Letters To Editor: Cycle-lane not being kept clean

Cycle-lane not being kept clean
A few weeks ago I emailed the Hastings District Council with some comments about the state of the cycle-lane along Havelock Rd, and particularly the end closer to Havelock Bridge. A few days later I had a visit from the appropriate manager, who explained at length how the cycleway maintenance was managed. He assured me that, in particular, the sections along Havelock Rd were swept by a contractor three times a week, on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
Well, it isn't working! I cycle this route frequently and I have been observing more closely. Among the usual spread of loose stones and other rubbish, there is broken glass between St Andrews Rd and the bridge, on both sides, that has been there at least a week. This should have been swept three times. It hasn't.
Today I cycled along Te Mata Rd, and Omahu Rd too. The cycle-lane along Te Mata Rd is also littered with loose stones, and rubbish from unfinished road repairs that is not cleaned away.
The cycle-lane along Omahu Rd is well executed. The asphalt surface is smooth [because the subsurface is well prepared], the lane is wide and well marked, but the treatment at the roundabouts would be far better if the marked lane continued on the sealed carriageway rather than diverting, cross country, on the concrete track.
However, the state of the Omahu lanes was absolutely appalling. There were so many loose stones and other rubbish that it was better to avoid the lane and cycle on the carriageway. Interestingly there was virtually no detritus on the carriageway itself, so one might assume that vehicles eventually spray it all to the sides. But since there was none left on the carriageway, wouldn't it be a good idea to sweep the cycle-lane and parking lane from time to time to get rid of the problem?
It's these small sharp stones that give cyclists the most grief. Tiny stones get imbedded in tyres and gnaw away with each revolution until they puncture the tube.
I wonder, if these cycle-lanes are swept three times a week, are they ever inspected to check that the contractor is actually doing a decent job? Or even doing it at all?
Brian Anderson, Havelock North
Let's use rail link
Congratulations to the Hawke's Bay Rail Action Group for convening last week's well-attended meeting on the Napier-Gisborne rail line.
Chris Tremain MP explained that there has been significant recent expenditure on maintaining the line. It follows that the line now needs greater use, or the money will simply have been wasted.
Greens spokesman Gareth Hughes MP noted that 70 per cent of Kiwis support more expenditure on rail, and both he and Stuart Nash MP underlined the strategic importance of this infrastructure for the future of the Bay.
Common sense says that the rail is an essential link between Napier and Gisborne. Road damage by trucks is huge. As oil prices continue their rise, the greater energy efficiency and economic advantages of rail will become more and more important.
Strangely the only notes of reticence at the meeting came from KiwiRail, precisely the body which ought to be out there with sleeves rolled up fighting for the greater use of rail.
It views our line as "minor". But not one of the other so-called "minor" lines has the proven future potential of ours. None of them link two such substantial centres as Hastings/Napier (the fifth conurbation in the country) and Gisborne. None of them link two ports. None of them have the same potential for traffic in timber, tourism, fertiliser and farm products.
KiwiRail needs to stop hanging back, consciously reverse the rail neglect of recent years, and go all out to develop its market through staff and new rolling stock on the ground in Hawke's Bay. Its current passive negativity is not acceptable.
Robin Gwynn, Napier
ACC's situation
W Hicks asks why some ACC levies were raised last year, given that ACC has $16 billion in reserve (letters, 28 April).
ACC does indeed have $16 billion of assets held in reserve, but these have to fund the future costs we know we will have to pay for people with existing claims.
The reserves are thus only part of the equation.
After a long period during which costs rose, but levy income failed to keep pace with rising costs, the ACC scheme's liabilities exceeded its reserves by $12.8 billion in 2009. This put at risk our ability to meet future claims costs, so we began a course of action to improve ACC's financial situation. As a result, last year the gap between our reserves and liabilities was reduced to $10.3 billion.
Levy increases were one way we addressed the gap, though our main focus has been improving rehabilitation rates, since the faster people can get off ACC and back to their normal lives, the less cost for the scheme.
The good news is, the gap is continuing to close. But our focus remains eliminating it entirely, as only then can New Zealanders have certainty about the ACC Scheme's future.
Peter Robertson, GM Scheme Performance ACC
Park fails to flourish
A gentle remainder of the history behind Landmarks Park.
Several years ago Hastings had a sports park called Nelson Park, located in central Hastings. The council wanted to sell this park and build a shopping mall on the site. A small group of people brought this to the attention of Hastings in general.
This resulted in a referendum being undertaken. In the promotion of the council's desires and at the expense of the ratepayer the council had published several leaflets etc that purported to show Hastings CBD and its people the benefits of the sale and redevelopment of Nelson Park.
They showed us impressions of how grand the new mall would look with a new super-sized Warehouse as its anchor tenant and several other, new to Hastings, retailers.
To date the only large format retailer to move on to the park is Mitre 10, who is moving from its already substantial building a few hundred yards away.
They also indicated they would build several small parks around Hastings to compensate, you might say, for the loss of Nelson Park.
If it had not been for the few who brought the Nelson Park fiasco to the attention of the general public we probably would not have this small park.
In view of this why not call it Nelson Park and reflect on the history behind it -instead of Landmark Park (after the landmarks committee) that had little or nothing to do with it?
I wonder how many years we will have to wait for the council to keep its word and build the rest of these small parks and how long we will have to wait for some new large format retail to come to Hastings.
Shaun Owen, Hastings