Infrastructure deficits

It is worth noting that the street on which the film for the article Breakin’ the law was taken is part of the main route from the eastern suburbs to the city and beyond. It should therefore, as a matter of logic, cater for all users.

It is my contention that cycle lanes etc ought generally to be incorporated into main routes; cyclists, like every other commuter, want to go from A to B in the shortest time possible. Sending bikes on the longer scenic routes or not catering for bikes at all is thoughtless and inconsiderate traffic planning.

I recognise that there are sometimes legacy issues that restrict flexibility in infrastructure – many of our streets were originally tram lines and not designed to cater even for the width two cars require. Nevertheless, sometimes all that is required is a bit of outside-the-box thinking – including allowing bikes on the footpath where necessary.

Clever thinking is something I’d like to see more of around here. Yes, smart solutions can cost money. But it’s still cheaper than building more roads for more cars.

By Sergi Larripa (User:SergiL) (Own work) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], via Wikimedia Commons
Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Infrastructure deficits

  1. atom

    “It is worth noting that the street on which the film for the article Breakin’ the law was taken is part of the main route from the eastern suburbs to the city and beyond. It should therefore, as a matter of logic, cater for all users.” – be careful what you wish for. this is part of NZTA’s planned “improvements”. while i’d like to see adequate bicycle/pedestrian access through that area, i’d also like to _not_ see a 4 lane motorway separating hataitai from the park and kilbirnie.

    as we’re seeing around the world, outside the box thinking to encourage cycling/walking/PT isn’t just cheaper in the short term and “cost” analysis, it *also* pays back over time much better in a “cost/benefit” analysis, as compared to “more roads for more cars”.

    it’s funny though… despite the “cost” and “cost/benefit” favoring cycling/walking/PT by a large factor, there’s not much support for razing houses along ruahnie st to “just” build that type of infrastructure. the primary use has to be a motorway (with a cost benefit ratio that might, optimistically, reach 1:1) or else it just seems like a lunatic fringe project for hippies and tree-huggers. the lunatics are running the asylum.

    Like

    1. From what I’ve read (which is a lot), increased cycle infrastructure reduces the demand for car infrastructure. It seems less likely that a 4-lane motorway would be required through that area if sufficient cycle infrastructure was in place.

      With at least three schools along that route it’s a good candidate for this being the case.

      Like

Your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s