But maybe with this issue, we can tell something at least about what the people were hoping for.
The best guess of what people want are the residents’ opinion survey and the quality of life survey. These have a much more reliable idea of opinion than social media, since they contain randomised opinion.
Both of these surveys described parking as a significant issue in central Dunedin.
And when people chose those who campaigned on a current issue, we may assume that there was at least a mood for a review, if not necessarily a change of outcome.
We have also been made aware that there has been a petition containing 6500 signatures asking for George St to remain two-way.
As for the councillors, they had limited information at their disposal when they initially made decisions around George St.
What they did know was the specialist advice received from Kobus Menz, after his independent review of the project. He advised that George St should be designed so that it could be converted to a two-way street in future. And that it should include short stay on street parking.
But no-one seems to know:
- details of the $28.2 million above-ground work.
- what the cost would be to return the already finished work to a two-way street.
- what it would cost if the balance of the project was done so that it would be easy to change back to two-way in the future.
- whether the DCC is right to say there will be almost no parks lost or whether the ORC will prevail with its plans to increase the bus parking significantly.
- the effect longer proposed electric buses could have.
- what emergency services have to say about the one-way proposal, especially in the light of possible closure of St Andrew St.
- whether there is any evidence to show where people can’t move easily to, from and around by car, that the likelihood of them persevering to finding a park and shopping in town is enhanced.
- whether there is any evidence of internet shopping increasing with less accessible shopping.
Are the pavers the best we can do? They are already looking very dirty.
According to a council spokesman, there is no indication of how much changing the project would cost, so it would seem the councillors do not know either.
When asked what they thought of a review of the George St plan, the bulk of the councillors seemed to be of the view that there was more they needed to know before they decided, but in some cases were concerned that increased costs may be significant.
One councillor on a different tack suggested that a review would be a tremendous insult to hard-working staff and the project team.
Councillor Bill Acklin seemed to summarise a general position by saying he would need to know what the design and cost implications of changing the project would be.
Surely the councillors and the public need to know — at the very least — how they can continue the underground work while retaining flexibility to return the street to a two-way one, following best-evidence advice.
This is particularly important if the suggestion, which has been floating around, that changing the plan later would cost many millions has any merit.
The underground work could continue while looking into retaining two-way traffic, or the flexibility to return to two-way traffic.
When the council gets into deciding on the review, we can only hope that they insist on having good information this time before the decision to box on is made.
That is what many of them campaigned on, and what more of them have promised us they would do.
Everyone wants an attractive downtown Dunedin. Many are attracted by the promise of vibrancy. Very few want an inaccessible, hard-to-get-around-and-park area.
The approval rating of council decision-making is somewhere around a dismal 25%.
If the new council gets good information before they make decisions, we might be happier with their choices in spending our money.
- Hilary Calvert is a former Otago regional councillor, MP and DCC councillor.
