James Smith Carpark (Wellington)

[James Deuce]

There are two separate issues. Long term parking for workers commuting via motorcycle and revenue generation via short term parking for WCC. Somehow those issues need to be addressed separately and with a view to solving both problems.

Both parties need to stop confusing them as the same issue.

[Bald Eagle]

The other more significant issue is the failure of Council policy staff to recognize the positive aspects of having motorcycles as part of the overall city transport mix.
When you search the Greater Wellington Regional Council and Wellington City Council documents you find very few references to motorcycles. Those that do appear seem weighted to discourage this transport mode.

The approach taken seems to be focused on getting people into public transport at the expense of any other option.

A motorbike is a personal transport mode choice and as such is as valid as a motorcar, bicycle or bus. This fact seems to have escaped the policy makers.

Overseas studies have been done which clearly prove economic and traffic management benefits for 2 wheeled motor vehicles. Council staff have been supplied with some of this information.

[James Deuce]

Win the big fight through a collection of small scraps. It's called strategy and prevents you getting so mired in the big fight that you achieve nothing.

[Number One]

This is interesting.....

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10747709

It appears that there IS a way for motorcycles to use normal car parks....

IT SEEMS there IS a way for them to RAPE people using CAR PARKS...not just us.

CNUTS

I always end up paying for more than I need and I always try to give it away too - fuck yas!

[Number One]

The approach taken seems to be focused on getting people into public transport at the expense of any other option.

Again I say CNUTS!

Public transport in Wellington is the fucking pitts and also overpriced.




BTW swearing makes ya real fucking cool

[Hitcher]

Public transport in Wellington is the fucking pitts and also overpriced.

Public transport is paid by taxpayers, ratepayers and fare payers (commuters). Which one of those do you suggest should pay less?

[Parlane]

Public transport is paid by taxpayers, ratepayers and fare payers (commuters). Which one of those do you suggest should pay less?

Commuters obviously.

[Hitcher]

Commuters obviously.

Commuters currently pay about half of the cost. Given that a condition of the Government/taxpayer contribution is that commuters pay about half of the cost, who do you suggest pays less?

[Parlane]

Commuters currently pay about half of the cost. Given that a condition of the Government/taxpayer contribution is that commuters pay about half of the cost, who do you suggest pays less?

I pay taxes (but not rates, but that wouldn't matter anyway as I'm in CHCH) so I can still make the same conclusion. Commuters.

If you want more people to take public transport. Force them to pay for it.

[Hitcher]

If you want more people to take public transport. Force them to pay for it.

Legislatively it's easier to discriminate against other forms of transport.

[Paul in NZ]

What really gets my goat is if i do go out for a stroll, I spend half my time dodging huge busses each with 0 to 4 people aboard.... Its freakin mental.... No wonder it costs so much to run.

[Paul in NZ]

Legislatively it's easier to discriminate against other forms of transport.

From a legal point of view its far easier for me to stage a revolution and shoot all the lawyers, the govt and everyone else I dont like (its a long list so for brevities sake lets just leave it at that), burn the place to the ground, declare bankruptcy of the old state and start again as utopis on pacificus

According to the guys in the black SUV that follow me about that does not make it 'right' however...

[Number One]

Public transport is paid by taxpayers, ratepayers and fare payers (commuters). Which one of those do you suggest should pay less?

I meant overpriced in the sense that the service you get for your dollar is so poor. I don't use it - it's not worth it to me at all.

[mrchips]

I meant overpriced in the sense that the service you get for your dollar is so poor. I don't use it - it's not worth it to me at all.

What you get for your dollar..... A non-heated carriage full of inconsiderate diseased commuters that is either late, not going or broken down.. if it's not the train thats fucked, it's the infrastructure... fuck that for a laugh.

I done it for 20 years, i have the brain damage to proove it !

[Ocean1]

I meant overpriced in the sense that the service you get for your dollar is so poor. I don't use it - it's not worth it to me at all.

It ain't the best. However I'd guess that what the commuters hand over is about the actual value of the service supplied. On those occasions is is actually supplied, of course. Which means I'm suggesting the portion paid for by ratepayers and by government subsidies represents roughly the costs of the usual inefficiencies.

Fact is it’s not actually cost effective to have so many people congregate in one place to work every day. The only thing keeping it going is the usual shell and pea distortions local and central government resort to when natural market forces produce results they don’t like.