Most of the focus and discussion about improving transport tends to revolve around massive infrastructure projects for motorways and public transport. However there are lots of smaller initiatives that can provide huge benefits to not only the transport system but to individuals and the wider community. At Auckland Transport those initiatives come under the Community Transport group and key parts to it are school transport, travel planning, walking and cycling and road safety. A presentation to the AT board highlights some of results these initiatives have achieved over the last year while at the same time also raising some much bigger questions about where our priorities should be.
Travelwise School Programme
How many times do we see comments like “traffic is fine during school holidays” when transport discussions come up? Of course it’s not just that schools are out but that often parents are taking time off to look after their kids so it’s not really a fair comparison. Still AT are trying to get some of the benefits we see through its travelwise programme. This is described as:
The Travewise programme is an innovative schools-based programme that aims to improve road safety and achieve a reduction in the number of vehicles driving to and from school at peak times. It does this through encouraging and increasing alternative modes of travel, and providing safer facilities for all road users.
And according to the presentation the results are fairly impressive. AT say that there are now 319 schools signed up for the programme (although that differs from the figure of 331 schools mentioned in the Annual Report. That is almost 60% of all schools in the region. Further it is suggested that there are fewer cars on the road, fewer accidents, more PT use and more walking. I’m not sure how much it costs to run the programme but I bet is probably not much when compared against ATs budgets for other projects yet it manages get an impressive BCR of 6.9, something many motorway projects could only dream of.
Travel Planning
This is similar to the travelwise programme but is targeted towards adults and once again gets some fairly impressive results with an even better BCR.
With both programmes so successful it makes you wonder why we aren’t doing much more of it. I’m sure the AT staff working in this area would love to do more but are likely operating off shoestring budgets.
Cycling
On the issue of cycling we know there has been some strong growth in cycling numbers over the last year however AT point out that there has also been a big reduction in reported cycle crashes which is a big positive.
- 17% annual growth in cycle numbers on monitored cycle routes.
- Reduction in annual reported cycle crashes by 64%.
- Development of a business and prioritisation plan for cycling.
The most interesting thing however is a map showing which cycle routes are expected to be built over the next three years. Of course we have seen lots of these plans over the years so whether AT actually bothers to stick to this one is something only time will tell. What is interesting is that Skypath is indicated which is interesting as everything I hear is that AT are the biggest stick in the mud over the project. The map also highlights just how much of the city still won’t have anything in the way of cycling infrastructure in three years-time.
Positively though one project that will be completed by then is a promenade and cycleway around Westhaven Marina. Yesterday the ceremonial first sod was turned on the project which will see a 5m path and boardwalk wind around the marina from the Harbour Bridge to the Wynyard Quarter. Here’s an example of what the boardwalk section may eventually look like.
For a comparison, this is what currently exists for pedestrians. A footpath that would probably only just scrapes over 1m in width and barely wide enough for a single person located next to a two lane road then about 11 lanes of motorway traffic.
The project is one that has also been pushed strongly by the Waitemata local board and a few of them were on hand to mark the occasion on what was a stunning spring afternoon.
I can see this promenade being extremely popular on days like yesterday, especially with families. Waterfront Auckland says the whole thing should be completed by the middle of next year.
Processing...
I don’t know about under the boardwalk, but it seems like people will certainly be having some fun on top of it.
Talking to people at work, there is a real show-stopper reluctance to use bicycles for commuting if that involves using a main route at rush hour. I am lucky – I can use a cycle almost door-to-door for communting. And i cannot wait for Skypath!
Don’t hold your breath, still no agreement on design of the northern ramps or deal with Westhaven.
*use a cycleWAY…
Even with the cycle paths planned by 2016 the 2016 network is still piecemeal, and yet in the Herald today 20.7% of people want to “complete the city’s motorway network”.
How about completing the cycleway network first?
I wonder if the drop in cycling crashes is down to fewer people using bikes figuring its safer to smoke 60 a day and live off KFC & coke than to risk your skin on Auckland’s roads.That and a wet and windy winter.
The boardwalk at Westhaven is a brilliant idea. The current very narrow footpath is hopeless and Auckland’s public still owns the water front or at least some of it, so why not enjoy it. The one at Orakei Basin is also really good and recommended.
More likely it is due to the effect of greater cyclist numbers which in turn leads to less cycling injuries. Maybe also the (slightly) better cycling facilities on main routes like the NW cycleway.
I do also think that Auckland motorists are very slowly coming round to the idea that cyclists are actually people and need to be treated with respect. Most Aucklanders now recognise that more cyclists is a positive thing for Auckland. Of course a sizeable minority are still stuck in the 1960s and see them as vermin but they are definitely a minority thankfully.
This piecemeal network needs scrutiny – eg looks like one of the ‘existing cycle connector’ blue lines in the Auckland CBD is Khyber Pass – can’t think of a worse place to cycle in Auckland.
Yes there are many Roads included in there that have no cycle facilities whatsoever and would be too intimidating for all but the most confident and aggressive cyclists:
Great North Road, Symonds Street, Dominion Road, Remuera Road are all included as part of the “existing network” and none are very pleasant places to ride. That makes the quality of the planned cycle network extremely questionable.
Agree entirely. In my view, it should only be part of the network if you would let your kids ride it.
Cycle Action Auckland I understand have raised this point multiple times, Auckland Transport show maps with completed sections of the cycleway which on the group don’t actually exist. They also list buslanes as being completed cycle routes, ones on Khyber Pass for instance are actually only operation for around 2 hrs a day. In reality the real map would show that there exists almost lanes in Auckland and is perhaps why AT continue to publish these fictitious ones. They’re as laughable as the self-reported bus reliability stats.
AT installed 10km of new cycle lanes last year, well off the 60km needed each year to meet the Auckland Plan, so much like bus lanes they don’t take on the ground improvement aside from more car lanes seriously.
The peak cycle bus/lane only exists from Park Road to Broadway. There is nothing at all between Symonds St and Park Road, yet this is still show!
Is this a hangover from the Grafton Bridge closure, as were bus/(cycle) lanes installed down Khyber Pass then?
CAA and the Waitemata Local Board have been raising this issue (the ACN showing routes as “completed” when there isn’t even a bus lane there) for years. AT has not changed the maps.
So I am assuming that this boardwalk will become an actual fully legal public accessway, that is not subject to the fifedom of Westhaven Marina, or is that too much to hope for…..
Yes it will be fully open to the public and not subject to conditions from the Marina
Now here is a little scenario. Auckland Transport have been running Travelwise and spending money on cycle training and travel plans, which is commendable. However, from my observations, 99% of students ride on the footpaths. What’s wrong with that you ask? Well, for a starter, it is illegal. Furthermore, if someone riding a bike on the footpath has a crash with a motorist, the bike rider is automatically at fault; ie: they were riding illegally (I have NZTA stats that prove this). Why are they riding on the footpath? Obviously because they, or their parents, don’t feel it is safe for them to ride on the road. What AT need to be doing, is solving this problem. Once that is done, the bike riders will naturally follow (witness the increase in use of the NW cycleway). To me, the process is the wrong way around.
I run out at Westhaven quite often and a few weeks ago almost got run over by two cyclists riding on the footpath. When I told them that what they were doing was illegal they replied that it was too dangerous for them to ride on the road! (but not obviously on a 1 metre wide footpath with pedestrians?
Do cyclists do irony?
I know it can feel dangerous, but statistics prove otherwise (I’ve got them if anyone wants them). That doesn’t mean I’m advocating for it, merely pointing out the situation. We need to fix one problem – the perception or otherwise that riding on the road is dangerous – before we can fix the other – riding on the footpath.
Harry, that is very unfortunate and it is never good to see pedestrians feeling threatened by cyclists.
However, let’s remember that the real issue is the amount of street space given over to motor vehicles, leaving the scraps to be fought over by pedestrians and cyclists. This is the mind set that needs to change.
I was cycling along the northwestern last evening when I an encountered an idiot out running. He was running right down the middle of the cyclepath, weaving gently in what looked like an advanced state of exhaustion AND HE HAD AN iPOD ON! If I had hit this reckless dork, would I have been at fault? There should be a council bylaw against wearing portable music devices when using a cycleway (or on a bike), Cyclists can go quite fast along cycleways – I was going at least 25kph, a collision could have seriously hurt someone.
I start work at 7.00am so I give up cycling during winter. Biking in the pitch black at 6.30am in freezing and damp weather is not my idea of fun. My car comes with a heater. So for three months, I contribute to a decline in cycling numbers.
My last experience just before my winter break riding in the afternoon gloom on New North Road/Sandringham road at rush hour – two buses thundering by about 1m away on my left while cars flashed by 1-2m on my right – petrified me half to death. I won’t use a main road with a bus lane in rush hour ever again, unless they physically separate the cycle lane. I don’t care about the statistics – I have got people who depend on me, I am not getting myself killed/seriously injured just to prove a point.
The NW cycle way is actually a shared path (I’m guessing that’s how the cycle advocates who pushed for it originally managed to get some funding crumbs to get it built. Can you imagine asking for cycle infrastructure funds in the 90’s?) and in the NZTA docs for the rebuild of the causeway is shown as such. Hopefully, once it is 3m wide pretty much everywhere, things won’t be as bad although, I feel that the numbers of walkers, runners and bikers is going to grow. We’ll see what the future brings.
I don’t mind it being a shared path, but people need to exercise some basic common sense like keeping left and not blocking out sound by using iPods if they are going jog/walk along it with cyclists zipping by.
My experience is that shared paths need to be quite wide, and wider than 3 metres. Pedestrians walk next to each other, and do wear headphones and have dogs on leashes. 4.5 metre ones are ok, but as soon as there is any density of pedestrians on a 3 metre one it is no longer practical for cycling. If passing a walker if I don’t ring my bell I scare them, and if I do ring my bell they get momentarily frightened and step into the way of the bike.
So in high usage areas separate the paths. In medium usage areas make them 4.5 metres wide, and reserve the narrower paths for places where there isn’t that much use.
Keeping left (all users) is the basic rule. As is slowing down when approaching slower users. The iPod thing doesn’t bother me as long as they keep left.
There’s actually very little along the NW cycleway to suggest that it is a cycleway. There’s few signs, and no centreline or stencilled bicycles or anything. If you didn’t know it existed, and walked on to it from many of the connecting streets, you’d just think it was a footpath.
Shared paths REALLY need keep left signs. Was riding home from work on a very windy Friday a couple of weeks ago after having a few beers at work and decided to use the shared path on Forrest Hill Road, 3m wide, pedestrian walking right down the middle, not safe to go on either side of them, ludicrous.
Sanc: Regardless of what the police, or a judge, or jury would think (they’d probably let you off), do you really want to knock someone down and possibly seriously injure them, just because you can get away with it?
Unless they deliberately stepped in front of you, you are still to blame. When driving a car, you need to drive defensively, be able to stop within the distance you can see, and have an escape plan if any person you see steps into your path. Riding a bike is no different, except that the consequences are usually much less severe.
I think you are reading into my comments something that isn’t there. When I see someone running with there back to me, weaving around the middle of the cycleway, and with headphones on I see something to be concerned about lest they step into my path, not a target opportunity.
OK, sorry then. If you do do everything you can to avoid a collision (including not passing pedestrians at speed), you shouldn’t have to worry about your legal situation.
Speaking to principals in my area, the other problem with TravelWise is that once a school is signed up, AT is never seen again. One principal in particular was very frustrated as he had been asking for practical improvements in the area at instersctions to increase safety for children walking and cycling to school. He saw this as a far greater priority than TravelWise.
However, he was told that the changes requested would impeded traffic and were not a priority. Once again the rhetoric of safety is translated to the reality that level of service and safety for motor vehicles is the only consideration in road design and everything else is a distant second, including the safety of children.
I guess that principal will have to wait until a child is badly hurt or killed before improvements will be made.
Ahh, here comes my partner in crime. Hi Goosoid. Nice riding day 🙂
It certainly was a pleasant ride to the ferry. The only issue now (and what a great one to have) is the number of cycles on the ferries. It is growing every week.
As I say, what a great problem to have. Improved cycle parking facilities at Bayswater and Devonport would help.
The roading gods must not be angered by measures which might slow down traffic. Now get back in the circle and chant with the engineers Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow
I refuse. Instead, I’ll keep shouting and sending feedback to AT via twitter and their contact page. I can just imagine the person who gets those emails – “oh no, not him again.” 🙂
It seems we may have to wait until every traffic engineer currently employed by AT dies.
Yes, notwithstanding a token deference to the idea of encouraging walking and cycling, Auckland Transport continues to show a touching concern for the safety and utility of motorists while largely ignoring that of pedestrians, particularly school students. This attitude is most evident in the way AT traffic engineers prioritise vehicle movements at signalised intersections while ignoring other factors such as the proximity of schools, rest homes, etc.
That was exactly the issue that frustrated the principal – priority at intersections.
Ah yes, intersections. The most dangerous part of our roading network for bike riders, and I suspect, pedestrians.
That is really frustrating. Travelwise would be much more effective if wasn’t siloed away.
Looks like the old pre-amalgamation barriers still exist inside AT. Travelwise came from ARC, and this needs to be connected with engineers (ex city councils) to actually get more people walking/cycling by having an accompanying infrastructure budget.
IPENZ seem to run lots of speakers and workshops about positive stuff, but why is this not translating to practice?
Our school tried to get our main crossing upgraded to a raised crossing, only to be told hey wouldn’t do that because ‘it’s a bus route’. Even though the route already had one raised crossing, and they’ve now added another one on a different street. Bryce will know what I’m talking about. At least we managed to get a new raised crossing installed at our secondary crossing point.
Whilst some of it always comes down to cost and not being enough money to go around, I despair when I see projects on the order of $50 million being bandied about for road widening (e.g. Lake Rd) like it’s loose change, yet they cry poor when you ask for a pedestrian crossing installed, or anything done to the hundreds of awful substandard intersections all over the inner-city.
Yup. It seems to be quite easy to say yes to a big new road costing tens or hundreds of millions, and difficult to say yes to anything else, no matter how cheap.
People are traffic.
Cars are not traffic.
Cars on the road are being used by traffic.
If we could have AT engineers (ie, the people who control the details) post this in front of them and then repeat it every morning, I suspect we’d see some improvement. Eventually.
I think there would be exploding heads all over the AT offices as the engineers tried to comprehend that concept. I totally agree with you though. Their job is to move people, not cars.
Okay, enough negativity. Let’s finish the cycle QTN by the end of 2016.
Related or not, but just caught an article on one news late tonight regarding window washers at intersections. Are they a hinderence and what are they hindering? It seems they are hindering that 1950’s autocentric mentallity that the motor car is the god of the roads and people, albeit conducting a business enterprise some may not like, are second class.
In my opinion this is no worse than a church advertising billboard, or any other business signage within site of a public roadway. The roads are a public space not the sole domain of motorists, as re-enforced by the 50% contribution from rate payers and not petrol taxes!
They’re not really a hindrance, unless someone in front actually gets them to wash a window and sits waiting after the light turns green.
Perhaps some of the window washers are genuinely honest citizens trying to make a respectable dollar, but since practically every car has a built-in windscreen washer it’s not a business you’d have much success at without resorting to extortion. Most of the window washers will smear their (generally filthy) brush on your windscreen whether you want it or not, and some will threaten violence or just damage to your car if you don’t pay up (I’ve had this happen a few times myself, and this is a pretty common experience).
Westhaven is more than a cycle route .Every day it is well utilized by Aucklanders from all walks of life .i am one of them and know Westhaven like the back of my hand.
Personally I support improved cycle ways however I see no reason or equity why other users should be disenfranchised. Dog owners, walkers, runner, caregivers with push chairs older folk on mobility scooters are only some of the mix of people who are in Westhaven very day.
If dogs can no longer swim of kids are priced out of sailing and other water activities fisher folk are marginalized , the venerable Sitting Ducks Cafe and the Ponsonby and Richmond clubs are put at risk . Is this all worth it ?
Some one has to pay and it should not the people who have looked after this part of Auckland for more than a century.
I think it’s pretty evident, from the visuals above, that this is every bit a shared space for all kinds of active transport options. More so than the existing narrow footpath next to the road. I think your reply is a bit scaremongerish as you say you support cycleways but then go on to speak about other users being disenfranchised. How about the disenfranchisement of pedestrians / cyclists over the past 60 years and the obsession of providing more and more space for motor vehicles? Tamaki Drive is a prime example of this.
I am a life long pedestrian and walker and also I’m an occasional cyclist .I do drive but I also buses frequently and taxi from time to time . For more that twenty years I have been a regular user of Westhaven . What we have and enjoy there is not perfect but it does actually work . It is inclusive too. It works because it largely organic and has a real buzz like exciting places every where. if we lose the soul we lose everything . if I wanted to live like a Presbyterian i would join their church.Not everything in life has to be structured.
I don’t understand the problem in relation to a multi-use boardwalk (as described above).
I don’t mean this to be as offensive as it will sound, but what on earth are you trying to say here?
The local board are looking to build a shared path to be used by cyclists, pedestrians and dogs that is in addition to the tiny footpath that exists at Westhaven now. As a pedestrian and cyclist how can you possibly bemoan that you are being given more space?
So you are saying a shared path of less than 4.5m wide is not practical for cycling and that peds should stat left and never use iPads. So the Skypath is fxxxked then isn’t it!
Hopefully Sailor boy wasn’t riding home from the pub over the limit to add to Sanctuarys careless riding or Goosies riding without a lid.
Given that we are all adults here it would be a bit of a worry if 3 bottles of beer put me over the limit.
Also, I don’t see how sanctuary’s riding can be careless when he sees a pedstrian ahead clearly in distress and unaware of surroundings and takes appropriate action.
Pedestrians should keep left, everyone on any path should keep left, ipods I am less concerned about, the problem with skypath is that this is the only way we will ever get a ped/cycle crossing.
Rubbish, cycling over the bridge will happen after they build the new road tunnels. A wider lane will be much safer for cyclists and peds. You just can’t get that on the narrow width the Skypath design offers.
So when are they building the new tunnels?
There is no funding nor schedule for them, they may never be built for all we know now. It’s irrelevant anyway, NZTA have stated that even if they built a third harbour motorway that Skypath is their preferred way of providing cycle and pedestrian access across the harbour. We either build skypath now, or we build it later. The tunnel idea doesn’t change that.
Don’t mind Jon (aka Phil, aka Clarkson, etc), he’s just a grumpy troll that occasionally lives under the bridge and seems to think that a cycleway will be disastrous for his property values while a duplicate motorway will be great. I’m sure that massive interchange near Stafford Rd will be just great. At 4m wide Skypath is perfectly wide enough for a shared path, same width as the new shared footpath and cycleway NZTA has built to the Auckland Uni campus for example, and much wider than the paths crossing the Sydney Harbour bridge.
4 m total width is substandard by NZTA’s guidelines for shared paths (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/pedestrian-planning-guide/, section 14), which state that it is “important” that such paths have one metre of space each side of the path (typically 3 m wide) to allow for cyclists’ wobbles, loss of control, etc. However, that doesn’t stop NZTA blithely ignoring their own guidelines (not even mentioned) in projects such as the Basin flyover in Wellington!
My thoughts as a cycle commuter for the past 15 years in Auckland are that a dedicated cycle lane (away from peds) through Westhaven would be better. If there is just a slippery timber shared walkway I will use the road instead. A cyclist doing 25-40km/hr doesn’t work with peds (refer Tamaki Drive cycle/walking path).
A agree with you Bill (love the stand up by the way), shared paths are better than nothing and well liked by more casual and beginner cyclists, but serious commuters will default to the road in many situations. Unfortunately there are many in the cycling advocacy world that push for off line cycle paths, often at the expense of good provision for cyclist on street.
However, sometimes there isn’t any alternative, Skypath for example, and having said that there is probably little overlap between commuter cycling at peak times and recreational users who probably won’t be out there in force at 8am.
I look forward to the day when the Skypath proves so popular we can build it’s duplicate on the western clip on as a dedicated cycleway and use the eastern one just for pedestrians and tourists.