A report to Auckland Transport’s board next week highlights their proposed cycle programme for the next three years which if built fully will see $207 million invested in cycling over that time. That includes funding from AT, the NZTA and the Governments Urban Cycling Fund (UCF) – for which AT and the NZTA have put a joint bid in for $82m in funding. It also includes cycle infrastructure included as part of other projects such as the AMETI. The proposed programme consists of:
- A total investment of $179m on dedicated cycle projects
- Approximately $20m of cycle facilities delivered through other projects
- Over $8m on marketing, training and behaviour change programmes to facilitate growth in cycle journeys.
In total AT say it would add 53km of new cycle routes and increase annual cycle journeys increasing from 900,000 to 2.5 million per year. I’m not too sure how they work those numbers out but it is a significant increase. Since 2010 the handful of automatic cycle counters AT have installed have recorded a 23.8% increase in people riding bikes. AT also say their research shows that one in four people own a bike and 60% per cent of Aucklanders would cycle if separated cycle facilities were installed. Positively they also say this
Internationally the correlation between high levels of cycling and cycle infrastructure separated from volume and speed motor traffic is strong. The organisations own research shows that single greatest barrier to cycling in Auckland is that its roads are perceived as unsafe to cycle.
And of course safety is a big factor. In the 2014 financial year there were 2 deaths and 40 serious injuries and that equates to social costs of $36.5 million and that doesn’t count the costs of people who might cycle living having increased health problems from living more sedentary lives.
The programme isn’t without its risks though and the biggest ones are likely to be financial as it depends on more funding from the council. Other risks include deliverability – as it would require AT/NZTA to significantly ramp up processes to adapt to the increased funding, other major projects such as the CRL/LRT/new bus network and the need to remove parking from some streets.
It’s important for Auckland that AT get as much funding as they can out of the Urban Cycle Funding and they say this about it and their proposals.
The panel assessing UCF proposals has set out clear parameters for the funding. Submissions must deliver:
– Connected networks
– Cycle facilities on primary corridors
– An increase in utility cycling journeys: to workplaces, schools and shops
– Innovative, high quality infrastructureThe UCF will invest in the projects that are most likely to deliver the highest levels of modal shift and therefore justify further investment in cycling. In response, AT and the Transport Agency have proposed a programme focussed on the City Centre. The neighbourhoods within 5-7km of the City Centre currently record the highest modal share for cycling in Auckland, with approximately 4 per cent of people cycling to work. In addition they have the highest numbers of people that AT research identifies are most likely to cycle.
The bid proposes four packages to develop a network of cycle routes within and leading to the City Centre
- City Centre Package: This package includes segregated cycle routes across the City Centre as well as minor interventions that will make the whole City Centre more permeable for people on bicycles.
- Eastern Connections: This package focuses on delivering a high quality off-road route along the rail line from Glen Innes to Tamaki Drive, and connections to this route.
- Western Connections: This package delivers new routes through the Western Bays as well as connections to the North-Western Cycleway.
- Connections to Public Transport Hubs: This package will focus on the busiest public transport stations in Auckland and will deliver ‘end of trip’ facilities as well as on-road improvements to support cycle trips.
I’m sure many will be concerned about having such a central city focus however I do think that’s the right strategy. In my opinion we need to have a couple of areas where there is a decent amount of cycle infrastructure so that the general public can start to see that things can be better than just a few bits of paint on the road. Using the past approach of spreading any investment around the entire region means we could be waiting decades for there to be a strong enough network to see significant changes in bike use.
The map below highlights AT’s proposed cycleways. Despite the city centre focus there are still some notable gaps such as Ponsonby Rd, Franklin Rd and many others however if this is delivered within three years it would be a significant improvement on what we have now.
The tables below summarise the investment over the next year and the three year period.
Of that $179.4 million for dedicated cycleways it is broken down as per below.
The NZTA’s $58.7 million is made up of the following projects
While AT’s $111.2 million is made up of the projects in the table below which also provides an idea of timing for each of them.
The other AT CAPEX which comes as part of other AT projects.
These projects will really help improve cycling in and around the city centre and as mentioned should help in showing Auckland in general what kind of cycling facilities are possible when we put our mind and some money towards it.
Processing...
The vast majority of cycle trips in countries with very high cycle mode share are local trips – less than 5km. This fails to recognise this. The linking to PT hubs us the best idea on that NZTA list. Pity it seems to be lower on the list.
We seem to be following examples from the likes of London or New York rather than Copenhagen or the Netherlands.
You to start somewhere so it makes sense to do it in the place with the current highest use that also has the potential for the most growth
Which is aimed at able bodied adults. Not kids riding to school, parents going to local shops, kids riding to friends houses or sports events. Suburban stuff. This is where massive growth could be and is proven to be overseas. #Motorwaybuilding
Many of these projects are on-road protected cycle facilities in urban areas. Not motorway building at all. And I guess I disagree with you – the big “startup market” for quick cycle mode share is in the more urban areas, not the more suburban areas.
We have once chance every one or two decades to turn cycling around. Money needs to be concentrated to make a visible impact.
Bryce you have it 100% right in my view – especially around schools, where so many kids are dropped off and picked up by parents who are quite rightly terrified of letting their kids loose on Auckland’s roads.
These central bike lanes are still a good idea of course, but children’s safety must come first and I want the focus to be on Auckland’s schools. Make it safe and then we’ll be fostering a generation who are riding their bikes again while also reducing the twice-daily school traffic peaks.
What can we do, and get huge results, for not a lot of money? Here’s how. http://caa.org.nz/te-atatu-peninsula-and-30-kmh-zones/ Best guess on funding – $10M tops.
But kids don’t pay rates or tax so they can suck eggs.
Agreed – I’d love to see safe cycle neighbourhoods centred on schools and shops. Within a certain radius of the school, have protected cycling facilities on the main roads and a 30km/h zone on the side streets.
That said, these projects do a fair bit to correct the bitsiness of the current infrastructure, and hopefully the uptake will encourage more projects. (Though I notice there’s still a river of crocodiles at the top of Dominion Rd between the
‘parallel routes’ and the Ian McKinnon project, so only the brave 2-4% will be able to get to Ian McKinnon Dr, just like now.)
Without going into financial breakdowns etc, I support Bryce’s idea purely as a parent. I use the North-Western cycleway every time I commute to work, about twice a week, and I love riding on it, however I would love my children to cycle to school which is just 2 kms away, and would currently involve them travelling on a very busy arterial road with no cycling provision, or on a narrow footpath alongside it. And while work is currently being carried out to add an onroad 1.5m cycling lane to part of the route my children would have to take, this is nowhere enough to provide the needed safety. Really, the footpath and the 1.5m cycling lane shouldhave been combined into a shared path to allow safe travel for cycling kids. Right now you’d be lucky to see a dozen kids travelling the route, that number could have been increased to hundreds by providing adequate facilities. That, in turn, would take many parents’ cars off the roads, further increasing safety and dicreasing congestion. Yes, that would probably slightly inconvenience long-distance commuting cyclists during the school rush hour – a small price to pay which in my opinion is highly outweighed by the many benefits.
Matt,
Prioritizing the central areas makes sense. However, these projects do not seem to show sensitivity to what is actually on the ground there: the fine-grained street grids, neighbourhood catchments, intersections, frontage, shops, schools, PT, etc. What Bryce is saying about short, local trips is equally true of the city centre and fringe neighbourhoods as it is in the far-flung suburbs.
The scale at which this map is drawn is the problem: it’s still oriented towards long, linear corridors, dodging front doors, not providing for cross-routes, main streets and their side streets. That’s a strategic error impacting both suburban and central network development. Although this is undeniably a quantum of progress compared to the current state of affairs, it shows that the network is growing according to a simple algorithm: build the least useful parts first.
53km in 3 years sounds impressive, but the nature and design of each kilometre is certainly questionable. Besides the various motorway-bound paths, greenways and missing main streets, I note that some joke facilities are marked “existing” (Grafton area). Hard to have confidence in what will come of the rest, then.
Arch Hill/Grey Lynn to K Rd is 2km via Great North Road. This will be massive. I can’t think of a more important short link between a dense residential catchment and a heap of destinations.
+1
Why doesn’t the West End Road bit connect to the Jervois Road bit? It must right?
All this money being thrown at projects left, right and centre and we cant even get a paltry 10mil/year for seal extensions.
Leave the seals out of it, they are fine as they are.
Seals need love too.
What will the result of more seal be?
If it is more auto dependency I doubt we should be spending on it, if it’s less it should be prioritised against all of the other active mode projects that struggle for funding.
I know there’s an anti car agenda here but you’ll never get away from ‘auto dependency’ in rural areas. Tell ya what though, you’d have to have rocks in ya head to ride a bike on this shit so there’s every chance it might improve cycle usage if that’s your thing.
Sealing might also mean the school bus wont face peril everyday. Or me and anyone else using them for that matter. Kinda sick of being forced into the gutter by Fonterra trucks, smashing through pot holes or being forced onto the wrong side to avoid falling off it.
Might stop some of the choking clouds dust discharged into the air in summer or the silt washing into the Kaipara in winter. You know, the Kaipara, the other harbour in this place. Biggest in the southern hemisphere, most important snapper breeding ground on the west coast, most mismanaged in Auckland etc etc, must have heard of it.
Rah, rah rah….
If the rural ‘lifestyle’ doesn’t appeal then maybe you should look at moving into the city where the density allows for cost effective sealed roads and I haven’t seen a Fonterra tanker ever in my street.
And add another couple of cars to your roads?
No thanks, cant handle the smug, elitist, urbane, cyclists.
Well then don’t expect the urbane to pay for your roads, which is exactly what you are asking for!
You’re only entitled to as much infrastructure spending as any other ratepayer. If you chose to live spread way out in a rural area then that’s fine, but you’re infrastructure spend gets spread way out too.
Here’s a metal road in the Kaipara I picked at random: Okahukura Rd https://goo.gl/maps/n6t5t. It’s 12km long, and according to the census data that whole end of Tapora has only 114 residents living in 48 dwellings. That’s about four houses per kilometre.
Basic sealing costs $86 per lineal metre on average, according to AT’s budgeted spend in Rodney, so that one road would cost $1.03m to seal. That’s a spend of $9,000 per person or $21,000 per ratepayer. Now looking at these properties on the online rates index they are dairy farms of 50 to 100 hectares each that pay $2,000 to $4,000 a year in rates. So sealing that one road would consume the whole community’s entire rates payments for the best part of a decade.
What makes these folks so special that they deserve that kind of platinum plated infrastructure spend?
By way of comparison, the inner suburban street I live on is 180m long and has 219 people living on it in 109 dwellings. That’s about 605 homes per kilometre. So in this example, my suburban street has 150 times as many ratepayers per metre than the rural road in kairapara. So it is only fair that the rural road gets 1/150th of the amount of rates money per metre as my suburban street.
In fact just looking at the numbers my little street and the one next to it pay more in rates each year than the entire Tapora peninsula. You should be more kind to us urban elitist cyclists, we’re subsidising your lifestyle.
LOL could you have picked anywhere more remote and less representative of what I’m talking about?
And, 50-100 hectare dairy farms pay $2-4000 in rates? Really? I quickly found at least 2 farmers there paying over $10000. There are farmers here a hell of a lot closer than that paying $20000 and more. And since when was a basic sealed road ‘platinum plated infrastructure’?
But anyway, perhaps we could apply similar logic to other forms of taxation? Health, education, how about general access to roads? Carry around a ‘tax paid’ certificate to gain access perhaps? Pay more tax, get better services, right?
You can see how stupid this argument becomes.
Yes really, I looked at their exact rates for this year all along that road. You can find the rates paid by any property in the region here: http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/ If you don’t like my example then name a road you want sealed and I can run the same numbers.
You are missing the point, a sealed road is indeed platinum plated infrastructure if it only serves a few dozen homes over 12km. Spending a million bucks on a transport project that serves only 100 people is a mega gold plated outcome.
You are likewise missing the point with your straw man about tax paid cards or whatever. Consider this, lets say everybody pays the same tax/rates, obviously that isn’t quite true, but if so it is only fair that everybody gets the same amount spent on them in return.
Auckland Council receives about $1,5b a year in rates and spends about a third of that on transport. So $500m a year on all kinds of transport expenditure, much of that on just maintaining what we have already. So if you do the numbers to be perfectly fair we should get $312 of transport spending per person per year (most of which needs to go on maintenance and renewals, let alone new projects). What you are asking for is far more money to be spent per person in very low density rural areas. That’s just not fair.
Ok yes my example above is extreme and the\is analysis isn’t very sophisticated, but If it costs $86k to seal a kilometre of road, and each person deserves no more than $312 a year of transport expenditure from the rates budget, then each persons full share buys about 3m of seal. How far would that go on your typical unsealed road given the number of people living on it? Its just a simple fact that when you live far apart you end up with a lot of kilometres of road to serve few people, and if those people get their fair share of the pie then the only outcome is you get to spend much much less per kilometre on their roads.
In my fairly dense neighborhood it works fine, me and my two hundred neighbors each deserve our $312 worth of transport funding, which together works out to be $68,328 a year. More than enough to reseal our 180m of street every ten or fifteen years, plus chip in for the main roads, the bus, the cycleways etc. I know suburban and rural folk feel hard done by when they see the amount of funds that get spent on central Auckland, but its fair because thats where a whole lot lot more people live and work. Just under twice as many people live in the CBD and inner city suburbs as the whole of Rodney, not to mention the number that commute in. About a quarter million Aucklanders visit the city centre on a typical weekday.
Tony, will you Rodney people be asking for a special levy to fund the $25m Nautilus leaky building bill, or would you like the rest of us to subsidise your bill.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11441337
Coming from a CBD dweller, it’s a good start, and then we can start pushing for the ‘inbetween’ bits to actually get everywhere. I’m dreaming of the whole queen street valley car free which connects things well enough.
We’re a million miles away from cycling to stores in parnell still, and as long as people have the expectation of being ‘in the right’ no matter where they take their car, those gaps can’t be bridged by sharing – 8 million won’t cover that. 80 million wouldn’t. Build these, cut cars from the rest of downtown. Watch Ponsonby and parnell look on in envy and try to ‘catch up’.
Fantastic. Matt Franklin Rd is not there simply because that’s funded in the renewals programme, and the same goes for many other routes in many other parts of the city too.
So a good number of the gaps will be connected through that way, even parts of Ponsonby Rd, I’m hearing. Which isn’t on the list because of the forces of dreary there who will hold the future back for a few years. Same person is keeping the cars in High St a little longer. So it goes.
The transformation of the city is underway and very exciting. Hopefully there’ll be a contractor or two available to do the work!
Franklin Rd will only get cycleways if the locals don’t succeed in getting them scrapped -and they are pushing very hard for that
Yeah, ‘for safety’ ffs
I always get a sinking feeling when a person commenting on cycle paths begins their sentence with “I am a cyclist too” or “I am concerned about the safety of cyclists”. They then usually go on to mention a reason that is so minor but claim it is a show stopper.
Exactly what a few Franklin Rd residents are saying, ‘we support cycling, but….’
But it should happen on another street. But I might have to give way to one when driving into my garage [some kind of lethal impossibility apparently]. But butbutbutbutbut.
This is where a temporary trial would be so valuable. Put in cheap planters and dividers that can be easily removed.
Start the trial and after 6 months assess the data. I guarantee that 90% of the negatives the residents are afraid of never materialise.
The mayor and others were all gaga when Janette Sadikh-Khan talked about this, but as soon as she left it was back to the old “oh that worked in New York but it can’t in Auckland” BS.
Otherwise, AT just need to grow some cojones and do it over the objections of the residents. They don’t own the street.
There has been some research done by Copengahenize to better model and describe this phenomena:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2013/05/bike-share-graph-gauging-public-opinion.html
There is almost no safety issue that isn’t helped by dropping the speed limit to 30.
I’m sure the residents would agree. 😉
I don’t see the SW cycleway to New Lynn (via rail corridor) connection or the Whau shared boardwalk in the plans. What is happening with them?
The Greenway walk/cycle paths come from Council budgets, not AT.
The route west from Waterview to New Lynn probably wasn’t included in this yet because design isn’t far enough yet, and Waterview path (into which it is to tie into) also doesn’t have consent yet. But this is just my speculation, so don’t take it as gospel.
Nothing to make the Lake Road cycleway fit for purpose or extending so it actually goes to Takapuna and the Devonport Wharf. Will connections to the NEX be covered in First and Last Leg of PT?
I think politically this will have problems with just one project in the North, one in the South, nothing in the void and only two projects in the West. I can hear the quacking already.
Well the Mt Roskill safe streets is in the void and technically none of the projects are in the west as Waterview is old ACC area
But the duck doesn’t want cycleways in his area, just a fucking great useless flyover which costs the equivalent of the whole cycling plan over 3 years.
5% of $985,000 on Te Atatu Road, $49,250 is it for the west, pretty disappointing
No I think you have it around the wrong way. It’s $985k on cycling which is 5% of total Te Atatu Rd project (which is about $20m)
I hope so. Still a pretty pitiful spend on all of West Auckland. Kinda leaves the impression that cycling is for commuters to the city, and for people who live central
Remembering that this is for a mix of on-road and shared path facilities. Not best practice in countries with high cycle mode share.
Although in London they have bus lanes everywhere and bikes use those. Sure it slows buses down from time to time but they usually just move into the general traffic lane for a moment to pass the cyclist. Seems to work pretty well – get the benefit of more bus lanes and cyclists get a buffer from general traffic.
Bruce I hear what you’re saying but you should try riding a bike down Symonds St one day – it might give you a more cautious perspective on the merits of shared bus/bike lanes in Auckland.
Bruce – that is fine for the existing 2% but it won’t do anything to get the 60% of keen cyclists who find the roading environment intimidating.
If traffic is travelling at 50km/h or faster, it must be separated physically from the traffic like on Beach Road.
This isn’t theory, we know this is what is needed from experience world wide. Dublin is a great example.
Another problem with bus lanes is most only operate for a couple of hours every day.
And now imagine a bus squeezing in between your kids and the cars on the general traffic lane.
It would be good if a pedestrian and cycle bridge was constructed from Panama Road, Mt Wellington across over to Highbrook business park. Or instead a bridge with similar restrictions like Grafton bridge/Auckland Hospital.
Nice to see at least one southern project on the list (Mangere Safe routes). Is this the same project as the ‘Future Streets – Ara Mua’ project? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11329562 http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2014/11/12/te-ara-mua-future-streets/
Yes, it is.
I know one of the massive barriers for cycle commuting is not having showers / secure bike parking facilities at work. It would be hugely beneficial if some of the funds from the programme were used to create incentives (whether financial, or other) for employers to provide these. With AT having such a strong emphasis on improved cycleways in the CBD, it definitely indicates they are targeting the commuter market, so ensuring employees are able to cycle to work and not attend meetings all hot and sweaty makes a lot of sense. I’d be interested to hear your opinions on ways to get employer’s on-board, and any other ideas of how incentive schemes etc. might work…
That’s one of the big misunderstandings – you mainly need showers if you primarily cater for hard-riding long-distance commuters. As Bryce criticises above, some of the current crop of projects fit that bill – but others, especially in the western city centre don’t. If you need a shower after riding 2-4km, then you are doing it wrong. Relax.
I agree with Jonny. I have plenty of conversations with friends and colleagues who would definitely cycle to work if only there were showers available. I used to cycle to work until we shifted premises to a new more modern building – with no showers! I think if Auckland Council want to promote active modes of transport they need to also look at commercial / office building legislation. I understand Max’s point about short distance commuting, but Auckland is full of hills, and some people sweat more than others – even traveling 2km. Also, uptake relies on minimising barriers to entry. Lack of showers will DEFINITELY be one.
They have introduced shower requirements for offices in the proposed Unitary Plan:
http://unitaryplan.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/HTMLSept/Part%203/Chapter%20H/1%20Infrastructure/Chapter%20H%20-%201.2%20Transport.htm#TOCt_h38539_ID (scroll down to table 6).
Cycleways and trams on Ian McKinnon Dr would transform that link completely. Right now it’s wasted as a glorified motorway.
+1
Exciting stuff. The Great North Road cycleways were scoped in the Corridor Management Plan as protected on-road cycleways too, so its exciting to have them on here too.
Also good to see the Richmond Road cycleway is in there. I was worried this had been buried again before it got live… it’s a great example of a an urban cycleway route which will help a lot to knit together local areas, not just City Centre-work commuting.
I’m still really confused at why these are so expensive. Surely a curb and green chipseal shouldn’t cost half a million per kilometre?
So much padding and expense in roading.
George – the point is: The cheap way you describe it only works when you are willing to either compromise driving capacity OR cycle facility quality. if youa re trying to keep the impact on cars as low as possible (and Auckland is panicky about infringing them as little as possible) yet also create cycleways that don’t constantly stop or start whenever there’s a pinch point, then any cycleway project involves lots of things like moving existing kerb lines. That then creates costs for utility relocations, signal poles having to be moved, driveways rebuilt to the new location etc… – at the same time, other things start to creep in, like footpaths being renewed at the same time, new pedestrian crossings. So yeah, you end up with a few million.
And yet this whole set of schemes announced here costs about as much as one larger motorway interchange. Chump change.
Max, I take your point, but if we were prepared to compromise car amenity we’d be able to get three times as much for the same price. One of my enduring impressions from a week’s work in Copenhagen last year was that the quality wasn’t always that hot, but quantity trumps quality. (Their design quality of course is much better- but good design should at least sometimes result in a cheaper build rather than an expensive one)
I’m not arguing for it – but we saw Carlton Gore Road held up for over a year (and counting) because of cars. It’s our reality – I was not defending it, I was explaining my understanding why our authorities seem unable to do a fast and cheap job on adding cycle facilities.
We seem to have persistent panic about capex spending in NZ. No one wants waste but the question should be about the value of proposed projects not ‘how cheap can we make them’.
Build it right, build it once. Cyclelanes do not require constant rebuilds, just the odd sweep, they save a fortune in death and injury, and produce valuable positive health externalities.
200m will get us a permanent heart of a network to expand out in all directions, all for the cost of one large m’way interchange. The value is enormous.
It is amazing the amount of crap AT can write when what they mean to say is “We are going to build a few cycleways in the CBD and in a couple of wealthy inner city suburbs”
$207 million over three years is a huge amount of money. It irritates me that some think this is a pittance. It’s not. Just savour it on your tongue for a moment: Two hundred and seven million dollars. Yeah! Sure, everyone has their pet project, and no budget is ever going to include everybody’s pet project, at least not in the first three years. True believer cyclistas are never going to be satisfied, but this is a windfall and all cyclists should be supporting it. Remember, the highway lobby is a teensy bit more powerful than the bike lobby, so this is a big step.
To make Aucklanders more accepting of cycling in the public right of way, good facilities are needed of course, but high level officials need to be part of that culture, and the political cover of a lot of people vocally in favour of cycling is essential. Decision makers have lunch and play golf with the highway guys every week. It can only help to express support to your local and government officials. If all they hear is grousing they will gladly spend the money elsewhere.
I’d say that $207M is a start to addressing the imbalance in spending between modes.
Is it a lot of money, yes.
Will it add more value than the same amount spent of roading projects, probably, if the BCR are correct definitely.
I’m pretty sure that it is all in the messaging.
Most of that is consultant’s fees because all projects seem to be rushed these days.
This looks good and, despite not living in the area, I think it is best to make an actual impact in a particular area rather than spreading thinly over the whole city. And that area should initially be the centre for fairly obvious reasons.
Having said that, does any know what is likely to happen with the skypath? I realise it is going through the RC process right now, but if and when will the council make the desicion to underwrite it etc? What are the hurdles yet to be crossed?
Hearing coming up soon. Then, there’s the chance of appeals. Presuming both these steps go in favour of SkyPath, Council and the funder will then negotiate a funding agreement, and Councillors will then be asked to ratify or decline that. After that, things can more or less start construction.
Thanks
This is huge news!
I’m not sure how much chance this has of being approved, let’s hope a lot. The Northern Cycleway sounds very exciting as I currently live on the shore and look forward to Skypath, but not the trip getting to and from it. I also work in Albany and cycle there everyday.
Do we have any details on where the Northern Cycleway will go?
Seeing that SeaPath is listed as a separate project from that, and seeing that there were earlier back of napkin concepts of a cycleway between Esmonde and Tristram Ave, I presume it might be a NW Cycleway style route along the motorway there, to link to SeaPath at Esmonde.
This is cool, but also sad as I live in Albany & I wonder how many years I’ll need to wait before I see Oteha Valley (of Death) Rd made more people friendly.
At least Albany Highway is currently getting Copenhagen cycle lanes, and Albany Expressway got a shared path (I know, I know) so Albany isn’t exactly left out. There’s also the potential for some cycleways in the wider area as part of the Sh18-Sh1 works, but of course those come at the cost of another huge spending spree on car tarmac at the same time…
Hi Max,
I use the new Albany expressway shared path everyday. It’s interesting to see the long queues of cars heading towards the motorway at a standstill. Definitely a worthwhile addition to the network. Not perfect, but better than nothing.
Does anyone know what the prioritisation ranking in the table refers to? Why are some of the ranks missing? There is no 1, 2, 3, with the first one being Ian McKinnon at #4. So what are these projects being compared with / ranked against?
All projects have been given scores for a wide range of criteria and combined with other factors to get a priority ranking. #1 is missing as that is Skypath, the others will have changed depending on what the final criteria is but from memory #3 was Seapath which is an NZTA project so not on the AT list
Does anyone know what the prioritisation ranking in the table refers to? Why are the top 3 ranked projects missing?
See my comment directly above.
Yes. This article describes where AKL is at:
http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/cities-bike-lanes-only-connections
Ake my friend! I can’t believe you posted here, I work for an International Law Firm and I have just discovered that you have inherited $5,000,000,000.00 from a relative you didn’t even know.
Would you like to me to-
A- use the money on building the CRL, metro rail to the shore on the existing bridge and spend the rest on cycle ways and beautification, or
B- send it all to you?
Please respond by return post with a cheque for $1500.00 for my fees.
The map shows Park Rd/Grafton Bridge between Carlton Gore and Symonds St as an existing cycleway. Is something proposed/funded here that has slipped under the radar, or is it a mistake on the map?
There are some bus lanes there and for AT that’s generally equivalent to a completed cycle network….much as they show Symonds Street as having cycle lanes and Khyber Pass which has bus lanes for 4 hours a day is also usually included as being completed parts of the cycling network.
On thing that’s missing from their plan is Queen St, that’s the perfect candidate for a cycleway because it’s such a destination.