It is easy to work out the travel time savings for rural highway improvements because there is generally only one main road involved. There are so many complex interactions happenning on urban transport networks that I don’t think it is possible to calculate the network-wide impacts of such a short motorway extension. If Transit had to eliminate grade separation of all the cross-roads to stay within the available funds then they would have lost the only real advantage that the original proposal had over the status quo.

This sort of project for projects sake is more what one would expect from a politician looking for a monumental legacy than from engineers who have a list as long as your arm of serious roading problems that could have done with this money such as extending the median barrier on the Centennial Highway or grade separating some of the dangerous intersections on the Hutt road.

Given Wellington is a relatively small city with very difficult topography a motorway system is never going to be very efficent. Putting the airport on the other side of the city from its customers, hemmed in by water on three sides, wasn’t too bright either.

The easiest solution is for those who insist on travelling by car to live somewhere else.

The first: As a geology student (many years ago!), I was impressed by the photographs of various fault lines in Aotearoa/NZ and the fate of civil engineering works in their vicinity. Our lecturer commented that when Civil Engineers took on the Planet, the Planet invariably won.

Tell me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Transmission Gully right there where the two bits of the North Island are gradually sliding past each other in opposite directions … ?

http://www.techmedia.co.nz/t2k/TGREAL.html

As I understand it there was a second tunnel dug with Mt Vic but not finished… and there is already a bus tunnel. The problems at the Terrace have much to do with the drain at the end, where it empties into the city proper with lights and traffic immediately halting traffic and metering it into the general flow.

The entire point to a bypass is to keep traffic not destined for the city from having to run into and through the city traffic. Mt Vic flows would improve if it didn’t have to encounter lights as it runs into the basin reserve either but that is the nature of entering a city.

If traffic not destined to the city proper is actually bypassing it in the sense of not HAVING to enter the city flow, then the functional effect is to vastly improve the efficiency of flow overall. That’s the theory, and it applies to the tunnels as well. Only traffic destined for the city should have to slow and merge. Could force city traffic off onto the Terrace and work on the Terrace entry flow into the City perhaps… not even have exits between the Terrace and Mt Vic. which would make it a true bypass.

Not possible with the current design.

What I keep seeing in NZ in terms of transit both between major cities and within them, are really odd design decisions. “Design by committee” hits me between the eyes and then “indecision” whacks me up the side of the head. Fortunately if you hit me in the head you’re playing to my strength

If you design a transit corridor (like a bypass or a tunnel) and you don’t put the tramway in at the same time the sub-optimal results aren’t really much of a mystery.

Wellington suffers from it, Auckland suffers from it. Transmission Gully should have an electric busway or tram line alongside it…

+++++

Cut-and-cover geologically unsound? Something smells a bit fishy here, as the nature of cut-and-cover is that it doesn’t rely a lot on the stability of the soil to create its “tunnel”. Heckfire, some places they just bridge it over with buildings. Cart the dirt away for fill. Probably good dirt too, if it used to be swamp.

respectfully
BJ

Whatever solution, without changing the Mt Vic tunnel and the Terrace tunnel, any solution will only move the congestion points as they approach these two bottle necks. Exactly what we see now. Every day.

“Bj - The Greens opposed the cut and cover tunnel bypass proposed in the early 1990s as well - though that would’ve been an excellent solution and saved all of Te Aro from a lot of traffic”.

Does anyone here know if and why that was opposed?

Would a “cut and cover” bypass be more effective than the current bypass?

I’m a bit cynical about what an audit would achieve. Scott makes the point that cost/benefit analysis is fundamentally flawed and often suggests that obviously good ideas don’t stack up when you try and evaluate them in pure dollar terms.

The Greens, good little capitalists that they are, apparently believe that if you can accurately put a dollar figure on everything, you can then work out a logical result. There’s a word for people who try and examine the world in this way. Actually its three words - completely bloody barmy.

For example, how much is it worth to me that while the time it takes me to get to work hasn’t changed much since the bypass was built, its actually a more pleasant experience? This is because the increase in traffic congestion means that whizzing past lots of stationary cars on my bike gives me a feeling of smug satisfaction. Did Transit take that into account when they set out the benefits of the ‘bypass’ and if so, how many dollars did they judge it to be worth?

However, I do think the professionalism of those who recommended the current project be built needs to be examined. I suspect many people were captured by a desire to build something regardless of its actual benefits. If it can be shown that there claims were deliberately misleading or merely wishful thinking, or that they failed to give an honest technical appraisal without being influenced by persoanl preferances, then some people shouldn’t be trusted with engineering projects in the future.

One thing that has stuck with me from the days when I studied civil engineering was a rave from a lecturer about engineering being the last honest profession - you don’t tell people what they want to know, the customer isn’t always right and if you consider that something isn’t going to work you say so. In writing. If the engineers on this project did question it, and Transit ignored them that’s fair enough. If not then their competence has to be called into question.

By the way, BB, the reason we should continue to protest this was because we were sold a lemon, and haven’t been offered our money back. Basic consumer rights.

By the way your comment about the site being occupied by derelict houses is rubbish - they were perfectly good houses before Transit evicted the tenants and refused to maintain them, then used their own inaction to justify their destruction.

How would you feel if a government agency booted you out of your house, then asked what you were complaining about since you no longer lived there?

In fact there are post construction audits of BCRs of major road projects as a matter of course by Land Transport NZ - on average in most cases the BCR is underestimated. However the Greens OPPOSED the use of benefit/cost analysis and economic efficiency as criteria for land transport funding - go figure.

Bj - The Greens opposed the cut and cover tunnel bypass proposed in the early 1990s as well - though that would’ve been an excellent solution and saved all of Te Aro from a lot of traffic. About a third of traffic that enters Wellington needs to bypass it - it wont ever be attracted onto better public transport because public transport cannot compete for suburb-suburb traffic for those with cars (i.e. most people).

The bypass was actually funded under transitional provisions of the Land Transport Management Act and subject to an independent review along with other major projects before it went to the Land Transport NZ board. This is possibly the most reviewed road project in recent history. Let the damned thing work for a while before you pass judgment on it - but dont complain that it’s an inadequate bypass, given the Greens opposed that too!