Wellington Scoop

E-Mail 'Inevitable? Why one Basin flyover will be followed by a second Basin flyover' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Inevitable? Why one Basin flyover will be followed by a second Basin flyover' 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. JC, 12. August 2013, 13:24

    In my view this analysis is flawed and misleading. It describes a second flyover as mitigation for the first flyover but does not take into account the positive effects that would result on Vivian Street and Kent Terrace (currently a traffic sewer) if east-west traffic is consolidated into one corridor. Among other things, consolidation would mean that north-south traffic along Taranaki Street and Adelaide Road / Cambridge Terrace would only have to deal with crossing SH1 once.

    I personally favour consolidation, followed by a lowering of as much of the consolidated route to a sub-grade level as possible when finances permit.

  2. Traveller, 13. August 2013, 22:15

    Lowering the route would be so much better for the Basin Reserve than building two flyovers or even one flyover. But the government doesn’t care.

  3. Maximus, 14. August 2013, 7:30

    Richard, this was identified by Eye of the Fish back in August 2011, and discussed there: http://eyeofthefish.org/double-banger/
    Yes, it is fairly obvious that NZTA are keeping that option alive – which makes their current work all the more stupid as it will just cost more to have to dig up the park again at a later date to put the (inevitable?) second tunnel under Memorial Park.
    As JC says above, there is an up-side to this: the possibility of Vivian St one day being returned to the city as a usable street, rather than the one-way traffic rat run that it is now. As you note, it comes with the price of two flyovers. But seeing as most Wellingtonians don’t seem to give a flying fuck about one flyover, why would they object to two?

  4. peter@south-welly, 14. August 2013, 22:36

    Maximus – such a churlish remark, a profanity really exemplifies sound judgment and intellectual ability – not.

  5. Elaine H, 16. August 2013, 10:45

    We are witnessing the destruction of Wellington as we know it

  6. JC, 16. August 2013, 17:19

    Wow Elaine, talk about an over-reaction! Cities grow. I’m sure there would have been people saying the same thing when they built the cable car to Kelburn a century ago.

  7. Sridhar, 18. August 2013, 21:17

    Hey JC, are you aware that after building bridges after bridges, cities in US are now starting to pull them down because a) they look ugly (as they did after being constructed but also because b) they are not fixing anything in the first place.

    So why would you want a bridge that is going to result the same? Do you want to experience the results first hand. why not learn from the experience of others?

  8. JC, 21. August 2013, 12:09

    Sridhar – I am happy to debate the merits as I appreciate there is no easy answer here, but please refrain from overstatements, they do not serve your argument well.

    Also, rather than attack the flyover, is there another proposal which you think would serve Wellington better? In my view there isn’t – all the alternatives (X, RR, status quo etc) have been thoroughly reviewed by various stakeholders and none have come out on top – but if you have a better idea I’d love to hear it.