The council’s Infrastructure Committee meets for the first time this year on Wednesday and one of the agenda items is the Role of Cycling in Auckland (or download the PDF version)
Executive Summary
- Auckland’s population is forecast to grow significantly over the next 30 years. This highlights the need to provide greater transport choices to achieve a more resilient, efficient and reliable transport system.
- As the cycle network is still under development the current cycle infrastructure in Auckland does not provide a connected network of cycle ways and ranges in quality from excellent to poor. Recent cycle counts and customer surveys highlight that even with current infrastructure constraints there is a steady increase (10 percent per annum) in cycle numbers and a demand for safer and connected cycleways.
- Attachment A outlines Auckland Transport infrastructural projects that will deliver key sections of the Auckland Cycle Network (ACN) between 2014 and 2019.
- The ACN shown in Attachment B, developed by Auckland Transport, is the long-term blueprint for developing a well-connected, high quality cycle network. The current level of investment in cycleways will fall short of the Auckland Plan target of completing 70 percent of the ACN by 2020.
- Cycling and cycle infrastructure contributes to wider strategic objectives of the Auckland Plan associated with economic, social, environmental, land use, transport and infrastructure goals.
- Cycling contributes to economic development and growth by supporting urban vitality, increasing local spend and offers value for money with relatively low upfront investment.
- In the development of the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 and the Regional Land Transport Plan a number of strategic decisions will be required regarding allocation of road space and funding of cycleway programmes.
Recommendation/s
That the Infrastructure Committee:
- acknowledge the importance of cycling in contributing to the vision of creating the world’s most liveable city.
- support consideration of greater financial commitment to cycling in the draft Long-term Plan and Regional Land Transport Plan.
Ultimately this paper seems aimed at starting the discussion with the council to increase the level of funding for cycling projects in the next iteration of the Long Term Plan that the council is starting to work on. Later this year we will see a new government policy statement for transport which will set the funding bands for transport from 2015 onwards. It’s noted that the council, Auckland Transport and NZTA are all trying to get the government/ministry to increase the cycling band.
The discussion report provides a lot more information. A couple of things that stand out for me from it.
- As noted above the Auckland Plan target is to complete 70% of the regional cycle network by 2020. It has been estimated that 30% is already place (although to a debatable standard) but crucially based on the funding in the current long term plan only 40-50% will have been completed by 2020. That’s way short of the target the council set less than two years ago. We can’t blame AT for all of this though as it is also important for the council to provide their share of the funding needed to do the work.
- Some numbers show just how much opportunity there is for cycling, 2/3rds of all trips are less than 6km while 1/3rd are less than 2km. Those are easy cycling distances and even casual cyclists could do those distances in roughly 20 or 6 minutes respectively.
- As we’ve reported before, AT has split the proposed cycle network up in to three categories
- METRO – provide segregation from traffic along shared paths, off road routes and protected cycle lanes
- CONNECTOR – are not fully segregated routes and are the more traditional cycle lanes marked by painted lines
- FEEDER can be a mixture of segregation, shared paths and on-road routes but are located on quiet neighbourhood streets and where there are low traffic speeds. These routes link residential streets, parks and community facilities including schools. The Feeder network also aligns with Local Board Greenway proposals
- All up the proposed cycle network will be 293km in length which can be broken down to 95 km of cycle metros, 130 km of cycle connectors and 57 km of feeder routes
- In research done for Auckland Transport, 59% said safety was a barrier to them cycling, 79% agreed that more should be done to improve cycle safety and 55% said separated cycle facilities were a key priority.
The paper also provides some statistics that could be improved through getting more people cycling. This includes:
- Transport emissions are up 64% on 1990 levels and the social cost of poor air quality in Auckland was estimated in 2012 at $1.07 billion per year.
- The costs of physical inactivity in Auckland have been estimated at $402 million and cause 73 premature deaths per year.
- That if just 5% of adults travelling less than 7km switched from driving to cycling it would:
- Reduced vehicle travel by 223 million kilometres;
- Saving of 22 million litres of fuel and $37 million in fuel costs; and
- 50,000 tonnes less CO2 would be emitted and reductions in other pollutants.
Those are some pretty decent numbers.
Perhaps one of the most interesting things about this report to the council is that we get probably the clearest map yet of the total cycling network planned under the Metro, Connector and Feeder categories (there have been versions in plans like the ITP but they haven’t been easy to read). Remember the hierarchy is that the red lines are going to be the best and highest quality parts of the network,
A couple of things stand out here. First in the CBD it appears we’ll get a ring of separated cycleways around the CBD – including on Neslon St and the old Nelson St offramp – however we won’t get one through it. I would have thought that the Victoria St Linear Park would have had a separated cycleway along it. Also not sure why AT wouldn’t push for there to eventually be a full separated cycleway down Queen St now appears well over provisioned in road space for cars.
Moving out of the CBD some areas seem to be quite light on particularity feeder routes. This is a worry as many of the areas missing these feeder routes are also around current or future train or busway stations. One example is my local area (below) where no cycle routes are to be found connecting the station and local primary schools (green plus a heap of secondary schools just north of this image too). There are roughly 14,000 residents in this area along with some wide roads that would be easy to put cycle lanes on if on-street parking was removed (on-street parking only really seems to get used around the school start/end times anyway). Also note the Metro route in red isn’t practical for those mainly to the west of Sturges Rd.
Overall the long term cycle network is a damn sight better than what we have now but what we really need is for the council (and government) to support the construction of it. Something that will need to be pushed for in the long term plan discussions.
Processing...
The elephant in the room is how do we get Auckland Transport to build on street separated cycleways. These are what drives high bike use in cities like Copenhagen, Vancouver, Amsterdam & Portland. High quality infrastructure where people actually want to go to and from.
You’re right, we need physically separated lanes, not just painted lines. Well there’s one going in on Beach Road.. let’s see how that works out.
But separated on-street lanes is by no means not the only thing that drives high cycling use in places like Holland. 30 km/h residential streets are another.. AT’s comment about “on-road routes.. located on quiet neighbourhood streets and where there are low traffic speeds” is quote tragic, considering our residential streets are signed (and designed) for 50 km/h.. i.e. *not* low speed.
First up, AT needs a complete change of mind set. Taking Lester Levy’s acknowledgement of the generative perspective that groups like transportblog, CAA and GenZero can bring to AT, and recognising that best practice lies elsewhere not in Auckland, I’d suggest that AT senior management, planners and engineers make a start by changing their home pages from whatever they get from AT to David Hembrow’s excellent blog “A View From the Cycle Path”. There’s a wealth of material for them to delve into on a daily basis to inform their thinking as they consider the role of cycling and its infrastructure requirements.
When they see pictures like the first one here http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/02/cycling-infrastructure-is-cheaper-to.html described as “the old, inferior route” maybe those managers, planners and engineers would begin to grasp just how far they have to go.
So, really think about what the cycle network might mean and “begin with the end in mind”, then work out how to start getting there.
Yes, but can I dissent a little and say that even a painted cycle space on an existing road, so long as it is continuous, would be a fantastic improvement and a very good step that can mean that whole routes are possible quickly.
I am also wary of AT over-engineering this programme, so that it costs a fortune and retains its glacial pace.
A painted cycle lane shows that the rider is expected to be on the road or street, and can be fashioned from space currently hogged by painted medians. A space I’m told is needed for motorists to use when overtaking cyclists, yet is not supposed to be driven on….! A manoeuvre that becomes unnecessary when there is a cycle lane in place.
Like this..? https://www.google.com/maps/@-36.895887,174.810071,3a,75y,349.09h,93.07t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1suC2PxoMpKgN50iXjxHCE6g!2e0
The Google car is half in the bike lane, and every one of those doors is a hazard, and a couple of hundred metres up the road it just disappears..
https://www.google.com/maps/@-36.89257,174.811908,3a,75y,50.64h,57.71t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sQasVPHgKaBZeQqituqfBAA!2e0
And then you get this..
https://www.google.com/maps/@-36.891095,174.812673,3a,75y,9.28h,69.71t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOjwlYok92dnwVbOaKDYB-w!2e0
Which if you can make it across the gap (try it in peak hour traffic.. by the way it’s uphill) you get to a junction which to a traffic engineer or a car driver probably has all the appearance of cycle friendly environment.. advance stop boxes and green paint. but is frankly hopeless, worse than useless.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ladies+Mile/@-36.8906388,174.8126008,186m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x6d0d48fc186a4dab:0x7a3b4fddb34a9769
Painted cycle lanes, like bus lanes (only worse) are *never* made continuous. They won’t deliver the kind of infrastructure that make cycling safe or attractive. The only purpose they will serve is to allow AT to report that they have delivered a cycle network.
Painted cycle lanes and advance stop boxes are what you find in London, not Amsterdam. They support at best 3% cycling not 30%.
Well, I see AT are aiming at 5%, so good luck to them. I’ll stay in my SUV thank you.
100% with you Big Wheel. There is only one way and that is the Dutch way and the three Is: Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure.
That isnt always separated cycle paths but it isnt paint on the road either. If there is no separated cycle path then the speed limit is 30km and the road is designed for that speed. We need to make direct routes for cycles and more roundabout routes for cars.
View From the Cycle Path should be required reading for every traffic engineer. All the info we need is right there to create a cycle culture, get NZers out of their cars and improve the health and wellbeing of all NZers. The Dutch don’t have the lowest traffic crash rate, the slimmest and happiest children and the happiest adults for nothing. As well as spending far less per capita on transport.
Arent those all social outcomes we want?
AT need to send a team to take an extensive tour with David Hembrow. Then they will see that what they have proposed is not us to scratch. Build it once and do it right using the best knowledge in the world from a cycling perspective.
Will street separated cycle ways be compulsory for any cyclist? On tamaki drive there are off street cycle paths, green on street paths, and the rest of the road. Cyclists choose all three for various reasons. Is it worth having off street separation if the Lycra brigade will keep riding on the road?
If it’s up to scratch they don’t need to ride on the road. I will find the link i have showing Dutch sports riders using wide, high quality paths.
Auckland Transport doesn’t have the power to require cyclists to use cycle ways. The government has recently rejected the idea but has said they’d consider it in future when (realistically, “if”) there’s a better standard of infrastructure across the country.
Frankly, I’m not worried about the lycra brigade. They’ve always cycled, and seemingly always will. Separate cycle paths are for the 97% of people who might cycle to get around, but don’t see it as a competitive sport in itself. Even if the current lycra-cyclists don’t use the new lanes, there’d be several times more new people who would really appreciate being able to get around on a bike without fearing for their lives.
We’ve got so far to go to even slightly match anything the Dutch have that I wouldn’t even suggest it at this time. I’m merely pointing out that, if the infrastructure is right, there is no reason the sports riders wont want to use it.
It’s not really that far to go. For the purpose of having a law requiring you to use a cycle path if it exists, it doesn’t matter how much infrastructure there is – just that where it does exist, it’s high-quality. You don’t need to be the Netherlands – It’s about getting rid of crap like Green Lane (or, so far, every single intersection in Auckland where there’s on-road cycle lanes).
Not that we shouldn’t do more, but it’s not necessary for such a law.
Both Generation Zero and CAA will each be presenting to the committee in the public input session beforehand. Will be pushing some positive points about why we should be investing in cycling.
Well done Luke, sorry I can’t be there too.
Great to see a long term interconnected plan. I don’t see much use of rivers and waterways for cycle lanes like along the whau river. Would be a great asset to the city.
Would be also be great to see grass berms around the city to be used as seperated cycle ways.
Those routes are often considered outside of the cycle plans (which is a bit worrying on its own) – being part of Council’s / Local Board’s “Greenways” projects. Doesn’t mean they don’t exist, or won’t happen, but many of them aren’t in the high-level strategy plan, even if they could play a role.
Waterways and the like are fine for recreational riding but do not fit one of the key issues with bike infrastructure – directness.
I disagree with that as a blanket statement, Bryce. Much of the Twin Streams paths for example are SO close to being perfectly suitable as a commuter / transport paths. Take out the odd too-sharp bend, and upgrade a few road crossings and similar, and it would be great. Of course you don’t want to cycle to work on a path that is, say, more than 20% extra the road distance, or constantly sens you through 90-degree turns. But to say Greenways and coastline/waterways can’t be direct – I disagree!
Yes, as a blanket statement you’re right (was writing on phone and short cut the exp). I was thinking of instances (the Whau one comes to mind). Twin Streams has some holes (Henderson) and could do with some straightening up (there is a bit of a windy, rec feel to some of the path alongside the river).
Can anyone point me in the direction for long term plans for cycle lanes for the Shore?
Once the Skypath is built, what happens then? Is there a plan to push separated bike lanes up the side of the buslane? Seems to me that that would make sense – a motorway for cyclists (with or without your electric motor!)
Google “seapath auckland”.
Versions of this plan have been around for 5 or more years. Whats missing is significant progress towards delivering itand fixing the deficiencies of the so called completed network.
Anyone who has cycled in Auckland will know that the existing network is 100% unconnected, gives up when you need it most like town centres and intersections, full of dead ends like Ian Mckinnon Dr, unattractive to anyone other than confident cyclists….
This failure to deliver is not due to a lack funding or technical knowledge but a lack of political will.
I’m starting to feel like South Auckland and particular the Papakura/Takanini area doesn’t exist in the minds of the council. Particularly with all the building work going on and the Special Housing Zone in Addison it seems bizarre that cycle routes etc. aren’t being put in at the same time?
Looks like still mostly inherited plans rather than new plans.
I am with Takaman on this. It seems the small villages like Manurewa,Papakura, Pukekohe Waiuku Mangere Bridge Howick are nowhere in that mix. Everything is aimed at big commutes rather than small local trips.
I agree. I think NZTA/AT can only think in terms of motorways, so they want to build cycling motorways. You can also see this in London with their “Cycling Superhighways”, which have been a disaster safety wise.
Eventually Auckland may be ready for these. But, right now, you are right that we need to encourage shorter rides and that is where the growth will be. Shorter trips are both more palatable and also tend to take the hills out of the equation as in a 3km distance there is likely to be very few significant hills and for such
Very few Aucklanders will cycle 10kms to work. But I think a lot of people would cycle 3kms/10mins to the local shops or the local PT station – whether that be train, bus or ferry. If you look at the maps produced by Cycle Action Auckland with the catchment area of 3kms, that would include the vast majority of Auckland’s residents.
Of course, in many areas on the Isthmus, if you supplied 3km paths from the train stations, that would actually create a long connected network as many stations arent even 3kms apart – but that shouldnt be the focus.
Along with this there needs to be a big step up in cycle parking facilities. You see in the Netherlands that there are parking faciklities even at quite small bus stops in semi-rural areas. Why not in Auckland as well?
Just getting the majority of 3-5km journeys on cycles would make a massive difference to transport in Auckland and could be done for the same price as a single motorway junction (or the consultant fees on one RoNS).
I agree Ben although direct, high speed links around the city are needed as well as a host of other ideas.
Which is exactly the role NZTA should be filling – making a handful of direct links with priority for through trips. It’s roughly what NZTA have planned in the RLTP for the unlikely event that the government suddenly throws a pile of cash at them for Auckland cycling – extending the NW, and building Northern and Southern cycleways beside their respective motorways. It’s also NZTA that should really be funding Skypath, ultimately.
It’s Auckland Transport (with funding assistance from NZTA, as usual) that needs to be making local cycleways, and more importantly, calming and slowing traffic on quieter streets so that cyclists don’t need separate lanes there.
“I agree. I think NZTA/AT can only think in terms of motorways, so they want to build cycling motorways. You can also see this in London with their “Cycling Superhighways”, which have been a disaster safety wise.”
Huh? Wasn’t aware of that claim – have you got some stats for that? I rode only one of them (one of the older ones, so presumably the newer ones are better), and was quite pleased.
Most of the recent spate of accidents occurred on the superhighways and they have also been blamed for creatinga sense of false safety while actually doing nothing to help cyclists.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-11-21/londons-cycling-superhighways-prove-be-super-dangerous
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/video/2013/nov/15/cyclist-london-cycle-superhighway-2-video
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/15/london-cycling-superhighways-kamikazes-boris-johnson
To be clear, this is talking about the bits of blue paint on the road. There are plans to create fully separated sections and that will solve the safety problems.
goosoid,
> “I think NZTA/AT can only think in terms of motorways, so they want to build cycling motorways.”
While I couldn’t put it better myself, Léon Krier might have expressed this dissonance best in a doodle: https://twitter.com/ByTheMotorway/status/442949525204791296
The short trip by bike (or foot) is underestimated, forgotten or misappropriated for grandiose schemes like AT’s ACN, NZTA’s motorway-bound paths, etc.
I’d love for this discussion to leapfrog the question of more or less cycling dollars of investment, and instead begin evaluating better or worse options for investing in bike-enabled urban mobility.
Agree. What does this plan do for getting kids to ride to school? Or people to their local supermarket? It doesn’t show how people ride around their suburbs.
Cyclists are so starved for facilities we’re grateful when we see a painted cycle lane in the door zone
Bus lanes are fantastic to cycle in except when they contain buses
Yes we are grateful for any scraps that fall from the roading table while the motorists gorge themselves.
However, the problem with cycle lanes is that they have been shown not to encourage the most vulnerable and risk averse cyclists, children, the elderly and women to cycle.
A recent study has shown that in Melbourne on streets with separated cycle paths, the genedr balance is almost 50/50. That is incredible for Australasia (it is usually more like 85%/15%).
There is only one way that works, and that is the Dutch way. Everything else is just dancing around the problem and finding myths and excuses:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html
Would local boards have the power to “upgrade” particular routes in their area if they chip in some of their discretionary spending? I suspect the Waitemata local board for instance would be quite keen to install top quality cycle lanes.
The other area where I think cycling infrastrcture has a role to play is in school trips. My bus trip into town passes Ponsonby Primary, Ponsonby Intermediate and St Mary’s College. Anyone who’s tried the city-bound Outer Link or 005 buses around 8 – 8.15 in the morning will know how crowded the buses get along Jervois Road. But if you want to encourage kids to cycle to school you need either *really* quiet suburban streets, or well protected cycle lanes. The main entrance to Ponsonby Primary for instance is on Curran Street which gets busy with fast moving traffic heading for the bridge.
Local Boards have no power to build anything on-road. Only within parks and reserves. Everything else, they have to “advocate” to Auckland Transport for.
@Max @Chris O – Local Boards now have a Transport Capex Fund ($10m pa divided between 21 Local Boards) that can be put towards a Board’s on-road cycling projects (or any other transport project a Board wishes to propose within a certain criteria). This fund started in 12/13 and can be rolled over each year – it just has to be spent by 2016. The Waitemata Local Board is looking to allocate a big chunk of our capex fund (approx $450k pa) to one of our priority Greenways routes.
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/representativesbodies/LocalBoards/Waitematalocalboard/Pages/waitemataplans.aspx#waitemata
With Len’s Super City in so much debt and the credit rating sinking who is going to lend the money for these cycle projects to be built? I’d say all of this and the CRL are in danger of disappearing rapidly from the budgets.
Cycling investment is a drop in the bucket http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2014/01/20/auckland-cycling-spend-comparison/. And our Congestion Free Network proposals reduce capex on new transport infrastructure to 2030 from $25 billion to $16 billion. And that’s still including $6 billion of roads.
The CRL is a key project for the council, and clearly isn’t in any danger of being dropped – although the Council’s current spending plans are over the top, and cutting does have to happen somewhere.
The best answer (one that’s been repeatedly expressed here, so I’m not sure how you’ve missed it) is to defer some of the worst performing elements of the proposed roading programme which would leave plenty of money spare to progress cycling and the CRL. Which isn’t to say borrowing won’t still be needed, but if done right it’ll be sensible borrowing for projects that will reduce the designed-in need for more and more on roading infrastructure, and thus actually save the city money in the long-term.
If any transport spend is to go ahead it should be the cycling stuff as that has the highest ROI of any transport spend, particularly in massively-congested cities like Auckland. As for those pipe dream motorways still lingering in AT’s transport plans, well I agree that it’d be crazy to fund them and encourage further induced demand if credit is drying up.
The whole-city map is too low resolution to see much detail. Where did Matt get the high-res image of Sturges Rd from?
I made it from what I could tell from the whole city map
One of the things that worries me is how little input – even from CAA – these maps get before being changed. We complained that New North Road had been removed from the cycle network when we last saw the map before this one. AT told us “no worry, we have an alternative route along the Western rail line in there now”. And see, now that one is gone too.
I note yesterday Lester Levy was happy to push a bus lane through in 3 months. Hope he can do similar for cycle paths – which I’d guess have similar statutory requirements – to get the programme back on track.
On a different note cycle paths (separated ones) will save lives. Today’s announcement of greater Board accountability for Health and Safety should be a usefull for tool for focusing AT’s plans
Will be fascinating to see how they will put the cycling facilities along railway lines. Noticing that by the Parnell Tunnel the space for a cycling path has been taken by the electric poles. So therefore much more expensive solution required. Poles could have easily been placed further away if a cycling path was designed in at the same time.
Huh, that makes me notice that Parnell Road is back on the cycle network, but the tunnel route is still not (see above comment re Greenways). Interesting.
Wouldn’t the cycle path be on the outside of the poles? I’d hope there’d be a fence between the cycleway and the railway, in any case. Rather like the Northwestern cycleway is fully fenced from the motorway.
I haven’t seen the location Luke discusses, but presumably he means that there now will be need for extra earthworks to get a flat surface / space for cycleway. Independent from where the boundary fence goes, which would indeed be almost required.
Electric poles? Isn’t there a whole unused tunnel there?
yeh but this is the area from Parnell station to the tunnel. Probably will need boardwalk over drain now as poles in obvious place.
“thought that the Victoria St Linear Park would have had a separated cycleway along it”
The layout for cycling in the linear park hasn’t been confirmed, based on the latest AT study that Cycle Action had input on – it should be noted that the blue “connector” route does NOT automatically mean it will be paint-only facilities. Only that that protected or fully off-road paths are mandatory in the red “highway” routes, whereas they aren’t on the blue ones. Locally, things may change, and he status of a route can change as well (as I noted above, I am in fact worried that AT are being a wee bit TOO flexible with their swapping routes in and out of these maps…)
Can anyone point me in the direction of any information on the planned Oakly Creek cycleway (from cycle express way to Avondale)? The red line on the ‘Long Term Plan’ map above looks like it goes under/over the Mt Albert train line!
Hi Robin – that is the Waterview Cycleway which local community groups and Cycle Action Auckland managed to get paid from the Waterview motorway budget. Opening around 2017…
And yes, you are right, it goes over the western rail line (at Soljak Street). Then up on the eastern side of Oakley Creek, to cross west over it near Alford Street.
It looks like there is a sort of connection planned between Glendene and Rosebank Peninsula, across Whau river. That could provide a real short-cut for the area.
That would be handy but don’t see it in the map.
Here in its blurry goodness. Appears to be along Hepburn Rd
Wow. Who would have thought of ever seeing that. Almost progressive.
I believe it would be part of a road bridge link that’s been on the WCC and AT wish list for a long time….?
That road bridge has been long talked about but doesn’t actually appear on any long term plans. Has been costed at something like $100m from memory
One version of deploying the future network that I think we want to avoid;
http://feedly.com/k/1gmhPOE
Hmm… know what you mean, but can have its place. Still riders are spenders, so it is much better having them in front of the shops and cafes where ever possible.
The issue I have with these ‘network’ plans is that every street, route needs to be viewed as part of the network.
We can do entire suburbs and then link them using a combo of routes. ://caa.org.nz/safety/te-atatu-peninsula-and-30-kmh-zones/
That kind of idea works fine as long as two things are done:
1. Bollards: as the article says, you can use bollards to make a street a through route for pedestrians and cyclists, while only accessible to cars. This prevents rat running and means the street becomes a destination, not a road.
There are so many places in Auckland where a few bollards would improve conditions out of sight. For example, the Fort Street shared space and the area being earmarked for the Dominion Road cycle boulevards. Make those areas accessible by cars but no through route. Make cars go the long way – they are travelling so much faster it shouldn’t make any difference and travel on these residentials streets is only a small part of their journey.
2. Separated infrastructure on arterials: Eventually cyclists will need to get on to an arterial and then we need separated facilities.
As Bryce says these facilities need to be looked at as a network and direct routes taken away from cars on residential streets.
You can see how this was done in a 1960s style auto dominated road network in a neighbourhood in Utrecht:
http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/making-a-1960s-street-grid-fit-for-the-21st-century/
Not really complicated stuff and not hugely expensive. The best thing would be to develop networks like this within a 3 km radius of a PT station to encourage integration.
One glaring hole in this proposed network is right under the words “Sylvia Park” . There is only one connection between Pakuranga and Panmure/Mt Wellington. Presumably this is over the Panmure bridge which as set up at the moment is a scary ride out with the traffic often one lane with no room for a car to overtake a bicycle , or pushing your bicycle along the footpath which is really tight if you meet a single pram coming the other way. If this is relieved by clipping a son of Skypath onto the side of the Panmure bridge ( or by building a wider bridge), there is still a big gap in the desire line from the Pakuranga mall to Sylvia Park. This could be solved by another son of Skypath clip-on attached to the Waipuna Bridge.
Panmure bridge is being duplicated as part of AMETI with the new bridge being for a dedicated busway along with walking and cycling.
Public Notification late 2012? Project way behind schedule is it?
Existing short section of busway works really well, extension would do wonders for bus and rail patronage. Has really good bus priority phasing, if bus is there don’t have to wait for full cycle but only end of individual phase.
I still wonder if they will try to get a fourth car lane in there. Maybe build the new bridge as a four lane for cars and then keep the old one for buses and peds.
No need for extra car lanes – they are spending literally oodles of money on a massive flyover in Pakuranga (Reeves Road) to divert traffic to the next bridge to the south, while Lagoon Drive gets reduce to one lane each direction. Adding another general traffic lane onto the bridge would be more than useless, it would be active waste of money.
Painted lines that encourage cyclists to ride in the car door zone (see TheBigWheel’s links to Ladies Mile) are very dangerous, and any design guideline that permits them should be torn up.
It’s worse than useless because it encourages motorists to think that they own the space outside the white line, and this will reduce their attention to cyclists who, to be safe, ignore the white line.
You should put it to the authorites that these lines are a ‘trap’ in the tort law sense (that is, something that negligently promotes dangerous behaviour), and they should expect to be sued by a cyclist who is doored while riding in the suggested space.
A phrase that caught my eye from the excellent ‘view from the cyclepath’ blog: ‘paint is not infrastructure’
Tortious claims for personal injury dont exist in NZ as a result of ACC. You could sue for the value of your bike or maybe lost time at work but good luck with that. The litigation lawyers will be happy to take your money.
So AC/AT/NZTA dont care. And OSH also dont seem to care about these things as I never see them get involved in preventing crashes or forcing better cycling/walking facilities – it is law of the jungle on the road it seems.
A well-designed painted cycle lane next to parking doesn’t encourage you to ride in the door zone; in Chch we even have a secondary dashed line to indicate the door zone to stay away from (takeaway message: don’t just ride down the middle). 1.8m gives good clearance; 2.0m is even better. The problem of course is that we have far too many in NZ where the dimensions have been squeezed down.
My analysis of 12 cycle lane installations in Chch in the mid-2000s found a 23% reduction in cycle crash rates (controlling for overall cycle crash trends) following their introduction; these were a mix of with/without adjacent parking. So they can provide a notable improvement to the safety of existing riders. I don’t pretend however that they will do a great deal to attract more than the “strong and fearless” and “confident and enthused” to the party.