7. Question No. 7—TransportHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 7—Transport7. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement The emissions reduction plan is Government policy and something that we give great priority to. We will be considering that as we consider the best options to take mass rapid transit in Wellington forward"?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Yes I do stand by that statement that I made in the House last week and I'm very pleased that in the announcement that we have made this morning about moving mass rapid transport forward the Government's preferred option is the one which supports the highest degree of benefits for mode shift as compared to the other options. It offers significant benefits for Wellingtonians in terms of reduced travel times and improved urban environment but also in terms of reducing emissions which we know is a critical task.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that the life cycle of carbon analysis published by Let's Get Wellington Moving on page 10 shows that the options the Government is progressing with have more than doubled the embedded emissions and lower yearly carbon reduction compared to option iv? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I can confirm that the embedded emissions involved in the construction of option i are higher than for option iv noting that any significant construction project in transport will have significant embedded emissions. But what I also note is that clearly in the Government's announcement we confirmed that option i will be strongly linked with a higher model of urban intensification which when taken together will offer significant carbon reductions and enable us to reach a point of carbon neutrality and then savings by the mid-2030s.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he denying the evidence provided in the urban development analysis published by Let's Get Wellington Moving which on page 23 says option iv would generate similar opportunity for growth and new residential development as option i?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No that information is correct when comparing the base cases for urban intensification across the models whereas—as I confirmed in my previous answer—we will be working hard to achieve a higher level of urban intensification for option i which will deliver significantly greater carbon savings. Hon Julie Anne Genter: How does he explain how option i would reduce emissions to a greater extent with greater urban development when the carbon life-cycle analysis shows that there is greater carbon reduction on a year-to-year basis from option iv with or without the maximum urban development scenario?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Because that is the advice that I have received from officials who have considered these matters. I note that option i even without the increased housing intensification offers monetised benefits that are $51 million higher for public transport $20 million for private vehicles and $42 million higher for active transport demonstrating that there is more mode shift achieved under option i and that is just at the base case. It is significantly higher with the higher level of urban intensification that we wish to achieve and I'm happy to share that information with the member.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he deny that if that $2.2 billion that is being spent on new high-carbon tunnels was spent on more transformational and climate-friendly transport it would get greater mode shift and greater carbon benefits for the total amount of money spent?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No I don't accept that proposition. The various options that were put out for consultation under the Let's Get Wellington Moving consultation options have to work in the round because they are interdependent on different parts and I do note that aspects of the tunnels that the member refers to do confer benefits for people using public transport walking and cycling and in particular the improvements that we will make around the Basin Reserve will create a significantly improved environment for users of those services.Hon Julie Anne Genter: How can he guarantee that in the future two of the four road lanes in the new Mount Victoria tunnel will be reserved for public transport when they could easily be opened to general traffic thereby eliminating any benefits for public transport users?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government simply has to get on and make decisions in the best interests of Wellington according to the best plan. It is my hope that political leaders across central government and local government will support us in getting on with the job of delivering better public transport—Nicola Willis: It won't happen.Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —for the people of Wellington and I note the comments from the member opposite saying it won't happen. That's exactly the attitude that we had under nine years of the National Government which failed to invest in a better public transport system for Wellington. We are getting on with it and I think the fact that the member has that point of view explains her successive electoral failures in this city.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Given that answer will his Government commit to completing light rail as soon as possible and improving walking cycling and bus journeys across Wellington before digging for two new high-carbon tunnels?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In the first instance I do just reflect back on my comments which note that any form of significant construction involves a degree of embedded carbon across any of the options that we are looking at. The key point is what we then enable by way of carbon reduction in the long run and our view is that option i particularly with the intensified housing model provides that. But what I will say to the member is that we are ambitious to make progress as soon as possible and we have engaged with officials to ask them to look at accelerated options including the phasing of options to bring forward the benefits of light rail within the programme."