12. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Transport
Can he confirm that the latest benefit-cost ratio for the proposed motorway through Transmission Gully is in the range of 0.36 to 0.50, and would he give the green light to build a motorway where the costs outweigh the benefits by up to a factor of three?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) Link to this
I can confirm that it is likely that the benefit-cost ratio for the Transmission Gully route is less than 1. It will be similar for the alternative coastal route, as well. It is clear there are no inexpensive options here, because of the very rugged geography north of Wellington, which makes construction difficult. The member asks if I would ever give the green light to an infrastructure project with a poor benefit-cost ratio. I point out that benefit-cost ratios are just one of a range of factors that are taken into consideration.
Why would the Government consider building a new motorway on an active earthquake fault line, a motorway that, the Minister of Transport’s advisers say, could take even longer to clear than the coastal highway in the event of an earthquake?
The member makes some valid points around the Transmission Gully project, but there are also lots of difficulties with the coastal route, including some of the environmental concerns around it, and some of the risks there in terms of route security. So there are no easy options, as I said before. The Government will have to make a decision before the end of the year in terms of which one to promote.
Can the Minister confirm that the most optimistic assumption his officials have given him is that it would take 3 weeks for Transmission Gully to be reopened after a large earthquake; and does that not undermine the main rationale for Transmission Gully—namely, that it would provide an alternative route out of Wellington in the event of an earthquake?
Sadly, if we took into account only how long it would take to reopen routes once they were closed by an earthquake in the vicinity of New Zealand’s capital, a number of roads would never have been built.
David BennettAre there any infrastructure projects with poor benefit-cost ratios that the Government has given the green light to?
One example that springs to mind is the electrification of Auckland’s commuter rail. The project has a benefit-cost ratio of around 1, to quote Treasury. But, as I said in my answer to the primary question, fortunately for that project, benefit-cost ratios are one of a range of factors that are taken into consideration. Furthermore, as research by the Motu group shows, benefit-cost ratios can be boosted significantly when wider economic development effects are fully captured. This is especially relevant to an important regional project by the Wellington to Levin corridor, which will serve the economy of the whole lower North Island, not just Wellington.
Can the Minister confirm that the steepest section of Transmission Gully is a 3.3 kilometre climb that is roughly twice as long and half as steep again as Ngauranga Gorge, that truck operators have indicated that it would be too steep for many of them to use, and that escape routes and “arrestor beds” would need to be built for out-of-control vehicles?
I can confirm that the gradient would be roughly similar to that of the Ngauranga Gorge, and that it would be about twice as long.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
What is the Minister’s funding preference for the building of Transmission Gully: entirely from the National Land Transport Fund, through borrowing, or via a public-private partnership?
We have not expressed a preference for the funding of Transmission Gully. First we have to make a decision on the corridor priorities for the whole of the Levin to Wellington corridor. Those decisions will be made prior to the end of this year.
Can the Minister confirm that Transmission Gully is expected to increase car trips in the morning by 20 percent and in the evening by 25 percent, while simultaneously reducing rail trips by 13 percent; and why on earth would the Government support a motorway that is predicted to increase congestion and reduce public transport?
I am not convinced that increasing the use of one mode of transport over another will necessarily cause further congestion. It may just mean that the particular mode is easier to use. I do not have those figures to hand for the member, but I will follow them up for her.
Can the Minister confirm that, in summary, the advice that he has received from his officials confirms that Transmission Gully is a lemon with an uneconomic benefit-cost ratio, which will create greater congestion around Wellington, and will be of little or no benefit to the region in the event of an earthquake; if so, why on earth would the Government consider building this lemon?
If Transmission Gully is a lemon, then I am afraid the alternatives have a certain citrous smell to them as well.
I seek leave to table the advice to the Minister from the Ministry of Transport, which identifies the flaws in Transmission Gully that I have outlined. It is dated 10 December 2008.
Mr SPEAKER