Letters to the editor
Very valid comment made in the editorial [Express, February 13] about the doubtful value and difficult policing of the decision to lower the open road speed between Spring Creek and Grove road to 70kmh.
I seem to recall Frank Porter saying in part justification that there are a lot of intersections on this road which make it somewhat hazardous.
The stretch of State Highway 1 in question is about 5.5 kilometres and a quick look on Google Earth shows around six property connections and eight side road intersections. One around every 393 metres.
Using that figure as a datum, consider SH68 [Rapaura Rd] from Spring Creek to SH6 at Renwick. It is about 13km, there are 68 property connections and 15 side road intersections. One around every 156 metres.
Therefore, the corollary is SH68 should be similarly targeted.
Just seems a strange way to apply traffic engineering.
By the way, if SH1 can be limited to 70kmh, why is Battys Rd, which is 80kmh for the best part of its length, not under review?
We jumped the gun after misreading the Marlborough District Council report, which says 70kmh is one of the speed options being considered for State Highway 1 between Blenheim and Spring Creek. The other speed options are 80kmh and 90kmh, and Marlborough Roads general manager Frank Porter was quoted yesterday as saying it was more likely to be one of those slightly faster options. - Editor
I wish to bring to your attention the misreporting of the Clifford Bay meeting held in Seddon on February 12 and featured in your lead story ["Seddon residents hope port will boom", Express, February 13].
I attended that meeting and the majority of comments were of concerns about the whole project. Only four or five people made comments towards the end of the meeting on the potential advantages that the move might have and then only after Mayor Alistair Sowman asked was there no-one who saw any advantages who would like to comment.
Your reporter devoted 35 column centimetres to those last few comments and just 3cm to the concerns that were raised earlier, right at the end of the article in the last paragraph. This type of confrontational headlining does nothing to keep the Marlborough region harmonious.
It almost seems as though the Marlborough Express wishes to pit community against community.
It is true that irrespective of what Marlborough residents may wish, the Government's wishes will prevail just as in the situation with the salmon farms.
What was not reported was that this now looks like it will not just be a ferry terminal but a full port.
The real reason for the change of location appears to be the requirement to move large amounts of freight for Christchurch over the next decade or so.
I see the value to New Zealand as a whole for this change and I am not against it, however I do think that your article should be representative of what actually took place.
Dawn of change
Have people noticed that Aotearoa is creeping more and more into the name of our country. Aotearoa New Zealand, then it will be called just Aotearoa.
The downgrading of New Zealand has already started - on a $1.80 stamp it has Aotearoa in the heading.
It has been pushed that Aotearoa is a Maori name. Aotea was used by the Moriori; their history records that they left Rarotonga in a craft called Ao Tea in the 12th century and landed in New Zealand.
Aotea, which means "the dawn" (a new start), in some cases can be translated as "white cloud". During the 1800s it was named Aotearoa.
This will be part of the constitution advisory panel that you want to change the name of your country.
- The Marlborough Express