Back in 2009, the former Auckland Regional Council and the Government bought Queens Wharf off the Ports of Auckland for a sum of something like $40 million with the intention of the wharf adding to the public space in the city. When opened to the public in 2010 the wharf added to what was otherwise a relatively small amount of public open space in the CBD. It was also brought to become the main cruise ship terminal for the city, dropping passengers off right in the heart of the CBD from where there cruise passengers could explore the city and/or region.
That ended decades of the wharf being locked up behind the red fence and being used by the port to store imported cars and other goods and it was declared the Peoples Wharf by Mike Lee who was then Chairman of the ARC.
In the lead up to the Rugby World Cup we saw a heap of potential plans for the wharf which would become “party central” for the cup but in the end not a huge amount was done. One of the historic sheds was removed and The Cloud Slug put in its place touch ups were also made to the wharf and the remaining shed but in the end the wharf still doesn’t seem that much different to what it was 3 years ago when first opened to the public.
One thing that definitely hasn’t changed – and in fact has become worse over that time – has been the handing over of large parts of the wharf to cars. I have been down to the wharf a number of times recently including to watch the America’s Cup racing and just to relax yet every single time I end up having to dodge cars. Far from being a people’s space, the people have progressively been shoved to the sides while the centre of the wharf – and the most natural walking line – has been turned over to cars. The car spaces are highlighted in the image below (there is access between the two but that isn’t such an issue).
From what I have seen there are a few types of vehicles using the wharf. They are:
Airbus – For some reason the Airbus service has been allowed to use the wharf as its terminus. I think this is historic from before the wharf was handed over but with all of the other bus stops we have scattered around the place I can’t see a reason why it has to be on the wharf next to the ferry terminal. However all up the buses are probably the least concern for the time being.
Taxi’s – For some stupid reason Waterfront Auckland has decided to put a Taxi Rank on the wharf. Perhaps they think either ferry or cruise passengers are extra special and can’t walk the extra 100m or so to the numerous taxis parked around Britomart on the side streets. Further every time I’m there it seems more like a place for the taxis to park up for free near the city centre, an activity that doesn’t need to be taking place on prime waterfront land.
Users of Shed 10 or the Cloud Slug – The two buildings on the Wharf are used for events, for example at the moment there is the Sustainable City Showcase on and that is where Generation Zero’s micro conference is. When there is a show or event on at the wharf it is understandable that some vehicles will need to access it to drop off/pick up stuff.
Casual drivers – These seem to come in off Quay St, perhaps thinking that there might be parking available on the wharf. The drive in, turn around in the turning circle and then head back out to Quay St again.
You can see a mix of these in the images below. Parked cars on either side of the *road* with a group of cars heading down onto the wharf then taking over much of the space while they all decided to go in different directions (plus you can see more parked cars). I actually think drivers in the shared spaces are much better behaved than they are on the wharf.
Now I know some of you may just think I’m being picky and should walk on the side out of the way but as the image below shows, the area where the cars are is seen by most pedestrians as the most natural route onto the wharf.
So many people were walking in the place they naturally felt they should be but as you can see it was interfering with cars. So what did Waterfront Auckland do, put up fences to block off access to pedestrians and hire security guards to yell at anyone trying to walk on the “Peoples Wharf”. One tried to tell me off for walking in a public space but he didn’t get far. In effect they inconvenienced thousands of people, even if just for a few seconds just so that one or two vehicles – who shouldn’t be on the wharf in the first place – could be driven around unobstructed.
But unfortunately it gets worse. At the northern end of the turning circle are retractable bollards which are used to limit access to the far end of the wharf. I’m not sure exactly who is allowed down there but it seems to be a mix of people working on the wharf or people running events. Again I can understand then need to unload some things but as you can see a decent chunk of space is also being used for car parking (I wonder if there are some Waterfront Auckland Staff using it for free parking?). This has to be one of the prime spots on the waterfront as it has great views across the harbour, ports and back towards the city yet it is being handed over to the storage of vehicles. This is shown in the image below and I have seen similar images most days I go there. There are also more cars behind me.
In fact there were probably as many cars parked at the end of the wharf than there were people enjoying the sun.
Of course in Waterfront Auckland’s nice and pretty Masterplan there is not one mention of using the wharf for carparking, nor is there any mention of it on the official website yet both mention how the wharf is public space, e.g. from the website
Home to two of Auckland’s signature buildings, Shed 10 and The Cloud, Queens Wharf has been transformed from a private working wharf to a public waterfront space for all to enjoy.
From the masterplan:
Queens Wharf was purchased jointly by the government and the former Auckland City Council to deliver three initiatives:
• A high-quality cruise terminal
• A major event space
• An impressive public open space reflecting the culture and heritage of Auckland and New Zealand.
I guess the you could say they are honouring Auckland’s 60+ year old culture of favouring cars over everything else but somehow I don’t think that’s what the authors of the plan had in mind.
Waterfront Auckland needs to get cracking and sort out what’s happening with Queens Wharf. At the moment it is a shambles particularly due to the car movements on the southern end and the longer they leave it the worse it will get. That is of course if they want to make it the people friendly space that has been promised to us.
And don’t even get me started on what happens when a cruise ship turns up. It makes these scenes look like a dream.
Update Waterfront Auckland has got in touch with me to say that the short term parking and taxi rank was a requirement of Auckland Transport and not their preference. Also said they are working on plans for how to improve how the wharf including how traffic is handled.
Processing...
Somebody has to do it, I might as well be that guy. Bought and Brought are very different. I’m guessing Auckland Regional Council and the Government bought Queens Wharf off the Ports of Auckland, and didn’t bring it anywhere, as it appears to be exactly where it was before the buying took place.
Then there’s “taxi’s”…..
taki’s is the correct speeling as it is an abbreviation of taxicabs
*taxi’s, sorry
‘buses (=omnibuses)
As far as I am aware, the Airbus is an unsubsidised route with a contract that allows them access to the ferry terminal. I presume that any changes to the route that impacts their travel times or their profitibility in a negative way is a cost that must be met by the council. I think it is a pretty logical point for the airport bus to be. All other non-service vehicles should not be permitted.
Airbus’ agreement states only that they need to be very near Britomart and the Ferry Terminal Bldg. AT are pressed for bus layover space in front of Britomart and won’t want to move the Airbus until the bus network reorganisation frees up space. It’s more about AT’s reluctance to reshuffle a lot of routes to make space at Britomart than about Airbus’ schedule and travel time.
I agree – and in any case why should an arrangement with a private bus company dictate how we use our waterfront space?
Matt L is absolutely spot on with this issue; it is unbelievable that our council and government could allow three downtown piers to be used as car-parking spaces and the other as a commercial property development.
This is just infuriating. I work in the Britonart precinct and I sometimes think it would be nice to have lunch down there on the wharf, but as you say it would be like having lunch in a car park. The token seating put in there does nothing to detract from that atmosphere.
Who is reponsible for this? Is it AT? If so, can someone from AT (who we know watch this blog) please have the courage to explain why cars are allowed to park there. Why can they not park in one of the myriad of public car parks nearby. Are all these people disabled with no use of their legs?
Limited time parking for dropping off equipment, fine. But that is not what this is.
NZ is just terrible for ruining its waterfront land in all its cities, Wellington maybe excepted. The other classic of course is 95% of the waterfront land in Takapuna being carparks.
+1. The boat ramp in taka is the only place with any need for carparking, and it really should all be trailers only and then toned down.
In addition to avoiding death by AirBus, I was supremely disappointed to head down the other weekend and find the two buildings, the Cloud/Slug and Shed 10, locked, closed, dead. Nothing going on. Not even open for a wander through. An extraordinary waste of space over a weekend where from Wynyard to Britomart, the Waterfront was chocka block full of people.
I’ve witnessed a security guy slowly ambling towards a car that had somehow slipped past him and any obstacles. It looked like a whole family in their SUV going for a leisurely drive to the wharf’s end, driving on the western side of the Cloud. After a few metres of ambling he seemed to realise he couldn’t catch up with them fast enough, cracked a huge smile, threw his hands up in the air and just gave up. Meanwhile, after leaving an event on the wharf, I get shouted at in a rather unfriendly way, for walking into the turning circle area while there was not one car in sight (I guess I wasn’t allowed to savour that rare moment.) It’s cars first, people second, just laughable.
Is someone able to clarify who is meant to give way when cars/buses are entering/leaving turning the Queens Wharf driveway and cyclists/pedestrians are continuing straight on the Quay St shared path? My understanding is that cyclists/pedestrians have right of way over vehicles entering a driveway, but many drivers appear to be confused. Perhaps we could get a zebra crossing there to “clarify” the situation.
Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 – http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/whole.html
4.4 Giving way when entering or exiting driveway
(1)A driver entering or exiting a driveway must give way to a road user on a footpath, cycle path, or shared path (as described by clause 11.1A(1)).
“driveway means a place used or appearing to be used as a vehicle entrance to or exit from land fronting a roadway”
3.2 Traffic signals in form of disc
(1)While a green signal in the form of a disc is displayed,—
(a)a driver facing the signal may proceed straight ahead or may turn left or right at an intersection unless a red signal in the form of an arrow or a special sign prohibits that movement:
(b)a driver facing the signal, including a driver turning left or right, must—
(ii)give way to pedestrians, riders of mobility devices, and riders of wheeled recreational devices lawfully crossing or about to cross the roadway; and
There’s a bit of unclarity around what constitutes a driveway. I believe the general rule of thumb is to look at whether the footpath is continuous or not. That would mean that petrol station entrances and exits are generally driveways, as are carpark exits; even with a ‘car coming’ sign lit up. At the entrance to Queens Wharf, and correct me if I’m wrong, the footpath doesn’t seem to be continuous. So it has to be treated like a road and intersection – not a driveway – in which case the cars would have right of way over any pedestrians “crossing”. A zebra crossing then would technically not clarify the existing situation, but change it to allow for pedestrian priority. I’m all for it, though.
http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/moving-around/road-safety/PedestrianRoadSafety/Pages/Pedestrian-Rights-of-Way.aspx
It’s great they’ve used an example of where you don’t have right of way where the developer basically stole the footpath and reshaped it into a road. I do wonder how developers continue to get away with doing that.
Like pretty much every single Bunnings, Mitre 10 Mega, Countdown, Paknsave etc etc.
The footpath used to not be continuous (as you can see in Google Maps Street View), but if you go down there now and have a look you’ll see it is continuous – there is no kerb.
Auckland Transport don’t have that quite right. When pedestrians are crossing a road that’s not at a zebra crossing or controlled with signals, there’s no give way rule at all. Peds aren’t required to give way to cars, and cars aren’t required to give way to peds, either. Law of the jungle, as it were.
New Zealand’s unusual, in that sense – most countries have an explicit give way rule, where turning traffic gives way to peds and straight-ahead traffic has priority.
The definition of ‘driveway’ that Brendan quoted seems pretty clear and has no connection to the shape of the kerb. A driveway is a driveway whether or not you’ve built a kerb across the footpath. The key element is that it is access to adjacent land, rather than access to another portion of public road (which would be an intersection).
I would argue that the AT advice on ‘pedestrian rights of way’ that you’ve linked to does not state the law correctly (‘ this situation is considered an intersection because the kerb is returned making it a road’). It has the strong smell of a rationalisation concocted by traffic engineers who want to give priority to vehicles in situations that may look like intersections because of the shape of the kerb, but are actually legal driveways.
It’s a signalised driveway (the wharf is not a legal street). Not sure what the Road Code says about priority there, but it doesn’t matter because a lot of pedestrians and cyclists just ignore the signals anyway.
The signals take legal priority, so legally one has to obey them, presumably, even if the road code gives you priority over a normal driveway. As to the sense of having this major pedestrian / people environment screwed over by a signalised access / car & bus traffic, that is a totally different matter.
BUt the signals indicate when you can cross Quay Street. They dont apply to crossing the entrance to the wharf, they dont face that way.
Actually, I am allmost certain they do – including having a pedestrian signal for the crossing itself. Wouldn’t stake my life on it, but pretty sure. Google Street view photo a bit too blurry to be certain though.
Actually, I retract that, Goosoid seems to be right, based on Streetview. If they haven’t changed it, it seems to not have ped signals. Great.
Yes I use that crossing every day and it does not control that direction.
No Starnius, I am wrong, you are right. I looked again today and there are pedestrian lights across that “driveway”, which is apparently a road. It is just that most pedestrians ignore it so I assumed there wasnt one.
This is just terrible. Another sign that AT talk the talk, but dont even crawl the walk, let alone walk it.
Until the agency responsible for improving transport in this city realises that people are important and not cars, we will continue to have a very poor urban environment. Just so disappointing.
I would love to hear AT’s response. Come on AT, we know you read this, what is your excuse this time?
you are actually after section 10.2 SHARED ZONES
It really irritates me to see pedestrians stop and give way to cars at driveways. Why do they do this? Brainwashed maybe?
cautious?
Fear for my life.
As above, this “driveway” has a beg light on it. Shocking.
I don’t stop but I do make sure I’ve established eye contact with the driver. I have slapped on a few drivers windows in my time 🙂
I don’t stop, but I have been almost hit several times (and honked at, and sworn at) by drivers turning across spaces where I as a pedestrian have the right of way. I also try to make eye contact with the driver so they remember I’m a real person.. :-/
“Update Waterfront Auckland has got in touch with me to say that the short term parking and taxi rank was a requirement of Auckland Transport and not their preference.”
Seems a bit dubious. The wharf is not AT’s space. So how come they can tell WA what to do?
Because AT is the older brother of all the siblings.
Does anyone know if moving the parking, bus stop and taxi rank will be considered in the Quay St plans?
shape of the footpath is irrelevant. Every driveway, public accessible carpark, forecourt, etc in NZ is classified under the land transport management act 1994 as a “SHARED USE ZONE”. Pedestrians have priority, Speed limits are 10kmhr, unless a posted sign or signal says otherwise, though pedestrians may not unduly hinder a motorist like walking at less than the speed limit. so Bunning s carpark s are a giant pedestrians crossing, just like the footpath outside your driveway at home.
Interesting. So you are saying that the Auckland Transport link posted above by orangekiwi is giving information that is not legally correct?
Acts of Parliament are paramount. The AT link may just be someone abbreviating or omitting information.
I work down there quite often, it’s a mess. If you want to park there just go up to the security guy and in a rush tell them a company name and give them a phone number, it always works. Funnily enough though, they’re quite strict on banning any other activity in the wharf. I once saw a couple of elderly asian tourists being told off by a security guard for having a picnic with a bottle of expensive nz wine they had. They seemed quite baffled.
As for the cruise ships i think there needs to be allowance for tour buses to pick up and drop off passengers .
There certainly are ‘allowances’ when cruise ships come in, in fact the majority of the wharf suddenly becomes a massive loading zone full of trucks, buses and taxis.
You’re right and trying to access parts of the wharf anyway can be difficult because it keeps getting fenced off.
The AIrbus uses that area as there is no bus terminal because some Einstein got rid of the last one to build the Britomart retail concourse. And its an excellent locale for the drivers to smoke.
Taxi’s tend to double park in the street anyway jamming entire lanes because, well, they can and so it may be better they are there
And the Cloud and Shed 10 (that reminds me of a larger crapolla Mitre 10 garden shed) are eyesores that have to be eliminated.
Disagree completely about Shed 10, it has a really great atmosphere inside and it’s nice to have some history on the wharf. The city has enough newly built soulless buildings constructed simple because new is always better. Things can be subtle and still have a lot of character, they don’t need to be huge megastructures.
I am a huge believer in preserving old buildings and Auckland has lost far too many but Shed 10 was only ever a utilitarian storage shed for transiting goods slapped up with corrugated iron to save on construction costs and a framing to support long since vanished wharf crane/s. You’ve seen one shed you’ve seen them all. My last visit there a few weeks ago left me wondering why it was there and why any money had been spent on it, with all the custom wood temporary interior decor going on and little else. Compared to the Sydney Opera House what can you say?
The Waiheke ferry and the Airbus are the two main exempt services in Auckland PT so it’s a good idea to link them up as close as possible. Waihekeans are expected to pay full fares for everything without subsidies, so the least we want is easy access between the two.
Walking from the Waiheke Terminal to Queens Wharf is probably no closer than walking across Quay Street to a stop at Britomart. It’s all much of a muchness and whether Fullers runs all those service commercially or not is irrelevant in the scheme of things.
Not ‘expected to’ but Fullers won’t give up the cream. Also, judging from the number of, ahem, retired looking folk on the ferry at Matiatia, a sizeable number are actually subsidised.
In the greater scheme of things, us rich bitches on Waiheke just want to get from our island paradise to our international destination at the airport with as few plebs in between as possible, thanks!
Haha well when you put it like that, fair enough