Basin Reserve flyover idea (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10855239)

A second Mt Victoria tunnel could be the solution to Wellington's traffic congestion problems. After a long night of discussions, the Wellington City Council has voted in favour of exploring alternative options to the proposed Basin Reserve flyover. The decision came the same day Auckland architect Richard Reid announced he has drafted a solution to the traffic congestion, without needing the $90 million dollar flyover proposed by the New Zealand Transport Agency. Councillor Justin Lester said the council will apply $50,000 toward looking at different options including Mr Reid's idea of a second tunnel. The vote was won eight to seven.

While Wellington would benefit from a second tunnel, this wont solve the headache that is the basin itself. With all it's intersections, drvieways, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, etc, its slow going around there even in the off peak. What we need is a bypass around the basin to take some/most of the traffic away.

^^ The idea with the second tunnel is that it would go under the Basin Reserve.

So starting from the Hataitai side, this new tunnel would go under Mt Vic, under the basin then emerge somewhere near Buckle St?

^^ I would imagine so.

So while NZ puts up flyovers in the CBD, others look at taking existing ones underground.....

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/1950s-slash-and-spurn-might-give-way-to-buried-cahill-expressway-and-revive-garden-wonderland-20130205-2dwn9.html


I like the opening paragraph of this article which calls the building of a flyover "a very 1950s decision". Exactly.

The picture at the top of the article has nothing to do what is in the plan. Its a fanciful idea that comes up every now and again.

this thing will be a tag/graf magnet, it will smell like urine and homeless people and thanks to the shade, will kill any plant life that's put in to make it more attractive.

but hey... cars will get quicker access to the mt vic tunnel so people wont have to linger there too long.

Geez you exaggerating. :bash: (The shade lol)

Sadly the area is in desperate need of an upgrade. I don’t see how this flyover will bring the area down any more.

So while NZ puts up flyovers in the CBD, others look at taking existing ones underground.....

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/1950s-slash-and-spurn-might-give-way-to-buried-cahill-expressway-and-revive-garden-wonderland-20130205-2dwn9.html


I like the opening paragraph of this article which calls the building of a flyover "a very 1950s decision". Exactly.

Nice idea... but wellington can't afford it.
NZ is already borrowing about $300million per week. Where is the money going to come from?

Nice idea... but wellington can't afford it.
NZ is already borrowing about $300million per week. Where is the money going to come from?

And where is the money coming from for the new road out of Wellington?

$2.3bn on a road which, by NZTA's own BCR analysis, has a return of 0.35c for every dollar spent on it. What an absolutely awesome investment. It makes Transmission Gully (0.6 BCR) a pot of gold.

Where is the money?. If its tarmac for a road, there's always money.....

And where is the money coming from for the new road out of Wellington?

$2.3bn on a road which, by NZTA's own BCR analysis, has a return of 0.35c for every dollar spent on it. What an absolutely awesome investment. It makes Transmission Gully (0.6 BCR) a pot of gold.

Where is the money?. If its tarmac for a road, there's always money.....

This thread is about the basin reserve flyover.

Its a no brainer that there is a congestion problem from wellington to the airport. Doing nothing is not an option! The Basin flyover is probably the cheapest option. Why should more money be borrowed and NZ be put into more debt, just to tunnel? A tunnel won't do any better than a flyover at solving the congestion problem. (with a ridiculous price tag).

This thread is about the basin reserve flyover.

Its a no brainer that there is a congestion problem from wellington to the airport. Doing nothing is not an option! The Basin flyover is probably the cheapest option. Why should more money be borrowed and NZ be put into more debt, just to tunnel? A tunnel won't do any better than a flyover at solving the congestion problem. (with a ridiculous price tag).

I never said doing nothing was an option, thats why I offered an alternative solution based on the fact we seem to have an open cheque book for road spend which ignores value for money. You seem to lament govt borrowing, unless it's for road projects totalling almost $3bn which by the NZTA's own analysis won't provide any discernible benefits in the long term. Strange logic.

Factor in the dire impact on the surrounding environment (including property values) of a flyover, and the cost of knocking it down and building a tunnel in 30yrs time which is what will inevitably happen and the tunnel isn't so expensive anymore.

A tunnel isnt an option though is it, it'd be too steep?

I never said doing nothing was an option, thats why I offered an alternative solution based on the fact we seem to have an open cheque book for road spend which ignores value for money. You seem to lament govt borrowing, unless it's for road projects totalling almost $3bn which by the NZTA's own analysis won't provide any discernible benefits in the long term. Strange logic.

Factor in the dire impact on the surrounding environment (including property values) of a flyover, and the cost of knocking it down and building a tunnel in 30yrs time which is what will inevitably happen and the tunnel isn't so expensive anymore.

Won’t provide any discernible benefits in the long term?

I disagree. Our roads in NZ are far behind many third world countries. We need to get them up to scratch. Do you suggest we just leave them as is and let us fall even further behind the rest of the developing world? I have nothing against govt borrowing to a point. But why borrow quadruple for a tunnel? You seem to lament govt borrowing, and seem keen to borrow so much more.

The flyover will probably never be knocked down. Unless of course our economy grows so much that we can afford the high cost of a tunnel. I personally don’t see the point. A dual carriageway into/out of wellington to the airport going underground, or above ground is going to provide the same solution. Putting a tunnel underground where you propose will be a massive engineering task with huge risks involved. Sure its possible to engineer your way through the wellington faults etc .. But at what cost?

A tunnel isnt an option though is it, it'd be too steep?

There are costly geo-technical issues with tunnelling under the Basin.

Due to the very high water table, the ground directly under the existing road is sludgy and would be like building a tunnel through a swamp. Due to the hilly topography, such a tunnel would would be very steep.

Won’t provide any discernible benefits in the long term? I disagree.


Well, the NZTA - through the results of their own BCR analysis - seems to disagree with you. That, combined with the fact it will end up like every other major new road that's been built in the last 50yrs. Congested.

On other matters, I see the Kapiti expressway has been approved, BCR 0.2. Another stunner. I don't know why the even bother with the BCR process......

combined with the fact it will end up like every other major new road that's been built in the last 50yrs. Congested.

Its like everything else. As we develop we build bigger electricity grids, better water supplies, better roads. Its an ongoing process. I don't see your point? When the time comes, well we upgrade again. So what? Its a sign that we growing the country economically. Not staying stagnant.

On other matters, I see the Kapiti expressway has been approved, BCR 0.2. Another stunner. I don't know why the even bother with the BCR process......

best news I have read all year. Made my day. I can't wait to see this project start.

Its like everything else. As we develop we build bigger electricity grids, better water supplies, better roads. Its an ongoing process.

I love Wellington, and I hope that if current trends continue, it doesn't grow much bigger and won't need all these road upgrades etc. and won't have the traffic growth to necessitate expanding them when they fill up in a few years.

The last thing I'd want is NZ to have to waste billions 'solving' Wellington's traffic problems like it has to in Auckland

Its like everything else. As we develop we build bigger electricity grids, better water supplies, better roads. Its an ongoing process. I don't see your point?

Except countries that are getting bigger and better are investing heavily in alternative, more efficient transit solutions. NZ is not. The BCRs - however flawed - tell a very clear story. These new RoNs (most of them) do not lead to the economic boomtime that the trucking lobbies will tell you they do. They in fact are the opposite - 0.2 and 0.6. is a criminally low return. There are PT investments I would never support that would still do better than that.

This isn't some greenie-tree hugging message. NZ is very much the exception of what's going on in the rest of the developed world when it comes to transit solutions. If anyone is stagnant my friend, its NZ - stuck in planning solutions that evolved in a very different time and from all evidence around us, have failed such that we need to spend billions duplicating them.

Won’t provide any discernible benefits in the long term?

I disagree. Our roads in NZ are far behind many third world countries. We need to get them up to scratch. Do you suggest we just leave them as is and let us fall even further behind the rest of the developing world? I have nothing against govt borrowing to a point. But why borrow quadruple for a tunnel? You seem to lament govt borrowing, and seem keen to borrow so much more.

The flyover will probably never be knocked down. Unless of course our economy grows so much that we can afford the high cost of a tunnel. I personally don’t see the point. A dual carriageway into/out of wellington to the airport going underground, or above ground is going to provide the same solution. Putting a tunnel underground where you propose will be a massive engineering task with huge risks involved. Sure its possible to engineer your way through the wellington faults etc .. But at what cost?

You my friend, obviously haven't been to Bali, Thailand, Madagascar etc. those are 3rd world countries with some very tiny, narrow, 3rd world standard roads, not New zealand. Being an Aussie, i actually think NZ has better roads than back over here in Australia. the Motorways are pretty good, not a bump or pothole in sight and its the same with just normal 2 lane roads over there which have and have had noise marks, bots dots or what ever you call them on the line markings for quite a bit. back here, they are only just starting to get those and the roads(even busy thoroughfares) are quite crappy with lots of potholes, fading lanes, bumps you name it, but thats really depending which state you are in. im not saying you guys have perfect roads, but you should understand that your roads really arent that bad. i think the whole times i spent in NZ driving my girlfriend to work when she works over there now and then, i barely hit a pothole, just a few crappy surfaced roads.

Having been in the UK for a couple of years now, I kinda agree that NZ's roads are pretty good surface wise. London's roads are horrible. Travelling on a bus is literally a pain in the ass with the number of pot holes about. NZ's roads by comparison are paved with gold and smoother than a baby's bum.

You my friend, obviously haven't been to Bali, Thailand, Madagascar etc. those are 3rd world countries with some very tiny, narrow, 3rd world standard roads, not New zealand. Being an Aussie, i actually think NZ has better roads than back over here in Australia. the Motorways are pretty good, not a bump or pothole in sight and its the same with just normal 2 lane roads over there which have and have had noise marks, bots dots or what ever you call them on the line markings for quite a bit. back here, they are only just starting to get those and the roads(even busy thoroughfares) are quite crappy with lots of potholes, fading lanes, bumps you name it, but thats really depending which state you are in. im not saying you guys have perfect roads, but you should understand that your roads really arent that bad. i think the whole times i spent in NZ driving my girlfriend to work when she works over there now and then, i barely hit a pothole, just a few crappy surfaced roads.

I think you missing my point.

Many third world countries have far better roading infrastructure than NZ. South Africa is a prime example.

You talking about the maintenance of the roads. I tend to agree, yes NZ is very good at the upkeep of its existing roads and its very rarely we see potholes like you do in South Africa or Australia. But when it comes to the actual roading infrastructure Australia and South Africa are way ahead.

Google Images of South African highways (https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=south+africa+highways&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Zry&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=fflb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=WEY2Ue3LKYrRsgbxsICIBg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1600&bih=810&sei=W0Y2Uby_J8aZtAba94GwAg#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=ery&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB%3Aofficial&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=johannesburg+highways&oq=johannesburg+highways&gs_l=img.3...39303.40874.0.41023.12.12.0.0.0.3.145.821.6j4.10.0...0.0...1c.1.5.img.09XqvGIFwDY&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43148975,d.Yms&fp=c478437772ab92a3&biw=1600&bih=810)

yes NZ is very good at the upkeep of its existing roads and its very rarely we see potholes like you do in South Africa or Australia. But when it comes to the actual roading infrastructure Australia and South Africa are way ahead.


And what are the populations of these countries? We simply cannot afford to be building these massive infrastructure projects with our small population (besides the fact our small population doesn't warrant them). Especially when they have BCRs below 1. Last time we had a government that told us to 'think big' we were nearly bankrupted.

And what are the populations of these countries? We simply cannot afford to be building these massive infrastructure projects with our small population (besides the fact our small population doesn't warrant them). Especially when they have BCRs below 1. Last time we had a government that told us to 'think big' we were nearly bankrupted.

Your right! Australia has like what, 5 times the population as New zealand and South Africa has even more than over here in Aus! we in Australia need Motorway standard roads connecting our major cities(like Sydney to Brisbane, Melbourne and Canberra and what not) and same with South Africa, while you guys in NZ barely have enough traffic on the Main road between The Largest and 2nd largest cities to warrant for a Motorway! to me and im sure others would agree too, your roads could be improved but are pretty much up to date anyway. all you really need to do is complete that 'Expressway' or whatever you call it all the way to the south of Hamilton!

Your right! Australia has like what, 5 times the population as New zealand and South Africa has even more than over here in Aus! we in Australia need Motorway standard roads connecting our major cities(like Sydney to Brisbane, Melbourne and Canberra and what not) and same with South Africa, while you guys in NZ barely have enough traffic on the Main road between The Largest and 2nd largest cities to warrant for a Motorway! to me and im sure others would agree too, your roads could be improved but are pretty much up to date anyway. all you really need to do is complete that 'Expressway' or whatever you call it all the way to the south of Hamilton!

Motorway standard? Those routes you mentioned are mainly only expressway standard (at grade intersections) with sections of motorway grade (the Hume Hwy/Mwy for example).

Anyway, NZ's highway system is and has been in need of upgrading for a long time. There is certainly no need for a national motorway network but certainly in the Auckland, Waikato, BoP triangle there is a need for a regional motorway/expressway linking the 3. The route north of Wellington via the Kapiti Coast is another case and there are serveral smaller project areas I can think of.

Your right! Australia has like what, 5 times the population as New zealand and South Africa has even more than over here in Aus!

South Africa has a population of about 45Million, of which about 35million don’t contribute to tax and live in poverty. You can’t use the overall population figures to back up your assumption.

Here are some interesting stats. New Zealand has over 4million registered vehicles. South Africa has 9 797 413, just over double. New Zealand covers an area of 268,700 km², South Africa 1,221,000 km². Surely then by those metrics New Zealand should have better roads?

Unfortunately NZ has left it too long. And that's why it’s costing so much. Thank the previous labour government for that mess. Just look how long labour allowed wellingtons railway network to deteriorate. Another mess.

We now at the stage where we need to bite the bullet, spend and build the infrastructure that’s never been built. It should have been done years ago but never got done. In the long run, 25-50 years from now NZ’s economy is going to be reaping the rewards.

while you guys in NZ barely have enough traffic on the Main road between The Largest and 2nd largest cities to warrant for a Motorway! to me and im sure others would agree too, your roads could be improved but are pretty much up to date anyway.

We laughed on our last trip between the Gold Coast and Brisbane. (80km).
We did the trip in well under an hour.

Thats quicker than a trip from Wellington city to Waikanae (50km)
Lets not even talk about how long it takes to do a trip from Auckland to Wellington. And its actually not that far either.

South Africa's population is closer to 52 million people. NZ is 4.4 million and I am willing to bet that there are more cars on the roads in SA than at first stipulated (many more are unregistered and "illegal").

South Africa is also one land mass, NZ consists of two land masses i.e. North Island (pop. +/- 3.3 million) and South Island (pop. +/- 1 million). To put things in perspective, the city of Cape Town has approx. 4 million people and I can tell you that Auckland's motorway network is way better than Cape Town's (I have lived there) - AKL pop. 1.5 million.

You also pay tolls through your ass on SA motorways, most Kiwi's have the luxury of not having that expense and I can tell you that our road network is in a way, way better condition than in South Africa.

Let's also not forget that there are vast amounts of motorways being constructed as I type this. I feel that for a country the size of NZ the motorway network is phenomenal.

Did not know you were from CT? I have live there too. Amazing city.

Cape Town while huge in population can’t be compared to Auckland. Im willing to bet that there are far more tax paying citizens in Auckland than Cape Town. You can’t always rate a cities size on population.

I agree with your statement on Aucklands motorway network. However 20years ago would have been a different story. Not much has been improved since in Cape Town (Not much of a need to upgrade). It was built well from the beginning.

The highways around Gauteng for example are world class. And most were build in the 50’s and 60’s. Again not much has been changed since then other than widening, maintenance and maybe strengthening.

Wellington is what this debate is about. While Auckland boast some good motorways, its a pity that this infrastructure has not been followed through to here. Its time Wellington got its share of decent roads too.

Have a look at this thread: South African roads infrastructure (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=419671)
Amazing stuff considering that South Africa is a third world country.

Did not know you were from CT? I have live there too. Amazing city.

Cape Town while huge in population can’t be compared to Auckland. Im willing to bet that there are far more tax paying citizens in Auckland than Cape Town. You can’t always rate a cities size on population.

I agree with your statement on Aucklands motorway network. However 20years ago would have been a different story. Not much has been improved since in Cape Town (Not much of a need to upgrade). It was built well from the beginning.

The highways around Gauteng for example are world class. And most were build in the 50’s and 60’s. Again not much has been changed since then iother than wwidening, maintenance and maybe strengethening.

Wellington is what this debate is about. While Auckland boast some good motorways, its a pitty that this infrustructure has not been followed through to here. Its time Wellington got its share of decent roads too.

Have a look at this thread: South African roads infrastructure (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=419671)
Amazing stuff considering that South Africa is a third world country.

Yeah I live there for 4 years, great place for a holiday but not my kind of place to live :) I looooove it over here in little NZ. Gauteng had lots of money to burn because they didn't have to look after the majority of the population - while most lived in shanty towns they were building motorways (also, I think that the first motorway was built in the 1970's ... M2 West):) Now it is coming back to bite them in the arse hence the lack of maintenance and the need for tolling.

NZ has a balance, it takes care of it's people and is progressing while maintaining - something to be damn proud of :cheers:

I thought that for a city of 400 000 people that WLG had great road infrastructure, more so than I expected but I am sure that it needs some further enhancements which are being planned for - right ?

Due to the socio-economic divides it is unfair to compare South Africa to NZ ... rather compare NZ to a country of a similar economy and population size. Gauteng has double the population of NZ but if you are going to keep on comparing the socio-economic conditions we are going to get nowhere.

Another eye-opener is if you compare Wellington to Rustenburg (which has 200 000 people more than WLG) then you really get shocked and you realise just how great the WLG infrastructure is.

Yeah I live there for 4 years, great place for a holiday but not my kind of place to live :) I looooove it over here in little NZ. Gauteng had lots of money to burn because they didn't have to look after the majority of the population - while most lived in shanty towns they were building motorways (also, I think that the first motorway was built in the 1970's ... M2 West):) Now it is coming back to bite them in the arse hence the lack of maintenance and the need for tolling.

NZ has a balance, it takes care of it's people and is progressing while maintaining - something to be damn proud of :cheers:

I thought that for a city of 400 000 people that WLG had great road infrastructure, more so than I expected but I am sure that it needs some further enhancements which are being planned for - right ?

Due to the socio-economic divides it is unfair to compare South Africa to NZ ... rather compare NZ to a country of a similar economy and population size. Gauteng has double the population of NZ but if you are going to keep on comparing the socio-economic conditions we are going to get nowhere.

Another eye-opener is if you compare Wellington to Rustenburg (which has 200 000 people more than WLG) then you really get shocked and you realise just how great the WLG infrastructure is.

They say a good country to compare New Zealand to is Finland

Not sure how their infrustructure compares to ours.

I agree we can’t compare NZ to South Africa, they are both very different countries. I used South Africa as an example because its a third world country. There is no doubt that South Africa has better road infrustructure overall. NZ is playing catchup.

They say a good country to compare New Zealand to is Finland

Not sure how their infrustructure compares to ours.

I agree we can’t compare NZ to South Africa, they are both very different countries. I used South Africa as an example because its a third world country. There is no doubt that South Africa has better road infrustructure overall. NZ is playing catchup.

I am not so sure about Finland either, maybe somebody can help out. South Africa is not entirely third World either, it hovers between third world and first world. It has a huge tax base and a mineral rich economy - considering this their network should be bigger than ours ;)

I am not so sure about Finland either, maybe somebody can help out. South Africa is not entirely third World either, it hovers between third world and first world. It has a huge tax base and a mineral rich economy - considering this their network should be bigger than ours ;)

The term "first world" and "third world" are probably the wrong terms to use.

Developed country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country) (New Zealand), and developing country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country) (south africa) is probably better.

Yes South Africa has a huge mineral rich economy, a bigger GDP (408,237) than NZ (162,783).

But look at the GDP per capita. New Zealand (32,620) is ranked much higher than South Africa (8,070)

Interesting stuff. So way off topic now but what the hell :lol::lol::lol:

The term "first world" and "third world" are probably the wrong terms to use.

Developed country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country) (New Zealand), and developing country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country) (south africa) is probably better.

Yes South Africa has a huge mineral rich economy, a bigger GDP (408,237) than NZ (162,783).

But look at the GDP per capita. New Zealand (32,620) is ranked much higher than South Africa (8,070)

Interesting stuff. So way off topic now but what the hell :lol::lol::lol:

Yeah you are right, we are using outdated terminology :) WOW at the difference between GDP per capita, not bad for a tiny Nation of farmers ;)

Yeah you are right, we are using outdated terminology :) WOW at the difference between GDP per capita, not bad for a tiny Nation of farmers ;)

HEHE I agree. New Zealand having a higher GDP per capita than SOuth Africa, a country that supplied 2thirds of the worlds gold. quiet an achievement. :cheers:

I have been looking at Finland. It looks like a country which is very good for comparisons.

Tampere Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampere) <---> Wellington New Zealand.
Helsinki Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki) <---> Auckland New Zealand.

Just had a play on google amps around Tampere. Must say they have a very impressive road network.

I think a fairer comparison for NZ is Slovenia. Their GDP PPP is closer to ours than Finland's is.

Although, comparing a country that is located that close to a market of 400 million people is hardly a fair comparison.

Wellington is isolated and small, and I agree the roads in and out aren't ideal, but these two factors mean that we simply cannot afford to spend massive amounts of money on roads. There is a perfectly good train service to Waikanae that plenty more people could be using instead of driving.

BTW comparing Wellington to South East Queensland is ridiculous, it has 10x the population and is a rapidly growing region of Australia.

Went to Helsinki for a day and from what I saw it's nothing compared to Auckland. Helsinki was empty, there was no one around, no cars, no tourists, nothing. It was very weird.

Anyway, back on topic, Wellington needs these 2 roads for both safety (alternative routes after an earthquake) and future growth. The train network is fantastic, although a bit delapidated these days, and really compliments the road network.

Anyway, back on topic, Wellington needs these 2 roads for both safety (alternative routes after an earthquake) and future growth. The train network is fantastic, although a bit delapidated these days, and really compliments the road network.

The background studies said that TG would take longer than the coast route to reopen in an earthquake, it will have grades as steep as Ngauranga and for longer, and as for the Kapiti expressway, I don't see how it will fare any differently to the existing SH1 in an earthquake.

I do see how getting cars out of Paraparaumu and Waikane will be better for pedestrians there. I sure found it unwelcoming to get off the train at Waikanae and have to negotiate that road to get to the shops.

Road and rail do complement each other, and the double tracking to Waikane has expanded capacity, taking pressure off the road, which makes spending all that money building the motorways unnecessary.

There is a perfectly good train service to Waikanae that plenty more people could be using instead of driving.


Have you ever taken the train from Waikanae to Wellington? Its painfully slow, it works out expensive and its impractical for many people that live on the coast.

The background studies said that TG would take longer than the coast route to reopen in an earthquake, it will have grades as steep as Ngauranga and for longer, and as for the Kapiti expressway, I don't see how it will fare any differently to the existing SH1 in an earthquake.

I think you missing the point of how transmission gully will benefit wellington in a major earthquake.

Two roads in/out are better than one. The chances are much higher for an earthquake to totally devastate both roads. You cant tell me that you honestly believe that building a second road will have no benefit?

I do see how getting cars out of Paraparaumu and Waikane will be better for pedestrians there. I sure found it unwelcoming to get off the train at Waikanae and have to negotiate that road to get to the shops.

Road and rail do complement each other, and the double tracking to Waikane has expanded capacity, taking pressure off the road, which makes spending all that money building the motorways unnecessary.

I have seen no pressure being taken off the roads, in fact over the last few years I have noticed the congestion on SH1 increasing, this despite the extra capacity to Waikanae. I think the ever increasing PT costs are partially to blame. Its no longer cheaper to take the train and it can work out to be considerably cheaper to drive, especially if you car pooling.

I think you missing the point of how transmission gully will benefit wellington in a major earthquake.

Two roads in/out are better than one. The chances are much higher for an earthquake to totally devastate both roads. You cant tell me that you honestly believe that building a second road will have no benefit?



There already are two roads, SH1 and SH2. Any road out of Wellington will be vulnerable in an EQ, doesn't matter how many you build or how big or engineered they are.

I don't 'believe', I am looking at the facts of the business case - that building transmission gully will cost us more than any benefit it provides.

SH2 is an alternative yes, but not one for those in Kapiti, Horowhenua, Wanganui etc. Even then, SH2 spirals up the Rimutakas which is just as susceptible to quake related closure as SH1. Wellington is pretty fucked really no matter how you look at it, so the more roads in and out the better I reckon. The number of benefits from the TGM far outweigh the number of cons, it's just the huge cost that's killing it.

I wish they'd built the dam thing back when I first researched this project in high school. It was costed at just $250m back then :lol:

I don't 'believe', I am looking at the facts of the business case - that building transmission gully will cost us more than any benefit it provides.

Will it really "cost us"?

Concidering that its going to be a toll road some of those costs will be recovered from those that choose to use it.

SH2 is an alternative yes, but not one for those in Kapiti, Horowhenua, Wanganui etc. Even then, SH2 spirals up the Rimutakas which is just as susceptible to quake related closure as SH1. The number of benefits from the TGM far outweigh the number of cons, it's just the huge cost that's killing it.



Will TG or the Kapiti expressway have any effect on people who live in Kapiti and further north in the event of an EQ in Wellington? I don't understand your point.

I would be happy for billions to be spent on a new road/s out of Wellington, IF they stacked up economically and IF they were going to provide more resilience but this is simply not the case.

And yes NZKiwi, TG will cost us - as you say, SOME of the costs will be recovered from tolls.

http://p.imgci.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/155300/155386.jpg

Interestng acticle on Cricinfo about the flyover.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/content/story/625245.html

Cricket Wellington arent opposed to the idea, in fact they're all for it as long as they can get some money off NZTA to help develop the Basin :lol: Good on them. While I love the Basin it does need one helluva spruce up. Some new fencing and gates, some flood lights and a sexy new stand/cricekt museum would make it world class.

Cricket Wellington arent opposed to the idea, in fact they're all for it as long as they can get some money off NZTA to help develop the Basin :lol: Good on them. While I love the Basin it does need one helluva spruce up. Some new fencing and gates, some flood lights and a sexy new stand/cricekt museum would make it world class.

I thought they weren't getting any money per se, just that NZTA would pay for the new stand. And given it will be between two (relatively) historic stands, I can't see it being sexy..

I think NZTA offered $11m to build a new stand, but it would be to the right of the RA Vance, pretty much on top of the northern gate, not between the stands as you said.

Wellington Council to work with NZTA on planned flyover (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10872987)

Wellington City Council has decided to work with the New Zealand Transport Agency to ensure everything possible is done to address any adverse effects of the planned Basin Reserve flyover. Yesterday's result follows the council's decision in December to take one last look at alternative transport solutions for the Basin Reserve roundabout. The council's transport portfolio leader, Andy Foster, said it was a worthwhile exercise to look into alternatives, but it was found none of them were demonstrably superior. "However, through that process, we identified a significant number of mitigation opportunities, as there are a lot of urban design challenges implicit in the existing flyover design. "We have an opportunity to influence the outcome, to work with NZTA to reduce the visual impacts of the flyover and ensure Kent and Cambridge terraces are landscaped with public space, trees and gardens and pedestrian and cycle facilities.'' ... MORE (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10872987)

Now that the flyover looks a foregone conclusion, the best thing for it now is to make it less of a blot on the landscape. Here's one way how (http://www.follyforaflyover.co.uk/) the British are going about it:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2012/2/8/1328707600059/Folly-for-a-Flyover-by-As-007.jpg

And supposedly in India:

http://www.cynthia.boxerman.co.uk/images/Pretty%20flyover%20supports.JPG

There are flowers growing on this one in Malaysia (http://mysarawak2.blogspot.co.nz/2011/02/thoughts-on-kuching-garden-city.html), but seems a bit contrived:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wFKgN2rQxG0/TVI3NtjwmJI/AAAAAAAABE0/b5kbKzEOBgg/s400/9feb%252711%252Csatok%2Bflyover.jpg

Definitely. A bit of paint or some flowers would help.

In saying that, while the flyover will be ugly on the eye, the area wasnt looking that good anyway. A 6 lane road, car yards, old buildings and the run-down Basin Reserve facade, it's not exactly paradise is it.