[ad_1]
Transportation Minister Michael Wood called the delays in Wellington’s $ 6.4 billion transportation program “unacceptable” after a scathing review warning of its possible failure.
The external review of the 20-year-old program, known as Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM), was completed late last year and went public on Friday. The review found that the program was “at risk of non-compliance” and needed to be stopped to address significant issues.
However, in a letter sent to the LGWM board on Friday, Woods said the plan to “pause” the program was “unacceptable” and set a two-week deadline for officials to produce a new plan.
“Wellingtons have been waiting too long for progress to unlock the potential of our capital city,” he wrote.
READ MORE:
* D-Day for Let’s Get Wellington Moving as a review about to fall
* As Auckland prepares for car-free Queen St, Wellington’s Golden Mile is stuck in neutral
* What can people expect from the $ 6.4 billion Let’s Get Wellington Moving program in 2021?
In my opinion, pausing to reconsider those goals will only cause further delays in the program. The only way to restore public trust is by making progress. “
He urged board members to move forward with projects that were smaller in scale or more advanced in planning, including plans to improve walking and biking options, and priority bus measures.
“My expectation is that Waka Kotahi [NZ Transport Agency] will work with Wellington City Council and Greater Wellington [Regional Council] to support delivery on a schedule that helps build public trust and a sense of momentum.
“I want them to work with the governance reference group to come up with a plan within the next fifteen days to address the issues outlined in the report, including specific proposals,” he said.
The program review highlighted significant gaps in LGWM’s expertise and leadership.
He also described other issues, including a “bottom-up” approach that focused on processes rather than results, and a “what’s best for the program” mindset.
These problems were compounded by capacity gaps and a lack of resources, according to the review.
“LGWM requires a pause to allow proper program discipline to be implemented and to increase resources appropriately,” he said.
“The LGWM team was not adequately resourced from the outset, and several key positions remain vacant or are filled on a temporary or provisional basis.
“The current brand equity of the program in the marketplace has meant that attracting and retaining talent is challenging.
“Within the LGWM team, there is a lack of proven experience and expertise in delivering within a large-scale, complex integrated program environment.
“Strategic leadership is also lacking, with the absence of ‘champions’ to build the brand, face challenges, and foster collaboration and unification.”
The review found that culture was detrimental to a productive work environment and to relationships between the three program partners: the city council, the regional council and the NZTA.
Recommendations included a re-evaluation of the program’s objectives, prioritizing individual projects against those objectives and clarifying the importance of “urban development” compared to optimizing transportation infrastructure.
It also recommended “leveling” the governance structure of the program and developing a work program that adequately addresses cost and delivery constraints.
“We note that the recommendations in this report will lead to a tight LGWM program in terms of timeliness, scope and cost,” the review said.
“However, we consider this to be preferable to the risk of not achieving the desired results with the current approach.”
Slow progress
The LGWM group was formed in late 2015 following the failed NZTA proposal to build an overpass on a highway 20 meters from the Basin Reserve cricket ground.
He was tasked with reducing traffic congestion between Wellington Airport and the Ngauranga Gorge.
It launched a 20-year work program in May 2019, with high-value items including an additional tunnel on Mount Victoria, a new road in the Basin Reserve, and a mass public transportation system between the train station in the city and the airport.
However, those projects won’t be completed until after 2029, and work on smaller projects, such as a proposed renovation of the city’s Golden Mile, was suspended while the program’s association board worked on the review.
Five years since the group was formed, the only tangible change that has been achieved is the reduction of the speed of traffic in the city center.
In September, Things reported that the program was undergoing an external review, focusing on areas including governance, people and culture, potential gaps, and whether the program was achievable and could meet its objectives.
A source said that at the time there were concerns among councilors about the division of decision-making between the three program partners and the way the public consultation was being managed.
That followed a derogatory comment made by the program’s director, Andrew Body, to a downtown businesswoman during a public meeting in July to discuss plans to renovate the city’s Golden Mile.
The body said to the woman: “You look better in the [news]role than in real life. “
LGWM welcomes the ‘health check’
A spokesperson for the show said that no member of its leadership team was available for interviews on Friday.
It issued a statement saying that the three program partners welcomed the “medical checkup.”
“It identifies several specific areas for improvement, and significant progress has already been made in assessing the findings and progress of these areas for improvement,” he said.
“In light of the funding challenges emerging as a result of Covid-19, and the need to collaborate with a new minister to understand government priorities, the Let’s Get Wellington Moving board has asked the program team to review and prioritize the vision, program objectives and likely investment mix, along with the funding required to achieve the agreed results.
“The current staff continues their work as they have an important role to play in building models and existing technical information to ensure that the scenarios presented to the minister and partner organizations include robust information on costs, sequence and delivery.”
NZTA was not available for comment.