“Lets Get Wellington Moving’s (LGWM) name doesn’t match its objectives, which place more than twice the importance on getting people out of cars than providing more efficient transport for Wellingtonians,” says ACT’s Transport spokesperson Simon Court.
“Lets Get Wellington Moving’s (LGWM) name doesn’t match its objectives, which place more than twice the importance on getting people out of cars than providing more efficient transport for Wellingtonians,” says ACT’s Transport spokesperson Simon Court.
“Ministerial briefing notes show what the real priorities of the programme are and unfortunately for Wellingtonians stuck in gridlock or waiting for unreliable public transport, it’s not getting them moving.
“The briefing shows that the objective of providing efficient and reliable transport only makes up 15 per cent of their objectives. The overwhelming priority is lowering emissions and “reducing reliance on private vehicles,” which is weighted as a 40 per cent priority.
“The agenda is clear, and it is totally anti-car. Making it inconvenient for people to drive is not a possible outcome of these changes, it is the intended outcome.
“This also far outweighs the remaining priorities which are enhancing and enabling urban development at 20 per cent, improving safety at 15 per cent, and adapting for the future at 10 per cent.
“Let’s Get Wellington Moving does the exact opposite to what it says on the tin. It is not appropriate for a city projected to grow by 80,000 people by 2050 and doesn’t reflect what people want either.
“The objectives’ weighting explains why the proposed plan resembles an urban activist’s manifesto. There is no added capacity for motorists at all and it actively removes parking options. It actively gets in the way of people trying to go about their business. It will affect goods and people getting in and out of urban areas.
“ACT would take the politics out of transport and infrastructure and get central and local government working together through 30-year infrastructure partnerships, devolving revenue and responsibility to regional governments and the private sector, while strengthening accountability and oversight from central government.
“By setting plans decades in advance, we can avoid the on-again, off-again uncertainty created by the political cycle which deters councils and private infrastructure investors from undertaking ambitious projects.”