A response to Sheryl Mai's "nice to haves."
In the Whangarei report - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - Page 7 - the mayor explicitly categorises the cycle lanes in the LTP as being "nice to haves."
Whilst I am extremely pleased that the LTP includes this level of cycle infrastructure, I certainly oppose the idea that they are "nice to haves" - from my own anecdotal research involving many of our local people who use bicycles as a primary form of transport, and through leading examples elsewhere in the world of them being classed as primary infrastructure.
Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on a series of individually submitted letters to the editor to thank the council for their cycleways work in the LTP; an invitation to speak to residents+bike riders about the design and implementation of the cycleways; and a little suggestion that they are not "nice to haves" and are vitally important primary transport routes for many, at the same level of consideration as (automobile) roads.
Jeremy Busck Sat 4 Jul 2015 11:45PM
I agree with Ash & Paul, safe passage for cyclists & pedestrians should be an essential part of the Districts infrastucture. Anything less suggests that Council is retarded in its thinking.This thinking places NZ in a 3rd world category, why can't we learn from an advanced country like Denmark where cyclist are well catered for and respected, if a motorist hits a cyclist or
a pedestrian they are guilty until proven innocent, this rule makes motorist
appreciate that cyclists are equal
partners in road use.
Jeremy Busck Sun 5 Jul 2015 12:09AM
With regards to the Onerahi foreshore dicussions at yesterdays meeting. May I respectfully suggest we submit Great big, hairy, audacious ideas, we are only
limited by our imagination.
We should not be imprisoned in our thoughts by treating the pohutukawas as Gods & sacred.If you havenoted the success of the Hatea Loop,A board walk
around the foreshore would be an even greater success and yes access to the foreshore can be included in its design.
I like Murray Tancred's idea of laying claim to the railways land and developing it and don't be hamstrung by the thought of having to cross the road to get to the next section of cycleway.
Dream high, Aim high, be prepared to make dramatic changes to the existing set up, after all landscapers & road makers etc makes changes to the landscape years after their first effort.
Imagine the area if you were starting with a blank canvas and work from there.
Paul William Doherty · Thu 2 Jul 2015 8:24PM
I agree with you Ash.
Independent mobility for all is a "must have" - for citizens to be able to express their citizenship. Kids "must have" an environment where they can travel independently to school, shops, visit friends etc... A lot of other citizens do not have access to a motor vehicle for all sorts of reasons - and independent mobility for them is a "must have" too!
I understand that possibly we cannot afford all the cycle infrastructure we would like - so in the meantime there are some really cheap and easy things we can do....
30kph inner city speed limit
Car-free Sundays
Walking School Buses
Travel plans for DHB, WDC, schools to promote W\C
Bylaw to promote safe driving around pedestrians and cyclists (if you knew the vehicle you were driving would be impounded if you hit a ped or cyclist you might give them a little space?)
Independent mobility for those on the margins (kids, disabled, older persons) is a really good indicator of how caring we are as a community.
"Nice to have" or "must have"??