The NZ Transport Agency's decision to scrap the proposed new underpass at the Bayfair interchange is not acceptable.

I am a very regular user of this underpass and observe it's frequent use by pedestrians as well as cyclists.

How will motorists respond to red lights stopping traffic flow to allow these people to cross?

I thought that the whole point of the very expensive interchange is to speed up traffic flow.


Why have obstacles suddenly emerged three years into the project. Surely the design engineers should have sorted this out before the flyover construction even started.

I challenge those who have never used the underpass to go and look at it before it is demolished in September and work out how it could possibly cost $33 million dollars to replace.

An alternative must be found to a controlled pedestrian crossing of a very busy intersection.

John Douglas
Mount Maunganui

Underpass decision

I was interested to read about the problem at Bayfair where a well-used underpass is to be demolished in September, causing all sorts of grief.

The replacement underpass has been cancelled. Too expensive. There is now talk of an overbridge! As you are dealing with the NZTA, insist that the overbridge is in place before the existing underpass is demolished.

This, in my opinion, is the only way to deal with NZTA. In the past, I have found their assurances not worth a candle.

The War Memorial Hall at Te Puna was demolished six years ago with an assurance from NZTA that a replacement hall would be built. They have at this time got as far as a Māori blessing of the foundation stone!


So don't give up what you are using until the replacement is in place.

Good luck.

Peter Turmer
Pyes Pa

Why are we always missing out?

So now the self-proclaimed honest, transparent and open Government - decides to cancel the Baypark underpass (News, July 9) for what they state, is a variety of reasons.

Roading programmes such as the previously approved northern arterial have been cancelled; the Tauranga City Council has had a falling out with the funding agency, Transit and other roading upgrades have been either cancelled or delayed indefinitely.

Funding to Tauranga, or for that matter the wider Bay of Plenty, from the Provincial Growth Fund, PGF, has been minimal indicating another possible example of the Government expressing its displeasure of Tauranga having the Leader of the Opposition as its MP.

Winston Peters, who once upon a time could not do enough for his electorate, Tauranga, has now shifted his allegiance to Northland and haven't they benefited from investments from the Provincial Growth Fund? (Abridged)

Mike Baker

NZTA needs an overhaul

The NZ Transport Agency's reasons for scrapping the Bayfair underpass are, in my view, a continuing demonstration of incompetence.

f the estimated cost has apparently risen from $13 to $33 million, it raises significant issues, in my view, about NZTA's project development processes which are required to conform to Treasury's "Better Business Case" model.

To identify reasons that were cited in your newspaper like it has to carry the dead load of the ramps, ground improvement requirements, staging, etc confirms, in my opinion, incompetence in planning projects.

These issues and risks are basic and obvious engineering and would have identifiable in the preliminary planning. When it was around Transit NZ built the hugely complex central motorway junction and Grafton Gully motorway in Auckland and multiple other major projects within time and under budget. These were collaborations between Transit and the private sector. NZTA needs a complete overhaul. (Abridged)

Alan Bickers
Pyes Pa
The Bay of Plenty Times welcomes letters from readers. Please note the following:

• Letters should not exceed 200 words.

• They should be opinion based on facts or current events.

• If possible, please email.

• No noms-de-plume.

• Letters will be published with names and suburb/city.

• Please include full name, address and contact details for our records only.

• Local letter writers given preference.

• Rejected letters are not normally acknowledged.

• Letters may be edited, abridged, or rejected at the Editor's discretion.

• The Editor's decision on publication is final.