Cycle Action Auckland have revealed that a cycleway between Glen Innes and Tamaki Dr is being brought forward by a collaboration between Auckland Transport and the NZTA and the first stages could be under construction in just a few months.
The details we have at this stage were revealed in a presentation delivered to the CAA just over a week ago. You can read the presentation here although most of the details are below.
Auckland Transport have split their proposed Auckland Cycling Network into three categories. this project forms part of the metro network.
- 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
This project forms part of the highest level metro network (which seems to have a big whole through the middle of the isthmus)
The cycleway will connect to the three train stations along the route, Glen Innes, Meadowbank and Orakei. It will also have connections into the surrounding suburbs which could make it really useful for expanding the reach of those train stations. It will also link into the work being built as part of AMETI.
The agencies suggest that initial demand is only about 300 people per day however that it would grow to 900 per day in the future. To me that seems fairly light and I suspect it will end up being much more than this as like Skypath I see it as having much more transformational impacts than what the models often suggest.
The project has been broken up into 5 sections and is expected to be built over 3-4 years though an integrated project instead of the 6-7 years it would have taken if they used a more traditional approach. The sections are
- Section 1 (Mechanics Bay to Orakei Point) – 3 to 4 years
- Section 2 (Orakei Point to Meadowbank Station) – 2 years
- Section 3 (Orakei Point to Purewa Cemetery) – 3 years
- Section 4 (Purewa Cemetery to St Johns Road) – 3 years
- Section 5 (ST Johns Road to Glen Innes) – 2 years
Interestingly it appears that sections 4 and 5 will use some of the land that was held aside for the canned Eastern Motorway.
The current timeline they are working to is:
- July – stakeholder engagement
- July – consenting and procurement strategy
- November – lodge planning applications
- End 2014 – targeted to have contractor on board
- Early 2015 – commence construction (section 5)
This should be a fantastic project so it’s great to see it moving forward and doing so quickly. Well done to all involved.
Processing...
There does seem to be a big southern motorway/railway shaped hole in that map…
I’d suggest there’s an isthmus street grid shaped hole in the map.
+1
To be fair it is a map of the “highest level cycle metro network”‘ if you want to talk about arterials there there are a lot more holes!
The “big hole” does have planned cycleways through it, but because of lack of political committment (Dominion Road), only the routes along motorway and rail corridors have yet proceeded – or are likely to proceed in the near future (which is what this diagram really shows).
“Interestingly it appears that sections 4 and 5 will use some of the land that was held aside for the canned Eastern Motorway.”
NZTA said that the GI end of their land holdings (Merton Road frontage/and behind/Adjacent the GI station where the Timber yard is now) is quite valuable and they want to release its value for other projects around NZ, so once that land is sold off, the Eastern Motorway through to Merton Road is as dead as a doornail.
But the big caveats are that the designs/likely path for the cycleway aren’t done yet, so who knows NZTA/MoT or a future council could probably get a road down there in some form if they really wanted.
The route is likely to go up the southern side of the St Johns tunnel portal on the GI side, which is probably the steepest slope, the Northern side is much more friendly, but you’d need to cross the rails to get to that side, so won’t happen due to cost.
Ken Baguley from the OLB was at the CAA meeting and presented too and said the Orakei Local Board (OLB) was very keen about the “Purewa” station on the northern side of the railway, but agreed its expensive to build something there as access roads will be expensive and land ownership down there is complicated.
The quickest win is not with doing Section 5 link in my opinion but the link over the bay to Orakei Point/Station, that will deliver a lot of benefits to both pedestrians and cyclists quickly, and is dead flat and could become a very scenic trip in itself for commuters and for visitors – get a train from Britomart to Orakei, walk back to town across the bay.
But as its through the bay and will run beside the railway it has the longest timeframes and a lot of rules and regs. to follow.
.
However, it was indicated that Section 1, that like the original Eastern Motorway proposal had, would likely run on the southern side of the existing railway line embankment, partly as that area of Hobson Bay adjacent to it is earmarked for some kind of Rowing/training course, and cycling access adjacent to the course is needed for training purposes, this assumes the KR 3rd main is built on the northern side of the existing embankment I guess.
Ken Baguley also suggested that turning that “southern” part of Hobson Bay which is mostly walled off from the northern half by the rail embankment into a gate controlled non-tidal area like Orakei Basin is could actually improve the tidal flows in the basin due to the better flushing it allows, over leaving it as it is which daily tidal flushing.
If this was made a large gate controlled area then that could make the rowing course even more practical as the course could be used a lot more often
Whether KR will allow that to happen is key, as the weight of water on the embankment for such a large area of water could require extensive widening of the rail embankment to hold back the water.
But as a 10+ year goal, its worth considering I guess.
Back to the cycleway plans, good that its progressing and lets hope consenting is able to proceed quickly.
Yes the map could be greatly improved with a line following the southern motorway. There is also the start of a horizontal bisecting line from Tamaki, breaking the hole into quarters.
The route along SH1 Southern motorway IS planned – but since it is in a much tighter, busier corridor, it is presumably much more expensive than this one – so the appetite / money is not quite there yet. Also, the approach to SkyPath from the north is considered more key in NZTA than SH1 South, as I understand.
I am no fan of riding alongside a motorway, it’s vile there, noise and fumes, anyway on-street paths are the best way to unlock the economic force that are people using bikes for transport.
Bring the people on bikes to the front door, don’t stuff them in the traffic sewer.
Agreed – but with the recent fightback against losing a few car parks on Carlton Gore Road and Dom Road, I am not seeing protected cycle lanes on Great South Road any time soon, especially as increasingly, public transport is vying for the same space clawed back from cars, and the PT lobby, anemic as it still is, is stronger than the bike lobby – “Sorry, can’t do bus lanes AND a cycleway here – why don’t you go look somewhere else for your bike riding?”
Loraxus,
>> the recent fightback against losing a few car parks on Carlton Gore Road and Dom Road
There’s more to it than that. In both CGR and Dominion Rd, AT’s designs for cycling were unattractive, and the design process was doomed to fail anyway.
>> public transport is vying for the same space clawed back from cars
CGR is a fine example of where PT precisely does not compete with cycling amenity. In fact, given that the parallel Khyber Pass Rd is better off hosting a fully-fledged bus corridor, CGR becomes even more important. This is a case of a potentially complementary development, in which CGR can function as both a short segment of a through route, as well as one of hopefully a grid of civilised local streets for the neighbourhood to bind with PT nodes and other centres.
Where the CGR project has failed is in AT’s mishandling. Their designs are almost carbon copies of diagrams from the backwards AASHTO bike design guide. And their process has been the opposite of the rapid, community-inspired approach espoused by Janette Sadik-Khan. It’s a top-down, PR-motivated, engineer-driven effort with a token gesture towards cycling development, and little consideration given to the local context. The pushback from the community is unsurprising; it happens to be expressed as car parking protectionism only because AT framed it that way, but it is really the rejection of an irrelevant design and insensitive consent-building by the authority.
Likewise on Dominion Rd, both the arterial and the “quiet” alternative plans have been rendered ineffective by their linear, route-oriented tunnel vision. Both offerings lacked essential features: neighbourhood scale; dense minimum grids with interesting destination coverage; multi-modal integration; appropriate separation; on-street and frontage-bound amenity; and proper intersection treatments. So the cycling aspect of the project meant nothing to locals. No surprise that it failed to win support.
So there are better ways to progress on these issues, and we should be prepared to advocate for them. Take a green-painted leaf out of JSK’s book: build a constituency by door-knocking in a local area; get buy-in for initial but bold designs on a trial basis; measure a wide range of indicators from business performance to footfall; implement the design using cheap, fast and temporary treatments; rapidly iterate on it in response to actual observation and feedback, reporting often; when successful, make permanent; rinse and repeat. Unfortunately, AT (even NZTA) has shown no general ability to do this for cycling, so some kind of organisational change must happen. It’s time we acknowledged this as a matter of major public interest.
Non-Motorist – “The pushback from the community is unsurprising; it happens to be expressed as car parking protectionism only because AT framed it that way, but it is really the rejection of an irrelevant design and insensitive consent-building by the authority.”
The 281 comments on CAA’s blog post (most by local residents and their cronies) would indicate otherwise. The whole discussion came down to the local residents not wnating tomlose precious parking space:
http://caa.org.nz/government/auckland-council/upping-the-game-carlton-gore-road/
The only even slightly sane alternative suggested was a shared path. There is no way this is a good compromise. Even on quiet shared paths away from roads (e.g. Mangere Bridge, Bayswater Pipe Bridge) we are seeing big conflicts between walkers and cyclists. The cyclists appear to be road cyclists who think they have right of way.
The residents there just dont want any cycle infrastructure (as they dont believe cycling is a realistic option because they dont do it) and certainly not if they have to walk another 100m to their car. The fact they chose to buy apartments with no parking is apparently unrelated. We all now have to subsidise their choice by spending rates and tax money maintaining their free parking spaces.
goosoid,
>> The residents there just dont want any cycle infrastructure (as they dont believe cycling is a realistic option because they dont do it) and certainly not if they have to walk another 100m to their car.
This is exactly what I’m saying. There is an underlying, unexamined premise that no cycling infrastructure can ever be worthwhile, and yet AT is failing to show otherwise. Consider that Janette Sadik-Khan faced the same problem in New York, and found ways to inspire buy-in through grassroots consent-building and cheap, fast, temporary pilot projects. See http://nymag.com/news/features/56794/
Remember also that residents in the same neighbourhood opposed another development on the basis that it had too much car parking: https://twitter.com/lukechristensen/status/468317470365736960 — there can be common ground here.
AT’s consultation framed the issue as one of motorist sacrifice to appease the special-interest cycling lobby, inciting exactly the sort of territorial response seen on CAA’s blog with “parking surveys” and the like. They never pitched it as a local mobility improvement for the residents to use, or even to enjoy spillover benefits due to enhancing quality of place and commerce. (And how could they, given the poor design and lack of an overarching area plan to begin with?)
>> The only even slightly sane alternative suggested was a shared path. There is no way this is a good compromise.
Well, the design AT proposed is a shared path — only for cars and bicycles together.
A better compromise such as a Copenhagen-style kerbside parking-protected path is not geometrically out of the question. Locals are unlikely to suggest it, of course, as it will seem too ambitious given AT’s form, if it even entered their imagination. If there is any hope of change, such a solution ought to be tabled by AT (and/or advocates, as Transalt in NY did), and perhaps conducted as a trial, etc.
So if only Section 5 gets underway early 2015 and takes two years to 2017 to complete, then for the other 4 sections through to Tamaki Drive, we will be waiting until 2029 for the entire cycleway to be completed is that correct? That is rather too long is it not?
All timeframes are from now, i.e. 2 years from now = completition of first section in 2016, last section finishing 2017-2018.
Knock on wood. Delays on cycle projects in Auckland are not the exception, but the rule. Still, better to aim high and fast.
No NZTA (and AT) want to get consent for all 5 sections together so consenting process is done up front for all sections, which can then each proceed at their own pace and schedules.
This means all sections more or less proceed at the at the same time (subject to funding, resources and design issues etc), so if all started early to mid next year, the whole lot could be finished by sometime in 2019, assuming 4 years for the longest section (being section 1), possibly sooner for some sections e.g.section 2 as that is only widening/extending whats already there, and section 5 being the GI section which is on “bare land” beside the railway with easy connections at the GI end.. If all went swimmingly, then you could get an end to end link in 3 years say by end of 2017 3.5 years away.
Section 5 is being started sooner as NZTA said they want to flog off the land at the GI end once the cycleway is built and thats the quickest way to do it.
[By the pricking of my thumbs, Something like a SHA that way comes].
While anything is better than grazing for horses, The land could be used for a lot better purposes than just more crap housing, which is the likely outcome while this government is having a say in that land.
I kind of sensed fro NZTAs comments on section 5 that the Government was wanting the land sold (rather than NZTA), as the land is Crown land, not “NZTA land”. and one of the things that neeed is removeal of the huge severance the railway introduced.
And the Motorway designation on that land where NZTA will be building a cycleway does run out soon having been extended (as required/limited by the Environment Court for only 10 more years) when Banks was a one time Mayor (anyone remember Banks?), and once that Motorway designation lapses,the land would need to be re-designated/rezoned to be able to be developed.
There is also a need to protect the 3rd main right of way along this entire section (actually, I think it should be a 3rd and 4th main), allowing better (if not complete) separation of freight and passenger rail traffic.
But KR have to be allowed to do that, which means committing to a future of Rail for freight, that the current Government doesn’t think they have.
And don’t forget, a 3rd (or 3rd and 4th) main comes with the need for a tunnel next to the current one, so that opens up the longer term option of a cycling tunnel under St Johns Hill being built as well.
Come in “CRL TBM” – when your time is up, and you’ll have one last teensy weensy, tunnel job to do before you’re scrapped – build a St Johns tunnel (or two)..
But thats a (somewhat) long way in the future I suspect.
Why is Section 2 (Orakei Point to Meadowbank Station) shown as being 2 years? Will this be in addition to the existing walk/cycle way alongside the railway line?
Yes, they said it will widen whats already there (a 6m in total shared cycle/walkway was mentioned), and extend it to link to Meadowbank Station area.
I took that to mean a wide walkway/cycleway like now, rather than two separate structures side by side.
And whether “extending” that means going off-road beside the railway once its over the bridge by the tidal gates or simply making part of the existing road a cycleway o nthe road or what I’m not sure.
But road would lose some of the Park N Ride places so thats sure to be opposed somewhere if they take that option.
Existing walkway is 3.5m and could get wider easily by going more “landward” toward the edge of the Orakei basin side of the railway embankment, to add that extra 1.5m or so of width.
The boardwalk could veer left as it climbs out of the basin and heads towards Meadowbank stn, and follow alongside (but below) the road along that bank to keep in the rail corridor.
But as thats in the rail corridor and KR seem to be a bit pedantic about anything at all coming near their “live rail”, this may not occur like that.
Hi Greg, sorry but I think you are mixing things up a bit. The existing walkway between Orakei and Meadownbank is 2.5m – and yes, it is proposed to be widened, but to around 4m.
The 6m you are thinking off was probably the discussion about the long-term widths on Tamaki Drive, which Ken Baguely was having during the same CAA meeting.
You’re probably right, I knew the 1.5m widening of the existing was right so if the current is 2.5m then 1.5m makes 4m wide, which is the same as SkyPath are proposing on doing, so its quite usable.
Yep, 6M for the Tamaki Drive is probably why that number is also in my head too…
Great stuff. When this is built I would probably cycle to the city about once a week. The land from GI to panmure is also very good for cycling. They just need to add some cycle paths or walkways to “passively managed” parkland like mt wgtn reserve and boundary reserves to complete Plischke’s vision. A cycle way along mt wgtn reserve would also link to the rotary cycle way and allow pakuranga etc to make use of the cycle highway to the city.
What are those red lines supposed to represent?
Would of thought the following should be no better than purple:
The waterview section (Maioro St to SH18) may have had NZTA funding for the past 3 years but it’s nowhere near starting construction let alone being open for use.
The section from Onehunga Bay to Hillsborough road is a joke. It’s mostly on road, and mostly so steep its hard to walk up let alone ride.
Skypath has not been built yet.
There is a gap in the path beside SH18 where is uses the roads, Sutherland St and crossing Carrington Rd. The wiggly bit through Carrington and the wooden ramp aren’t great and have poor sight lines. With the current works on the motorway one might think the cycleway might get connected, but it’s not.
At least the section from Newton Rd to Grafton Gully is under construction, but still months away.
I think red are projects to cycle metro standard that are either done, or pretty much agreed will be done within the next couple years (with some odd ones like the spur line to New Lynn which hasn’t got funding yet I think, or the link from Waikaraka Cycleway to Panmure – interesting these are in there).
Agreed, not many cyclists would want to cycle from Onehunga Bay to Hillsborough Rd. The much easier route (although less direct on a map) is up Onehunga Mall, then Trafalgar, Manukau Rd to Royal Oak, and Mt Albert Rd. That’s why I see a number of cyclists on busy Mt Albert Rd every morning I guess.
That doesn’t sound healthy. I tried biking to work along Mt Albert Rd a couple of years ago and it was frightening. The four-lane sections have no room for cyclists, even riding in the gutter cars couldn’t get past me (or vice versa). Ugh.
This is potentially a great project.. as ever, the devil is in the detail but I feel the intent is there from NZTA and AT to work constructively with stakeholders to take on board the “voice of the customer”. CAA are well placed. Other groups need to be too.
I would think the route itself could become busier than the NW Cycleway, but probably even more potential lies not in long distance commuting to the city but in delivering local safe cycling / walking routes. Some of these are already in included in scope.. e.g. Meadowbank train station from Gowing Drive and GI station from St Johns.
But it would be fantastic if the project scope could also include a bridge (or two?!) to deal with the severance between Meadowbank and Kohi. The Selwyn College indicative zone includes parts of Remuera / Ellerslie / Meadowbank from which maybe 200-300 students travel daily.. most of who live within 2-3 k of the school as the crow flies but whose only option is the lengthy bus route up and round St Johns Road / Kohi Road.
That project you refer to is the Greenways project, which neither of the NZTA spokes-people (or AT) said they were (a) aware of or (b) going to incorporate necessairly in their designs.
And had no knowledge of when asked.
However, they did say that the “stakeholder engagement” meeting in July is where all the ideas and plans (including) the Greenways project suggestions/plans need to be tabled to ensure that there is some “joined up thinking” going on here.
As you are right, being able to link communities over the Purewa stream to the north (and to Gowing Drive in the south) as as big a part of this as the cycleway is, but as always as that requires crossing the railway lines, expensive (for cycleway) plans will be needed which means given ATs (and NZTA’s) budget here, may not happen this time.
AT and OLB did mention the need for local connections along the way, but the scope to add those now is limited, so some properties would need to be acquired to give access to local roads.
Ken from the OLB had a view on how Northern side linkages would be done initially using roads to a Purewa station, but there must be something else we can do now without doing all that extra roading stuff for cars.
My thought is also that if the expense of a cross-rail bridge is going to considered then the temptation must be there in the planners at least to make any such crossings over the railway and river road as well as cycle ones, which is a totally different concept to what we are being offered here.
I think that right now in the weekend (the peak time) the Orakei Boardwalk gets 300 people on it an hour (let alone 300 a day), and if it was extended to Tamaki Drive the volume using it will Sky Rocket.
It will quickly become another SkyPath when built, without a doubt. And unlike SkyPath which needs to (and can) restrict volumes of people on it, the “Purewa Path” won’t be able to do that easily unless its tolled, so easy access may easily allow it to become very popular so if they make it a “good enough for today” design, it may need widening sooner than later. Would be a change for Auckland where a newly built Cycleway/Walkway needs widening with a few years of being built (instead of a motorway) but all the same, why not design it right to start with?
And maybe some of the locals up around Gowing and the upper part of Felton Matthew Drives may object to seemingly having their piece and quiet “ruined” by walkers and cyclists (ignoring the fact that they’ve got thundering great diesel freight trains running past several times a day right now).
http://www.selwyn.school.nz/WebSpace/1007/
Here’s the zone. It also shows the glendowie zone. You gotta love that island in the middle!
I know that this is off topic for this thread (and blog) but I would love to know the history of that Glendowie ‘island’ in St Johns (as a very happy parent of a Selwyn student)
Glendowie College had a declining roll in the late 1970’s as growth in the area did not eventuate and large numbers of students in the area were going to private schools. Staff cuts were about to occur and to boost numbers the school started a bus route to St.Johns where the ‘Golf Course Zone’ was just develped and have had a bus route there ever since.
I am probably just missing it, but does any of this address the short trips that bicycles are best for? It all seems to be very long distance type riding along routes that have…. nothing on them.
How many bike lanes in the CBD and town centres would this project fund?
As is hinted in the post, this is supposed to be one of the top tier: “Metro” cycle lanes that serve longer trips and higher volumes. It’s only supposed to be a small fraction of routes, but particularly useful for longer trips. They are useful for exactly the same reason motorways are useful to cars, on a smaller scale – free flowing traffic, without conflicting with local areas where people are starting and stopping all the time. There’s a whole wider network of other routes planned which are designed to serve more local trips, more about getting people to town centres and schools and the like.
Of course, the problem is that the only routes that are actually getting built are the Metro routes that can be done on NZTA land with NZTA money. The local routes just aren’t happening. But that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the principle, or that it’s a waste to build the Metro routes in the meantime. The solution is to build the local routes as well.
At least be being along the rail line it will also serve as a way to connect to stations if it is porous enough to surrounding neighbourhoods and not just built as a ‘cycling motorway’.
Well, the analogy to motorways isn’t perfect. Car motorways work at their purpose because they minimise conflicts with other cars. Bikes don’t have nearly the same problem conflicting with other bikes. But the “cycling motorway” minimises conflicts with pedestrians and cars, which saves both time and energy. Travelling on the street is always going to be start-stop, which gets tiring on a longer trip. A “cycling motorway” can still have lots of connections, as long as through traffic has priority over them. Perhaps more of a “cycling highway”, or even “cycling arterial”.
It’s also not a competition for resources between types of cycle facilities, since the two types of infrastructure have different “costs”. Cycle lanes cost almost nothing money-wise, but need to have space taken away from cars. “Cycle highways” and greenways cost real money, but don’t need reallocations of space.
Having a few more Metro routes like this built is still progress, even if there’s other progress that could be happening but isn’t.
By ‘Cycling Highway’ I refer to the pattern of placing cycling routes away from along-the-way destinations, like along the front of traditional shopping streets. It is a highway mentality because it emphasises safety through separation and connection of distant points, not local ones. As you mention above it’s come about partly because of NZTA’s land holding but because of their total focus on movement and long distance connection, as opposed to place quality and local connection. This is especially highlighted because of AT’s striking failure to do anything much at all in way of quality on-street cycleways.
This is a good one however, and in part as I say above, because it will improve access to train stations, as well as provide a great route in itself. Riding beside the rail network is a lot less unpleasant than beside the motorway, and this will be even more the case once the passenger trains are all electric.
Interestingly, AT has moved away from the “highway” terminology for the uppermost cycleway hierarchy level though, and is now calling them “cycle metros”. A positive start? Now they need to actually build a few protected cycle lanes to show them in the “standard treatment” catalogue tho!
> Interestingly, AT has moved away from the “highway” terminology for the uppermost cycleway hierarchy level though, and is now calling them “cycle metros”. A positive start?
Maybe, although there’s still a germ of truth in the analogy to highways – they are expected to have priority over local traffic, and serve trips of more than a kilometre or two.
> Now they need to actually build a few protected cycle lanes to show them in the “standard treatment” catalogue tho!
Definitely. By the way, do you know what’s planned for the middle rung of that “ladder” across the CBD? Is that the Victoria St linear park, or on Wellesley Street, sharing with the buses?
I certainly don’t have a problem with them in principle, I just don’t think they are what we need right now, or will make any real impact on cycling here. I don’t see this increasing overall ridership or safety for myself and everyone I know who rides a bike, certainly not attracting women or children. As it’s always being stated here – short trips are perfect for bikes and there is nothing on that route to go to that we’re not better served by public transport – If any of us want to go any distance along a mass transit route we tend to take mass transit.
Again, I do support it in principle, more cycling infrastructure is always good, but this looks more like an exercise path or something that will be used by small numbers of cycle commuters (like the western cycleway, again, which is great!) when every cent should be spent on making this happen, everywhere:
https://yy1.staticflickr.com/4099/4854641049_bba8c57dc9_z.jpg
http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/pp9b_amsterdam_bicycle_many.jpg
https://amsterdamcyclechic.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/cycle-chic-child-by-joni.jpg?w=752
http://www.vivaboo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/family-cycle-train-tamdem-amsterdam-netherland-kid-ride-bike-bicycle.jpg
Once you have that, everything will follow.
I do understand that this is NZTA funding and doesn’t take anything away from anywhere else, I’m just frustrated that we’re doing things backwards as a (forced) result.
I would suggest that the train stations are places to which we would take short journeys on a bicycle? Oeraki shops? Mini-Golf, Parnell Baths?
More importantly this is a trojan horse to build political support for cycling on arterials IMO.
They are indeed, but I don’t see where this multiyear project helps with that. This Glen Innes to Tamaki drive stretch (and other long hauls) doesn’t make cycling safer for the vast majority of people that we are supposed to be encouraging to ride.
We need a full cycle network, yes! 10% of it are these long distance routes, the 90% is missing and that’s the part I care about that I worry will never get done.
Comparing this to getting cycle lanes on dominion, mt eden, east coast bays or new north road (let alone feeding into suburbs proper and taking away car parks in some cases) is pointless – they are completely different technically and politically, the latter being my concern that we’ll never overcome because of a lack of will and bravery.
So while this is great and I support it and it’s needed one day, as a ‘cyclist’ (who owns no car!), it makes no difference to my safety or convenience and in the long term it will be the same as the western one, with serious long distance commuters on weekdays and guys on racing bikes going fast, having a coffee at one end and then going back, on weekends. Not filled with children, women or guys like me just going to buy groceries or to the local store or restaurants or bus/train station. I can’t even ride my bike to work (which only takes 8 minutes to walk!) because I’d die.
Vancouver still has tons of problems (which I’ll be experiencing first hand for a few years in a weeks time), but damn:
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/cycling/cycling_routes/full_maps/translink%20regional%20cycling%20map%20west.ashx
All over their (Van) forums, news etc are people whinging about not enough car parking, not enough roads, get rid of the bike lanes blah blah, but they are just ignored and more bike lanes are added, more parking removed. Here they get pride of place in the media and agencies agendas.
I want these positive things, a lot, I cling on each bit of good news, but I can’t shake the feeling that it’s all just posturing and minimal ad-hoc rather than a fundamental shift. We had JSK a couple of weeks ago and neither the mayor, council or NZTA had a single thing to say about their bold new plans and initiatives (ones with actual budgets and designs and contractors) – because they have none.
Agree with many of your points, David – but this is mainly an NZTA project above and beyond the existing cycle budget (especially the first sections). NZTA will (certainly under the current government) not build cycleways away from their own corridors. So our attitude is to make the best of these hierarchical “backbone”, and work to ensure that they spread to more on-road cycleways, just as the Grafton Gully Cycleway gets us Beach Road. Also add as many local side connections as possible. Make it a cycleway useful for somebody in Parnell to cycle to Meadowbank. For somebody in Orakei to cycle to Glen Innes. For somebody in St Johns to cycle to Panmure.
David, you gotta start somewhere, and this is a good start after years of “zip, nada, no way” from NZTA, I won’t say no too soon to this.
Also, this area will become very much a string of destinations in the next 5-10 years, you’ll have Tamaki Drive cycling lanes, Orakei Point Development, links up the hill to Kohimarama and then GI on the other side of the hill.
Think of this as the CRL for walkers and cycles. Suddenly all those locations will be within a few minutes cycling of each other and a large chunk of Auckland, whether they arrive there by foot, bike or train, they can all enjoy those ammenities. And in say 20 years, when a proper through route under St Johns is built you won’t have to cross St Johns road either – just zoom underneath.
Yep, gotta do the local road stuff too, but thats AT’s job, not NZTA’s to sort out and do and that means hard decisions like prioritising road space for cycling over space for cars, getting access to local roads for the users of the cyclepath and sorting out broken roads, all which you need big balls to do, which neither AT or AC got have much of yet.
I guess if NZTA build this, and like the SkyPath it becomes a victim of its own success then that alone is a victory, and there is so much promise that can be fulfilled here.
As long as you remember that 30% of the Purewa Path will be over or near/constrained by adjacent water (rivers or bays) and rail lines, which means that part of this stretch will always have natural severance issues, the rest man made ones.
AT will eventually get a rocket under them. They can only ignore the mounting pressure for so long. What will be galling is the self-congratulation that will follow.
Max, Greg N, I appreciate that this is good news. I’m not trying to be a debbie downer on it all. Any spend on cycling is political capital 🙂 I’m just tired of everything being 5-10 years away. Other cities are doing this stuff now, they are doing it quickly and they are doing it well. It’s a worldwide competition for (young, smart) people – http://1776dc.com/news/2013/11/06/cities-attract-companies-small-and-large-with-improved-bike-infrastructure/ – where is our vision? New Zealand and Auckland in particular could be THE place to live, we have everything except infrastructure – and we’d have to be that much better than everyone else due to the fact that we’re isolated. We want startups to grow up here and then choose to stay (or god fobid have them move here), because Auckland is the best city for them to live and work. It’s not at the moment. This talk by Sir Paul Callaghan is great and he touches on this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhCAyIllnXY
Basically, I’m at the age and level of skill and experience that I can live in a lot of good cites – I’ve chosen to not stay here because other cities are doing it better. The things that matter to me are, unfortunately, all the things Auckland does wrong.
Fair enough, David. I am in the same position – I could also move to a lot of other places. But maybe I like a project? 😉
Steve D,
The trouble with the ACN is it brings to cycling the kind of lumbering functional classification borne of motordom’s roads, and not the other way around. The key nouns, adjectives and verbs emphasised in it are improper; they are one-dimensionally path-oriented rather than area-oriented, stressing corridor cross-sections instead of urban morphological elements. So it misses the point: we need dense, minimum grids exposed to the front doors of interesting destinations on the existing street network, with quality on-street treatments appropriate to the local urban grain and social context.
The motorway analogy is apt, but not to be taken so literally. A motorway should be understood as a kind of local maximum in infrastructure design for motoring, given the physical and economic characteristics of vehicle travel such as speed, turning radius, mileage, comfort, etc. Translating that to bicycle use, we should find that the optimal urban infrastructure for mass city cycling is a grid of civilised streets, enabling comfortable, short, local trips. (Intersections in particular are a fraught prospect for high speed vehicular travel, but not so for cycling — not only is it less dangerous, it also has more utility for such a place-sensitive mode of movement. i.e. when cycling, intersections are places of opportunity, not conflict.)
Let’s also not forget that in project after project, the relevant authority (and our friendly advocates) complain that nice-to-have features like minimally decent and complete on-street bike paths are just too expensive — and if we want more or better, we should go looking for a new government to fund those improvements. I can cite Carlton Gore Road as an example where this constraint has come up: we can’t have normal kerbside, parking-protected bike lanes because driveway treatments would cost too much, so we’ll have to live with AASHTO’s or Austroads’ prescriptions at best.
> The trouble with the ACN is it brings to cycling the kind of lumbering functional classification borne of motordom’s roads, and not the other way around.
I think you’re under-appreciating the similarities between bicycles and cars. Bicycles still share the same tradeoff in routes – between local access and speed. In fact, the difference is even more pronounced for bicycles, where stop-start cycling exacts a huge physical tax on you, which isn’t true for cars. If you are travelling a longer distance, a route that allows you to travel without frequent stops is considerably more attractive than one that has good access to a bunch of local destinations that you aren’t visiting.
Bicycles aren’t as competitive with cars for long trips as they are for short trips. But there are still people who do take longer cycle trips, and for them, the Metro routes are a plus.
> A motorway should be understood as a kind of local maximum in infrastructure design for motoring, given the physical and economic characteristics of vehicle travel such as speed, turning radius, mileage, comfort, etc. Translating that to bicycle use, we should find that the optimal urban infrastructure for mass city cycling is a grid of civilised streets, enabling comfortable, short, local trips.
No, I’m deliberately using the analogy a little more literally than you. These sorts of cycleways are for longer, non-stop trips. Obviously the design is going to be significantly different for bicycles, including more frequent access, but the idea is the same. They aren’t designed to replace streets, but to complement them.
> Let’s also not forget that in project after project, the relevant authority (and our friendly advocates) complain that nice-to-have features like minimally decent and complete on-street bike paths are just too expensive
When AT doesn’t even spend its whole cycling budget, it’s clear that money isn’t the problem: it’s the political will to take space away from cars (or buses).
I’m not saying the Metro routes are the best possible use of money, or of advocacy effort, or even well named. But they are still beneficial to have, regardless of how much on-street cycling infrastructure we get, as well.
Steve D,
>> I think you’re under-appreciating the similarities between bicycles and cars. Bicycles still share the same tradeoff in routes – between local access and speed.
At intersections, for example, it’s rare (in the western world) to allow free motor vehicle flows across each other — vehicles have to stop and yield one way or another. However, with bicycles and pedestrians, this is eminently possible: consider Barnes dances or Dutch/Danish bike intersections. Where bikes do mix with cars, green waves, rolling stops and shared-space/car-free streets can enable smoother travel. These are all classic European lessons; we’d do well not to ignore them.
At a higher level, the layout of a network for motor vehicles is more optimal as a dendritic tree, hence the functionally classified suburban cul-de-sacs and linear arterials/motorways. This morphology does not suit cycling (or even PT), whereas a high-frequency grid works better. Of course, longer, linearised paths can be overlayed within such a grid (in the built environment), or they could be more appropriately built afresh out into the countryside (not so much within the built environment).
So the geometry of urban bicycle travel and urban motor travel are actually significantly and fundamentally different. That’s not to say long distance bike travel isn’t a legitimate need, just that the highway analogy doesn’t do it justice.
>> In fact, the difference is even more pronounced for bicycles, where stop-start cycling exacts a huge physical tax on you, which isn’t true for cars. If you are travelling a longer distance, a route that allows you to travel without frequent stops is considerably more attractive than one that has good access to a bunch of local destinations that you aren’t visiting.
>> Bicycles aren’t as competitive with cars for long trips as they are for short trips. But there are still people who do take longer cycle trips, and for them, the Metro routes are a plus.
Well, three things:
1) The physical tax is a good argument for bicycle priority at intersections, not an argument for lower intersection density along bike routes.
2) The physical tax is proportional to your target speed. Remember that slower, no-sweat riding is the growth market for mass city cycling. Keeping up with car traffic isn’t.
3) Some stop-start movement isn’t always bad even if you’re travelling relatively long distances; it can be a chance to rest, and can help with wayfinding, socialising, unplanned encounters, etc.
>> Obviously the design is going to be significantly different for bicycles
You say that, but they seem to map very neatly alongside motorways and rail splines…
>> They aren’t designed to replace streets, but to complement them.
True, and that’s fine in and of itself. The question is what priority should they take in cycling development. I’d say we need to sort out our streets first, and these nice-to-have trails can come later.
>> When AT doesn’t even spend its whole cycling budget, it’s clear that money isn’t the problem: it’s the political will to take space away from cars (or buses).
All I can say is what the authorities and the advocates respond with when asked. Discussions often boil down to there not being enough money. Carlton Gore Road, as a current example, shows AT can transcend space problems: they’re trumpeting the removal of tens of car parks, while there are no buses, and yet they claim that kerbside, parking-protected lanes cannot be built due to (indirect) costs.
>> I’m not saying the Metro routes are the best possible use of money, or of advocacy effort, or even well named. But they are still beneficial to have, regardless of how much on-street cycling infrastructure we get, as well.
Absolutely, I think they will be nice to have one day. However, I would go the next step and say we need to be more pragmatic about what gets built now, rather than slavishly applauding anything affixed with a Cycling™ label.
> However, with bicycles and pedestrians, this is eminently possible: consider Barnes dances or Dutch/Danish bike intersections….
> Where bikes do mix with cars, green waves, rolling stops and shared-space/car-free streets can enable smoother travel.
But in reality, bikes and pedestrians do mix with cars, so on-street lanes are going to involve stops at intersections. Particularly in a gridded network, where you can’t achieve green waves for most circumstances, even if you prioritise bikes at the expense of everyone else. Shared spaces / pedestrianisation are good (except with very heavy pedestrian volumes – try biking across Te Wero bridge!). But these obviously aren’t “mixing with cars”. The interesting/hard part is what happens at intersections.
If we designed a mono-modal cycling city, we wouldn’t need “classes” of cycle routes.
> At a higher level, the layout of a network for motor vehicles is more optimal as a dendritic tree, hence the functionally classified suburban cul-de-sacs and linear arterials/motorways.
Grids tend to work better for motor vehicles as well, although still with different functional classes of roads. Cul-de-sacs come about because street layouts are left to property developers at subdivision time, who tend to pick the cul-de-sac design since it maximises the number of lots, and puts most lots away from through traffic.
> Of course, longer, linearised paths can be overlayed within such a grid (in the built environment), or they could be more appropriately built afresh out into the countryside (not so much within the built environment).
> 1) The physical tax is a good argument for bicycle priority at intersections, not an argument for lower intersection density along bike routes.
Having priority is exactly how cycleways like the Northwestern work (with a few exceptions where it crosses roads at-grade). This is possible if you follow a grade-separated motorway or railway line, it’s not possible if you follow an at-grade arterial that still has to deal with many times more cars than bikes. There are solutions to give bikes priority through roundabouts or give way signs, but there’s a lot less you can do at an intersection with traffic lights.
Having lower intersection density doesn’t help in itself, but for longer trips, it doesn’t matter. It’s just part of the overall route, it’s not like you can’t use the route if you don’t live right next to the entrance.
> 2) The physical tax is proportional to your target speed. Remember that slower, no-sweat riding is the growth market for mass city cycling. Keeping up with car traffic isn’t.
Again, that fits with your vision of what urban cycling “should” be, but excludes many of the people who will be riding longer distances, and the distances involved in real suburban travel.
Some of the people riding bikes long distances may even, shock horror, wear specialised clothes…
> 3) Some stop-start movement isn’t always bad even if you’re travelling relatively long distances; it can be a chance to rest, and can help with wayfinding, socialising, unplanned encounters, etc.
Every few kilometres, maybe, but not every block.
> >> Obviously the design is going to be significantly different for bicycles
> You say that, but they seem to map very neatly alongside motorways and rail splines…
Well, the basic requirement for a cycleway is “a straightish line”, available space, and connections. Motorways tend to have the first two, and railways tend to have the first and third. So even aside from the NZTA/AT business, you’d still expect routes like that to be built along something linear, like a motorway or rail line.
> The question is what priority should they take in cycling development. I’d say we need to sort out our streets first, and these nice-to-have trails can come later.
That’s what I also said, at the end of my previous comment.
> yet they claim that kerbside, parking-protected lanes cannot be built due to (indirect) costs.
No, my understanding from Max was that they claimed that they couldn’t be built due to the need to remove ten extra on-street carparks.
> Absolutely, I think they will be nice to have one day. However, I would go the next step and say we need to be more pragmatic about what gets built now, rather than slavishly applauding anything affixed with a Cycling™ label.
I don’t agree that getting one cycling project stopped will help get a different cycling project to happen. You just alienate any of your allies who do support that project, and if you take it to extremes, you become indistinguishable from someone who simply opposes bikes in general.
Steve D,
>> Particularly in a gridded network, where you can’t achieve green waves for most circumstances
That’s a characteristic of long-distance routes, not of grids. You only need a few green-wave routes, just as you would otherwise only build a few long “metro” trails.
>> If we designed a mono-modal cycling city, we wouldn’t need “classes” of cycle routes.
Nothing wrong with classes in general, the problem is only functional classification mirroring motordom’s roading hierarchy.
>> Cul-de-sacs come about because street layouts are left to property developers at subdivision time, who tend to pick the cul-de-sac design since it maximises the number of lots, and puts most lots away from through traffic.
The history of urban development, the shaping and re-shaping of cities for urban freeways, says otherwise. It might have played out through private developers in many cases, but higher level planning and co-ordination was quite intentional and very much oriented around motor travel. I recommend “Changing Lanes” by DiMento & Ellis (MIT Press), for a good historical reading on urban freeways in the US, which led the way on this and exported its talent.
>> Having priority is exactly how cycleways like the Northwestern work
>> There are solutions to give bikes priority through roundabouts or give way signs, but there’s a lot less you can do at an intersection with traffic lights.
There are many ways to give bicycles priority, from frequent phasing to programmed green waves, to weighted response time on actuation, to early passive sensors… again, we can learn from overseas examples. Just having bike lights pervasively would be a good start. We don’t have to grade-separate everything.
>> Again, that fits with your vision of what urban cycling “should” be, but excludes many of the people who will be riding longer distances, and the distances involved in real suburban travel.
>> Some of the people riding bikes long distances may even, shock horror, wear specialised clothes…
This vision for urban cycling is grounded in the reality of other places that have achieved a high mode share, and in fairly rapid time, with spillover benefits to liveability. They make long-distance trips too, and their infrastructure and development priorities (with respect to geometry, not culture) is quite unlike how Auckland is going about it.
>> Well, the basic requirement for a cycleway is “a straightish line”, available space, and connections.
Another is proximity to buildings — in general, the nearer the better. Even long-distance travellers eventually want to get somewhere, and not everyone is going to exactly the same place.
>> No, my understanding from Max was that they claimed that they couldn’t be built due to the need to remove ten extra on-street carparks.
With regard to AT, their staff/contractor claimed at consultation that expense was the barrier to all alternative CGR options, e.g. making parking relocation impossible. My reference to advocates was more general, as the funding excuse crops up often; e.g. https://twitter.com/MaxRobitzsch/status/475881886921678848
>> I don’t agree that getting one cycling project stopped will help get a different cycling project to happen.
It won’t exactly help, but it also won’t continue hindering. Opportunity cost manifests in terms of money, political capital, public attention, programme focus, activist synergy and more.
>> You just alienate any of your allies who do support that project, and if you take it to extremes, you become indistinguishable from someone who simply opposes bikes in general.
Totally agree. That’s why I’m asking for a more pragmatic approach that isn’t anchored to AT’s and NZTA’s same-old agenda.
A crossing over or under the rail line near Purewa Valley walkway off Kepa Bush, below Thatcher St must be part of the plan. Train crews will confirm people walking over tracks between Mission Bay and Purewa Cemetry/Meadowbank is already an issue and no doubt stressful for the drivers. I’ve often seen trains toot and slow and even stop to give joggers an ear full.
As well as addressing safety a crossing would also increase the catchment of cyclists and pedestrians able to enjoy and commute through the valley. Purewa and will become an excellent asset to the city, pleasant green recreational bush and of course easily accessible for visitors by train.
Yes this important in order to ameliorate the severance caused by the rail line. Also this walking and cycling route [with crossings] is a good first step towards the desirable but not easy business of moving Meadowbank Station up the hill and connecting it to the communities on both sides of the valley and to Selwyn College and St John’s Rd.
Yep, both (train station move and cross-connections across Pureway valley) are among the reasons the Orakei Local Board is so keen on this walk/cycleway. Waterview Cycleway funding agreed led to AT including a stub line to Avondale / New Lynn across Oakley Creek. Hopefully this will spur similar outgrowths.
Well KR could easily fix that issue by getting a walkway overbridge built near there if its such a problem for them or their drivers.
But the truth is they (KR) don’t see it as *their* problem or more to the point, they may see it as a problem, but not one they need to address
– they see it in the same that farmers see gorse in their paddocks – something to be stomped on and got rid of (preferably with someone else footing the bill).
Just like KR doesn’t think it has any obligation for ensuring people can cross level crossing without getting stuck in the rails.
No, thats someone elses problem to address not ours.
The argument seems to be that the “railway was here first” so you live with it.
Might have been ok in the 20th century when railways were either king or dying a slow death, in the 21st century that attitude is pretty poor and needs to be more flexible.
And that would also address Patricks idea of getting the station moved closer to the potential users.
A overbridge is certainly the first start to getting there.
I think it’s more a “You want us to build a bridge for pedestrians and cyclists – do you know we are barely given enough money to keep our existing infrastructure from rotting away” problem. Kiwirail has been living with a sword over their budgets for the last half century, and any infusion of new cash is accompanied with a “now you better start turning a profit, or else” warning.
Well I’d put it this way,
“Do you want a health and safety prosecution or two for not dealing with a known safety issue with your tracks? or
“Do you want all the bad press that happens when you run people over and kill them even if its supposedly their fault?”
I wish this sort of punitive attitude would also apply to road accidents and the far worse social hazards created by road traffic than rail. The double standards in safety requirements for road vs rail totally nauseate.
Agreed Dave, but under ACC (no ones at fault) and OSH (everyones at fault) who do you apportion fault to?
KR also has a bad rap around these parts due to the attitude to the tracks (we were here first Auckland Passenger trains and everyone else so get lost), and the 3rd main they want to have (they want their cake and eat it – they want everyone to ensure they have the space reserved and if possible built, but they don’t want, to actually, pay for that).
So we have had the ludicrous situation where brand new road bridges over the GI rail corridor are built – which can’t accommodate the 3rd rail – in part as KR won’t contribute to making the bridge wide enough, and yet KR still persists on wanting it.
Talk about not being a nice neighbour.
Yep, I know KR is in “survival mode” pending change of Government, but once that happens? KR can stop being so nit picking about ensuring people can cross their tracks safely for once.
A rail crossing between Mission Bay/Kohi side and Meadowbank should be a pedestrian underpass through the raised embankment near Purewa cemetery – similar in design to the existing underpass that allows access between Parnell and the Domain.
Cycleway gradient, Kepa Bush tracks, Purewa creek and bush environment make the northern side of the tracks more attractive, although a crossover is necessary to connect to Meadowbank and Orakei Basin walkway.
No thanks from me to a new station in the valley. The significant infrastructure would have a negative effect on what is one of the last remaining unprotected green corridors close to the CBD, despoiled by car parks and glaring security lights. Orakei, Meadowbank and GI stations are already well developed and what is needed are feeder buses and better pedestrian connections to those stations.
“should be a pedestrian underpass through the raised embankment near Purewa cemetery ”
Hmm, don’t recall seeing one of those embankments recently when I was down there, the rail is either below, or at the same level as the land surrounding it. Certainly at Purewa the land is level with the land at the edge of the Cemetary which then goes up hill either side so you have a classic “valley” there.
Anyway getting KR to allow anything under their precious tracks? Hah, more chance of flying to the moon.
Its way easier all round to build something like a cycle way over their tracks – like what they did across AMETI road near Panmure than try and tunnel under the tracks. And anyway folks don’t like underpasses.
As for the station on the northern side, agreed the bush down there doesn’t need more roads through it, just walking and cycle tracks for now thanks.
GI and Orakei are able to be well served by bus, Meadowbank not so much being a dead end and all that.
Of course, if AT wanted to, they could buy out a couple of properties between Meadowbank Road and Puroto streets (beside the existing walkway) to make those two “no exit” roads a “through route” for the bus to use.
But even then its still a end station location buried 1km off the main arterials nearby and short of a road bridge over the valley no hope of ever being well connected.
Greg – Purewa Creek side there is a high embankment above valley opposite bottom of Thatcher St with significant paddock below. Similar to incline to Newmarket tunnel near Parnell where there is a recently built underpass. Anyway I’m sure the surveyors will figure out best solution.
Sorry to be off topic to this post, but local shuttles connecting train will eventually have huge impact. Takes best part of an hour (faster by bike) by bus to get from Oarkei area to Panmure/Sylvia Park versus a third of that time and cheaper by train.
I am not suggesting adding any roads into the valley- just top quality ped/bike access down both sides of the valley meeting and crossing at a station higher up the valley- linking all the communities, the school, the new walkway, and some bus stops at the top on St Johns Rd. And yes that will involve a walk, but a pleasant one, as you say. There is probably an opportunity for a dedicated bus stop where there are currently scrappy buildings above the tunnel, with space for kiss-n-ride drop off too. Done well it will mean more people can enjoy the valley more safely.
Stations do not need vehicle access at all if they are properly connected to communities. The new Parnell Station will essentially a be a walk-up only station.
The walk or cycle from St Johns road “drop off” to GI station will probably be shorter/faster than the walk to Meadowbank Station. But not by that much, the St Johns hill is about half way between them.
That is until the Purewa station or whatever it is called is built (if/when that is).
I’m sure Purewa station could work like Parnell Station will do, but due to the large tracts of land available I am sure that if this happens/is built the calls for a road past said station will only increase over time.