Tag Archives: Heavy traffic

DCC overlooks due process and Environment Court rulings for Mosgiel road hierarchy

Taieri Times / Otago Daily Times fails to understand or elaborate (no research!) the issues raised by local resident and business owner Brian Miller in his submission to the Transportation section of the proposed 2GP.

taieri-times-odt-22-2-17-residents-in-fight-for-riccarton-rd-p6

Mr Miller and his family have lived on Riccarton Rd for the last thirty years. In that time, variously, DCC have planned – and carried out supporting construction works – to enable Hagart-Alexander Dr (HAD) as an arterial route taking heavy vehicles ‘safely’; DCC have been to Environment Court on the matter, receiving clear rulings and sets of conditions bringing about these construction works; since then, however, DCC have formed the view – contrary to the Court rulings and agreed structure plans – that the arterial route should be Riccarton Rd, not HAD. Former city councillor and deputy mayor Sydney Brown has a residential subdivision to HAD.

Who is pulling whose chain here ?
DCC, in changing your minds, where is the due (fair and proper) process of public consultation ?

Are flicks of the pen all that DCC does now.

The Sin : City Planning, in its 2GP recommendations for the Taieri roading hierarchy fails to acknowledge legal determinations of the Environment Court of New Zealand and insodoing the council may be seen as INJUDICIOUS. Court rulings cannot be ignored holus-bolus to suit DCC fairyland futures for the Taieri.

[Sources at Dunedin say this is not the only case of DCC’s recent lack of regard for the Court.]

Further, to underline…. during the ‘Revised Planner’s Recommendations’ on February 10, the city planner was heard to say they regarded information presented in submission(s) as “old” – the strong inference being that Environment Court rulings do not count; or worse, that they had no idea any matters had, in fact, been to court. The City thus appears sunk on a problem of integrity, lawful or otherwise.

This situation simply would not arise if greater supervision and TRAINING was provided to salaried council underlings involved in 2GP processes. They must be fully cognisant of the history and implications of relevant legal rulings made in respect of council activities. That way they could see the trees for the wood when the likes of ex staff appear for ‘advice’ to hearing in trite bouncy-rat mode.

[The implications of contempt should perhaps be underscored instead of multiple teabreaks culture at the Civic Centre.]

Lastly, in god we trust…. the independent commissioners Messrs Collins and Rae are NO FOOLS.

WAKE UP DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL, or
We The People will see you in Court.

[ends]

****

2GP Hearing Topic: Transportation
Hearing dates: February 1, 2, 3, 8
Revised Planner’s Recommendations: February 10 [● DCC to upload]
Commissioners: David Collins (Chair), Gary Rae, David Benson-Pope, Aaron Hawkins, Jinty MacTavish, Kate Wilson

THE SUBMISSION | Statement tabled at hearing

Note: Brian Miller gave his family trust’s 28-page submission (plus attachments) on the 2GP Transportation topic in the hearing of independent commissioners David Collins and Gary Rae, only. To avoid conflicts of interest, at Mr Miller’s request and with the Chair’s agreement, no councillor commissioners were present for the submission.

H180-421 BJ & AJ Miller family trust (PDF format)

In an email to Elizabeth Kerr (6.2.17), Brian Miller said: “Probably the most important part of our submission is point 3.3, pages 20 to 22.” :

[click to enlarge]
submission-h180-421-bj-aj-miller-family-trust-p20
submission-h180-421-bj-aj-miller-family-trust-p21-1
submission-h180-421-bj-aj-miller-family-trust-p22

****

[click to enlarge]
data-map-2gp-land-information-for-mosgiel-roads2GP Data Map (Roads)

zone-map-2gp-mosgiel2GP Zone Map

****

2GP Hearing Topic: Transportation Link

Council Evidence (PDF format)
Section 42A Report
Appendix 1 DCC Operative Plan Road Hierarchy
Appendix 2 Road DCC submission – road classification hierarchy corrections
Appendix 3 Christchurch District Plan Replacement abstract
Appendix 4 Transportation figures
Appendix 5 2GP Section 6 – Transportation
Statement of Evidence of Ian Clark
Statement of evidence – Grant Fisher
Amendment to Section 42a Report Transportation

Statement tabled at hearing (PDF format)
Transport Advice from Sarah Connolly – Principal Consultant Transport Planning – MWH

Related Posts and Comments:
5.2.17 Maurice Prendergast : Defence of 60 year old arterial corridor #2GP
30.5.16 Non-arterial Riccarton Road : Brian Miller stirred by community board
5.6.14 DCC Transport Strategy and Riccarton Road
24.4.14 DCC promotes Riccarton Rd as sole heavy traffic bypass

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

5 Comments

Filed under Agriculture, Business, Construction, Corruption, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Health, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Transportation, Travesty

Maurice Prendergast : Defence of 60 year old arterial corridor #2GP

P R O P O S E D ● S E C O N D ● G E N E R A T I O N ● D I S T R I C T ● P L A N

2GP Consultation (index) Link

2GP Maps Link
Data Map
Zoning Map

Hearings schedule and documents Link

****

2GP Hearing Topic: Transportation Link

Council Evidence (PDF format)
Section 42A Report
Appendix 1 DCC Operative Plan Road Hierarchy
Appendix 2 Road DCC submission – road classification hierarchy corrections
Appendix 3 Christchurch District Plan Replacement abstract
Appendix 4 Transportation figures
Appendix 5 2GP Section 6 – Transportation
Statement of Evidence of Ian Clark
Statement of evidence – Grant Fisher

****

Disclaimer. The site owner is not responsible for the currency or accuracy of content of this post and the inclusion of the information provided does not imply endorsement by the site owner.

Received from Maurice Prendergast
Sun, 5 Feb 2017 at 12:19 a.m.

Lightly edited; maps added. -Eds

[click to enlarge]
data-map-2gp-land-information-for-mosgiel-roads2GP Data Map (Roads)

zone-map-2gp-mosgiel2GP Zone Map

Submission to DCC 2GP Hearing – Transportation
Submitter: Maurice Prendergast Feb 2017

In politics, just as in war, the first casualties are usually the truth.
This is no better illustrated than in the issues that have, over many decades; washed around Hagart-Alexander Drive, Mosgiel. The culture of dishonest comment that has characterised these issues is so extensive that it cannot be illustrated by thumbnail sketch, and though the temptation to condense this summary is real, the principles that represent the truth must never be compromised. Thus I crave your indulgence by presenting some facts that this DCC Transportation Report has not revealed to you.

Some sixty years ago when the Mosgiel Borough Council bordered the Taieri County Council, the collective ‘wise heads’ of those two Authorities opined that with a developing industrial activity in North Taieri there would be a future need to divert nuisance industrial traffic from Mosgiel mainstreet. While it must have seemed an impossible task, they managed a herculean (east side) land purchase corridor from Gordon Rd to the Silverstream. This must have been no mean feat to have had to deal with maybe scores of property owners. The wisdom of these pioneers did not end there; they pegged that corridor so that nobody should be in any doubt as to the Authorities’ intentions.

Not surprisingly the value of land bounding this corridor plummeted (who would want to own property next to an industrial traffic by-pass). But in the minds of the punters, the plan for this road was away in the future, and with the passage of time it became widely believed that it wasn’t going to happen and the Real Estate fraternity in particular perpetuated this mischief. Ignorance abounded and was so profound that it is said that in one case a bounding property owner (when building) sought planning departure to have his building platform set back to allow a greater recreational frontage. It mattered not that this robbed his backyard space; he had a whole roading corridor behind him; upon which he apparently built a tennis court. Such was the contempt in which the belief was held that the road would never be built.

With reference to ignorance, some of the biggest offenders (in my view) have been ‘property conveyancing’ solicitors who have not alerted clients to this impediment when purchasing property which bounds Hagart-Alexander Dr [HAD]. The impediment being that they were purchasing property which bounded a charted traffic by-pass. In my capacity as a former City Councillor I consistently fielded pleas from those who purchased ‘tainted’ properties that “nobody told me”. That unfortunately is the ‘downside’ of democracy. Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst kind of governance; that is, with the exception of all other kinds of governance.” In a democracy nobody is required to hold your hand. Blaming somebody because you didn’t know is simply not a remedy. Not knowing about the purpose of the HAD corridor is a case in point. Caveat Emptor! The early part of HAD (from Gordon Rd for some 800 metres) was developed many years ago with enormously wide berms to provide for eventual road widening. This alone should have alerted property purchasers. The reason it wasn’t developed to full width was to discourage the speed of domestic/hoon traffic.

Now, fast forward to around the turn of this century. Amongst much weeping and gnashing of teeth, the HAD was then developed onward to intersect with Factory Rd. Property owners in Glenbrook Drive (whose rear) bounded HAD became unreasonably hysterical because “they had been told” that the corridor would never be developed. Nobody could say who told them so (probably somebody in the pub), but the People’s Document, the District Plan (to which they or their solicitor should have referred when purchasing) clearly showed the ‘roading drawings’ of the Authority’s intention. This was a classic case of people asking Council to hold the property owners’ hands, and so hysterical were their claims that the Council (quite improperly in my belief) released to them all, four metres from the road corridor to allow them to construct ‘noise abating’ bunding. This bunding has never been constructed.

Then came one of the most torturous exercises of my political life. The Council was obliged to extend HAD across Factory Rd and beyond the Silverstream to Carncross St/Dukes Rd as planned. But there was the matter of rural zoned land on the seaward side of HAD and an application to rezone that land was in gestation (Mosgiel East Variation A). It was I who chaired a Working Party in year 2000 entitled ‘Heavy Vehicle Routes over Taieri Plain Working Party’, with a brief to study (not only) HAD but any route across the Taieri. To me it was a ridiculous brief. Land purchases alone for other route options were perceived to be enormous in relation to HAD where Council owned all the necessary land. The Working Party as I recall was dripping with prejudice and self interest and my memory is that the Working Party was dissolved without a comprehensible conclusion. However, in November 2001, the Working Party was reborn under the title of ‘Mosgiel By-Pass Working Party’, with Terms of Reference that removed the prejudice of the former Working Party.

A Christchurch consultancy (Gabitees–Porter) engaged by transportation manager, the late Don Hill supported that Working Party and provided ‘in depth’ costings on all routes (Highway 87, Alanton/Outram, Riccarton Rd and HAD). Not surprisingly HAD, both economically and environmentally, came out light years ahead of the rest; largely because it was the ‘greenest’ route and Council owned the whole of the proposed corridor, and it was by far the shortest route. As an instance, and as I recall, in the case of the Riccarton Rd option, the land purchase cost to relocate that huge main trunk drainage channel across the Taieri alone (that runs parallel to Riccarton Rd), was in the vicinity of twice the cost of bridging the Silverstream for [the] HAD/Centre St extension option.

I have absolutely no intention to go into any further detail. It’s all in Council’s archives if only today’s planners bothered to research the work we did and the costs the ratepayers met some 10 to 12 years ago, to find that the historically planned HAD/Cairncross St route is the only rational consideration, and in terms of travel, the only “Green Option”. Continue reading

8 Comments

Filed under DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, NZTA, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design

Cycle lobby games and media tilts

Bike commuter 1 [cycling.com]Commuters [cycling.com]

### ODT Online Sat, 19 Oct 2013
Leuchs accuses Vandervis
By Chris Morris
Dunedin city councillor Lee Vandervis has been accused of misrepresenting former Olympian Kashi Leuchs’ views on cycleways to ”push forward his own agenda” at a recent Dunedin City Council meeting.
However, Cr Vandervis hit back yesterday, denying the claim and saying any suggestion he did so deliberately was ”slanderous”.
Read more

Correspondence received.

—– Original Message —–
From: Lee Vandervis
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2013 1:51 PM
Subject: FW: reaction? Feel free to quote.

ODT reporter Chris Morris has muddied rather than clarified the issues around my supposed misrepresentation of statements made by serious cyclists, including an employee running the Bike Otago shop.

Even worse, the Bike Otago owner Kashi Leuchs who I have never met or discussed anything with, wades in to today’s ODT and on his blog pretending to be one of the blokes that I spoke with running his shop and pretending he took part in or heard the supposedly misrepresented conversation!
The millions we have already spent on Dunedin ‘painted on’ cycle lanes are now not what they want according to their blog, but they have no idea of how what they do want will work at intersections.
How much more do they want ratepayers to spend to reinvent the cycle lane?

Cheers,
Lee

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:31:04 +1300
To: Chris Morris [ODT]
Conversation: reaction?
Subject: Re: reaction?

First time this has been brought to my attention thanks Chris.

The Bike Otago blog confirms just what I said and that I accurately described these serious cyclists reservations about existing cycle lanes;

“So we would just like to put a little context to what Lee tells the council here. Lee states that we said that cycling lanes actually give cyclists a false sense of security… But what Lee has missed out is the words ‘painted on’. For sure, we, like almost all cyclists you ask are against the painted on cycling lanes, similar to what we currently have on our one way system.”

I did not miss out the words “painted on” as these words were never mentioned in the cycle-shop discussion, and ‘painted on’ is mostly what we have.

This still leaves the most dangerous part of any road – the intersections – as needing special provision which is often provided overseas by cyclists/pedestrian stop lights on separated cyclelane/footpaths.

The statement “What Lee states about intersections not being separable is not something that we would consider hard to fix… it would just take a bit of good planning to ensure everyone can enjoy the roads safely together.” fails to suggest just what planning/expense might reduce the latest car-park-lane separated cycleway intersection danger issue, and fails to give any overseas examples.

I have studied and photographed European cycleway solutions this year [at my own expense] in Munich, Barcelona, Heidelberg and Berlin and have spent weeks cycling around the last two cities. The most common cycleway solution in these cities is shared cycleway/footpaths separated from moving cars by parked cars. Next most common is our painted cycle lanes. Even when separated cycle-lanes/footpaths were marked with dividing lines, most serious cyclists [carbon fibre/lycra/commuter] still rode with the car traffic as this was faster and easier at intersections.
This highlights that there are many different cycling styles and preferences, and claims that a new separated car-park-lane cycleway will please most cyclists is misleading.

My question to the new enthusiasts for wiping out 200+ car-parks all the way up the one-way street and having a physically separated bicycle path along the car-parking strip, is why not use the under-used eastern footpath as a separated cycle lane, as recommended recently in the ODT by roading engineer Paul Hambleton, and which has plenty of relatively safe precedent overseas? I have previously asked staff to consider this overseas proven option, and had a Council resolution supporting this.
I believe we need a proven cost-effective compromise that recognises all road users as well as a variety of cyclists styles, from the recreational to the serious. So far my shared-eastern-foot-path solution is the only affordable one I have seen.

Cheers,
Lee

On 18/10/13 12:18 PM, “Chris Morris” wrote:

Hi Lee,

Not sure if you’re aware of the post about you on http://www.bikeotago.co.nz/

They’re taking issue with your earlier comments at a council meeting in September, when you claimed Bike Otago cyclists and the bloke that run the shop did not support cycleways.

I’d like your response by 5pm at the latest, but as soon as possible, actually, as I may need to do follow-ups.

Chris.

—— End of Forwarded Message

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:37:37 +1300
To: Chris Morris
Conversation: reaction?
Subject: Re: reaction?

Bike Otago’s own quotation “we, like almost all cyclists you ask are against the painted on cycling lanes,” confirms that they are opposed to current cycle lanes, and shows that I did not misquote them Chris.
Nobody specified ‘painted on’ at the time, but the news that theses cyclists are against the already considerable expensive Dunedin cycle lanes should be of wide interest.
If Bike Otago want to fully represent their views at Council on a new specific type of separated cycleway that has not yet been detailed, designed, intersection explained, or built, they are welcome to try and do so.

The record shows;
It was moved (Vandervis/Hudson):
“1 That the Council further consult with the AA on cycle safety proposals.
2 That the eastern footpath of the One Way North be considered as a long-term separated cycle way.”
A request was made to take each recommendation separately. Motion 1 was put and carried.
Motion 2 was put and carried with Cr MacTavish voting against.

that I have pushed for a much more affordable separated cycleway not requiring the loss of 200+ car-parks along the unused eastern footpath as regularly seen overseas. Whether Bike Otago approve of this or not is up to them to say.
I don’t have an own agenda other than to prevent an enormous waste of ratepayers and limited Transit funds on a new type of separated cycleway yet to be designed that does not address the statistically most dangerous intersections.
For you or anyone else to suggest that I deliberately misrepresented unnamed serious cyclists chatting in a cycle-shop is slanderous.

Kind regards,
Lee

Related Posts and Comments:
24.9.13 Mediocrity and lack of critical awareness at DCC
9.9.13 Residents’ dissatisfaction (2013) with elected council and mayor —increase!
4.9.13 Draft Dunedin City Transport Strategy
30.8.13 Transport Strategy: Is this responsible local government?

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

3 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

Dunedin’s one-way system

Council acting transportation planning manager Sarah Connolly wants public input on the project, and for the council to consider what its priorities were in the area.

### ODT Online Thu, 31 Mar 2011
Major road rerouting back on agenda
By David Loughrey
A multimillion-dollar plan to reroute traffic through Dunedin is back on the agenda, and a major change to the city’s one-way system is heading the list of possibilities. The Dunedin City Council has been working with the University of Otago, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and the Otago Regional Council on the issue, and council staff plan to take the results of their work to councillors later this year.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

11 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Construction, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, People, Politics, Project management, Site, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design