Auckland has started taking a few small steps to transform the CBD the the introduction of shared spaces around the city and unsurprisingly they have been a huge success. However since the Fort St one opened just over a year ago things have gone quiet on rolling upgrades out to more streets, presumably so that things like the City Centre Master Plan (CCMP) could be completed confirming that street scape upgrades were still the plan going forward. Now that the CCMP has been adopted O’Connell St seems set to be the first street off the blocks for an upgrade and the council is consulting on it now with it due to close at 5pm on Friday so if you want to have a say, make sure you do so before then.
Before going in to my thoughts on the project, here is is a reminder of what O’Connell St looks like at the moment, as you can see there the street is lined with cars and the footpaths are extremely narrow, hardly the most pedestrian friendly place around.
Interestingly surveys underdaken indicate that 80% of people who park in the street aren’t doing so to visit local businesses which helps to poor cold water on the argument that parking is needed to support the businesses, What’s more all of the pedestrians questioned had go there on foot, even if they had driven to the city as they had parked elsewhere. So here is the background given for the upgrade:
This project is part of the implementation of the City Centre Masterplan and the 10-year CBD Upgrade programme to transform city centre streets and open spaces and create the world’s most liveable city. The cost of upgrading O’Connell street will be about $4.367 million and funded by the CBD targeted rate.
The proposed upgrade of O’Connell Street aims to create people-friendly streets where people can shop, sit, relax, linger, dine and spend time. When complete, the upgrade will provide more footpath space, high quality paving across the width of the street and modern street furniture including lighting and public seating. It is proposed that O’Connell Street continue to be a one-way, northbound trafficked street with widened footpaths, kerbs and a carriageway.
And here is how the draft design is described:
O’Connell Street is part of a network of narrow streets and laneways located to the east of the Queen Street valley in Auckland’s city centre. Just 10m wide, the street is strongly characterised by the architectural quality of the buildings that line it and stands out as a rare example where the original built form from the 1920s has remained largely intact through to today. As well as being a boutique retail destination within the city centre, O’Connell Street retains a strong commercial character also.
It is an increasingly popular destination for people – whether as a destination or through route to elsewhere – and has shown growth in foot traffic of 115% over the last two years. Around 5,000 pedestrians access O’Connell Street on an average weekday and approximately 1,350 vehicles use the street each day.
O’Connell Street was identified as having significant potential for transformation and it was therefore included in the programme of city centre streetscape upgrades.
- To capitalise on opportunities for transformation, the upgrade of O’Connell Street aims to:
- Provide greater pedestrian priority throughout the area and more space for people
- Create a distinctive and popular destination
- Support business and residents by providing more space for outdoor activities
- Better connect the area with the surrounding network of streets
- Create a high quality, sustainable streetscape.
And some what it would potentially look like:
The biggest issue I have with this is that the existing street layout is being retained, just with a little less parking. I would have much preferred to see a shared space rolled out. Seemingly anticipating this the council has given tried to address this.
The narrowness of the street (which is just 10m wide) poses considerable challenges in designing a street that provides space for people and outdoor activities while retaining space for other necessary functions, such as vehicle routes for traffic and loading and parking areas for service delivery. A thorough assessment of a number of design options, including various shared space designs, were assessed against the project’s objectives and the need to retain certain street functions. Through this process it was determined that a conventional streetscape upgrade would deliver the most usable space for pedestrians and outdoor activities and
therefore the best benefits for the people and businesses that use O’Connell Street.This is because the use of kerbs prevents vehicle traffic from encroaching on footpaths and areas designated specifically for people. The absence of kerbs means that when space is limited vehicles could move into these pedestrian areas and thereby compromise the usable space available to people and outdoor activities.
The draft design therefore proposes a conventional street layout which incorporates kerbs and significantly widened footpaths (from 1.6m to 2.8m on the eastern side of the street and up to 4m on the western side) to achieve the maximum usable space available for seating, outdoor dining and other street activities. The additional space provided by kerbs and widened footpaths would provide more space for outdoor use than could be achieved in a shared space layout.
To be honest, I think this could be another case of the council chickening out on doing the right thing. The whole point of the shared space concept was to make better use of narrow streets so to now say that a street is to narrow seems odd. The street only has ~1350 vehicles per day use it of which most are probably just there looking for a car park, if they really wanted to maximise space for pedestrians they wouldn’t have retained the vehicle lane and parking/delivery bays. It is only 110m between Shortland St and Chancery St so an option surely would have been to close the street entirely to vehicles and make it a pedestrian area. A loading bay at the entrance to the street each end would mean only a 50m walk for any deliveries and providing it was designed to allow it, emergency services vehicles would still be able to use it for access if needed.
Also at 10m wide, the street the street is also about the same width as most of High St yet in the CCMP they show pictures of High St as a shared space and I realise that isn’t a formal proposal but shows it is possible. Saying O’Connell is too narrow means that High St is as well.
Both O’Connell St and High St are certainly much wider than some I encountered in Europe which were shared streets. This one in Bellagio on the shores of Lake Como probably takes the prize for the narrowest yet it still worked fine and was lined with shops and people as well as vehicles stopping for deliveries.
I will certainly be putting in a submission not supporting what is proposed and suggesting that at a minimum it needs to be a shared space, if not full pedestrian zone to really make it an interesting and exciting place. Its probably also worth pointing out that there are no vehicle entrances off the street. Lastly one thing I do find weird about the whole thing, the brochure says that Auckland Transport would like the feedback on the proposal but the consultation is being done by the council. This is odd as every other consultation that AT is involved with is done directly through them.
*Additional analysis here: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/09/13/a-further-look-at-oconnell-st/
Processing...
What? This is nothing other than a rejection of the entire shared streets idea. This is just a repetition of the old traffic engineering aim of grade separation which we know is simply a granting of a place to domination by vehicles and always leads to higher speeds.
If we can’t reclaim this little street from auto privilege then the chances of Auckland improving are slight. Clearly as a shared space deliveries can still be made, or if closed to traffic there is a short distance to cover with a handcart. Or how about this; what is routinely done overseas, allowing catre blanche to delivery vehicles before say 10am. A perfect opportunity to start to introduce this idea which would of course be perfect for the whole of the inner shopping district, especially Queen St.
This situation is why it is important to not allow developments like Chancery Lane to include their vast subterranean carparking features… this and the associated tower stump is the source of the driving demand referred to above. Chancery Lane pretends to be a urban place but in fact it is entirely based on the suburban mall model; its economics are all about first the huge cost of the parking provision then on defending and promoting it regardless of the damage it does to that urban quality of place it attempts to leverage off.
So because of the existence of this extremely ugly block sized car park stump we can’t get more of our little streets back? And the economy of Auckland as a whole suffers from yet another car forced reason why it can’t develop an area of retail intensity to rival say Melbourne’s laneways…..
AC and AT are going to have to be braver if AK is going to compete internationally and attract visitors for retail and entertainment, for ‘city-ness’.
On the speed issue, that is one of the things I mentioned in my submission after I typed this up, with very little parking along the street there is no need for people to slow down so any vehicles that are not there for deliveries will just race through to get to the other side on their way to get out of the city or find car park elsewhere. In effect it will likely end up increasing vehicle speeds along the route.
O’Connell Street is wider than streets I’ve encountered in Europe too (in my case Bordeaux, France). There, shared spaces have rising bollard protected entry after 11am. Have open vehicle access leading up to 11am, at which point the bollards come up. I would say then allow entry to just authorised vehicles, but as there are no vehicle entrances to any buildings on O’Connell St, that would be pointless so you may as well just close all vehicle entry at 11am.
We have rising bollards leading to Te Wero Island between the Viaduct and Wynyard Quarter.
I will also be sending in a submission in on this one.
They also have them on Queens Wharf at the start of Shed 10 to limit access to the end of the Wharf.
That’s the key point here. The reasons given for not making this a shared street really don’t seem like they would be specific to this particular street. It’s just a straight out rejection of the whole concept. Which is incredibly disappointing.
C’mon Auckland Council; share the love for shared streets
You know the other thing that strikes me when reading this? The number of pedestrians per day (5,000) versus the number of cars (1,350). So if this is the case then why is this upgrade proposing to let vehicles continue to dominate what could be an incredibly amenable pedestrian space?
I would suggest that what needs to go is the on-street parking. This should just be a little laneway with maybe 1-2 loadings bays and that’s it. Get the on-street parking outta there and give the rest over to the people.
How many of those 1350 cars are just there looking to see if a carpark is free? Take those out and there might only be a couple of hundred vehicles a day actually using the street.
Exactly Matt, plus of course take those out and replace it with a great pedestrian environment and the car to ped split will shift even further.
It might be a little ugly, but if they are honestly concerned with stopped vehicles impinging on pedestrian space then why not mark two or three loading zones at the most appropriate places, using old fashioned dashed yellow paint on the shared space surface?
Leaving the defined roadway and kerbs while getting rid of the parking on both sides is actually an open invitation for motorists to speed through the lane. It would have neither the old school traffic calming (a narrow as lane with parking on both sides) or the new school traffic calming (shared space without defined roadway characteristics).
A poor decision. I very much hope that the idea of a shared space goes ahead.
Too narrow to work… What about Fort Lane?
Or what about Jean Batten Place?
Doesn’t the fact that it’s narrow make it a better candidate for shared space/pedestrianisation?
Exactly. The next candidate will be declared too wide. Goldilocks doesn’t have a chance.
Make sure you let the council know that anything less than an integrated shared space is a great opportunity squandered… http://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/NNRuD_S57UyVuAjPN6DMtg
They have just finished Fort street stage 2, Elliot street stage 2 in June and Lourne street and Rutland street will be finished in October.
I don’t know where you get where thsy have been quiet on this
Quiet in the sense that they are continuations of the previous plans announced 2-3 years ago. There have been no new plans announced since then that would be starting now and carrying on over Summer.
Hello All
I make the following statement as the Waitemata Local Board Transport Lead for this area:
AT presented the concept to the Board last month, and I, along with other members, queried the fact that it is not a fully shared space. The explanation given is that because AT must provide for all pedestrians, including blind or partially sighted pedestrians, the space needs to be wide enough to enable outdoor dining etc, AND space for blind/partially sighted pedestrians, who will need guidelines in the pavement to prevent them from walking out into a shared space and into potential vehicular conflict. For example in Elliot and Darby St there are ‘bumpy’ paving guidelines that a blind person with a cane can use to guide them.
It was found that the street would not be wide enough to enable such provision, so the decision by AT was to remove parking, and widen the footpaths, and retain the kerbing, which would enable blind/partially sighted pedestrians to use the space safely. I am a bit surprised that this factor is not mentioned in the publicity.
Personally speaking it would be wonderful if all car drivers were courteous and careful, thereby negating the need to safeguard blind/partially sighted pedestrians, but that’s not the reality that we live in.
So the challenge is to provide for safe means for blind/partially sighted pedestrians to use the space safely, and the current proposed design does this.
AT, and the Board welcome your feedback. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have, if I can, otherwise I can get AT to respond.
Thanks
Christopher Dempsey.
Thanks for dropping by Christopher. Did AT consider full pedestrianisation – at least during daylight hours? That would solve the blind/partially sighted issue (which I can understand though there could be ways of designing around that).
The real problem is that if we let O’Connell Street go, we will inevitably lose the much bigger prize of High Street – because it has a similar width.
Hmmm, ok, well how about making it a ped only space then? Not so convinced by this argument, looks like an excuse to retain auto priority. How can a street be too narrow to keep vehicles out? Insane traffic engineering logic.
By the way Chris would you or the board like to do a post on the new bridge at the Parnell Baths and the Cox’s bay upgrade, I’m sure our readers would love to see the what’s going on at both these sites….?
I’m not sure if I understand the advice you were given there Christopher. I can see two alternatives are in contention here:
1) The preferred option: widened footpaths either side and a defined kerb with step down to a narrow roadway, with plenty of room for cafe seating on the footpaths.
2) A shared space: widened footpaths either side with a tactile paving strip and a paved roadway at the same level between then, with plenty of room for cafe seating on the ‘footpath’ sides of the shared space.
Really, isn’t the only difference here between a fully flat surface and tactile strips, or a bi level surface with stepped kerbs. Why would the tactile strip necessitate more width than a formed kerb? Sounds funny to me.
Thanks Nick, I’ll get AT to comment on this blog post to clarify!
I guess then its the last render that’s misleading. Having cars parked to the extreme left (right, from the driver’s viewpoint), rather than commuting down the center
On the basis there will be no parking, this could be the best shared space yet. Its narrower, so more intimate, has a good architecture too by the look of it. Would be nice to see more of those canopies too.
There will be no parked cars whatsoever.
Thanks
Christopher Dempsey.
Thanks again Chris, but the consultation document states the following:
“The concept design proposes to remove all but four on-street
car parks from O’Connell Street. This will enable footpaths to
be widened and provide more space for people. The retained
on-street car parks would be located along the north-eastern
side of the street, between Shortland Street and Vulcan Lane.”
and also:
“The concept design proposes to retain the existing provision of
loading zones, though these would be re-positioned within the
street. Two loading spaces, consolidated into one zone, located
along the north eastern edge of O’Connell Street (between
Shortland Street and Vulcan Lane) along with the proposed
on-street car parks”
This suggests there will be six parking spaces on the street, four for general use and two marked as loading zones. Is this still accurate? If plans have changed why do the consultation documents still say there will be six parking bays on the street.
To be honest it sounds a bit fishy that the lane is too narrow to fit adequately safe tactile paving strips for the blind, yet somehow wide enough to fit in a row of parking as well as outdoor seating. Surely if they got rid of the parking it would work fine. One has to wonder how they managed with Fort Lane, which is both a shared space and even narrower than O’Connell.
The Board said that they wanted the car parks removed, and AT have agreed. It’s pointless having 4 car parks there as it will only encourage kerbside trawling, so they have been removed. Not sure why AT are saying that they are there. The loading zones have to remain unfortunately, but my observations is that courier drivers, contractors etc are learning to do their business before 11am.
Well that is a win, it is pointless to have 4 car parks for people to drive round and round hoping to get into. At most all the street needs is loading zones, or rather just the ability to load. I still can’t see why a shared space can’t do that like it does everywhere else.
On second glance, the “parked” van looks to be a service vehicle (there’s a guy with a trolley next to it). So maybe that’s all they were trying to show.
But with curb and channelling it’ll just be a licence for drivers to speed through… even with humps it could well end up being a worse ped experience than it is now.
I was assured by AT that the width of the road would be narrowed so that going at speed would be foolhardy…
It’s hard to see how there would be space for blind people if there is a street with kerbs, but not if there is a shared space with guidelines. Can’t the guidelines just follow where the kerbs would be?
Does $4.3m strike anyone else as a lot of money relative to the increased amenity?
Usually they take the opportunity to renew all the services under these streets when they upgrade them and that accounts for a lot of the cost. Probably wise considering some of it will be Victorian
Interestingly, not all services are mapped, particularly in the city centre and fringe areas. Given the history and our no. 8 wire she’ll be right mentality it’s perhaps not surprising.
I can’t believe this is even up for debate. Much of that part of town is an eyesore due to the traffic. Make O’Connell St pedestrian only and block all motor vehicles that aren’t delivery. Where do the cars even need to go that they can’t get to by foot from another location. I really look forward to leaving Auckland and coming back when it’s a different city. It’s too frustrating to live here sometimes.
Nearby parking for shoppers and for delivery vehicles are already catered for on Chancery street near the O’Connell entrance, and traffic can get onto Shortland street via Fields Lane. To me there is no reason for this not to become fully pedestrianised. We do want to be the world’s most liveable city, right Auckland Council?
Maybe AT needs to inspect some of Auckland’s hardiest fools blasting their way through High Street on busy afternoons… narrowness is no impediment when the risk is all to others and not to the driver.