Auckland Transport are starting consultation tomorrow for a series of walking and cycling improvements to Northcote. All up there will be 5.2km of improvements from the intersection of Taharoto Road and Northcote Road through to the Northcote Ferry Terminal. Along with improving cycling facilities AT also specifically say it’s about improving links to the eventual Skypath which is great to see. A map of the route to be upgraded is below.
The improvements are generally in the form of a mix of on road cycle lanes and shared paths, which most people will say aren’t ideal. Some of the changes are:
- An off-road shared walking and cycling path on either side of Northcote Road from the Taharoto Road/Northcote Road intersection to the Northcote Road/Ocean View Road/Lake Road intersection
- Improvements to walking and cycling facilities at the Northcote Road/Ocean View Road/Lake Road roundabout
- An on-road cycle lane on either side of Lake Road and an off-road shared walking and cycling path on the eastern side of Lake Road from the Northcote Road/Ocean View Road/Lake Road intersection to Exmouth Road/Raleigh Road/Lake Road intersection.
- Improvements to walking and cycling facilities at the Exmouth Road/Raleigh Road/Lake Road roundabout
- An on-road cycle lane on the western side of Lake Road and an off-road shared walking and cycling path on the eastern side of Lake Road from the Exmouth Road/Raleigh Road/Lake Road intersection to the Lake Road/Onewa Road intersection
- Improvements to walking and cycling facilities at the Lake Road/Onewa Road/Queen Street intersection
- An on-road cycle lane on either side of Queen Street from the Onewa Road/Queen Street intersection to the entry to the Northcote Point Ferry Terminal
The maps show that the on road cycle lanes on Queen St will be protected by parking a first for Auckland. AT even say the plans will see some on street parking removed which is something sure to raise the hackles of some locals.
While there are bound to be a number of specific issues with the plans the one that stands out to me the most is the section around Onewa Rd. where the cycling facilities seem to basically end and dump people back on to the road. I’m sure some of you will be able to highlight all of the issues in the comments.
Overall it’s good to see AT at least planning to roll out more cycling improvements across the city. For a long time it’s felt like not much was happening but there seems to have been a bit of a surge of progress on projects in the last few months which it would be great to see carry on.
Processing...
This is a great line from the consultation… “On-street parking is only permitted when there is not an activity of greater priority that requires use of the space. As such the proposed walking and cycling facilities take priority over the use of these spaces for parking”.
Basically hot air though. When have cycle lanes or better footpaths ever taken priority over car parking?
George Wood is going on on Twitter about how locals will oppose it because Northcote Point is a heritage neighbourhood (um, built while there were bicycles and before there were cars, but don’t let historical facts get in the way of a good rant over loss of carparks)
As long as locals are consistent with the line and look for plenty of provision for places to water the horses I’m fine with it.
Weren’t there once trams rumbling up and down to Northcote Point? I’m willing to bet, heritage or not, if someone suggested installing light rail along there Mr Wood would descend into frothing apoplexy.
Nah, there weren’t any trams on the Shore, as far as I know. I vaguely remember there may have been a few small rail lines (bush tramways) but no “trams” in the sense we think of it.
Max: there were steam trams from Bayswater wharf to Takapuna from 1910 to 1927 (some were then sold to Wanganui and converted to electricity, known as “Takapunas”), and horse trams from Cheltenham to Devonport from 1887 to 1894.
Gary: there were no trams to Northcote Point, sorry.
Oh well. I was told many years ago that the concrete strip running down the middle of Queen St. Northcote was covering the old tram lines. Pity. It was a good story.
As a local, I’m especially happy about the loss of parking on Lake Rd. There are points where parking is allowed yet the remaining lane width is insufficient and vehicles have to cross the centre line. In the UK, that’s normal. In NZ, it’s not and drivers aren’t used to it. The pedestrian access across that Lake Rd / Raleigh Rd intersection is also currently horrible… almost non-existent. I do wonder how they’ll make it safe, though, with poor views across the intersection from 2 of the 4 directions due to it being on a ridge. A vehicle entering a clear looking roundabout could end up having to stop suddenly mid-roundabout when someone turns out to be on the crossing.
Woods has a point about Northcote Pt though. It was indeed built in the “pre garage” era so there is a stronger need for street parking than in newer suburbs. The former state houses on Lake Rd north of the town centre also have no garages. So, they’ll have to look at implications… for example, if Point locals end up filling the ferry carpark then it could negatively impact “park and ride” ferry use (which is already too low due to a sparse timetable).
As an aside, peddling up and down the hills on Lake will be a mission… people would probably come down through Onepoto Domain if there was a way to connect to the “Seapath” then SkyPath once it’s built. Few cyclists would use the Queen St route once there’s an option with less up and down.
Visibility is difficult at the Lake/Raleigh roundabout but if you look at the details of the proposal, AT has good plans for improving pedestrian access there.
On the contrary, Wood does not have a point at all as the vast majority of houses along Queen St have off-street parking (go and count them if you don’t believe me). There are only a few that don’t have off-street parking and Queen St won’t be losing all of its on-street parking anyway.
As for hills you aren’t going to get around this area without going up and/or down a hill no matter where you put the cycle paths! The Seapath is going to have to go up and down the hill at Warehouse Way/Esmonde Rd at the very least and possibly other hills like up Sylvan Ave depending on what route it takes. In any case this is about making it safer to get around the area by cycling as much as it is for passing through (if not more so). It will be great for making it a viable option for children to cycle to Northcote Primary and Northcote Intermediate school for example. Almost no one does this at the moment as it is far too dangerous.
Heritage is is now an amazingly subtle and rich word. First and foremost it seems to mean ‘my right to drive and park everywhere at public expense’.
I live on Queen Street and am looking forward to seeing this built. Not looking forward to the whining locals though!
Good on you N. As a local resident please make sure your positive support is heard.
In fact, the design doesn’t just include parking-protected lanes, it also includes the first proposal in Auckland to actually design Copenhagen Cycle Lanes – some parts of Section 3 and 3 parking have it. Cycle track, one-way, at halfway height between road and footpath. We (Cycle Action) were pretty stoked to see those being proposed – only took us some years and years of calling for them on various projects 😉 So – great to have them move that far. Now to ensure they stay in all the way to construction and are improved and made more consistent.
Thats great news Max, and well done you & CAA (yet again).
And now as you say, we do all need to submit in support of the good bits that this has to ensure that the local “my parking, my precious” NIMBYs aren’t allowed to dumb the design down.
I can see North Shore Phil and his neighbours all moaning about how it impacts them and their copious visitors (when it doesn’t).
And I really look forward to the day when I can cycle to here from the South side of the harbour over the SkyPath and can thus do the “grand tour” by bike or North Shore without needing a car for some of the journey.
I do like the comment by AT in the website about how on-street parking is the lowest rung on the roadway usage ladder, and so has to take second place to other uses like walking and cycling.
Maybe AT is drinking the Koolaid a bit, but I’ll truly believe it only when I see finished cycle lanes along these roads which aren’t just “suitable” to cycle on, but are in fact role models and exemplars for all other neighbourhood cycleways in Auckland to emulate and look up to.
I guess it will be a race between the Purewa valley cycleway and this one as to which completes soonest then?
Won’t be the first, Albany Highway will 🙂
Difference is that Albany Highway has the cycle tracks at the same height of the walking paths, but divided by a landscape strip. This is more progressive for Auckland conditions, as it creates a design that can be used where that kind of width isn’t available.
Sorry – Section 2 and 3 have sections of Copenhagen lane.
Looks good, and it seems follows the guidelines in the NZTA Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/pedestrian-planning-guide/docs/pedestrian-planning-guide.pdf (which covers shared paths).
The symbols on the cross-sections are a bit confusing, with some shared paths being marked by walkers and some by cyclists – and some footpaths marked by cyclists, which is a bit of a worry. Walker(s) = footpath, cyclist(s) = cycle path, both = shared path both would be more straightforward and clearer.
It’s pretty early in the piece. While I have seen plans that show more detail than the consultation plans, there will be a lot of design work going into this yet. So we need not focus on details too much, more on matters like consistency, gaps, and typical cross-sections…
For example, it will be very important in practice how the Copenhagen lanes enter/exit behind parked cars, so sightlines are okay, and drivers don’t park across the cycle lane transitions – but that isn’t really needed to be resolved at this (still pretty) early stage yet.
Right now, it’s about advocating for this to be retained / further improved while consultation will throw up lots of “we need that parking!” comments from concerned locals – which historically tended to cause the design to be watered down or stopped. I hope we are over that phase in Auckland, but still needs work and advocacy.
To wit: was in Carlton Gore last week and there’s no sign of any cycle amenity there yet. Anyone know what’s up?
Hi Patrick – I have stayed in contact with AT on this, and the stuff behind the scenes sounds quite positive. However, AT wants to get final internal sign-off and tell the property owners before releasing the final plans publicly. Works still supposed to happen soon, i.e. not put off to never-ever. Touch wood, things should still be in place within a few months at latest.
It’s hard to see how these can be seen as walking “improvements”, as the benefits to pedestrians seem largely to be that cyclists will be allowed on the (widened) footpath – even when there’s an adjacent off-road cycle track!
One of the “improvements” touted by the Basin Bridge project was to turn nearly every footpath in the area into a shared path, and the Board of Inquiry report says:
“….turning a footpath into a shared path reduces the Level of Service for pedestrians.”
“… as these [improvements] are mostly in the form of shared paths they would introduce potential conflicts between these modes, especially if these modes continue to increase in popularity. We do not see this package of proposals as a truly multi-modal, integrated, long term solution for cycling and walking in the project area.”
“We have a general concern about the safety of shared paths for cyclists and pedestrians.”
Let’s have better cycling facilities – but, please, not at the expense of walkers. They’re already at the bottom of the transport food chain.
Hi Mike
While the people at the bottom of the hierarchy shouldn’t fight for scraps, and should instead joint together – I WOULD argue that pedestrians are treated much better than cyclists…
But more importantly, have a look at the plans – shared paths are only really proposed in Section 1 – a mostly commercial/ motorway / greenfields-adjacent area of Northcote Road. Not that many pedestrians, I’d guess…
Pretty much all the rest ~70% or more of the route – is a combination of on-road cycle lanes (some with varying levels of protection). So peds are no worse off – and in fact arguably better off than before, by getting a buffer to the cars…
Max
The maps are a bit confusing, with the plans and the cross-sections not being consistent about shared paths/footpaths in some areas, but the plans show footpaths being replaced by shared paths on the eastern side of the road for just about the whole of sections 1 and 2 and part of section 3, and on the western side for the whole of section 1 and parts of the rest.
That’s quite a lot of safety concerns and reduction of level of service for pedestrians.
Section 1 – ~100% shared paths. Much of the southern part would presumably come with widening, rather than just signs turning footpaths into shared paths.
Section 2 – shared paths on about 1/3rd of the length, on one side = 15% shared paths.
Section 3 – shared paths on about 1/3rd of the length, on one side = 15% shared paths – maybe 30% total if you assume (as one would have to) that cyclists will have to use the Onewa Road footpaths for the dog-leg so less confident cyclists are not expected dodge cars.
Section 4 – no shared paths.
Section 1 and two have approximately 25% of the total route length, Section 3 each around 20%. So in total we get (0.25*1) + (0.25*0.15) + (0.2*0.30) + (0.2*0) = 35% of the route is shared paths, 65%, or two thirds are cycle lanes.
[Don’t see the above calculation exercuse as a defense of shared paths – I was just curious how much the proposal really had. The closest I come in their defense is reiterating that there wouldn’t be that many pedestrians walking between Sunnybrae Road and Wairau Road…]
The issue (especially on Section 2) may also be somewhat confused by them using the “shared path” colour on the footpaths for some sections next to cycle lanes and separated cycle tracks / Copenhagen lanes (the yellow sections) – whereas the cross-sections, and the discussions we had with AT, clarify that there wouldn’t be shared paths there.
Thanks, Max – it is confusing, since (eg) 100% of the eastern side of section 2 is shown as shared path on the plan. So which does the average submitter (who hasn’t had the benefit of your discussions with AT) believe, the plan or the cross-sections? And the cross-sections contradict themselves too, with some footpaths identified by a picture of a cyclist.
It’s a shame that AT is consulting on a proposal that is internally contradictory, making it unclear what the proposal actually is.
And I spoke too soon about compliance with NZTA’s Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide, which says:
14.12 Shared-use paths
For both unsegregated and segregated paths, particular care needs to be taken:
• where cyclists join the shared route to ensure they can do so safely and without conflict with pedestrians
• where the shared routes ends, to ensure that cyclists do not continue to use a route intended for pedestrians only
• where one route crosses another pedestrian, cyclist or shared-use route
• to ensure adequate forward visibility for cyclists, who are generally moving more quickly than pedestrians
• to provide adequate signing to indicate the presence of pedestrians and cyclists.
In both cases [121] it is important to:
• leave a lateral clearance distance of one metre on both sides of the path to allow for recovery by cyclists after a loss of control or swerving
• maintain an overhead clearance of 2.4 m over the path and the lateral clearance distance
• ideally, keep a 1.5 m separation between the path and any adjacent roadway
• ensure the gradient and crossfall comply with the most stringent best practice for pedestrians and cyclists.
NZTA’s desired width for a commuter path is 3m (Table 14.13); the proposed shared paths appear to be 3m wide, but there is no allowance for the 1m lateral clearance on both sides described by NZTA as being important.
Hi Max, I’d suggest that section 1 actually may have considerably more pedestrians than any of the other sections, especially during winter, due to the netball courts, and to a lesser extent the rugby fields. Yes only a small length of the route, but from about 4-8 most winter evenings and all day Saturday that area’s teeming with hundreds of people. Given the need for wide footpaths for this very reason (the ones currently are woefully inadequate) I’m not sure if there’s an alternative, but I could see it being pretty difficult to navigate as a cyclist during these times.
I’d like to see a wider shared path over the motorway though created by removing one of the straight ahead lanes. The proposed design, which is just the continuation of the current situation, doesn’t work due to the high curbs making cycling on the road feel uncomfortable and the “shared path” not being anywhere near wide enough. Tricky though because you then involve NZTA as well…
Good work though (as well as AT of course) and all an improvement on what’s there now – keep it up!
there is considerable foot traffic over the Northcote Rd overbridge, Westlake Boys/Girls and Carmel students on the northern path, Takapuna Intermediate generates a lot of pedestrian trips on the southern path, not to mention employment at Smales Farm and Shore hospital and there are younger kids biking to school. There used to be a shared path across the o/bridge on the south side, but that has fallen into disrepair and is probably not discerable now
on map 11, there is an existing segregated bus lane out of Ocean View onto Northcote Rd, is that going to be scrapped?
Fair points all – the benefit of local knowledge (I am not doing CAA’s comments on this, one of our North Shore committee members is – see CAA’s website for a blog article on it, today). I am not in favour of many more shared path either, but I am also not quite on the side of the “they are worse than nothing” faction either.
Hopefully, there can be further improvements made. For better or worse, this will take a while yet before it goes towards construction.
Funny how AT is happy to risk death-by-driveway using parking-protected tracks here (and anywhere with shared paths too) but not on Carlton Gore Rd — the latter actually having fewer vehicle crossings per metre. Engineers are nothing if not inconsistent.
This attempt at cycle tracks feels experimental, running all of just ~300m. And even then only on the relatively “easy” middle part of Lake Rd, rather than sorting out the messy roundabouts, or the business end along the south. But it’s good that the cross-section is proposed at all. I hope it survives consultation, and gets implemented to a decent standard; but I wouldn’t expect much from such a loose fragment of a protected on-street network — we really need a “minimum grid” (G. Penalosa’s term) to start transforming neighbourhoods.
Oh, just read the plans. The protected cycleways extend over way more than 300m in Section 2 – they include half of Section 3’s east side, and pretty much all of the length of Section 4’s east side, for example. That is almost 1.5km of Queen Street. All proposed to be protected cycle lane.
That map is an remarkable feat of editing: consider all the streets in the area that were simplified away. You’d almost think this cycling corridor provides great coverage for the neighbourhood, when it really doesn’t. Unlike transit, the last mile to the front door should be at the heart of cycle planning, not a detail to be elided like in a topological subway map.
Northcote is a great place to develop cycling facilities. And if intensification goes ahead there, good active transport routes should be provided.
The AT “Northcote walking and cycling improvements” along the main traffic route (Northcote Rd, Lake Rd, Queen Street) needs to be discussed in the context of the proposed Greenway from Northcote Shopping Centre (see KLB plan below) which was originally planned to run through the back of Northcote Intermediate and Hato Petera to Akoranga Drive. Also in the offing is the revised Seapath route on the west side of the motorway proposed by North Shore Forest and Bird – which offers a great connection under Onewa Road rather than through the messy Lake/Onewa/Queen intersection.
Will there be some research and analysis of potential users and usage to identify who is likely to use each or all of these great ideas? and how they will most usefully interconnect.
PS The Kaipatiki Local Board Plan is open for submissions till 6 August. It includes the Northcote Town Centre greenway proposal.
Currently the plan says under “A connected Kaipatiki”:
“Kaipātiki benefits from being situated in the heart of the North Shore and a short trip to Auckland’s CBD, but only 10 per cent of our residents use public transport, cycling or walking to get to work. We are determined to reduce our reliance on cars and increase our use of public transport.
Over the next three years we will:
advocate to Auckland Transport for a significant shift to bus and ferry services which are fully integrated and part of one network
support the development of a walking and cycling connection over the Harbour Bridge to the CBD
work with Auckland Transport to implement our Network Connections Plan. This will create safe walking and cycling links around our neighbourhoods
support transit lane initiatives to reduce congestion on busy main roads.”
And under “Vibrant town and village centres and a thriving economy” it says: “working to improve Northcote Town Centre with new public toilets, better parking and in the medium-term, building the long awaited greenway”
It’s a shame they couldn’t have done it beside the motorway, as this has at least three dangerous junctions and more unnecessary up and down hills than you can shake a stick at.
No, this is better than beside the motorway as it allows people in the area to make local trips by cycling as well as letting them access the cycle lane on the bridge and get across to the city. A cycle lane beside the motorway is just a path from the bridge to Takapuna so is much less useful. But don’t worry, the cycle path along the motorway or “seapath” as some people call it is a completely separate project which will also be build at some stage.
Great to hear they are planning a proper safe and segregated route. Shame that they’ve started with what seems like a dangerous one.
On the usefulness issue, obviously the seapath would need feeder routes, just as the motorway does. A major advantage of this is that the junctions would have lots of space to be designed properly. I’d imagine the seapath would cost more though, as it would need more bridges, which is probably what this boils down to.
At http://www.skypath.org.nz/the-seapath/ – although it’s confusing in places – some parts refer to the old Seapath proposed on the eastern side of the motorway.
The map shows the Forest and Bird proposal on the west side of the motorway – going under Onewa Road and then either up Sylvan Ave or along the foreshore to cross Tuff Crater by a bridge then joining up with the shared walk/cycleway on Akoranga Drive.
Ahh, now thats more like it – that looks much better.
http://www.skypath.org.nz/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Connections-north-map.jpg
So based on that map, bikes from Northcote could be funnelled through Onepoto and along the Skypath, away from the busy roads and where its nice and flat.
Therefore the useful parts of the current proposal could remain, i.e. the little shoal bay to Skypath connection for cyclists from Northcote, Highbury and West Birkenhead.
But the scary Onewa road crossing part of the plan could be ditched, keeping all the benefits of the rest of it.
Here’s a pic to illustrate what I’m saying.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/l3f1w7sdkenbcbh/northcote%20bike%20path%20SR%20ideas.jpg
I’ve added purple lines for the new proposed bike path and red arrows to show how bikes could be funnelled onto the Skypath instead to avoid the dangerous crossings. at northcote roundabout and (most importantly) onewa road.
The junctions at corners of Lake Rd, Onewa Rd, and Queen St are pretty awful. Looks like the cycle lanes just stop in the run up to the intersections.
https://at.govt.nz/media/650546/northcote-cycle-route-web-map-section-3.pdf
Maps 3b and 3c.
Max, are there any plans about making improvements there or are they blocked by existing road widths and forms?
Have to say, this is all pretty exciting. You could almost get from my place in Browns Bay to Northcote Pt entirely by cycle lane once this is built. Makes commuting into town by bicycle for those of us in the northern bays a reality.
Bring on skypath! (and showers at work too please boss).
Reading CAA blog post about this, I see you’re not happy with the Lake Rd, Onewa Rd, Queen St section too.
http://caa.org.nz/key-projects/auckland-harbour-bridge/northcote-safe-cycling-route/
Be interesting to see what comes back after the consultation period.
I’m with Scott on the junctions.
I should explain my position – I’m a trained cycle safety instructor as well as an ex mountain bike racer, and I’m also a resident of Birkenhead point, so this would directly benefit me. I’ve just moved from the UK where an off-road bike path ran in front of my house, so I am used to proper bike facilities. So I love the idea of the Skypath, but am very concerned about the safety of these junctions.
Regarding the junctions, I too would be interested to know how this could be made safe – this just doesn’t seem possible given the geography, the space available and the busyness of the roads.
Onewa/ Queen street junction
In both directions this has major issues with adding bikes to the mix.
– Bikes coming from the bridge heading North will need to turn left into Onewa and then get across the lanes for the right turn. Clearly this would be too dangerous.
– Bikes coming from the North will have the same safety and ‘lane crossing’ problem on Onewa road, and when they turn right into Queen Street I imagine that the only safe way to do this will be to add an extra sequence to the lights – however the sequence is already at breaking point during the rush hour. Coming from Queen street to turn right onto Onewa between about 0730 and 0830 takes about 20 minutes of staring at a traffic light. Having a right turn for cyclists from Onewa road to Queen Street will delay this yet further.
Lake road roundabout – bikes and roundabouts don’t mix well, since the aim to roundabouts is to maintain a continuous relatively fast flow of traffic, which is at odds with putting a bike lane across it. Hence most roundabouts I’ve seen work well with bikes have underpasses. This is aggrovated by the fact it can be hard to see traffic coming from the right when you pull out from Exmouth road. Again, I’d be interested …
Northcote road is not much better in all senses.
sheer volume of traffic on these roads and junctions, the light sequencing issues on what are already horribly delayed journey times and their narrow width, mean that these just don’t seem suitable for shared use.
Probably the most important question that I have for you is whether this is more or less dangerous than the current facilities.
More dangerous because it will be encouraging people to use them with the illusion that it’s safer.
I think that the Onewa Rd intersection is a major mental hurdle for many potential cyclists, a button to call a “bike only” phase would go a long way to easing the way across two busy lanes (in each direction) into the right turn pockets and cycle advance boxes. (Map 3C)
Simon – thanks for your perspective. What do you think of the revised Seapath route on the west side of the motorway?
No idea, where would I find that?
See post above re http://www.skypath.org.nz/the-seapath/