One of Auckland Transport’s current projects – as highlighted in the August board report – is a rehabilitation of the iconic Franklin Rd
AT have now released more details about the project. Here’s why they say the project is needed.
Franklin Road is an iconic Auckland street with significant heritage value. It is lined by mature, hundred year old London Plane trees that form a canopy over the road during summer months. During the Christmas festival period residents of Franklin Road host a Christmas lights event which attracts thousands of visitors every year.
Franklin Road is also an important connection between Ponsonby and the Central Business District with over 14,000 vehicle trips per day, including buses and over-dimension vehicles. While predominantly residential in nature, there are some small businesses along the road operating from previous homes and larger commercial/retail activities at either end.
Franklin Road is in poor condition creating safety hazards for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. Over time tree roots have damaged footpaths, drainage infrastructure and road pavement. A high demand for parking and a lack of well-defined parking spaces often sees drivers parking too close to trees and driving over exposed roots which can damage the trees.
A number of utility providers are also concerned about the condition of their infrastructure in Franklin Road and are planning service renewals and upgrades in the near future.
As part of the improvements AT have come up with two options, both of which include.
- Moving the kerbline to the other side of the trees and narrowing the roadway enabling the trees to be located within the berm.
- Parallel parking on both sides of the road in front of the trees.
- Upgrading the drainage system.
- Building the new road pavement on top of the existing pavement to reduce the impact on tree roots.
- Sewer separation and water main replacement by Watercare Services Limited.
- Improvements to street lighting subject to power undergrounding works by Vector Limited.
The biggest change is that the kerb is being extended to the outside of the trees in a bid to protect their roots. As the space between the trees is currently used for parking that is being pushed out into the carriageway. I think there definitely needs to be some level of on street parking seeing as many houses don’t have off street parking (although some do) but by pushing the parking out into the carriageway it actually creates more parking spaces. As explained soon I wonder if that’s the best use of the space.
Here are the trees on Franklin Rd likely not long after they were planted circa 1880
In addition to the features mentioned above there are two separate options on what to do with the remaining carriageway which is 12.3m in width.
Option 1
Key features of this option are:
- A shared use footpath cycleway on the uphill side of Franklin Road.
- A marked on-road cycle lane on the downhill side.
- The removal of the painted median.
Advantages
- Retains parking on both sides of the road.
- Provides an off-road cycling facility in the uphill direction when cyclists are slower and a dedicated on-road downhill cycle lane to separate quicker cyclists from pedestrians.
- Maximises the traffic calming effect as vehicle speeds reduce with narrower traffic lanes and being closer to parked vehicles.
- Provides a narrower road width for pedestrians to cross.
Disadvantages
- Traffic delays caused by right turning vehicles sitting in the traffic lane waiting to turn.
- No central refuge area for pedestrians crossing the road.
- The downhill cycleway is less than the desirable width.
The first thing I thought when looking at this was “where’s the uphill cycle lane”, that was until I realised that uphill cyclists were meant to share the footpath with pedestrians. To me that’s a bad outcome as even uphill many cyclists are likely to be much faster than walkers, especially as electric bikes become increasingly common. After that I also wondered why AT are still proposing to use squishy car protectors on the downhill side. Surely the cycle lane should be swapped with the parking lane.
I hoped the design would get better with option 2, sadly I was mistaken.
Option 2
Key features of this option are:
- A shared use footpath cycleway on the uphill side of Franklin Road.
- A wider downhill lane that safely caters for both cyclists and vehicles.
- A 1 metre wide painted median (narrower than existing).
Advantages
- Retains parking on both sides of the road.
- Provides an off-road cycling facility in the uphill direction when cyclists are slower and a wide shared downhill traffic lane separating faster cyclists from pedestrians.
- Provides a narrow painted median which should allow most drivers waiting to turn right to sit clear of the through traffic.
- Provides a narrower road width for pedestrians to cross.
Disadvantages
- No dedicated on-road cycling facilities (shared downhill lane only).
So for this option we get less cycling infrastructure in return for a median strip so that cars don’t have to slow down as much if someone occasionally turns right.
I’m not sure why we keep coming up with seemingly crap designs for projects like this. To me both options seem like they are compromised by the desire to have as much parking as possible and to use both sides of the road. Instead I think AT need to look at having parking space on just one side of the street which should then allow for two (protected) cycle lanes, something like below.
Processing...
Option 1 disadvantage: “no central refuge for pedestrians”.
Option 2: image of car in central refuge to be used by pedestrians
Such bullshit calling painted medians pedestrian amenity. This is vehicle space in several ways: 1. as a turning lane. 2. overtaking lane, whether encouraged or not. 3. a separation lane encouraging drivers to speed up as their own perceived safety from collision is increased. All of these are of considerable disbenefit to pedestrians. Then this is magnified should any pedestrian attempt to use this space as a ‘refuge’, as they are, in practice standing in space regularly used by drivers and at speed.
Mendacious Auckland Transport.
“Traffic delays caused by right turning vehicles sitting in the traffic lane waiting to turn.”
No doubt cars will just use the unprotected cycle lane on the downhill direction.
These protected cycle lanes (less than 2.0m) with posts at handle bar height
Does any one have example of this being used in the Netherlands or Denmark
The posts were just to highlight that the lanes were protected
Can you give example of protected lane in the Netherlands or Demark which is less than 2.0m.
Does it need to be hard barrier, I’m thinking Niewe Binnenweg Rotterdam http://goo.gl/maps/spPe9
Being from the Netherlands, cycle lanes are most always seperated from car traffic by either a berm or median strip.
If that is not possible it is just indicated with painted lines on the road. However, these are usually 30km/h zones.
Looking at last idea showing 2.2m cycle lane between car and kerb, is this a sensible width. Do we know of any examples this narrow in the Netherlands or Denmark.
Once again, lip service paid to cycling infrastructure, and traffic management designed to move vehicles as fast as possible instead of as safely as possible.
Embarassing, especially considering that this should be a 30 or at least 40 km/h street.
We need to start a movement where people give feedback and don’t select either option and instead suggest something like Matt’s suggestion.
I have just done so with a comment of:
‘As this is a major road with lots of traffic, the piroriy should be the movement of traffic not parking. And the movement of traffic needs to include cyclists with dedicated cycle lanes like on Beach Road, parking is required on only one side of the road. ‘
Any thoughts on whether it would be better to have bi-directional cycleway like Beach Road, or cycle lanes on both side like proposed above?
Personally I quite like the Beach Road implementation with the speed bump protecting cyclists from people turning into driveways.
Beach Road design not a good choice here – bit too many driveways, and the side roads are not signalised. Safety record of bi-directional cycleways are not that good except on main roads whee pretty much all big side movements already have signals. One-way each side much better.
I wonder if the fact that Franklin Road is a fairly significant hill would influence whether one bi-directional cycle lane or two uni-directional lanes are more desirable? I’m thinking about downhill bikers coming down significantly faster than the bikers going up.
After Beach Road, I think every road redevelopment incorporating cycle facilties should have on-road facilities fully seperated to a similar standard. I think the ideal would be to remove parking from one side of the street (which I suspect would be unpopular with local residents even if the other side gets more parking spaces) for a Beach Rd-style lane. You could have pedestrian build-outs at crossing points (ie sort of shared areas) to narrow the road for the walkers. A residents parking scheme would give residents priority over “hide and ride” commuters.
I was wondering if a cycle lane is needed on the downhill at all, when from my experience here bikes are as fast as cars? If a bike lane was there, I’d probably choose the road anyway to lessen the chance of being clipped by a car coming out of a driveway.
Cycle lane may not be needed for you or me. But a lot of the rest of Auckland who don’t ride would prefer more than having to mix it with cars. *Especially* if stuff is going fast!
While you might not need the downhill cycle lane, if we are aiming for cycle lanes for people aged 8-80 (as JSK described), the downhill cycle lane will come in handy for my little boy when turns 8, my wife who isn’t such a confident rider, or my parents who are in their 60s.
If we get cycle lanes on both sides of the road, my boy will use them when he gets older to ride to and from Freemans Bay Primary.
Yeah it is fine at the moment because of the carriageway width, but if they are insisting on taking the parking out of the tree line then bike space will be squeezed. Especially if the sainted flow obsessed at AT insist on a painted median. We’ll be in the door zone squeezed by impatient drivers overtaking, like I was by a taxi driver on Ponsonby Rd today. Who I of course then caught and passed at the next lights.
Cam I do agree, if it is decided there is only space for one bike lane it should be the up hill one. Downhill it is more possible to take the lane.
possible conflict due to speed of downhill v uphill cyclists?
With parking on one side of the road doesn’t that roughly equate to the same number of parks since there are no tree’s taking up half the space?
Not quite, as there’s still driveways and stuff, so one side alone without tree interruptions alone doesn’t necessarily add up to more than there is at the moment with parking both sides between the trees – but the current designs with both sides together *do* add quite a bit more parking than there is now, yes. I’d say up to 125-150% of what is there now.
It would actually be interesting to see the parking capacity of having cars on only one side of the road (but not between the trees) compared to boths sides between the trees.
With their current proposal, they will be getting MORE on street parking.
Protecting the bike lane with the parked cars makes so much more sense.
Not enough space for protected cycle lanes AND parking both sides. You’d have to cut down the trees. Or lose parking on one side.
AT are consulting with the community. As a genuine resident, I recently received a leaflet with a date for this. Hopefully this provides opportunity for other more considered ideas, leading to better options. Disappointing to see so few options for pedestrians to cross. The distance between Ponsonby and the next zebra crossing is already not very close. The island between that is not enough.
Considering the very vocal local residents on that street that recently blocked intensification at the bottom end, my guess is dual cycle lanes have no chance of going ahead.
Do we need cycle lanes if, as shown, the footpaths are doubled in size by taking out the berms? Cycle lanes could be marked on the pavement – plenty of room for both pedestrians and bikes. Safer for the bikes?
A 40k limit on the road is definitely desirable.
Losing the striped median will play havoc with right turning vehicles which will stop following traffic until they have made their turn. A problem?
What about traffic lights and controlled pedestrian crossing at Wellington St intersection?
If you lose parking on one or both sides it will affect Ponsonby Rd businesses and be frustrating for residents.
I think we need another arborist to give a us a definitive statement on the health of the trees and if they really are being affected by parking – the trees certainly look healthy enough. Another expert opinion would be welcome.
All you the real Bill Ralston?
The speed of bikes going downhill are far to dangerous for a shared footpath, even if a little white line is drawn. Less of an issue going uphill but still not ideal.
Interesting that you suggest the trees are fine. Maybe bollards could be used so you cant get too close to the trees while still parking between them – will limit parking a bit but would allow the road to include both car and bike lanes? Given the trees are over 100 years old, this is risky as once they are gone, they are gone.
When riding on Franklin I guess I’d rather hit a pedestrian [you, for example] than be hit by a vehicle, I guess, but really neither of these options appeal. Which is to say shared ped/bike is a poor option, especially for downhill speeds. And if parking is to be moved away from the tree line then bike users will be squeezed into vehicle space and door zones much more than is currently the case. And it is a good route for cycling, especially going up, as the grade is way better than College Hill, and, in the hotter months the shade is very very welcome….
Bill, if the trees are healthy would you support having it all – parking between trees with bollards to protect them, separated cycle lane on both sides of the road (protected by berm), one lane each way for cars (limited to 40km/h) and and a median for right turning vehicles (along with the odd pedestrian refuge)?
“If you lose parking on one or both sides it will affect Ponsonby Rd businesses” – Please give evidence of somewhere parking was removed in favour of cycling and businesses suffered. This is an evidence based blog – you actually have to back up your arguments.
Here are some counter examples:
http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/12/bike-lanes-increase-small-business-revenue/
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3024974/bikes-lanes-arent-just-safer-for-cyclists-theyre-good-for-business-too
http://www.torontocycling.org/uploads/1/3/1/3/13138411/cycling_economies_eglinton_final.pdf
http://dirt.asla.org/2013/08/20/in-seattle-bike-lanes-are-good-for-business/
I guarantee that retailers in Ponsonby overestimate how many customers arrive by car and how important parking close is to them. Just like the retailers in High Street.
Even if parking was removed from one side, there will still be more parking as it is being brought out from the trees.
Try and think about this as a person living in 2014, not 1980.
> Losing the striped median will play havoc with right turning vehicles which will stop following traffic until they have made their turn. A problem?
There’s a compromise here, I think: at intersections with other streets and at the supermarket carpark, we can remove the on-street parking for long enough to have room for right-turn lanes. And then for the rest of the road, forbid right turns into and out of private driveways.
Agree.
Totally agree. Just remove a few on street parking space by the New World and by Wellington street to fit in a short median. But there’s no need to ban right turns into private driveways. These get used infrequently enough for right turning cars to just queue in the traffic lane. Take Mt Albert Rd (from New North to Sandringham) for example. That works absolutely fine with medians only at street intersections.
The intro blurb states the the road is used by buses and over dimension vehicles. Is there actually a bus route down that road?
Yes the dreaded Otto [020] takes a largely pointless detour that way.
Ah righto
If the shared path is a go I think there should be a pedestrian / cycle crossing signal at Wellington Street. The queues there are pretty hard to get across, really hard if with a bike.
I think they need a roundabout there to slow the traffic down coming down the hill. The bottom half of Franklin Rd seems more dangerous with cars having built up speed and cars going in and out of the supermarket and side street. I used to commute this way by bike but preferred the quieter and safer Napier St then Hepburn St, which is parallel to Franklin Rd. More direct route to the NW cycleway too.
The only bus I’ve ever seen was the retirement home one to see the Christmas lights.
Not suggesting this is permanent, but for the Christmas lights season, would there be an advantage in Franklin Rd being one way uphill only for vehicles, and closing the downhill lane to vehicles so that it can be used entirely by pedestrians? You know, a decent traffic management plan for once.
Or even better close the street to cars. A wonderful street on the evenings every Chritsmas completely ruined by the noise and smell of a gigantic traffic jam. Make it entry to residents’ cars only. It works well around Eden Park.
Every Xmas I wonder why Franklin Rd isn’t closed to non-resident traffic. It’s chaos with pedestrians everywhere, massive traffic jams, and drivers looking at the lights instead of the road.
Bill – has the residents association ever considered this?
This is a hugely embarrassing effort by AT. I can’t imagine what they were thinking by putting this forward so soon after building the Beach Road lanes. They must have known there would be a massive backlash against this – especially when the main effect is to increase parking. In 2014. In a large city. In a suburb close to the city centre.
*face palm*
This will not encourage any more cycling, nor will it encourage more of the vital “keen but scared” group to get out on their bikes. It will only serve the “brave and fearless” who are already cycling. That is not what AT should be aiming for.
I would actually rather see no additional cycle provision on this road than this rubbish. If either terrible option happens, AT will be able to claim that the road is now “fixed” for cycling. Then when no more cyclists turn up, the skeptics can claim there is no demand.
Just crap AT – this is beneath you. Go away and try again.
instead of a shared path would it be viable to construct a “separated bike lane” (as in separated from pedestrians with levels/ barrier treatment and separated from vehicles via the trees) on the outside of the tree rows – it seems like there is 5m of space to play with where the footpaths currently are which would provide plenty of room no?
That was my thought too … no need for it to be shared path, should be room as you say for dedicated cycle path outside trees alongside the pedestrian path, probably over where the grass verge is now in front of many houses, presumably there will be new grass line around the trees for anyone missing the grass. Just needs careful design around the side streets and the busy New World car park entrance.
Total fail.
A cyclist doesn’t want to get hit by a car equally they don’t want to mow down a ped
Not good enough AT, this does nothing to
– Improve safety for pedestrians scrambling across side roads (for example Wellington St)
– Fix issues with supermarket traffic blocking lanes
40km/h or less speed limit would be a good start, maybe raised tables traffic calming on side roads?
Lame, lame, lame. We can do better than this design surely.
Is Franklin Road actually designated as a main road or a “connector”. I would suggest it is best suited as a side road and has gradually become a major rat run. Often over the years as a rat run becomes known it becomes more used and congested than the road it avoids…..A variation of the build a motorway and it fills up immediately syndrome.
My suggestion would be to remove any aspect designed to speed traffic flow and build proper paths and cycle lanes both ways plus residents parking
There does not seem to be much of a plan for protected cycling routes. It would be nice if this could be considered as a wider connection between the city and Ponsonby. Especially if separated cycle lanes are justified.
Any facilities that do not provide a safe cycle route at either end are useless in the short term.
Why aren’t the council looking at making side streets suitable for cycling in challenging areas?
I drew some in, then got hopelessly carried away (dotted lines are ‘quiet streets’, solid are fully separated, ideally) – excuse shitty picture, gmaps screenshot + visio
tldr: fixed auckland for you
http://i.imgur.com/plYA0RT.jpg
Well, not only ARE they trying to shunt cyclists off to side streets – like off Dominion Road – but experience shows that doesnt work:
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/16/copenhagen-cycling-innovation-lycra-louts-green-wave-bike-bridges
See the section halfway down showing Copenhagen s experience with “quiet street” routes – under the heading “Don’t block desire lines – use them”.
In short, if a road is busy, it’s because people want to go there. Applies for cars and cycles.
I can assure that it works pretty well where I am at the moment and is a cheap first step – once the numbers justify it it the main street can have the modifications made as necessary. I’d love to put down dedicated infrastructure everywhere, but I’ll take small steps to changing the culture and mindsets. Desire lines don’t have to be on main roads if alternatives are suitable – I tried to facilitate that in my map.
Some examples where it works well:
Everything between Thurlow to Denman and Davie to Robson is an excellent and safe place to cycle: https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2864188,-123.1232764,15z/data=!5m1!1e3
I often ride east/west in the evenings/weekends and from where the Dunsmuir cycle lane ends its all quiet streets and is lovely (I only go as far as Commercial drive): https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2773063,-123.0872276,15z/data=!5m1!1e3
West 7th I use often, parallel to the monstrous Broadway, it’s lovely: https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2647546,-123.1269886,16z/data=!5m1!1e3
Point grey road is another one (google shows it as a dedicated lane but it is only partial, at the east end) – it’s jam packed with kids on bikes with no protection at all: https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2707794,-123.1788459,16z/data=!5m1!1e3
The key with all of them is discouraging car use/speeding (manufactured dead ends to prevent rat-running) – the only cars on these roads are locals as a result. Mindshare/awareness makes a HUGE difference because there are people on bikes everywhere.
CAA has now published a blog post with our proposals for a much more cycle friendly project:
http://caa.org.nz/auckland-transport/franklin-road-proposal-at-must-do-better/
We have already had a reaction from AT that their options were only first ideas so hopefully they can be persuaded to see reason on this.
I wonder if this sort of thinking has any application in the area?
http://daily.sightline.org/2014/10/09/a-fair-share-of-streets-part-2/
Option 1 seems reasonable and looks like it has the ability to be adapted in the future… the cycle way turned bidirectional with the removal of parking on the left hand side when there is more support / acknowledgement of cycle ways at planning level.
Also with the shared path on the left hand side how wide is it?? If it is at scale it must be what 5m+..?
Surely a 2m green paint trail can be run up the right side leaving 2-3m+ for pedestrians??
You effectively have two cycle ways then that can be improved in the future.
Optimal design I think looks like running up / down cycle ways where the current parking is.
The parking then ALTERNATES between being on the left and right hand side of the street every say 80-100m.
This then forces the road carriage to “zig-zag” which in effect is a subtle traffic calming measure and residents still retain parking on both sides of their street but at a reduced amount.
Option 1 although not optimal seems the best of the two designs in my view…..residents needs car parks for themselves and / or their visitors plus we need to recognise the long overdue need for cycle ways so lets make a start and get one of these happening rather than debating for another year over minor changes – I like the thought of doing Option i then reviewing the response and being prepared to make minor modifications in 12 months time if desirable