While many (not all) locals are busy doing whatever they can to stop the Skypath from happening, in an extremely positive sign at least one government ministry can see the benefit of it. The Ministry for the Environment has announced that it will provide $193,000 in funding to help investigate the feasibility of the project.
Here is the press release from the AHB Pathway Trust:
Today’s announcement by Ministry for the Environment of $193,000 funding for SkyPath is a real boost says project director, Bevan Woodward.
“We greatly appreciate the Government’s support for the SkyPath project. For a long time our goal has been regarded as unachievable by some, but now SkyPath is increasingly seen as the smart transport solution that makes perfect sense.
“SkyPath is an exemplar project that demonstrates how we can tick all the boxes; environmentally, socially and economically. Aucklanders want safe and convenient alternatives to the private motor car. Sustainable transport in its various forms is clearly the way of the future. It’s more affordable than motorway building, less harmful to our environment and makes our city a more enjoyable place to be.
Mr Woodward says “The Ministry of the Environment’s funding of $193,000 means we can get on with design work of SkyPath’s access ramps in consultation with key stakeholders, research the consent requirements, advance the engineering details and prepare funding arrangements for construction and operation.
“This grant gives us extra confidence in the SkyPath project and will enable us to take an agreement for the next stage of work to Auckland Council’s Strategy & Finance Committee in August 2013.”
“Hence we are very grateful for the pro bono assistance SkyPath is receiving from KPMG and Russell McVeagh via Hikurangi Foundation’s Compass Network. Their expert guidance is enabling us to prepare the funding and delivery arrangements for SkyPath that will need to be considered by Auckland Council.”
“Our aim is to the obtain resource consent in 2014 and start construction of SkyPath late next year.”
And here is what the Ministry for the Environment has to say.
The Ministry for the Environment today announced funding of $193,000 to investigate the feasibility of the proposed ‘Skypath’ which would provide walking and cycling access across the Auckland Harbour Bridge. “If feasible, the pathway will get cars off the road and provide for alternative means of transport for Aucklanders commuting from the North Shore to the city,” Ministry for the Environment Operations Director Mike Mendonça says. The proposed Auckland Harbour Bridge ‘SkyPath’ is being planned by the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Trust. Government funding will enable the Trust to finalise the design of the ’SkyPath’, carry out consultation with stakeholders, research consents and finalise the funding arrangements for construction of the pathway. “This project is a great example of members of the community working together to address local issues and improve their local environment,” Mr Mendonça says. The Community Environment Fund provides funding so New Zealanders are empowered to take environmental action. For more information about the Community Environment Fund please click here: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/withyou/funding/community-environment-fund/
This is excellent news and hopefully in time the government will realise that it is worth funding the entire project. It also highlights another important aspect. Traditionally tiny cycling budget comes out of transport funding however many of the projects also provide benefits not only to the transport system but also the environment and health system. This raises the question of whether funding from additional sources should be being considered for these projects.
Processing...
*Cue angry commenters*
Why isn’t this part of the national cycle path (or is it)?
There was a tiny budget for the national cycle path which was way oversubscribed. There are no cycle paths in the Auckland region that received any funding from that project.
Fascinating its come from the Ministry of the Environment. Since when did they fund transport projects? Seems to have come from the community environment fund.
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/withyou/funding/community-environment-fund/
Perhaps the people at the Environment Ministry also have concerns about the government’s imbalanced transport spending and are trying to plug the gap.
Maybe they promote anything good for the environment?
Brilliant. As a local I can’t wait for this to be built!
It’s getting closer. Almost excited. Great news.
I wonder if this one was run past the Minister. Probably not.
If you support the SkyPath and live in St Mary’s Bay (see http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/Boundary/BoundaryMap.aspx?id=3515202&type=au&ParentID=1000002 for map), we need you to join the St Mary’s Bay Association by contacting with their secretary Wendy Moffett (wendymof@xtra.co.nz). Annual membership costs $20 and their next AGM is end of June/early July. Also please join us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/groups/274733862663691.
Great work Brendan – dilute the NIMBYs. I am trying to do the same in my area of Bayswater.
Brendan,
Can you comment on the status of SeaPath – is is a pre-requisite for the SkyPath, or can SkyPath be built as long as SeaPath is coming along behind it?
I know the NRA wanted it to be a requirment to give their consent, but is SeaPath really that important to SkyPath or is it a logical extension of SkyPath?
And does the funding from the Ministry of the Environment cover any work on SeaPath or only the SkyPath?
I note that SeaPath is listed as “back with NZTA” so I assume this is progressing as to engineering and other design elements and also for funding??
Or will SeaPath require separate from SkyPath funding mechanism?
And if so, any consideration to having a separate toll in place for SeaPath users (e.g. exit/enter SkyPath via the SeaPath route and pay an extra $1 on top of the SkyPath fare).
First off I’m not associated with Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Trust, just an local that supports the project.
As I understand it there are three projects. Skypath (by Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Trust), Seapath (by Waterfront Auckland/NZTA), and the Northern Motorway Cycleway (NZTA).
I don’t think the SeaPath is a needs to be a pre-requisite but it make a lot of sense to build them both, as they each provide benefits to the other one.
A $4 million budget for the Northern Motorway Cycleway in the NZTA’s 2012/15 NLTP is categorised as ‘probable’.
See http://www.skypath.org.nz/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/130418-SeaPath-connecting-SkyPath-to-Shoal-Bay-and-Takapuna.pdf for more details about the SeaPath.
As for tolls, because the Sapath and Northern Motorway Cycleway are government funded, I’d hope that there are no tolls for them.
Under the current proposal there is the very real chance the government or council would need to pay for it anyway.
To elaborate the plan is not too different from many of the failed toll roads in Australia where a loan is used to build it which is then paid off through patronage. However if the patronage ends up being too low the loan grows rather than getting paid off.
It would be safer for the government just to pay for it from the start.
The difference is that the PPPs in Australia were duplicating existing roading but charging for it.
The SkyPath is more akin to the building of the Harbour Bridge. Remember that the bridge exceeded projections as soon as it was opened. I have no doubt this will be exactly the same. Plus it comes on the heels of a world wide explosion in cycle use and ownership.
I imagine on weekends it will be shoulder to shoulder.
The issue with comparing it to the harbour bridge is that one would need to travel a very long way to use it. For example the average commuter would need to travel about 10km to use it as part of their journey pretty much ruling out walking. Add to that the grade would rule out most people from cycling leaving it for the enthusiast.
In a way it may prove not too different from the wynyard tram or sky tower. It would be something most people would like to do but only once every few years depending on the price.
If it were free it could become like tamiki drive however.
Luckily though , equivalent to the unfortunate routing of SH1 right through the centre of the city to the HB, it will be integrated into an improved cycle network. 10kms is a little pessimistic. Most people from Bayswater to Birkenhead would be 5-7 kms away, which on decent cycling path is only 20mins.
The ferries are already busting at the seams with cyclists (I know as a daily cycle/ferry commuter). Many people are already cycling 5-7kms to the ferry – and the SkyPath will be cheaper than the ferry. I dont think the grade will put off anymore people than the hills in AKL already do. It certainly wont bother me on my electric bike!
I think you are underestimating the potential of cycling once the infrastructure is in place. It is pretty hard to find a failed cycling project anywhere in the world. They tend to exceed expectations.
Ok I was a little pessimistic, it’s more in the range of 8km. From memory 5km is the magic number where normal people stop and only lycra wearers go further.
In regards to the grade, the context is very different when you compare biking up slowly with a mass group of protestors or doing it by yourself as a daily commute. For standards you can refer to Austroads Part 6A where you will find grades over 3% should be avoided due to some users finding it hard. You also get a safety issue with people flying down at insane speeds.
Of note, the harbour bridge is on a 5% grade..
And yet NZTA’s new Grafton Gully cycleway is 7% grade. I think we can quietly disregard Austroads, otherwise we’d have a hard time finding anywhere to build a cycleway in Auckland with such a low grade constraint.
You can physically build such things to any grade you like, be it 3% or 300%. The difference is the the steeper you go the fewer the number of people that would attempt to use such a facility.
Again based on Austroads, grades of 5% should be limited to 100m in length and grades of 7% to 50m. The maximum grade for mobility impaired users is 12% and should be no longer than 5 to 10m.
Interesting you say that SF Lauren. You can not build anything above a gradient 90 degrees or you essentially are building a path which is upside down. It just goes to show how you are clearly just reading facts from a document without really understanding what you are talking about. I cycle daily to university around 10km and do not require lycra either, so again you are making vast generalisations which you clearly don’t properly understand yourself.
Uh oh, gonna have to ban cyclists on Anzac Ave. Austroads demands it’s 5% grade be limited to 100m, but it’s 600m long. (yes I’m being facetious, but those guidelines are so far removed from reality that we might as well just keep ignoring them).
Chriss, what is this talk about 90 degrees. I said 300% which is a 3 to 1 grade or 71 degrees.
Regarding generalisations, of course I am. That’s what you do when you design public infrastructure. You don’t design things for the top 5% you design them for the 95%.
Also I understand all about such things as I design them for a living and know we’re they cause issues from experience.
Nick, you are confusing desirability with possibility. Nobody ever claimed such grades would prevent any human from traversing them, just that the desirability of the asset would be reduced.
Symonds Street is a doddle for cyclists. It’s by far the easiest way to get up from Queen Street / Britomart; less of a strain than Albert/Vincent/Pitt and FAR less than Queen Street itself or Wakefield Street.
I’m not confused Richard, just poking fun. I don’t have much faith in Austroads standards, they are very broad brush measures. I do wonder how they were calcuated, what studies validated them, etc. Naturally the steeper a cycleway is the less keen people are going to be about using it, but saying something like grades of 5% should be limited to 100m is almost useless outside of the real context.
Queen St between Mayoral and K Rd is certainly steep at 6.5%. I can’t quite ride my single speed up there but I do see people on more practical bikes doing it often enough. I can ride my single speed up Franklin Rd (just) and Google Earth tells me that is about 6%. If the bridge is 5% then even my impractical bike could handle it, and anyone with a normal bike would breeze up.
Most bikes have gears, it seems that a lot of detractors forget that. Perhaps they just look back to the last time they road a bike which was their BMX when they were a kid.
Your missing the entire point of design guidelines nick. They are not there to say things will explode if exceeded but that there will be a loss of service.
For the harbour bridge, the long route (8km) combined with the long up hill grade there will be a large portion of the population that would be put off from using this as a commuter route. Granted these people probably don’t tend to cycle anyway but such things should be taken into account when looking at patronage values.
Similar to that are the safety risks of the long downhill grade which will result in accidents.
I understand that Richard, I just think that they are conservative and overstate the loss of usage.
Of course the real problem is when someone uses a guideline like that like it were a criterion for explosion. I’ve seen that plenty of times where people say something like ” the book says we can’t build a 5% grade more than 100m so we can’t do it” when they really should say “it looks like if we build this 5% grade more than 100m we won’t get as many users as we could, do we still want to go ahead?”.
It’s all about practicality. If you have the space to make a path at 3% you should do it rather than making one at 5% just so you can save a few coins. Naturally certain topographical constraints will make this impracticable in some locations and so you may need to go at 8%.
There are a few places in the Auckland CBD where people completely ignored such guidelines such as around Emily Pl and Eden Cres where the grades are completely wrong.
@SF – well, Austroads (and for that matter, the Commonwealth of Australia) didn’t exist in the 19th century, so maybe don’t be too hard on people back then for not building stuff according to the design guidelines.
I’m surprised by the claims that the grade would be too difficult – certainly seemed eminently walkable for cycles and peds in 2009 (ahem).
The grade is no worse that riding up Symonds St, plenty of people do that.
I did a. bit of searching to find a comparable gradient and length of climb in Auckland, the closest thing I could find was Lake Rd by Takapuna Grammar. When this comparison was presented to the NSCC transport committee, a Devonport councilor said “I’m not a good cyclist, but I can ride up that easily” Sort of shut down that line of criticism.
Sf Lauren,
You are correct, in a properly managed transport funding system, yes it would be funded as a no-brainer exercise.
As it stands due to the constraints imposed on the Local and National Governments involved, getting it built with a PPP then picking up any pieces along the way is way way better than arguing for the perfect solution. So I’ll take SkyPath as the only option on the table right now thanks – Bird in the hand worth two in the bush and all that.
And in any case, by the time SkyPath is fully operational, we’ll have a new Government, with new Transport Minister and new Policies/directions in force.
So the new Minister can rectify the situation in a flash if they so chose.
Does raise the interesting point that maybe could we see another political campaign on “removing the tolls” from the Bridge – this time for the SkyPath not cars in the not too distant future.
Or, for equality, get road pricing back on the bridge and the rest of the motorways…. for efficient use of our assets….
Patrick why level the playing field – lets tilt it solidly the other way.
So, toll the bridge, and make the SkyPath free from the get go!
160,000 crossings a day, at $2 each. Skypath is paid off in 3 months.
Why toll the bridge again? There’s an established principle that it is not fair to toll a road where there is no reasonable alternative route and this certainly applies with the bridge.
Perhaps a more logical road to toll would be something like Tamaki Drive, which would bring the added benefit of making this beautiful road much more pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists. Maybe that’s a better rationale for road tolls – applying them selectively where there is a tangible benefit in reducing traffic on that road – rather than using them as rent collectors where the road is effectively a monopoly.
Good point David, covers exactly why the cycleway shouldn’t be tolled haha.
I agree with you on Tamaki drive and had never even thought of that side of traffic reduction.
That is not how this will work. There are institutional investors lined up for Skypath. The council has been asked to underwrite a certain amount of revenue, but this is capped and is much less than the total cost of capital.
Any future Government so inclined can pay out the investors their due (in effect “nationalising” the infrastructure if you like) and then make the toll disappear.
Of course, you’d still need to enforce number limits on the SkyPath but having the toll reduced to $zero but left in place so you tag on with your HOP? or whatever card to get admitted, and tag off to leave SkyPath would allow the “toll system” to enforce numbers on the SkyPath for one of the easiest options.
Could be a vote catcher. I’d vote for it.
Of course, the toilet facilities and security patrols would need to continue, but again NZTA can pay for that like they’d do for other road projects – their rule book will be changed to allow it to happen by same Government I am sure.
What are the locals objecting to?? It can’t be noise or pollution from cyclists!
As far as I can tell from the rantings of Phil on an earlier post (http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2013/05/30/locals-still-opposing-skypath), urination. Apparently cyclists urinate everywhere. Who knew?
Apparently they are convinced that their suburbs will be beseiged by hordes of cyclists or alternatively that no one will come and it will be a failure. Or both at the same time…somehow.
Also that the cyclists will park their cars everywhere. I would have thought parking restrictions are in order but apparently that wont stop the hordes – oh no – they will resort to vandalism and general anarchy.
All rational stuff with no relationship to NIMBYism.
Urine pollution on their grass and CO2 pollution of their air seems to be the biggest complaints.
Oh, and generally cluttering up the neighbourhood with their unwelcome presence.
Urine (nitrates) is quite good for grass growth, makes it lush and green.
If they have issues with Co2 pollution then maybe they’d want to take a look at that eight lane motorway first?!
They could plant lemon trees and we could urinate on those 🙂
Its amusing to me that its the Ministry of the Environment thats funding it, not the Ministry of Transport. Says a lot about the MoT.
Thats because the T in MoT stands for “Trucks” as in “The Trucking Industry”.
Ministry of things that burn dinosaurs.
Ministry of the 1950s.
Ministry of tickle me silly I love cars.
Ministry of the uninformed.
Hey, I just read through the whole “Disgruntled Phil of Northcote Point” thread and the most amazing thing for me – which no-one pointed out – that I was supposed to feel sorry about his “multi-million dollar investment” in a cul de sac being threatened by a few cyclists coming through. If I can ever actually afford to own ANY property in Auckland, I might shed a tear.
I hinted at this a few times, although I don’t think I actually said it as directly as that. I was basically hoping to get it to point where Phil would say that exact line so that it could be quoted for great justice – I guess for what its worth he didn’t fall into that very specific trap, yet.
Its astounding when you consider the Harbour Bridge was built solely for motor vehicles, end of story, no foot traffic, no trains, no alternatives, no future proofing. A lesson in history that successive politicians have ignored and in fact replicated (Britomart). So very Auckland.
Except the Harbour Bridge was designed for Trains, walking, cycling etc.
And the core bridge and pilings were designed to be able take 8 lanes from day 1.- hence why the Clipons were even an option later on.
But the Ministry Minions (or more likely Treasury Accountants) got at the design and chopped the design back to the bare minimum they could get away with).
re: Britomart, it was designed as a Through station from day 1, hence why CRL is even an option. Even though the Govt of the day wasn’t keen on any extension of Britomart line west and did its best to stop that as well.
So before you point the finger at Auckland for short sightedness, perhaps point it further south first.
What a bunch of idiots you lot are 🙁 Completely dishonest about the funding and patronage and dismissive of any arguments or facts that do not fit into your narrow agenda. It is truly sad that Auckland is polluted by people that are spiteful of people that worked hard to buy homes.
This actually seems quite an unfair comment given that you’ve apparently struggled to understand the difference between the NLTF and the Super Fund (this of course, assumes the view that you are in fact referring to the NTLF – its not really clear). Attributing this to spite would be well in character for someone who was “… dismissive of any arguments or facts that do not fit [their] narrow agenda”. Remind me – what is the cure for narrow-mindedness?
LOL…coming from someone like Counterpoint who cant calculate a 5 bill loan payment term or understand the meaning of an under writer. Now excuse me, Im about to watch the cricket. Presumably there is a re-run somewhere of Mama Mia for you to occupy your evening with CP 🙂
I was just watching a recorded Top Gear ep
Moderators, could you delete all the ad hominem personal remarks that litter this and the other Skypath thread? They add nothing to the debate, and subtract quite a lot.
@ Bryce…can you imagine what Clarkson would have to say about a cycle path..lol.
Actually Phil, Google ‘Jeremy Clarkson cycle paths’. You’re in for a surprise 🙂
Interesting comments by JC. Of course it would be nice if there were more cycle options in Auckland (everywhere really) The trouble is always that cars/trucks/buses do not mix well with cyclists. Look at the accident on Tamaki Drive last year 🙁 In this way I agree that Skypath would be a nice option as it separates the traffic far better than just giving cyclists an outside lane. My problem as you know is just the entry/exit point and the issues are caused because you are trying to engineer something that was never in (but should have been) the original design. Because of this Skypath becomes very expensive and a burden on local infrastructure.
Sorry to thread-jack like this, but wasn’t this one of the main points in the other thread – that it wasn’t entirely clear quite how it would be ‘burdensome’ on local infrastructure? Since the local infrastructure in this case is mostly just streets (with some connecting paths), and the users are going to be either on bicycles or walking, the burden presumably has to come from utterly huge numbers of users (like, stadiums worth)… Similarly I don’t know how this makes Skypath more expensive relative to any other option to provide similar access. It’s certainly cheaper than AWHC, for example.
Also, I must say that it seems Phil has turned over something of a new leaf with this comment. We seemed to have narrowed down the ‘millions of reasons’ to one (entry and exit), and I should think that some sort of amicable solution can be found to address that. Imagine if you had taken this tone from the start Phil – you might haven gotten some real traction.