Island Life: Still not over it
132 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
They're on the Auckland city council!
Their number one priority in life is to get re-elected.
Cyclists don't vote do they?
Allowing anything other than cars on the bridge requires imagination and vision and that doesn't get you re-elected.
-
Cyclists do have votes but do they pay road tax
That said it seems a no brainer to improve cyclist's options because it would leave the roads with less cars on them and give the car/SUV drivers more targets
-
+1
I just spent a few months in a cycle friendly city and it was magic. I could cycle into town beside (but not on) the main highway south/west. This main cycle lane was used by huge amount of people getting to work and for recreation/training on the weekends. It was something like having a small dedicated cycle road from downtown Auckland down to Manukau or up to Orewa. NZ really needs to get with the program.
-
Cyclists do have votes but do they pay road tax
I imagine they dont, I mean everyone that is a cyclist is prevented from owning a car or paying PAYE tax because they quite clearly must be lawless hippy types that shun the system.
-
God this is frustrating. No matter who I vote for in the council, we still keep getting the same old short sighted stupid shit decisions.
Oh well, keep spending billions on more roads, so we can squeeze on more cars, so we can waste more money on fuel, and pollute the air, and exacerbate climate change, and get fatter and lazier and angrier at those damn hippie cyclists...
fuck it, i'm moving to hamilton (or something)
-
There seems to be an attitude amoung Auckland City Council staff/politicians that because the Harbour Bridge is used mostly by North Shore resident commuters it is standard practice to avoid footing the bill for any possible improvements.
-
Even Kevin Costner would better manage Auckland ("if you build it...").
Say what you like about Canberra but it does have plenty of bike paths. Recently we actually had a 'Give Way' sign erected on our street where a bike path crosses (the very convenient bike path that goes directly to my work!). Speaking of work I'd better go.
-
Thing is, the council has already been down this cycle on the brdge before and got burned - i guess they are thinking fool me twice shame on me.
Many years ago the same cry was made, cyclists need access to the bridge, build a cycleway and we will come.
The council were not sure but gave it a go. However instead of building the cycleway they offered a bus/van service which picked up the cyclists on one side and deposited them on the other.
And how many people used this service?
sweet f a. And i mean *seriously* sweet f a.
The demand was imagined. The council put up, the cyclists shut up.
There was some estimate of the cost_of_cycle_lane / number of cyclists who used the service and it worked out to be like winning golden kiwi or something.
Dont get me wrong, i love public transport and cycling etc, I havnt driven to work for 10 years and use public transport every working day. But is a reality check needed in this instance?
-
God this is frustrating. No matter who I vote for in the council, we still keep getting the same old short sighted stupid shit decisions.
There used to be a nice piece of graffiti (Aro Street, if memory serves) which said:
"Don't vote, governments always win."
-
It seems to me that making cyclists free and extending the hours and services on the harbour ferries would probably make more sense, as far as benefit per dollar goes.
What is needed are Governments (local and national) that see cycling as a top priority, and making cities about the safe and enjoyable place for people to move freely in, rather than a place for cars to move in.
We also need to get away from the discourse of danger that surrounds cycling, promoted by self interested helmet manufacturers* and lazy politicians who would rather pass the buck over cycle infrastructure and making the roads safer for cyclists.
*no, helmets do not make things safer for cyclists - in every country where compulsory helmet laws have been introduced head injury rates have remained as they were or decreased slightly, while the number of kilometres cycled has dropped dramatically. And no, that broken helmet did not save your life, and you haven't been told about rotational injuries by helmet advocates either
-
The council were not sure but gave it a go. However instead of building the cycleway they offered a bus/van service which picked up the cyclists on one side and deposited them on the other.
And how many people used this service?
sweet f a. And i mean *seriously* sweet f a.
God, I know I wouldn't be complaining about a complete lack of infrastructure if <i>I</i> was offered the chance of waiting for a poky little van to carry me through gridlock traffic over a 1km stretch of road. I'd be lapping that shit up and calling it icecream, just to show my undying gratitude for scraps from the council table.
Sheesh.
-
However instead of building the cycleway they offered a bus/van service which picked up the cyclists on one side and deposited them on the other.
So the cyclist who has picked an __autonomous __and intrinsicly rewarding form or transport gets to wait for a van.
I'm sure had they wanted to catch a quaxing bus they would have.
These people really really don't get it.
-
Say what you like about Canberra but it does have plenty of bike paths.
This city rests on a reputation established by things that were done in the 1970s. It means that politicians who do nothing can pat themselves on the vack. It is a city of the car.
-
PAS hivemind...
-
I feel like a link whore, but this is what I show politicians (cycle converts, agnostics and non-believers alike), when I want to present them with an idea of just how beautiful things can be.
-
So the cyclist who has picked an autonomous and intrinsicly rewarding form or transport gets to wait for a van.
I'm sure had they wanted to catch a quaxing bus they would have.
These people really really don't get it.
It was a dedicated van thing with big open area inside for the bikes and the turnaround time was very short, all it had to do was pick them up on one side and deposit them on the other, and then quickly head back again.
Its not so much that people dont get it, its that the suggested rampant demand fell so amazingly far short it lends itself to suspicion that the provision of a service to get bikes over the bridge simply wont be used at a level to justify the expenditure.
Yes you may be right that some cyclists didnt want to wait around for the short time it took for their dedicated bus to pick them up and its not autonomous and its not etc etc. However I find it difficult to believe that the number of cyclists who were prepared to use this van and did was so massively small cf the proportion who would have used the cycle lane and not the van. ie i just dont think the numbers stacked up.
The request may be good intentioned, but public bodies need to allocate scarce resources effectively and efficiently, and this project has an existing track record which puts it clearly in the "high risk of squandered money" category
-
It seems to me that making cyclists free and extending the hours and services on the harbour ferries would probably make more sense, as far as benefit per dollar goes.
That would be good, but really only service the leafy 'burbs of Devonport. The lane over the bridge would surely have a far greater catchment area. You would also need some pretty good access too that lane. I have no idea what it was like at the time of the van idea but that might have been enough to stop folks turning up because...
New Zealand is not a country that cares much for cyclists.
Seriously, try cycle touring round the place to see how fcuked our drivers are with respect to cyclists.
-
If you could walk from one side of the Auckland harbour bridge to the other, would you not ever take your family on the walk some sunny Sunday?
When I lived in Auckland, I used to go for weekend walks. One day I ended up at the marina by the city side of the bridge and I wanted to keep going and walk over the bridge. I could have gone to the Bridgeway and seen a movie or had a coffee at that cool cafe there. But no.
I don't have any experience with cycling, but I know Auckland isn't always the nicest city to walk in. Some of that is to do with geography, but mostly it's due to some council at some stage being dumb and lacking vision.
Living in the wonderfully walkable city that is Wellington, I've realised that it's not really all that hard to make a city walkable. Walking might not fit into the glamorous "world-class" city wet dream that fuels Auckland's self-image but walking is what people do.
-
The council were not sure but gave it a go. However instead of building the cycleway they offered a bus/van service which picked up the cyclists on one side and deposited them on the other.
Not quite the same... that's like comparing a road bridge with a car ferry.
It would be so nice to have a council with some vision (a la Wellington). How's that local government reform thing coming along?
-
It seems to me that making cyclists free and extending the hours and services on the harbour ferries would probably make more sense, as far as benefit per dollar goes.
That would be good, but really only service the leafy 'burbs of Devonport
Fullers ferries currently sail from Bayswater, Devo, Birkenhead, Northcote point, Half Moon Bay & Stanley Bay
I take the 8am Birkenhead ferry every day and on my trip we get approx 5-10 cyclists.
-
Raymond asked:
Cyclists do have votes but do they pay road tax
Pedestrians cross roads without necessarily paying road tax either I guess.
Footpaths and (I think) cycleways are paid for from other sources.
And to a certain extent, when someone cycles, walks or catches public transport instead of driving, they make driving more viable for those who continue to do so. Thus they get more for their road tax?
-
On another note, I have cycled across the Golden Gate Bridge. It was fucking mayhem (not due to the notoriously unpredictable weather, but an over-abundance of aggressive American cyclists out for a race). I would never do it again.
-
God, I know I wouldn't be complaining about a complete lack of infrastructure if <i>I</i> was offered the chance of waiting for a poky little van to carry me through gridlock traffic over a 1km stretch of road. I'd be lapping that shit up and calling it icecream, just to show my undying gratitude for scraps from the council table.
Sheesh.
Well, not only would you not be doing that, as you are in Morningside you quite possibly would also not be using the cycle lanes on the bridge.
Thats one less number on the denominator of the cost/user, and this is one seriously big expense here, and thats the problem.
They are worried that the 'build it and they will come' idea may not apply given history.
At the time of the van option the crew lobbying for it trumpeted it as a huge success and started pushing for more vans to be offered as they guaranteed they would be all full up from day one. Turns out they were wrong. So its not a stretch to think the current lobbiest *could* be wrong too [as oposed to everyone else just not getting it]
-
Whatever happens, I want a city that takes cycling from the cyclists (spandex wearers) and gives it back to the people (wearing normal clothes and going at a reasonable pace).
-
Cyclists do have votes but do they pay road tax
Of course. Like most commuting cyclists, I own a car too.
But anyway, my bicycle damages the road hardly at all compared to a heavier vehicle, and requires far less area.
Trucks smash the road up real fast, and are de facto subsidised by other users. If I, as a cyclist, were to receive a true accounting based on costs of providing roading, I'd get a hefty check, while the trucking companies would go broke.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.