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

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

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

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

Are flicks of the pen all that DCC does now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ends]

****

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

THE SUBMISSION | Statement tabled at hearing

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

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

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

[click to enlarge]

****

[click to enlarge]
2GP Data Map (Roads)

2GP Zone Map

****

█ 2GP Hearing Topic: Transportation Link

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

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

—

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

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

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

2GP Consultation (index) Link

2GP Maps Link
● Data Map
● Zoning Map

Hearings schedule and documents Link

****

█ 2GP Hearing Topic: Transportation Link

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

****

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

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

Lightly edited; maps added. -Eds

[click to enlarge]
2GP Data Map (Roads)

2GP Zone Map

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roading network screwed by council staff

█ UNDEMOCRATIC—Council staff agendas are directing major changes to Dunedin’s road networks. Continued use of exclusive ‘workshops’ lacks transparency and accountability.

Cr Hilary Calvert asks ‘why councillors were not more involved in developing the strategic cases’. (ODT)

Cr Lee Vandervis says ‘the problems identified were based on ”absurd or probably false” assumptions’. (ODT)

STAFF ASSUMPTIONS
► There is too much parking in Dunedin
► Restricted parking will increase use of public transport
► Encouraging more people to cycle makes roads safer

### ODT Online Tue, 6 May 2014
Council notes roading strategic cases
By Debbie Porteous
The first step towards securing funding for major changes to Dunedin’s road networks has been taken by the Dunedin City Council, even though exactly what those changes will be is yet to be decided. Councillors yesterday noted council staff had taken the first of six steps in a new process for applying for funding from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).
Read more

****

█ Strategic Case Development for Improvements to Dunedin’s Central City and Freight Network
Report – ISC – 05/05/2014 (PDF, 993.6 KB)

Excerpts from the report…

Council staff have recently submitted two Strategic Case applications to the NZ Transport Agency; one for investment to improve the access, mobility and safety of the Central City; and the other to enhance Dunedin’s Freight Network. Pending approval from the NZTA, Council staff will begin the Programme Business Case stage, where investment options and alternatives will begin to be developed and defined. Staff will seek Councillor support and input prior to the submission of the Programme Business Case to the NZ Transport Agency, anticipated to be later this year.

The NZ Transport Agency has recently adopted a Better Business Case approach to guide the planning and project development for investment applications. It is a principles-based approach that clearly links their investment goals to outcomes, and defines problems and their consequences thoroughly before solutions are considered. This approach ensures a shared view of problems and benefits early in the transport planning process. The business case approach encourages early engagement with stakeholders to confirm:
● fit with strategy and need to invest
● the way forward with short-listed options
● that the best value option is affordable and deliverable and that the risks are acceptable.

To execute many of the projects outlined in Dunedin’s Integrated Transport Strategy requires funding from external sources. A significant source of transportation funding is potentially available from the NZ Transport Agency. As detailed above, Council must now apply for funding from the NZ Transport Agency through their Better Business Case approach. This stepped approach ensures that any solutions are in response to clearly defined problems, and are aligned to the NZ Transport Agency’s investment goals.

Council staff held initial discussions with key stakeholders, the NZ Transport Agency and the Otago Regional Council to define the areas of focus for investment. The group agreed that the Council should focus on establishing two Strategic Cases: 1. Dunedin Central City: Access, Mobility and Safety; 2. Dunedin Freight Network. These areas strongly align with those set out in our Integrated Transport Strategy.

The first step of establishing the Strategic Case is to develop an Investment Logic Map (ILM). The ILMs set out the key problems and the benefits of solving the problems. Two ILM workshops were hosted for each of the areas of focus. Participants included the key stakeholders (DCC staff, Council Committee Chairs – Cr Wilson, Cr Benson-Pope, Cr McTavish; NZ Transport Agency and the ORC) and relevant partner organisations (including Otago Chamber of Commerce, Public Health South, Port Otago Ltd, Kiwirail, and Heavy Haulage Association).

[see ILMs for each Strategic Case at Attachment 1]

…

Strategic Case – Executive Summary
Staff from the Dunedin City Council (DCC), the NZ Transport Agency and Otago Regional Council (ORC), as well as the Public Health Service and the Otago Chamber of Commerce participated in two Investment Logic Mapping (ILM) workshops to identify the key access, mobility and safety problems in central Dunedin, and determine the benefits of investing in solutions that address these problems.

This report sets out the strategic case for improving access, mobility and safety in central Dunedin. Part A provides the strategic context and fit of the proposed investment and the evidence to support the justification for investment. Part B describes how the three contributing organisations intend to develop the next stage of business planning – the programme business case. This section outlines the further planning needed to achieve the identified benefits.

This application shows that that there are some key synergies between the strategies and objectives of the three key stakeholder organisations, where priorities for future investment align. Evidence supporting each of the key problems identified in the ILM workshops is outlined section 3.4, and reveals a strong case for change and need for investment.

…

3.1 Defining the Problem
Dunedin City Council convened a facilitated investment logic mapping workshop that was held on 10th February 2014, with key stakeholders to gain a better understanding of current issues and business needs. The stakeholder panel identified and agreed to the following key problems:

Problem one: SH1, the railway and north/south arterial routes bisect areas of high pedestrian use resulting in dislocation and poor connectivity of key areas

Problem two: The design, use and management of central city routes results in intermodal conflict

Problem three: Management and provision of car parking is not integrated into the transport network, which favours car use, impacting adversely on the quality of life in the City

Problem four: The design, management and lack of integration of public transport discourages use and leads to low patronage

[see the Investment Logic Map at Appendix A]

…

3.2 The Benefits of Investment
The potential benefits of successfully investing to address these were identified as part of a second facilitated investment logic mapping held on 17th February, 2014. The stakeholder panel identified and agreed the following potential benefits for the proposal: (CONFIRM)

● Benefit one: Reduced severance
● Benefit two: Improved safety
● Benefit three: Central City is a ‘nice place to be’
● Benefit four: Greater resilience

[see Benefit Map at Appendix B]

…

Figure 1: High risk areas identified through risk mapping

A risk assessment process known as KiwiRAP maps the collective crash risk of roads based on the physical and operating characteristics of intersections and corridors, as well as crash history. The map shows that Dunedin’s high risk areas (shown in black and red) are predominantly located within the central city, as demonstrated in Figure 1.

…

4 Strategic Context
This section demonstrates how the investment proposal has clear linkages to existing strategies of each of the stakeholders. There are some key synergies between the three organisations, where priorities for future investment align. A summary of the strategies that support this investment proposal from each of the stakeholders is detailed below. The goals and/or objectives selected are those with direct relevance to this investment proposal.

…

6.4 Scope
The evidence to support the three problem statements developed during the Investment Logic Mapping workshops generally provides a strong case for change. It is also evident that many of the problems have existed for some time as many of the issues raised were recognised in the MWH 2003 Strategic Corridor Study and the 2006 Transport Strategy.

…

7.1 Risk/Issues and Opportunities
Key risks for this business case are likely to include:
● Alignment with Regional Land Transport Plan and Council’s Long Term Plan Timeframes
● Ability for Council to raise funding co-contribution
● Support for the projects from Councillors
● Support for the projects from the community
● Further deaths and serious injuries from crashes should the project not proceed
Appropriate risk management strategies for these key risks will be identified at the Programme Business Case stage. As the busine ss case evolves and projects are defined it is likely that other risks are likely to be identified and these will be added to the risk register.

Read full report here.

****

█ Dunedin City Integrated Transport Strategy 2013
Developing, maintaining and operating any transport system requires investment, and investment requires decision-making about what to invest in, how much to invest and when that investment should be made. Such decisions need to be informed by an understanding of the key issues and opportunities to be addressed, a clear vision of what is to be achieved, and a clear set of priorities that will move toward that vision. In times of financial constraint when funding is tight the need to clearly identify the right priorities becomes even more important. The DCC have adopted a Financial Strategy which aims to help steer a course between the competing tensions of affordability, keeping up and investing for the future. This Financial Strategy states the limits to rates and borrowing that the Council has set, and any investment in transportation infrastructure must be managed with regard to the Financial Strategy.

Dunedin City Integrated Transport Strategy 2013 [links]
Pre-election Report 2.8.13 [links]
Financial Strategy

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Cycle lobby games and media tilts

Commuters [cycling.com]

—

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

—

Correspondence received.

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

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

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

Cheers,
Lee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
Lee

—

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

Hi Lee,

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

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

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

Chris.

—— End of Forwarded Message

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,
Lee

—

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Draft Dunedin City Transport Strategy

Read the draft strategy here. [DCC webpage and links]

—

Comment received.

BlueBottle
Submitted on 2013/09/03 at 1:28 pm

Lee Vandervis was very impressive at the transport strategy hearing on Monday. Lee challenged all the ridiculous assumptions that the strategy is based on. He did this using factual well researched arguments. Council staff were forced to back down on many points because there was no factual basis for their conclusions. Lee’s performance was remarkable because there was one of him against 4 Councillors and the Transport Planning/City Development staff who had a whole weekend to find ways to respond to Lee’s challenges. Although Lee helped to make some improvements to the strategy, the thing is still deeply flawed and will be harmful for Dunedin if it is accepted by the whole Council.
The Network Operating Plan (fig. 24) has been kept quiet by the DCC and the ODT. The plan is to make a big chunk of the CBD either car-less or mostly car-less. The methods of hindering motor vehicles haven’t been described but will be achieved with total bans from some streets as well as removing parking and restrictions on turning and entry. Another plan is to fiddle with the timing of traffic lights so as to cause intolerable delays to motorists. Have a look to see which streets are affected. While in their vision they see hoards of cyclists and pedestrians, more likely the CBD will become empty and turned into an economic dead-zone. The Network Operating Plan and the rest of the Transport Strategy are among the biggest threats that Dunedin faces.

Developing a Network Operating Plan [DCC]

Figure 24. Draft Network Operating Plan for the central city

—

Email received.
Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:05 PM

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 09:06:00 +1200
To: Wendy Collard, Sarah Connolly, Emerson Yeoman, Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham, Paul Orders
Cc: Kate Wilson, Andrew Noone, Jinty MacTavish, Teresa Stevenson
Conversation: Draft Transport Strategy Hearing additional data requested.
Subject: Re: Draft Transport Strategy Hearing additional data requested.

Ta Wendy,

Questions as follows:

Can I see Data to justify claims of:

1 – significant car ownership increase in the last 15 years/many Dunedin households now do not have access to a car. [A graph would be ideal]
2 – reduced fatalities and serious accidents [increasing safety] when transferring from automobile to pedestrian and cycling modes of transport [Elvik’s opinion on safety in numbers is not data and suggests only possibility with very large numbers of transfer not possible in a hilly city]
3 – increasing fossil fuel prices since 1974 “rising fuel costs” “Rising fuel prices are likely to lead to changes not only in travel behaviour and people’s choice of transport mode” “Assumption 1: The cost of fuel will continue to increase”
4 – increasing fuel efficiency of cars since 1974
5 – “much of car travel in Dunedin [or anywhere else] is non-essential”
6 – “other options are available for most trips”
7 – “deaths/serious injury of vulnerable road users [cyclists pedestrians] around schools” and “Safety problems at the school gate” “The research highlights that the transitory nature of traffic around schools has tended to hide the risks this situation presents to all users, but especially to children.”
8 – “poor provision for other modes and little congestion has led to high crash rates”
9 – “In part due to wide, high-speed urban street environments (such as the one-way system, Andersons Bay Road, Princes Street, and Hillside Road) and poor provision for other modes (such as buses, walking and cycling), road safety has suffered in Dunedin”
10 – “provision for private motor vehicles has also meant amenity, pedestrian connectivity and, in some instances, surrounding land use value has suffered”
11 – “Demand for cheap, convenient, and consistent on and off-street parking availability is no longer a realistic expectation with Dunedin’s modern high level of car use”
12 – “despite the fact that many children would prefer to cycle, scooter or walk to school”
13 – “it appears the cost of transport fuel will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. This is already having an effect on the way people are choosing to travel.”?

If reliable supporting data is not available, then these unsubstantiated claims and resultant aim to spend $47 million on cycling infrastructure should be removed from the Draft.

Kind regards,
Lee

——————————–

On 30/08/13 5:44 PM, “Wendy Collard” wrote:

Hi Lee

The deliberations have now finished. Kate has asked if you could please have the questions that you require to be answered be [sic] to staff by 12 noon on Sunday.

The hearing is going to carry on at 1pm on Monday as Public Forum has now been cancelled.

Regards

Wendy Collard
Governance Support Officer
Dunedin City Council
50 The Octagon, Dunedin; PO Box 5045, Moray Place, Dunedin 9058, New Zealand
Telephone: 03 474 3374, Fax: 03 474 3594

—

Related Posts and Comments:
30.8.13 Transport Strategy: Is this responsible local government?
29.8.13 The Don, imagines . . .
4.8.13 World War I memorial project
24.11.11 Dunedin buses: ORC or DCC
8.7.13 Bloody $tupid cycleways and Cull’s electioneering . . .
28.3.13 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2013/14: Portobello Harington Point…
8.3.13 Stupid bid for two-way highway ditched for now #DCC

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Transport Strategy: Is this responsible local government?

DRAFT Dunedin City Transport Strategy (2013)

The Otago Chamber of Commerce (COC) gets brownie points for taking a stick to Dunedin City Council and the politicised ‘sustainability crew’, this week… A crew primed with council staff, (spuriously-appointed) leadership and steering groups, university academics (with their little students in tow, aww) receiving substantial research funds into energy research, and the like; but let’s not forget the undue influence of Greater Dunedin and its two councillors, MacTavish and Wilson (paid $250 a day, was it?), sitting on the strategy panel – who, having spruced up their images lately (cutesy dyed haircuts, necklaces and dresses in adornment – closely resembling the old ‘pearl and cardy set’), will find the clobber just too awkward for bike riding.

It’s recognised the Chamber can’t hope to represent the wide breadth of Dunedinites – but it’s fair to say the Chamber’s focus and agendas (collectively and personally) are experienced as being unbearably narrow at times and slant at others – for example, its handling of the Dunedin harbourside plan change appeal, and its support for the new stadium (knife to the throat of Dunedin’s economy) and the proposed apartment and hotel development at 41 Wharf Street (cheap bling, with strings). All up, the Chamber is a mysterious if not loose male-order assembly of ‘business minds’.

Nevertheless, DCC, give your dog a bone…
But don’t think the Chamber will accept more stupidity from your transportation planners and general managers controlling the whole (desktop) strategic exercise —or from the ‘mission’ of idealistic ‘non-business’ greenies who lack the commonsense, experience, resilience and determination of Dunedin companies (the ones who actually make the dollars happen!), and which greenies will surely fail if pitted hard against Otago’s most successful export earners!!

The Transport Strategy is not a statutory document – but where it attempts to flow into District Plan changes, well, let’s wait for all the costly appeals to Environment Court. The council can hardly afford more legal battles – it can’t fund the challenges it’s already immured by.

The worst fear with the transport strategy revolves around pending changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) which could see council-driven and developer-driven projects bulldozed through without public consultation; with few benefits to anyone or the environment, except to the proponents. The new legislation will mean even less accountability and transparency in local government than ever before – thanks to the National-led government. You know who to vote for in 2014.

Do you know who to vote for in 2013?

—

### ODT Online Fri, 30 Aug 2013
Attack on transport strategy
By Chris Morris
The Otago Chamber of Commerce has launched an attack on Dunedin’s draft transport strategy, saying it pushed a ”questionable agenda” of sustainability while ignoring major transport issues. The strongly-worded rebuke came in the chamber’s submission on the Dunedin City Council’s draft strategy, presented on the first day of a two-day public hearing yesterday.
However, Prof Herbert Harris, a member of the chamber’s logistics committee, also offered an olive branch at the hearing by suggesting a joint working party be formed to fix the document’s flaws.

Prof Harris said the strategy was of ”major concern” because it ignored the inadequate arterial route through the city, a lack of commuter parking and the significance of the road link to Port Otago.

The draft strategy sought to identify and address key transport challenges facing the city over the next 30 years, beginning with improving the city’s poor road safety record. Initiatives proposed included everything from a multimillion-dollar central-city upgrade, to improved cycleways, bus services and a new eastern freight bypass. Prof Harris said the strategy was of ”major concern” because it ignored the inadequate arterial route through the city, a lack of commuter parking and the significance of the road link to Port Otago.
Read more

GREY AREAS… If you received this DRAFT Summary by post in late July, look no further than the grey back cover – it’s easier to read than the illegible and contrived contents, having about the same informational content.

****

### ODT Online Fri, 30 Aug 2013
Transport transfer considered
By Chris Morris
The Otago Regional Council says it will consider handing responsibility for public transport to the Dunedin City Council.
Council transportation planning manager Sarah Connolly confirmed a report on the issue was being finalised, and the chief executives of both organisations, Paul Orders and Peter Bodeker, would be briefed within weeks. Councillors from both organisations were yet to see the report, but a decision on how to proceed would be decided after the briefing, she said.
The news came two years after the Otago Daily Times reported the DCC and ORC were in talks about a possible transfer of the public transport network to the city council.
Read more

—

Related Posts and Comments:
29.8.13 The Don, imagines . . .
4.8.13 World War I memorial project
24.11.11 Dunedin buses: ORC or DCC
8.7.13 Bloody $tupid cycleways and Cull’s electioneering . . .
28.3.13 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2013/14: Portobello Harington Point…
8.3.13 Stupid bid for two-way highway ditched for now #DCC

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr