Wellington Scoop
Network

E-Mail 'Three bad choices: why cycleways were withdrawn' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Three bad choices: why cycleways were withdrawn' to a friend

* Required Field






Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.


E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

12 comments:

  1. Michael Gibson, 15. June 2020, 8:21

    I congratulate Cr Condie on her engaging with Wellingtonians on this. But why wasn’t any Public Notice given to notify us about the meeting when you were “one of four councillors in the virtual room where that decision was made”?

     
  2. Andrew, 15. June 2020, 10:38

    The simple fact is that the WCC failed to protect its citizens during Levels 4 and 3.
    During a time when unknown community transmission within Wellington was highly likely, there was no action from the council to protect pedestrians by setting up temporary wider footpaths.
    I point specifically to the section of Oriental Parade which is currently undergoing widening. This portion of footpath should have been temporarily widened immediately. This is just the type of thing the government’s funding was for. At that time there was virtually no traffic but many local residents trying to keep appropriate distance. In fact the entire Oriental Parade area was particularly busy with pedestrians – a simple coning off of the parking spaces would have alleviated angst in that area also.
    This was not a situation which called for extensive consultation and procrastination, it was a situation which called for prompt actions from the council and the council failed us all in that respect.

     
  3. Chris Calvi-Freeman, 15. June 2020, 10:56

    I also congratulate Cr Condie on her engagement here. But there was a fourth option – to take the paper to the Committee (all councillors) and publicly disclose the potential risks of proceeding with the schemes (without necessarily breaking the legal privilege relating to the advice you received) and therefore recommending that the schemes be postponed BUT also making it clear that there was a strong intention to proceed with all of them sooner rather than later, as soon as and provided the consultation issues could be revisited or reanalyzed appropriately. Instead, we saw a backtracking on the council’s intention to build the schemes, followed a day or two later by a backtracking on the backtracking. If clarity had been provided at Thursday’s meeting, then your subsequent explanations and justifications wouldn’t have been necessary.

    Personally, I have faith that whatever virtue-signalling that might have been undertaken by one or two councillors would not have resulted in an unintended or legally-risky decision to immediately proceed against officers’ and portfolio-leaders’ advice.

    So, two lessons: 1. wherever possible, major issues and contentious projects are better discussed and decided by all councillors rather than a select few, and in public unless there are overwhelming and documented reasons for confidentiality.
    2. Cycleways will always be contentious, mainly due to loss of parking. Consultation must therefore be rigorous and leave no room for legal challenge whatsoever on the engagement process. I realise hindsight is a wonderful thing in this particular (COVID) situation, but nonetheless I believe my point is valid.

     
  4. Tom, 15. June 2020, 11:39

    Thank you Jenny, but I fear you’re getting comfortable sitting in an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. The flaw was using the Council’s normal process – get some engineers to choose some routes, try to use the traffic resolution consultation process, vote etc etc. The Government’s intent was to innovate in response to a pandemic. Instead, the WCC got the same old people to do the same old thing which produced the same old result. Unless you change the process, you’ll forever be posting on Scoop to explain why nothing is happening. Again. The Council must engage differently, collaboratively and transparently. Good luck!

     
  5. luke, 15. June 2020, 23:20

    As long as we continue to pander to the car, the city will remain unfriendly for pedestrians and cyclists. Subsidised ratepayer-provided on street parking is not the optimal use of the scarce resource that roads actually are. They are for movement, not storage.

     
  6. Don, 16. June 2020, 12:06

    My understanding is that taking away the parking spaces for the “pop up cycle ways,”would result in an annual revenue loss of $2 million for the WCC. Why is this significant amount of potential revenue loss not being made public or being part of the cycleway discussion?

     
  7. CC, 16. June 2020, 12:49

    Don – we would only have to have the 400 car parks for over 200 years if we used the revenue stream to pay for the Conference Centre – that is if there were no interest or other additional charges. At the same time, a decent public transport system, along with safe walk/cycle/scooter paths, would save the average vehicle owner about $10,000 per year if they ditched the car and used alternative modes. Most large new apartment blocks are being located in the CBD or serviced by transport spines and have minimal, if any parking. The days of city dwellers having to trade lifestyle for those who have suburban refuges are drawing to a close.

     
  8. Elaine Hampton, 16. June 2020, 15:16

    Jenny, I cannot believe four councillors sat in a virtual room to make this decision. It should have been worthy of full council engagement and now we are given this explanation: because someone may sue! Hope some one does, the toxic particulate matter and gases generated by vehicles create mortality and morbidity, (death and disease). Our children deserve better.
    PCGM reported on May 20th that parking fees and enforcement is 20% of the Council’s non-rates revenue of $148m. Are you sure this had nothing to do with the decision?

     
  9. John M, 16. June 2020, 20:59

    Isn’t it ironic, the anti car brigade have banged on for years “get motor cars out of the city … They are polluters, they are dreadful in so many ways, get rid of parks, bang up the parking charges etc etc.” Well, exciting times one and all, it appears your wish has come true! So many cars have gone, but goodness me, so have the people who rode in them. Now what do we hear: “come back”, “please come back”, “the city needs you.” “You’ve got to buy lunch in town, you’ve got to shop in Lambton Quay.” Sorry guys, have you seen the stats, they’re shopping in Porirua, in Petone, and in Hutt City. What a surprise!

     
  10. Vicki Greco, 17. June 2020, 7:55

    Cr Condie, it appears you have been misinformed about the island bay cycleway court case. The community had a very strong case and had they had the money to appeal would have won the appeal after all the chances of getting three cycling fanatical judges would have been slim. The council not knowing the community had run out of funds offered no costs if they didn’t appeal. Something they would not have done if they were confident. Finally no community should have to go to court to fight for democracy especially when the councils own submission process confirmed the communities own findings that over 80% of the community want the road put back. It was safe for all road users.

     
  11. Apteryx, 17. June 2020, 11:26

    Jenny. You say “What we did not expect was that the detailed guidance for Alert Level One would be changed to no longer require social distancing.” But the government’s description of Covid alert levels havs always stated that at level 1 physical distancing would be only “encouraged”, i.e. not required.

     
  12. Richard Keller, 24. June 2020, 17:09

    Luke has it right. Streets are for movement not parking. In any busy area, and growing area, like Greta Point, parking on the street is low priority. Parking can be provided in other ways. By any other name, what we see here is another example of the palpable fear of what we all know it will take to address climate change.