That’s what I think to. Unless the project is a cycling project anyways, there is little attention that is being paid to the development of a cycling network that encourages a shift in transport habits. Just some random infrastructure that doesn’t link up or is as good as it could be if user voices were heard.

Agreed on Victoria St vs “CBD”. Since the city promenade opened, I shifted my commute to go along Oxford Terrace in the afternoons, and Cashel St/Oxford Tce are always lively and keep getting busier; I am still annoyed about the Peebles submissions to the High St redesign, but I can’t wait to be able to do my grocery shopping in the market on my way home with my bike instead of having to go to the grocery store in a mall. Victoria Street, although closer to where I live (and also on a potential commute route), I can count on one hand the number of times I have been there. There is nothing that invites me to that street, and nothing in the redesign that will do that.

“but it’s a walk in a pure pedestrian area, and that is what is attractive about it “.

So so true….. walking in the CBD is becoming more and more attractive too and it feels as though there are more and more people doing it. This is why I have written off areas like Victoria Street as being a place to feel relaxed around and opening up the wallet. Much more confident about the CBD though. As Sara said chipping away at it will achieve baby steps; small wins add up to good progress eventually. 40 years plus in some countries that we eye up enviously. It would be sad and expensive however if High Street needs a revisit in a short number of years simply because of lack of foresight by those who we empower to make decisions for our future.

Big thanks to you and all the others at Council working so hard to make our communities worth living in.

Disappointing that the Community Board rejects safety in favor of political expediency.

I had thought the piece ended on a positive note with encouragement to get involved. That things are the way they are is why many more of us need to give a little of our time to make life better. It is not that hard and the rewards can be great.

Thank you for your comments.

The inertia of decades of submissions calling for better cycle infrastructure has definitely resulted in Council waking up to their responsibility. While submissions from people who cycle have not resulted in major changes there have been some wins, mainly when the problems identified were blatant and easily dealt with.
The problem I have attempted to focus on is that Council remains stuck in car centric planning, fails to engage with people who cycle while actively pandering to certain elite interests. As you note on Cranford st. this produces unsafe infrastructure which will not attract interested but concerned riders and locks people into car dependency.

The preferred plan envisions 31 parking spots between Tuam St and Cashel St on High St. People on bicycles will partially be directed in a strip between parked cars and the tram tracks between Lichfield and Tuam St, meaning that in case a door gets opened, people will have a choice between slamming into an opened door or getting their wheel stuck in tram tracks. It is hard to characterise that section of High St as being an anti-parking/pro-cycling scheme. I know you cycle to work every day, but that doesn’t mean that your needs for a safe infrastructure are the same as every other person who has the ability to use active transport if only that would have the same level of incentives as driving has.
Further, the simple fact is that the split between people wanting the area to have less parking and those wanting more parking was almost even, and yet staff only prepared a pro-parking option.
Finally my usual remark: people go on about the convenient parking in malls. From the second level of the parking on Northlands to the movie theatre, it’s a walk of over 500m, but it’s a walk in a pure pedestrian area, and that is what is attractive about it.

Thank you for your information. The minutes of the 15.8 meeting are not up on the Council’s site. Hopefully some good bits will be delivered.

I really appreciate that you clarify that staff were complicit in helping out the landlords. I take it David East was the Councillor?