Wellington Scoop

E-Mail 'Flyover - condemned by Agency's experts' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Flyover - condemned by Agency's experts' to a friend

* Required Field

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...


  1. Trevor, 7. January 2013, 22:15

    Interesting reading. I would like to highlight two aspects. Firstly the category “Social Impact”- minor positive. I would like to see what criteria their design team considered and the weighting. The strong negatives to me would be the 8 metre wide structure and the shade/dark corners this causes, the graffiti it would encourage, the crime it would encourage under the structure, the eyesore from the Kent Tce sightlines, and the noise and visual aspects from the Basin Reserve esp during cricket games. I cannot think of many strongly positive aspects to balance against this.

    Secondly, the optimisation of traffic lights on the route esp at Buckle/Taranaki. Why is this not optimized now? The same traffic will flow across this intersection. Already the traffic flowing north along Wallace Street severely backs up, allowing priority to East/ West traffic. This can only worsen with “optimization”. Similar arguments apply to the Karo/ Victoria intersection

  2. Alana, 7. January 2013, 22:59

    Excellent analysis!
    If the NZTA review finds the flyover unsustainable why does it persist?
    Other options exist that won’t leave us with a concrete wall, noise, grit and fumes drifting down on us, and a concrete wall beside the Basin Reserve.

  3. traveller, 8. January 2013, 9:24

    I agree with Trevor. How could anyone claim that a flyover would create a “minor positive” social impact?
    The prospect of flyovers in Kapiti has caused widespread dismay in those quiet seaside communities. It’s equally distressing to think that there could be one in the middle of Wellington.

  4. Resident, 9. January 2013, 19:31

    Social impact: – minor positive:
    As one who lives and works here I cannot think of a positive.
    What criteria do they use?

  5. Trish, 10. January 2013, 11:25

    As I read the reports, the “minor positive” impact of the bridge is that, as perceived from the ground level footpath, the sound of traffic on the bridge would be less than if the traffic was “at grade”. No recognition of the fact that sound from the bridge would carry further into the neighbourhood, nor that the cars would never be traveling 50km/h as they came down from the tunnel. But what would we know, these guys are the “experts”.

  6. Elaine, 10. January 2013, 11:59

    It is shocking that NZTA does not listen (or are not allowed to listen) to their own experts both in regards to the flyover and the Kapiti Expressway. In 2009 the current route of the expressway was rejected by NZTA as being too disruptive. Their own hired firm, BEKA, also stated (via a leaked document) that the benefit cost for the Kapiti Expressway ratio was .2! A BCR of 1 means the costs and benefits are about equal. Of course Brownlee’s response was that BCR does not really matter. Who benefits from all of this massive expenditure on roads??

  7. Kahu, 10. January 2013, 16:54

    The NZTA bully local and regional councils and communities into having roads they don’t want (eg the recent threats made to Wellington council about the overpass). The NZTA either don’t listen to the views of communities at all, or they pretend to listen and and then do whatever the hell they like. Examples of this are the ‘accidental’ cutting down of native forest on the Tasman highway, and the failure to include the planned cycleways and fish runs (and then having to add them at much greater expense, only after the public kicked up enough of a fuss). The NZTA have had too much funding, and too little accountability, for too long. They, and the members of the current Govt, have breathed in too many exhaust fumes over the years and forgotten that there is more to life than highways and dollar signs.