Comments on: What price for a cycleway?

By: Chrys H

Chrys H — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 07:12:02 +0000

In reply to Robert. Well said Robert! Thanks.

By: Rich

Rich — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 22:06:42 +0000

There’s no doubting that having to move from a treasured home and neighbourhood may be distressing for those involved. There should be no minimising that, but sometimes decisions have to be made in the interests of the greater good and the individual cost can’t be avoided. The key point is the lack of equivalent outrage at motorway demolitions which cause many more individual cases than these. These are seen as inevitable ‘progress’ which could be completely avoided in many cases with proper alternative transport – cycleways and rail. People seem to forget that every bike on a cycleway is a car off the road and is a tiny fraction of the cost of expanding road capacity.

It appears we are a city that has fully embraced the car and any alternative narratives are strongly resisted.

By: OrangeNemo

OrangeNemo — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 08:49:01 +0000

In reply to Eliot. That's not true of the Roker St property, it's probably 12 at best across the widest part. It's hard to see on the map because there are 2 units joined together and council is only interested in purchasing 1 at this stage.

By: OrangeNemo

OrangeNemo — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 08:45:39 +0000

In reply to Robert. That's fantastic.

By: Brendon Harre

Brendon Harre — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 03:54:18 +0000

Hi Glenn
There is some reference to city street space/design issues in this two-part housing affordability article I wrote here
https://medium.com/@brendon_harre/housing-affordability-2016-versus-1946-6453c3e137ee#.xvxjdq82o
https://medium.com/@brendon_harre/housing-affordability-2016-versus-1946-1d99c33122c0#.5b84zphbp

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 00:54:59 +0000

I think the real shame is that, in the midst of the fight about houses and car parks, the nicest proposed route has been overlooked. The solid green line on the map goes down wide, reasonably empty streets and through Barrington park – which would have been lovely. However, Wychbury st and Bletsoe ave would have required upgrades at the same time – making that route apparently less affordable. It seems like a false economy, those street will eventually need upgrading anyway (they have the old style drains) this would have been a good time to make a great improvement to two streets – adding trees etc – instead of removing trees along the proposed route and upsetting people with talk of knocking down houses and removing car parks outside businesses.

By: Tracy Clark

Tracy Clark — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 20:28:07 +0000

Well thought out discussion – oh how i wish the Press would publish the discussion as you have done – but, hey, that wouldn’t get their click-bait numbers up. It also is amazing to me how many people see car driving infrastructure as highly important but not interested in supporting cycling to the same level. And still so many suburbs could have put cycle ways through at the time of construction if only the council had just made it a necessity to leave a strip of land for that but they still don’t do it. I look at the suburbs like Prestons to Waitakiri and wonder why these can be traversed via a walk through – which means there is no access to bottle lake for walkers or cyclists directly – madness.

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 08:07:42 +0000

Extreme I know, but sometimes you need to make a stand.

Dear Madam

With regret, as of today our subscription is cancelled indefinitely. The back of the camel has broken. Your editorial of Friday 16th Dec has provoked an anger in me that I have not felt for a long time. Are you not aware that safety on the roads for people riding bikes is in part compromised by the anger that motorists exhibit. It is such opinion pieces published this morning that fuels that anger . I am not going to relate to you the long list of benefits to our city and the people and live in it if more people rode bikes because I am aware that you are an intelligent person and will know that already.

I will ask some questions however ;

Have you ever driven into a car park for a shopping mall and considered how many houses were removed so you could have the convenience of parking your vehicle and leaving it there free of charge for an hour or two?

Have you considered that every time you have driven down a widened road and enjoyed being able to travel faster than the 50kph speed limit that this was made possible because a nearby resident had forfeited their front garden, just for your privilege?

Have you enjoyed a free turn at a major intersection in our city and happened to notice that the houses on that intersection all seemed to have high fences and the sections were no longer square, with pleasant gardens and children play area long removed?

Did you consider those people when the notice of acquisition arrived in their letter box , and then write an editorial about how people should come before cars and road widening ?

I have had a long and interesting relationship with the Press over the years and will miss it.

I wish you well in your campaign for the continued asphalting of our beautiful city and the continued promotion of hatred towards those choose a transport option so as to reduce such damage, simply to be able sell a newspaper. It is no longer for me.

Kind regards

By: Gregor Ronald

Gregor Ronald — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 06:37:49 +0000

When I was 14, the Government bought our house to build a new police station for our town. My parents were well compensated, and we moved to a newer house a little further out of the CBD. That was in 1963. These things happen in cities, nothing stays the same for ever.

By: LennyBoy

LennyBoy — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 05:27:31 +0000

In reply to criggie. The construction project started in 2010, and I can't recall whether the house demolitions and overbridge embankment pre-loading was part of that or earlier. So it is likely to be late 2000s at the earliest.