DCC promotes Riccarton Rd as sole heavy traffic bypass

█ City council and spooks menace Riccarton Rd property owners
█ Conflicted Mosgiel-Taieri community board pushes agendas
█ What’s really going on ????

Former Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board member Brian Miller, a resident of Riccarton Rd, is one of four landowners along the stretch who have declined to sell part of their land to the council for the project.

### ODT Online Wed, 23 Apr 2014
Get road fixed – board
By Debbie Porteous
The Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board has again urged the Dunedin City Council to get on with improving Riccarton Rd, saying it is even more of a priority now the council has agreed to allow 50-tonne trucks on local roads. The board made the plea in its submission to the Dunedin City Council on its 2014-15 draft annual plan. […] The council plans to widen and strengthen Riccarton Rd to improve its safety, and is working through land purchases to that end.
Read more

Trucks hpmv-H-sticker [nzta.govt.nz] 150MAX vehicle carrier with HPMV H-sticker (NZTA)

Updated: 15 April 2014
50MAX is a new generation of truck that allows for safe and more efficient transport of freight goods.
50MAX vehicle combinations have one more axle than conventional 44 tonne vehicles combinations, meaning the overall truck load is spread further and there is no additional wear on roads per tonne of freight.
50MAX gives operators an option to carry increased payloads on parts of the network that, while economically important to New Zealand, carry lower volumes of freight. The increased payloads of 50MAX can lead to economic benefits for producers, customers and our communities.

The New Zealand Transport Agency is now accepting 50MAX permit applications for State Highways in the North Island and South Island, as well as a steadily increasing number of roads delegated by local authorities.
50MAX permits for other local roads will be rolled out as they become available (in the meantime, 50MAX operators can apply for higher mass HPMV route permits from local authorities).
Read more + 50MAX vehicle designs

On the road
● Trucks will be permitted to carry loads of up to 53 tonnes on specified routes.
● Some types of trucks, including logging rigs and vehicle carriers, will be allowed to extend to 22m “as of right” instead of by permits.
● Some buses will be allowed to be 13.5m long – up from 12.6m now.
● Farm machinery will be allowed on roads at all hours, as long as it occupies no more than one lane.

Trucks 50MAX 23m logging combination [nzta.govt.nz] 150MAX 23m logging combination [NZTA] (click to enlarge)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr


Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning

26 responses to “DCC promotes Riccarton Rd as sole heavy traffic bypass

  1. Looking again at the 50max 4 axle trucks and the length of the double trailer, I wonder if anybody has considered the turning radii of these behemoths? Be interesting to see them trundling along our SH1 one ways beside the cyclists. Particularly how the cyclists judge the dynamics of these beasts when changing lanes or turning off onto other routes. Even the undertow would be unnerving to any but the foolhardy. God, but that is a stupid decision of our city leaders to allow this to happen! Be it on their conscience next time there is a fatality. Especially when there are so many other options to enable cyclists to function.

  2. Brian Miller

    The above story is about certain business people who have established their business on the state highway through Mosgiel, and then squeal that they do not want all the shit that goes with it. Also of developers at the east of Mosgiel who are happy to develop on arterial routes, and then all scream that they do not want the traffic shit that goes with it.
    And of course the answer that they all have to their problems is put it all down Riccarton Road. Well some of us when buying our properties did not want to live on either the state highway or arterial routes. So we did our homework and studied the council’s bible the “District Plan”. That’s the thing that is supposed to have integrity, and we can make decisions about our future knowing full well that the people’s document had just that “integrity” and council will uphold it. YEAH RIGHT.
    Riccarton Road according to the District Plan is both a collector and a local road, so that you would think would met the needs of those of us who didn’t want to live or have our business on the state highway or an arterial road. How wrong we all were. Certain members of the community board, main street business people and certain councilors decided they were above the district plan and have decided to deceive everybody and tell us that Riccarton Road requires an upgrade for safety reasons. Yeah Right. Safe from all the heavy traffic that they have diverted from the state highway and other arterial routes. It is probable that two recent road deaths that have happened on Riccarton Road were because the people were under the impression from council that Riccarton Road was now arterial, and were using it as such. It is not.
    I decided in good faith to initiate negotiations with council on their land requirements from us for the road upgrade. Initially we expected to lose 1 metre of our frontage. Shit how wrong We were.
    To cut a long story short. After giving council full access to our property for their valuers, and full access to our business records, council came up with several options, but only one was acceptable to them. That was to totally destroy our business, take away all the buildings, put five employees on the scrap heap and take 5 metres of our frontage. The money they offered would not have rebuilt half of our business. This is what council calls good faith bargaining.
    At this point after all the stress and strain I could see that council and its cronies had it in for us. So I told them to Fuck Off. The rest is history.
    Now if you read the story above, they are threatening the Public Works Act against us.
    Just to finish this let me quote from the last sentence from Mr Matheson in the above article. I will then finish with a quote from the Draft Dunedin City Transportation Strategy. And you be the Judge.
    “Mr Matheson said the council would not be promoting the upgraded road as a heavy traffic bypass”.
    From page 52 of the draft strategy: “Freight Priority. Riccarton Road and Dukes Road are identified as priority freight routes to provide access to and from the North Taieri industrial Estate, and to the wider State Highway network” etc etc etc. I rest my case.
    There is a lot more to this that I may explain at a later time. Like misappropriation of board funds.
    Will catch you all again at a later time.

    • Hype O'Thermia

      The District Plan refers to the do’s and don’ts that apply to ordinary people, Brian. You’re clearly not a Stakeholder, you don’t even live in Wanaka or Queenstown.

  3. Brian, you ought to get together with Cr Doug Hall. He has first hand experience with dealing with these sorts of issues. They are no more than bullies who think nothing of destroying people in order to indulge their whims. If the sods were honest they would put the traffic from the Industrial estate and elsewhere along Haggart Alexander Drive which was expressly designed and built for that purpose. Oh! I forgot, Syd Brown has an interest in that hasn’t he?

  4. Anonymous

    From Direct Experience, the Public Works Act cannot be used to threaten a landowner. It may only be used to reach a reasonable price between acquiring agency and landowner.

    If the DCC has not learned this yet from their Anzac Ave folly, then they need to learn it again in High Court.

  5. Anonymous is legally correct re the PWA. I too can personally note that NZTA and DCC have the habit of using the Act as a veiled threat. The lawyers about who defend people from the devil that is DCC can rub Mr Matheson’s nose in the mud.

  6. Received from Maurice Prendergast
    Thursday, 24 April 2014 11:39 p.m.

    The attached column that I wrote eight years ago is instructive in relation to current day madness that is washing around traffic issues through Mosgiel. This column sets out the truth by both chapter and verse. I believe that Syd Brown’s master stroke (when the old bridge over the Silverstream at the North Taieri airfield failed) was to have influenced its replacement by another ‘one way’ bridge – in deference to our working party’s recommendation to replace the failing bridge with a ‘two way’ bridge where the planned Centre Street extension of Haggart-Alexander Drive intersects with the Silverstream – so that onward passage to intersect with Dukes Road North via Carncross Street would satisfy a 40-year-old plan to provide a circuit around Mosgiel for heavy vehicles.

    The replacement of that bridge with a new ‘one way’ bridge in the wrong location was in my view an orchestrated exercise to thwart the prospect of the 40-year-old plan to provide a heavy traffic bypass of Mosgiel via the specifically dedicated and planned corridor of Haggart Alexander Drive (the rural land adjacent to which had curiously been re-zoned for residential subdivision). There was no logic to providing a single lane bridge in the wrong place other than to sabotage a 40-year-old plan for the good of the majority in favour of an advantageous outcome for the few. I’m happy to expand on the reasons why madness reigns over traffic issues on the Taieri.

    Taieri Herald Mon, 6 Feb 2006
    Plain Talk
    Letting the Dog see the Rabbit
    By Maurice Prendergast
    The recent debate associated with a Community Board proposal for a heavy traffic route to bypass Mosgiel has unfortunately generated more heat than light. In politics – just as in war – the first casualty is often the truth, so in the limited space available to me I offer a ‘thumbnail’ scetch of historic findings.

    For some six years sundry DCC working parties engaged in marathon studies (essentially) seeking ways of reducing the volumn of (all) traffic from congested main street Mosgiel. This included the prospect of providing a bypass for heavy traffic, and to this end (on two occasions – by two different engineering consultancies) comprehensive ‘heavy vehicle’ surveys/counts were conducted and working party members were surprised to learn that upwards of 80% of all heavy traffic entering Mosgiel from the south-east failed to emerge to the north-west. That is, it was confirmed by two studies that 80% of heavy vehicles entering Mosgiel had a Mosgiel destination, so the notion of providing a heavy vehicle bypass for traffic (80% of which had ‘delivery commitments’ in the Mosgiel catchment) simply didn’t stand the test of logic.

    Having established these facts, attention then had to be paid to means of giving all traffic greater ‘route options’ other than Gordon Road as a means of relieving main street congestion, and the completion of the historically charted Haggart Alexandra Drive to Dukes Road was (by majority) considered to be a cost effective means of doing this, and the practical effectiveness of this was supported by surveys taken from commuter traffic to and from the major employment bases in Dukes Road. The majority view was that this would provide a ‘circuit of options’ for all traffic rather than (with the exception of Three Mile Hill) the currently limited western and central arteries.

    But allow me to return to the issue of a heavy vehicle bypass. It is fair to say that readers will have trouble accepting the findings that 80% of heavy vehicles entering Mosgiel have Mosgiel as their destination. Well you are not alone because I and most other working party members registered our doubts, but when a second survey (done by a separate consultancy) disclosed largely the same heavy vehicle patterns, we were obliged to heed such advice.

    I now ask you to consider how responsible it would have been to ignore that advice and promote (say) a ‘dedicated’ heavy vehicle route through Riccarton Road. By definition, a dedicated heavy route would have to be created to a premium width and pavement standard. Extensive costings were done before the notion was abandoned and these costs were shown to be untenable. The major drivers of those costs included the prohibitive cost of land purchase necessary to achieve the necessary corridor width. Not least a major arterial drainage channel that passes parallel would have to be relocated – necessitating land purchase from several parties, but more importantly whole properties would have to be purchased at some points because residential frontages in some cases would have to be claimed. Though whole properties would not be required, no owner in their right mind would agree to shedding their ‘frontage only’ in order to allow traffic to come within inches of their front door. Clearly, the deal would be ‘the whole property or nothing’ and the cost to ratepayers would be in the order of tens of millions.

    I, along with all elected members have not only a duty of care, but a fiduciary duty to behave responsibly with ratepayer funds; and for my part I am entirely satisfied that I fulfilled that duty by being part of a decision to reject such a project – a project which would have cost tens of millions of dollars to remove 20% of heavy traffic from Gordon Road – leaving the remaining 80%, which we had been told (twice) had a Mosgiel destination, to (presumably) get off Riccarton Road and trundle down residential Bush Road to their (known) destination of Mosgiel and its environs.

    It has been my experience in life that ratepayers will forgive us for genuine errors of judgement, but I’ve never been game to test their reaction to lunacy. That’s why I deem the need to make these disclosures – least the residents of Bush Road put a contract on me!


  7. So; if the present mayor and council are aware of the situation as Maurice so succinctly outlines, then surely, this is an issue which will be put back in its box, toot sweet. Unless, of course Riccarton Rd is seen as a potential cycle way, then all cards are off the table.

  8. Anonymous

    The answer to your question, Calvin, is that Mayor and present Council are reluctant to “relitigate the past”. I’m not sure you can relitigate something that wasn’t litigated in the first place, but am very sure that a form of litigation should have been engaged with respect to rezoning designation along Hagart Alexander Drive in 2001.

    • Hype O'Thermia

      Could this reluctance to relitigate the past have anything to do with learning inconvenient truths about past mistakes? Could it be anything to do with reluctance to face the obligation to do something better this time round, that would be unpopular with “stakeholders” and other bffs (“best friends forever” in facebook, txt etc lingo)?
      Could it be that “Mayor and present Council” are (_almost_ without exception) a bunch of bought blouses?

  9. Anonymous

    If one already knows the reasons for why decisions were made, then one cannot learn anything new from one’s own actions. However, one can prevent others from discovering information about those actions and consequent mistakes, that they might find interesting (well, on a continuum from interesting to inappropriate to corrupt to illegal).

  10. Brian Miller

    At the end of the day, We on Riccarton Road are left in no mans land. It would appear that we have had the future control and ownership of our property and business, which we own outright, taken from us by the council. Here are the facts.
    We are in the Horticulture business. With our residence and approx. 1500sqm of heated, covered greenhouse, growing a variety of vegetables all year round. We employ up to 5 staff. We trade under the name Aquarius Gardens.
    Council have offered us this, on a take it or leave it basis. As you can see they are threatening us to take what they want under the Public Works Act.
    Remove all the Greenhouse, which closes the business, with a loss of all jobs. Take a 5 metre strip of our frontage.
    They have offered us an amount that would not cover half a rebuild of what they intend to take.
    Now I put this to you. If we were to sell our business. Who in their right mind would buy a business, or residence, knowing that the council believe that they can come at any time and take what they like, and close it down.
    That is the situation that we find ourselves in at this time after going through a process of “good faith bargaining”. We are now in no mans land, can’t sell, can’t expand the business because of the threat we are under from the council.
    Council’s offer for our land is based on a rock bottom valuation from their valuer who just happened to be the valuer for Carisbrook.
    I also have in my possession confidential council documents of an offer that they have made to another Taieri resident for the purchase of their property. That offer is for Valuation PLUS 24%.
    I hope I have made my case clear. This has all come about because a certain Developer doesn’t want heavy traffic on his patch. So let’s turn Mosgiel upside down, all for him.

  11. Brian, given what you say here you are onto a winner. The process to pursue the council is hugely onerous, do it anyway, and meanwhile keep the Ombudsman in the loop.

  12. Jacob

    Latest news. The positioning of the trustees for the new multimillion pool complex for Mosgiel, is for those trustees to find a site among the new development. To enhance and promote the new residential development.
    Away from any heavy traffic routes no doubt.

  13. Whippet

    I always thought it was strange that council spent millions of ratepayers funding putting oversize storm water pipes in Haggart Alexander Drive that was only to service farm land. Then Bingo the farmland was rezoned residential. How strange that all the storm water pipes were already in place before rezoning to allow the development to go ahead ?

  14. A scourge needs to go through those stormwater pipes taking Brown and his honchos on the Mosgiel-Taieri Communuty Board, Mosgiel Business Association, and Mosgiel ‘pool trust’, and including the rats Avery and Matheson at DCC, far out to sea.

  15. Hey Whippet. Fancy DCC (read ratepayer) spending $2M to take all that water away from the Brown development in Haggart Alexander Drive, just to have to bring it back again to fill the pool! Sometimes facts can be stranger than fiction eh?

  16. Hagart Alexander, what a fucking joke. The road that struggles to even be a two lane road most of the time. Yet another epic fail because of underhanded scumbags. The list is getting mighty long.

    The bullshit related to this council is becoming truly mindblowing, yet they still carry on…..

    • Hype O'Thermia

      It’s our Cult-ure That and students’ couch-burning. We should celebrate. Why can’t we have a grand Cult’n’Couch Burning Event in the Fubar Stadium with music by Dunedin’s great musician, Bill Acklin?

  17. Brian Miller

    Here is an Interesting snippet. There has been a certain Lady on the Mosgiel Taieri community board who had a major interest in Riccarton Road. She lived on Riccarton Road for years, and was part of a group who promoted Riccarton Road to be State Highway 87, removing the state highway from Mosgiel’s main street. Now she has sat on the board and voted for the upgrade and the land grab under the guise of road safety, and the business destruction that has gone on with it. Strangely enough, none of the effects of this disruption to residents and business is to take place on her side of the road. She was given an invitation to meet the residents of Riccarton Road, so that she could explain her position. Funny thing is she never had the guts to turn up. Now all the research that I have done, I have not been able to find any evidence (can any body help?) in the board voting on this issue where she has declared her interest including a pecuniary interest in voting to keep her property safe from the claws of council while her neighbours on the other side of the road are facing the Public Works Act if they didn’t behave. It appears now that she has saved her property from destruction with her influence on the board, that she now wants to move on. I see that there is a For Sale sign on her property where she lives. Her name is SANDRA WILSON.
    I should add here that I sought and was given approval by the Audit Office to speak on the subject of Riccarton Road when I was on the board.

    • Brian, maybe Sandy Wilson’s cat died or she thinks her property is worth more now that it’s safe from DCC roadworks. A cunning plan, or she’s wearing black. On advice from her solicitor.

  18. From the Dunedin City Integrated Transport Strategy 2013:

    9.4 Focus on freight

    Freight movement is vital for Dunedin’s economic and social wellbeing. Dunedin is also a key freight hub for the wider region. Freight needs to be able to move efficiently and effectively to and from Port Otago, and through the city, without adversely affecting the safety and amenity of the city.

    Strategic response
    Encourage increased use of the rail network for freight movement and provide safe and efficient access for freight vehicles on designated routes.


  19. I remember as a youngster we had little platforms on the back of our bikes. They were called carriers and you could load up all sorts of stuff on them. Now with the cycle lanes being developed all round the town a whole lot of freight could be moved that way. I wonder why Spokes didn’t think of that? That and rail could result in a lot fewer trucks cluttering up the routes. It really pays to think outside the square, or is that the circle?

  20. Clarification is sought (refer 50max trucks):

    █ It is unclear if (dairy/sheep farmer) Mike Lord has business connections with Fonterra – the company is pushing for use of 50max trucks in its supply chains.
    Profile: http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/councillors/cr-mike-lord
    Register of Interest: http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/413126/Mike-Lord.pdf

    Doug Hall has business interests in the transport industry.
    Profile (none): http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/councillors/cr-doug-hall
    Register of Interest: http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/413121/Douglas-Hall.pdf

    Unconfirmed minutes of the Council meeting held on Monday 14 April 2014 show that Cr Mike Lord and Cr Doug Hall were present and voted on the following; neither councillor declared an interest at item 3.

    Click to access ma_council_m_2014_04_14.pdf


    It was moved (Wilson/Lord):
    “1 That Part A (items 1-3, 10) of the minutes of the Infrastructure Services Committee meeting held on 1 April 2014 be noted.”
    Motion carried

    It was moved (Wilson/Lord):
    “2 That the following Part B items of the minutes of the Infrastructure Services Committee meeting held on 1 April 2014 be approved:

    Item 4: Naming of New Private Way – Howorth Road, Fairfield
    Item 5: New Road Name – Grandvista Subdivision
    Item 6: 50Max High Productivity Motor Vehicles
    Item 7: Encroachments
    Item 8: Dunedin City Road Safety Action Plan.”
    Motion carried


    The minutes of the meeting of the Infrastructure Services Committee held on 1 April 2014 show that Cr Mike Lord and Cr Doug Hall were present and voted on the following; neither councillor declared an interest at item 3.

    Click to access ma_is_m_2014_04_01.pdf


    A report from the Transportation Policy Engineer (Jon Visser) advised that the New Zealand Transport Agency had introduced a new class of vehicle: 50Max. A 50Max truck had the same maximum length as a standard pro-forma (44 tonne) truck but had one additional axle. It allowed for a total weight of 50 tonnes (ie approximately 5 tonnes additional cargo) with the same weight-per-axle as a standard pro-forma truck.

    The report sought the Committee’s approval for the use of 50Max vehicles within the Dunedin City District on all roads that standard pro-forma trucks were able to use, except any specific structures or roads as may be notified by the Transportation Policy Engineer where that structure or road cannot withstand the dead-weight of a 50Max truck. If approved, the NZTA would be delegated with the authority to administer 50Max permits.

    Messrs Ollerenshaw and Visser spoke to the report and responded to questions on the impact of the change. They advised that the approval for use of 50Max would allow for more efficient transportation of freight for a relative decrease in fuel consumption per tonne and thereby reduce the carbon footprint. The 50Max vehicles were designed to be safe and would cause no greater wear or impact on the road than standard pro-forma vehicles.

    Following discussion it was moved (Lord/Staynes):

    “1 That the use of 50Max vehicles within the Dunedin City District on all roads that standard pro-forma vehicles were able to use, except any specific structures or roads as may be notified by the Transportation Policy Engineer from time to time where that structure or road could not withstand the dead-weight of 50Max trucks be approved.

    2 That the authority to issue 50Max permits for the Dunedin City District would be delegated to the New Zealand Transport Agency.”

    Motion carried


  21. Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board members Blackie Catlow and Maurice Prendergast questioned the merits of the work, with Mr Prendergast voting against the board’s submission to the Dunedin City Council on its 2014-15 draft annual plan, calling on it to get on with the project. Riccarton Road is to be widened by up to 4m along a 4.2km stretch from Gladstone Rd to State Highway 87. The $2.6 million upgrade was approved by the council in 2011.

    ODT 7.5.14 Road-widening plan criticised

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s