The launch of government’s Urban Cycleway programme on Friday occurred on the old Nelson St off-ramp which will form part of the biggest of the initial group of projects, the Nelson St cycleway. The project is perhaps one of the best examples of what can happen when officials put their mind and focus on getting something done.
The idea had been talked about for some time and this image appeared in the council’s City Centre Master Plan however not much progress had been made. That was until things really kicked off about 8 months ago with a post titled Throwing Down a Half-Nelson from Cycle Action Auckland’s Max Robitzsch.
In the post he talked about how a cycleway along the old off-ramp and down Nelson St could be potentially be implemented quickly and cheaply with a temporary ramp to access the off-ramp and some planter boxes to make a protected cycleway on Nelson St. The idea seemed to capture the imagination of staff from both AT and the NZTA who quickly took up the cause seeing it as a potential quick win.
Fast forward a few months and we heard the people working on the project were busy trying to deal with the most difficult issue, how to get cyclists on to the off ramp. Apparently the idea of a temporary scaffold ramp from K Rd wasn’t going to work easily and neither would a bridge from Day St like some artist impressions showed. It turns out the best solution would be a bridge from South St which would have the added benefit of linking in with the NW cycleway. There are a few other changes that have been made too including
- A future section on Pitt St – which could easily losing a lane or two without anyone noticing and which would better cater for cyclists coming from Gt North Rd/K Rd
- On Nelson St the cycleway will go down the Western side of the road rather than the eastern which I believe is due to it avoiding a lot of driveways, especially the slip laned SkyCity one.
- It will go all the way to Quay St which is great and even further than Max originally suggested.
The total route of the project is shown below.
We’re still see some images of what the bridge from South St will look like have high hopes for it. Likewise I haven’t seen any images of just what will be done on the off ramp so I’ve got no idea if there are any plans for it to be anything like the CCMP image earlier or if it’s just destined to be an un-landscaped cycleway.
Moving on to Nelson St, one of the widest streets in Auckland which despite its width carries surprisingly little traffic. As mentioned the cycleway will go down the western side of the road and we saw this image a few months ago as part of the City centre Priority routes.
Below are the concept designs for the Nelson St section between Union St and Victoria St which AT say will have the following changes.
- A two-way separated cycleway on the western side of Nelson Street between Union Street and Victoria Street. Instead of having a cycle lane on both sides of the road, a two-way cycleway is on one side of the road and people on bicycles can travel in both directions within it.
- The cycleway will be three metres wide, with a one metre wide separator to provide separation from vehicles.
- Cycle crossing facilities introduced at the intersections, to improve safety by enabling pedestrians and cyclists to cross separately.
- Kerb build-outs introduced at some intersections, to improve safety by reducing crossing distances for pedestrians and cyclists.
- The project will require:
- Removal of a traffic lane along the length of the route and reduction of parking between Wellesley Street and Victoria Street.
- Removal of the left turn slip lane at the intersection with Victoria Street to provide a safe waiting area for pedestrians and cyclists to cross.
Click here for a larger version.
It’s not clear from the image above but it does seem one negative is that to access the Nelson St cycleway you’ll have to cross the SH1 off-ramp first although presumably that should be easy to do during all of the other traffic phases.
While this is development is great, one major issue is that it only stops at Victoria St which will limit it’s usefulness. That is until stage two links it with the waterfront as shown in the map above. At this stage AT say they haven’t decided on whether which route to pick however I think they need to do both if they want to build a proper network. It’s also worth noting that Victoria St is meant to get a cycleway as part of the proposed linear park.
At this stage it appears that no option has been chosen and to help with that AT are currently consulting on it and say there will be an open day about the project on February 10 in Takutai Square.
All up the project is expected to cost around $11 million made up of $1.1 million from Auckland Transport, $8.15 million from the NZTA and $1.75 million from the new Urban Cycleway fund. I suspect a decent chunk funding is to go towards the bridge from South St to the off ramp. The first phase is due for completion by the end of the year with the second phase by mid-2016. I’m looking forward to seeing this finished and work getting underway on the rest of the city centre priority routes (plus others around the region).
Well done to the people from AT and the NZTA who have picked up and ran with this project.
Processing...
Well done indeed. One metre is a pretty good separation from traffic, much wider than Beach Rd… presumably this will allow for some planting? Nelson St could certainly use some extra amenity for the thousands of people who live along it, a population which is about to increase as the Sugartree stage 1 residents move in soon.
JP the plans do show ‘low level planters’ which is great. Also note that as the existing trees [London Planes?] are on the footpath so they will be unaffected and will be happier without vehicles over their roots on their eastern side. AC may even get round to plugging the gaps and generally helping these potentially great specimens once the area has improved.
The shade form these trees will be very gratefully received especially by uphill riders on hot afternoons!
Hi Matt – re some of your questions: we have seen images of the South Street bridge, and since one was shown at the launch yesterday, it should be possible to go public with it. I’ll see what I can do. It’s a nice sweeping structure from near the building in the South Street / Canada Street corner (the cycleway access is technically off Canada Street, even if the bridge is close to South Street. It will have one new support pillar next to the motorway. The reason NZTA went for the permanent bridge was that due to some complexities near K Road that only came up after closer study by the design team, any temporary solution would have had significant compromises and/or still cost a lot of money…
On the off-ramp, the design has not been totally defined yet. AC are thinking of offering some money for beautification works, but currently, the NZTA design simply includes screening the sides where fall / drop risks exist, adding lights where needed, and painting a two-way cycleway in the middle, with pedestrian “footpaths”. either side. The available width is over six meters, so lots of space. What we do in the long term, well no hurry, but lots of possibilities (tho we shouldn’t narrow the path as strongly as shown in the first image, or we will get back into issues with peds vs cyclists…)
For Nelson Street, an interesting thing is that most of the space for the path was to originally come from car parking, not the traffic lanes, but that seems to have since become slightly more mixed again.
Regarding the northern option, CAA generally tends to favour the Hobson Street option – partly because it serves the City Centre better (the Sturdee Street option would go along the foot of the retaining wall, with little accessibility from west or east). Partly because the northernmost part of Nelson St is very steep, so routing via Hobson would make it easier to go south.
It’s great to see this proceed so quickly. We understand the bridge is currently being tendered, and while it will take time to build (parts of it will be prefabricated), works should start soon!
I’m all for just putting up fencing and paint at this time. Spend the money on nice fencing and maybe curved sides as per Grafton Bridge. Let it get used and see what happens.
I’m for doing it right once. And for building cycling and walking amenity with a similar commitment to quality as we build motorways. After all it’s of higher economic value.
I agree, to a point. I’ve seen too many recent ‘cycle paths’ narrowed down via shrub and tree planting so that 3m 3m in reality. Effectively it’s a bridge. I see no reason why we have to plant out a bridge.
And based on the Grafton Gully project, NZTA seems to agree, so yes, lets have “motorway standard” cycling facilities built here thanks.
Bless them, they have profession pride clearly, now we’ve just got to direct that energy in a better direction and can you imagine how great this city will be!?
Got an idea.
Hey, Mike Sheerin from RockBind (the guy who has a locally developed system for road colouring the roads who complains about how much taxpayer money is wasted by AC, and who posts here sometimes).
Do you want to come to the party with your products and see if NZTA will allow you to use your product to paint the cycle lanes on the off ramp when its ready for that?
Good way to show case your product to everyone (AC/AT included) – while helping to delineate the Cycleway from the pedestrian areas and contributing to NZ Cycleways.
A win/win/win.
So if the product lasts like you says it does, then it won’t need doing again any time soon right?
(as you said last year: “[Rockbind] product I developed here in NZ Is cheaper than the substandard products been bought in for overseas guarantee 3 years this was based on NZTA requirements of a guarantee of 2 years . We also believe our system should be ok in 12 years from date it has been applied We have had no problems in the 4 years the product has been used in NZ”)
So what do you say Mike, do we have a workable idea here?
one minor issue is the northern tie-in with Quay Street – all shown traversing the Hobson Street overpass which the CCMP wants to remove. would it not be better to plan the route based on this outcome?
Overall I’m really excited with this – especially if Pitt Street connection is prioritised (that’s a long detour to Krd/ponsonby)
I was wondering if I was reading that correctly.
Is there a reason not to keep going down Nelson into Market then turn right on Custom Street West then left on Lower Hobson?
—-
Next up – Victoria n\s and Victoria-Vincent-Pitt Street. Once that is in place our downtown will have as good if not better grid than (downtown) Vancouver.
Once Queen quietened and Quay, krd, Hobson and Wyndham street done we’ll be pretty excellent! Any plans on College Hill? Parnell Rise?
Pitt Street is supposed to be in the 2016 works package, yes.
Re Market Street option – presumably this relates to concerns about cyclists riding through the basin’s restaurant zone in large numbers or, alternatively, needing to remove lots of car parks on Customs Street West (but not sure).
Market Pl looks like a preferable option to the rider, away from the fumey big traffic, to the front doors of the cafes and restaurants….
The roads down there are already so quiet – I often come back that way from wynhard/ponsonby/westhaven etc, but then lower Hobston to quay is so unfriendly that I usually footpath it to PWC basement on customs and cut through to quay footpath, then hop back onto quay at the lights then into Britomart in the bus lane – I’d keep on customs but it’s too hard to ‘pull over’ when I want to stop. Market to Lower Albert to quay will give better access to Wynyard quarter overall – the current bridge is not suitable for sharing, and once it has tram lines over it it’s going to be a pain for skinny wheels.
Excellent, that’s great news. Krd is going to explode, hopefully Nelson Street wakes up in response. Cycling to Best Ugly bagels every Sunday will improve my quality of life two-fold.
Seems to be a conflict of cycleway and cyclist desire lines at the Nelson/Victoria interseciton in the concept design.
The cycleway is on the left of the pde crossing going north, yet surely the majority of cyclist that cross will either continue north along Nelson (Pahse 2 option A), or go right to head towards the Phase 2 option B
So I assume they should remain on the :”outside” of the pedestrian crossing?
CAA isn’t too keen on those split crossings in urban areas – neither pedestrians nor cyclists seem to stay on “their” crossing. But you are right, this design doesn’t seem quite right even so.
In the first picture (existing/potential) how did these people walking get there? Was it by walking the cycleway?
Can we please have separated cycling and walking facilities? When I’m walking (probably pushing my son in his buggy) I don’t want to worry about cyclists zooming past. When I’m cycling, I find that pedestrians wander all over the place on shared paths (no concept of keep left).
Ideally I’d would be great if we could have full separation (like Vancouver’s Stanley Park and parts of Melbourne’s coastal paths), and where it does have to be shared we have a centre line with keep left arrows (like Melbourne’s river trail).
Share with care. When riding we have a duty of care for pedestrians. Just as when driving we should have a duty of care for all other road users, but especially the more vulnerable and slower riders and walkers.
On a hill especially, this is a flawed approach and will only serve to further any tensions between people on bikes and pedestrians. I cant imagine too many ‘shared paths’ on hilly cycle paths in the Netherlands. Where speed is similar (uphill perhaps) there is less of an issue. Downhill, the potential speed difference creates some potential for issues. Where there is space, as per Nelson St off-ramp and the proposed Orakei – GI path, the approach should be separation of modes.
…but it’s mostly separate on Nelson St, which is the steep section
The current design for the off-ramp itself is separated walk & cycle – see my comments further above.
Thanks Max. Great stuff. Very reassuring.
This is great. Quite a bit of parking goes and the slip lane onto Victoria. so quite brave of AT. I guess there are 2 options to get from the off ramp to Nelson St. Go left and use the pedestrian crossing over Union St. or go right and get yourself into the right turn lane from Union St.
That slip lane going is a huge deal – I walk there often and it’s awful.
I thought the original concept was fast and cheap? $11 million doesn’t sound that cheap
Yes while fast and cheap is better than perfect and endlessly delayed, fast and permanent is even better. And that’s what we’re getting here.
I have seen the bridge design and it’s fantastic. Waiting for permission to release pics.
“fast and permanent is even better”.. agree, and this initiative is no doubt a catalyst / game changer.. like SkyPath and GI-Tamaki.. and needs to be done well.
Still, with capex so tightly constrained, and so much to do to complete even half a network, building it cost efficiently.. and innovatively.. and even “cheap” in places where appropriate (New York style with Kiwi ingenuity?) is likely to be an important part of the roll-out.
Let’s get a workable *complete* network rather than wait decades..
Well I prefer to work on the funding constraint while getting quality wins built, the Shared Spaces have shown how well that works. The constraint is only policy, after all.
Anyway, you can’t half-arse a bridge.
Yes interesting strategy discussion. Use funding and spend it on good/decent quality improvements that captures public imagination or spend it on lower quality but more quantity. Risks and benefits with both approaches.
Agree. From the sounds of it, the money is being spent on a new bridge that will be a long term permanent feature. Moeny well spent.
The beautifying of the route will come later as that has a low benefit, at least initially.
This was very much intended as a “fast and cheap” trial project when we first suggested it. It’s still blimmin’ fast for Auckland cycleways, but admittedly it’s not low-cost anymore.
Key issues with low-cost were that some K’Road-related bridge structural and property purchase issues that came up in detailed investigation – these would have made any temporary structure less convenient than hoped-for, and it would have still costs a million dollars or more (from memory). At that point, NZTA decided to switch to a permanent-design tack.
CAA agreed with some lingering regrets – not because we dislike NZTA building good stuff, permanent-style, but because it means that we’re still needing to convince Council / AT / NZTA to somewhere, sometime create a project that’s “fast AND cheap” – to get them into a more JSK-style habit for trialling cycle projects.
Yes, both *quality* where possible and desirable (e.g. a high profile, technically challenging bridge) AND *low cost* where we just need something, anything, by way of subjectively safe infrastructure.. i.e. let’s have some of each as fits the application.. not either/or.. we need a properly connected network, right down to local streets everywhere.
Personally I think this project is a big highly symbolic game changer. Well the big one until SkyPath and am therefore absolutely delighted with NZTA, AT, and AC’s speed and quality here.
Going to open a floodgate of demand.
$11m is cheap, considering the alternatives to not using the Off ramp this way – why AT would have to spend the next 5 years consulting on parking removal on K’Rd and the like to get a cycleway through.
Same goes for GI to Tamaki Drive cycleway, the total cost will be well north of $11m, but if its built right from day 1 – it will last and last and be giving benefits to users for decades.
And just remember this:
“The bitterness of poor quality lasts long after the fragrance of cheap price is forgotten.”
Too often fast and cheap, ends up as cheap and nasty, and actually is delivered no faster once all the continual tweaks and fixes/maintenance and other issues are added to the picture.
For something that will be around for a long time its better to get it right the first time.
And in any case, NZTA spends that sort of money like confetti, most of their (road) projects seemingly cost about ten times that, so doing a $11m cycleway “end to end” is actually really cheap and a novel experience for them.
I do hope that artist’s impression of the repurposed off-ramp is not indicative. There’s really no sense in narrowing it like that. Sure, make it nice but let’s not throw away the chance to make best use of rare cycling space.
that’s just some dreaming by Council graphic designers from a while ago…. not gonna happen I reckon, need the width and the enclosure not good. Don’t need trees everywhere, especially places where there’s no dirt.
That graphic was done during the City Centre Masterplan works years ago, if I remember its provenance. Good to see them embrace the idea itself back then, but not really a detail-design. I am sure we can add some lovely touches to the ramp without affecting usability. Plus, vehicle access will need to remain for emergency and maintenance truck access anyway.
That was what I was meaning in my comments above. The bridge itself doesn’t need narrowing via planting. Build nicely engineered/designed edges.
Woop we can have our own mini Highline like NY 😀
Careful what you wish for
Highline NY – Park rules prohibit the Use of bicycle, skateboards, skates, or recreational scooters and Dogs
Yeah this ain’t no Highline, see next post….
Actually, in my view the Waterfront Auckland boardwalk is closer to our Highline, a Lowline, if you like. It has all the ‘nature in the city’ qualities that is the defining idea of the HL, with the our great Harbour doing most of the heavy lifting.
Good to see some progress here. All those apartment dwellers on the Hobson ridge have such an hostile environment on the street right now. The missing pedestrian leg on Cook street is just an embarrassment.
Excellent amenity for boy racers though. Lots of lanes, mostly empty (1) off-peak. During evenings you can often hear them until past midnight. And sometimes during the day too—yesterday I witnessed one of them almost killing a pedestrian.
—
(1) The statistics on http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2013/02/04/nelson-and-hobson-streets-problem-opportunity-and-possible-incremental-solutions/ spring to mind.
One comment on the recent cycleways building efforts: they need to allow better connections. I love the NZTA’s grafton gully but it really needs to connect up to Symonds St and why the barrier between it and the great park / cemetary there? Barriers are only needed to protect from a danger. Here, they make the cycleway needlessly feel like an enclosure, also it’s hard to get to Symonds St from there.
The heritage people wanted it to protect the cemetary from cyclists (!). Not even kidding – even made it as far as a Brian Rudman column.
There is no reason why a link cannot be built on the western side of the Symonds St overbridge down to the cyclepath – even with opposition from cemetery folks – the actual NZTA motorway designation is quite wide there and extends to the #8 wire fence on the southern border of the Cemetery with the Motorway.
There *is* room to have the cycleway link from there up to the bridge without entering the realm of the cemetery. Just need NZTA to plan it and build it – its in their corridor after all, so no reason not to.
Any graves that existed there prior to motorway construction would have been dug up and moved well before the Bulldozers moved in.
Maybe we could get a sibling of that spanking new bridge NZTA are building from Canada St to the Nelson St off ramp to go in here, would make a nice “pair” from all accounts of the pictures Patrick posted.
Pathways were under development connecting Grafton Gully to Symonds St through/around the cemetery but it was one of the Waitemata Local Board capex budgets cut from the LTP
Of course re-purposing the Symonds St on- ramp is another option for providing a connection….
Another comment on the map above of priority cycle routes: what’s really missing from it is
1) a cycleway on Queen St, and
2) a cycleway on Beach Rd, actually. ie on the central and western parts of Beach Rd.
Coming from the NW cycleway, the dream would be a bridge clear over Spaghetti Junction from the Newton Rd bridge zone linking up to the Nelson St offramp and including a K Rd offramp, easing the route to that part of town. Was this ever considered?
Can anyone point me to a map of how the cycleway gets from Canada St to Nelson street? I can only find large maps with vague lines going in that direction. How does it get onto the old motorway bridge?
OK, think I found it (http://www.openstreetmap.org/export#map=18/-36.85853/174.75649) though still no pics of what the ‘bridge’ will look like.
Everyone relax- I think I found that to eventually (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11437594) – why are they not all together on the AT site though?
The cycleway has been well and truly established and the problems created are obvious so how about a review with a look to fixing the problems created.
I see the off ramp has now been 2 laned to try to cure the problem of traffic now banking up onto the motorway but hasn’t fully succeeded.
The problem of the traffic no longer being phased to green all the way from the off ramp down to Fanshawe St is still a problem. Multiple stops of Cook St and then Victoria St still occur.
The removal of 2 lanes to create 1 bike lane between Wellesly St and Victoria St, along with the removal of the slip lane into Victoria St has created a lot of congestion. With the left straight ahead lane getting the red LEFT arrow it has reduced the previous 4 straight ahead lanes down to an effective number of 2 when pedestrians are crossing. Especially had during busy periods.
The SH16 offramp has always been two lanes. They’ve realigned it a bit but not really extended it. I drive that way some mornings, the queue for the ramp signal SH16 to SH1 is often longer which you can’t blame on bike infra. Also: there is no cure for traffic.
I drive this some days. From the top of Nelson St to Wyndham only takes an extra minute or two. And Nelson St feels much less of a traffic sewer.