This letter was in today's SCMP.
Anyone know where this path and proposed railings are?
{L_QUOTE}:
Pointless work on Lamma footpath
Recently, near my home on Lamma, a simple village footpath that winds between a lychee orchard and some open fields was raised with concrete about 20cm in height over a stretch of more than 40 metres.
Apparently there had been a puddle at one end.
It seemed like overkill for a simple puddle (I had never noticed a puddle in six years of walking daily along this path), but I decided to let this "improvement" go since the damage had already been done.
That was until last month, when I noticed a sign from the Lands Department stuck to a lamp post saying that they were now going to add a handrail along the full length of this grass-edged path, presumably because it had been raised in height.
Could the department please explain, through these columns, the reasoning behind the initial approach to removing what must have been a small puddle? Wouldn't a slight curve in the path surface remove excess water? And how can they now justify spending what must be hundreds of thousands of dollars more, on adding handrails to a 20cm-high path, raised in height by them, when it didn't need raising in the first place?
Yet again, this really does smack of jobs for the boys - something we've been seeing way too much of in recent years on the outlying islands.
Edward Williams, Lamma
We all know the govt will put railings on any path if they receive one letter requesting it.
Aside from being ugly and usually unnecessary, they can be a hazard. Paths on Lamma aren't solely for pedestrians. If a VV is coming at you you can't jump aside to avoid getting smeared. A bike can catch its handlebar in railings and cause a very nasty spill (as has happened to me). They're only justified if there is a steep fall beside the path.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
