Runway extension needs a wider critique
co-chair of Guardians of the Bays
Wellington Airport’s Steve Sanderson outlines (Jan 15) some benefits from the proposed runway extension. Clearly it would be convenient for the minority group who regularly fly longhaul in and out of Wellington.
Wider considerations are at stake, however, and there are errors and omissions in the article. The Sapere report, for example, predicts a net economic benefit for New Zealand of $2.3 billion but the critical words ‘‘by 2060’’ are omitted. How reliable are predictions in a 40-year timeframe?
Nor are essential questions of cost and who will pay addressed. The oft-quoted construction cost of $300 million is long outdated. Consultant Gregory Akehurst in a report for the regional council estimated a figure closer to $500m, not including any increased safety margin which Civil Aviation might require.
Which begs the question, ‘‘who will pay?’’ WIAL, the airport company and 67 per cent owner of the airport, has said it would be unprofitable to invest more than a small proportion of the cost.
It is looking to the public purse to contribute to a potential shortfall of 80 per cent. Ratepayers and taxpayers should be vigilant to ensure that a privately owned, profit-making business does not receive corporate welfare from public monies.
Wellington City Council owns the other 33 per cent. In a meeting with Guardians of the Bays in 2017, mayor Justin Lester said that, before committing more funds to the project, the council would require: a resource consent, a robust business case, government commitment and a firm sign-up of an international airline to service the route.
None of those four criteria has yet been met, while the Singapore Airlines Capital Express service was withdrawn after only a few months through insufficient patronage.
During any construction phase, WIAL proposes to truck up to 1.5 million tonnes of rocks and rubble through Wellington to the airport for four years. At its peak, one rock-filled heavy truck every two minutes would go to the airport, with the same number of empty trucks rattling back. Trucks are planned to operate through the night and off-peak daylight hours.
At the centre of the Guardians’ concerns are issues of environment and climate change. Wellington’s ‘‘blue belt’’, our marine environment, should be as important as our ‘‘green belt’’. Marine ecology calls planners and citizens to be good kaitiaki of our natural taonga of penguins, dolphins, orcas, herons, rock lobsters and kelp forests. Swimming, surfing, sailing and fishing are also key to life in the capital.
Globally New Zealand lags badly on carbon emission targets, and plans to swell tourist numbers hinder progress in carbon reduction. Newspapers are filled with the offer of ever-cheaper deals to exotic locations. Meanwhile, back home, tourist hot-spots are being swamped by burgeoning visitor numbers, with growing calls for help from authorities for increased infrastructure support.
Public surveys on the desirability of a runway extension need to be viewed in context. A simple Yes/No question is likely to deliver a favourable result along the lines of ‘‘why not?’’ But when public surveys ask respondents to prioritise council expenditure over a range of issues such as traffic congestion, infrastructure, earthquake resilience, restoration of arts centres and the Town Hall, social housing and a runway extension, the last ranks at or near the bottom of the list.
Seventy per cent of public submissions to the Environment Court opposed a runway extension. Far from being a ‘‘vocal minority’’, the Guardians have become a principal voice for many Wellingtonians who see the runway debate in the context of wider aspirations for the greater wellbeing of city and nation.