Dunedin cycleways: Calvin Oaten greeted by DCC silence

Received.
Tuesday, December 03, 2013 4:38 PM

Subject: Fwd: Transport Strategy

Calvin Oaten notes:
As you can see I copied [the below] to most. So far, the only response has been Cr Lee Vandervis. He agrees. [Chief executive] Sue Bidrose hasn’t come back with so much as a “rubbish” or “interesting”.
The rest, well I am wondering if this new crop are going to be any better than the last. You would think I would get shot out of the water by at least Cr Richard Thomson, but nothing. All I want is to open up the debate.
Looks like it is just too hard for them to think about the issue. Get elected, get the remuneration sorted and then back to sleep. “El Duce”, of course, wishes I was on another planet.

—— Forwarded Message
From: Calvin Oaten
Date: 1 December 2013 11:33:36 AM NZDT
To: Dave Cull
Cc: Hilary Calvert, Jinty McTavish, Lee Vandervis, John Bezett, Kate Wilson, Chris Staynes, Mike Lord, Aaron Hawkins, Neville Peat, Doug Hall, Andrew Noone, David Benson-Pope, Sue Bidrose, Richard Thomson
Subject: Fwd: Transport Strategy

Hello Dave,
I have been reading the article Sharing the Road by Shane Gilchrist in Saturday’s ODT, and was particularly interested in your comments. You point out the reason why council began this process in the first place: “It’s about safety on Dunedin’s one-way system.” “Council, in collaboration with the NZTA, is both resolved and obligated to make our one-way street system safer. That’s what we asked NZTA to do after the last death. Let’s be clear: It is the NZTA’s responsibility to make state highways safer.” A very laudable position, but is the seeming solution necessarily the right one?

To me it is a philosophical question: If it is purely about safety and preservation of life then surely cyclists on the one-way would be wrong. History has proven that. If it is about ‘freedom of choice’ then it would be a matter for responsible persons or parents to weigh up the situation then opt for a choice, it being on their own heads. Either way, nothing would need to be done to alter the status quo. I would have no problem with that.

Then there is the matter of alternatives. This raises the question: If there is to be provision by society to accommodate cyclists in a less hazardous environment, why would it not be better to provide that off the one-way system? You made the comment that Teresa Stevenson’s and my “quiet streets” option, a meandering route, incorporating north-end streets such as Castle, Leith, Dundas, Clyde, and among others is out of the question, being a bit of a “red herring”. It ignores my suggestion of moving onto railway land, plus the simple connection possibilities to the north west harbour trail. All off main arterial routes, the source of danger. You then state, “the principal idea of a transportation system is to get people to where they want to go”. That immediately negates your first argument that it was all about safety. Which is it to be? If the alternative “quiet streets” facility was provided, but the people left with their freedom of choice, then it could be argued that society has done its job and any unintended consequences would lie squarely on the individual. Isn’t that what democracies are all about? To simply dismiss counter arguments as “red herrings” without meaningful consideration is disingenuous and “trite”.

The matter of parking loss, inconvenience and costs of possible replacements is very definitely not a “red herring”. Nor is the loss of valuable landscape with “carbon sink trees”. But most of all, retention of cycling on the one-ways – albeit modified – will not stop the intermittent fatalities. They will, in the ‘laws of probability’ still occur.

Then there is the matter of preferential catering for a minority by the society as a whole. Is it fair and reasonable that large sums of citizen’s treasure should be spent to fulfill the wishes of a few? Is it right that council should commit to these expenses when the official ROS on citizens’ preferred means of transport between home, work or school indicates just 3% would choose cycling? Your claim that “there is a huge latent demand for better cycling facilities in our community” is anecdotal at best, and at worst downright wrong. It is patently obvious that there are underlying motives being promoted in this whole debate and that again, is not democratic. As responsible administrators, mayors and councillors have to be clear in their own minds that they are taking an open, holistic approach to the subject and not be impressed by preferential biases.

Dave, I ask only that this issue be fairly debated all round before committing.

Cheers,
Calvin Oaten

—— Forwarded Message
From: Calvin Oaten
Date: 17 November 2013 10:47:31 AM NZDT
To: Dave Cull
Subject: Transport Strategy

Hello Dave,

I have been following with interest the public debate in the media over the controversial matter of safely accommodating cyclists. It seems that there is going to be a big upsurge of cyclists about to hit the streets, and with the appalling statistics of fatalities on the SH1 one ways through Dunedin, elaborate plans are being entertained to alleviate the problem. My problem is not cyclists, but the seemingly outlandish costs for such a minority. Both monetary and in convenience to the citizens at large. Then of course there is the despoilation of the landscape along both routes by the loss of a goodly number of mature and semi mature trees. The fact that these trees are very efficient ‘carbon sinks’ is a matter not to be disregarded lightly I would have thought. I have made a submission along the lines of what I am enclosing, but feel it may well be lost in the welter of submissions reputably being proffered. I yesterday submitted it to the ODT website and it has been published.

If you read it, bear in mind that it is a notion which could be extended or modified. For instance substitute Forth St with Clyde St. At the Andersons Bay end the trail could be extended through the tunnel under the railway embankment exiting onto Strathallan St. This gets away from the ‘multi mix junction’ with the adjoining motorway.

It would be a relatively straight forward matter from either direction to deviate down either Union St or Albany St to the Stadium, then through the SH88 underpass by the Leith stream to the boat harbour. This then connects to the cycling route eventually to Port Chalmers. All these options stay away from the major highways with the preponderance of dangerous traffic.

All the streets involved could be green stripe and stenciled “Cyclists” with even speed restrictions imposed on other traffic. Dave, I feel that there has to be a better way than that which is being promulgated. Very much less expensive as well I would think.

Cheers,
Calvin Oaten

[ODT Online] Some lateral thinking required?
Submitted by Calvin Oaten on Sat, 16/11/2013 – 3:03pm.
In all this discussion on the merits or otherwise of catering specifically for cyclists to have safe means of traversing central Dunedin, it seems that it is the safety which is being lost sight of. Surely, in a survey of recent cyclist fatalities in Dunedin, they have by far and away happened on the SH1 one ways. So why on earth do the authorities insist on staying on those routes? Is there no alternatives?

Let’s look at this. The main trip of concern is from Normanby to the Oval. Start at Normanby on North Rd (not an arterial way) travel to the Gardens, then along [Great] King St to the Gardens side gate and onto the cycle/footpath, already existing, to Duke St, down to Castle or Leith Sts. Along to Dundas St and down to Forth St. Along Forth St to St Andrew St. Along Anzac Ave to the Railway Station. Along the station forecourt then onto railway land and proceed behind the Settlers museum and Chinese Garden, across Rattray St and along behind the Box Retail area to Andersons Bay Rd.

Problems? Negotiations would be needed to obtain an easement through the railway land and a lane constructed to suit. Advantages: No fatalities on SH1, No parking to be forfeited. No alteration to the landscaping. Face it, all those mature trees along both route are very efficient ‘carbon sinks’ and one would expect cyclists to appreciate the value of those. From this route it would not take too much planning to tie it in with the N W Harbour to Port Chalmers trail, again obviating needing to go onto SH1 or 88. It also connects nicely with the University complex. A cycle park could be established in the Station vicinity, with a short walk to the CBD.

Win win I would think. Disadvantages: Frankly I can’t think of any, but I am sure there will be.

—— End of Forwarded Message

[ends]

Related Posts and Comments:
17.11.13 Dunedin cycleways: Calvin Oaten’s alternative route
17.11.13 Cull and MacTavish… “Have you fixed the debt crisis?”
14.11.13 Cycle lane explosions and puncture kits (SPOKES grenades launch)
8.11.13 Dunedin Separated Cycle Lane Proposal [how to make a submission]
5.11.12 DCC, NZTA: Cycle lanes controversy
19.10.13 Cycle lobby games and media tilts
24.9.13 Mediocrity and lack of critical awareness at DCC [council reports]
8.7.13 Bloody $tupid cycleways and Cull’s electioneering . . . [route maps]
28.3.13 DCC DAP 2013/14: Portobello Harington Point Road Improvements
26.2.13 DCC binge spending alert: Proposed South Dunedin cycle network
22.2.13 DCC: Council meeting agenda and reports for 25 February 2013
31.1.13 Who? 2010 electioneering
21.11.12 Safe cycling -Cr Fliss Butcher

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

29 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Geography, Inspiration, Name, NZTA, People, Politics, Project management, Town planning, Urban design

29 responses to “Dunedin cycleways: Calvin Oaten greeted by DCC silence

  1. ben

    The easiest and cheapest solution is perfectly bloody obvious BAN cyclists from our one way systems they are clearly not safe, contain heavy traffic and there are more than adequate adjoining routes on the other side if cyclists would get out of their own way and stop harping

  2. Ben, your suggestion that cyclists be forced to use a safer route marks you as Cyclist Enemy No 1. Using the main roads connecting the motorways is their Right; cycling safety is “other people’s” responsibility according to the Gospel According to Peddlers For Planetsaving.
    Go into hiding now, I beseech you.

  3. Russell Garbutt

    Calvin’s suggestions and solutions are certainly worthy of considered response by Councillors. The fact remains that the DCC et al are not consulting on anything other than whether the SH1 solution is oneway or twoway for cyclists. It is the same as consulting on whether you favour lethal injection or hanging.

    The DCC et al do not have an enviable record on consultation or acting on it, and this issue extends that record.

  4. My feedback in full [not the brains trust – quickly stitched, tangental seeming, I never present a full initial submission – the meat can wait, here’s the flavour]

    [using Dunedin Separated Cycle Lane Proposal Feedback Form]

    Emailed to: dunedinshcyclelanes @ nzta.govt.nz

    Name: Elizabeth Jane Kerr
    Date: 4 December 2013

    My Feedback (in submission to NZTA).

    In the information provided to date, NZTA has failed to provide a balanced overview of the two cycleway options such that advantages and DISADVANTAGES are tabled, and with appropriate independent exploration of the issues set out with the feedback request, for the community to consider – in light of the cost onus on taxpayers, effects on other road users, pedestrians, businesses and services, Dunedin Hospital (including the Physiotherapy Pool), Tertiary Campus Area, Dunedin CBD, freight movers, NZ Automobile Association, Port Otago, Dunedin Airport, and so on.

    I’m particularly unimpressed by the actions of SPOKES and the individuals coordinating and speaking for that entity. I’m told Spokes are recruiting submissions from overseas and other parts of New Zealand. Surely only Dunedin citizens and ratepayers should be the ones to make submissions on issues that concern their city alone. I hope these particular submissions are noted but rejected.

    DCC has failed the Community on several counts over the cycleway proposals, including their use as an election platform without due regard for the council consolidated debt (+$623 million) and other spending priorities for the greater public good. Cycling is the province of a minority group in Dunedin. Cycling is not the preferred mode of travel for the majority of Dunedin people – in many ways it is fairly impractical – I suggest the cycle surveys to date have not been made scientific and as a consequence the results are not properly contextualised. The survey methods used were/are not impartial.

    “Mr Cull concedes the DCC’s 2013 Dunedin City Transport Strategy doesn’t include a budget for any flow-on costs related to the separated cycle lane proposal. ”It will certainly require a budget as we go on. There might be some costs. I see Councillor Calvert had a letter in the paper this morning and I’m a bit bemused by that. “On the one hand, she’s arguing we don’t know what the costs will be. Well, I’ll tell you we do know the cost of death.”
    (ODT 1.12.13) http://www.odt.co.nz/lifestyle/magazine/283374/sharing-road-navigating-cycling-arguments

    This is balderdash from Mayor Cull – two/three cyclists perish because they used the (NZTA’s) one-way SH1 system, they took the risk and paid with their lives – instead of using quieter streets (SPOKES having used their tissues lately…) – and suddenly the taxpayer is up for the (as yet unknown/estimated) multiple millions of dollars to cater for a minority group of cyclists at Dunedin. This does not sound like natural justice to me.

    “Estimated to cost $3.5 million and $4.5 million, fully funded by the NZTA…”
    (ODT 1.12.13) http://www.odt.co.nz/lifestyle/magazine/283374/sharing-road-navigating-cycling-arguments

    Nowhere has NZTA discussed the projected maintenance costs and practicalities (safety etc) for the planted barriers as depicted in NZTA graphics.

    Where are the considered options for use of quieter streets (ie NOT the one-way SH1 system) such as local resident Calvin Oaten has published in the alternative to NZTA’s two options? SPOKES and DCC have evidently corralled NZTA into bearing the brunt of the cost for CBD cycle lanes (this does not include other attendant costs).

    The safety/danger of intersections for the two proposed options, in particular, has not been adequately addressed.

    An alternative route suggestion (great to see a positive ‘city-owned’ alternative, for examination as a long term DCC project – there is NO RUSH WHATSOEVER for a cycleway solution):

    ODT Online: Some lateral thinking required?
    Submitted by Calvin Oaten on Sat, 16/11/2013 – 3:03pm.

    In all this discussion on the merits or otherwise of catering specifically for cyclists to have safe means of traversing central Dunedin, it seems that it is the safety which is being lost sight of. Surely, in a survey of recent cyclist fatalities in Dunedin, they have by far and away happened on the SH1 one ways. So why on earth do the authorities insist on staying on those routes? Is there no alternatives?
    Let’s look at this. The main trip of concern is from Normanby to the Oval. Start at Normanby on North Rd (not an arterial way) travel to the Gardens, then along [Great] King St to the Gardens side gate and onto the cycle/footpath, already existing, to Duke St, down to Castle or Leith Sts. Along to Dundas St and down to Forth St. Along Forth St to St Andrew St. Along Anzac Ave to the Railway Station. Along the station forecourt then onto railway land and proceed behind the Settlers museum and Chinese Garden, across Rattray St and along behind the Box Retail area to Andersons Bay Rd.
    Problems? Negotiations would be needed to obtain an easement through the railway land and a lane constructed to suit. Advantages: No fatalities on SH1, No parking to be forfeited. No alteration to the landscaping. Face it, all those mature trees along both route are very efficient ‘carbon sinks’ and one would expect cyclists to appreciate the value of those. From this route it would not take too much planning to tie it in with the N W Harbour to Port Chalmers trail, again obviating needing to go onto SH1 or 88. It also connects nicely with the University complex. A cycle park could be established in the Station vicinity, with a short walk to the CBD.
    Win win I would think. Disadvantages: Frankly I can’t think of any, but I am sure there will be.
    http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/281449/cycleways-and-parking-issues#comment-50047

    At the What if? Dunedin website, Anonymous replies to Calvin Oaten’s suggestion:

    Anonymous November 17, 2013 at 6:04 pm
    Normanby to Gardens on existing cycleway, check.
    Through Botanic Gardens on new cyclepath – DCC initiative.
    Exit at Leith St, connect to new cyclepath through University – Otago Uni initiative.
    Exit at Albany St, proceed to Anzac Ave on existing cycle lane.
    Connect through Railway Station to existing cycle lane.
    Arrive adjacent to Oval in mint condition.
    https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/dunedin-cycleways-calvin-oatens-alternative-route/#comment-42624

    I fully support the ideas of Calvin Oaten and Anonymous, for further exploration by DCC within the appropriate Long-term Council Community Plan (LTCCP) processes.

    I suggest NZTA does NOT provide the proposed cycle way(s) we have been asked to give feedback on, or provide associated funding. NZTA can then campaign for more important roading/safety projects via national budgets.

    SH1 should be kept free of cyclists.

    I’m an ex Dunedin cyclist (university commuting) – I always took quieter streets and my travel in the city was perfectly fine (I now live very centrally, I don’t own a car by choice, I’m a pedestrian for fitness reasons, and make occasional use of buses and taxis each month). I see few cyclists in the CBD; but note the extent of parked cycles outside the Medical School on Great King Street; the main Tertiary Campus is no longer bike friendly – it needs to become so; in recent years there appears to have been an increase of cycling in North Road, North East Valley (see influence of the university for housing and accommodation on an already mixed neighbourhood; non separated cycle lanes are working).

    Further to Calvin Oaten’s suggestion, it is entirely feasible for the university to implement a two-directional (north-south) cycle lane on the Tertiary Campus; as it is for the DCC to introduce a cycle lane to the Botanic Gardens; south of Dunedin Railway Station it’s feasible to use railway land (via easement) for a cycle lane, to eventually link into quieter streets further south in the city.

    Lastly, being surveyed/invited by NZTA to provide feedback without an independent cost benefit analysis being made publicly available at this stage tells me that adverse effects are likely to be more than minor for each of the two proposed cycleway options … and that the adverse effects for each are being improperly politically ‘minimised’. Further, possible mitigations are not identified, costed or adequately accounted for – one-off and ongoing associated costs are likely to fall on DCC ratepayers, and these may be substantial.

    Without this information NZTA and DCC (together) are whistling in the wind at the same time they’re treating Citizens and Community with ignore and disdain.

    I believe any agency, such as NZTA, being feted by DCC or any other council in New Zealand should take heed of the following advice – in the interests of good governance, fiduciary responsibility, conservative management, natural justice and the public good where council business is concerned (keeping your partners honest…).

    This week the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) released a report on Kaipara District Council. Lawrence Yule, chief executive of Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), in a letter to Mayors, Chairs and Chief Executives (dated 3 December 2013) says:

    “The 400 plus page report (and summary report) is a sobering read.”
    “In summary, the Council’s management exhibited a lack of basic financial and project management expertise and little acknowledgement of relevant risks. Kaipara’s councillors also failed to assume governance responsibility for the project, assess its risks and ask the appropriate questions.”

    Full Report http://lgnz.cmail2.com/t/i-l-ahdydt-ullktjn-i/
    Summary Report http://lgnz.cmail2.com/t/i-l-ahdydt-ullktjn-d/

    [the following ends Mr Yule’s letter]
    “OAG’s advice to public entities on lesson learnt:

    Accountability
    ● Public entities should be meticulous about legality
    ● Good record-keeping is the foundation of effective accountability
    ● Workshops can supplement formal Council meetings, but not replace them
    ● Contractors need to be tied into public sector accountability mechanisms

    Governance
    ● Understand the role and stick to it
    ● Common sense is a legitimate governance tool
    ● Understand what you need assurance on and where you will get it from
    ● Audit committees can provide useful support

    Management
    ● There are limits to contracting out
    ● It is important to maintain appropriate financial management capacity and capability and to stick to your sphere of competence
    ● Project governance and management is important

    PPP arrangements

    ● Do not underestimate what is involved in a PPP arrangement
    ● Accounting should not drive the decision to enter into a PPP
    ● Transfer of risk is not an end in itself
    ● PPPs are unlikely to succeed fully if the contract is not for “the complete package””

    .

    I’m not against cycle lanes, per se.

    I oppose NZTA’s two cycleway options.

    I’m prepared to elaborate on these lightly sketched views in future consultation and hearing processes.

    Elizabeth Kerr, Dunedin resident

    [ends]

  5. Bravo! Elizabeth. An excellent submission that encompasses all that’s wrong on the subject of SH1 cycleways. Not one single point can be disputed, except perhaps the one about ‘elected representatives’ responsibilities’. But then that has never been up for discussion has it?

  6. Anonymous

    Sarah Connor?

  7. cuteurbangirl; I rest my case. People like you need to be protected from escapades like cycling on SH1 for your own preservation. But seriously, did you – or could you – actually read the full implications of what is being stated here on this subject. Show anywhere that it is against cycling per se’ ? It is only concerned with the health and safety of those who wish to do so, as it is patently obvious that most who do haven’t considered that factor. It is a selfish small minded attitude to put the blame onto the populace at large, and is indicative of a generation of ‘spoilt brats’, and you seemingly are one of them. Just grow up, it might be a whole new experience.

  8. Maz

    Like the new Facebook page “Stop the Proposed Cycle Lanes”

  9. In town this evening a group of Santas on Cycles passed me on George Street. A bad omen of More Fool Cull’s cycle lanes project about to steal from taxpayers and ratepayers.

    How dare mayor Cull claim in the newspaper that “Almost all the expenditure planned will be by the NZ Transport Agency.”

    The cost to DCC ratepayers has simply NOT been calculated – there is no Cost Benefit Analysis for the Dunedin public to examine. Cull’s a stupid little man.

    Clipping supplied. ODT 19.12.13 (page 18)

    ODT 19.12.13 Letter to the editor (page 18)

  10. Hello Dave,
    I have been reading the article “Sharing the Road” by Shane Gilchrist in Saturday’s ODT, and was particularly interested in your comments. You point out the reason why council began this process in the first place: “It’s about safety on Dunedin’s one-way system.” “Council, in collaboration with the NZTA, is both resolved and obligated to make our one-way street system safer. That’s what we asked NZTA to do after the last death. “Let’s be clear: It is the NZTA’s responsibility to make state highways safer.” A very laudable position, but is the seeming solution necessarily the right one?

    To me it is a philosophical question: If it is purely about safety and preservation of life then surely cyclists on the one-way would be wrong. History has proven that. If it is about ‘freedom of choice’ then it would be a matter for responsible persons or parents to weigh up the situation then opt for a choice, it being on their own heads. Either way, nothing would need to be done to alter the status quo. I would have no problem with that.

    Then there is the matter of alternatives. This raises the question: If there is to be provision by society to accommodate cyclists in a less hazardous environment, why would it not be better to provide that off the one-way system? You made the comment that Teresa Stevenson’s and my “quiet streets” option, a meandering route, incorporating north-end streets such as Castle, Leith, Dundas, Clyde, and among others is out of the question, being a bit of a “red herring”. It ignores my suggestion of moving onto railway land, plus the simple connection possibilities to the north west harbour trail. All off main arterial routes, the source of danger.

    You then state, “the principal idea of a transportation system is to get people to where they want to go.” That immediately negates your first argument that it was all about safety. Which is it to be? If the alternative “quiet streets” facility was provided, but the people left with their freedom of choice, then it could be argued that society has done its job and any unintended consequences would lie squarely on the individual. Isn’t that what democracies are all about? To simply dismiss counter arguments as “red herrings” without meaningful consideration is disingenuous and “trite”.

    The matter of parking loss, inconvenience and costs of possible replacements is very definitely not a “red herring”. Nor is the loss of valuable landscape with “carbon sink trees”. But most of all, retention of cycling on the one-ways – albeit modified – will not stop the intermittent fatalities. They will, in the ‘laws of probability’ still occur.

    Then there is the matter of preferential catering for a minority by the society as a whole. Is it fair and reasonable that large sums of citizen’s treasure should be spent to fulfill the wishes of a few? Is it right that council should commit to these expenses when the official ROS on citizens’ preferred means of transport between home, work or school indicates just 3% would choose cycling? Your claim that “there is a huge latent demand for better cycling facilities in our community” is anecdotal at best, and at worst downright wrong. It is patently obvious that there are underlying motives being promoted in this whole debate and that again, is not democratic. As responsible administrators, mayors and councillors have to be clear in their own minds that they are taking an open, holistic approach to the subject and not be impressed by preferential biases.

    Dave, I ask only that this issue be fairly debated all round before committing.

    Cheers,
    Calvin Oaten

  11. “WELL DONE SPOKES!” a masterful campaign, and you have taken the day. It is now only a matter of the DCC rubber stamping the scheme. NZTA conducted a four-week consultation in which people were asked if they would use the cycle lane, whether it should be one- directional or two way, and what other issues they had. Result; 2,000 submissions, including 1.500 who made their views known via cycling advocate group ‘Spokes’. WHAT!!??? How can that be taken as a cross public consultation result? That is a the biggest “gerrymander” since Pearl Harbour!

    If the mayor and city councillors take that as an instruction from the public at large then they are all up for committal. But then we knew that this was going to happen right from the start, as Jinty macTavish and Dave Cull either enlisted ‘Spokes’ at the outset, or the reverse was the case, or alternatively, they are both card-carrying ‘Spokes’ people in their own right. Gone are any considerations of the rights of others in one ‘shonky’ move, and Cull will spout that the mandate is clear. Any other issues are simply ‘red herrings’.

    The fact that NZTA will reputably pick up most of the costs, ignores the not inconsiderable costs to the citizens with inconvenience at loss of parking facilities (particularly in the hospital precinct), there is the upset of businesses plus the costs of providing replacement parking, albeit not near the hospital. All this will represents many thousands, if not millions of dollars to implement.

    If, at the outset the NZTA, headed in this area by Jim Harland (say no more) had simply said, “Go away, SH1 is not a safe route for cyclists, and we are duty bound, for a main arterial route to give all priority to the smooth transition of motoring traffic in the simplest and safest manner possible. Therefore we say that cycling belongs on secondary routes, both in the overall interests of the public, but more importantly, in the interests of the cyclist’s own personal safety.” Therefore the NZTA declines to permit the development of this plan as proposed.

    That would have been the right thing at the outset and ‘Spokes’ and others would have begrudgingly accepted that and got on with alternative “red herrings”. But no, the NZTA designated man Simon Underwood is going along with it and presently we see the efforts at providing for the cyclists. It is patently obvious, even now that this is going to guarantee further deaths down the line. It is only a matter of time, and it will happen. The law of probability dictates that. It is not as if there was no alternatives. For goodness sake, there have been numerous suggestions, all of which were eminently feasible to implement. But no, when we are dominated by a mayor and councillors with ‘tunnel vision’ and a total unwillingness to consider any ideas but their own this is the result.

    This whole thing is the result of a very determined minority, a pathetic NZTA bureaucracy, and two very determined elected officers of the people. Time will show the costs, both in material and physical lives of this hugely unpopular decision.

  12. Hype O'Thermia

    The cycle lane project is like other intra-city transport thinking, based on masses going to mass destinations. In the days of the big factories with hundreds of employees working the same hours there was sense in that. People came from their suburbs to relatively few destinations then left at 4.30 or 5pm to go home. In the days of trams, commuter trains and buses this made sense for planning. Today with small work-forces working non-standard hours, public transport is difficult, especially in a sparsely populated city where the private car is affordable by so many. Now we see the “desirable” cycling route is the one-ways used by motorist commuters (because it’s quickest for the portion of their journey that goes through part of town) plus through-traffic making their way between north, south, Central Otago, and Port Chalmers.

    But where are the cyclists coming from, and going to? A cycle route that is “round about” for one person is closest to destination for another. Without investigation of cyclists’ purpose – where they are going – the one-ways are best for those going through town but not necessarily for those going to polytech, Logan Park HS, the hospital and the university. Between those places and South Dunedin and beyond, the one-ways are the best choice? I don’t think so.

    This process has been hastily carried out for political reasons, where pressure groups meet desperation for goodnews greeny-cred. No alterations in transport systems should be undertaken without ascertaining where the prospective users want to get to.

  13. More cost (staff time etc) to DCC ratepayers for this ill-advised minority-serving vote-catching make-work scheme. Giving lie to Liability Cull’s claim the costs will be on NZTA – simpleton for mayor. Heavy hitter businesses and other entities {46] stepping up. Biffo for the SPOKES crew.

    ### ODT Online Sat, 21 Dec 2013
    Cycle lane impact to be analysed
    By Debbie Porteous
    The Dunedin City Council is to analyse parking use along the central Dunedin stretch of State Highway 1 proposed for a separated cycle facility, and investigate alternative parking options.
    Read more

  14. Down to earth letter from affected resident Donna Smith.

    ODT 6.5.14 Letter to the editor (page 6)ODT 6.5.14 (page 6) [click to enlarge]

    The whole network – which is to cost about $4.5 million, with NZTA covering $3 million of that cost and DCC paying $1.5 million – is expected to be in place by July next year.

    ### ODT Online Sat, 19 Apr 2014
    Musselburgh gets a cycle lane
    By Debbie Porteous
    A separated cycle lane is to be installed on the north side of Musselburgh Rise through the Musselburgh shopping area, as part of the South Dunedin cycle network. The final design of the lane was decided last week, following consultation with affected property owners. The lane will be installed as part of the third construction stage of the cycle network, in early to mid-2015.
    Read more

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s