Vicious circles in a provincial town 22 Nov 2024
Cr Duncan of Taupo Ward reporting, as I see it anyway. This time on a workshop I attended on Tuesday 21 November regarding an NZTA funding shortfall towards the transport programme which had been signed off by Elected Members in the 2024 – 34 Long Term Plan (myself declining to put my name to it). I would provide the Youtube link to it but once again it looks as it wasn’t audio-video recorded, so you will just have to take my version of how it went down.
Basically the government is not giving out quite as much $$ as they usually do, and this means that some things in the transportation arena have to either disappear or at least be postponed for several years. Personally, I think this is a great opportunity for this Council to start practicing value for money infrastructure than just hire consultants to do the stock standard job as we always seem to do. In my own area of professional expertise of traffic engineering, I have come across a number of local projects both past and present which I believe could have been done smarter and cheaper – that includes spending $300K on a consultant to tell us we need a new bridge across the Waikato River for Taupo township, which I am reasonably confident is a nice to have that doesn’t need to happen (we are having a workshop early next year on that item, at my own insistence).
But it seems this is not going to be, and the other Elected Members present seemed happy enough to keep their noses out of it and trust the staff know exactly what they are doing. I did question a senior staff member on how he can be confident we are doing value for money infrastructure, and his response was that he puts his trust in the procurement and tender processes and not the people. I believe that if you don’t have staff involved who know the job nearly as well as the consultant or contractor you give the job to, you might as well be writing blank cheques.
What do you think?
Why I didn’t sign 3 Oct 2024
Taupo ward Councillor Duncan reporting, this time on the official signing off for the Long Term Plan by Councillors on Monday 30 September. I was the only Elected Member who didn’t put my name to it, and I want to explain why.
I was elected largely on a platform of greater scrutiny towards decision making, holding to account, and contributing towards achieving better value for money infrastructure (especially transport because of my experience in that area). Yet I was excluded from any input at all into the most significant transport issue in the district which includes a new bridge that I think mightn’t even be needed, and have previously pointed out other questionable line items including one example twenty times costlier than I believed necessary.
Because I perceive an absence of critical thinking is going on in the transport space, I strongly suspect it may be happening elsewhere. Such clues include the $20M Turangi Wastewater Land Disposal scheme, which is still progressing and without being labelled as the nice to do project that it clearly is. I also still firmly believe that the Three Waters programme justifies an independent qualified review given that it is a lions share of the infrastructure spending.
To cap it all off (no pun intended), I have encountered zero interest at all from any of the Elected Members or Executive Team with respect to the voluntary introduction of a restrictive Rates Capping regime, and zero acknowledgement that there might be wasteful spending going on (and what Council on Earth doesn’t that happen?).
I also question the whole time and effort put into Long Term Plans in general, and especially the public consultation element. We received about 1400 public submissions (which is a whole lot of reading to get through), but the only change of significance to come of all that was the Bins to Bags decision. So it comes across as a lip service public consultation to me, and I think there are questions as to the legitimacy of the entire Long Term Plan process.
So I did not put my name to this Long Term Plan, simply because it felt wrong to do so. I believe that Taupo District Council is operating in a bubble that is not in the best interests of constituents, or at least those constituents who don’t want their rates going up year after year at an average of more than double the rate of inflation as it demonstrably has been the past few decades. Not sustainable for pensioners to stay in their own homes, and not very good news for the rest of us either.
Apart from all that, I feel very fortunate to have our wonderful lake and wouldn’t want to live anywhere else, at least for now anyway.
Councillor Duncan’s Report 8 August 2024: Long Term Plan (LTP) Marathon (Part 2 of 2)
Other Items:
· Northern Access Workshop to happen – Cr Duncan raised a successful Notion of Motion at last Tuesday’s Council meeting for a workshop to happen with elected members in a month or so time. I am not yet absolutely convinced we even need a second bridge crossing, and if me as a transport guy isn’t, then I reckon how can you or the other elected members be? Anyway, if you want to listen to my take on this issue it is the first meeting item to be heard and straight after my conflab with the Deputy Mayor about conflicts of interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihv0khcZ700
Councillor Duncan’s Report 24 June 2024
Frustrat’in Transportat’ín
Definition of Cronyism: Favouritism shown to old friends without regard for their qualifications, as in political appointments to office
I would say that purposely excluding yours truly elected representative who happens to also be a highly qualified transportation professional, from having input into the most pressing transportation issue for the region, does amply qualify for the above. Don’t you?
I have been asking about the status of the Northern Access Transport Study (which includes a new bridge solution to Nukuhau) for the past several months, primarily as I was expecting some kind of input. Because, you know, transportation is kind of important and it also can involve a lot of ratepayer money (rough estimate is $70M or so). Remember this was a study which I was unhappy in the way it was instigated in the first place, and did voice some concerns to you about it back in February. The absence of such a report was a contributing factor to myself not agreeing to sign off on the Draft Long Term Plan (LTP) at our Council meeting of May 31, and I was incredulous that $200k or so had been spent on a consultant for seemingly nothing to show for it.
Anyway the upshot is that I recently discovered that there is indeed such a report in existence, and a draft copy has been around since May 10. However, the three elected members on the Steering Committee for this project (Deputy Mayor Kevin Taylor, Cr Danny Loughlin & Cr John Williamson), decided not to tell. If you haven’t heard the term ‘Machiavellian’, I recommend you look it up as a new word for today. My intense displeasure about these goings on were voiced, including such descriptives as ‘…creepy small town council where cronyism and a Mickey Mouse way of doing things are too commonplace…’. But I didn’t yell or throw any chairs around, so that was a plus.
I haven’t had time to properly go through the report yet, but have already identified that my previous burning question about utilising the existing bridge for an additional traffic lane has not been fully addressed.
Councillor Duncan’s Report on week ending 3 May 2024
DRAFT Long Term Plan (LTP) and Duncan does not agree
I for one, am not very happy with the Draft LTP which will soon be going out for public feedback, for the self-centred reason that I am an engineer by profession who likes to see value for money solutions to real problems which come about from asking some First Principle questions i.e. (i) Is there an actual problem? (ii) What are we actually achieving? (iii) Can it be done in a more economical way? I have received little assurances in Chambers of this happening regularly enough, and estimate that the annual $80M or so programmed for capital works over the next ten years is substantially more than necessary. Or to put it another way: if we really are to be spending all that money, we could probably be achieving a lot more.
For example, we hired a consultant to do a Northern Access study of which we have seen glimpses, but have not been presented with any of the significant assumptions or findings in a manner that is comprehensible to me. We are being told that we absolutely need a second bridge, but no explanation as to why the existing control gates bridge structure is unable to be widened or take additional traffic lanes. My profession is transport, so I find it quite disturbing to just slip in $70M or so into the LTP on what appears to be very little basis. One of the reasons I put my name forward to get elected was to address wasteful spending, and I will say in my experience that it is entirely possible to spend $70M on a transport solution which could have been achieved with a fraction of that. To little avail I have tried to impress upon my fellow Elected Members that transportation is a profession, and just like a building or bridge we don’t want to fall down, it actually is quite complicated. Unfortunately, I believe the significant majority of your Elected Members have been well trained to not challenge Council staff recommendations under virtually any circumstances.
This particular Councillor and Chartered Professional Engineer does not believe in Fairytale Endings, and Mickey Mouse should not be welcome here.
The significance to me of all this, is that I am doubting that this Council table is seriously committed to address the question of rising debt levels, and this will affect rates affordability too. Although the Capital Works programme is significantly debt financed on favourable terms at present (around 3%), when I identify transport LTP line items that are for example 20 times more than they need to be as I have done previously (refer: ), then I have to ask what sort of value for money are we getting even if albeit cheaply?
In a few weeks time the Draft LTP will be open for your submissions. By all means do tell Elected Members know what you think, about anything at all really. But there are certainly no guarantees you will properly listened to, or understood. If probably the most highly qualified transportation professional in the District cannot even make much of an impact on the topic I know best, and I see these people every week – what chance do you think you will have?
My favourite quote for the week simply because it helped carry me through it, Jesus in John 12:25:
“He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal”
Councillor Duncan’s LTP Meeting Report of 2 April 2024 (Part 1 of 2)
Northern Gateway Transport Study
A transport study was recently undertaken by a consultant and led by a steering group that includes several Elected Members, and some of you may recall my previous uncomplimentary thoughts regarding this process. Even though this study is only in the draft stages as far as I am aware, there is an assumption for a $70M bridge solution to be implemented in around 2030. This assumption is required in order for Council to be able to collect Developer Contributions (the transport component for this comprises roughly $4K for a typical residential lot, so is not too extortionate). So far so good and this all seems reasonable enough.
However, I am still not yet convinced that an additional bridge structure to the existing Control Gates Bridge is even necessary. I don’t want to give the nod to a sketch on paper now, to something that years down the track is to be taken as an assent to some unwise expenditure of substantial magnitude. It is said that some robust discussions are yet to be had on this topic, we will see how that goes.
My own hesitation about this project and many others, is mainly born out of my previous observation of the way things can go here in Taupo. The last major transport change in the district was the Taupo Town Transformation Project, which I consider to be a moderate failure of transport planning from which the dust has well enough settled. I still think that Council should be committing towards remedying the traffic woes in town quickly and cheaply, but the majority of Elected Members do not appear to be interested. It seems that running an efficient road network is only deemed to be an ‘operational’ matter for staff to sort out. I have to ask: would anyone run a business like that?
Councillor Chat Part 3: Elected Members are in there to oversee Council… right? 21 Feb 2024
Taupo ward Councillor Duncan reporting on Part 3 of my Councillor Chat series about workings of The (Council) Machine, as I see it anyway.
Elected Councillors are in there to oversee Council… right?
Good question, and the answer may interest you. In the governance role we Elected Officials are responsible for approving policy documents, but as I see it are expected to show little interest in following up on the results. Instead we are only expected to take serious interest in issues when they are presented to us, by staff, at the Council table.
In the words of our esteemed Mayor, after I was asking some probing questions about something or other:
“When input from a governance perspective is required it will be brought to the table for the elected members to review and discuss. You are a councillor in a governance role, you are not management in an operational role. Please stop contacting staff members regarding these issues and let them get on with the exceptional work they do…”
My own interpretation of good governance is to take an active interest in things, and step in to ask the necessary questions when it is looking as if the outcome could be below par. I would love to kick back and pretend that things will work out fine, but I do not believe people voted us in for that, and my past experiences tell me that life is never that simple.
If you read my Councillor Chat Parts 1 & 2, you will realise that it is Council staff who are really running the show and not us Elected Members. Perhaps below will illustrate.
Northern Access Transport Study
A Council tender for the Northern Access transport study was put out in August 2023, and this basically involves the evaluating of new road connections to the Taupo town centre, including future route options for the Control Gates Bridge across the Waikato River which is owned by Mercury Energy. In my experience, putting out a tender for something which the client (i.e. Council) does not have requisite experience can be a fraught exercise, and sometimes even be a complete waste of time. I do not know the contract value of this latest study, but expect it could well end up in the six figures. Does anyone remember the $140K transport study in 2018 which recommended all those traffic signals for Taupo town, and that locals rejected out of hand when consulted? I suspect one key lesson Council also took from that particular exercise, was that asking the public what they want can be counterproductive to achieving a desired outcome (Taupo Town Transformation Project, anybody??).
As an Elected Member and the most qualified person in transportation at Council (and in the district, as far as I am aware), I had expected to be conferred with beforehand. Because after all, this was a large reason for me getting elected, and conflict of interest is hardly a thing because I do virtually no work in the district. So given previous assurances by staff that my input was valued, I was quite taken aback when this did not happen. After the contract was awarded a few months later and despite my efforts to intervene for a rethink, our Mayor nominated a Steering Group committee for this Northern Access transport study which does not include Councillor Duncan aka the Traffic Engineer.
Some people say that living in this small town is all about who you know and not what you know. I really can’t imagine why, can you?
Bridge For Now Not Later 21 September 2022
Hi all, Duncan Campbell here your local candidate for Taupo Ward. As some of you might already be aware, I am also a traffic engineer by trade, and I’ve been thinking …
As far as I can tell, there has been much talk and very little action to improve traffic flow north of town, and clearly the control gate bridge is part of the equation.
By the by, I have a feeling that some of our town planners (like many I know) would much prefer that you all just gave up on this idea for a new bridge, and take the healthier option by using your legs instead.
However, I have come up with one economic way to get the most out of the existing bridge structure of which we have a usable deck width of some 10m, and it involves the use of a dynamic traffic lane down the middle as per the drawing attached. Some points to note:
- Dynamic traffic lanes have been used successfully for many years in Auckland, for example the Panmure Highway Bridge which is of similar width to here, and more recently in Whangaparaoa Peninsula. Overhead signals and in-pavement LED lights are used to tell motorists which lanes to use, and which not to (no physical barriers are involved).
- The central area of the bridge which houses part of the control gate structure would either have to be modified, or a new bridge deck built above to clear it. I have not talked to Mercury Energy who own the bridge about this, or things like structural integrity.
- Traffic capacity of the Spa road roundabout and the Norman Smith Road intersection would also need looking at. Pedestrians wishing to cross the road could be catered for with a new crossing point closer to near Countdown. And of course anything like this should get peer reviewed for things like traffic safety.
This is not necessarily the best way forward or in the end even viable, and if money were never an object then novel ideas like this would not be necessary. But in the real world of civil engineering, just like politics, we can only try to do the best with what we’ve got – or be prepared to wait forever. So what do you think?
duncandoestaupo.com 