Hospital pass for Dunedin?

Public feedback has been emphatically in favour of retaining the one-way system through central Dunedin. PHOTO: GERARD O’BRIEN
Public feedback has been emphatically in favour of retaining the one-way system through central Dunedin. PHOTO: GERARD O’BRIEN
A hospital site swamped by state highways has forced change upon Dunedin. How extensive any revamp should be is at the heart of the debate, Grant Miller reports.

A plot to subvert the will of the people was how at least one councillor saw it.

A once-in-a-generation opportunity to effect positive change was how at least one scholar framed the matter.

At issue is the future of State Highway 1 through central Dunedin.

Should construction of a new hospital in the vicinity be a catalyst for reconfiguring the heart of the city and rebalancing the transport order?

Should the one-way system be dumped?

Dunedin city councillor Jules Radich, among others, thinks not. Lopsided survey results support his contention Dunedin residents are firmly of the view the one-way system should stay.

Grey Power Otago started a petition calling for Parliament to make sure of it.

A colleague of Cr Radich, Cr Carmen Houlahan, fears introducing two-way traffic to the one-way pair of routes around the planned new hospital would fuel traffic congestion.

They were outvoted, however, by a majority who decided to take issue with Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency’s board, which had endorsed a work programme that would retain the one-way system.

Swimming against the tide of popular opinion — and speaking up when others, including several councillors, have been reticent — is Associate Prof Alex Macmillan, of the University of Otago.

The one-way system hampers access to the hospital and university and it is a major barrier to ways people want to get around, the public health physician and researcher says.

The transport agency’s backing of the one-way system runs counter to its own strategic direction, she says.

Mayor Aaron Hawkins has said the preferred option of Waka Kotahi fails to deliver the potential benefits of rethinking SH1 through the centre of the city.

Cr David Benson-Pope says this option is suboptimal and he cites the findings of two reports — a health impact assessment and the business case endorsed by the transport agency.

The business case does indeed conclude an alternative option — known as programme 2 version 3 (P2v3) — would be a better fit with project objectives.

It would do a better job of promoting a sense of place — a place where people want to live and do business, cycle and walk.

This programme was associated with substantially more health and wellbeing benefits than the one favoured by Waka Kotahi, the health impact assessment concluded. This would be partly down to potential changes affecting so many people, such as 25,000 tertiary students.

Waka Kotahi concluded that, although P2v3 registered a better technical score, it came with additional risk, complexity and cost.

The scores between the two options were close and this — as well as public sentiment — meant the case for P2v3 was not compelling enough.

The city council signalled it did not agree and the matter required further discussion.

What is the problem?

Here is how the transport agency’s business case explains the situation.

The SH1 one-way system and SH88 are nationally important transport routes, providing key north-south connections and the route to Port Otago.

However, high traffic volumes and dominant north-south traffic flows along the SH1 one-way pair divide Dunedin’s geographically constrained city centre.

This leads to reduced "pedestrian connectivity" and problems such as noise and air pollution.

The new Dunedin Hospital site chosen in 2018 fronts the busiest roads in the central city.

About 15,600 a vehicles a day use northbound Cumberland St, of which about 600 are trucks. About 14,200 vehicles use southbound Castle St, of which about 500 are trucks.

The Ministry of Health has some concerns about its ability to integrate the hospital with the city and tertiary education area. Safe and easy pedestrian access to the hospital could be compromised.

Construction of the hospital will also cause traffic delays.

What can be done?

Many things people have asked for will be achieved whether or not the one-way system stays.

The two programmes have substantial overlap. Cycling and bus facilities will get an upgrade in either programme. Park-and-ride facilities are set to be set up.

Work on the harbour arterial route bypassing the central city will continue to proceed.

SH88 will finish in Frederick St, rather than St Andrew St.

Most matters have been settled, more or less, but the one-way/two-way question has lingered.

Heading one way could cost ratepayers and taxpayers about $103million. An alternative approach could cost them $127million. But which way is best?


The case for one-way

The package favoured by the transport agency is called programme 1 (P1), retaining the one-way system in an upgraded form.

A notable virtue is more reliable journey times for drivers on key transport routes.

P2v3 is expected to lead to a minor level of increased travel time and delay, which could be most noticeable in the weekday evening peak period and more so on SH1.

Under P1, reduced traffic speeds would be needed around the hospital and there would be some investment in amenity.

It is essentially the status quo, enhanced.

A survey for the agency in 2020 was unambiguous. About three-quarters of respondents favoured keeping the one-way system.

The case for two-way

P2v3 would turn Cumberland St into a two-way local road. SH1 would continue to run in Castle St and with a northbound lane.

It would mean more of the central city is under the city council’s watch.

"This significantly increases opportunities for residential living and supportive business environments all the way back to the city core," the health impact assessment comments.

Pedestrian connection between the Great King St bus hub and the new hospital would be greatly improved.

Under P1, the percentage of people driving to work is expected to drop from 74% in 2018 to 60% in 2030. Under P2v3, the drop could be a further 10 points. That could help the council achieve carbon zero aspirations.

It would also deal with one of the University of Otago’s bugbears — severance.

"We currently have the main campus divided from the health precinct by two one-way crossings and of the options presented we see benefit in moving away from the one-way alignment," university chief operating officer Stephen Willis says.

Travel issues affect more than just road vehicle users, he points out.

On the fence?

The Ministry of Health’s project team developing the new Dunedin Hospital seems to favour one-way traffic. Or does it?

Traffic modelling and analysis indicates the system produces the best outcomes for safety and efficient transport movement, a spokeswoman says.

"The project team considers that, with effective traffic calming and design, either option can be made to work satisfactorily."

Where to from here?

The matter has been escalated.

City council arguments sit both with the transport agency and Minister of Transport Michael Wood.

Mr Wood is due to visit Dunedin in April and his office has said discussion of SH1 will be on his agenda.

The business case summarises that P1 provides some improvements, while P2v3 provides transformational change.

Some change is necessary and the siting of the planned hospital between the pair of one-way roads forces the issue.

What has yet to be confirmed is precisely how much.


View all

If you actually take a look at the photo at the top of the article, take away the car parked on the left, and the council dominoes on the right ... think they have something to with cyclists ... do a quick measure up, and you'd probably have adequate room for a 4 lane / two way system.

Even though there would have to be a median barrier, traffic lights (which there are anyway, and possibly emergency stop signals which are already in use at the NZ Fire Service and I believe the Ambulance service as well.

Put up a parking building so there's no parking ... you end up with something resembling SH1 North & South from Burnside to Caversham and a few other places. Then shift all heavy transport to the current South bound SH1 in a two way format with separate cycleway.

There are already overhead foot bridges around the hospital and over other parts of SH1 throughout NZ as well as the railway station ... I can't really see the problem with putting a few more in, other than cost, but if you stop all the "consulting", then I'm pretty sure there'd be $50m left in the budget for that to happen !!

Leave the Main Streets as they are ... for shops & pedestrians.

If money were no limit, I would suggest going up. Build a flyover motorway over the top of the railway lines, could come off the motorway at the oval , up a ramp and travel the length of the city out of everyones way. Everybody wins. But a smaller vision could be to go two levels on the one ways by the hospital, like they do at airports.

I feel that no mater how much you improve the road infrastructure in New Zealand, we will still have fatalities and accidents on our roads.
Addressing all road users (car, bike, cycle, pedestrian) behavior while using the road will benefit us all.

It is quite simple. We have a gaggle of greens councilors who have idealogical aims to reduce or stop personal use of motor vehicles. We also have a city planning department stacked with like minded anti car people. We have a mayor whose anti car zealotry is in part explained by his fear of driving because he had an accident once.
This gaggle, have followed their leader to an endless string of anti car steps over recent years. A continual removal of parking, endless road narrowing around intersections, blocking roads to enhance bike paths. These are just examples of their actions.
Now they want to completely disrupt the flow of traffic in the town center in the hopes that 10% of commuters will resort to some other form of transport.

75% of people want to retain the 2 way system. Let's hope that same 75% of people vote these greens clowns out at the next election. Then the process of getting a balanced DCC planning department can begin.

But in the meantime, no major decision should be made. The destruction of George St should be put on hold. Let the people decide, not a bunch of zealots.

Zealots eh? You are out of touch with the world. Ideals are badly needed and the 'people' voted them in.

If it ain't broke don't fix it. Most years I spend a day or two wandering about central Dunedin. The one way system makes travelling through town a doddle. Walking about, as I do most of the day, the pedestrian crossings are well placed with negligible delays. Dunedin does not have a traffic congestion problem ... for poor traffic flow visit Auckland (or, another story, London). Dunedin is better than Melbourne or Sydney ... in fact Dunedin is the best of all New Zealand cities I've travelled through. The one-way system is critical to maintaining flow, and to get to the other side overshoot a block, take a cross road, and retrace ... easy?

"The one-way system hampers access to the hospital and university and it is a major barrier to ways people want to get around".....

That comment is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh!
It conjures images of hoards of quivering folk, amassing on the footpaths, too scared to cross the road. As a certain ad goes.....yeah, right.

The comment it hampers access is totally incorrect. I use it daily by car and on foot. It’s easy to negotiate either way. One way to look while crossing. E.a.s.y.

The hospital site was all wrong from the start. It should have been built on the abundance of old abandoned wharf/warehouse land, on the other-side of the railway. The only winner here, was Mondelez

I looked at the Minutes for the DCC meeting held on 14th December and I found no Resolution about central city traffic options. Nor anything like it indicated as occurring in the non-public part of the meeting.Yet ODT reports a Resolution as follows: "The Dunedin City Council supports programme 2 version 3 as the basis for future discussion."
IMO this is a very badly framed Resolution because ambiguous and arguably negative in intent, something contrary to Standing Orders. To 'support' an option as the basis for further discussion is not to support, that is, to be in favour of, the option. I think 'only' is implied and intended here, as in 'the DCC supports ONLY this option as a basis for further discussion', so as to exclude any further discussion of any other possibilities. Then any Councillor later suggesting alternatives can be silenced with a Point of Order. I suspect some bamboozling was going on with the formulation of this Resolution and I hope all Councillors and the Mayor will make their views crystal-clear. Because this Resolution (which I can't find in Minutes) is positively MURKY.

Scrap the idea of a city hospital altogether. Build it up at Wakari, and include a shuttle / tramway from the city as part of the planning. There's plenty of room for expansion and parking, and the shuttle / tramway would manage students and non drivers.

Build 2-4 storey mixed accommodation on the cleared site in town, together with courtyard gardens and micro-greenspaces.

Result is more quality housing, more people not needing cars as they live and work in the city anyway, and a reinvigoration of the route and shops between and around town and Wakari.

This is called *thinking outside the box*.

View all



Our journalists are your neighbours

We are the South's eyes and ears in crucial council meetings, at court hearings, on the sidelines of sporting events and on the frontline of breaking news.

As our region faces uncharted waters in the wake of a global pandemic, Otago Daily Times continues to bring you local stories that matter.

We employ local journalists and photographers to tell your stories, as other outlets cut local coverage in favour of stories told out of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.

You can help us continue to bring you local news you can trust by becoming a supporter.

Become a Supporter