Policies

Infrastructure

The next major earthquake event in Wellington is likely to be along the Wellington Fault. Damage will be significant and there may be a subsidence of up to 1.4 metres in the Hutt Valley and along the western side of the harbour. Although we cannot hope to fully protect ourselves against the scale of damage in such an event, we can do things that will help protect lives, property and essential services.
Restore, upgrade and future proof our water supply, storm water and sewage systems to provide some degree of earthquake resilience and to ensure that they cope with increasing demand, increasingly severe weather events and sea level rise. Japanese engineers have developed a ductile steel water supply pipe system that strongly resists earthquake damage. It would be prudent to accept the additional initial cost of such a system as part of water supply pipe upgrades. This would ensure a more reliable water supply to communities and help maintain an essential water supply to emergency services fighting the inevitable fires after a destructive event.
A full assessment of existing roads, with resealing, repairs and upgrades as needs are identified. The “bus proofing” of roads is another project that needs to be undertaken, because we now have heavy, over-sized buses travelling on small suburban roads that were never designed for constant heavy loading – with the result that road surfaces and underground services are regularly being damaged. To prevent continued damage the WCC should liaise with GWRC to ensure that buses are of an appropriate size and weight for the roads they service.
Road sweeping, footpath maintenance and stormwater sump clearance is now woefully inadequate and needs to be more frequent. Sump clearance in particular will help alleviate flooding and property damage.
The 3 Waters Proposal is an assault on fundamental democratic principles and should be strongly opposed by the WCC. It is unacceptable that assets paid for and owned by Wellington ratepayers should be handed over and bundled into amorphous entities without compensation or accountability. Those who support such a proposal are abdicating Council’s responsibility to ratepayers and are pushing political agendas. It is another example of governmental interference in matters that should remain with local councils. We know what we need – it is better for the government to step back from the coal face and simply help with funding, rather than take us down a road where the privatisation of water becomes a much easier option for future unenlightened governments.
Land stabilisation is a priority in many areas of Wellington as weather events expose weaknesses in parks, belt areas, exposed cuts and aging retaining walls. It is now important to begin a program of land retention and/or wall construction in areas that are at risk of subsidence during earthquakes or extreme weather events. We should initially prioritise areas that could present a threat to life and property and roadways that would be needed by emergency services during a major event. Pine removal and native regeneration should also be accelerated as a way of stabilising hillsides that might otherwise be prone to landslides or collapse.

Transportation & Traffic Flow

LGWM options vary from inadequate to bizarre and the recent central government proposal is a half baked plan that does not address the needs of Wellington motorists. We need to bear in mind that vehicles of the future will be mostly hydrogen powered and clean – once the environmentally disastrous battery powered phase has run its course. Wellingtonians will not be giving up their cars and nor should they. Vehicle numbers will therefore likely increase and vehicular traffic flow needs to be prioritised if we are to meet future demand and help ensure that congestion is minimised – which will in turn reduce travel times and fossil fuel emissions.
Traffic lights should be better sequenced and extra pick-up loops installed in key areas so as to ensure minimal traffic delays and enhanced traffic flow – again reducing emissions.
The 2018 Census shows that only 4% of Wellington commuters travel to work on cycles (and that is probably on good days). In contrast, 20% walk to work, 17% use public transport, while 42% travel to work in a private or company vehicle. Use of public transport has of course increased since the introduction of half price fares. Roadways must therefore prioritise motor vehicles and public transport and safe walkways should take priority over cycleways. Councillors who talk about deprioritising motor vehicles are sadly out of touch and will no doubt compound existing traffic problems – thereby increasing emissions.
The Terrace Tunnel has been missing one lane for decades and installation of a 4th lane is work that must be completed without delay. The constant snarl-ups for traffic entering the city are completely unacceptable and have been going on for far too long. The idea that 2 lanes of motorway traffic should merge into one lane in a motorway tunnel is farcical. If the WCC and NZTA think they will get people out of their cars by maintaining fifty shades of inconvenience they are wrong. All they achieve are high levels of frustration and inconvenience, delays and increased emissions. Entry and exit roads at either end of the tunnel should also be upgraded or widened to ensure full contiguity. The NZTA should prioritise its spending, forget about the ridiculously expensive Petone to Ngauranga cycleway and start allocating funding for the upgrade and expansion of the Terrace Tunnel and other essential roading projects.
A second 4 lane Mt Victoria Tunnel must be completed as soon as possible to ensure the efficient movement of vehicular traffic from the motorway and Terrace Tunnel to the airport and eastern suburbs. The existing Mt Victoria tunnel could then be upgraded to provide for 2 way rapid transit train or bus services – as well as emergency services. It already has a pedestrian walkway and this could be sealed off from noise and exhaust with glass screens. Cycleways and an additional pedestrian walkway could be transferred to the recently strengthened Hataitai tunnel, where entry and exit roads are out of the way and provide greater safety.
An Arras Tunnel extension should be constructed from the existing tunnel through to the motorway. This would remove existing intersections and provide much improved north-south movement of vehicular, pedestrian and cycle traffic along Willis, Victoria, Cuba and Taranaki Streets. When completed, there would be large swathes of open space for development, parks, walkways and (well designed) cycleways where once there were roads.
There must be a moratorium on cycleways until there has been full and targeted consultation with all affected parties. The ascension of cycleways should necessarily be a slow and well planned process that involves integration with the widening, extension or improvement of existing roads. Such an approach will ensure that spending is minimised and that cycleways are a functional transportation alternative that do not negatively impact communities, businesses or traffic flow.
I will push to revoke Council’s decision to proceed with the $226M Bike Network Plan. Council staff and consultants responsible for these deeply flawed and dangerous designs should also be interviewed, debriefed and held to account. The entire project must now be completely reassessed and fully targeted direct consultation with affected communities must take place. Existing cycleways should be removed and all car parking reinstated.
Nobody is opposed to cycleways per se, but they must be of a scale and layout that is sympathetic to the streets, vehicular traffic flow and the communities in which they are installed. To this end it is important that the single minded self-interest of lunatic fringe cycle advocacy groups should hold no sway in council decision making. I will also push to ensure that any residual grants paid out to such groups by the WCC will be terminated immediately.
The existing cycleways on Brooklyn Hill, Island Bay and Newtown are excessively expensive, ill-conceived, badly designed and completely under-utilised.
In Riddiford St, the removal of car parking outside the Cancer Society, medical labs and Wellington Hospital is unconscionable. We now have a situation where very vulnerable people dealing with cataclysmic challenges in their lives are constantly confronted by the prospect of driving around Newtown trying to find a car park before undergoing chemo-therapy or radiation treatment. The fact that many cancer patients now need to walk long distances before and after treatment has imposed additional unnecessary stress in their lives. The indifference displayed by some councillors has been appalling.
The situation on Brooklyn Hill is untenable. Opposing trucks and buses have been pushed closer together and the only overtaking lane going up Brooklyn Hill has been completely removed. There are now lines of vehicles behind slow moving, fully loaded trucks, which also affects wait times for vehicles entering Brooklyn Rd from Washington Ave. The idea of removing an entire overtaking lane and allocating it to the occasional cyclist is simply bizarre. Once again, Council have ignored and worked around objections by the local community in order to progress their own ridiculous Bike Network Plan. The so-called support they claim to validate their actions is based on an internet survey that was open to responses from totally blinkered “cyclopaths” hailing from all parts of NZ or the planet – and is therefore meaningless. The worst part is that Councillors supporting this Brooklyn Hill abomination knew that the figures were meaningless. This is a case of political partisanship and self serving advocacy at its worst.
The residents of Island Bay have every reason to be angry. The cycleways there have removed the ability to park outside private homes, impacted the operations of community organisations or sporting clubs and have again pushed opposing traffic closer together. Our oversized buses now must now regularly drive over the centre line of necessity. There have been hit and run incidents where cyclists hit pedestrians getting out of cars and then continue on their way without stopping. A few of these have resulted in serious injury and police investigations are required. Regardless of any such criminal behaviour, it underscores the fact that these cycleways are an unmitigated failure. During “consultation” with WCC, the vast majority of the local community preferred “Option E.” But their voices were ignored by a Council determined to erode democratic process and pursue the fuzzy green agenda – together with all of the associated nonsensical notions and rationalisation.
The next great expensive imposition proposed by ‘green’ candidates is the installation of charging stations all over the landscape. The current obsession with electric vehicles takes no account of the fact that they emit more CO2 than internal combustion vehicles from extraction of resources through to end of life [refer to my Media page]. Energy produced by coal fired power plants in NZ has surged in recent years and additional demand from electric vehicles will worsen the situation. The simple fact is that renewable energy is not able to fill the gap when traditional generation plants go offline. Furthermore, the extraction of Lithium required for electric buses, cars and bikes is creating new environmental problems and is often associated with child exploitation.
It is obvious that the cycleways as built have impacted the commercial viability of businesses and community organisations – while in some instances their operational capacity is affected.
The government, local list MPs and “endorsed” candidates should stop pushing their political or personal agendas and await an informed consensus from Wellington ratepayers.

Resilience & Mitigation

Our planet is in the process of adjusting itself. The question is whether or not we are already beyond the tipping point. Reduction in global greenhouse emissions is something requiring urgent attention from governments around the world, but so far they are failing to deliver on the Paris Accords. The future is fusion energy and hydrogen powered vehicles/transport, but we need interim measures. Those measures need to be realistic and measurable – we cannot afford half-baked notions that are ineffectual and delay achievement of the stated goals. We will not save the planet by jumping on bicycles in Wellington.
Climate change adaption and impact mitigation is now urgent. But once again we need to take decisive, effective action – rather than persist with the dreamy, feel good, fuzzy green nonsense that has currently infiltrated Council decision making. We are now regularly confronted by extreme events that have begun to tear at our landscape and decimate our coastlines. The threat of tsunami during major earthquake events is also real.
Solutions to these immediate issues involve initiating plans NOW for measures of appropriate scope and scale to properly mitigate the damage and inundation associated with the increasingly destructive impact of storms, surge events and high wave action around our southern coast and inner harbour.
One of my policies is for Wellington to engage with water management experts currently working as part of a Dutch government initiative advising governments and cities around the world on how best to organise their defences. We would get a real understanding of what is needed and the likely costs – as well as an indication of the likely financial impact associated with doing nothing.
My big, bold and fully achievable proposal is to initially install a movable surge barrier at Wellington Heads to protect the inner harbour. The southern bays will require a system of dykes and barriers to protect against further destruction and inundation. I am not a defeatist. I therefore cannot accept surrendering large tracts of our coastline and allowing communities to be displaced when protective options are available.
Long term strategies must be embedded in short term solutions. We need to acknowledge that when it comes to sea level rise, worst case scenarios are looking more likely. My proposal therefore has two distinct phases:
1. Construction of a movable surge barrier at Wellington Heads which can be closed as and when destructive storms, surges or high wave activity threatens.
2. Construction of a full barrier or earth dam across the Heads to seal off the inner harbour as sea level rise threatens communities, properties, infrastructure and businesses. We can also expect inundation of the CBD, port facilities, existing beaches, the western motorway/rail link and general infrastructure. Hopefully phase 2 will not be necessary within the next 40 – 50 years, but because world governments have failed to implement Paris Climate Accord pledges, worse case scenarios are looking likely. Actual readings show that sea level has risen by 210mm since 1880 and probabilistic projections indicate a rise in sea level of between 840mm – 2 metres by 2100. The WCC website suggests a sea level rise of between 0.6 – 1.5 metres by 2090 but (typically) makes no mention of what needs to be done. Of course sea levels will continue to rise beyond 2100 (regardless of the number of cycleways we build).
My own suggestion for Phase 1 is to implement something similar to the ‘Maeslantkering’ – a movable storm surge barrier at the mouth of the Rhine River designed and built to protect the port of Rotterdam (at a cost of 450 million Euro). We would not need something on the same scale. [Refer to the Media page].
All of my suggestions have, in one form or another, already been constructed overseas – and the concept of a movable surge barrier is currently being considered by a number of cities around the planet. In other words a number of cities are taking climate change seriously, consulting the experts and initiating plans to ensure their continued viability or survival. We also need to start planning NOW and as mentioned previously, we need to consult those with the real world experience, skill and knowledge required.
Estimates of approximately $1 – 1.5 Billion for completion of Phase 1 are an amount the WCC could absorb within its debt to total revenue percentage (assuming the $3.2 billion CAPEX plan proceeds in its entirety). However, some items of expenditure would be offset by construction of the surge barrier and we should expect cost sharing between GWRC, WCC, the Hutt Councils, NZTA, EQC, insurance companies and central government.
The alternative for the inner harbour is the constant fiscal frittering of the “band aid” approach, where we waste vast amounts of money over many years in a constantly worsening damage and repair cycle that will ultimately overwhelm our capacity to respond. The price of doing not enough or nothing at all is beyond measure.
Landscaped barriers or dykes around a number of the southern bays will also be needed because local residents should not be expected to “move inland”. The design of dykes or berms has evolved in recent decades and it is now possible to dissipate the energy of otherwise very destructive wave action during extreme storm events. Loss of beach accessibility, amenity and views resulting from large scale (damage prone) concrete barriers would be avoided (see the video in my media page regarding the recently completed Japanese tsunami wall). It would also be possible to incorporate usable space within the dykes for car parking , commercial space or public facilities. Planning for such work could occur at the same time as a Heads Barrier.
The Dutch advisors mentioned previously may well provide better or more developed ideas than my own and we need to hear what they might suggest. I would also be interested to know their recommendations for immediate protection of the southern bays and the coastline between them – because this is work that needs urgent attention.
Once advice is received and likely cost analysis is completed, we can begin to involve architects, engineers, urban planners and others in a process of planning and design that will involve intensive consultation, collaboration and direct community feedback. Cost sharing negotiations could of course take place concurrently.

Operational Priorities

Fiscal responsibility and efficiency. This current City Council treats Wellington ratepayers as a bottomless monetary resource that can be tapped without due accountability or recourse. Wasteful, ill-considered or excessive spending, unconditional grants or stipends, high consultancy or legal fees and budget over-runs have become the unquestioned norm. As a result, Wellington property owners are being stung with increases in rates, that are some of the highest in decades. Ratepayers have the right to expect high fiscal responsibility from our City Council and spending that prioritises the reinstatement and upgrading of essential services and infrastructure. Although the 2022 – 23 Annual Plan apparently includes substantive spending on key infrastructure, it is important to ensure value for money and to implement procedures that clearly define time frames and the standard of finished work required.
Repairs and maintenance operations (including upgrade work) should once again be in-house. Private contracting has been problematic. Inefficiencies, cost over-runs and budget blow-outs are best avoided by adopting a real time, hands-on approach that is not guided by profitability alone. It is also important that workmanship be subject to quality control, oversight and final approval – processes that are obviously unevenly applied or totally lacking currently.
A direct interface between the public and Council must now be restored and greater public accessibility to Council staff and services reinstated. Covid is no longer an excuse for maintaining multiple levels of filtering or the continued avoidance of direct contact. It is now time for councillors and Council staff to consult physically and directly with communities, homeowners, businesses, organisations and services impacted by Council decisions.
Council housing stock needs to be properly managed, maintained and expanded. It is difficult to believe that Council rental income doesn’t at least match expenditure and that central government offers income related rent subsidies to private tenants but not Council tenants. MP Eagle was obviously once again missing in action and it behooves the mayor to proactively pursue changes in government rental subsidy policy rather than hand responsibility to a CHP.
We need to reverse the trend toward increased outsourcing of work and establishment of Council Controlled Organisations as a way for Council to contract their way out of obligations under the Local Government Act. The implementation of “arms length” arrangements is an abdication of responsibility.
Liaise with GWRC to ensure implementation of pollution standards – including clean air, clean water and the elimination of plastics contamination.
The introduction of a refundable surcharge on all plastic, metal and glass bottles should be explored, together with establishment of facilities offering collection and payouts for these items. This is common practice overseas and is particularly effective at reducing the amount of throw away waste in the environment. It also offers an additional revenue source for individuals and organisations.
If the GWRC are serious about reducing carbon emissions a moratorium on approvals for new solid fuel fireplaces or wood burners within the inner city and residential zones should be implemented. In terms of carbon emissions, this makes infinitely more sense than their latest bizarre decision to implement a carbon zero policy for new subdivisions.

Planning

All urban planning should begin with the following premise: “The strongest solutions come from those who know their communities best. The Residents.”

The “Golden Mile” is another half baked “feel good”proposal. The rationale behind removing cars, laying pavers and planting trees all over the beating heart of the CBD is problematic. If, as is prudent, we begin to plan for a phase of urban consolidation, we can expect to see a steady increase in mixed-use high rise developments within the existing inner city commercial and residential zones. This will bring about an increase in population densities, service industries and commercial intensification – together with associated pressures on essential infrastructure. Most importantly, there will be a need to ensure vehicular access. Contrary to the simplistic logic of the “green agenda” many or most apartment dwellers will own cars for excursions, holidays, out of town travel and normal mobility. Although underground car parking can accommodate anticipated car ownership, these carparks will require accessibility. It is important to ensure accessibility for service vehicles, trade vehicles and emergency services throughout the CBD and extended high density residential zones. In its current form the “Golden Mile” proposal is a facile proposal that addresses none of the complexities and threatens to turn an iconic part of our city into nothing more than an exclusion zone for those who need cars to get around and a glorified picnic area for the rest of us. It is another example of insular council decision making and single-minded advocacy – compounded by a complete lack of vision, collaboration and community consultation.
The concept of “waterproofing” the inner city also needs to be factored into planning. Extreme rainfall events will continue to get worse and flood mitigation is a serious consideration. Although incentives for such things as “green roofs,” “green walls” and multi level internal gardens can help reduce water run-off, we need to consider integrating water retention and dispersal structures within parts of Wellington’s CBD as part of storm water infrastructure.
The concept of urban consolidation is a good one, but obviously there must be careful, multi-disciplinary planning – from essential infrastructure and servicing to accessibility, commercial activity and lifestyle preferences. High rise and super high rise mixed use developments within the CBD are an essential part of increased urban density and will inevitably ensure the provision of high spec, competitively priced, sustainable and energy efficient dwellings.

Ready to Support Chris?

Email: dudfield@politician.com