Letters: Raised pedestrian crossing costs; recycling rule changes; Wayne Brown should take control

Auckland Transport spent $490,000 for a new raised pedestrian crossing in Williamson Ave, Grey Lynn. Photo / Jason Oxenham

Who decides where raised crossings go?

Who decides on when and where a $400,000 raised crossing is justified (NZ Herald, Jan 25)?

A few years ago I asked Auckland Transport for a crossing to be constructed (or painted) at a T-bar crossing in the eastern suburbs. They came out to investigate and their response was that there was no need for cars to be stopped at that point.

A few days later I was on my way home and put my foot down at where the upright part of the “T” would be when a heavy truck whizzed around the corner at speed. As it was sideways to my right shoulder I couldn’t decipher a left turning light and it looked as if it was going straight through.

Then the inevitable happened and I was missed by a mere fraction. If AT had taken on my concerns it could have potentially saved a life.

Yet a few yards along where there was no danger as it was a straight road, there were two crossings about 500 yards apart. Work that one out.

Ailsa Martin-Buss, Glendowie.

Broad brush approach

Whichever way you look at it, $490,000 for a pedestrian crossing is plainly outrageous.

I would be perfectly happy to buy a few litres of white paint and do the lines on the road for $441,000 – which represents a 10 per cent saving for the ratepayer.

Paul Beck, West Harbour.

Chairman Brown

How long before Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown wakes up to the fact that “his soft shoe shuffle” approach in dealing with Auckland Transport and Watercare is clearly not working?

Ratepayers are sick and tired of reading about the ever-growing, long list of outrageous, very expensive bungles. Before we have to hear about another one perhaps he should appoint himself as co-chairman of Auckland Transport and Watercare.

The time for “PR platitudes, excuses and spin” has long run out. Contractors must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Bruce Tubb, Devonport.

Recycling rule outrage

Like many Auckland residents, I’m outraged that the previous Government took the backward step of restricting the items that councils can collect in kerbside recycling bins.

For Auckland, this means a reduction in what we can recycle, even where Auckland Council has found markets or solutions for them.

From February 1 we will no longer be able to recycle aerosol cans, Tetra Pak cartons, aluminium trays, bottle lids, items under 5cm, and plastics 3, 4, 6 and 7. These will all now go to landfill.

This is a regressive step and the reason behind it – so nationwide advertising can be consistent – doesn’t stack up as these are local services. Instead of making people remove their plastic bottle lids and rings, the Government should have focused on enabling councils to expand their offerings to recycle soft plastics and polystyrene.

Auckland Council should be defying the new rules by continuing to recycle all current items and more. That is what is best for the environment and for Auckland.

John Gillon, Chair, Kaipātiki Local Board.

Tails wag the dog

This Government is not so much a three-headed taniwha, rather a dog with two tails.

The Prime Minister needs to minimise the wagging of his coalition partners with their extremist policies and combined 14.72 per cent of the party vote. We voted for a softening of the extreme Māori-focused policies of the last Government, but not to the point of antagonising Māori.

Phill Tutt, Remuera.

Rail maintenance

I see yet another “Rail Network Closure” advert has popped up in the Herald, meaning yet more rail commuters will be scrambling to find alternative ways to get around town for a few months.

Why isn’t train line reconstruction happening through the night instead, when trains wouldn’t be running anyway? That’s when motorway closures happen and it means minimal disruption for commuters.

Why does rail maintenance not follow the same rules?

Jeremy Hall, Hauraki.

Cyclists pay their way

With some regularity, there are letters to the editor complaining that cyclists don’t pay for the roading infrastructure they use. It is about time that this misconception be put to rest.

Petrol taxes and road user charges only pay for approximately 50 per cent of local roading infrastructure. The remainder is paid for by councils, mostly from rates.

Cyclists pay rates either directly via home ownership or indirectly via a landlord. Cyclists take up a lot less space than cars and unlike heavier vehicles they don’t damage the road.

A recent correspondent put forward a ridiculous figure of cyclists taking up 25 per cent of the road network. According to figure.nz there are 587.8km of cycleways in Auckland and over 7000km of local roads. This puts the figure closer to 8.6 per cent.

It is cyclists who are subsidising other road users, not the other way around.

Nigel Owen, Hamilton.

Cracked logic

Why is it when an obvious broken water pipe is reported to the council, nothing is done? This ambulance at the bottom of the cliff mentality is unacceptable.

I’m waiting to be told of water restrictions in Auckland. Meanwhile, water continues to pour from broken pipes in the street.

The last leak I reported was explained as “stormwater” and had me scratching my head. With no significant rainfall over the last 10 days? Seriously?

Fiona Helleur, Auckland.