Greetings from Barcelona, where I’m currently winding up a 3 week European holiday that has also taken me to Amsterdam, Paris, and Porto. But my thoughts on those cities will have to wait for another day, because right now I want to engage in some bloated, tapas-filled celebration of a more local achievement.
That’s right – our wee TransportBlog community can notch up another sweet (albeit small) civic success on our train belts (NB: Some of our earlier successes are documented here and here).
First some background. Some of our longer time readers may remember this post from approximately 18 months ago, in which I ranted and rallied against a metal post that had been rather brutally plonked smack in the middle of a narrow footpath, as illustrated below. I live and work in the area and this metal post was, frankly, a small but constant pain in the ass head whenever I stumbled home blind drunk from many and varied soirees.
And just take a look at it now (NB: Photo taken by Kent Lundberg – urbanist extraordinaire and fellow MRCagney worker bee). Note this photo has been taken looking south, i.e. opposite direction from the previous photo.
Boo yah – begone ye post! And look at all those happy pedestrians; no longer do they have to swerve around the plywood box inconveniently placed in their way. Instead they can move freely, and glower at oncoming pedestrians without obstruction.
More seriously though: This is just one more small example of the sorts of positive transport outcomes that can be driven by an educated, informed, and pro-active community – such as that which TransportBlog has – over a number of years – sought to cultivate.
Of course credit needs to go to Auckland Council and/Auckland Transport for taking this issue up with the Pullman. I believe, from my not-so-secret contacts with democratically elected representatives, that Christopher Dempsey of the Waitemata Local Board also deserves mention for pursuing the issue.
In terms of the Pullman Hotel, I think it’s a crying shame you took so long to come to the civic party and acknowledge that you, or the Hotel’s previous owners, had clearly erred in placing this metal post in the footpath. Personally, I believe that “law” is a minimum morality and that their references to having consent for the aforementioned pole were a dereliction of duty to the community in which their Hotel operates.
But now that it’s been put right, I hereby declare that my Company’s embargo on your services has been lifted. Not that I’ll be using it anytime soon, preferring instead the wonderful travel opportunities opened up by the likes of AirBnb (NB: I hope to cover how this so-called “sharing economy” website is revolutionising how we travel and in turn how we utilise our housing stock in a subsequent post).
In spite of this sweet success, there is one obvious outstanding question: What’s the next priority for Auckland’s long-suffering pedestrians? Speak now; the AT/AC God’s may just be listening.
Processing...
Watitemata?
thanks – has been corrected. One of the pitfalls of writing blog posts on a laptop with a small screen while drinking sangria …
Well the AT(NZTA)/AC God seems to have blocked his/her ears a couple of hundred metres down the road in Shortland Street where AT has ruled against pedestrian utility on the grounds that it might adversely affect traffic volumes. The AT god is a fickle deity but there’s one thing you can be sure of: traffic volumes and vehicle storage are sacrosanct, not to be fiddled with, not least by pedestrian crusaders. Enjoy what’s left of your liberty in civilisation!
Come on Chris you know that a human in a tin box is orders of magnitude more important than one out of one. Even when it’s the same human! No idea how that makes sense, but perhaps there’s a key in the job title: TRAFFIC ENGINEER.
thanks Christopher. Yes the standard NZ traffic engineer is a curious beast. Almost every street in Barcelona fails to meet AustRoads standards. And yet it’s wonderful.
*Building collapses on pedestrian* But don’t worry, it was all in the interest of pedestrian convenience. The consent is rubbish, safety be damned! 😛
The building was not designed or consented with that post. They added it after the fact, or otherwise screwed up, then post-facto (ahem) got it added to the consent to legalise the balls up. This is just addressing that stuff up and putting it the way it was supposed to be.
You can rest easy; the canopy is now supported from on top. I walk under it almost every day.
I can’t tell if you’re being facetious or not.
Personally I don’t think it’s OK for a verandah to be designed in such a way that its structural integrity depends on public space in this way. There are several ways this verandah could have been designed to avoid having such an impact on the footpath.
Yes, I was just kidding. Good work.
From the look of the photo, the top of the post is still there – so they just sawed off the bottom and removed it?!? Presumably then, it must have just been a gutter overflow – certainly not structural – and therefore never needing to be there in the first place?
yes, they just sawed it off from what I can see.
Your company “embargoed” the hotel based on that? Bless. I suspect almost every hotel or reasonably sized business in New Zealand has done something worse than that, maybe not treating a staff member properly, or having health and safety hazards, or overcharging customers. Must be awfully hard finding anyone to do business with.
“I want to engage in some bloated, tapas-filled celebration” there was probably some sangria in Stu’s thoughts…
If you guys couldn’t tell, Stu has a slightly fruity sense of humour.
nick1234, yes I do have a fruity sense of humour and I had enjoyed some sangria before writing that post. Nevertheless I do think your comment overlooks some important points that are worth expanding on a little lest we let humanity go to hell in a handcart.
First some context: Our Company decided to not do business with the Pullman Hotel (located next door to our office) because they 1) plonked a pole in the middle of the footpath next to our office and 2) fobbed us off with lame excuses when we tried to raise the issue with them. In light of them being knobs, we simply exercised our consumer freedom and opted to not use their services. We did so knowing there’s plenty of hotels in Auckland who will happily take our money who have not treated us so poorly. They may have done bad things to other people, but we have no knowledge of that – and like any consumer we make choices based on the knowledge we have.
That’s simply consumers demonstrating heterogenous preferences in a market characterised by imperfect information, also known as “real life”. You don’t have to agree with our preferences, but nor should you judge them.
Second, and more generally, us choosing not to do business with the Pullman on the grounds of them acting like knobs on this one issue in no way commits our Company to take up crusades on other issues. Is it not better that we exercise discretion in some of our purchases even while acknowledging that it is not possible to exercise this level of discretion universally? In some ways, your comment indirectly applies the “slippery slope” fallacy to consumer choices, by suggesting people should not try to exercise any discretion in their choices simply because they cannot exercise such discretion all the time.
That’s what I call a classic “rationalist” ethical cop out that argues no-one should try and act ethically if they can’t do so all the time; I don’t “buy it” and instead would support people/businesses who exercise discretion in their purchases even if they do so imperfectly/selectively/subjectively.
Now for another decent glass of sangria … 🙂
That is great work. Now how do we get the bus drivers to turn off their noisy engines when the are waiting more than 5 mins at a stop?
interesting question. I’ve noticed most modern diesel now down when idling for only a few seconds; I wonder how long it will take for such technology to transition to diesel buses?
Could be a game-changer in terms of reducing fuel consumption etc, given that the average bus probably spends a far greater percentage of time idling at stops/lights than the average car.
We could start by not having so much flab in their routes so they stop all the time, nothing worse for the bus user than the feeling the engine go off, hopeless! So more buslanes all through the city, and bus priority at the lights, so the schedules are more predictable and don’t require those terrible long pauses.
Hi Stu, I would really like to talk with you or someone on getting action on the danger that is left turning MV traffic, while pedestrians cross with a green phase that at best allows 1/2 a road to be crossed before traffic starts turning in front of you, or nudging you out of the way the moment it goes to flashing red man. It is a regular complaint of the international AirBnB guests I have stay, and having a number of near misses in the 5 years I’ve been a CBD resident. I think we need to look at how the city centre really does value the pedestrians who call the CBD home. I have an email from AT on this issue, stating their not interested because delaying the MV turning phase impedes the flow of MV traffic if youre interested.
Agree – big issue. I see very intimidating and aggressive behaviour every day by drivers creeping forward or barging through when pedestrians are halfway across.
Exactly Linz. I’ve generally got a race horse pace on too, and can only make 1/2 way before cars start to turn or nudge through. I worry not just about my own safety but about less agile populations, and the kids Auckland Council is working so hard to attract to the city center.
Agree. I play dodgem on Nelson, Hobson, and Victoria Sts, to name a few, on my daily walk to work and home. I walk fast, but still literally have to watch my back, even when catching the green man from the start. Drivers get angry while waiting for the red turn arrow to disappear, and then floor it when it does. The design creates a driver vs. pedestrian scenario, and we know who wins in that situation.