Thanks to Carol Webb and Russell Bell for pointing out the crass stupidity of 'improved' traffic management on Taupo Quay, but both refer to the congestion upstream from the City Bridge.
Have they tried to get out of the Trafalgar Square parking on to Taupo Quay, where two sets of traffic lights in a very short space mean that often traffic getting a green at the end of St Hill St cannot proceed along Taupo Quay because the traffic in front of them has not moved?
Don't bother cutting through the underground parking to the alternative exit on to Wilson St. I tried it and the traffic trying to get on to Taupo Quay from Wilson St was backed up too.
Change is always acceptable if it offers any improvement. Probably, this has had the reverse effect, creating chaos where there was none.
If the pen-pusher who created these problems puts his hand out for a performance bonus, I trust the oil companies will do the paying, because they must be creaming it with these queues travelling at 0km per litre.
As ratepayers, we have already paid over the odds for this stuff-up. If the designer so idolises Auckland-style snarl-ups, why not try the real thing? Hundreds of Whanganui motorists would be delighted to help them make the shift.
If the aim of traffic management is to clear out the CBD, they are headed in the right direction. Sadly, as ratepayers, we thought we had the right to access and then leave mid-city, but the suburbs must really enjoy what is happening to traffic. Instead of encouraging Aucklanders to enjoy our city's amenities, it seems some are desperate to make them feel at home by replicating Auckland's problems.
While on the question of traffic lights, has anyone taken a serious look at the Grey St/London St lights? Yes, they are suburban but also on a designated State Highway used by a lot of very heavy vehicles — and not one of them capable of zero to 100km/h in under 10 seconds — so get behind one of these legitimate road users and be prepared to miss at least one light change while they launch.
Bruce Moon, February 25, opines that there were little or no settlements or agriculture along the South Taranaki coast before Europeans settled it.
He uses a strange imbalance of "facts" to support his opinion — cherry-picking, out of context, quotes from extrinsic racists and happenings from before 1840 — while insisting "that the decimation of (its) native population was not because of the actions of ... white colonials".
But South Taranaki was thrice cleared of its native inhabitants, their villages, crops and animals.
In 1865 it was invested with gun, sword and fire by British imperial troops under General Duncan Alexander Cameron — and again in 1866 by British troops, this time under General Trevor Chute — and then again, by "Armed Constabulary" and "Militia" (settlers) through to the late 1870s.
That the reasons for these and other invasions were contrary to custom, the Treaty of Waitangi, even the law, is not disputed today. Even back then, these generals had reservations about clearing the land of "natives" for the "settlers".
Consequentially, British troops were confined to the main settlements and slowly withdrawn.
These "actions" and occurred between the "Taranaki War" (1860-61) and "Titokowaru´s War" (1868-69) and overlapped with the Waikato and Tauranga Wars.
Send your letters to: The Editor, Whanganui Chronicle, 100 Guyton St, PO Box 433, Whanganui 4500; or email email@example.com