—
Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Parking Changes for Hospital Area
This item was published on 14 Jan 2014.
Some changes to on-street parking outside Dunedin Hospital are coming soon as part of measures to improve cyclist safety. The changes will occur in the block of Cumberland Street between Hanover and Frederick Streets and should be implemented in late January/early February.
Dunedin City Council Senior Traffic Engineer Ron Minnema says, “The objective of the changes is to reduce the risk to cyclists by reducing the number of conflicts between vehicles manoeuvring into car parks and northbound cyclists.”
The changes will also complement the wider cycle lanes. The changes involve increasing the maximum time period on the 13 pay and display parks from four hours to all day, removing the bus stop, installing no stopping lines immediately south of the entrance to the Hospital car park and construction of two extra mobility parks. That will mean there will be four mobility parks (two more than at present) and 2 P5 parks (one less than at present).
The Southern District Health Board, the NZ Transport Agency, the Automobile Association and the Otago Regional Council have been consulted about the parking changes, Mr Minnema says. The changes, which are part of short-term safety measures to improve cyclist safety in the central city, were discussed by the Council in May 2013.
Once the changes have been made, the DCC will monitor the on-street parks outside the Hospital on Great King, Hanover and Frederick Streets. The results will be discussed with the Health Board to determine whether any further changes are required on these streets.
Earlier in 2013, minor changes to parking took place at 17 sites in the central city. All these parking changes are in response to the Council in November 2012 asking the NZ Transport Agency to identify short-term measures to improve cyclist safety, as well as developing a long-term plan with the same vision.
Part of the long-term plan is a separated cycle lane proposal which involves two preferred long-term options for improving the safety of Dunedin’s one-way sections of State Highway 1. Consultation on this proposal closed on 6 December last year.
Contact Senior Traffic Engineer on 03 474 3706.
—
Related Posts and Comments:
5.1.14 Norman Foster: SkyCycling utopia above London railways #ThinkBig
24.12.13 Daaave’s $47 million Christmas present to Jinty. We’re paying.
4.12.13 Dunedin cycleways: Calvin Oaten greeted by DCC silence
17.11.13 Dunedin cycleways: Calvin Oaten’s alternative route
17.11.13 Cull and MacTavish… “Have you fixed the debt crisis?”
14.11.13 Cycle lane explosions and puncture kits (SPOKES grenades launch)
8.11.13 Dunedin Separated Cycle Lane Proposal [how to make a submission]
5.11.12 DCC, NZTA: Cycle lanes controversy
19.10.13 Cycle lobby games and media tilts
24.9.13 Mediocrity and lack of critical awareness at DCC [council reports]
8.7.13 Bloody $tupid cycleways and Cull’s electioneering . . . [route maps]
28.3.13 DCC DAP 2013/14: Portobello Harington Point Road Improvements
26.2.13 DCC binge spending alert: Proposed South Dunedin cycle network
22.2.13 DCC: Council meeting agenda and reports for 25 February 2013
31.1.13 Who? 2010 electioneering
21.11.12 Safe cycling -Cr Fliss Butcher
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
What if? Dunedin... 
### dunedintv.co.nz January 14, 2014 – 7:16pm
DCC makes changes to parking outside Dunedin Hospital
The DCC has moved to further stem cyclist deaths on Dunedin roads. The latest changes are to on-street parking outside Dunedin Hospital. They are a continuation of minor modifications to Dunedin roads, and the council hopes the short term measures have a lasting effect.
Video
“The DCC has moved to further stem cyclist deaths on Dunedin roads.” How? It could be argued that by fostering the idea that cycles and motorised transport are compatible on SH1s through the city will only enhance the risks. Cyclists will be lulled into a false sense of security, the motorists will feel that all the lanes and painted lines will absolve them of the responsibility whilst the ever increasing large vehicles will be left with the difficult task of piloting their vehicles through what Dave Cull says is the “huge latent demand for a cycling increase”. Madness, when it would be such a simple matter to provide for the cyclists on other routes as suggested. It seems that Spokes and the bureaucrats are determined to have their way just to be ‘bloody minded’. It will be very interesting to hear the response when the next fatality occurs.
Why not Gt King St, with a cycle-width path from the dead-end outside the Cook, to join up with SH1 – if they MUST use SH1?
Why not ANY street other than those the huge heavy trucks & trailers use? They hurtle through town at or slightly above the maximum allowed speed, they’re not maneuverable as a car – not with that length and width they aren’t.
We could just slow everyone down, a 30 zone for a few blocks of SH1 would probably have more of an effect on safety and wouldn’t hurt anyone other than a few motorists’ bruised egos.
### ODT Online Wed, 15 Jan 2014
Parking changes outside hospital
By Debbie Porteous
The maximum time period on the 13 pay-and-display parks outside Dunedin Hospital on Cumberland St between Hanover and Frederick Sts, is to be increased from four hours to all day in an attempt to make the area safer for cyclists. On-street parking on other streets around the hospital will then be monitored to see how the changes affect those parks.
Read more
People wanting to drop off and collect at Clinical Services, including Physiotherapy and the Fracture Clinic, may stop where?
And what about those who can drive themselves and are mobile but very slow? What about the mobile but slow visitors, grandparents and spouses of elderly patients for instance?
I’m sure staff will be delighted to have 8-hour parking and I only wish they had more of it, esp those hospital staff who finish work when it’s dark and cold and wet, and many people, especially women, don’t feel all that safe walking to out-of-the-way places where they had to park their cars – but what about everyone else?
We all know how bad the last rounds of parking changes were in the CBD – I recall Cr Syd Brown chaired the subcommittee to deal with grievances and in many cases resorted to, in effect, telling the affected ‘naysayers’ to go take a hike…
Cr Brown has gone, whose turn is it this time, Cr Jint-Well (Community and Environment)? Or Cr Bendin-Grope (Planning and Regulatory)?
People go to and from the hospital for all sorts of reasons, but mostly because of some incapacity. That is why parking in close proximity is essential. Making the Cumberland St parks ‘all day’ will simply remove them as convenience units. To make the area safer for cyclists, the ‘selfish sods’.
Calvin, having had to frequently take a family member to Clinical Services these last years – someone with declining mobility and ability to orientate – it became extremely clear that the distance from the official vehicle entrance (off Great King St) to Clinical Services internally was simply too great and too stressful for what passed as stressful appointments. Even if wheelchairs were deployed. Therefore quick delivery by car or taxi to the Cumberland St entrance became mandatory. Did DCC or the Hospital truly appreciate the issues for hospital users with special needs before making these changes? Absolutely, they did not.
People with incapacity, having to self-drive to the hospital, of course, fare far worse with the new parking arrangement.
There are quite a few people to name and blame with this one. I hope to provide mugshots.
I’m in 2 minds here – there is of course space for outpatients in the off-street parking structure there too. Maybe the answer is a couple of P5 spots in there, or perish the thought, the return of that oft-abused but exceptionally useful “Loading Zone”
I understand the increase in handicapped slots, the ones there are already oversubscribed, I know of people who currently circle for an hour waiting for the right spot (one close enough to where you are going). And the deal where the city took away the bulk of the handicapped spots around town a few years back in exchange for free parking for permit holders was a bit pointless if you can’t find a spot close enough to where you need to go to, making the rest of the parking all-day effectively removes access to those spots for the disabled.
How much space is there in the “space for outpatients in the off-street parking structure there”? I remember a small rather cramped basement, is there somewhere better now?
I don’t know, last time I went I was given something to use to park there, but found a street space instead
With more all day street parking available I’m sure the hospital board will be able to give up some staff space for patient use. Mind you I’ve several times recently called hospital security about DHB pool cars parked in disabled spaces.
I’ve several times recently called hospital security about DHB pool cars parked in disabled spaces.
Go Mike! Automatic brownie points.
it’s not hard, they put the number to call up next to the parks they are supposed to be parked in
p5 is bugger-all use when you drive yourself to an appointment. Useless when you drive a person such as Elizabeth describes, or a child, because you can’t hustle them into the building, into a lift, and then depart to park the car somewhere else then rush back to accompany them throughout their appointment. When the appointment is over what are you supposed to do, abandon them in the waiting area, go fetch the car hoping a 5min park will be available and you won’t have to circle the block over and over, waiting, then rush up and hurry the patient back down?
### ODT Online Wed, 2 Apr 2014
Dunedin cycle lane project goes to next stage
By Debbie Porteous
Dunedin’s apparent obsession with car parking will not be allowed to derail the new cycle lanes project, city councillors warned yesterday. […] Consultation revealed parking issues seriously concerned some in the community. […] Parking was the only fly in the ointment at this stage, Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull said. Councillors approved his suggestion a new working party be set up comprising him and various other councillors to help advance the business cases and the mitigation plan.
Read more
The findings (via ODT)
The council’s parking study (between December and March) found:
• 65 more parks available on the one-way streets than required at peak times
• Areas with the highest parking occupancy around the university and hospital, both of which prefer the option removing the most parks
• At least 100 new parks could be created on SH1 side streets
• Retailers think 65% of customers drive to their stores, when actual figure is 53%
• 66% of shoppers park in shopping centre car parks or 5min parks
• When drivers cannot find a park nearby, 35% keep driving around until they do, 22% park further away and walk, 36% park in an off-street car park and 7% go home or elsewhere.
Source: SH1 Cycle Lanes Parking Study
### dunedintv.co.nz April 2, 2014 – 6:03pm
Your word on using new proposed cycle lanes
The Dunedin City Council’s plan to improve cycle safety has taken another step forward. Councillors have agreed cases should be developed for various options in the $4.5m proposal. We wanted to know if you would be persuaded to ride a bike in the city if changes are made to cycle lanes. So this week’s 39 Dunedin News Word on the Street team went to George Street to find out.
Video
“We wanted to know if you would be persuaded to ride a bike in the city if changes are made to cycle lanes.”
I’ll be persuaded to avoid those areas where perfectly good roads and footpaths have been tiled and farnarkled around with as per Dunners standard pointless titivation, oops, there went another pedestrian on a loose tile, how sad. Warts and buboes bulge where there were straight acccessways – shortest distance between 2 points whether walking, cycling or motoring. Parking is dicked around to make way for the carbuncles, making manoeuvring into parking spaces that fraction more difficult. At the same time “safer” cycle lanes add to the risks since it will no longer be only the current monstrously entitled pedallers acting like the law against running them down actually protects them from harm in real life, but even more dangerous, they will all be encouraged to come to this route with a sense of invulnerability, from the well-lit lycra militant rights-ists to the one light per 3 cycles dimly clad ones dodging parking expenses, or saving the planet, or in pursuit of fitness – wake up and smell the diesel!
“Cr Richard Thomson, a retailer himself, had earlier said he was in favour of ‘just bloody well getting on with it’. He said retailers as a group overrated parking. ‘It would be an issue if we were competing with stand-alone malls, but we are not.’ ”
He’s dreaming, of course: dreaming of the good old days. True, they aren’t competing with stand-alone malls. They’re competing with something infinitely bigger. It has no parking problems. It takes not so much as a tablespoon of petrol to get there. And it’s open all hours.
It’s called the internet.
And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if cyclists, as well as increasingly inconvenienced motorists, shop online.
Keep Dunedin cyclists OFF the SH1 one-way system.
### ODT Online Sat, 5 Apr 2014
50-tonne trucks to be allowed in city
By Debbie Porteous
A new class of heavy truck, known as 50Max trucks, will be allowed to use Dunedin roads without needing a special permit. The Government last year allowed the trucks on state highways, but at present they need overweight permits for each trip on local roads where the weight of the truck is more than 44 tonnes. The 50Max trucks perform on the road, in terms of pressure on the road’s surface, no worse than standard 44-tonne trucks because they have an extra axle and can carry up to 50 tonnes.
Read more
****
Do you want SPOKES-MAN giving his politicised view on your behalf, Dunedin?
Another quango.
### ODT Online Sat, 5 Apr 2014
Cycle safety panel seeks feedback
By Shawn McAvinue
A new Zealand cycle safety panel including Spokes Dunedin chairman Dr Robert Thompson and Olympic cyclist Alison Shanks will have its first meeting in Wellington on April 15 to make cycling safer on New Zealand roads. Dr Thompson said he would talk to the panel about what attracted and discouraged people from cycling in Dunedin and was seeking feedback from Dunedin cyclists to take to Wellington.
Read more
Dr Thompson is seeking feedback from Dunedin cyclists to take to Wellington. I’m not a cyclist, but it would seem obvious to me, and many others, that to keep cyclists apart from heavy traffic would be a prime consideration.
In view of the fact that the DCC is about to permit the 50Max category of trucks on city roads with their associated lengths and weights this would seem even more important.
That the authorities and the cycling fraternity continue to be determined to use SH1 one ways as their first choice indicates a paucity of intellectual capacity in play here, despite Mr Thompson being a doctor of some discipline or other.
But I have no doubt but that this crazy state of affairs will be put into effect, regardless of the fact that it will be just a matter of time before there are more fatalities. Proof that it is not consideration for life which is driving the whole nonsense.
I’m still baffled by the original issue of Pine Hill. Day in, day out trucks and other large vehicles travel up and down that nightmare of a road. And now they want to increase the weight of trucks that can go through town? As if the slumping up that road wasn’t enough. They fixed the southern motorway and, yes, it will be trucking expensive to connect town with the northern motorway but sooner or later someone will be damned if they don’t.
Regarding cycling and motorcycling on the one ways, why anyone in anything smaller than a car believe they can travel along the same road with large trucks with impunity is just dumbfounding. Everyone has to take responsibility for their own safety and when a bloody big truck is riding up my backside I get the truck out of the way even when I’m in the right. Particularly if the trucking thing has a trailer on it going round a corner because that trailer’s follow up swerve is just plain frightening the first time you experience it.
But a heavy traffic bypass for Pine Hill. Seriously. Even Jimbo could milk a few extra million out of a project like that.
Anonymous, ever huger trucks are going to be a never ending problem. As you say, the turning arc of the trailers is even more unguessable than the path off the truck itself, turning left from straight-ahead lane – which you only know if you are behind or ahead of them, otherwise can’t see their signals then suddenly whoops! across your bow. Worst of all when there are roads with left+ahead, ahead, ahead+right lanes.
And the cycle lane is …drumroll… straight ahead and/or turn left! It’s bad enough in a motor vehicle when the trucks turn into roads that were never built for anything that size.
Safety is dangerous. Cyclists shouldn’t be given any reason to think they’re safer than before, they’ll get the erroneous impression that they can take a break from intense concentration on the risks inherent in being on the same territory as cars, buses and trucks. Even the careful sensible ones get killed. Encouraging the twits with no lights, dark clothing and no street/road smarts to mingle with traffic that is taking the efficient straight-through roadway is asking for more disasters.
Elizabeth, you’ve nailed it. Why everyone with half a brain don’t is one of life’s mysteries. You would think our elected council, between them would see it, but no, they are guided by the Spokes, NZTA and our Mayor and Jinty. What I wonder is, what will be all their reactions when the next fatality occurs.
I watched two cyclists pass me, both adults kitted out in appropriate safety gear, riding at a fair clip along the cycle lane on Crawford Street. There had to be 2 or 3 inches between the front rider’s rear wheel and the following rider. My first thought was “That is going to hurt.” Sure enough, near the intersection of Queens Gardens the rider in the rear must have clipped the front driver and had a very uncomfortable fall. Now put aside the behaviour for the moment and look at consequences. Shit happens and can happen suddenly. That applies to many different situations in life and not just cycling. If the woman had come off the bike and rolled sideways, she would have fallen into the busy traffic and the circumstances could have been much more dire, with the person driving having had their lives irreparably changed from that point forward as much as the rider’s.
All persons who share the road must take responsibility for their choices and splash on plenty of commonsense and defensive driving. I assume there are potential risks all around me when riding through town and along the one-days. I know from daily experience that Dunedin drivers are shocking and more often than not let their tiredness and grump days override their ability to check twice and act courteously. I’ve even had one driver attempt to run me off the road and the only positive I could take from that experience is his female passenger appeared to be berating the hell out of him (I hope that was the case anyway). Why anyone would play chicken with someone on a bike and with those consequences at stake is almost unbelievable but the surprises still come regular enough.
Thinking the worst doesn’t necessarily change the enjoyment of cycling for me but does help avoid quite a lot of incidents, often narrowly. It keeps my mind busy avoiding those people who look right at me and then pull out in front, leaving just metres to stop.
Back in the car I do have a greater appreciation for checking for cyclists and I worry about that incredibly dangerous situation of cyclists riding between parked cars and the road. Looking twice before opening a door that crosses into the cycle lane is essential. Cyclists are only visible in the side mirror briefly and it’s a pants popping moment for all involved when narrowly missed. I do worry this situation is going to cause a cyclist to take evasive action and move sideways into traffic. Those trucks leave little room for as it is.
Did you notice the recent cycle changes proposed only showed cars? No way those advocating for road changes are going to show the truth of that matter. Only the cyclists know how freaky it is to have a bus or logging truck remind you about road width. Particularly down Stuart Street where it appears bus drivers don’t appear to like giving room to cyclists very much.
It’s a damn difficult disagreement between all parties concerned but one thing for certain, when the health and safety people try to make something safer it invariably creates more problems. It’s why defensive driving works so well since riding with traffic is dangerous and there is no way for either rider or driver to know what those people around them are going to do next.
I’ve adjusted my driving to assume there could be rider coming up on my car, particularly when exiting the vehicle. Maybe this is something that could be added to the early defensive driving training.
I would hate to be a truck driver faced with this uncertainty each day. In the media you would be printed guilty. In the legal system it would be guilty until proven otherwise. In your own mind – there would be no escape, regardless of the circumstances.
I don’t know who is advocating for increasing truck sizes and weights but it’s unlikely this affects their sleep in the same way.
Another one departs the planet at Palmerston North today:
“Both the cyclist and the truck were travelling up the road when the collision happened”
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/297895/cyclist-dead-after-collision-truck
Anon; Do you not think it would be smarter, if not safer, when on your cycle that you would take alternative routes – albeit longer or more circuitous – in order to get there comfortably alive? As you say, when ‘shit happens’, wouldn’t it be better to spread your length on a quiet street rather than under a semi? To rely on good driving and common sense to cover your arse is asking a lot.
### dunedntv.co.nz April 7, 2014 – 6:51pm
Cyclist visibility the project of three Dunedin organisations
Three Dunedin organisations are getting together to promote cyclist visibility as winter days grow short. Staff from the Dunedin City Council, Sport Otago and the police will be stopping cyclists this week to survey them on what they know about the legal requirements around the use of lights. The work is part of the Be Bright campaign, which is promoting visibility, an essential part of cycle safety. The initiative includes the council giving away free reflective strips, and Dunedin bike shops offering discounts on bike lights.
Ch39 Link [no video available]
Excellent!
They drive me crazy, the suicyclists. There are the ones with bright lights fore and aft. Then there’s the yeah-nah majority, some with decent lights either end but sometimes covered with a coat or back-pack, the one-light-onlies, the ones with tiny slow-flick lights – do they realise how far a car can move in the pauses between flicks? – and the ones who have Faith. The Almighty watches over them, they were told that when they were very young and they’ve never forgotten. And if He can see them there’s no need to wonder if anyone else can, no need to make personal efforts to be visible on the road, dim clothes and no lights, what’s the problem?
Be Bright campaign! Jeez, what next.
It reminds me of the story from the great depression, where the teacher had been discussing with the class the news that the authorities were aiming to close down the local toy exchange depot. This was a delight for the poor kids who got the rich kids hand me downs.
He set the kids to write an essay of their delight in defense of the depot to put forward as a petition to keep it open.
Little Sambo sat and chewed his pencil, thought and wrote: ” De-light was out de-poe was full so i did it in de-fender.”
### dunedintv.co.nz April 8, 2014 – 6:10pm
The 39 Dunedin News team delves into the cycleway issue
Plans to introduce separated cycle lanes in Dunedin have met with mixed reactions from the public. Those in favour see it as a way to improve cycle safety, while some argue about the loss of car parks and money. Our 39 Dunedin News team decided to get to the bottom of the issue, and see how many cyclists really are using our roads and whether cycle lanes should be introduced.
Video
Excellent letter.
Cr Richard Thomson is the epitome of the Council’s disregard for the welfare of its citizens when it is pursuing any particular agenda. In this case it is the ridiculous proposition of catering for a very minority group of cyclists to have pride of place on the SH1 one way systems. Did he/they consider the position of the likes of Jill Guy? Did they consider the hapless folk caught in a dilemma over parking when faced with an emergency around the hospital precinct? Do they really give a toss about the fatalities of cyclists on these roads? It’s not as if there were no other options for these cyclists to show their lycra clad pectorals to everyone’s admiration. This cartel of control freaks seem to have the rest mesmerised and subservient to their wishes on almost every turn. Last October when there was a new council elected, with new faces, I had hope for a change, but it seems that it is pandering as usual. Must be something in the water in that building.
Do the public know what Option 1b is ??????
—
### ODT Online Fri, 25 Apr 2014
Museum hails new proposal
By John Gibb
Otago Museum director Dr Ian Griffin has welcomed a new compromise option involving proposed cycleways that could allow the Otago Museum to keep some of its nearby parking. Dr Griffin told a recent Otago Museum trust board meeting he was pleased the new ”option 1b” had emerged, as public consultation over proposed new cycleways continued.
Read more
Try and read this piece of council hyperbole without cringing.
Placed on windscreen on Crawford Street, between Police and Jetty streets.
***
On-street commuter parking
Dunedin City Council online survey
The Dunedin City Council would like to hear your views on possible changes to parking in the area you park in.
The DCC is considering the advantages and disadvantages of:
1. Changing the District Plan rules so that less on-site parking is required for dwellings.
2. Changing the management of on-street parking, so that more on-street parking would be available to residents and short-term visitors, and less to commuters.
Before making any decisions, the DCC would like to find out more about the views of a range of people who may have an interest in this topic. You are invited to participate as you have parked in an area where changes(*) are being considered.
To fill out the online survey, go to http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp or call us on 477 4000 to request a paper copy. All survey participants will be in to win one of four Prezzy cards.
The closing date for the survey is Friday 7 November.
***
Now anyone remembering the tragic parking visions concocted by the previous Stadium Councillors and continued by the current crop of drones should be feeling the beginnings of a mild panic attack. Particularly if you have a business in that area and have a sense of what’s happened to main street (unless you actually buy into the DCC ODT COC “nothing to see here” puff).
This council should focus on trying to heal the on-going harm it has caused in town with its draconian, unfriendly and ridiculous parking changes rather than causing more damage elsewhere.
* This is the Dunedin City Council: They really meant “charges” but some sort of processing error must have occurred. Probably too busy looking for just the right colour of blue for that other big marketing spend up.
Got DCC flyer for residential parking through the door at Pitt St today – haven’t read, will scan later.
Here we go again. They are going to make changes, it is certain. That’s why they go through this ‘claptrap’ of lulling the citizens into believing they have an input. They will be ignored, but when the changes are instituted it will be claimed as a result of consultation of with the public. Just wait and see. The cynicism is palpable.
Interesting how much money this new claptrap must cost. I’m thinking around 30 grand to design, print and broadly deliver. Then there’s the website development, survey design (always engineered towards the desired outcome) and the usual bag of gold carrots handed to the wee media moguls in its various guises as advertising. I guess the reality will be closer to $50-$70K since the commonsense to spending your own money doesn’t count at this council which rejoices in spending other peoples’. If anything positive is to come out of the insane spending on Gigatown it is the new name #gigawasters for this council.
Re: 1. Changing the District Plan rules so that less on-site parking is required for dwellings.
They can change the regulation that says how much car parking must be allowed in the plan of any new dwelling.
Does this alter the number of cars the people who then come to live in the new building will own? No, it merely alters the cost and convenience of that dwelling, which may sway a prospective tenant or purchaser in favour of another property with the parking they want.
Does it alter the number of tradespeople, visitors friends & family, health professionals, meals on wheels volunteers, firefighters and ambulances that may need to park outside the dwelling? No prizes, sorry.
Interesting that they are even considering changing the District Plan so that less on-site parking is required for dwellings. When the last District Plan was notified back about 1995 the average dwelling was a two car dwelling. Now nearly twenty years on the average dwelling is at least a three or four car dwelling, and they are now considering changing the rules for less on-site parking ?
Could it be that they want to increase on-site parking for bicycles, scooters, skateboards and wheelchairs ?
I know where I’d like to park MintyJinty and her love interest Daaave.
Cr Vandervis is correct.
We all know Cull and MacTavish are STRONGLY dictating the project. Transportation Planning is kept well under their thumbs.
—
### ODT Online Tue, 4 Nov 2014
Mayor ejects Vandervis
By Debbie Porteous
Dunedin city councillor Lee Vandervis was ejected from the council chamber yesterday after a testy exchange with the mayor. The councillor was asked to leave yesterday’s full council meeting after questioning the membership of a cycleway working party and suggesting the council intended to remove car parks from the central city.
Read more
—
█ Report – Council – 03/11/2014 (PDF, 355.2 KB)
State Highway 1 Cycleway Working Party
█ Cycleway Working Party:
Mayor Dave Cull
Cr Kate Wilson (infrastructure services)
Cr Jinty MacTavish (community and development)
Cr Aaron Hawkins (planning and regulatory)
Cr Chris Staynes (economic development)
Ian Duncan and Bruce Richards, NZ Transport Agency, and
Hilary Phipps, University of Otago.
What he said: (via ODT)
Cr Vandervis: “I see two righteous cyclists, a rail trail cyclist, the only two councillors that don’t own cars, two transport agency staff responsible for the dreadful lanes that already exist on the one-way, and an environmental sustainability officer from the council. This choice is unbalanced to the extent that I don’t believe the make-up of this committee will do anything other than spend the maximum … at the expense of parking in one-way streets. I am not happy with this incremental, step-by-step way of reducing massively the parking on the one-way street systems.”
I’m advised by staff: ‘Deputy Mayor Staynes [w]as Mayor Cull’s second vote’.
A careful contrivance.
Well done Daaave, we don’t need that ratbag Vandervis bringing his off-message intelligence, commonsense and prudent management into the conversation. Shut the blighter up! Dunedin is well on its way to being a world leader among sense-free cities, we don’t need this noble goal sabotaged by a councillor with a personal agenda of doing right by the people who voted for him.
The problem lies in the rules that govern Council’s business. The manner in which all councils conduct their business should be laid down in detail by law, and should be consistent both across Councils and over time. The present system allows the ‘winners’ of a council election to write the rules for that term to suit themselves.
The difference between Council and Parliament is particularly clear in this instance. John Key is Prime Minister, but he does not decide how debate is run within Parliament – or who is ejected and on what grounds. That is the Speaker’s job. The Speaker is an individual who, while an MP, is deliberately entirely removed from the political process for the duration of their tenure of that job. They do not have a vote, except in casting situations, and in that case tradition requires that they vote for the government of the day.
Mayor Cull runs the council meetings at present, and is quite free with his suppressions and ejections. He has certainly aggressively used this power to interfere with my own submissions to Council as a citizen in the past – something that Chin never did. That is not appropriate when he is not only part of the political process, but is manifestly a partisan and voting driver of it. The same comments apply to a very much greater degree to Cr Vandervis, who, unlike me, holds a powerful mandate for his position and practices from the electorate. By ejecting Mr Vandervis on these grounds I believe that Mr Cull is in contempt of that mandate.
Council needs a Speaker, or an equivalent of it. My recommendation is that the oldest elected member for each term should hold that non-voting position. That takes politics out of the selection process to a certain degree. Their task should not be to set the agenda (that remains with the Mayor) but to take the chair currently occupied by the Mayor in full Council meetings and to run the meetings in accordance with the rules of the Council and the agenda that has been set by the Mayor. I think that last term, the Speaker would have been Hudson. I don’t actually have a problem with that – he probably would have made an adequate fist of the job.
Rob, that’s a sensible idea. Of course, haha, it wouldn’t at all suit the power games and blinders of the clanking chain in ermine.
### dunedintv.co.nz November 4, 2014 – 6:52pm
City cycleways spark debate among city councillors
The topic of cycleways through central Dunedin has again sparked debate among city councillors. The council met to consider a report on the progression of separated cycleways along State Highway 1. And the questioning of suitable members for a working party saw one councillor asked to leave.
Video
Dunedin City Council | Published on Nov 9, 2014
Dunedin City Council – Council Meeting – November 3 2014
Minutes, agendas and reports related to this meeting can be found at http://goo.gl/aJnL3J
YouTube segment for the item SH1 Cycleway Working Party is 41:00 – 50:26
Cr Vandervis enters discussion on the Working Party at 43:00; and following is his ejection by Mayor Cull.
In case you missed the DCC YouTube video segment showing Mayor Cull eject Cr Vandervis from the Council meeting on 3 November – go to https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/dcc-hospital-area-parking-changes-cyclelanes/#comment-56376
and
https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/dcc-hospital-area-parking-changes-cyclelanes/#comment-56381
Diane Yeldon’s good deed for November was posting clear directions to the video of the Vandervis-Cull episode, including how far through the meeting vid this could be found, on odt online. She has not been unappreciated! Subsequent comments show the value of making such items readily findable in other sites as well as here.
A very disturbing trend developing here. It’s very much, “MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY” approach from “El Ducé” Mayor Cull. He is showing all the signs of a demented autocrat. He is, of course, surrounded by a less than bright coterie of ‘nincompoops’ whose only question is ‘how high’ when he says jump. That Cr Lee Vandervis has the temerity to challenge him on any point is not to be tolerated under any circumstances. He is well on the way to achieve his stated objective of making Dunedin into “one of the best little cities in the world”. But it won’t be in the manner he thinks. It will be seen as the archetypal example of how to alienate your citizens and drive businesses out, ensuring the shrinkage of the whole. This, and one more term will about do it.
It’s suggested by council staff our mayor is jet lagged and not in particularly good humour.
Jet lagged? Pity he didn’t ‘get bagged’.
Mayor Dave will be having an on-line chat session as part of the so-called consultation on the DCC Significance And Engagement Policy. The new policy seems fluffy and undefined and seems designed so that it will be easy to avoid public consultation. Perfect for Dave’s bicycle plans. Go here: http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/whats-on/big-decisions-big-conversations
Starts now – Tuesday 12:30 pm.
I think Rob’s suggestion has a lot of merit. Do you guys not think LV might achieve a bit more if he wasn’t so impossible to work with. I get that he is frustrated but it is a disservice to those he represents every time he seeks to make headlines rather than achieve anything.
Call Security, where do you get the idea that Vandervis “seeks to make headlines rather than achieve anything” – and why if this is true, every councillor who speaks isn’t equally “seeking to make headlines” and not too concerned about whether they achieve anything, let alone anything that’s good value for our rates money? True he’s not “easy to work with” if you’re looking for a baa-baa follow the herd colleague, tactfully ignoring potential problems, who never asks questions to find out the facts in case they blow holes in the other people’s dumb schemes.
I think we both know that there is “not easy to work with” and there was what LV does. Is he ever going to make any sort of progress while he constantly alienates everybody he has to work with? He might try to blow holes in other people’s schemes but what schemes exactly has he stopped?
Call Security, I think we both know that you oppose, perhaps dislike on a personal basis, Lee Vandervis and are here attempting to denigrate his work on ratepayers’ behalf by stating as fact your opinions. Example: “he constantly alienates everybody he has to work with” without mentioning how hard he tries to get full information and is blocked time after time, and how he makes these requests out of sight of media until once again, information that should be released to him promptly and fully is withheld. Nor do you mention the people who find him a pleasure to work and socialise with, because though blunt of manner he is straight with other people not two-faced.
Sure, that makes him hard to work with!
Most of the time Lee Vandervis works co-operatively with the other councillors. He is probably the most active of all the councillors at suggesting better solutions and giving a common sense point of view. You might be surprised to know that he has the respect of a number of other councillors and many of his suggestions are accepted at Council meetings and at committee meetings. He is one of the most influential of the councillors because his contributions are well researched and clearly explained. Your views will be better informed if you have a look at the DCC YouTube videos or on Channel 39 on Saturdays.
At yesterday’s meeting the one “not easy to work with” was Dave Cull who abused his role as chairman of the meeting as a way of shutting down criticism of his car-hating crusade.
Call Security. I think I know Lee reasonably well. I don’t necessarily agree with all his views, being more on the centre left side of politics, but I am surely glad he is there on council.
Lee doesn’t do ingratiation to further what he would like to see done on/by council. He speaks directly. This might be his Dutch background, though Aussies can be very direct too….unlike Kiwis, in my experience You know where you stand with the guy….unlike some liberals whom I might be more closely attracted to politically. (I think of those liberals who, for example, opposed the stadium only to sidle up to the old guard, to ingratiate themselves with them, and now let themselves be led by the nose to cover up for them and pay their bills at the expense of the ratepayers whom they bleed their hearts for.)
The last thing we want on council is a group of nodding heads all towing the party line…..whatever the project might be at any one time. Lee asks difficult questions, and he may well be a pain in the arse for some people on council, but they have to grow up and accept his role as a kind of Devil’s Advocate.
Some fair points Hype and Jimmy although Hype, people here are constantly stating opinions as fact so it is a bit rich to call me for it when I think it was reasonably clear it was my opinion. I don’t know LV I am working purely from my perception of him based on what I read in the papers and I know that could well be influenced by the ODT’s agenda but I also read the correspondence he often produces here and he never strikes me as a person that would be pleasant to deal with and that has nothing to do with differing opinions or views.
The second to last part of Mr Garbutt’s post is largely what I am talking about “He does need to stick to facts, to abide by any normal meeting rules, but he should be absolutely free to raise any matters that he believes impinge on ratepayers.” Exactly. In this case he stated some very pertinent facts but then went on to make some connections beyond facts which he refused to withdraw, he did something very similar with the annual report last week. Cull kicking him out definitely seems unnecessary but not all that surprising.
Call Security – omg lighten up mate. Local body politics is cut and thrust.
If you don’t know Lee, it’s high time you became acquainted. Stop by a few DCC committee meetings and workshops, don’t be a stranger – and, take your pub bouncer uniform off, it’s a dead give-away. Dress casual….
Never believe what you read – especially if it’s a glossed up bloody annual report with no search or friction function from OAG.
Thanks Elizabeth, I’ll keep your sartorial advice in mind.
Cheers :D LOL [is that you RT ?]
Call Security: two points – you say he went on to make some connections beyond facts which he refused to withdraw. Councillors are allowed to do this, to assess the facts as they see them and form an opinion. Lee was expressing his point of view; that is his job as a councillor.
Also, what he is quoted as saying is: I am not happy with this incremental, step-by-step way of reducing massively the parking on the one-way street systems. So which part of this went “beyond the facts”? It can’t be wrong for Lee to say that he is not happy with something. And his reasons for this seem to be that he perceives that part of the motivation for the bicycle lanes is to remove car parks. Again, I think this is a valid point of view. Unless there is some conversation that wasn’t reported, then Dave Cull was being hypersensitive – a dribbly-nosed cry-baby. If there is any criticism of staff implied, it is very indirect – he doesn’t accuse anyone of being the cause of his concerns.
Council staff deserve severe criticism for taking advantage of the deaths of the two cyclists to promote their car-hating plans. There is no doubt that they are fighting a war on car parks. On-street car parks are being steadily removed, and have been since before 2008. The 2GP has some additional, devious ways of removing even more. You have a chance to tell them that they are all a pack of car-hating, devious, slippery-turd scumbags because their 2GP parking survey is available for comments until Thursday.
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/whats-on/2gp/parking-survey
“I am working working purely from my perception of him based on what I read in the papers.”
Looks like the papers are still doing the job that they set out to do when they backed Cull.
“I think it was reasonably clear it was my opinion” does not line up with “he constantly alienates everybody he has to work with” which comes across as confident assertion [based on knowledge, a casual reader might assume].
How about “Do you guys not think LV might achieve a bit more if he wasn’t so impossible to work with”? You have said later you don’t know him personally, haven’t worked with or for him either I assume – feel free to put me straight if I’m incorrect – yet it’s not “…if it didn’t seem like he’s impossible to work with”, no, you phrase opinion as if it were proven fact. You draw your impressions from the media you have said, then make statements that do not sound like opinion or impressions.
Can it be that you hope that the label “impossible to work with” can be stuck so firmly to him by being repeated by one or two determined contributors to social media, that it turns into one of those myths commonly known as “well-known fact”?
It would appear that Cull’s trip to China was not a waste of time or money. He appears to be a quick learner.
How true, Sally. “Now how do I censor the internet in Dunedin? I can’t quite see how the Chinese method can be implemented here – but surely there MUST be a way.”
Sally, I hope you are implying that Chairman Cull has become a dictatorial communist as a consequence of his visit to China.
A highlight of the trip, for him, was addressing an Eco-Cities conference: he says (FB) “My theme was that sustainability as a principle underpinning all of Council’s decisions and planning has to be “business as usual” rather than a lofty aspiration.”
When he says “sustainability” he means “Sustainable Development” as defined and promoted by the United Nations. Decisions made in accordance with Dave, Kate and Jinty’s mission to inflict Sustainable Development on our city are normally deeply stupid. The stupidity of Sustainable Development means that it often conflicts with democracy and free speech, as Dave Cull demonstrated yesterday.
Before I read the report I assumed there had been some heated screaming match and table thumping at the council meeting. It appears not to be so. What was the problem, irrespective of anyone’s views on the issue at hand?
Two issues.
An independent “speaker” could not work, for exactly the same reason that it doesn’t now work in Parliament. Speaker Carter demonstrates to all and sundry that bother to watch, or take part, that he is biased. While he may not have a vote in the business of the house, he doesn’t need one when he continually protects Teflon Key or any of his mates from being held to any form of account. His continual smirking, checking to see if the Government agrees with his rulings, and pompous manner contributes to regular breakdown in informed debate.
The role of Mayor in a Local Government is an elected position voted for quite separately from the rest of the Council. The role is more similar to a Chair of a Board. As for putting the oldest in the role, can you imagine what would result if someone like Neil Collins would have ended up in the role on the basis that he probably exhibited more effects of irrational behaviour than the next oldest. He was more interested in bringing things to a halt so he could get fed. Not for ensuring that issues were debated fairly.
The other issue is what available means has a Councillor who believes that important information is being suppressed, or there are hidden agendas being followed behind the scenes? It is more than clear from published emails that he has more often than not tried to get matters settled prior to formal meetings. If there is a concerted programme to reduce his effectiveness by denying him information or clarification that he seeks then I would suggest that it would be a matter to be referred to the Minister of Local Government. That of course, would be useless.
Seems to me that Cr Vandervis has few options open to him other than to continue to question matters that impinge on the liabilities of the ratepayer and any of the current crazy minority philosophies that clearly are ending up in marginalizing the majority of citizens. He does need to stick to facts, to abide by any normal meeting rules, but he should be absolutely free to raise any matters that he believes impinge on ratepayers.
As to Cull’s jetlag. Simple solution. There is absolutely no need for any Mayor of a minor City at the back of beyond to be tripping anywhere other than to the limits of the City. It is just bullshit and any attempts to justify these jaunts are even more bullshit.
Excellent points,Russell.
I had a good laugh at the prospect of Collins being the independent speaker/adjudicator. Being the oldest clearly doesn’t ensure innate wisdom.
This drama seems petty in a small town sort of way.
Yes, Collins seems like a distant memory we hadn’t quite factored in. Kudos to Russell on that.
As with Hearing Commissioners, a Speaker by nomination and appointment would need to be ‘fit for purpose’ – having passed some nationally established training tests and with ability that didn’t involve turning up to wolf cake.
Call Security, you seem to presume that Cr Vandervis is just “agin the guv’ment” and anti the establishment. When all he does is query what he thinks might not be in the best interests of the citizens. Is that not what elected representatives are expected to do? Do I imagine you might have a slight bias against that principle? I don’t see his actions as being ‘impossible to work with’ simply because the media choose to make him headlines.
I have no problem with people expressing contrary views and I agree that it is a necessary part of government, and I think he has made a perfectly valid point for the most part here but as per usual he likes the point to end at the bottom or the rabbit hole. The manner in which he expresses his views are what I am raising here. I couldn’t even count the number of times he has come into conflict with Councillors or Council employees where the same point could have been delivered with more tact. Is he actually achieving anything behaving as he does?
His original electioneering was all about transparency. Now that he is there, it is all about closing down debate, and pulling down the blinds on transparency. That trip to China was well worthwhile.
One of the principle problems facing Cr Vandervis is the lack of discussion to any of his points of dissent. Just shut him down if it is contrary to where the chair (be it mayor or committee ) wants it to go. Constructive comment or debate from around the table is what is missing. Not too much to expect from elected representatives one would have thought. Agendas are to be considered from all aspects, not simply rubber stamped. The ‘cycleways’ project is a classic example of an ill considered approach and we see the public’s chagrin accordingly. It can only get worse unless there is a more democratic manner adopted.
Tweet:
RT @iangriffin: Hmm. Interesting that DCC paper on proposed cycleways doesn’t specifically list @OtagoMuseum as stakeholder http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/474505/ma_council_r_SH1CyclewayWP_2014_11_03.pdf 7 hours ago
Comments at this post rather good…..
30.8.13 Transport Strategy: Is this responsible local government?
One of those comments struck me as pertinent to the attempts to establish a picture of Lee Vandervis as a chronic anti-everything trouble-maker (see also Rob Hamlin’s exceptionally good piece on the use of marketing technique “low involvement branding” ie creating easily absorbed “picture-labels” to elicit the required For or Against responses without people needing to think, https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/transport-strategy-is-this-responsible-local-government/#comment-40450)
This is an excerpt from a post by Peter, a few comments further down from Rob’s.
Peter
September 2, 2013 at 9:00 pm
“For this election, I am interested in voting for candidates who say what they mean and mean what they say. I’m not interested in people who just want to be ‘nice’ (outwardly) and end up weaseling their way through council business, achieving nothing for the city.
We need some hard-headed people in there to tend to the problems we face. We might not like them on the personal level or agree with all of their political stances, but if they are prepared to confront the major issues, instead of running away from them (or by putting them off till after the election), they deserve to get onto council.”
Re saying what they mean and meaning what they say – remember “Transparency”? Remember it in context of Cull & his mates from Greater Dunedin? Yes I know it was a long time ago but they said it over and over, it was a big part of their pre-election sales pitch, surely you haven’t forgotten already…
…like they have.
Well I do read what goes on here too and that is a little above over hearing people gossiping on buses. I am not going to debate whether anything I have said is devoid of context or not supported by reasons, lots of things I read here are devoid of context or not supported by reasons but perfectly acceptable when they are expressing consistent views to your own.
One question I have is why did CEO Orders not appear to take further action over the concerns LV raised with CitiFleet’s relationship with Turners? The information presented here suggests that Orders effectively ignored LV. I don’t know the answer but is it not at least conceivable the relationship LV and Orders had was a contributing factor to Orders appearing to ignore him?
That probably rules out CS as a councillor, or in as one.
Hype O’Thermia: other examples of Rob Hamlin’s “low involvement branding” appear on this page. Call Security’s fairly clumsy attempt at personal sloganeering fits this category. The give-away is not just the shallowness of the slogans, it’s also that they are repeated many times.
JimmyJones I was thinking someone who “thought” they were a dab hand at practising Psychology and that’s why I used the initials RT back there.
I suspect a someone with a marketing background. I don’t think RT has the patience or enough mental agility. They will be back. Trolls can be a lot of fun – like that Green Party one about a year ago.
I have expressed my view that I don’t think LV is as effective a Councillor as he could be. I haven’t criticised his views just his manner. And I have taken on board and acknowledged the comments made by people around all the unseen work LV does. If you think that is trolling or some sort of personal sloganeering then I don’t even know.
Call Security: Criticizing Lee Vandervis doesn’t make you a troll, but saying that you “have taken on board and acknowledged the comments made by people around all the unseen work LV does” is another clue. What have you taken on board; what comments; what people; what unseen work; who saw it? You’re full of shit.
Have or do you work in marketing/communications, by the way?
Here is one quote “Some fair points Hype and Jimmy” which I think could be constituted as me acknowledging other people’s comments. I have also noted Peter’s comments who stated he knows LV well which is obviously better than me reading something in the ODT. My comments about unseen work was in reference to you saying to watch the DCC youtube channel or Channel 39 where presumably LV’s contributions are more fairly recorded than in the ODT. I stated an opinion, which upon request I clearly have clarified as an opinion and what that opinion is based on. My real mistake might have been stating that opinion to a group that contains a number of people completely unwilling to accept that LV could do anything better.
No I do not work in marketing or communications.
Attend some council meetings and workshops CS, hit the deck running.
One of the fractions of who LV is.
Post 3.10.14 Vandervis family residence #HistoricHeritage
Call Security: your opinions here have been devoid of context and not supported by reasons (you sometimes read things in the ODT doesn’t count as a reason). You sound like you form your views from overhearing people gossiping on buses. To me this sounds like a contrived shallowness (sloganeering). Follow Elizabeth’s advice. Watch Ch 39 Saturdays at 1.00pm or the YouTube videos are here . Be informed.
Call Security, I do not insist that you should admire Lee Vandervis uncritically, but really: “I have expressed my view that I don’t think LV is as effective a Councillor as he could be”!
Would you like to list the councillors who are as effective as they could be? A long list, is it? Everyone except LV?
Is there any reason to single Lee Vandervis out for criticism, other than a wish to attach derogatory slogans to him?
As for “impossible to work with” – how do you feel about someone who can’t handle relevant questions and criticisms and rather than explain and justify his position, banishes the “dissident” from meetings? Really good to work with, eh? As long as others are in agreement with his outlook on all matters including what is worth spending rate$ on and fixing things a very large proportion of voters believe ain’t broken, they’re fine, nothing to criticise about their manner of expressing “Baa baa, yes sir, how high sir.”
I have no doubt that many people around the council table are significantly less effective than LV, that doesn’t have anything to do with my point. I think LV raises some excellent points but I wonder if his actions impact the credibility of those points.
Last week’s Annual Report was a great example, it sounds like a completely valid point about the glowing nature of the annual report but the suggestion that a lot of the annual report wasn’t accurate or reasonable calls into question integrity of senior management and finance staff and I really doubt it will help him in his future dealings with them, that might not be helpful.
Rules in, no?
While no system is perfect, I stand by my comments about separating executive responsibility from that of chairing the main body of governance.
The benefits of this separation go beyond government and into the corporate world. Ideally the CEO of a company should not sit on a board of directors, as the board are after all their employers and representatives of the shareholders, not the staff. If they do sit on the board, then they most certainly should not have voting rights.
In the USA, more than anywhere else, it is a common but highly regrettable practice for the CEO to not only be a full member of, but also to be chairman of the board. The results are (eventually) almost invariably disastrous for the company’s shareholders for exactly the same reason that Cull’s joint control of debate and control of executive information is becoming disastrous for ratepayers here.
The status of the Mayor as a separately elected official with semi-executive powers within the DCC does complicate matters. The Mayor is effectively a superfluous additional link in the channel between the CEO and the body of elected Councillors. The mandates of the Mayor can ‘cross thread’ with the mandates of the individual councillors and that of the CEO in a most undesirable manner as we have seen this week. This makes the Mayor not only superfluous but undesirable – regardless of whoever they actually are.
The ORC’s system of electing a Chair/Speaker from within their own numbers offers a more efficient model in which the roles/mandates of CEO, Chair/Speaker and other Councillors can be more clearly understood. If their behaviour warrants it, the Chair can also be ‘demoted’ by their colleagues.
While the quality of incumbents may vary, the separation of these roles is always the best way to go – even if that means someone like Collins chairing the Council (Is he really worse than Cull? – I don’t think so).
I have to agree with Russell that the current NZ speaker is hardly an advert for the position. In the UK they seem to stick with Speakers for long periods of time, and they tend to be good. George Thomas (Viscount Tonypandy) held the role from 1976 to 1984 as I came of age. Serving as Speaker during the Labour Governments of Wilson and Callahan and then ruling the house for the first four years of Margaret Thatcher’s premiership. He was universally well regarded in the role, and was elevated to the peerage upon his retirement from Parliament.
Here they seem to change with the government, and one suspects that the incoming mob pick the one that they will miss the least to fill the role. The outcomes can be unfortunate, although I thought that Lockwood Smith was OK. If you tried another way now, and selected the oldest member, you would get Mr Winston Peters, Speaker, if you took the longest serving, you would get Mr Peter Dunne, Speaker, if you took the safest and most ‘reliable pair of hands’ you would probably get Mr Woodhouse, Speaker – Yer pays yer money…… But whoever it is, at least control of debate within the chamber does not immediately rest with ‘Jokey Blokey’ John Key – and that has to be a good thing.
Liability Cull is too much……
● Project estimated to cost $3.5 million to $4.5 million
█ Loss of between 80 and 284 car parks
● NZTA has contracted engineering consultants MWH
● NZTA / DCC decision to proceed March next year
—
### ODT Online Wed, 5 Nov 2014
Mayor wants ‘everybody on board’
By Debbie Porteous
A Dunedin city councillor has wished a council-led working party “good luck” as it begins work on the next stage of a major cycle lane project that would remove central city car parks. But Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull, who is chairman of the working party, said the aim was to have “everybody on board” with the project by consulting widely, even “too broadly”.
Read more
“Everybody on board” shouts the bus driver. And almost without exception they all hop on. What a pitiful subservient lot we have in our Town Hall. When ‘El Duce’ says jump, they all immediately ask how high? Only Cr Vandervis of them all has shown any independence of spirit.That he is even there is a wonder. He has a tolerance to stupidity on a daily basis that would daunt a saint. Power to him I say.
Calvin: some of the others also seem to have some common sense, but unlike Lee, they don’t seem to have the courage to stand up to Dave Cull and his team. The Flocking Instinct seems to be a problem also. Perhaps they are still learning the job, but councillors Whiley, Hall and Calvert need to do much better at expressing their view and actually voting accordingly, none of this abstaining carry-on. Be informed and know that the staff have their own agenda.
Jimmy: absolutely, if they can’t back their conscience or instincts then they are there taking the money under false pretences. They are not there to form allegiances, it is not a party politic exercise. I suspect they suffer from being “bullied by office syndrome” sufferers.
I might be wrong, but I get the impression all of the councillors, bar Lee, are relaxed about the cycleway plans. So, in that sense, they are not bullied as such.
Dunedin is not alone in developing cycleways. Even the National-led government has been encouraging.
Like it or not such projects are seen as something positive to develop and encourage greater use of with more than one spin off for the community.
Some may not like this reality, but as I see it, c’est la vie.
Peter: my impression is that some councillors are opposed to Dave’s bicycle project, and not just Lee Vandervis. And just so people understand, Lee has said a number of times that he is in favour of some cycleways, where they make sense – and he has voted in favour of some. My view is that bicycles are a menace and their use should be discouraged by using taxes (ie registration fee) to pay for cycleways and ACC, driver licensing (for safety) and costly bicycle parking fees.
Remember that about 80% of workers travel to work by car, van, truck and motorcycle in Dunedin. Consider that every day is a survey of people’s preferred method of transport. Look for yourself and you will see that cars win and bicycles lose. I don’t mean to say that they should not be catered for, but where money is spent and disruption to traffic flows and car parking are expected from providing safety benefits to bicyclists, then those benefits need to outweigh the costs and the disruption to the dominant method of transport.
The cycleways already established look to be so seldom used that the whole exercise is a waste of money and is not justified. What are you talking about when you claim that: “such projects are seen as something positive to develop”? It might be positive for some politicians, but what is a bicycle network going to do for you and the other 80% of car users? The whole project should be abandoned until it can be evaluated in a balanced way and the consultation redone with complete information.
I’m wondering about the growth of the slogan “We’ve got to get people out of cars” since I heard it from one of the people in National Radio’s 4-5pm daily discussion program. It seems to have attained the status of “self-evident truth” through repetition and through political prioritisation of cycle ways retrofitted into cities, squeezed into spaces where they don’t fit without messing up the “not broken” usability of the streets for the current (incl for the next several years if those who use them are to be believed).
Suddenly today as I was *driving* through town an explanation occurred to me.
The gap between rich and poor (fairly- and dirt-poor) isn’t getting shrunk by government action. The opposite in fact, and no wonder when John Key is capable of coming out with the statement that providing more money for families with children living in poverty isn’t the answer, what’s needed is getting people into jobs. Anyone who has ever looked in a cupboard and found it bare of everything except salt and pepper and an elderly half-packet of cinnamon could tell him that the one solution to poverty is money. No matter where it comes from, if it puts a meal on the table and stops the electricity being cut off it’s good. If it comes from a job that pays enough to provide 7 days nutrition and electricity etc per week that’s great, as long as it’s a job that won’t end suddenly leaving you with leftover Vegemite from the last payday alongside the cinnamon, and probably a stand-down till next WINZ benefit.
Back to cycle lanes…. Save the planet, sure. The other thing is, once there are cycle lanes wages won’t have to include car and bus costs in the basic necessities. The “cost of living” can be reckoned to be lower, increases in wages can be even smaller for the peasantry who can be deemed able to get to work virtually without cost … unlike their masters whose cars are deemed “necessities”.
You know those hilarious photos of Johnny Foreigner balancing his family and 35 chickens on a bicycle going to market? Moving a fridge and kitchen sink on a bicycle? NZers can learn to do likewise. All that and wearing a cycle helmet, we don’t want to get slack about Health and Safety, do we? Injuries impose a cost on the taxpayer, and when health services have to be budgetted till the pips squeak we can’t let people go around taking risks, slow malnutrition is a different matter altogether and the food banks should prevent the need for health service expenditure on those who can’t manage on cheerful promises that there will be jobs, some time there will be jobs, and that promise is better for them than the means for modest survival necessities today.
WINZ will be able to advance repayable loans for beneficiaries to purchase bicycles so they can take employment many kms from home. It’s all going to be good, in this best of all possible worlds.
I remember well, some of the big mouths on the Mosgiel-Taieri community board having a lot to say about Lee behind his back when I was on the board. When Lee came out to discuss their problems with them you could see them slivering on the floor looking for a spine to crawl up. They never could find that spine to front up to Lee face to face.
Tomorrow’s newspaper news is the DCC saying MORE PARKING could come available as a result of the One-way SH1 cycleway project — BECAUSE….. let’s build a parking building! [expletive]
Phone Mayor, MacDervish, and DCC Transportation Planning and abuse the hell out of them. Starting now.
Or is this a PPP with closely held business magnates.
Cycle lane plans may include other parking
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/323813/cycle-lane-plans-may-include-other-parking
Elizabeth
Looks like the planners could do with a bit more of Cr Andrew Whiley’s (expletive deleted) famous hindsight. The planners giveth and the planners taketh away. So we get widened cycleways that hardly anyone uses at the expense of car parks near the hospital that hospital visitors frequently use. Then they propose to build a car park near there. I suppose we’ll even get to pay for it. I see, well that’s alright then we will need that won’t we.
More profits for Wilson Parking, from a parking building paid for by Dunedin ratepayers? Business as usual DCC style.
Mick, the whole thing is abhorrent and dare I say not sustainable. Not questioning improved parking for the hospital. It doesn’t solve anything for Otago Museum, which DCC blatantly left off treating as a stakeholder. If this is the brain power of DCC Transportation Planning we can do without it.
Elizabeth
The whole planning edifice surrounding this debacle is crumbling. It is in in disarray, no joined up thinking, scrabbling around for solutions. In a word – stuffed.
Mick hit the nail on the head – there’s “no joined up thinking” and it’s not just the cycleways v parking.
Elizabeth
It permeates every facet of this sorry adventure – all the way out to St Clair, St Kilda, South Dunedin, the new section at Portobello Road and to Tairaoa Head. Munted.
To paraphrase the late Sir Winston Churchill: “Never in the history of the fair city of Dunedin has so much been offered up by so many for so few!”
Mick and Calvin, so few wise heads at DCC. There used to be some. Now, a lot of junior talent that hasn’t the first idea about cause and effect, or impact on ratepayers and residents…. I suspect Len Brown’s rate rises are like the tornado about to hover/hoover south – some of his people about to get 40% through the mail.
Elizabeth, rates rises of huge significance for Dunedin’s ratepayers are inevitable. It is only a question of how long Dave Cull can persuade his administration that our debt is sustainable. Hey! that might be what Jinty MacTavish was alluding to all along. The debt is the “sustainable” item she meant. And here was me thinking she was financially illiterate. Silly me.
Calvin, anyone with a high-pitched school prefect voice won’t – can’t – be financially literate around a council table.
_____________
Another spot of brilliance from our colleague Hype:
http://www.odt.co.nz/video/news/dunedin/323708/ghost-markings-set-urgent-action#comment-64800
Hoping there’s enough concrete trucks in the lingo for all !!
Earlier post (low grade noise called muzak):
14.11.13 Cycle lane explosions and puncture kits (SPOKES grenades launch)
More balderdash from Mayor Cull, not having a terribly good day in the media limelight.
ODT 20.11.14 (page14)
It’s good to see Doug Hall prepared to have his name up there when Lee’s making yet another highly relevant point. The only 2 councillors with real heavy traffic experience, HT licences for over 40 years – well, can’t have types like that involved in discussions on the wisdom of channelling cyclists onto cycle lanes painted on the main highway alongside monstrous trucks. They’d be sure to be difficult naysayers, with all those years of actual real-life experience instead of fluffy-bunny planet-saviour theories.
and Elizabeth –
I think that this stuff is called ‘twee’
No self-respecting 50Max truck driver would dare to lurch over an insubstantial planting strip or median to wipe out 10 cyclists in one hit, or Santa. It doesn’t happen. Daaave says so.
Elizabeth
These planters shown in this illustration you show here epitomize the incompetent thinking of the people designing all of these schemes. This has already been displayed over the Portobello Road debacle. They seem to think that this is a safety device. It is patently a hazard for all – the cyclists, the motorists but mostly those who will be expected to maintain this – the gardeners. I have noticed that there has been a penchant of these ‘Transportation Planners’ to introduce similar hazards all over town seemingly in the interests of control. The underlying philosophy seems to be ‘CONTROL’. Apart from anything else in this instance it is inappropriate landscape design.
I have wondered for some time where exactly are all the cyclists who seem to need these new cycle lanes. I frequently drive through the one-way system and rarely see more than a handful.
Today on a balmy spring afternoon with the sun shining and a temperature of nineteen degrees I drove from the Oval to the gardens. As it was 5:15 I was expecting to see hordes of cyclists but as it turned out I found only one!
In fairness, I thought they might all be heading south at that time of day so I returned via SH1 south and was proved correct as there were three.
This was similar to Monday at 5pm when I saw one cyclist between the Gardens and Jetty St.
If this was a Spokes’ survey it would probably state that “In November cycle movements on the one-way south were observed to increase by 200%”.
What I did observe, however, was quite a lot of cars, and a lot of car parks most of which were being used.
There must be masses of cyclists waiting only for fully segregated cycle lanes – presumably lanes that run right to their doors – but the evidence of this is something I am yet to see and without any proof there is a need apart from the wishy washy feelgood garbage we are being fed at the moment. I am reluctant to see millions of dollars thrown at this “need” when it appears to be a “want”.
Lindsay, you’re not alone in that observation, unless they’re all parked up at the Med School on Great king St, waiting for peak hour to subside on the one-ways. I’m darn sure I would wait given the hopeless driving ability of the average Dunedinite who is not a professional driver.
I put the following post on the ODT Online in response to a Greg Dawes comment re the need for separate cycle lanes.
Risks
Submitted by Calvin Oaten on Thu, 27/11/2014 – 2:15pm.
Greg Dawes makes the comment that “the risks of making a mistake on these busy roads is that of serious injury or death”. Pretty good reasons not to cycle on those busy roads. By that we interpret it as meaning both one-way corridors of SH1. He then goes on to say that using alternative routes – quiet streets – as alternatives to north-south routes that are equally convenient are hard to see.
I have suggested in the past an alternative north-south option avoiding SH1 but Mayor Dave Cull rubbished it as a non-practical ‘red herring’, even though it would, in most reasonable eyes tick the boxes, leave intact the SH1 parking spaces, and require a much smaller budget. Except it would not attract LTNZ funding, which seems to be the main reason behind this obsession with putting the system on the most dangerous thoroughfares of all. It was the deaths of three people in fairly quick succession on these routes which prompted the move in the first place. Never mind the loss of parking and the suggestion of erecting a $40 to $50m four-storey parking building on Frederick St.
My proposal was that starting from Normanby, cycle down the North Rd to the Gardens, veer on to the cycleway already there and proceed to Duke St. Turn left down Duke St to Castle St. South along Castle to Dundas St, down Dundas to either Clyde or Forth Sts and continue south to St Andrew St. Down on to Anzac Ave, along to the railway station. Along the station forecourt and then behind the Otago Settlers Museum and Chinese Garden, behind the Box Store complex to Andy Bay Rd. Via the railway underpass on to Strathallan St. Job done.
It would require an easement from KiwiRail but I am sure this could be negotiated. A Cycle Park could be set up at either end of the station and most commuters could then walk up into the city, not unlike what many motorists do. That would not require messing with parking or dicing with death on the SH1 corridors and cost overall much less in both money and inconvenience. But tell that to Mr Cull and the other ‘firebrands’. All in all, probably a bit slower for the cycling commuters, but would you rather take a little longer or arrive dead on Time?
—
{Calvin’s previous posts on the use of quiet streets. -Eds}
17.11.13 Dunedin cycleways: Calvin Oaten’s alternative route
4.12.13 Dunedin cycleways: Calvin Oaten greeted by DCC silence
Cycling – fun, freedom and a bit of frisky… but what about responsibility and accountability?
Yesterday, I watched as a cyclist rode down Jetty Street, tore through the red light and pumped into peak traffic along Crawford Street. Anyone of those vehicles could have sped up and or pulled left across the cycling lane at that moment. Probably wouldn’t have killed him but would have bloody well hurt.
Today, I watched as a cyclist rode down Hanover Street, passed stopped cars down the left, through the red light and turned up George Street towards Frederick Street. But wait, there’s more. Faced with a line of halted traffic, he pulled into the right lane, rode towards an oncoming car – and I’m still not joking here – stayed there forcing the driver to pull towards the kerb. The rider then continued down the wrong side narrowly missing the next vehicle turning in, ran another red and cut across Frederick.
Both had all the appropriate riding gear suggesting some commonsense.
I see this daily.
Trick question:
If one of those cyclists collided with a vehicle who do you think the Police and the media would hold guilty-until-proven-innocent (not that the media would bother too much about correcting any previous stance)?