Growing support for Harbour Islands plan

Roadwarrior is correct re Mussel Bay locality. Regarding relocating SH88, the merits of building a new SH88 section between the Stadium and Port Chalmers are many. When the Stadium location was being pseudo-debated, I suggested relocating SH88 to cross the rail line closer to the City with the highway running between the railway and the two rowing clubs, with a turnout into/out of the fertilizer works but the idea was discarded.

Yes, a new road/rail tunnel would be needed to access the wharf at Port Chalmers. The suggestion of a rail freight yard north of Dunedin has been bounced around several times, mainly before the through-city log traffic built up. I think the Taieri Plain near Mosgiel is now the location for a rail freight yard.

Coming back to "Harbour Islands". The Harbour channel project material could be used to build a new SH88 extension as suggested. Are these ideas nuts? They are no sillier then the current multimillion-dollar expenditure on the Southern Motorway in order to save 10 minutes' travel time between Dunedin and Mosgiel.

We could instead: Eliminate the accident area into the fertiliser works; divert all heavy traffic away from Ravensbourne; construct a safe cycleway from Dunedin to Port Chalmers over the existing SH88; a safe separate highway for heavy transport from Dunedin to Port; remove all log trucks from the city; remove trucks from transitting central Port Chalmers.   Or do we just dig the new channel and watch it being washed back into the harbour for ever and ever? 

Roadwarriors mention of Sawyers Bay in his 'nitpicking' post reminds me that many years ago there was a proposal to build a Sawyers Bay-Waitati rail tunnel, of which obviously nothing came. As an aside, I also remember that one of my classmates caught the train from Waitati each morning to come to school.

But, back to the tunnel. A road tunnel between the two villages with the upgrading of the harborside road would make a great entrance to Dunedin, and avoid the winter fog and ice disruption of the current Mt Cargill route.

It would also encourage settlement on the sunny north-facing slopes on Mt Cargill, overlooking Blueskin Bay – a desirable home for many Dunedin workers and their families. 

Sawyers Bay is the suburb, Mussel Bay is the inlet surrounded by Roseneath, Sawyers Bay and Port Chalmers. Why would anyone want to reclaim even more of it for a boat harbour/recreational use? There are plenty of facilities for this around our harbour already? 

Port Otago is a business, they aren't custodians of the harbour surrounds. I'm fairly sure the DCC owns and is therefore responsible for the harbour walls and any structure not privately owned that extends into the harbour itself, e.g. public boat ramps & jetties. Any "fostering" from the Port Company would be an act of goodwill by a corporate. It is the responsibilty of the DCC; perhaps this is why it is a "non-event".

Watcher, I agree with you about SH88, it would be fantastic to see it run beside the rail line most of the way to Port, at least to Blanket Bay would be practical. You'd need an overbridge at either end to cross the rail line though, or level crossings as a last resort. Given the amount of crashes occuring on this road now, I believe something has to be done about SH88 and I reckon that would be the best option - flat and straight and nowhere near any housing/pedestrians/cyclists/other hazards.

Before all sorts of groups with vested interests get all enthused about the merits of their own project, please do some research and find out exactly what has been done around the Otago Harbour for non-commercial interests in the past 100 years since the Otago Harbour Board, followed by Port Otago (owned by the Otago Regional Council), took total control of what happens on or in the Harbour.

Was the reclamation of the land behind Portsmouth Drive for the recreational benefit of the public (1950)? Was the Andersons Bay Inlet, reclaimed for Bayfield High School (1960), also reclaimed for the recreational use of the public? I think not. I do accept that the tiny "beach" at Macandrew Bay was built for the public. But virtually every other suggestion or proposal has been blocked and rejected in the past 100 years on hydrological grounds that tidal harbour flushing would be lost. How true is this? How expert were/are the experts?

I am not knocking any proposal that could increase public use of "our" harbour. I would love to see a new Highway 88 from Anzac Avenue to Port Chalmers on the Harbour side of the Railway. Love to see all the muddy inlets filled in on the West side of the Harbour. Love to see Sawyers Bay part-reclaimed for boating and public use including a boat harbour. But lets get a solid statement from Port Otago first about what can or cannot be done because judging by history, fostering the recreational use of Otago Harbour by Port Otago is a non-event.

It's not "improving on nature", as you put it.  It is a small step towards restoring a massively modified environment.  'Nature' did not reclaim land, refill Lake Logan/Logan Park, build rock walls and roads along Portsmouth Drive, choke the upper harbour and concrete the Leith.

If done properly this will not only be a fantastic resource for the city (despite the usual suspects emerging to grumble about anything new) but also a much-overdue environmental restoration.  Dunedin can build on the great reputation it has for eco-tourism and should look to explore exciting opportunities here.

We already have three islands planned and mapped for construction next year.

One will be set up with artificial beaches, the second will house a lizard colony, while the third one will feature another Chinese garden since the one in the city has been such an overwhelming success.

I think this is fantasy land because any area will be dominated by seagulls, as is the case in any spot round the harbour.

Also, why try to improve on nature with artificial habitats? Nature does it so much better.

It would be a win-win for everyone as far as I can see.  Eonvironmental benefits - check.  Economic and cultural benefits - check.  What a fantastic opportunity for Dunedin.  Let's do it!

If anyone wishes to see what harbour islands, Dunedin-style, look like, take a drive along Marne Street on the North side of Andersons Bay and have a look at the abomination inflicted on local people and the area's aesthetics by the unkempt and untidy heap of rubble dumped just off the side of the inlet as a congregating place for birds. Consider also, that of fourteen species alleged to have perched there, occupancy is usually limited to a lethargic shag or two and a solitary seagull showing all signs of being 'bored out of his tree'.

It intrigues me also that anyone would contemplate building an artificial inlet in the upper harbour when there are so many people, especially down the West side, who would like to see the existing stinking holes behind the railway embankment filled in. I doubt that there would ever be sufficient area or depth of water able to be maintained behind this fanciful chain of islands, due to insufficient natural scouring and shallows shelving off to an inter-tidal area which has to be continuously deepened by means of a dragline or similar device just try to get birds to roost or wade there.

Also, just as an afterthought, silt dumped in the upper harbour will not remain there for long unless it is protected and kept-in-place by rockworks, so allow this one onto the Council's Annual Plan and it becomes just another unaffordable and unnecessary extravagance for Dunedin people to have to shell out for. [Abridged]

"Forest and Bird, and STOP have expressed their desire to see some larger islands built further down the harbour exclusively for bird roosts.''

Note that word "EXCLUSIVELY" - that means bird roost, nothing else.  Just stinky noisy birds.  No dogs.  Not pleasant for walking, etc. Biological action? That means stinky.  Try going anywhere near the Avon Heathcote Estuary at low tide.

I am one of those kitesurfers out there every windy day.  If the birds are roosting on those islands there will be trouble.  The kites will be accused of disturbing the birds and we will be banned, as is happening north of Auckland (due to the incessant whinging of two people to Doc, not Doc themselves).

For watersports the harbour is actually a bit on the small side.  Limiting it further by adding islands will not be a good thing.

This proposal reminds me of two earlier ones.

It was about 1948 when the ODT campaigned to get aboard the burgeoning airline industry by pushing for flying boats which could use the upper harbour.

Sometime later, the idea was floated that the centre of the upper harbour should be reclaimed to be the site of Dunedin's new airport, replacing Taieri.

Dreams are sweet!

How much of the spoil would actually be used to make the harbour islands? What would its consistency be? Have the advocates actually spoken to marine biologists like Chris Hepburn, Mike Barker and Keith Probert to get expert opinions on any possible impacts? Who will finance the resource consent application?

This seems like a nice idea in principle, but reclamation in the harbour has been controversial in the past, and the quantities involved in creating the islands will be negligible, relative to the amount of spoil that Port Otago Limited wishes to dump at sea.

This is not a 'win-win' situation, but a consolation prize. If Mr Hayden is serious about the idea, he ought to get qualified people on board as soon as possible.

Good to see a few people have got together and are suggesting a similar idea to my own which I mooted some years ago to enhance the use of the upper harbour.

A few thoughts to toss into the pot: A promontory built out into the harbour which would allow sightseeing vehicle access from Portsmouth Drive. Artificial beach, pontoon, and wharves for sports boat access such as the existing windsurfers, yachts, small family fun boats. No construction of private housing or buildings or shops, or accomodation. Public toilets. No charter boats and businesses. No private ownership of land, or facilities, or access. Retain clear open public viewing of the harbour. Height limitations including any sculpturework. Heaps of seating. One  24 hour security guard. Subdued night lighting. Limited car parking for viewing but no streets for vehicle movement. Otherwise walking only and disabled scooters. No bicycles or skateboards, or skates, or motorcycles. Artificial beaches like Wellington. Management to be people publicly elected. An absolute minimum of policing and directional signage. 

This is a great idea but the present major recreational users should be consulted; windsurfers, kitesurfers, yachties, etc may not want small islands to crash into.

As long as the islands are placed away from the main areas in which these activities take place it should be fine, although maybe the additional obstacles would add to the thrill.