Wellington Parking - They are about to clamp down on bike parking

[Hawkeye]

So how did this happen?
Seems to me that someone has cocked up, maybe by not reading some plans correctly, and now we suffer the consequence of a decrease in motorcycle parks for about 5 months in total. Great management skills in the council!

Please investigate how this happened and advise of the outcome so we can be assured it won't happen again and take another chunk out of the already insufficient number of motorcycle parks.

So you ask the question and throw in a snide remark.

Re: College Street:


As I said, and I do apologise on behalf of the Council in this matter, the vehicle crossing engineer that approved this did not take the motorcycle park into due consideration. This should have been run past our traffic engineers who would have arranged for the bay to be relocated when the road works were completed. We will dicuss this with the vehicle crossing engineers (who work for our Building Consents team, not the roading team).

Oh Look, Jon has apologised and is going to look into it. (It was not his mistake, it was someone elses).

Well that's park of an answer, but exactly how did the crossing engineer manage to not give due consideration to the motorcycle park? Why did they not check with the traffic engineers? How do the crossing engineers manage to fail to communicate with the roading team when the two are so closely connected?


Oh and re your comment about the driveway being for access to apartments - the place where the motorcycle park was is exactly where the entrance to Moore Wilsons is. The driveway there only gives access to Moore Wilsons - it does not provide any drive-in access to any apartments. You can check this on google maps using street view (because they have kind of old pics there) - it shows the motorcycle park was immediately to the right of the Moore Wilsons car park ramp. That area is now an entry into Moore Wilsons, not an apartment parking area in sight.

So therefore it would seem that the answer is simple - put the motorcycle park back where it was, problem solved. Moore Wilsons will lose their accessway, but then if the crossing engineer had done their job properly Moore Wilsons shouldn't have got an access there anyway.

But I suppose you'll say that rather than just put it back it has to go through the due process, taking up time and resources that could have been used elsewhere. Nice work by the crossing engineer - what happened to them? Any reprimand? Or do they just get to carry on business as usual putting in crossings without talking to other departments?

Yet more challenging statements without giving Jon any time to investigate and sort it out. And also calling for blood.

So sorry for only being a noob, not sure how I can fix that though.


Get your facts right. Since I've only made 6 posts to date it shouldn't be too hard to count them up.


Oh I don't know, how about an assurance that the person who made the mistake has been corrected and some kind of assurance it's not going to happen in another part of the city. I don't think that's too much to ask.


So when you say give the guy a break you mean I shouldn't ask him questions about the Council point of view of motorbike parking problems? But hang on, you just said that's what he came on here for - anyone else spot the conflicting nature of those statements?


I'm sure he is - can you point out to me the part where I gave him any crap. Other than asking some questions that relate to his role and the reason he came on here.


A) I'm trying to think of the bigger picture, i.e. asking questions to make sure Jon can then go the department(s) that have made the mistake to ensure they're aware of those errors and not let them happen again in other places. How would you react if the same happened to the spot you usually park in? And then somewhere else? And then somewhere else?
B) It's not even my favourite spot - I think I've only ever parked there three times, but that's not the point. The problem I have is the conflicting statements and actions of the Council where they say on one hand they've provided more parks, but then on the other take some away. All I want is some response to ensure that the person who made the mistake has been held accountable for that, and to assure all of us that this error has been brought to the attention of the various roading/parking/etc departments to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Point taken about the number of posts. My bad. As for giving Jon crap. The way in which questions are worded can be conscrewed as challenging rather than asking for information or clarification.
ie. asking for someone to be reprimanded for what could be a genuine mistake. How about simply asking if processes have been put in place to stop this happening again rather than going straight for the 'blame- reprimand' approach.

I'm not going to get into a war of words with you on here. The written words can be interpreted a number of way. But I do know that if the tone of the posts changes to constant challenges and off the cuff remarks, Jon will stop replying, back off and stop working with us.

[StoneY]

Well said Hawkeye


I must say, John proves again and again, his interaction here is GENUINE and out of the interest of clandestine public consultation (where else would a Council LOG ON to the 'targets' public forum to advise, liaise and clarify dynamically?)

So lets give the man some Kudos for actually trying to do his JOB while ensuring WE of the motorcycle fraternity get a say in the process, without having to spend thousands of hours lobbying the council!

[Bodir]

Well said Hawkeye
So lets give the man some Kudos for actually trying to do his JOB while ensuring WE of the motorcycle fraternity get a say in the process, without having to spend thousands of hours lobbying the council!

Jon may be trying, but he is still working for a council - no fast work to be expected.

Take the questionnaire about short term parking for example. I volunteered and send Jon my details. Very quick response from Jon (forwarded my e-mail to the person in charge). Then nothing, after a while an e-mail saying I will get something soon, and since then dead silence. While this is not Jon's fault it still is frustrating. So while Jon might be keen to get things done, the old saying still stands: An organisation is only as good as its weakest link.

To conclude. Venting frustration at Jon is the only option in this forum as the real people that need to be addressed are not members. That should not be taken as a personal attack, but an attack against the organisation.

And the frustration regarding the built over parks is understandable. If a person in the private sector does a mistake, it has to be fixed straight away or penalties have to be paid. If you are a government employee/politician, a "procedure" is involved that will decide what to do in due course.

[Jon Visser]

It would be interesting to know what the required process is to get an area of street changed in to a bike park, can you help there Jon?

The street layout exists to serve the community. If it is not serving its purpose well (e.g. underutilised or over-congested) then the community may request a change called a "traffic resolution". Such a request can be made to:
Traffic Engineer
Infrastructure
Wellington City Council
PO Box 2199
Wellington
or phoned through to (04) 499 4444.

The basic information that is needed is what the desired change is, or just your contact details so that the Area Traffic Engineer can look into the proposed change. They need to look at not just the road design and safety issues, but all likely impacts (as such a change may affect a lot of people or industries at different times of the day, e.g. couriers, taxis, buses, emergency services, adjacent premises, building developers etc). If the change is supported by the Area Traffic Engineer, public consultation takes place, a detailed design is prepared and a recommendation is submitted to the full Council to consider. The elected Councillors need to make such decisions on behalf of the wider comunity, as a traffic resolution usually involves some restriction on the public's ability to use a public space.

I have attached a sample proposal for a traffic resolution. We use this internally but it shows what sorts of information the traffic engineers usually would like to know to begin with. I have asked for a more suitable template form (for the public to use) to be made available on our external web site (e.g. so it could even be filled out & submitted electronically).

[Jon Visser]

Take the questionnaire about short term parking for example. I volunteered and send Jon my details. Very quick response from Jon (forwarded my e-mail to the person in charge). Then nothing, after a while an e-mail saying I will get something soon, and since then dead silence.

Good things take time . The timeframes we are dealing with are indeed months, not days, and that does frustrate me somewhat. In practicality it does take a lot of effort to run/change a city. Right now most of our resources are tied up with the Resident/Coupon parking review that has just been completed and now needs to be implemented. I'm talking with MTA about the possibility of getting some feedback from riders during the "ride to work" day early next year.

[rwh]

Venting frustration at Jon is the only option in this forum

Even if you conclude that to be the case, that doesn't make it a useful one.

Richard

[Chocolate Boy]

Thanks Jon - you took it as intended, others didn't quite get that.

My point with wanting to know what happened re the crossing engineer was not to find someone to blame, rather to find out if/what steps the WCC or relevant depts have taken to ensure that it doesn't happen again. Any comment in that regard?

Cheers

[Chocolate Boy]

So you ask the question and throw in a snide remark.

Clearly directed at the Council, not Jon. How was that having a go at Jon?

Yet more challenging statements without giving Jon any time to investigate and sort it out.

They're pertinent questions to be asked of the Building Consents Team. Jon, as the representing the Council on this forum, can then take them to the Building Consents Team.

But I suppose you'll say that rather than just put it back it has to go through the due process, taking up time and resources that could have been used elsewhere.

Umm, what I've described there is the Council's bureaucratic process in a nutshell. Jon works for the Council, so I'm confident in saying that would be his response.
From there, it's not a major leap to work out that going through such a process takes up time and consumes resources that could have been used somewhere else.

And also calling for blood.

Or seeking some accountability on the part of the crossing engineer.

The engineer (and in turn the Council) made a mistake, that error has cost us, as ratepayers, money. Should they not be challenged on that? The engineer and the Council need to know that they made a mistake, find out how it was made and take steps to improve the situation.

The way in which questions are worded can be conscrewed as challenging rather than asking for information or clarification.

Got it - will stick to non-challenging questions then.

ie. asking for someone to be reprimanded for what could be a genuine mistake.

I didn't ask for anyone to be reprimanded; I asked if they had been - see above re they need to know a mistake has been made...

How about simply asking if processes have been put in place to stop this happening again rather than going straight for the 'blame- reprimand' approach.

What, something like this?

Please investigate how this happened and advise of the outcome so we can be assured it won't happen again and take another chunk out of the already insufficient number of motorcycle parks.

What Jon has said so far hasn't given me any assurance the same thing won't happen again. And before someone thinks I'm "having a go at Jon" - no disrespect there - Jon has explained how it happened but as yet there hasn't been any information forthcoming on what has occurred to prevent it happening again.

I'm not going to get into a war of words with you on here.

The written words can be interpreted a number of way. But I do know that if the tone of the posts changes to constant challenges and off the cuff remarks, Jon will stop replying, back off and stop working with us.

[magicfairy]

I just saw 2 bikes get ticketed for being on the footpath in Hunter St. The bike park was full to overflowing and both bikes were parked right at the edge of the footpath next to the bike park.They are not in anyones way - you could drive a truck past them on the footpath.
I wish now I had taken a picture!
I see able bodied drivers park all the time in the mobility park next to the bike park, and they never seem to get ticketed.

[Jon Visser]

I just saw 2 bikes get ticketed for being on the footpath in Hunter St. The bike park was full to overflowing and both bikes were parked right at the edge of the footpath next to the bike park.

Because this thread is so long some of the earlier points tend to get lost. The way the law works is that we can either ticket everyone for carrying out the same offence or no-one (i.e. discretion, if used, must apply to all). In order for us to be able to manage the worst of the offenders we do need to also ticket those who 'think' that they are not causing problems for anyone else. We have put in a lot of effort to minimise 'considerate' people getting tickets. On Tuesdays such people parking on the footpath by the kerb do cause problems for retailers wanting to put out their kerbside recycling. At some point in the future, when we can confidently say that no problems exist, we may be able to go back to using discretion. That is up to the riders. Right now we still need to deal with a number of riders that show no regard for anyone else including other riders. We still expect quite a few more riders (particularly commuters) to shift to off-road parking locations so that the on-road spaces are freed up for people to come & go during the day.

[Drogen Omen]

there seems to be a problem here...

the problem is none of John's wisdom is getting to the plebs walking round the streets ticketing everything in sight...

where we park our bikes there are signs saying private property... we even have signed letter from the building owner giving us permission to park on his property, and yet all the bikes got warnings today.

John can you please talk to the idiots at parkwise and tell them that the bikes on upper willis street are on private property and are allowed to park there, being on private property also means parkwaise have no jurisdiction...

[Drogen Omen]

in our private property allowed bike park area there are 10 bikes parked next to each other at some time between 3:45pm and 4:25pm today 15/12/2009 1 bike gets a $40 ticket and 5 bikes get a warning and the other 4 are ignored.

what the fuck is up with that???

maybe the fat ass parkwise plebs thumbs were too tired to write out tickets to all...

and still these bikes are on private property sort your shit out WCC & parkwise.

*do i need to get the building owner to put up a private property sign?
*do i need to paint the boundary lines on the footpath so that the parkwise minions can see where the council property actually starts???

[Jon Visser]

John can you please talk to ... parkwise and tell them that the bikes on upper willis street are on private property and are allowed to park there, being on private property also means parkwaise have no jurisdiction...

Parking wardens do have jurisdiction on all roads in the District, including public roads and footpaths on private property. However, I did raise this specific location with them before they commenced with the enforcement campaign, so I will look into this. As the other properties along that section of Willis Street have done, it may be appropriate for the building owner to add bollards or lines denoting the approved area as you have suggested. Could you please send me a copy of the approval you have received from the building owner?

Sometimes several bikes may receive cautions/tickets and not others because the others may have arrived after the warden was there.

[Drogen Omen]

Parking wardens do have jurisdiction on all roads in the District, including public roads and footpaths on private property. However, I did raise this specific location with them before they commenced with the enforcement campaign, so I will look into this. As the other properties along that section of Willis Street have done, it may be appropriate for the building owner to add bollards or lines denoting the approved area as you have suggested. Could you please send me a copy of the approval you have received from the building owner?

Sometimes several bikes may receive cautions/tickets and not others because the others may have arrived after the warden was there.

sweet thanks for your help John, I'll scan the letter on to my pc later this week and PM it to you.

[Bodir]

Hi Jon, just a couple of questions regarding further plans of WCC.

As a basis of discussion, lets assume the current restructure worked. All bikes are parked in the designated areas either on public property or private sector (with the few black sheep that get ticketed).

What will happen if bike numbers dramatically increase beyond the capacity of parking spaces again resulting in a similar situation as the one that we had?

What will happen if the private sector decides that it is not sustainable to keep the bike parks and convert some/all to something else?

What will happen if you leave WCC or get promoted to a different position?