Wellington Scoop

E-Mail 'Failing to learn the flyover lessons' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Failing to learn the flyover lessons' 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. Marion Leader, 9. November 2015, 14:06

    This report sounds like another example of spin or is it a bad attempt at a cover-up?
    It must have been hard to get under the Official Information Act.

  2. City Lad, 9. November 2015, 22:32

    WCC and GWRC failed to insist on a scale model of the flyover to be made by NZTA. Common sense flew out the window. And now those culpable for the expensive flyover mess have got together again to repeat another “we know best” carnage.

  3. Miss D Boat, 13. November 2015, 12:53

    I suspect the authors were involved in the project and that they couldn’t or wouldn’t slate themselves so they could continue on the next phase of the basin reserve project and keep themselves employed. Unfortunately there are not sufficient independent consultants who will tell it how it is for fear of not getting work in the future. Until that changes we will continue to see reports as this one that are masking the truth.

  4. JB, 13. November 2015, 16:40

    Typical NZTA behaviour. They’re an arrogant dictatorial agency that needs a good shake up, Wellington office especially. If they’re not careful, the Takapu Valley issue will go the same toxic way on them.

  5. Kay, 13. November 2015, 21:50

    Heavy on opinion, light on facts. No analysis of grounds for opposing the flyover application. Saying better communication would have changed the outcome is shallow at best. Did the report authors even read the Basin Bridge Panel’s decision declining the application? Where is the table analysing arguments against the proposal – heritage, impact on cricket, concerns about pedestrian safety under the structure, alternative traffic mode choices, local noise and air quality disruptions from the 3 year construction project, questions about cost benefit ratio, doubtful economic return, and so on …. ?