Review of NZTA's "Boyd Road Technical Note"
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Review of NZTA’s “Boyd Road Technical Note” Introduction A decision was made some time ago to build a new bridge on SH6 across the Kawarau River. This bridge was to replace an aging, single-lane bridge in Frankton near Queenstown. Although everyone agrees that a new bridge is needed, the siting of this bridge was controversial with NZTA pushing for a bridge near the old one whereas many in the community felt it should be resited further downstream. 1 The local council (QLDC) agreed with NZTA, mostly in deference to NZTA’s technical expertise and funding. Being very unconvinced and dissatisfied with the lack of transparency surrounding the decision making, local groups pushed for a comparative review of the benefits and costs (BCR) between the current proposal and their alternative. This alternative had been discussed many time in the past and the author had presented a detailed description to council two years before.2 Finally, QLCD and NZTA agreed to do such a comparison but the outcome was decidedly unsatisfactory. The public was told was that a review had been conducted with the result that the review had found the existing proposal to be the better option. But the report itself was not released nor were any details of the analysis that led to the conclusions. At one meeting, ratepayers were told that a report couldn’t be released because the modelling wasn’t finished. Yet a report had been provided to Council using this unfinished model and on the basis of that report, Council agreed to back NZTA’s proposal. When asked to release this report, Council declined citing confidentiality agreements with NZTA. Finally, after significant community pressure, NZTA released this report analysis on June 13, 2015.3 This article is a review of that NZTA report. C AVEATS The author is not a transport engineer and does not have the resources of the NZTA consultants who wrote the technical note. This article has been written within a few hours of the release of the NZTA report, not over a period of months. Due to this, there are likely to be some minor errors and detailed analyses of every point are not available. Nevertheless, the conclusions are concerning. There seems to be enough evidence to suggest that there is reasonable doubt about the wisdom of locating the bridge as proposed. If these doubts are substantiated, the consequence is that tens of millions of taxpayer dollars will be wasted, lives put at risk and a significant decrease in quality of life will ensue. Rather than have the author provide further analysis (free of charge!), the onus should be on NZTA and QLDC to address these doubts and conclusively prove that they are making the right decision, in the right way – transparently and in the best interests of the local community and New Zealand taxpayers. Adam Childs June 13, 2015 1 See http://tceti.nz/queenstown-disaster-resilience/ for some discussion papers, the Facebook page Kawarau-Bridge-Relocation and local newspapers for community inputs. 2 See http://www.shapingourfuture.org.nz/node/48 , May 12, 2013. 3 http://www.nzta.govt.nz/network/projects/sh6-kawarau-falls-bridge-replacement/docs/nz-transport-agency-boyd-rd-technical- note.pdf. This report was prepared by Abley Transportation and ends: “No part of this document may be copied without the written consent of either our client [NZTA] or Abley Transportation Consultants Ltd.” The author argues that the posting of this document on a public website is tacit permission by NZTA to quote from it.
Summary
S COPE
The NZTA proposal is for a bridge sited near (and renders useless for vehicular traffic) an old,
historical bridge that runs along a dam at the exit of Lake Wakatipu. This option is the Falls option.
The community alternative is approximately three kilometres downstream of the existing bridge and
runs around the eastern end of Queenstown airport. This is the Eastern Arterial Route or EAR. The
NZTA report – the “Boyd Road Technical Note” released today compares the Kawarau Falls option
with a third option that crosses the river and joins up with Boyd Road. This is the Boyd Road option.4
No one had called for a comparison of the Boyd Road option and the Falls option. Indeed, there
seems little point in doing more than a cursory comparison – let alone spending thousands on a
formal review – as a quick glance at the proposal and a bit of common sense would lead most
people to the conclusion that the Boyd Road option as ‘designed’ by NZTA is simply not going to
work. Why this option was used as a comparison has not been explained. The most obvious
explanation, however, is that it was a straw man argument. If the community had not been so
dedicated in getting the report made public, NZTA, Council and other decision makers could have
quite truthfully claimed that a comparison had been done and the Falls option was the clear choice.
I fully agree that the Falls option is far better than the Boyd Road option presented in the technical
note. This article will not argue with that conclusion. The point is that – misguided or malicious, it
makes no difference – the wrong route was chosen as a comparison. I will use the methods and
numbers from the Technical Note and – to the best of my ability in the short time available to me –
do the comparison that should have been done: comparing the EAR option with the Falls option
C ONCLUSION
The ‘gold standard’ for NZTA decisions is the Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR). Table One below shows the
BCRs as calculated by the consultants for the Falls and Boyd Road options and the BCR for the
EAR option as calculated by myself, but based on the same numbers and methods as the other two.
A full explanation of how these numbers are derived follows in the body of this article but the most
important thing to understand is that the higher the BCR, the better the option.
As can be seen in Table One, the BCR for the EAR option is higher than the other two and
on that basis alone, the bridge should be built along the Eastern Arterial Route.
Table 1: BCRs for the three options
Option BCR Total NPV5 Benefits Total NPV Costs
Falls 2.8 / 1.56 61,840,051 22,259,355
Boyd Road 1.0 30,887,249 32,053,471
EAR 3.3 81,607,036 24,930,478
4 There are a number of other alternatives that have been proposed and looked at over the years and one of them also connects
to Boyd Road. This ‘second Boyd Road’ option turns east to connect back to the EAR and has some merit. The Boyd Road option
in this technical note turns west and cuts through dense residential areas to join back up with SH6.
5 NPV = Net Present Value which is standard at NZTA to express project costs and benefits. This article uses the same values to
calculate NPV as found in the Boyd Road Technical Note. Unfortunately, the Technical Note did not provide a detailed calculation
for benefits or costs nor did it provide a breakdown of the different construction costs. For consistencies sake, I have not done so
either, simply using ratios to ensure fair comparisons.
6 On June 12, 2015, NZTA said that the BCR for their preferred route over the Falls was 1.5 not 2.8. This suggests that there is
another report or analysis somewhere that has not been made public so further comment is not possible.Details
Q UALITATIVE E XPLANATIONS FOR THE BCR
In the absence of tenders, it is not possible to say for sure how much one option will cost over
another. That said, much of the higher cost for the Boyd Road option was due to anticipated land
purchases. The EAR was intentionally designed to minimise those costs.
Calculations by various community members puts the cost of the EAR as approximately the
same as the Falls option. For this reason, and in the absence of any substantive information one
way or another, there is no reason to believe that the NPV of costs of the EAR will be higher
than the Falls option. However, to ensure a fair comparison, I have included an extra $3 million
for land purchases etc.
The benefits are higher for the EAR option for two reasons:
1. The benefits to drivers of the EAR are approximately 12% higher than on the Falls
option (details of this comprise the bulk of this article, below). This is based on the
benefits included in the Technical Note of: Travel time; Vehicle Operating Costs
(including fuel idle time and speed change cycles), emissions and additional congestion
benefits.
2. Significantly, the Technical Note specifically excludes benefits7 that the NZTA
Economic Evaluation Manual specifically states should be included in analyses such as
these. This is not to malign the consultants who note that their Technical Note is not a
formal review and as such did not have to get into the fine details. Nevertheless, the
benefits not included all tend to favour the EAR over the Falls Option. These benefits
include: Road safety, travel time reliability, reduced noise in residential areas, better
aesthetics for drivers and access to a historical landmark (important in a town based on
tourism), capacity for bicycle commuters (an integral part of Council’s Transport
Strategy), lowered insurance liability costs, better resilience, and better community
acceptance.
The economic impact of these missing factors is provided in Table Seven and are reflected
in the higher EAR BCR.
At a meeting with concerned members of the community, the Otago/Southland Highway
Manager said that there were three drivers for the bridge:
1. Future Proofing
2. Eased Congestion
3. Resilience
Again, the EAR is a far better option for each of these primarily because the old bridge is maintained
under the EAR option whereas the Falls option cuts across one end of the existing bridge making it
useless for anything other than pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
Two bridges will always be more resilient than one and having two options means that people can
decide for themselves what to do if there is heavy traffic. Finally, the one thing that everyone agrees
on is that there will be a need for yet another bridge in 20-30 years’ time: Why wait until then when
the EAR address this issue now?
7Although they may look like costs, Abley have included them as benefits and – given that they are the experts in this field – I
have therefore done the same.T HE R EPORT
As mentioned earlier, it seems as if the main reason for the report was less to actually compare two
reasonable alternatives but to be able to say that a report was done. If a fuss had not been made, the
box would have been ticked, the report shelved and if anyone did question it, the BCR numbers
would be quoted and everyone would agree that “2.8” was much better than “1.0” and leave it at
that. Interestingly, these exact same BCR numbers have been repeated since 2011, well before this
review, supposedly based on more timely information and an improved modelling system, was
undertaken. It does seem somewhat coincidental that even with all this additional work, the exact
same numbers supporting NZTA desires would result.
On June 12, 2015, however, a letter from NZTA said that the BCR for the Falls option was only 1.5.
This number was given without further explanation or reference to an analysis that concluded with
this figure. Nevertheless, this is the latest official BCR for the Falls option and is substantially lower
than the BCR stated in the report.
There are some direct issues with the report, for example:
As noted earlier, the report compares the NZTA proposal with a proposal that no one has
been advocating and was guaranteed to make the NZTA proposal look good
Data is presented inconsistently, e.g.: Table 2.1 mixes traffic volume numbers over 2 hour
periods, seven hour periods and the ‘GEH’ number which is an hourly ratio
Data is incomplete, e.g. Table 2.1 provides traffic volumes only for 11 hours of the day – the
other 13 hours are not provided
Data is unclear, e.g. the first page of the report states that the QLDC Tracks model includes
twice as many peak periods as interpeak periods yet on the next page it is the reverse with
twice as many interpeak periods as peak periods
Data is out of date (uses 2012 data), again despite the community being assured that up to
date figures were used in the comparisonT HE M ODEL
More importantly, there are significant issues with the model used:
Traffic volumes have been forecast from the Queenstown-Lakes District Council (QLDC)
Tracks Transportation Model. This computer model only models winter traffic. For a town
that is distinctly seasonal in its attractions and activities choosing to model just one season
seems imprudent.
Despite numerous assurances that congestion along SH6, especially between the BP and
airport roundabouts, has been taken into account, it hasn’t. Travel times, costs and economic
benefits for the Falls option are based on posted speed limits, not reality. Furthermore, we
have been told that in order to address safety concerns, more pedestrian crossings with lights
and slower speed limits will be introduced yet the model still assumes traffic moving at
70kph through the Frankton built up area.
The model failed to adequately account for individual choice. Given an option, people do
not always go the way they did before. In addition, people generally choose the fastest route
over the shortest route (NZTA models reflect this).
NZTA reference the UK’s DMRB8, an internationally recognised reference for best
practice. One of the key values in the DMRB is something called a ‘GEH number’. This
is a ratio used to test the validity of a computer model and has been used in the
Technical Note.
To be considered a valid and reliable model for making transport decisions, a model
should have more than 85% of its results with a GEH of less than 5.0.
Unfortunately, of the data provided in the Technical Note, 38 out of 46 results are higher
than 5.0 - only 83%. This means that the model may not be reliable enough to base
major decisions on. Furthermore, a GEH of 10 or greater indicates a serious problem
with the model or with the data and one data points is a 10.
Conclusion: This model does not meet standards and while useful for general
discussion, it should not be considered accurate enough for decision making.
8 Design Manual for Roads and BridgesCalculations
Three traffic volume scenarios are presented in the Technical Note – 2012, 2026 and 2041. Despite
my misgivings about the model (above), for the sake of clarity, I have made all my calculations using
the numbers provided in the Technical Note and have made no adjustments.
Traffic crossing the Kawarau can be separated into two origins – south of Peninsula Road (this
includes vehicles from Remarkables Ski Field, Jack’s Point, Kingston, Invercargill, etc.) and those
joining/leaving SH6 at Peninsula Road (i.e. Kelvin Heights traffic). Table Two shows traffic volumes
and intended destinations for both groups, northbound (NB) and southbound (SB).
Table 2: Daily Traffic Volumes and Destinations
2012 2026 2041
NB SB NB SB NB SB
South of Peninsula Road
2057 2542 4905 4917 7637 7223
going to/from…
…Remarkables Park & Airport 157 160 724 619 1379 1012
…SH6A (Queenstown) 475 596 836 860 939 932
…SH6 (e.g. Five Mile, Shotover, Wanaka) 1425 1787 3345 3438 5319 5279
2012 2026 2041
Joining/Leaving at Kelvin Heights
1380 1247 2050 1953 2618 2484
going to/from…
…Remarkables Park & Airport 276 249 410 391 524 497
…SH6A (Queenstown) 828 748 1107 1055 1257 1192
…SH6 (e.g. Five Mile, Shotover, Wanaka) 276 249 533 508 838 795
Total crossing the river 3437 3789 6955 6870 10255 9707
Table 3: Total Daily Traffic Volumes and Journey Distances
2012 2026 2041 km
South of Peninsula Road
…Remarkables Park & Airport 317 1343 2391 3.3
…SH6A (Queenstown) 1071 1696 1870 4.0
…SH6 (e.g. Five Mile, Shotover, Wanaka) 3212 6783 10599 5.4
2012 2026 2041 km
Joining/Leaving at Kelvin Heights
…Remarkables Park & Airport 525 801 1020 2.0
…SH6A (Queenstown) 1576 2162 2449 2.7
…SH6 (e.g. Five Mile, Shotover, Wanaka) 525 1041 1633 4.1Table 4: Average speed, journey time and cost per trip (simplified)9
4.A: Journey via Falls Bridge with the new bridge built at the Falls
Ave. kph VOC10 Minutes $/trip
South of Peninsula Road
…Remarkables Park & Airport 38.3 33.2 5.2 1.11
…SH6A (Queenstown) 33.1 34.5 7.3 1.39
…SH6 (e.g. Five Mile, Shotover, Wanaka) 30.5 36.3 10.7 1.97
Joining/Leaving at Kelvin Heights
…Remarkables Park & Airport 30.7 36.3 3.9 0.72
…SH6A (Queenstown) 27.0 38.7 6.0 1.04
…SH6 (e.g. Five Mile, Shotover, Wanaka) 33.3 34.5 7.4 1.41
4.B: Journey via Falls Bridge with the new bridge built at the EAR
Ave. kph VOC Minutes $/trip
South of Peninsula Road
…Remarkables Park & Airport 36.5 34.5 5.5 1.15
…SH6A (Queenstown) 33.9 34.5 7.1 1.39
…SH6 (e.g. Five Mile, Shotover, Wanaka) 32.8 34.5 10.0 1.88
Joining/Leaving at Kelvin Heights
…Remarkables Park & Airport 27.6 36.3 4.3 0.72
…SH6A (Queenstown) 26.9 38.7 6.0 1.04
…SH6 (e.g. Five Mile, Shotover, Wanaka) 34.1 34.5 7.2 1.41
4.C: Journey via EAR with the new bridge built at the EAR
Ave. kph VOC Minutes $/trip
South of Peninsula Road
…Remarkables Park & Airport 44.7 32.3 8.6 2.07
…SH6A (Queenstown) 52.4 31.8 6.6 1.82
…SH6 (e.g. Five Mile, Shotover, Wanaka) 69.3 31.9 3.7 1.38
Joining/Leaving at Kelvin Heights
…Remarkables Park & Airport 50.7 31.8 8.8 2.37
…SH6A (Queenstown) 52.2 31.8 7.8 2.16
…SH6 (e.g. Five Mile, Shotover, Wanaka) 69.4 31.9 4.6 1.71
Table 5: Preferred Route, Annual Traffic Volumes and Costs
5.A: New bridge built at the Falls
Preferred 2012 2026 2041
Route Vol. Cost ($) Vol. Cost ($) Vol. Cost ($)
South of Peninsula Road
…Remarkables Park & Airport Falls 317 128,495 1343 544,381 2391 969,185
…SH6A (Queenstown) Falls 1071 543,255 1696 860,581 1870 949,161
…SH6 (e.g. Five Mile, Shotover, Wanaka) Falls 3212 2,314,762 6783 4,889,146 10599 7,639,219
Joining/Leaving at Kelvin Heights
…Remarkables Park & Airport Falls 525 138,878 801 211,621 1,020 269,720
…SH6A (Queenstown) Falls 1576 596,692 2162 818,310 2449 927,087
…SH6 (e.g. Five Mile, Shotover, Wanaka) Falls 525 270,598 1041 536,036 1633 840,864
5.A: New bridge built at EAR
Preferred 2012 2026 2041
Route Vol. Cost ($) Vol. Cost ($) Vol. Cost ($)
South of Peninsula Road
…Remarkables Park & Airport Falls 317 133,52611 1343 565,697 2391 1,007,135
…SH6A (Queenstown) EAR 1071 711,969 1696 1,127,845 1870 1,243,934
…SH6 (e.g. Five Mile, Shotover, Wanaka) EAR 3212 1,615,382 6783 3,411,944 10599 5,331,112
Joining/Leaving at Kelvin Heights
…Remarkables Park & Airport Falls 525 138,878 801 211,621 1020 269,720
…SH6A (Queenstown) Falls 1576 596,692 2162 818,310 2449 927,087
…SH6 (e.g. Five Mile, Shotover, Wanaka) EAR 525 328,509 1041 650,754 1633 1,020,818
9 As this is a comparative study done with limited time, I have not adjusted trip times or costs for the three different scenarios
assuming that the rate at which average speeds decline with increased traffic will do so uniformly across all routes.
10 VOC = Vehicle Operating Cost in cents per kilometre – taken from the Technical Note
11 Costs are higher because journey times are longer across the old bridgeTable 6: Summary of Annual Costs for the two options
Bridge built at Falls Bridge built at EAR
2012 2026 2041 2012 2026 2041
South of Peninsula Road
…Remarkables Park & Airport 128,495 544,381 969,185 133,426 565,697 1,007,135
…SH6A (Queenstown) 543,255 860,581 949,161 711,969 1,1,27,845 1,243,934
…SH6 (e.g. Five Mile, Shotover, Wanaka) 2,314,762 4,889,146 7,639,219 1,615,382 3,411,944 5,331,112
Joining/Leaving at Kelvin Heights
…Remarkables Park & Airport 138,878 211,621 269,720 138,878 211,621 269,720
…SH6A (Queenstown) 596,692 818,310 927,087 596,692 818,310 927,087
…SH6 (e.g. Five Mile, Shotover, Wanaka) 270,598 536,036 840,864 328,509 650,754 1,020,818
Total Annual Costs 3,992,680 7,860,075 11,595,235 3,524,956 6,786,171 9,799,806
As can be seen from table six, the overall costs for people to get from where they started to where
they want to go is approximately 12% less if the bridge is built at the EAR as opposed to the
current NZTA proposal.
To complete the comparison, there are extra benefits for the EAR option many of which are
required by NZTA’s Economic Evaluation Manual (EEM) to be included in final analyses. These
were not included in the Boyd Road Technical Note and collectively amount to $XXXXm in the
first year alone.
R OAD S AFETY B ENEFITS
SH6 through Frankton already accounts for a high number of serious accidents.12 The Falls option
significantly increases traffic to an already built-up area that has pedestrian crossings, a primary
school and attractions on either side (a large shopping area to the east and the lake to the west). The
Falls option will need:
Significant spending on extra safety facilities (e.g. pedestrian flyovers);
To increase journey costs by reducing speeds (e.g. traffic lights) and/or;
Accept a higher accident rate.
As there is no mention of the first two in the Technical Note, we have to assume, sadly, that the
accident rate will be higher. Using a conservative estimate of two preventable injury fatalities and
twenty serious crashes over a ten year period more with the current plan than with the EAR. Using
current NZTA and ACC figures for the dollar value of these sad events13, this translates into
approximately $2,000,000 per annum.
T RAVEL T IME R ELIABILITY
Having the option of two routes dramatically increases travel time reliability as drivers switch from
one route to another in times of high congestion or accidents. This is costed in as a 15% benefit on
VOCs.
12http://www.qldc.govt.nz/assets/OldImages/Files/District_Plan_Changes/Plan_Change_34_downloads/Section_32_Report/09_P
C34_-_Annexure_H_-_Transp...nt_-_Traffic_Design_Group.pdf
13 http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/roadcrashstatistics/thesocialcostofroadcrashesandinjuries/report-overview/ and
http://nzae.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/Session4/46_Wren.pdfA ESTHETICS This section combines the NZTA factors of “Landscape Impacts”, “Historical Background”, “Characteristics of the Area Affected”, “Wider Economic Benefits” and “Effects of the Project”. These factors are notoriously difficult to monetise but, given that Queenstown’s success is largely based on its scenic beauty and environment, they are particularly relevant in this case. The EAR offers less congestion, faster journeys and allows for aesthetics to be included in the design that are not possible on the Falls option as it is already developed. More importantly, the views of, and from, the iconic historic existing bridge are maintained with the EAR whereas this attraction is marred by the presence of a multilane highway next to it under the Falls option. Good transportation, lack of congestion and scenic roads are commonly cited as major drivers of tourism – especially the higher spend-per-visit that Queenstown is eager to see – and investment, especially in high-tech and professional sectors that bring high economic benefits. QLDC spend over $4m per year attracting visitors and international visitors alone spent more than $1bn last year. Assuming just 1 in a 1000 visitors (0.1%) decide not to come as a consequence of the Falls route, this amounts to $100,000 per annum. I have assumed a similar number for lost investment. N OISE AND V IBRATIONS An increasingly important factor in urban design. The Falls option will direct heavy trucks past a primary school, near a hospital and through an urban area. The majority of these trucks would take the EAR if it existed. Costs will be incurred either because of a necessity of installing noise reduction barriers, slowing traffic, limiting heavy vehicles to certain times of day or accepting adverse health impacts. Similar to road safety, but to a less degree, this is estimated at $500,000. B ICYCLE C OMMUTERS QLDC wish to encourage more cycle commuters as it will reduce their costs for improving roads in the CBD. There are numerous studies (including some done by NZTA ) that demonstrate that people tend not to bicycle to work if there are no safe routes and if they do, they face significantly higher risk of injury or death in the absence of physically separate bicycle tracks. The EAR allows for the existing Kawarau Bridge to be made much more bicycle friendly if only due to a reduction of traffic in general and HGV in particular and would allow for physically separated bicycle tracks for commuters in the future. The cost saving to QLDC is significant if their ambition of a 20% reduction in traffic growth was to be met. This is set at $1m. In addition, studies have shown a minimum reduction in bicycle accidents of 50% with bicycle tracks (some studies go as high as 90%). Using NZTA & ACC figures for the economic impact of saving lives and avoiding injury, this amounts to $200,000.14 L EGAL L IABILITY Given that the Falls route may present a higher risk to personal safety, there could be legal issues either personally or for the organisations involved, especially given the general trend in increased responsibility being assigned to Directors et al both globally and in NZ with the new OS&H legislation being introduced. This has been assigned a value of $100,000 p.a. in either direct legal costs or increased liability insurance. 14ACC alone paid over $9m for treatment and compensation for bicycle accidents in Otago last year. This does not include people or consequences not covered by ACC. Obviously this is for a wider area than that affected by the bridge but it is still significant.
E XPANDABILITY
Everyone agrees that a second bridge will be needed at some stage in the near future. It is almost
certainly going to be built around the area proposed by the EAR. Costs – land purchases, rezoning
and change of usage – are guaranteed to go up especially as the areas being discussed are prime
candidates for future development. Assuming:
These costs will eventually be incurred and
in a Queenstown ‘rock star’ economy, these costs will increase at a rate at least equal to the
discount rate (6%) used to calculate Net Present Value,
then the $3m in extra costs added to the EAR route in Qualitative Explanations for the BCR (above)
need now to be added to the Falls option.
In addition, the SH6 end of the EAR has far more options for future expansion of the Wakatipu
transport system (e.g. a large park and ride that can also cater for tourist camper vans or a light rail
terminus) than the SH6 end of the Falls option which is already considered the biggest problem in
the network. This adds another $1m benefit to the EAR.
D ISASTER R ESILIENCE
In a natural disaster prone area, resilience is key and has been highlighted by NZTA as a prime
reason to build a new bridge, For disasters that affect access – e.g. snowfalls, boat crashing into a
bridge, a fuel tanker overturning – having two vehicular routes is literally life-saving. In addition, any
reduction in congestion on the access route for the fire service, hospital and ambulance service that
all currently access SH6 near the airport roundabout is a good thing. The EAR provides much better
disaster resilience. Assuming one serious accident or disaster in the next 20 years where access is an
issue, and amortising the cost (but not discounting it as the accident could happen tomorrow), leads
to another $2m benefit for the EAR.
C OMMUNITY ATTITUDES
As at June 14, there were 1,140 ‘likes’ on the Facebook page supporting the EAR over the Falls
option. This represents 4% of the population of the Wakatipu basin in just three weeks. Although it
is hard to quantify this, $100 per person per year for quality of life seems reasonable.
Table 7: Annual economic benefit of the EAR over the Falls option for additional factors
Road Safety Benefits 2,000,000
Travel Time Reliability 600,000
Aesthetics 200,000
Noise and Vibrations 500,000
Bicycle Commuting 200,000
Legal Liability 100,000
Expandability 4,000,000
Disaster Resilience 2,000,000
Community Attitudes 100,000
Total Annual Benefit 9,700,000Conclusion
The Eastern Arterial Route is the better option no matter what criteria are used:
It has a BCR that is twice the value of the current NZTA stated figure;
It provides choices to road users in times of peak loads and accidents;
It provides shorter journey times and better fuel consumption;
It is more resilient, future-proof and reduces more congestion (the three NZTA
foundational factors);
It is safer
It is what the community wants.
The Abley Technical Note Report concluded that “the results show that the Kawarau Falls Bridge
option provides 50% more economic benefits for 44% less cost [than the Boyd Road option]”. It
was this conclusion that swayed Queenstown Lakes District Council and the New Zealand
Transport Authority to build a bridge at the Kawarau Falls.
This report shows that the Eastern Arterial Route option provides 33% more economic
benefits with just 12% more cost than the Kawarau Falls Bridge option.
Rationally, this would easily be sufficient to persuade QLDC and NZTA to build a bridge at the
EAR. Unfortunately, rational thought (that is, efficient use of taxpayer money) does not seem to be
the real deciding factor.
For whatever reason – pride, perhaps? – NZTA have decided that they want to win this argument
and build the bridge where they want it. As we have made inroads into the logical, economic
arguments, so the illogical, non-economic obstacles have been thrown up.
The largest such obstacle is that there is no time left, e.g.:
“…funding won’t be available if the current proposal isn’t built now…”
“…resource consent for a new bridge would take many years….”
“…we can’t do planning, costing or other preparations concurrently…
“…we looked at your option eight years ago…”
Etc.
Unlike physical facts, however, all of these excuses are systemic or political. They are man-made
obstacles that can be corrected by people – it just needs the will to do so. Money doesn’t ‘disappear’
if you don’t spend it, the time for resource consents is a guess that hasn’t been verified (some
sources suggest this could be fast-tracked), etc.
NZTA and QLDC have created this ‘time issue’. The EAR was put back on the table over two years
ago. The reason why the community have been unable to properly challenge the Falls option up
until now is that the data and analyses (paid for with public money) that justified that option were
deliberately withheld from the public. Facts were few on the ground and those that existed were
contradictory, vague and misleading.
In one memorable case, the Minister of Transport15 wrote that the majority of vehicles crossing the
Kawarau were heading “to Queenstown”. This was backed up verbal statements from the local MP
and NZTA that “75% of those vehicles go to Queenstown”. This then resulted in community
members standing in the cold for hours every day counting vehicles turning east and west to
disprove this point. When NZTA officials were directly challenged with the community figures that
15 Hon. Simon Bridges, May 20, 2015showed the majority of vehicles do not go to Queenstown, NZTA agreed that this was the case! Saying that what the Minister had meant to say was that the majority of vehicles crossing the Kawarau were heading “towards Queenstown”. And so another three weeks was lost. In the past week or so, NZTA has started to show more willingness to communicate with community groups and to share information. This may have been helped by the involvement of senior politicians such as Bill English which merely reinforces the political, not economic-rational, nature of the debate. This openness is welcomed but there is still a long way to go. No one wants to see a bridge that is not fit for purpose rushed through simply because of politics or the internal processes of a governmental department. We should all be working towards a solution that helps us today and fits into a larger vision of transport in Wakatipu well into the future.
You can also read
