Nearly a year ago Auckland Transport announced plans to put cycle lanes on Carlton Gore Rd – something that created a typical backlash from locals in the area who felt they deserved a free piece of public space to store their personal possessions. Ten months later and AT have announced the results of their consultation as well as the changes in design that they’ve made. They also have said that construction will start in just two weeks on April 2 and will be completed in June.
The original proposal
Original Proposal contained the following features:
- Cycle lanes added on both sides of Carlton Gore Road between Park Road and Davis Crescent, with a half metre wide painted buffer to provide separation from traffic. Removal of Parking on the Domain side of Carlton Gore Road between Park Road and George Street will create space for the new lanes. The lanes will expand the Auckland Cycle Network, providing an improved connection from the east into the city centre and an alternative to cycling on the busier Khyber Pass Road.
- A pedestrian crossing point consisting of kerb build-outs on both sides of the road, installed at 103 Carlton Gore Road, near to the intersection with George Street. The build-outs will provide better visibility between pedestrians and traffic and shorten the crossing distance, making it safer and easier to cross.
- The zebra crossing on Carlton Gore Road repositioned to sit mid-way between the Morgan Street and Kingdon Street intersections, to increase pedestrian safety from turning traffic. Coloured surfacing and sensor-activated flashing LEDs will be installed to provide pedestrians with increased visibility. The repositioning was completed during works in 2014.
All up AT say they had 171 submissions and the majority supported the project. The key themes of the feedback are below along with AT’s response to them.
1. Separation between the traffic lane and the cycle lane was seen as insufficient. This has been improved in the final design through the use of raised kerbs on a section of the route between Park Road and George Street.
2. A reduction in parking spaces was raised as a concern. Some alternative parking spaces have been allocated for residents who lack off-street parking. Utilisation of pay and display parking on Carlton Gore Road and the surrounding streets will be monitored and prices adjusted as needed to encourage turnover. We aim to maintain an occupancy rate of around 85%, ensuring some parking is always available.
3. The design presented for consultation prevented the informal “double-stacking” of two lanes of traffic that occurs eastbound on Carlton Gore Road during the evening peak. The final design introduces a 4pm to 6pm no parking clearway westbound between George Street and Park Road. This will help maintain traffic flow, while still allowing parking at other times of the day.
They’ve also made the other changes below
- Footpaths on both sides of Carlton Gore Road between George Street and Park Road will be replaced and the road resurfaced. The area of footpath at the Park Road intersection leading into the Domain will become a shared use area for people on bikes and on foot. A drinking fountain within this area will provide a spot to pause and refuel.
- Parking on the south side of Carlton Gore Road between the George Street and Park Road intersections will change from P120 to metred pay and display parking with no time restriction, consistent with the Newmarket parking plan.
- A raised table will be installed across the intersection of George Street where it intersects with Carlton Gore Road, reducing vehicle speeds and making it easier and safer for pedestrians to cross.
- The pedestrian crossing point to be installed outside 103 Carlton Gore Road will be upgraded to a zebra crossing to better cater for people wishing to cross the road during busy times of the day.
- Flashing LEDs will not be installed on the zebra crossing between the Morgan Street and Kingdon Street intersections, as the addition of the second zebra crossing along with anti-skid coloured surfacing and cycle lane markings will be sufficient to slow most traffic. However, the crossing will be monitored and LEDs may be installed at a later date if needed.
The new design is below.
Overall there are some really positive changes in the design which is pleasing to see and something I suspect has been helped by the positive feedback the project received which again highlights the importance of submitting on this stuff. In particular it’s great that some parts of the route will now get physical protection, that George St will be safer and that there’s another pedestrian crossing.
My major concern though is still that AT are using cyclists as a squishy barrier. As an example I wonder if they could have had that new pedestrian build out (on the south side of the street just to the east of George St) as an island where the cycle lane is and left the cycle lane against the kerb using the parked cars as the physical barrier. Same with the kerb build out at Kindon St. The north side is made a bit more difficult due to the presence of the trees in the existing build outs but as they don’t seem all that large so I wonder if they too could have been moved to give the same effect.
I look forward this being completed however at only around 600m in length it’s only a small part of what’s needed. Next we need other routes that will connect and expand on this segment so we can build up an actual network of safe streets – something all international experience points to being the key to getting people cycling. With a few of the tweaks mentioned it could potentially become a template to be rolled out to streets all around the region.
Processing...
Don’t like the Davis Cr eastbound end, lane suddenly ends and people riding thrown into 2 traffic lanes. If they really need 2 lanes at the end, then surely should run the cycle lane through to the end, rather than that extra carpark and buildout. Davis Cr end also looks car for pedestrians, no ped crossing and rather wide.
But overall a big improvement on what we have seen, these designs are quickly getting better.
Yeah, I discussed that with them. Apart from them not being keen to lose the second lane, there still isn’t any good practice what happens when a cycle lane approaches a non-signalised intersection as the minor road (technically, you aren’t even supposed to have advanced stop boxes there – I understand they are legally a traffic signals feature – though I guess in practice, drivers would understand their purpose at a priority control intersection as well or as badly as anywhere else).
There are great examples. Just not in AUSTROADS.
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/transitions-from-one-type-of-infra-to-the-other/
I agree with you on the build-outs. Not only is it hazardous to have cars crossing the cycle lanes to get into parks, but something the planners might not know is how drivers or passengers can fling their doors open just a a cyclist approaches. If the parks were next to the road then they would be 1m away from the cyclists, slightly more than the width of a car door.
I’m confused why, why is the buffer zone between the cycle lane and general lane? and the cycle lane directly adjacent to the parking lane in the door zone? This will encourage cyclists left into the door zone. If the lanes were swapped over it would encourage cyclists out of the door zone, I believe a much safer outcome. (assuming we cant have the parking lane outed the cycle lane with a 500mm wide cerb between them)
Yeah. they should swap the parking and the cycling around. Much more useful for cyclists. Or just remove the parking altogether – although I’m told that’s unpalletable. I love the way you’ve phrased it though – “something that created a typical backlash from locals in the area who felt they deserved a free piece of public space to store their personal possessions”. Ooh you’re a wicked lad. A+
My understanding from a friend who lives on Park Road was that the complaints came from local businesses who were concerned about their customers not being able to park. Which is slightly different from residents wanting to park.
Most complaints came from local residents complaining about parking. There are several posts on transportblog and on the CAA website about that whole issue.
In fact the article in question about the local NIMBYs and the rhetoric is linked to in the article above – click through and read what actually happened and all the fighting CAA and Max did to get anything at all here.
I would of thought that having a protected two way cycle lane on the southern side of the street would of been a better fit for everyone, you would of been able to retain a certain amount of on street car-parking on the northern side while providing better protection for cyclists. Also would give cyclists more room to pass each other.
But yes we are getting better at designing these.
You’d hope they were getting better given the number of quality examples overseas. In fact, how do we still manage to not get it right at all?
I am actually worried that Auckland is starting to do too many two-way cycleways. They have a number of disadvantages, some of which are explained here
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
Personally, I am not as negative on them as Copenhagenize is, but I would prefer them to be mostly limited to major arterials where most if not all side roads are signalised.
So I am happy that we are starting to get a few more one-way protected lanes – we need examples of those too, not just Beach Road style paths.
Next up, convincing someone to actually build a Copenhagen cycle lane (instead of protected lanes which always lose 0.6-1.0m width for the buffer).
K Rd (and Ponsonby Rd) is a sitter for Copenhagen Lanes.
This is a good point I didn’t actually think about!
Yeah, agree on that. Beach rd is really not a good example, poor value for money. Even when the 2nd half is built, I suspect most of the bike traffic will keep going straight along Beach Rd, and use only a small portion of the cycleway. Better than nothing, but what about providing cycle routes along existing routes used by commuters, instead of giving the message that bikers should instead take very convoluted routes? This is also the message given by the Dominion Rd parallel routes program.
There’s some Copenhagen lanes being built in Chch right now along Colombo St – http://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/2014/09/29/more-central-city-transport-plans-out-for-consultation/
Glen, that looks like buffered lanes to me. I am talking of us doing this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Family_bike.jpg?uselang=en-gb
Ability to use the whole width of the space, not just the “channel” between the buffers. Of course not appropriate for areas with parking (needs door buffer), but much better otherwise.
Buffered bike lanes are planned for other streets like Tuam. Colombo is just a raised lip to separate them.
Yes it would HAVE been a better fit.
Now to do something about all those roads and cars in the Domain itself.
Harry, comments like that show how narrow minded cycling advocates can become. There are many reasons why cars and roads exist in the domain and should continue to do so. Just because it might suit you and others of your ilk to ban cars from everywhere, it may not be at all helpful to the masses, who fund cycle lanes etc. Next time you’re out cycling pick up 50 or so tourists or someone’s granny and ‘double’ them up to the museum……
What percentage of cars using the domain are going to the museum? <1% would need my guess
No one on here are saying ban cars, there are better ways of accommodating them as we have now. What we are trying to do is fix the years of under-investment in alternative travel modes within this area and the rest of the city. We need balance, to achieve balance we need to focus on pedestrian, cycling and PT for the next decade to fix the car dominated investment of the last.
Once again you show that you don’t understand how roading infrastructure is paid for.
This is all funded out of general taxation not fuel excise taxes (which has all been burnt up to build the RONs), so everyone pays. There is no reason why cars should be favoured over any other form of transportation, especially one as expensive and inefficient as the private automobile.
Cities are perfect for making at least some journeys by bicycle or PT as well as being much cheaper for the city. If we cater only for car travel, that is what we will get. There is no reason for so much of the domain to be dominated by cars.
Hopefully AT enforce no parking on the footpath as is clearly shown outside 79 and 91 CGR.
I don’t think they enforce the no parking on footpaths law unless somebody complains, I don’t get it, why would you bother to build a footpath if you are going to allow it to be blocked by parked cars.
The super long curb cut format of off street parking puts pedestrians and cyclists at heightened risk. It is rightly banned in the district plan.
It sucks that the road upgrade has been designed around this non-compliant parking layout. It turns a protected cycle lane into 50+m of extra high risk unprotected cycle lane.
For your reference district plan clauses (Auckland city part12b)
12.8.2.2 VEHICULAR ACCESS OVER FOOTPATHS
Vehicular crossing over footpaths shall comply with the following conditions:…
ii) The maximum width of any crossing at the road frontage boundary shall be 6m;
iii) The combined width of the two crossings permitted to any residential site shall not exceed 7.0m;
iv) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing clauses the total crossing width for any front or corner site shall not exceed 50% of the frontage to any road in which it is placed;
12.8.2.3 REVERSE MANOEUVRING
Where, on any site:…
ii) Four or more parking spaces gain access from a collector, local road, or service lane; or …
sufficient space shall be provided on the site so that no reverse manoeuvring on or off the road is necessary by the vehicles using the parking or loading space.
I see that redevelopment is reducing its reversing carparks to 4 so maybe it had to comply as part of its consent? Though it is wider than 6m so maybe not.
Following this, I hope they look at Davis Cresent. It is essentially the link between Newmarket and the domain but is extremely pedestrian unfriendly.
Could easily do with a realignment of the footpath and a small shared zone at the intersection of Short and Davis to enable easy crossing. Add to that, that little bit of Davis crescent that goes into the carpark should be pedestrianized – do we really need a dedicated road to a carpark.
Guess the inhabitants of 129-139 Carlton Gore Road won’t be terribly impressed when they look out their windows and see only two lanes reserved for vehicular traffic and cycleways on both sides of the road, not to mention all those other vaguely active mode improvements. But they should be gratified to see all those parking spaces and the two lane intersection. An improvement, but as with most Auckland Transport road layouts the phrase ‘could do better’ seems apposite.
The biggest thing for me is that without plans for connecting these roads into other roads, without building proper cycle safe intersections and creating ‘dead ends’ where the infrastructure ends and you’re on your own, I think we are wasting our time. I know CAA works hard to win these, but until AT actually commits to a step change in how they view cycling infrastructure then it’s never going to be enough to get kids and women on bikes. Road warriors will ride anywhere, I’d probably ride this, but I wouldn’t let my mum or niece anywhere near it. We can and should be doing better.
Don’t think that piecemeal infrastructure will someday magically get connected either. I’ve attached a link below to my observations in Vancouver and what we’re getting will be worse than this, but with the same challenges. Without spoiling it, there are gaps all over and I’ve spoken to the Vancouver council cycling guys and they are completely stymied from finishing the rest – no funds and no political will. Every issue I raise they are aware of, but are powerless. 6 years on and everything has stagnated. And that’s under a super-pro cycling mayor where there are 70,000 trips a month in the dead of winter on a single bike lane.
If this is against the rules let me know – I don’t have adverts or make any money, thought it’s somewhere relevant to share.
http://blog.davidroos.co.nz/cycling-to-work/
Hi David – totally agree that it’s a massive challenge to get things connected up. And the harsh truth is that for years to come, much of “the offering” will not appeal to the 60% of the people or so that want to ride. I mean, once you’re at the top at Park Road, where do you go as a less confident rider – bus lanes it is for you then, and will be for the near future.
But I personally see us building a network that works for the 5-10% first, creating a (compared to current numbers) wave of new cyclists which then builds a case for a better network that is rideable by the 20% and so on. I know a lot of people get frustrated at the slow pace that implies, and at the risk that at some stage the improvement stagnates.
However, I haven’t found a better way than incrementalism yet, despite some of the angrier people from the cycling community all but accusing groups like CAA of being enablers of bad design because we see the incremental steps as positives, rather than defeats. Copenhagen didn’t do it any other way – they just started a couple decades earlier, and didn’t have their version of a Copenhagen to look at at the same time. Knowing what Auckland should do is not the same as having a way to get Auckland to do same thing (quickly). I have accepted that fact, and try to take it one step at a time (if at times with acid reflux in my stomach and anger in my heart – I still know I am doing the right thing).
Again, I never want to come off as bad mouthing you guys – you’re the only ones affecting any positive change. My frustration lies fully at the feet at AT the govt.
Amsterdam and Copehagen had political visions. I fear the political landscape nowadays punishes any vision of a different world as idealism and is derided. I get frustrated a lot 🙂
Wasn’t thinking of you – just musing on certain others in the cycle community, and their function. Somewhere in between making sure that we (CAA) don’t get too comfy with AT/NZTA and their tendency to assume bad faith at the slightest or even no provocation.
I am not sure whether Amsterdam or Copenhagen had it any easier. Hindsight on success stories tends to focus on the achievements, not on the times the fighters wanted to smash their heads against the nearest wall, or those good people who gave up because they couldn’t keep putting up with the sh**. I come from a very political background, and man did my parents and their friends lose a lot of fights in their activist years. Yet they also achieved some good things, and yet the world still has poverty and war and corruption and the 1% owning the 99%. Some fights go on forever, and the worst thing you can do is beat yourself (or the other people on your side) up for not achieving all you wanted. That way lies cynicism and burn-out.
I’m sure they had to figure a lot out and messes up a lot, but we shouldn’t have to! We have the reference case of what works and what doesn’t and (as I’m sure you are all too aware), no one with any say in things seems to care.
The Dutch were protesting about this. That’s the problem here (and elsewhere) – middle class life is comfortable and no one will rock the boat. Everyone is too busy working so as to buy All The Things™ No one is willing to try for anything better for fear that things will change, but things will change regardless. For most people I fear ‘better’ still equates to every road being 18 lanes wide and ignoring the rest of humanity.
“The prime minister at the time declared that the Netherlands needed to become less dependent on foreign energy and could do so by changing policies without decreasing residents’ quality of life. In short, government policies actively began to promote bicycle infrastructure as a solution to both quell the protests over fatalities and address energy concerns”
I won’t ask who assumes bad faith. I am definitely on the extreme end, I suppose, where I think if it’s not done right* then it’s not worth it, but pragmatists get things done. I’ll definitely come along when I’m home in January, maybe if my rants are added to the chorus it will help sink in 🙂
*perfectly
If you didn’t do things incrementally, it is hard to see that anything would get done. One day the routes will all get connected, just maybe not today. So, keep up the good work!
Max,
There are a few points you make that deserve counterpoints. I missed this thread, so pardon the late reply.
>> “I haven’t found a better way than incrementalism yet”
There are many more ways to incrementally skin this cat. Why do you presume that your way is the only one?
If AT proposed to build bike infrastructure at a rate of 1cm per year, it would still be incremental — would you support that?
The key difference is what kind of network we are building, whether it meets some minimum threshold of quality, shape and size. Are we building the right thing? Is each project contributing to the right vision and strategy? In other words, what are the increments in our plan, and are there better, feasible options?
So the choice is not between incrementalism and perfectionism; that’s a straw man. No one is asking for a wholesale reconstruction of Auckland all at once (that might be nice, though). Still, whatever is built in increments must be evaluated to see if it is enough, nevermind perfect.
Thus we can ask whether radial routes are the right way to unfold a bike network, or whether neighbourhood grids should be a higher priority. Likewise, the Auckland Cycling Network. We can test designs for frontage exposure and intersection density, to see if they open up access to origins/destinations, or cross-streets/side-streets. We can count the number of significant places that a project might link origins/destinations to, such as train stations, bus interchanges, schools and so on.
All of these questions are on the table, within an incrementalist context: we’d still have to roll out an alternative network design neighbourhood by neighbourhood, station by station, etc., over years.
But how many years?
>> “Copenhagen didn’t do it any other way – they just started a couple decades earlier, and didn’t have their version of a Copenhagen to look at at the same time.”
Firstly, in Copenhagen, as in Amsterdam, the change was more rapid than you suggest. It did not take decades to achieve major changes in the vision and strategy, or to implement enough of it to have more than a 5-10% impact. Their only advantage has been more time to improve above and beyond that.
Secondly, the fact that we have a Copenhagen to look at, and that all this city-scale knowledge has been established by precedent, only makes it easier for us. We also have improved technology, education, and skills to aid us. Even if Copenhagen took decades to achieve anything meaningful, we ought now to do it faster.
Thirdly, I understand CAA has been around for something like decades, while every local government body from ARA down has made noises about cycling and cut ribbons with a cycle symbol nearby.
>> “I personally see us building a network that works for the 5-10% first, creating a (compared to current numbers) wave of new cyclists which then builds a case for a better network that is rideable by the 20% and so on.”
Growing from 5% to 10% to 20% is all well and good. Doing so with “a network” does not automatically follow: it could perhaps be done with multiple networks. These aggregated numbers neglect questions of quality, size and shape of the design — at every altitude of planning, not just the details.
>> “we see the incremental steps as positives, rather than defeats”
This is not a war, there are no victories or defeats. It is a matter of asking whether we as a city are doing the right things, whether we are doing enough, and where we can or should do better.
If you didn’t do things incrementally, it is hard to see that anything would get done. One day the routes will all get connected, just maybe not today. So, keep up the good work!
indeed, if you ride to the east and arrive at Davis Crescent (last image), you arrive at what’s sometimes called a pinch point, where one wide lane of cars turns into 2 narrow lanes, and no room for bikes.
Practical guide:
– If you want to follow the road code, ride on the road.
– If you want to stay alive, jump on the kerb at Clayton Street and ride on the footpath—slow.
Note also the alignment of the stop stripe with the roadway (and not the footpath).
The piecemeal approach can end badly as well. They build some dead-ends and disconnected pieces of cycle lane, and then they can show no-one uses them, so they’re a waste of money and should not be built. There are a lot of people here who honestly believe cycling doesn’t belong in a city, and I suspect it’s actually the majority of people, since you don’t even see city bikes at all in bicycle shops.
Thanks for linking to your pictures. It was really interesting to see that bike’s-eye view of Vancouver! And I think you’re dead on with the need for vision and consistent delivery of a connected, everywhere-to-everywhere cycle network.
I used to live in Park Road (now demolished for more Med School) and everyone in our flat had a bike. But I question the need for a cycle lane in Carlton Gore Rd, when its right next to the Domain! Every chance i had, i’d just bike through the Domain, rather than use that damn road in Carlton Gore. If I may be so rude as to say so, what Auckland needs is a strategic Masterplan of where they (AC / AT) will build a linked up set of cycle lanes. Not sure this little bit of one is really doing much use on its own?
My impression is AT are adding cycle lanes everytime they look to renew a price of road. CGR just got upgraded so they will add the green paint. This is a good cost effective way to improve the network where dedicated projects needed to link into a network.
The issue us the upgrade was completed 6 months ago so it looks like a separate project. They need to shorten timeframes or consult well in advance.
The plans to put cycle lanes on CGR existed since 2011 (I have plans from then), so yes – one of the poorest aspects of the whole experience was the constant delays.
But that is assuming that Carlton Gore is a thorough fare, not the destination. These cycle lanes will encourage more people to buy locally, rather than drive to big box retail.
that is actually what happens if you build cycle infrastructure, even limited piece meal stuff like this:
http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2015/03/the-complete-business-case-for-converting-street-parking-into-bike-lanes/387595/
I admit that I often prefer to cut through the Domain, rather than go through the part of CGR west of George Street. I may still do so in the future.
Do you know the biggest reason why? Because that part is horrible at the moment.
What a mess.
International evidence is clear that to avoid congestion and make roads safer for everyone the way to go about it is to remove traffic obstructions. Yet in Auckland we go completely the opposite way, designing our roads like commando courses and then sitting back wondering why we have so much congestion and why our roads are unsafe.
I feel sorry for the businesses who will no doubt be disrupted when this work takes place. Last time (only around 18 months ago) the businesses down the bottom of Carlton Gore Road suffered a reduction in sales of around 30% yet did not receive one cent of compensation. I imagine the disruption this time will be similar albeit hopefully for a shorter period.
Carlton Gore Rd does not need a cycle lane. Downhill, cyclists do speeds very similar to cars. Uphill the sight lines are the best you will see on any road in Auckland. What are the cyclist accident statistics for this road?
Furthermore the cycle lane does not feed into any other cycle lanes which greatly limits it’s usefulness.
It is hard to see how these changes provide any sort of value to wheeled pedestrians, tyre pedestrians or bi-pedal pedestrians who don’t need a pedestrian crossing to cross a road that doesn’t experience a lot of congestion.
Surely this money could have been used elsewhere to create a multi-modal mode that doesn’t currently exist?
The voice of reason. I question this too. More rates wasted on something that will have little or no usage.
Yes the Council is obsessed with restricting traffic flows at every opportunity, it’s beyond a joke and shows an appalling lack of understanding of how to keep a city MOVING – which costs us all financially as we pay more for goods and services as traversing the city becomes harder with each ‘improvement’.
“an appalling lack of understanding of how to keep a city MOVING” – the best way to get PEOPLE (not cars) moving around a city is to discourage people from driving cars and making more (note more, not all) journeys by public transport, walking or cycling.
You are obviously coming from the perspective of someone who aims to make 100% of their journeys by car, regardless of whether that is the best choice for that journey.
You will never build enough roads to eliminate or even significantly reduce congestion – especially in a relatively dense city like Auckland. No city in the world has ever done it. Even Houston, which pretty much bet the bank on everyone driving everywhere, is now building light rail and separated cycle infrastructure as they realise their current system is going nowhere.
You really need to do some more reading so that you can see all these unfounded assumptions you have do not stand up to actual real world evidence.
I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon when I’m on a downhill, doing speeds very similar to cars. (Even downhill on Bond St, when I’m doing exactly the same speed as cars.) The drivers look at me and decide that because I’m on a bike, I must be going slow, and they try to pass and cut in front of me. But I’m going faster than they expect, and they often misjudge. Just because I’m going the same speed as them doesn’t make me safe.
I often find that it makes it more unsafe when going same speed as the vehicles. Drivers cant fathom the fact your doing such speed and therefore in their confused state often pull out some dangerous maneuver cutting you off.
Sorry but there is no such international evidence and I challenge you to find any and cite it. You are just assuming this because it seems like common sense but many things about traffic systems are counter intuitive.
Removing traffic signals and making streets more chaotic has been found to slow traffic and make the roads safer.
http://caa.org.nz/the-benefits-of-traffic-anarchy/
Cycle infrastructure has consistently made the streets they are on safer for all users.
http://caa.org.nz/protected-cycle-lanes-boom-in-the-us/
Also cycle infrastructure has been consistently found to be good for local businesses:
http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2015/03/the-complete-business-case-for-converting-street-parking-into-bike-lanes/387595/
You can’t avid congestion. It is the sign of a healthy city. Detroit has very low traffic congestion. It is also bankrupt and failing.
“Furthermore the cycle lane does not feed into any other cycle lanes which greatly limits it’s usefulness”
So you are saying “Lets not build any cycle lanes because we have not built any cycle lanes in the past.”? The irony should be earth-shattering, but sadly you are immune to it.
Looks awesome, and a grand improvement on what’s there right now. Will make a really useful part of a Network that goes from Great North (through Karangahape, Park) all the way down Manukau Rd. I hope thought has been given to linking this up with the new University of Auckland campus adjacent.
Sorry but I think that is a crazy design!
If you have the cycle lanes on the outside next to the footpath it is logical – as shown in images 1 & 2.
But to then have the cycle lanes in the middle between traffic lanes and parking..?
Far better to have the cycle lanes running through the pedestrian build-outs in a trench at road level.
You could then run a curb or bollards (width – 200mm?) to separate the cycleway and parking – both being narrower than the 0.5m painted medians, thus widening the road a little or creating space with a road marking between the driver’s side door and traffic.
At the Davis Cres end a cycle lane on the outside could easily merge and finish into the footpath where the 2 traffic lanes are required for the intersection.
At the very least if this design goes ahead unaltered then the eastbound cycle lane should merge at its finish. There are 3 carparks either side of a build out where the cycle lane could rejoin the footpath.
Why does Davis Cres end even need two lanes. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a line there.
I’m commenting based on the images of the post – image 5 (right or wrong) has two traffic lanes at its east end, and wrongly a cycleway that dies in the middle of a road.
Having bicycles between the footpath and parked cars is international best practice in countries where a large proportion of people cycle. It is much safer as long as the bikes are travelling away from the door zone.
Driveways are a problem but this just has to be dealt with. It hasn’t been a real challenge on the Beach Road cycleway. I have generally found people exiting driveways to be very polite and cooperative. This isn’t referring to the people who decide it is a parking lane.
Excellent that they are making the roads safer for bicycle users!
Having motorists further frustrated by cutting into already congested roading does not increase cyclist safety.
Have you ever actually been on Carlton Gore Rd. It’s hardly congested even at peak times.
Yes.
Yes it does. A slower (or congested) car is a safer car.
I weep for drivers who, after having 95% of the New Zealand public streets optimised for their use, are not getting the last 5% as well – or even having to contemplate a future in which only 80 or 90% of the streets might be absolutely dominated by them.
This must be one of the less congested road in Newmarket/City. Your taking the piss right?
I actually think this is a really great outcome and is brilliant and that to many people in the comments are focusing on detail.
From a high level perspective, separated cycle lanes down a third or half a road even a small one would have been a dream several years ago.
I think this is an important decision because it is going to set a precedent – which is actually really really important. Beach rd was the beginning but to have a road with houses on it with people saying that parking is so very important to be challenged on mass by others – and for this this non-parking / protected cycle lane view to be accepted by Auckland Council is simply ground breaking.
I look forward to all road consultations and upgrades over the next few years. Things are just going to get better and better so we don’t get ridiculous and expensive cycle upgrades like Dominion road again.
Agreed. This is a massive step forward, and protected cycle lanes like these wouldn’t have even been considered a couple of years ago. Yes, the design has it’s faults, and yeeeesss I wince at the thought of being clobbered by a car door while cycling downhill on CGR some time in the future. But other than that – what an improvement. And what a great statement of intent by AT.
Here’s a simple question for all of you. How many cyclists will ACTUALLY use these lanes? Why do cyclist advocates obsess about being allowed to travel on arterial routes? Why aren’t cyclists provided with paths or routes AWAY from main roads?
All I see in these changes is more congestion and frustration for ALL users of these roads, as if they weren’t bad enough already.
Please enlighten us as to how this will increase congestion. The road is currently one lane each way and that won’t change with these works. As for your other comments, this is not an arterial route, that’s Khyber Pass. It is however important that it is safe for cyclists to get places like shops and employment safely and this is one small segment in providing for that – you do realise that people cycle for more than just sport don’t you?
To be completely honest I drive all over Auckland and cycle lanes are mostly empty, regardless of the time of day. When traffic is heavy motorists create an extra lane (although not marked) which will now not happen so easily.
As I asked, my simple question is ‘how many cyclists will ACTUALLY use these lanes’? Cycle lanes are great in theory but suffer under utilization.
I have cycled regularly to work in a few places on the North Shore, and yes you will see empty cycle paths, but as said elsewhere, that’s because for the most part they are small isolated stretches without connections to other places.
And yes we need to have cycle paths on arterials, because (especially on the isthmus) that’s where a lot of the shops and restaurants etc. are, and that’s the most direct route from A to B in most cases.
We have a bit of a catch-22 here. Nobody cycles because for most people it seems simply too dangerous. And nobody supports cycle paths because nobody sees any cyclists on the road. Although I definitely see more of them than 3 years ago.
When we have a connected safe cycle network, like our currently connected roading network, then numbers will be huge.
How many people used to drive their car across the harbour from St Marys Bay to Northcote before the bridge was built? Not too many.
Most people will only start cycling when there is a joined up network that allows them to safely travel around. Until then we will be stuck with the usual 2-3% of people who will cycle on substandard infrastructure.
How many people would use SH1 if every few kilometres it stopped being a motorway and became a local street again? That is basically what people cycling are dealing with.
You should really try and do some more reading around how other cities have encouraged more people to cycle (look up Seville for a start). Your lack of actual real world evidence and knowledge is quite embarrassing.
As I aid above, you are obviously someone who endeavours to make 100% of your journeys by car and never question whether some of those journeys (even 10%) would be better made by PT, walking or cycling. Therefore you are constantly frustrated by the traffic around you and how slow the journey is. But remember, you aren’t in traffic, you are traffic.
I make 90% of my journeys by cycling or public transport and therefore share none of that frustration.
“How many people would use SH1 if every few kilometres it stopped being a motorway and became a local street again? That is basically what people cycling are dealing with.” – Disagree with this, it’s more like driving down a road that stops every 100meters and turns into a massive safari strip with elephants and wild horses storming around!
I disagree with this, it’s more like the equivalent of driving down a road that stops every 100meters and turns into a military training ground where 50-ton tanks cross your path hurtling along at speed.
And then having someone tell you that you should get a tank of your own, if you’re so worried about that.
Well as Max points out so eloquently above, this single stretch of cycle lane is not a complete network. It’s incremental, so the increase in people cycling, on CGR and elsewhere, will be incremental.
But it’s a step in the right direction.
I spent years cycling on CGR. Contrary to what some people may think, it’s far from safe as it is. Not sure what the stats show but (a) they don’t count near misses and (b) it didn’t _feel_ particularly safe.. in either direction. As an aside, the changes will benefit pedestrians too. Not perfect, but good.
Meanwhile, to argue that not many people will use these particular cycle lanes, unconnected as they are, is a bit like arguing that, after one of the first, unconnected sections of the Harbour Bridge was built, not many people will use it.
Hi Ricardo. If the roads looked like the map on the right, would they be well used? I agree it’s a waste – if the rest aren’t built.
http://i.imgur.com/oQoF6y3.png
“What a terrible design you horrible, horrible engineers. As armchair engineers we know best and you are doing it wrong regardless of the fact we have little-to-no understanding of all the stakeholders involved nor the political and financial realities. If we can’t have a perfect gold plated solution lets just not bother building anything at all.”
Sounds like a great approach guys to getting AT to do stuff. Having said that I am sure there are plenty of good cycling advocates working with AT to get this stuff done in the first place as AT very slowly builds a network for future cyclists. The road network didn’t get built over night and neither will the cycle network.
Khyber pass is the arterial for vehicles and buses….Carlton gore is adjacent to a major feature and in Auckland which lends its self to recreation. Vehicle access should be limited to local residents and people with mobility issues and other users who need to transport kids etc. There are train stations a couple 100 meters from both ends of the road for commuters. Regular bus services on Park Rd, Broadway & Khyber Pass….
The design has a few safety concerns with regard to the cycle lane on the outside of the parked cars (car doors & cars pulling out/in over the lane and in between traffic. Also the end of the lane near Davis terrace is a concern ?If traffic is backed up for the left turn onto Davis terrace it will go over the cycle lane. I would like to see if AT can address these issues and improve this slightly