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