Submission
9 year plan feedback
Should we remove 231 Stuart Street (formerly the Fortune Theatre) from the list of strategic assets in the DCC Significance and Engagement policy?
Yes, remove 231 Stuart Street from the list of strategic assets (this is our preferred option)
Do you have any comments about 231 Stuart Street?
Should we charge an entry fee of $20 (incl. GST) for international visitors aged 16 and over, at Toitū and Dunedin Public Art Gallery?
Yes, introduce an entry fee of $20 (incl. GST) (this is our preferred option)
Do you have any comments about the entry fee for international visitors?
Provide free or subsided entry tickets for local onshore accommodation providers to give to their international guests. This would mean that those tourists who have chosen to stay with local businesses, rather than onboard cruise ships, will be rewarded for their decision to invest more in supporting the local, homegrown tourism sector.
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
I'm greatly disappointed that the DCC has decided to remove the proposed Two Tunnels Trail from its 9 year plan.
Although we currently have a government and NZTA that appears not at all interested in supporting active transport proposals like the tunnels project, that could easily change in the future. The dcc needs to have all its ducks in a row, and to be showing, full, unwavering commitment to developing the trail when future central government funding becomes available, otherwise we'll be at the back of the queue and well behind other local governments who have remained committed to their various active transport goals.
The two tunnels trail, as has been highlighted numerous times, is a win-win for community connectivity, safe and sustainable transport and greenhouse gas emissions reductions. It will also benefit the local economy not only through bringing in more tourism dollars, but also by reducing fuel and transport costs for local Dunedinites. It ticks the boxes regardless of whether its supporters are business-focused Dunedin boosters, with visions of international tourists cycling in to Dunedin after their week exploring Central Otago, local Dunedinites who simply want a safe and efficient way to cycle into town for work or study, or climate change doomers like myself who realise we need to dramatically shrink our carbon footprints and prioritise relocalisation.
The Two Tunnels Trail should be priority #1 in terms of Dunedin's cycling infrastructure. I've just seen that another $18.5 million has been committed to completing the final three stages of Te Awa Ōtakau on the Otago Peninsula and I personally believe this a disgusting waste of money. From my own experience of riding from Portobello to Taiaroa head innumerable times, I have to say it's comparatively safe (with the exception of the stretch between Portobello school and Portobello, which does need improvement) and serves a small number of cycle commuters. The Two Tunnels Trail, on the other hand, potentially serves 30,000 people and ties in much better with the Clutha Gold Trail and the wider Central Otago trail network.
Driving between Nelson and Richmond just yesterday afternoon, stuck in traffic crawling at a near standstill while cyclists on a nearby coastal pathway whizzed past us, I said to my girlfriend "even in Dunedin there's nothing as bad as this". But then I paused, reconsidered and said "oh, hold on, driving into Mosgiel is pretty awful sometimes".
And that's a situation that will only get worse if local governments, including Dunedin City Council, continue to prioritise developing traffic networks focused on private car usage. More than the pathway to Portobello, more than the pathway to Port Chalmers, the Tunnels Trail to Mosgiel could end up being Dunedin's most important cycle commuting route, and it would be an absolutely backwards step to de-prioritize it.
Local Water Done Well feedback
Which water services delivery model do you support?
Why did you choose this option?
Do you have any other feedback related to the proposed water services delivery models?
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submitter
Submission id number: 1130237
Submitter name:
Duncan Davidson
Organisation