Greens release Transfund letter and bypass analysis

The Green Party is making public its analysis of Transit's application and supporting documentation seeking funding for Wellington's Inner City Bypass.

"Last week I sent our analysis of Transit's funding application to the Chair of Transfund," said Green Co-leader and Transport spokesperson, Jeanette Fitzsimons. "We are now making that information public on our website because we want all Wellingtonians to know what information Transfund has in front of it as it considers this application.

"In our view the analysis is of very poor quality with many assertions not backed up with evidence or analysis."

Transfund has statutory independence from the Government and makes the final decision about whether or not to fund a project.

"However, the Government is responsible to ensure its policies are carried out, through the performance agreement with the Chief Executive of Transfund which requires a proper review of major projects against the criteria of the new Land Transport Management Act," said Ms Fitzsimons.

"In our view no adequate review against the possible alternatives has been done."

(Copy of Ms Fitzsimons''s letter to Transfund follows; Green analysis of Transit's funding application is available at: )

Text of letter to the Chair and Board of Transfund NZ, in regard to Transit's funding application for the Wellington Inner City Bypass.

28 April 2004

The Chair and Board Members Transfund NZ

Dear Dr Wright

Yesterday afternoon I obtained a copy of Transit NZ's application for funding for the Wellington Inner City Bypass. In my view it fails in many respects to meet the conditions specified by your Board in Attachment A to Action Paper CS/04/04/4898. This is a huge disappointment to those of us who have relied all along on good analytical process to produce the best outcome for the city.

I enclose a brief commentary on the document which is all I have been able to do in the short time available. In particular I believe the following questions should be considered at Monday's meeting:

* Why is the issue of child safety close to four schools and a pre-school ignored? * Doesn't the issue of air pollution require more sophisticated analysis than the bald statements in the application? * Is Transit right to reject the view that travel demand management and enhanced public transport could be alternatives to roading projects? * The only significant objection to the alternative of using Abel Smith and Vivian Streets is delay, and the extent of this is exaggerated. If delay is a valid reason against any alternative, why was it ever agreed to consider alternatives at all?

No new work appears to have been done to produce this document. It has been written solely by project advocates seeking to justify their previous decisions. I trust the Board will not allow a shoddy analysis to stand because of pressure from local bodies in a local election year.

Yours sincerely

Jeanette Fitzsimons

© Scoop Media