Stuff Digital Edition

WEIGHING UP CITY CHOICES

With Wellingtonians asked to consult on the most transformative project of the city’s future, there are a few things to look out for, writes

Kate Green.

Wellington is on the cusp of change, with the capital’s transformational mass rapid transit project Let’s Get Wellington Moving out for public consultation. The project hinges on moving people from cars to active transport options such as walking or biking, or mass rapid transit, making the city more liveable and reducing its carbon footprint.

But for those wanting to put in a submission, it is pretty complicated. Between a website that presents the information about the four options in a condensed form, a series of analysis documents nestled quietly behind the scenes, and amendments to the climate impact information, confusion is to be expected.

For those yet to put in a submission before the December 10 deadline, the consensus from experts and councillors is clear: if you are concerned about the future of planet, you should choose option 4.

The climate ratings for each option changed after consultation opened.

Under the original rating system, option 1 scored 2.5 out of four; and 2, 3 and 4 all tied for second, scoring two out of four. These ratings were replaced with a ‘‘carbon snapshot’’ – a paragraph detailing the climate impact of each option. Options 1 and 4 are now clear frontrunners. Those who left contact details were invited to resubmit. To date, one person out of 1200 had done so.

The supporting document on carbon leaves option 3 out of much of the comparative analysis, ‘‘due to time limitations’’ and ‘‘because it scored lowest of the four options’’. This article will do the same.

Let’s Get Wellington Moving programme director David Dunlop said options 1 and 4 performed the best on reducing emissions.

Options 3 and 4 would have much lower embodied carbon because less construction was involved. Many decisions remained which would ultimately determine carbon impacts.

The next step would be to calculate emissions created and avoided over time to determine when the emissions from construction would be ‘‘paid back’’ by the emissions avoided. ‘‘It is important that the programme has contributed more carbon savings than costs by 2050, preferably by 2030 (or as early as possible),’’ Dunlop said.

The carbon snapshot says option 1 has: Higher carbon emissions from construction of a new Mt Victoria Tunnel and Arras Tunnel extension

Good carbon reductions from more people walking, biking and using public transport

More people can live closer to town, reducing the distances people need to travel

Option 4 has:

Lower carbon emissions from construction Good carbon reductions from more people walking, biking and using public transport

More people can live closer to town, reducing the distances people need to travel

The second and third points are identical, so it comes down to the details.

It is important to remember public engagement is not a vote. ‘‘We are interested in qualitative information about the options to assist the decision-making process (what people like and dislike, what we have missed or need to consider, what people’s priorities are) rather than just which option people prefer.’’ So which factors should we be endorsing? One way to look at it is cost. Option 1 will cost $7.4 billion. Option 4 will cost $5.8b (both over a 30-year span). The money saved by choosing option 4 could be spent on other projects to reduce emissions.

Another factor is construction time. Option 1 is expected to take 10-15 years to build, while option 4 will take 8-12. The sooner Wellington gets moving, the sooner the city starts cutting emissions.

There are two sources of emissions to take into account with new infrastructure, the first being embodied emissions, caused during construction by the creation and transport of raw materials, and energy used to assemble them. Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University associate professor Ralph Chapman said embodied emissions were driven up by the use of steel and concrete. All options propose a new Mt Victoria tunnel but options 1, 2 and 3 also have an extension of the Arras Tunnel, which will require a lot of these emissionsheavy materials.

Building in the Basin Reserve was also a risk – as one of the lower points in the city, it was at risk of flooding as the effects of global warming such as increased intensity of weather, higher rainfall, rising sea levels took effect.

Water naturally pools there as it was a swamp until uplift from an earthquake in 1855 all but drained it.

‘‘You would have to future-proof it,’’

Chapman said. Cue more steel and concrete.

The second category is emissions enabled by the infrastructure over the course of its lifetime. The Arras Tunnel would make the road more pleasant for cars, encouraging people to drive (which, according to Chapman, is the last thing we should be doing).

Matt Lowrie, editor of transport and urban design blog Greater Auckland, agreed this was problematic. ‘‘Driving is the only thing in the world where we want to make it better without encouraging more people to use it.’’

EVs were years away from being ubiquitous, Lowrie said. ‘‘We need to reduce the amount of driving we do. We are going to be driving vehicles that emit carbon for a long time.’’

Chairman of the regional council’s climate committee Thomas Nash said the scrutiny was understandable. The project had already risked the ‘‘unfortunate perception’’ of artificially inflating the credentials of option 1 by wrongly rating it initially.

Reworking the Basin seemed unnecessary, and could potentially delay the construction of the mass transit line, because the road would need to be done before mass transit could be installed. ‘‘We are talking about spending nearly a billion dollars on essentially a new Basin tunnel in order to shave a few extra minutes off travel times,’’ Nash said.

‘‘Option 4 avoids this problem by bypassing the Basin with light rail, so it would get us the climate and urban development benefits of mass transit much sooner.’’

News

en-nz

2021-11-27T08:00:00.0000000Z

2021-11-27T08:00:00.0000000Z

https://stuff.pressreader.com/article/281711207919554

Stuff Limited