Viaduct model seriously flawed

LETTER

Boat ramp to close? Alain Jorian advises us last week that the small boat slipway should be relocated . . . one wonders, why? Expenditure in this location seems endless, with the exception of the public ramp’s wallowing floating pontoon that still remains derelict.

The “obvious” historic trailer parking spot from inception at the top of the ramp has been taken, by means still yet to be fully justified. Then cruise ship patrons have their own allocated three-metre wide walk space granted, at the further expense of safe vehicle and trailer manoeuvring. The new “dedicated trailer parks” are narrower and shorter than those previous, relocated and halved as was first published from 22 to 11, yet . . . they are all also cunningly counted as 46 “parking spaces” to make those numbers look good on paper in the bigger picture.

The goal was to make this look like Auckland’s Viaduct Harbour. The PowerPoint presentation to the council had the Viaduct as the opening slides.

And by chance, the Viaduct has no public ramp!

We get told it is about pedestrian safety etc etc, as is the Viaduct, but . . . the inner harbour is a “small boat harbour” with a public ramp, necessitating cars and trailers, and a small marina necessitating associated car parking. Pier 1 lacks even a loading zone! All berth holders’ parking at Lone Star . . . gone.

So, using the Viaduct Harbour as a model is seriously flawed.

We still wait on the hearings so the District Plan “Inner Harbour Car Parking” can be met — known about since inception, but only reported some 18 months ago!

Based on this, just what is the long-term plan here? Keep joining the dots with this trend and it seems the next to go might be the ramp itself? Perhaps the reason the partially-submerged pontoon has seen no replacement? And the reason the one for the other side of the ramp never happened? Why throw money away on that if it was earmarked for closure?

This would be a prime spot for a new building site for tourism, or a similar development to mimic the Viaduct . . .

Peter Millar

Boat ramp to close? Alain Jorian advises us last week that the small boat slipway should be relocated . . . one wonders, why? Expenditure in this location seems endless, with the exception of the public ramp’s wallowing floating pontoon that still remains derelict.

The “obvious” historic trailer parking spot from inception at the top of the ramp has been taken, by means still yet to be fully justified. Then cruise ship patrons have their own allocated three-metre wide walk space granted, at the further expense of safe vehicle and trailer manoeuvring. The new “dedicated trailer parks” are narrower and shorter than those previous, relocated and halved as was first published from 22 to 11, yet . . . they are all also cunningly counted as 46 “parking spaces” to make those numbers look good on paper in the bigger picture.

The goal was to make this look like Auckland’s Viaduct Harbour. The PowerPoint presentation to the council had the Viaduct as the opening slides.

And by chance, the Viaduct has no public ramp!

We get told it is about pedestrian safety etc etc, as is the Viaduct, but . . . the inner harbour is a “small boat harbour” with a public ramp, necessitating cars and trailers, and a small marina necessitating associated car parking. Pier 1 lacks even a loading zone! All berth holders’ parking at Lone Star . . . gone.

So, using the Viaduct Harbour as a model is seriously flawed.

We still wait on the hearings so the District Plan “Inner Harbour Car Parking” can be met — known about since inception, but only reported some 18 months ago!

Based on this, just what is the long-term plan here? Keep joining the dots with this trend and it seems the next to go might be the ramp itself? Perhaps the reason the partially-submerged pontoon has seen no replacement? And the reason the one for the other side of the ramp never happened? Why throw money away on that if it was earmarked for closure?

This would be a prime spot for a new building site for tourism, or a similar development to mimic the Viaduct . . .

Peter Millar

Your email address will not be published. Comments will display after being approved by a staff member. Comments may be edited for clarity.

winston moreton - 7 months ago
Mr Millar says in his insightful letter today "(The small boat launching area) would be a prime spot for a new building site for tourism, or a similar development to mimic the (Auckland) Viaduct." And he is right. With the huge internal growth of ECT and millions of dollars (of electricity consumers' trust funds) to spend on what takes their fancy, it follows that a wonderful new edifice and car park will be erected in place of the nuisance called the Small Boat Slipway. It also explains why the Grey Street Tourism Depot at the Inter City Bus Station will not receive a cent. ECT and Eastland Group do not travel by bus.

Silk purse, Sow's ear? - 7 months ago
2-0 tonight Mr Moreton, well done.

Poll

  • Voting please wait...
    Your vote has been cast. Reloading page...
    Do you like the new committee structure brought in at Gisborne District Council?

    See also: Committee shake-up