Auckland Transport have released more details about the route for the Glen Innes to Tamaki Dr shared path that they and the NZTA are going to build over the next few years. The $30 million path will be built between 2015 and 2018 in four stages (down from five initially). The stages are shown below and previously section 2 was two separate stages.
AT say the project features are
- The path will be around four metres wide and constructed mostly in concrete. Timber boardwalks will be used for short water crossings such as Orakei Basin and concrete for longer structures such as the proposed Hobson Bay crossing.
- The path will be safe and convenient for use by people on foot or on bike.
- Good lighting will extend hours of access, particularly during winter months.
- The route’s geography is hilly in places, but the design of the path will keep gradients as low as possible.
- The path design will link into local communities and the project will identify future links that could be built at a later date.
- The path will connect communities with public transport along the route.
AT have put out this video showing the route.
And here are the
I think the thing that surprised me the most was that the path will travel down the northern side of the railway line till around Purewa Cemetery before crossing over to the southern side. I had previously thought they would squeeze it in on the southern side. Being on the northern side might in future open up the opportunity for some of the areas on the northern side of the tracks to have access to Meadowbank station which would be useful, although it might also increase calls from the local board to have another station in the vicinity.
I also wonder what the longer term plans are for the section of land between the path and the railway line south of St Johns Rd. We know it’s now not going to be used for an Eastern Motorway.
And here are a couple of images of what the path may look like.
My biggest concern with the path is that there won’t be enough done to build cycle facilities on roads that lead to/from the path. That includes both in the eastern suburbs and of course Tamaki Dr. Overall though I think the path will be very popular and busy with people walking and on bikes, especially across Hobson bay on a nice day.
Processing...
Does anyone know why the route is shown right through the middle of the (currently) gated Outboard Boating Club compound instead of simply going in between the mini golf and the OBC? I’m not sure who owns the land and that grassy bit appears to be on a separate title to the rest of the OBC. The OBC won’t be very happy if they loose all of that land. Nothing about any kind of land reuse here is mentioned on the project page.
Hi Hamish, went to the open day and spoke at length to Ken Baguley, the Orakei Local Board about this and some other questions I had.
[Being a local he knows whats what with the land around the area – more so that the NZTA folks I spoke to].
First off that land is apparently owned by AC, being reclaimed from the harbour, its was presumably under ACCs control [via the old AHB I’d assume], it is leased to the OBC,and Ken said that their lease is up for renewal.
Suggested plan is to move the hard stand area that is adjacent to the rail lines north by 4m or so to make room for the cycleway as part of the lease renewal.
.
No plans to use that grassy area next to the Mini Golf so the present routing to Tamaki Drive makes sense.
The route is indicative only, and subject to confirmation and further detailed analysis, so this may change as design progresses. ETA See above!
What a fantastic proposal. You could safely bike, run or walk to work from GI etc to the city. Well done AT, now that’s a true healthy alternative to the car!
With clean fast electric trains, this should see quite a transformation in the area.
This will be a very successful project, particularly with cycle commuters, and particularly if the AMETI project opens up Eastern Auckland to longer distance cyclists. Tamaki Drive will need a serious upgrade once this project is complete.
I agree, Tamaki Drive from the junction with this route will need a serious upgrade to cope with the numbers of commuter cyclists that will use this new route. We will work with AT to ensure that works are undertaken to upgrade cycling infrastructure along Tamaki Drive heading into town at the same time as work is being done on the fourth stage, which is programmed for 2017.
Good to hear,Christopher that you and your local board members will be pushing for the Tamaki Drive cycle/walking improvements as the paths there are currently real shockers when they could be the jewels in the waterfronts crown if built properly.
I can’t recall where the OLB boundary is, but am I right in assuming that the “exit” of the cycleway onto Tamaki Drive is within your local board area so you will be driving this (as well, OLB from their side)?
I hope we don’t let AT use the fact that this straddles board boundaries of two boards as way to muddy and delay their part – AT need to deliver at Tamaki Drive end and at all the other places where NZTA stops being responsible and AC/AT/the local boards responsibilities kick in.
Technically it is OLB territory that the GI to Tamaki Dr cycleway will come out onto, but I’m sure from a holistic point of view At will ‘assume’ that bit as being part of WLB for the purposes of developing a path into the city.
Yes. Hope transport planners working on any big port-oriented realignment/expansion of the Strand trucking route are forced to allow for cycling movements as well, including across the Tamaki Drive intersection. Let’s not assume they’ll do it of their own accord.
Good point! Thanks for this.
All very folksy and ‘Jolly Hockey Sticks’ but isn’t another double set of train tracks on this soon to be very busy rail corridor more important. Eventually this line will be carrying commuter rail traffic at three minute intervals plus rail freight traffic to a revamped Port of Auckland. I just wonder who will use the walk/bikeway. Certainly not the local Lexus/Audi set
Given the number of Audi’s with bikes mounted on the back I wouldn’t be so glib at this stage!
According to folks I spoke to at the open day, KR have an aspiration for a 3rd/4th main there, but no short/medium or long term plans for them.
It was made clear when I asked that the boardwalk section over Hobson bay would be 5-10 metres north of the rail lines, not adjacent to it like the current on eis, leaving room for the 3rd/4th mains to go in between the boardwalk and the existing embankment if and when KR finds the money.
Mind you thats the least of their worries as apparently issues at Orakei Point and further up the Purewa valley will make adding anything expensive and time consuming for KR.
Putting that lid over the rail line at Orakei is a health and safety issue apparently, and costs to make it “explosion proof” are heading skywards so that may never happen as planned, or at leats not in the timeframes envisaged for the Orakei Point Development.
“Explosion proof”?? I didn’t know the manukau train would be such a prime target for al quaeda, Isis, shining path, or whoever? Lol
Presumably that is related to trains carrying hazardous goods under buildings / public spaces, not terrorist related.
Yep dead right Max.
Apparently Te Horata road that goes under Panmure roundabout has a restriction on dangerous goods for the same reason and its only 220 metres of “tunnel”.
The adjacent Panmure station is open air so doesn’t need to contain an explosion or fire, and also allows access to put out fires etc for any train accidents that arise
But Orakei Point rail will be undergrounded for quite some way – double that of Te Horata road and if a train of containers from the port derails in that “tunnel” you can imagine the kinds of hazards that this could let loose..
Explosion is probably the least of the worries, fire and the like, is more of a problem. Especially as a tunnel fire is difficult to deal with from a fire fighting aspect, and once its out the “tunnel” structure is then likely needing to be rebuilt – which is kind of hard/expensive if you have 6+ stories of building on top of it.
No point in building anything at Orakei Point over the rails as planned ( as a key part of the development) – if the place then gets munted in the first train fire is it?
As I recall they had to take special steps for the Victoria Park Tunnel designs to enable trucks loaded with Dangerous goods to travel through it, which obviously makes it expensive to mitigate and while in VPTs case it was NZTA paying for that, in the Orakei case I gather theres a bit of a bunfight as to who pays for that at Orakei. KR certainly won’t see it as their problem and they don’t have the money to waste on that sort of frippery.
Fantastic. Good work AT and NZTA. Presuming, of course, that they are reserving space for at least a third dedicated freight line. Quality use of this right of way, and offering people good cycling and walking links to and past stations is a lot more cost effective than moving or duplicating stations, or building park n rides. Cycling or walking to Meadowbank or GI will be viable for whole new groups soon.
Just updated the third photo as I accidentally duplicated the second one.
excellent project as a cyclist I certainly enjoy the growing amount of separate from traffic bike ways that been developed in recent years but the biggy would be a way over the harbor bridge to the shore
What kind of access is planned for Glen Innes proper? It looks like the path is going to be cut off from most of the suburb by the railway line unless they make a walk to St Johns.
Initially, the southern ends of the path will be where it joins with Merton Road, and with the underpass path at the north end of the train station. Getting better links from there is one of the things Cycle Action is currently discussing with AT/NZTA, but they may not be included in the first cut.
It will intersect with the existing underpass that starts near Mayfair place goes under Apiarana Ave, links to the Station platform “ramp” and then comes out at right angles to the new cycleway and eventually exits onto Felton Matthew Ave a little north of the new Countdown Supermarket, but on the same side. That has been there for years. As is the link on the other side via the park with the BMX track on it.
Another suggested link option for St Johns residents is via the “access way” just adjacent to (northwest of the) Roofing factory on Felton Matthew Ave, which currently provides access to the Grazing paddocks, so that would provide two linkages, that would allow better linkages with GI. Not perfect but better than what we have now.
Also, longer term there may be a pedestrian overbridge rather near the underpass so that would make the access even more obvious.
Big issue is that east and west side of rail line north of GI are quite different heights so no easy crossing options except more overbridges.
None of these options solve the problem of crossing Merton rd from the southern side of the station. There is no zebra crossing and poor visibility.
Apart from that, great plan.
“My biggest concern with the path is that there won’t be enough done to build cycle facilities on roads that lead to/from the path” agree.
fantastic stuff though.
Apparently, “more local connections!” was the key comment from locals. A bit different from the usual “not in my backyard” complaints cycle projects tend to get – but then again, this one has no parking removal… so that sacred cow isn’t needing to be touched.
“touched”, how about slaughtered.
Sacred cows make the best burgers, a thoroughly fascinating read. (http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Cows-Make-Best-Burgers-ebook/dp/B00HG5URE6)
Good project, and meanwhile the popular onehunga/penrose foreshore is threatened by the massive roading project there. Two steps forward, one step back.
I still don’t see the point of this – it’s a bicycle highway mirroring the train route and will be used mostly by people out for leisure or the hardcore commuters (like the north western one). And I still can’t ride my bike safely from Britomart to Ponsonby. Or Britomart to Quay Street Countdown (not that I have anywhere to park).
I get that this could be built at some point, but why is it being built _now_? I get the feeling it’s being done because it has no cost to anyone’s political capital – no one will complain (except me). There are much more pressing areas where people could and should be riding (short, local trips!!…!!!). Where are the bike lanes to get to Albany/Constellation park and ride, around devonport, New Lynn, dowtown, ponsonby, grey lynn – places that it will make a difference? There are no such plans as far as I’m aware. Or just spend the money on making Mission Bay the ultimate promenade cycleway.
Am I missing something from the bigger picture? I just can’t see how this will attract women, children and casual males into using cycling in it’s utilitarian form. Just a bicycle holiday highway.
I don’t get your compliant? It’s not where you go so it shouldn’t be done? Other routes are certainly needed to but each can only be done in turn.
But also not only will it be a very direct and often lovely route for purposeful travel or recreation, but it also improves non-driving access to the stations, especially for those on the eastern side of the line who are currently cut off from the them. Currently both Orakei and Meadowbank are crazily park ‘n’ ride dependent stations with very poor Active access routes, this will go a long way to fixing that.
(I navigated away and lost my (typically) well thought out reasoning so it’s a bit disjointed, I apologise)
My complaint is that this is a misallocation of resources (In my humble opinion :)). Maybe I lack pragmatism around this, but this is not the kind of infrastructure that creates a real cycling culture.
$30 million will buy a lot of separated cycle lanes in areas that either already show a desire to cycle in a utilitarian manner (often as their sole vehicle) – the people risking their lives to buy groceries (see: inner suburbs) – or as part of the multi-modal network – access from relatively deep in the suburbs to train/rapid bus networks. I don’t see how this does either – anyone needing to navigate Remuera, Orakei, Kepa roads or roads around Glen Innes town center will just get monstered.
If those roads were being fixed to facilitate access to the stations and cycleway I’d begrudgingly accept it’s (the creation of this route) cost, but to me it’s like me wanting to ride to western springs from downtown – the cycleway takes me almost there, but to actually get to the useful bits I’m left on my own to fight with the absurd st lukes/grt north road intersection. I’ve never bothered because I don’t want to die.
Best case, Meadowbank will end up with a couple of hundred less meters of (quiet, dead end) road to have to use to get to the station, but someone living off Shore Road (or anything involving orakei road)is not going to ride with their kids to the cycle way. Same for Taniwha/Line road on Glen Innes (and that roundabout to Merton), the roads from Stonefields, anything to do with Kepa road. You would have to drive your children to the cycleway. If I lived in these areas I wouldn’t commute on any of those roads.
I feel like this project is being progressed because it is easy (see: political capital), not because it is truly needed and that there are better uses for the money that will increase ridership in meaningful ways, but will have people complaining (see: on street parking and general negativity towards ‘cyclists’)
I forgot the crux!:
I think this furthers the view that cycling is purely ‘recreational’ and not deserving of streetspace on existing roads.
“I feel like this project is being progressed because it is easy (see: political capital), not because it is truly needed and that there are better uses for the money that will increase ridership in meaningful ways, but will have people complaining (see: on street parking and general negativity towards ‘cyclists’)”
Bingo. But nonetheless people will use this in meaningful ways, it’s can be done easily and soon, and it will drive more demand for further improvements on street and off.
No point sitting around not getting any cycle infrastructure at all because the bit you think is best isn’t happening. That’s the same as the people who said we shouldn’t do the busway until their local bus was perfect.
How many local routes to train stations would this buy? As the Dutch have proven, the bike – PT link works. Absolutely no question. When are we going to start on that?
These are local routes to train stations.
Where? I see a path that follows the rail line, not routes from houses (where people might ride from) to the path.
Seriously, it’s a great path, and good on AT, but it’s not a game changer. Which saddens me as we fail to learn valid lessons from countries with the highest bike mode share in the world.
David, most of this is using NZTA’s money not AT’s, yes some AT money goes into this, but not a lot. Yes AT can do a better spend job elsewhere, but they won’t will they as it invariably needs “parking removal”.
And would you rather AT and NZTA spend the money instead on yet some more shitty cyclelanes on some shitty roads or spend it doing something useful?
This is trying to do many things, pedestrian and cycling, its not separated cycling from walking, but at 4m wide its a pretty reasonable attempt at something that will mostly work.
And it will be safer for kids and walkers than the current options of the roads nearby.
NZTA need to build something “transport”: related on this land to keep the “Transport corridor” designation intact I’m told, so thats why “now” – as if they don’t the designation goes for good, or at least a long long time.
Happy to not look this gift horse in the mouth too much thanks, you may differ, but I think everyone else here and at CAA is in the same boat.
This is a bigger part of a cycleways to link Stonefields and Panmure to this cycleway, so yes people in Stonefields will be able to cycle safely to this cycleway, and then all the way to Tamaki Drive, and eventually, along Tamaki Drive too.
The railway (and creek) is a very good barrier from Orakei/Kohimarama to Meadowbank and vv there is a secondary school north of the Meadowbank station but no direct way to access it currently if you live there so no option but to drive to the school, no cycle or walk options, so this will help provide a crossing of the stream and railway to facilitate this link.
The boardwalk section from Orakei Point to Tamaki Drive is without doubt a major shortcut for cyclists and pedestrians, its a flat route and solves a big connectivity problem for those who want a direct route into Britomart/Town from St Johns or points adjacent. And if I had my way, that would be the first or second cab off the rank. Because it will be the most complex and expensive part, it goes last.
My only real gripe with this is no real thought has gone into a possible underpass under St Johns Road ala the Wellesly St underpass to allow cyclists the ability to go from one side of the St Johns Road path to the other without needing to surface. If they can do it for Wellesly St they can do it here – similar road width and geometry, same need to support heavy trucks too, And St Johns Road there is a busy road.
So all up I feel thats the really obvious missing piece here.
Lots of scope for other local links too. Just need to get them all documented so they can be allowed for in the design.
I actually David is right in part – in some ways, this is an “easy” project. No car parking to be removed, fewer fights with locals etc…it doesn’t crack the issue of AT being extremely slow with anything on arterial roads (except the odd shared path – http://caa.org.nz/general-news/sharing-is-caring-except-on-cycleways/).
The question is – if NZTA is keen on doing this (which they are, as Greg points out correctly), should we fight it, or ride it for the best we can get out of it? Obviously we (CAA) feel we should do the latter – and try to get as many local connections onto it. We feel it will strengthen, not weaken, the case for more facilities on nearby roads – even if it itself doesn’t give us those links.
Meh, this is worth doing, other projects are worth doing too. I see no advantage in attacking this project simply because other projects aren’t being done now too. In fact I see much to gain by getting this underway and then pointing out that if good enough to spend that kind of money on that route in that area then clearly other areas deserve the same standard of infrastructure and spend. More is more.
We don’t need to either or on this – we should “have it all” – both this and the other projects of similar merit, in similar timeframes.
This one really strengthens the case for more off-road and proper separated cycle facilities.
AT and NZTA have raised the bar on themselves a lot with Grafton Gully so this is now the “new normal” for cycleways. We should not expect or accept less from either organisation.
And this project continues that trend and long may it continue.
My only comment on it would be that if there was a choice between delivering this or say SkyPath – then I think SkyPath should come first.
Not because I’d benefit more with SkyPath (I won’t) but simply because it will deliver more benefits for Auckland as a whole for the $ spent than this one will.
But thats only a relative ranking of the project, but have merit and both need to proceed ASAP and both will strengthen the case for even more cycling facilities.
One side effect of this project is it does also deliver 7km of “easy to claim credit for by AT” off-road cycling facilities which does let AC/AT off the hook for the regional cycling targets.
So on that basis I don’t think AT can claim all the credit for this towards their cycle network goals.
Yes: 30 mil on this route is a mere fraction of the vast sum we are saving by choosing, correctly, to utilise it for the superior modes it is now getting than the disastrous previous 1950s scheme; win win win.
First up, I am not trying to belittle the advocacy efforts of CAA – doing more than I am to make any change. I know that every tiny piece of infrastructure feels like a victory.
“And would you rather AT and NZTA spend the money instead on yet some more shitty cyclelanes on some shitty roads or spend it doing something useful?” – I’m wanting the opposite – a systematic plan to install a fully functional cycle network with good (separated) cycle lanes, not a piecemeal hodgepodge with no clear goal 🙂
Yes, you’re correct on the difference between NZTA funding vs AT, nothing is as simple as it should be, but it’s still an opportunity for AT to announce their plans to integrate into this. There is no plan.
The justification for “now” is a big shrug for me. Do it or not, it’s fine, but we’re all sitting here cheering about a shared path that will not improve the rates of cycling for women and children going about their daily tasks. I am not willing to let them ‘get away’ with that. I will continue to demand better.
Every piece of infrastructure is a victory, respond to it how you will, but 7km of off-road cycleway is not to be sneezed at.
Of course AT should be building and opening 7km of cycleway each and every other month to meet its stated goals and time frames.
“it’s still an opportunity for AT to announce their plans to integrate into this. There is no plan.”
Not so fast, there is a plan from AT, and its being driven by/within the local boards to a large degree – there is a plan to link up to this one via a cycleway through Panmure and also from Ellerslie but those are in the Tamaki Local Board area so that board will be working with AT directly to get those cycleways done. Buts its squeaky wheel gets the oil still so if OLB shouts hardest and lobbies and allocates budget for it they’ll get sooner.
They are also aiming to get the Cycleway and walkway along the seaward side of Tamaki Drive pushed through – again local board driving AT to deliver. Having NZTA ready to through bucks and resources into it helps here too. And north of this cycleway are further plans to link up the hill to Kohi and beyond.
But one of the big things that was considered important to the SuperCity rollout was strengthening the local boards ability to deliver “local projects” to allow each boards residents to be better serviced by local representatives and not just “AC” (and/or AT) foisting stuff from on high.
Some projects are of course “delivered to” the Local board areas by AT e.g. Bus lanes – but not without the local boards having a say or being notified.
Case in point was the T3 lanes on Remuera Road – OLB held these up for a long time, lobbying for T2 lanes instead of bus lanes as there were there before. Eventually, T3 lanes was a compromise.
Local democracy in action? – you decide. But thats how it works for now in Auckland Council area.
“a shared path that will not improve the rates of cycling for women and children going about their daily tasks. I am not willing to let them ‘get away’ with that. I will continue to demand better.”
And what is it that you “demand better”?
A fully formed completed city wide cycleway springing into life from nothing with scores of women and children ready to ride it for their daily tasks ala Copenhagen? Be nice to have, but realistically not yet an option, so you want to hold back until it is?
By your definition none of the cycleways delivered so far actually meet that criteria, NW cycleway doesn’t, Grafton Gully doesn’t, nor Beach Road, nor will SkyPath as they aren’t wide enough, or don’t “go where the people are” or “link up” properly, or will “cost money to use”.
Copenhagen wasn’t built in a day. Took a long time to build it and for a long time lots of its cycleways were piecemeal and disjointed.
And yes even Copenhagen could be better than they have been/are now, and I’m sure the locals there “demand” better” even now.
But they accept you have to start somewhere and go from there. “Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” right?
As for whether this cycleway solves a problem, the board walk section is currently full of kids, dogs, women on cycles (as well as men on cycles too), and walkers, joggers, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. So it obviously it does something right for all its limitations,
So much so that its needing to be widened after 3+ years, sounds like a success to me, yes it could be wider and could have had separate pedestrian from cycling on it from day 1 – mind you if that was the requirement it probably would only be getting around to being built about 2016.
Instead we’ve had it for 3+ years, and now its being widened to cope with the demand but it has shown AT and AC that there is demand here for this.
Would more women and kids use it if it was a separate cycleway from walkway? Don’t know, but don’t think so. Its a success now even though its not got “safe” cycleways either side of it because it links two bits of the city up that were not linked up before.
This cycleway will do the same for a much bigger part of Eastern Bays area of Auckland and with the local links along its way it will be even more useful as a way to get about your tasks more easily on cycles.
But it ain’t perfect though.
The proper safe crossing of St Johns Road will remain an issue with this plan as I see it (and Merton Road too at the southern end).
The best option here is a proper underpass at St Johns Road like what was done at Wellesly St for Grafton Gully cycleway, but whether it happens I don’t know but thats a goal to aim for and even if its not there day 1 it can be eventually. And thats where AT should be coming to the party and building that as a way to link the two parts of the project together better.
There is already an underpass under the other parts of the cycleway that cross the road at Orakei Road courtesy of the OLBs efforts, so its not without precedence, just needs the will and demand from the public to do so.
But with the plan its a hell of a lot better than the other option of doing nothing for another 10 years waiting for the perfect plan to come along.
These payhs are all well and nice but imagine Auckland with 20% (a conservative figure) of school students cycling to school? How many kids is that? Thousands. Every day. Now, how do we achieve this? That’s something I want to see NZTA and AT tackle. And no, travelwise doesn’t cut it.
We (NZ Inc) managed it regularly, not that many years ago, and without “dedicated cycle lanes” or “helmets” or hi-vis everything etc.
People cycled everywhere to/from school in ones and pairs, using no more than 2-3m of road space as they did so. You can fit a lot of cyclists in pairs along a 2km stretch of road, thousands even, enough if all the kids at the largest school all cycled to school.
A lot of this protection for everything is a sop to the “safety at all costs” brigade.
Once there are sufficient regular cyclists on the road (and off the road too on cycleways), other roads users will take note, they will slow down and make room. Safety is definitely in numbers – we see that everywhere we look overseas, the more cyclists there are on a road, the safer they all are.
You don’t make everything in your life safer by wearing hi-vis and helmets.
We just need to get the numbers up and part of normal life, so people then again realise cycling is normal, not something only lycra wearing lunatics do.
The cycleway will cross St Johns at the lights at St Heliers Bay Road. Agree an underpass would be great (reduced height to climb too), but would add million or three in cost (!), and thus scupper any quick delivery of Stage 1.
“We just need to get the numbers up”
Yes, exactly what the Dutch did. Except it isn’t. Carry on doing the same things and expecting a different result then. No wonder I get frustrated. I feel like I’m swimming in a different direction to advocates, CAA, AT and NZTA. I think I’ll just go surfing.
Copenhagen had a goal and a plan to reach it. We do not.
I appreciate your efforts, I truly do – I’m not having a go at you or CAA. Your views are obviously different to mine, but we’re on the same side of the spectrum and that’s good.
My view of the world is that we can never be like the Netherlands or Copenhagen (or even Vancouver which is pretty shakey) without:
-Implementing Pedestrian right of way
-Updating helmet laws
-Setting Goals for cycling mode share and other targets\metrics*
-Developing a city-wide plan for Bicycle usage and infrastructure build (not a ‘plan’, but an actual plan with timeline and a budget and everything)**
-Requiring new suburbs be built with said infrastructure and preventing car-dependent design
-Changing layouts to create quiet streets and traffic calming (see Utrecht or Vancouver West End)
-Retrofitting suburbs with existing high bicycle share
-Targeting areas within 5km of rapid transit hubs for cycling infrastructure as well as providing safe storage facilities
-Taking density seriously
-Ignoring the whingers/nimbys
Those are things that will change Auckland. I won’t accept anything less than radical change, I think that is where we differ 🙂
*Copenhagen’s current goals:
Relative to 2010, cyclists’ travel time is reduced by 15%
50% of all trips to work and school in Copenhagen is done on bicycles (2010: 35%)
Relative to 2005, the number of seriously injured cyclists will fall by 70%
80% of cyclists find the cycle tracks well maintained (2010: 50%)
80% of Copenhageners think that bicycle culture positively affects the city’s atmosphere (2010: 67%)
90% of cyclists feel safe cycling in traffic (2010: 67%)
**We have https://at.govt.nz/about-us/auckland-transport-code-of-practice/ but ATCOP-Drawing-set-Chapter-13-Cycling-Infrastructure-Design.pdf is extremely disheartening, Section_13Cycling_Infrastructure_Design.pdf slightly less so. I also take issue that roading and cycling are two separate documents – that’s the mindset, but all new roads should have these facilities by default)
Davidjroos – “Those are things that will change Auckland. I won’t accept anything less than radical change, I think that is where we differ” – You don’t differ at all – you are just conveniently ignoring political reality and calling that a lack of will.
Everyone involved in advocacy in Auckland wants all those things. But do you think CAA or any other volunteer, community group with zero resources in time, money or manpower has the ability to snap their fingers and make that appear? Surely you can’t be that naive?
Do you think we sit around in secret meetings and decide the direction of Auckland cycling? We ask, they (AT/NZTA) say no. Occasionally they say yes, but mostly they say no. Especially if any parking or road space for cars will be affected.
Why don’t you get onboard and help? Every pair of hands moves things slightly faster. I know it is more fun to snipe from the sidelines than sit in boring meetings with AT/NZTA traffic engineers and planners, but those meetings are what actually get stuff done – not pontificating on blogs.
Lay down a solid action plan, not a philosophical treatise, of what CAA should physically do to make your agenda happen. Then I personally will be happy to do everything I can to make that happen. Otherwise you are just criticising without any constructive content.
Goosoid – I’m not ignoring the political reality – I’m lamenting it. Please let me assure you again that all my distress is aimed at local\national govt and not at CAA.
I don’t believe that any amount of evidence, critical mass or advocacy can change things with the current mindset of AT, government or NZ population due to the fact that, for whatever reason, transport choices is a ideological issue. I know we’re facing up against the opposition of large portions of the population who sees bicycle lanes as a direct affront on their way of lives. If facts mattered we’d be in a different situation. It’s a political problem that I don’t see be resolved any time soon. The only plan I have it to demand change as a political minority using facts and research results. Which has achieved nothing so far because you’re talking to a brick wall. Until the power structures/people in charge of these departments are changed no real progress will be made. As we’ve seen, even doing the work for them won’t change anything major (see CFN)
I know that you go to meetings and kicked in the teeth every time. Concessions are made here and there but they are not the changes that you want or that Auckland needs. I feel helpless and hopeless and I’m sure you do too – on the wrong side of the majority\politics. I moved to Vancouver to alleviate my frustration for a while (also because of a pretty girl ;))
I understand your frustration with my comments, as another kick in the teeth, but again, it’s not at you. I understand taking what you can get. Deep down i’d rather it was “no, we appreciate the thought, but this won’t change anything”. I’m sure you’ve had that debate internally.
I’ll consider membership when I’m back in NZ, or if there are things that can be done while I’m overseas my ears are open 🙂
And it’s not fun to ‘snipe from the sidelines’ – i’m typing in pain.
Fair enough David. I look forward to hearing from you when you are back in NZ.
In the meantime, if you have any articles you would like to write about cycling where you are, we would love to have them on the CAA blog.
And yes, I feel your pain. Especially recently when AT is scrapping any project because of parking protests by one or two people. When did we vote to abandon our roads to the storage of private property?
One of the reasons Stage 1 in the east goes first is that NZTA wants to sell off the remaining land after allowing for the walk/cycleway. Cycle Action Auckland is talking with them about ensuring enough space is left for new side accesses when that land west of Glen Innes Train Station is then developed.
I really love the width, so much better than the NW cycleway/footpath.
This link will boost cycling numbers overall and hence bargaining power for cycleways where loss is parking is required @ Davidjroos.
Annoying comment from that Barney contributor – if you can call that contributing.
Furthermore, I think it’s important to remember how far we’ve come here. Or perhaps how far NZTA has come. Instead of pushing for a vile and destructive motorway through this valley and across this bay, it now will be only for rail freight, our new Metro system, and walkers and cyclists. This is completely fantastic and they kind of decision making we need to spread through other parts of the city. The urban motorway building age is over, and in many ways, for all sorts of reasons, that change began on this right-of-way.
Is the timeframe ambitious? Still waiting for the waterview cycleway…
Option B looks wiggly, probably the same people involved
This route has been one of Cycle Action’s top priority for some time, as it will serve a wide eastern sector of the city that is poorly served by PT and cycling, due to poor connectivity caused by topography and the road network. We had a role in bringing the project forward, as we saw an opportunity to bring the partnership, born on the Grafton – Beach Rd project, onto this project. NZTA also saw the advantage, so we had common interests.
This sort of opportunism is vital for Cycle Action as we work to make the best of a poor cycle funding environment of the current mayor and council. We’re also lucky to have such a strong partner in Ken Baguely and the Orakei Local Board as it has an outstanding record in creative local walking and cycling links. Add Ngati Whatua into the mix as well, and we have a pretty ideal team to make this project a major success for the city.
We’re confident it will have high utility for all forms of cycling. It is already popular on the Orakei boardwalk for commuter cycling. The new bridges across the Purewa Valley will improve links to train and also access for students to Selwyn College. We’re delighted local people were keen on more local links at Saturday’s Open Day, and know the OLB will deliver these, given their outstanding work already for local walking and cycling networks.
Why that dreadful fence, where it goes across open country?
It’s hard to see, but that “s-curve” in the second image actually sits on a mini “causeway” earth ramp to smooth out some of the gullies. So there’s some steep banks left and right which in turn requires fall protection (there’s clear guidelines on how steep / deep the drop is allowed). You could smooth that out, but that would need a lot of extra earthworks. If they don’t turn out so bad in reality, then the fences will likely not happen in those sections – but the artist stuck them in presumably because there may be some needed here.
Agree.. this is transformational for anyone wanting to cycle from GI to the city. And not only GI but from all the neighbouring suburbs.. Panmure, Point England, St Johns, Stonefields, Meadowbank, Kohi, Orakei and parts of Remuera at points along the path.
It’s also a step change for recreational cycling: good for roadies to get to the waterfront routes and great for families and casual rides from any of the above suburbs, or even for a day trip from SkyPath and back round to Tamaki Drive via the on-road lanes and sharrrows.
The best thing about the project, which the high level map doesn’t really show, is the local linkages.. to schools, train stations, between neighbouring suburbs, and to the rugby / cricket / netball / football / tennis clubs on and around Colin Mainden Park (no hockey, Barney). These places are currently not well connected. It’s fantastic to see the level of local support for connections onto local streets.
The project could be an almighty catalyst for a raft of on-road improvements in the surrounding areas (some of which are already being planned), as well as an end in itself. Paid for by new NZTA $, supported by the local boards and AT. What’s not to like.
…fully agree, and sets the standard for the rest of the city.
Unless we also fix the local street design then it will continue to be inaccessible to most people who might hop on a bike. Copenhagen built the local networks before moving on to the long cycle ways. We’re doing the opposite.
Which looks like the winning formula for us, this is the line of least resistance. It is a result of where the money and power resides in NZ transport and urban form institutions: NZTA have it and AC/AT, less so.
The order in which the missing infrastructure is added is a less important issue than that it is happening at all.
But you are right, the magic formula, the one thing that works the world over, regardless of climate, topography, or culture, is ‘off-road and on-street’ cycling and walking amenity. Both.
It’s also the slowest and most expensive. For $10M we could convert an entire suburb.
But Bryce ‘we’ don’t have that $10m, NZTA do, just be bloody thankful they are spending it here and on Active amenity. Happily this is NZTA land and therefore, like at Waterview they can spend on these modes on those routes.
‘Our’ money is spent by AT, and yes they have been hopeless at getting any much done at all for the Active modes but that doesn’t mean this isn’t fantastic, because it is.
I’m not against the path. It’s just that everyone, from CAA to AT to NZTA and advocates are going gaga over these commuter paths when the Dutch, after 1973, focussed on local trips, primarily schools, as their number 1 priority. And look where they are. Get thousands of kids riding and then the pressure to build more infrastructure, as they grow up and start working, continues to build.
The art of the possible, Bryce….
The point I’m trying to make is that while even CAA focus on these paths, what pressure is there on AT to build actual local networks? None. So they don’t get done. That’s why they’re not happening. Everything is being built to firstly satisfy adult ‘want’s’. Much like roads.
Actually, don’t worry. I can’t be bothered any more. A lone fish swimming the wrong way up the river. I’ll be at the beach.
I’m with you. I’ll buy you a beer when I’m back in Auckland early 2016, deal?
“going gaga” – come on Bryce, you know better than that. This is not going gaga over anything. We would all love what you are advocating for, me as much as anyone. But there are two main problems we have to overcome:
1. Residents and businesses complaining about removal of parking (the space which will usually be put aside for cycling).
2. AT taking any criticism of removing parking as grounds to stop any cycling project. That is exactly what is happening now (http://caa.org.nz/auckland-transport/parking-aucklands-sacred-cow/)
So what should any advocacy group do differently. I understand “advocate for local networks” but you know that CAA does that and is constantly knocked back. So practically, not philosophically, what should CAA or any other advocacy group do? Just refuse to engage with AT/NZTA until they bend to our will? We don’t have any firepower – no money and no real political influence.
It turns out that when it comes to on road cycling facilities the opinion of a group of marine industry businessmen means more to AT than all the evidence and research that has come out about the benefits of cycling for local businesses.
Should we all just pack up and go to the beach? Is that what happened in the Netherlands or Denmark when things got bad? I suspect not. We have to just keep working on it – mostly trying to convince the people of Auckland that cycling is a real transport option and that removing parking or slowing down cars in some areas, is not the end of the world.
If the conversations I’m having with locals are anything to go by, usage of the GI-Tamaki path (for local journeys, along it or across it) will be substantial.. which will do two things: 1. Get many more people cycling for transport as well as recreation.. and 2. create increasingly irresistible demand for local on street safer networks.
Exactly TBW – we have to start somewhere.
We have to reeducate the people of Auckland in the fact that cycling is a viable means of transport for short trips. This is a fact that was widely known in NZ up until the 1950s and in fact resulted in Christchurch being the 2nd biggest cycle city in the world.
I would love to see more done for on road facilities but we need the political will first. And politicians are always populists at heart. As long as removal of parking is seen as political suicide, cycling will always be on the back foot.
It is happening. Ken Baguely on the Orakei Local Board used to be rabidly opposed to cycling. Now he is a huge advocate for it.
Unfortunately the 60 years of entrenched auto dependency in NZ means this shift in travel patterns will be much slower than what the Dutch and Danish managed in the 1970s. I wish it was otherwise.
Much of what we can, and need to do, requires zero or next to zero parking removal. But we’re not touching it.
wow, this is our eastern “lowway” corridor? good idea!~
Nice corridor. Now can we get it to continue over the Tamaki River,,,,,
Only if we attach a 4 lane motorway bridge to it.