I do wonder how much of what is going on is budget related. Hard to tell if the variations in cycleway approaches are AT "trying different things" or being forced into taking shortcuts because of budget restrictions.
It seems like every cycleway in this city has a different design/approach. Some of them are not even instantly recognizable as cycleways to be quite honest.
Could we not take the time to come up with a standard template approach and only vary from that when absolutely necessary?
Seems to me if would a lot safer (drivers know a cycleway when they see one) and cheaper to build and importantly maintain.
We've got concrete, tarseal, pavers.
We've got about 5 different types of flexi posts, planter boxes, rubber separators, concrete separators, no separation.
We've got pink, rainbow, long blocks of solid kermit, short pieces of kermit, different colours of kermit, no kermit.
We've got in berm, inside parked carks, outside parked cars, no parking.
We've got raised platforms at road crossings, we've got paths that go back onto the road at crossings.
We've got single direction, we've got bi-direction, got shared cycle/pedestrian.
We've got against the traffic flow, with the traffic flow.
Seems a very expensive way for AT to "learn".
The reason for the delay in replacing the water main in Moa Rd is that they’re having trouble sourcing the 4.5million orange cones required to line the road for 6 months during the works
Possibly because of this, they were basically all at it back then
I think, as he suggests here, that the big danger for the urbanists is that they become pigeonholed as narrow central Auckland liberals.
Yes, there was quite noticeable difference in diversity between the 2 events from the quick glimpses on the OneNews last night that I saw.
Both teams preaching to the converted to a certain extent I guess.
Isn’t the testing between tenancies being driven as much by the Insurance Companies as anything esle?
I think they require that you prove the contamination occurred during the period of cover in order to claim against your policy
The KCTMO is a not-for-profit *owned* by the Residents so I'm not sure about that profit/risk angle but if that information about the cost of cladding is correct it would be outrageous to choose the non-fired rate version in a refurb worth 10 million quid.
I see the former chairman of the KCTMO quit because he felt the refurb was beyond the capabilities of the TMO
Ah, the illusion of Democracy
Have you got a link to that?
The Unitary Plan will increase the number of multi level buildings as well as reducing the separation between dwellings that in itself increases risk.
As long as building standards are sufficient and applied correctly there should be no problem?
By all accounts the Grenfell cladding met "standards"
Agreed, but the Resident Board members hold a majority of 8 seats.
To me it just seems extraordinary to hold responsibilty for the maintenance of 10,000 properties in an unpaid volunteer position.
But it appears to be a structure the Tenants/Residents wanted back in 1996 and fought to put in place