Tag Archives: Transportation planning

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

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

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

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

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

Are flicks of the pen all that DCC does now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ends]

****

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

THE SUBMISSION | Statement tabled at hearing

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

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

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

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

****

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

zone-map-2gp-mosgiel2GP Zone Map

****

2GP Hearing Topic: Transportation Link

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

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

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

5 Comments

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

Some Councils/CCOs get cleanup from FRAUD and CORRUPTION #NotAll

Stephen Borlase (centre) and Murray Noone (right) at Auckland High Court [NZ Herald]

### NZ Herald Wed, 22 Feb 2017
Herald Business
Two jailed over NZ’s largest bribery case
By Matt Nippert
Two men convicted of corruption in New Zealand’s largest bribery case have been sent to prison. Former Auckland Transport manager Murray Noone, and roading contractor Projenz managing director Stephen Borlase were investigated by the Serious Fraud Office and in December found guilty on six and eight charges, respectively, of taking and giving bribes involving more than $1 million. Justice Sally Fitzgerald this morning at the High Court at Auckland jailed Borlase for five years and six months, and Noone for five years.
Read more + Video | Documents

During the eight-week trial, Crown prosecutor Brian Dickey laid out what he considered to be a “culture of corruption” in the roading department at RDC and Auckland Transport centred on the two accused. Dickey outlined hundreds of thousands of dollars in entertainment spending by Projenz on council staff, and in cross-examining Borlase claimed the arrangement had bound the pair tight.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

7 Comments

Filed under Business, Corruption, Crime, Democracy, Economics, Events, Finance, Geography, Infrastructure, Inspiration, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Public interest, SFO, Transportation, Travesty, What stadium

SH1 Cycleways : the real story

Received from Hilary Calvert
Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:40 p.m.

[begins]

NZTA has produced a Q and A sheet for their project news update on our cycle lanes along the one-way streets.

An annotated version is provided for reality junkies:

Q: Why is there a need for separated cycleways on the one-way system?

NZTA: Cyclists and pedestrians are over represented in fatal and serious injury crashes. There have been 2 fatalities since 2011. Short-term safety measure were put into place in 2013. Separated cycle lanes are the long-term solution.

Reality: There have been no deaths since the cycle lanes were widened in 2013. The two deaths since 2011 were likely contributed to by the very act of creating cycle lanes in the blind spot of vehicles. Had these cyclists been on the road they would have been safer.

Q: Where else in the country are they using these?

NZTA: These lanes are becoming familiar in major cities including Christchurch. Busy urban routes such as the one-way streets in Dunedin need higher standards of cycle lanes.

Reality: No one in their right mind would direct cyclists to State Highway 1, where all the trucks go. If these two parallel roads were returned to two-way streets, you might put trucks on one and bikes on the other. But this is mad.

Q: Why put the cycleways on the right rather than the left?

NZTA: Because it increases cycle safety and separates them from bus stops.

Reality: Bingo! NZTA has finally realised delivering cyclists to the blind side of trucks is very dangerous. But it was NZTA who chose to do that last time. A simple sorry would be a start.

Q: why not on the right-hand side from Duke St to Otago Museum then?

NZTA: This has been done in response to feedback received and supported by further cycle surveys. And there is a large number of cyclists who use this route who would have to cross the road.

Reality: Really? So feedback overcomes safety? Surely this brings into question whether they really understand the safety issues with the left-hand side. WE all know that cyclists are no different from the rest of us, they will take their bikes on the shortest route they can find. Which will mean that they are spending most of their time not on the new cycle lane. Actually, most of their time will be spent walking around campus because the University won’t let cyclists inside – safety issues, apparently.

Q: What impact will this have on parking?

NZTA: Keeping the cycle lanes on the unsafe side of the road will mean we lose 20 fewer parks. Parking will be provided in high demand areas. (see revised plans).

Reality: We will lose hundreds of parks, particularly in the highest parking areas around the hospital (made worse by the DCC proposal to build on the car parking area at Frederick St). Parking is already squeezed in high demand areas. These guys are in la la land, and I don’t mean the award winning movie.

Q: Will these cycle lanes disrupt traffic flows?

NZTA: The lanes are likely to smooth traffic flows and provide more reliable travel times because there will be fewer parking movements.

Reality: Yes more reliably longer times, which are likely to double for anyone using the one-way streets. More phases for cyclists and pedestrians, more traffic trying to find parks, more time needed to get to hospital appointments. It wasn’t that broke. Why are those from out of town so determined to get in the way of traffic in Dunedin?

Q: How many cyclists are likely to use the cycle lanes?

NZTA: Current usage peaks at 500 per day, but this could easily double. We will measure the change.

Reality: Weasel words. Try looking north from Lower Stuart St along the one-way street. There will be several vehicles on the cycle lanes and likely not even 1 cyclist. The reality is that we are likely to have fewer than 1 cyclist per kilometre of cycleway in Dunedin at any one time. The maximum of 500 is not relevant to the usage in general. (And indeed 500 per day is 500 over 1440 minutes, about one every 3 minutes. At the absolute peak. For a moment in time. So it may double to 1 cyclist at the absolute maximum every 1.5 minutes.) And having measured it later, we are still stuck with the cycle lanes even if they don’t create double the usage. Meanwhile there is no proposed monitoring of the time wasted on getting to hospital appointments, or the time spent by students walking further from free car parking to lectures, or any other flow-on effects of decreased parking where it is currently available.

Q: When is work likely to start?

NZTA: May 2017, taking around 15 months and in such a way as to ensure the one-way system is able to operate effectively and any disruption is kept to a minimum.

Reality: These streets are groaning at the seams already. Our entire one-way system will become impossible to operate usefully, and it will take double the time. By this time those who came to Dunedin because the traffic wasn’t so bad will have the start of every working day diminished and their Dunedin experience effectively destroyed around the central city. We have an elderly population, and this will be the last three years of the lives of some of us.

Q: Who pays and what will it cost?

NZTA: NZTA will pay for the work directly related to the cycle lanes. $8million.

Reality: More weasel words. There are large costs not included in the direct costs. Agencies are keen on doing guestimates of the multiplier effect of benefits to the city for, say, acts at the stadium. What about a study of the likely costs to the city of loss of parking revenue, loss of time spent driving around, loss of time spent walking from vehicles, anxiety around hospital appointments, loss of business for those relying on easy car access for their custom etc. There are also costs for the work connecting roads and footpaths etc between the cycleways and the rest of our DCC infrastructure, and the inevitable landscaping in the vicinity. And then the costs of fixing what we had to redo because none of the agencies are working together. An expensive nightmare.

Q: What is being done to provide more integrated transport in Dunedin?

NZTA: NZTA, DCC and ORC are implementing transport related projects: this is one. These cycle lanes will connect with cycling lanes being considered in North Dunedin linking University, Hospital, Otago Polytechnic and the CBD.

Reality: These institutions are already handy to each other. As regards the University the biggest obstacle to cycling is the size of the campus which cannot be crossed by cyclists.

****

Pity NZTA doesn’t have a booth in the heart of Dunedin where they could come and sit and listen to the issues. Perhaps on the corner of Stuart St and the one-way streets?

[ends]

NZTA Dunedin Urban Cycleways Programme
Cycling in Dunedin contributes to improving transport options, providing a more efficient and integrated transport network, improving health, economic and social outcomes and city liveability. The Urban Cycleways Fund, subject to council approval, will help to accelerate the City to Harbour Bridge and the Central City and North East Valley cycle network.

NZTA Urban Cycleways Programme [general information]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

█ GREEN ATTACK ON YOUR BUILT ENVIRONMENT

leisure-cyclist-on-beach-road-cycleway-auckland-nzta-govt-nz-1two-way-separated-cycleway-beach-road-auckland-nzta-govt-nzTwo-way separated cycleway on Beach Road, Auckland [nzta.govt.nz]

15 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Geography, Health, Hot air, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Sport, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

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

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

2GP Consultation (index) Link

2GP Maps Link
Data Map
Zoning Map

Hearings schedule and documents Link

****

2GP Hearing Topic: Transportation Link

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

****

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

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

Lightly edited; maps added. -Eds

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

zone-map-2gp-mosgiel2GP Zone Map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Comments

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

Our loss-making public bus system, as for the colours *spew

Inner city Dunedin is NOT a freaking circus or Disneyland.
Obviously, the bozos at ORC/DCC think differently.

Here is something CHEAP-NASTY-like:

Troughing consultants, transportation planners and those who purport to be ‘urban design’ from both councils appear to be barely out of grade school —my god, it shows (see video).

PRIMARY SCHOOL
Colouring in, by non-learned non-contextualists —who manage do it so very BADLY. This is absolute proof that Landscape Architecture at Dunedin is DEAD, BANKRUPT and bloody SMELLY. My cardboard box of pet maggots could design “the interchange” better. They could: swiftly, cleanly, without the disease that is ‘the carnival-scathed’ at local government.

Junior short-term work experience only, no proven local body management expertise or ‘factory floor’ experience whatsoever, now make for ‘team leader’ placements at Dunedin. That’s how tragic the workpool is. Low shoulder-tapping at the tertiary institution is no substitute for a smart council workforce, not that we have a hope in hell of attracting one.

Business leaders need to Take Dunedin!
By Storm, from the doughbrains at local government.
But Business leaders, Entrepreneurs and Investors now have the Largest, most IMMENSE PROBLEM.

At this un-populous sinking town :
At the productive, growth-generating Central Otago and Queenstown Lakes :
THERE IS NO AFFORDABLY SAFE AND SECURE POWER SUPPLY
None! This is All down to leaders, councillors, directors and executives at DCC, DCHL, Delta and Aurora.

And ORC/DCC think the sorry ratepayers and residents can afford an improved, convenient and efficient bus system. Ho. Ho. Ho.

Apart from or because of the buses making losses….

Clearly, the proposed changes to the bus system are NOT designed to embrace the Accessible Journey —to enhance the experience of city travel for mobility impaired citizens.

The Regional Public Transport Plan 2014 and the Dunedin City Integrated Transport Strategy 2013 DO NOT anticipate the growth of Uber, new technology or ‘other’ vehicular modes of travel, or indeed anything that is the future of transport at (Our Place) Dunedin.

The proposed changes are NOT subject to ANY ECONOMIC STUDIES to safeguard businesses, vehicle users, and the users of public transport, city-wide. None! So Predictable. So Deficient. So Grossly Negligent.

Coloured road markings, a Fun Distraction when there’s a MASSIVE POWER BLACKOUT at Dunedin.

*Note: DCC does not have a spare ONE BILLION DOLLARS in the bank to right Aurora/Delta’s wrongs.

The Otago Regional Council says:

Dunedin Bus Interchange (hub)
Dunedin’s public transport is changing. Since the adoption of the Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) in 2014, Otago Regional Council (ORC) has been rolling out network wide changes to create an affordable and connected public transport system in Dunedin. While many of these changes focus on implementing direct and stable bus routes with regular frequencies, we are also looking to improve the accessibility of the bus services, information, and infrastructure. As part of these changes we are providing a bus interchange (hub) in the city centre to make your bus journey better.

█ To find out more and how to make submissions, go to http://www.orc.govt.nz/Information-and-Services/Buses/Bushub/

There are several things the ORC can do immediately to signal its serious intent in improving services to its ratepayers. (ODT)

### ODT Online Wed, 7 Dec 2016
Editorial: Bus hub challenges
OPINION Public transport is essential in any major centre and now Dunedin faces its own challenges with the release of the long-awaited central-city bus hub plans. The Otago Regional Council is seeking community feedback on the hub planned for Great King St, near the central police station. It includes five parking bays on each side of the street. […] The idea of a Great King St hub cannot be taken seriously if people are going to be forced off one bus and on to another in quick time. […] Dunedin’s central area is the Octagon and the regional council needs to recognise the need to keep buses flowing through the Octagon.
Read more

****

Bus hub part of $3million transport project, including “super stops”. 38 car parks lost from Great King St between Moray Pl and St Andrew St.

### ODT Online Mon, 5 Dec 2016
Dunedin bus hub details released
By John Gibb
The Otago Regional Council has unveiled its long-awaited central Dunedin bus hub plans and is seeking community feedback. The bus hub, also termed the “bus interchange”, is, as previously signalled, in Great King St, near the central police station. It includes five parking bays on each side of the street. […] The size and style of bus shelters are partly dependent on public feedback, and also on any negotiations required with owners of nearby land, to be undertaken early next year. It is also proposed to use paints or other coloured materials, including on part of the street, to give the hub area a more lively appearance.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

24 Comments

Filed under Aurora Energy, Business, Central Otago, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, Dunedin, DVL, DVML, Economics, Electricity, Finance, Geography, Highlanders, Infrastructure, Media, NZRU, NZTA, OAG, OCA, Ombudsman, ORC, ORFU, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Queenstown Lakes, Resource management, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Dunedin Heritage Light Rail Trust —Update, July 2016

PUBLIC MEETING
Thursday, 28 July 2016 at 7pm
South Dunedin Presbyterian Hall (at back)
The Dunedin Heritage Light Rail Trust will hold a public meeting to update the community on its progress and announce the formation of the High Street Cable Car Society Inc, which will take over much of the work of the trust.

Mornington Trailer No. 111 [ODT files]Mornington Trailer No. 111 [ODT files]

ODT Online Thu, 7 Jul 2016
Cable car group seeks funds to build
By Timothy Brown
The group behind a bid to re-establish High St’s cable car route hopes to open its temporary display museum by Christmas. The Dunedin Heritage Light Rail Trust is applying for funding and building consent for its temporary 72sq m display museum after securing a lease in Mornington Park from the Dunedin City Council last month. The museum would house a trailer and two grip cars in a bid to raise funds for a proposed $2.5million future facility, trust member Neville Jemmett said. “This is what we are calling our elephant step, because it’s the first time we have got a foot on the ground. Everything has been in folders and papers before now,” he said. The museum would comprise a three-door steel garage with a track for Mornington trailer No111 to be rolled in and out to allow for access and to display it. “It’s only temporary, that’s why it’s not a fancy building. It’s to basically show people that we mean business.”
Read more

Mon, 11 July 2016 at 12:27 p.m.
Received from Neville Jemmett, Dunedin Heritage Light Rail Trust
July 2016 DHLRT Heritage newsletter (PDF, 8.17 MB)

[cover page]
July 2016 Heritage newsletter (front page)

Related Posts and Comments:
27.5.15 Dunedin Heritage Light Rail Trust Newsletters 2015
4.11.14 Phillip George (Phil) Cole, RIP
5.6.14 DCC Transport Strategy and Riccarton Road
28.7.13 Dunedin Cable Car Trust – Public Meetings Sunday 28 July
14.2.13 Phil Cole on the High Street Cable Car
15.1.13 Return of High Street cable car
23.12.11 High Street cable car update
29.11.10 Phillip Cole on Dunedin buses
16.9.10 Pre-election opinions on public transport and the stadium
26.11.09 The Chronicles of Yarnia
19.10.09 Cable Car Meeting @Dunedin
27.8.10 Invitation to ALL #High St Cable Car
23.11.09 High Street Cable Car a possibility
9.7.09 Designing public transport for repeat use

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

10 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Events, Finance, Fun, Geography, Heritage, Infrastructure, Innovation, Inspiration, Leading edge, Museums, Name, New Zealand, People, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design, What stadium

Non-arterial Riccarton Road : Brian Miller stirred by community board

ODT 28.5.16 (page 30)
ODT 28.5.16 Letter to editor Miller p30 (1)

ODT 17.5.16 (page 8)
ODT 17.5.16 Letter to editor Miller p8 (1)

[click to enlarge]
DCC Webmap - Riccarton Road East, Mosgiel JanFeb 2013DCC Webmap – Riccarton Road, Mosgiel JanFeb 2013

Related Posts and Comments:
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

4 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty