This is a cross post from our friends at Cycle Action Auckland
Yes we can! – our first “Urbanway” is coming.
As part of exciting changes in central Auckland, Auckland Transport has now released images of the new plans for the traffic-separated cycle paths along Beach Road. This will be the first real “urbanway” (urban cycleway) infrastructure in Auckland. It will join with the equally exciting Grafton Gully cycle path and the proposed flagship cycle routes on Tamaki Drive and Quay Street to form a safe, convenient link for cyclists into and through the CBD.
This will also link right through to the fantastic Skypath across the Auckland Harbour Bridge and finally on to Takapuna. Wow, it’s almost starting to feel like we are getting a proper city!
While Auckland Transport has done a lot to inform the local residents and business owners about the project, we feel that the message needs to be spread wider – so CAA has successfully asked them to allow a wider consultation, so YOU can add your support and show your enthusiasm. The first urban cycleway in Auckland that will both BE safe and FEEL safe – to encourage all Aucklanders (men, women, children, the young and the elderly) to get out on their bikes and enjoy this beautiful city.
Here are some first concept images of the proposed Urbanway (which AT prepared on our request – we only added some cyclists into the Sunday traffic levels imagery):
That’s right; do not adjust your set! Those are actual, grown-up separated cycle paths in an urban setting – just the kind of “Urbanways” that the cycle module of the Congestion Free Network will showcase. And you don’t have to go all the way to the Denmark to try them.
If you want to delve a little deeper into what is proposed, this CAA blog article discussed the concept plans for the cycleway.
Many of you are aware of the fantastic economic benefits (if not, see here and here) that cities like Portland, New York, Vancouver and Seattle are starting to discover from good quality cycle infrastructure. The commercial area along Beach Road has looked increasingly run down and the great developments in Britomart have only added to that decline. It would be really exciting to see this new urbanway help to revitalise that area.
But apart from being awesome for City Centre cyclists, this would be a great showcase to boost appetite for this kind of infrastructure in other parts of the city. Like your part of the city.
Help make it happen. Provide feedback (even if it is only an “Awesome – do it!”) – give your opinions by the 4th October.
Processing...
Great! I have seen these types of lanes around the world – in Florence, and elsewhere – and wondered why we don’t have them. Build them and people do use them. How would they be designed in a more residential setting with driveways and side streets, like Gt North Rd, Gt South Rd, Dominion Rd?
Love the new less sweeping geometries on the side street intersections and the raised ped tables! Right, this is a disease that we must get to infect the much more of the wider city.
Although I can see it now, drivers will pass over the raised table and wait for a gap in traffic thereby blocking the cycle lane.
There’s only one such location on the path, and that’s currently one-way in, and relatively low-volume. So cars will wait on Beach Road before crossing. The table is then to protect peds and to ensure drivers don’t hoon it turning in. There’s also been talk of reversing the direction, so we’ll have to see in detailed design what works best.
Great. Bikes demonstrate that it’s the width of a vehicle that makes it fit roads efficiently. To take it further, why not become the world leader in auto commuting innovation? Current councilman Toa Greening’s proposal to build and lease narrow cars would allow commuting cars to fit in lanes the width of bicycle lanes. Result: no more traffic congestion and better road sharing with bicycles, motorcycles, scooters, joggers, and pedestrians. See Toa’s proposal at http://www.projectmicrocar.co.nz .
This is perhaps a great example of why it simply won’t work
Haha brilliant. His screams of terror would have made any young schoolgirl proud.
Since MattL posted one non-serious example of a narrow commuter vehicle, I’ll post several other links for more informed consideration:
The Carver – another Jeremy Clarkson Top Gear video, except extremely positive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDRVCgnrEfo
The Tango: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLiYzSOMFgE
Nissan Land Glider: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiTFkMp9EgY
Lumeneo Smera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0EgMuocr1c
Some folks reading this blog may remember the vast majority of luggage taken to airports and checked onto airplanes was twice as wide as it is currently. It’s easy to see that the same transition could occur with commuting vehicles, especially when outfitted, like Toa Greening’s proposal, with self-driving technology. Here’s the link to his study again: http://www.projectmicrocar.co.nz
Just like bicycles, motorcycles, scooters, and suitcases, there are many models of narrow commuting cars that people can choose to make their travelling experience faster and more enjoyable. With Greening’s proposal, Auckland has a significant lead in taking advantage of this innovative technology.
A little bit of good news – makes for a nice change 😉
It’s definitely great to see some “gold-plated” cycle infrastructure being planned to go along-side all of Auckland’s gold-plated motorways. One thing I’d like to see that isn’t part of the Beach Road cycle infrastructure but ties into it, is a better connection between the waterfront cycling routes and Queen Street. It’s not particularly clear whether cycles are welcome in the “bus only” block of Queen Street in front of Britomart. A quick win on the cycling front might be to install a seperated two-way cycling lane (using saying planters or concrete barriers) up the middle of that block (minimizing interference with the bus stops). Even if that particular location isn’t considered desirable, it would be nice to have a clear designated route between the Westhaven / Tamaki Drive cycle routes and Queen Street.
The cycleway will extend down Mahuhu Cres and Tapora St to Quay St. Quay St is being designed at the moment but is likely to have significant cycling amenity.
You can see this in the technical images of the proposal in this post
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2013/07/14/first-stage-of-grafton-gully-cycleway-to-open/
Hi Chris
As Matt has already highlighted, the design will keep that all-important connectivity in mind – and it is at the top of CAA’s mind as well. When we were campaigning for the Grafton Gully / Beach Road works to be expedited, we used the “Everything meets at the Waterfront” tagline to emphasise how we need this path to link everything together!
So it’s great that we won’t only get a link to the Waterfront, but also a path all the way to Britomart. Bonus.
This is the kind of infrastructure that will eventually enable a ‘citybike’ hire type scheme to be successful in Auckland.
To make it work you’re going to have to get rid of helmet laws..
Why? Our last bike hire scheme hired the helmet with the bike.
Yes but the difference in usage between systems with and without helmets is pretty huge. I know Melbourne has helmets supplied that are sanitised but for a lot of people that is a no go.
I know this is a majorly emotional and controversial topic with little rational discussion around it but I do think we should have a helmet law like in California where only riders under 16 have to wear a helmet.
Why do you think kids should have to wear helmets when adults don’t?
That’s not quite correct. Melbourne has the same helmet laws as we do, except they can’t rent helmets like we can (theirs need to be professionally sanitised between every use, logistically impossible) so they offer subsidised ones at the Seven Eleven for $5.
The difference between bike hire systems with and without helmets is exactly the same as the difference between bike usage in cities with and without helmet laws, simply because the cities that have a lot of cycling infrastructure, lot of cycling usage, drivers who are considerate of riders etc don’t have helmet laws. The systems that work well are in cities where cycling works well to begin with.
There is a distinct cause and effect relationship here, places like Copenhagen don’t need helmet laws because they have built their city around providing for cyclists and slowing traffic. Not needing helmet laws is a consequence of a very high uptake of cycling… but a high uptake of cycling isn’t the consequence of removing helmet laws.
Removing helmet laws (in general or specifically for hire bikes) isn’t going to create the infrastructure, the culture, the driver skills etc that cities with high cycle rider ship have. If we build a lot more infrastructure like this, change a lot more drivers attitudes, get a lot more people riding, then we can have a discussion about helmet laws.
^And if the police actually start enforcing the laws.
Steve D – I think children do have some risk of low speed accidents like just falling off, which is about the only situation where a cycle helmet is actually any use. However, I cycled quite happily until the law came in when I was about 18 and had no issues – so yeah why not?
Nick R – I dont think New York had a particularly great cycle culture or infrastructure and yet the cycle hire scheme has been very successful. London has terrible infrastructure and yet the scheme there has been a sucess. Melbourne actually has some good infrastructure and yet the bike hire hasnt been successful and the helmet law has been identified as one of the big reasons.
“Not needing helmet laws is a consequence of a very high uptake of cycling” – The only countries that have helmet laws are Anglophone countries and only in the early 1990s. This has brainwashed us into thinking that cycle helmets are somehow a necessary part of cycling. I have just come from three years of cycling without a helmet in Bucharest, Romania which makes cycling here look like a Sunday park ride. It made cycling no less safe.
There are about 200 countries in the world that dont have cycle helmet laws and only about 5 of those (all in Europe) could really be considered good cycling countries. There is cause and effect certainly – when we introduced helmet laws the cycling rates dropped by about 75% in NZ and Australia. It started to create a culture that somehow cycling was very dangerous – not supported by any statistics.
As I say this is an emotional and political issue with very few facts bothered with.
And what are the rates of cycling related major brain trauma like in Bucharest? Yes we have a strong social healthcare system, with universal coverage through ACC. This is one reason why our laws are aligned with out population health risks, because we all pay as a state for healthcare and rehabilitation.
I don’t want to dig up this old debate, but when we introduced cycling helmet laws cycling rate were already plummeting, primarily due to the mass adoption of personal cars and a shift to a suburban urban form. These two factors made cycling unattractive in its own right (suburban cycling being less effective, cul de sacs etc, and cars being widespread, affordable and cheap alternatives), and more dangerous at the same time (more traffic, roads not designed for pedestrians or cyclists). Helmet laws were arguably an appropriate response to plummeting cycling levels and the shift to a city that was very hostile to riding.
I’ve studied this from the health angle a lot in a former role in Australia, and cyclists who have crashes without helmets on have significantly higher injury severity than those with, particularly when measured in terms of permanent disability adjusted life years (i.e. if you crash without a helmet on you are far more likely to be permanently disabled afterwards). Note that helmets don’t reduce your risk of crashing, nor your risk of injury, the same way that seatbelts don’t stop you having car crashes or getting hurt in them… but in both cases they do significantly reduce the severity of injury you do receive.
There is only one reasonably certain outcome of removing helmet laws, assuming that results in less helmet usage: cyclists admitted to the emergency room with greater severity of injuries.
If, as people claim, the requirement to wear a helmet is the one thing holding everyone back from riding a bike (personally I think it is far down the list), then there would be a further outcome: even more cyclists admitted to the emergency room with greater severity of injuries.
People like to blame the low use of the Melbourne scheme on helmets, and that certainly may be a factor as they don’t let you hire the helmet when you hire the bike. But the critical problem with Melbourne is the deployed the system only within the CBD, an area not especially suited to cycling, and absolutely soaked with frequent trams on every main street in every direction (with zero fare control I might add), plus several underground rail stations. At the same time you can only hire the bikes for very short periods (less than 20 minutes) without financial penalty, and you must return the bike to a bike station. So in other words the only thing the Melbourne bikes are good for is a quick walking-distance trip between bike stations within the few blocks of the CBD, exactly the trips where it is far easier to simply hop on the tram. The bike scheme there was a feel good greenwash answer from the state government and the equivalent of the AA that was sorely wanting for a reason to exist. If they want to make this work, they should take all the bike stations and redistribute them around the inner north, university precinct and inner east suburbs, where cross town trips are notoriously difficult by PT. Then they would fill a transport function.
Oh and cycling is indeed a dangerous activity, in the State of Victoria at least. We routinely reported on emergency department presentations and hospital admissions related to sport and recreational activities. Cycling resulted in more treated injuries than the next five sports or activities put together (including the likes of AFL which is brutal and very popular). Now the system recorded all cycling as recreation and didn’t differentiate cycling for transport, and indeed the figures were nothing compared to car related injuries, but it is definitely a dangerous activity at the population health level.
Having walked this way every day for a year, the best parts are the improvements to the Tangihua/Beach road intersection – the sliplane turning onto beach road was a menace (those massive trucks flying through!) and the crossing to the Scene apartment sides was woefully inadequate (with a massive kerb/step if you crossed in the ‘wrong’ place).
Hopefully britomart place will get some work and better access to Takutai square – those cobblestones are not fun to ride on…
Matt, I’m specifically referring to linking Quay Street with Queen Street south of Customs Street. If bikes aren’t banned outright from the bus-only block in front of Britomart Station, they certainly don’t seem to be encouraged. Using Gore or Commerce Street instead to access Queen Street via Fort Street doesn’t seem quite ideal. With various proposed upgrades such as the Skypath and Quay Street boulevard encouraging more cycle traffic along the waterfront from both east and west, it would seem sensible to provide a clear route into the retail/employment spine of the CBD.
Hi Chris, CAA is involved in ensuring such links happen – so far we have a committment from AT that Quay Street will include significant upgraded cycle facilities (and we have been harping on about the need for dedicated cycle spaces on this axis, rather than shared paths), but we haven’t seen plans yet.
For the north-south links, the timing of the plan / design work within AT / Council seems to be to follow, once they have decided on their key west-east links. And of course we will push for good linkages as well there.
Looks good, fantastic really.. though in the first picture of Beach Road I’d like to see some white / green paint continuing across the actual intersection like in the Vancouver photo. This particular Beach Rd intersection looks like it’s traffic light controlled; even so could this be a chance to begin the process of establishing the principle here that left-turning cars cede to bikes (and peds).
Left-turning cars are already supposed to cede to pedestrians at traffic lights. The cycleway is going to be breaking some new ground, though, and some paint at the very least would be a good idea since everyone, motorist, cyclist and pedestrian is going to be pretty baffled on day one of this.
It’s actually more complex here. The “main cycleway” crosses the road here – if you look closely, you will notice that there IS green pain continuing across the intersection – at right angles! [Can’t see it very well, because of the foreshortening of the image). This is to emphasise that most cyclists should cross here. It will throw up some difficulties for first-timers, because there’s also a standard (paint only, no kerbing, at least not in the current design) cycle lane continuing on to Parnell.
Aha! I see it now, Max, thank you. I agree there will need to be some pretty clear signage. Still, looks great.
First class stuff. Get it on Tamaki Drive ASAP.
Thought this article was an interesting backgrounder … (situation in the Netherlands)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23587916
Good stuff
What’s with the midway polarity reversal outside the Railway carpark? (And the suspicious retention of on-street car parking opposite — a smoking gun?)
Not convinced by the use of dual-lane tracks. How are these “New York style”? Those are typically one-way at Class I, except on extraordinarily wide boulevards (e.g. Tillary St) or on one-way traffic streets (e.g. Kent Ave), as far as I know. Anyway, I’d much prefer to see Copenhagen-style tracks: raised, along both kerbsides, going with the flow of vehicle traffic, and can be strongly separated. Even if two-way cycle tracks are really desirable, then build one set on each side. This corridor is on the order of ~35m wide, it can handle that.
The concept for a one-way parallel branch towards Parnell is just quirky. I can’t see that being a legible layout, especially for new users.
The interaction with bus stops is mixed up — there are a couple plonked right in the middle of the cycle lanes around Churchill. There is a floating stop northwest of Mahuhu, so why not replicate it?
While these may be draft concepts at this stage, it is still entirely typical to see cycling infrastructure distorted to appease motoring convenience, even before it is watered down by public consultation.
More broadly, I’m lukewarm to the “link” value of the project. This cluster of works will connect an unrolled velodrome of a route (Tamaki/Quay) with a bushwalk of a trail (Gully/Northwest), which is missing the point of everyday city cycling (short, local trips between front doors, plugging into public transit).
Having said that, this overall project also enhances the “place” value of Beach Rd — so I’m keen on the raised pedestrian tables (assuming flush tables, not tapered humps), kerb extensions, the removal of at least a few car parking spots and slip lanes, plus whatever incidental renewal might happen. Reaching into the neighbourhood’s side streets is laudable too — in fact, I wish that was the central strategic focus from the start.
I’d give this effort a generous ‘C’. Hardly inspiring, and should be treated with apt contrition.
> What’s with the midway polarity reversal outside the Railway carpark?
If you start out on one side (coming from south), and continue on the other side (north, to Britomart and Quay Street), then you need to switch at some point. If it switched back and forth several times, you’d have a point, but it does so only once.
> Even if two-way cycle tracks are really desirable, then build one set on each side. This corridor is on the order of ~35m wide, it can handle that.
See, that’s the key difference right there. You want to run, when most of Auckland still doubts that cycling can walk (to use a really butchered metaphor). You want things that are great, and would be awesome if built, but have little chance of ever happening unless we go through intermediate stages first. There’s ambitious and and there’s unrealistic. I’d rather fight for two cycleways in two parts of Auckland than two cycleways in one street.
> The concept for a one-way parallel branch towards Parnell is just quirky. I can’t see that being a legible layout, especially for new users.
The legibility issue is a fair comment, but as I said, it has to switch at some point, and I am quite pleased that standard cycle lanes (with a bit of Copenhagen on the corner) are included for those who want to come and go to Parnell.
> The interaction with bus stops is mixed up — there are a couple plonked right in the middle of the cycle lanes around Churchill.
Not on the main path, though.
> More broadly, I’m lukewarm to the “link” value of the project. This cluster of works will connect an unrolled velodrome of a route (Tamaki/Quay) with a bushwalk of a trail (Gully/Northwest), which is missing
> the point of everyday city cycling (short, local trips between front doors, plugging into public transit).
Not even going to have that discussion with you again – we are too far apart in opinions for this to be worth our respective time.
> I’d give this effort a generous ‘C’. Hardly inspiring, and should be treated with apt contrition.
So you expect that this “nothing ever good enough to deserve praise” attitude will speed up change? I’d respect that more if it had any track record of working.
Max,
> If you start out on one side (coming from south), and continue on the other side (north, to Britomart and Quay Street), then you need to switch at some point. If it switched back and forth several times, you’d have a point, but it does so only once.
If you accept that local networks are worthwhile, then I can make a reasonable case for it to run straight ahead to Anzac, Fort and Queen, as well as Britomart. (And I can make a related but distinct case to seriously improve walking and cycling accessibility to Britomart in all directions.)
Even if you don’t, it’s just weird that when your hypothetical northbound user needs to switch sides, that the entire track does too. And suspicious that it does so around on-street car parking. Of course, robust and frequent right-turns/crossings are totally appropriate, but not at the cost of the way ahead!
> See, that’s the key difference right there. You want to run, when most of Auckland still doubts that cycling can walk
Get real: we’re talking about one section of one main street here. When some works are carried out to improve a street for cycling, it is perfectly reasonable to ask that both sides and all affected intersections get completed. At least to the minimum decent standard of being able to ride continuously, to reach existing frontage, to not conflict with buses, and to have internally consistent treatments.
I fully appreciate the need to build incrementally in stages and phases. So let’s at least complete one ordinary street at a time (and then one locality at time, and only then region-wide).
As an analogy, fully building the CFN within, say, 5-10 years — nice as that would be — is like the “run” option. But even to “walk”, projects need to be done one functional unit at a time, such as a whole CRL (not just 50% of the way), or a full electric train (not just a few cars or an engine).
> quite pleased that standard cycle lanes (with a bit of Copenhagen on the corner) are included
Bit of this, bit of that, all within a few metres. Pick ‘n’ mix. See what I mean?
> So you expect that this “nothing ever good enough to deserve praise” attitude will speed up change? I’d respect that more if it had any track record of working.
I expect that being honest and critical about the current state of affairs — both built and planned — is the right platform to launch from. Then asking for what you want, with a clear justification for why you want it, will help evaluate these plans as they arise. Finally, being able to reject a bad proposal, or parts of one, is an important tool in negotiation and in advocating to improve things. Take what you can get, but take it for what it is.
For a track record, just look at this fine blog. Auckland Transport Blog is generally as rational, critical, analytical and fair as can be on transport and urban issues. (The main exception being Cycling™, which for some reason triggers a kind of halo effect of wish thinking that suspends all disbelief — I’d guess that’s partly due to deference to the fine folks at CAA.)
Whilst there are probably areas that in the future can be fixed (or even duplicated on the other side of the road if cycle traffic becomes so great that it’s required – imagine that!) I think this is a fantastic start and can only but help get more people interested in riding along this road. And I’m talking riders of all abilities here not just those who are happy to mix it with traffic. It is a start and a damn good one. If this takes of in popularity, like I expect it will, then the question of ‘should we be funding more of the same’ – or better – is surely an easy one to answer. Now we really need to link it to Quay St and The Viaduct / Wynyard asap.
Bryce P,
> It is a start
We can’t keep on justifying sub-par infrastructure as “a start”. A light reading of history will show that the last few decades have been full of them. If there is a failing track record here, it is this.
A plausible “start” would be, say, a complete street. It would be the start of a local network of complete streets, then a neighbourhood, a region, etc.
> and a damn good one
I’ve critiqued this above. Would be interested to hear what you differ on.
> If this takes of in popularity, like I expect it will, then the question of ‘should we be funding more of the same’ – or better – is surely an easy one to answer.
There are a few problems with this line of thinking:
1) Popularity is not sacred. The right thing should be done regardless of how popular it is on any given day.
2) To base future funding decisions in proportion to current popularity is a non-starter, because of induced demand. This devolves into a chicken v. egg scenario. In fact, the inverse is true: cycling deserves even more investment, quality and priority because its modeshare is extraordinarily low.
3) What if it does take off in popularity? Why would that alone justify upgrades — wouldn’t Beach Rd then be considered “done”? When will you be satisfied?
4) What if it doesn’t take off in popularity, because of poor quality, contextual factors, or otherwise? How will you prove it? Should that justify reduced funding or quality for the next thing?
5) Exemplar projects to show that cycling can be better served are practically redundant. There are plenty of examples around the world already, as well as research and theory. We know that what you feed grows, so let’s start eating well!
I think the network of complete streets is better started in the ‘burbs. We could start with the easy suburbs – say Te Atatu Peninsula, Bayswater etc and grow from there. Downtown is going to be politically tricky for a long time to come. It’s easy to say we want perfection but if perfection means it doesn’t happen at all then we have lost. I know where you’re coming from and fully agree (and as Max will tell you, I’m all for full Dutch facilities and do go on about it a bit) but I’m also mindful of the attitudes of the average person and within parts of AT / AC where there are roadblocks. As for upgrading Beach Rd should it be a roaring success – we do this with roads so why not cycle paths?
> We could start with the easy suburbs – say Te Atatu Peninsula, Bayswater etc and grow from there. Downtown is going to be politically tricky for a long time to come.
Actually, downtown would be the least tricky for a wide variety of reasons. It has huge road reserves to carve space from, unlike many other places in the world where old towns have narrow streets. Political support from all sides is already there: the AA supports pedestrianising Queen Street; even independent/right-wing candidates have begun supporting intensifying the inner city; and the progressive caucus has been onto it for ages. The Unitary Plan may be watered down across the region, but the city centre zone still retains the greatest potential for development. There are already mature PT hubs to plug into with full-network benefits. There is already the highest population and job density to leverage for short-trip, non-motorised transport. Most people from across the city utilise the centre, and can benefit from its improvement. Cars and trucks generally bypass the centre via the CMJ (and soon WRR); AT is aware of car mode share flattening here (hence their co-operation on projects like the P’ Rd master plan). It’s a no-brainer.
I would also like to see the suburbs develop. If the opportunity arises for focused improvement around centres, I’d support it. But given all the talk of realism and practicality, this is where I’m happy to compromise on timing.
> It’s easy to say we want perfection
This is about achieving a minimum decent standard of how we treat people in the public realm. Perfection is something else.
> if perfection means it doesn’t happen at all then we have lost
And if we get a bad deal, we lose too. The real question is what strategy to follow. I suggest that being able to speak honestly and say “no” is a key part of a good advocacy strategy. We need to develop a better alternative to negotiated agreements that are just not good enough.
> As for upgrading Beach Rd should it be a roaring success – we do this with roads so why not cycle paths?
Exactly. It’s a spurious argument for expanding roads, so it is for cycling too. We have way better reasons to improve cycling and public transport.
Cycling does have the most benefits, it has potential to be the quickest mode. Probably is for the brave few.
For example 20 minutes possible Ponsonby – Mt Eden or Parnell.
Half speed of bus, walking, and probably driving most of the time too.