A few days ago Copenhagenize released their index for the worlds most bike friendly cities.
The Copenhagenize Index gives cities marks for their efforts towards re-establishing the bicycle as a feasible, accepted and practical form of transport. The interest in taking the bicycle seriously as transport once again continues unabated around the world. Every city used to be bicycle friendly before planners and engineers started to change the paradigm and plan for cars and relegate bicycle users, pedestrians and public transport users to third class citizens. Now those cities around the world who are taking up the challenge and modernising themselves by implementing bicycle infrastructure, policy, bike share systems, etc. – as well as restricting car use – are the cities we all look to for New Century inspiration.
All up 122 cities around the world were ranked and primarily they are cities with a regional population of over 600,000 people. I have no idea if Auckland was even ranked but if it was, it certainly wouldn’t have been in the top 20 which are below. This year Copenhagen slipped ahead of Amsterdam for the first time as the most bike friendly.
There are 13 different categories and each city gets a score between 0 and 4 in 13 different categories plus potentially 12 bonus points for particularly impressive efforts or results. The 13 categories are below.
Advocacy:
How is the city’s (or region/country) advocacy NGO(s) regarded and what level of influence does it have?
Rated from no organised advocacy to strong advocacy with political influence.Bicycle Culture:
Has the bicycle re-established itself as transport among regular citizens or only sub-cultures?
Rated from no bicycles on the urban landscape/only sporty cyclists to mainstream acceptance of the bicycle.Bicycle Facilities:
Are there breadline accessible bike racks, ramps on stairs, space allocated on trains and buses and well-designed wayfinding, etc?
Rated from no bicycle facilities available to widespread and innovative facilities.Bicycle Infrastructure:
How does the city’s bicycle infrastructure rate?
Rated from no infrastructure/cyclists relegated to using car lanes to high level of safe, separated cycle tracks.Bike Share Programme:
Does the city have a comprehensive and well-used bike-sharing programme?
Rated from no bike share programme to comprehensive, high-usage programme.Gender Split
What percentage of the city’s cyclists are male and female?
Rated from overwhelming male to an even gender split or more women than men cycling.Modal Share For Bicycles:
What percentage of modal share is made up by cyclists?
Rated from under 1% to over 25%.Modal Share Increase Since 2006:
What has the increase in modal share been since 2006 – the year that urban cycling started to kick off?
Rated from under 1% to 5%+.Perception of Safety:
Is the perception of safety of the cyclists in the city, reflected in helmet-wearing rates, positive or are cyclists riding scared due to helmet promotion and scare campaigns?
Rated from mandatory helmet laws with constant promotion of helmets to low helmet-usage rate.Politics:
What is the political climate regarding urban cycling?
Rated from the bicycle being non-existent on a political level to active and passionate political involvement.Social Acceptance:
How do drivers and the community at large regard urban cyclists?
Rated from no social acceptance to widespread social acceptance.Urban Planning:
How much emphasis do the city’s planners place on bicycle infrastructure – and are they well-informed about international best practice?
Rated from car-centric urban planners to planners who think bicycle – and pedestrian – first.Traffic Calming:
What efforts have been made to lower speed limits – for example 30 km/h zones – and generally calm traffic in order to provide greater safety to pedestrians and cyclists?
Rated from none at all to extensive traffic-calming measures prioritising cyclists and pedestrians in the traffic hierarchy.
I imagine that if ranked, Auckland would score fairly lowly in most of these measures however with around $200 million planned to be spent by the council and NZTA on cycling in Auckland in the next three years plus projects like Skypath then it will start to make a considerable difference.
Processing...
There still is nothing in the pipeline to crate a safe biking connection between Panmure and Pakuranga. It will be expensive but Auckland cannot rise up a bicycle friendly list if it cuts off a large part of the population who are not prepared to dice on a three lane bridge with traffic travelling at over 60km/hr.
Is there no cyclelane with the new AMETI bridge?
Yes, there is a 5m? wide shared path on the Brige for peds and cyclists. AT really need to advertise AMETI better as many residents of East Auckland have no idea about it.
Shared path. Racey. Tamaki likely to be shared path. Very few street works in the plan to create connected networks to schools, shops etc. Motorway building for bikes.
Well, the design isn’t finalised and was made a few years ago. Guess you are also forgetting the on road seperated lanes all the way through to Botany?
It’s actually quite recent. 2 years tops. (Edit; 3 years)
I think the bridge is older than that isn’t it?
I agree it’s bad, but isn’t the cycle team very different since the newer people came in?
I think they’re talking about the new bridge hasn’t been built yet – shown in these AT documents
https://at.govt.nz/media/1060990/AMETI-information-board-presentation-march-2015.pdf
Includes protected cycle lanes and shared paths between Panmure and Pakuranga, should make cycling between those two places pretty good.
Yeah a 3m wide cyclelane plus a 2m wide footpath looks pretty good to me.
I’m talking about the new bridge, the design is kinda old though.
On the bridge, yes, but not between the bridge and Panmure. Keep in mind that once it gets built, it’s unlikely to be redone for a very long time. And that footpath was pretty busy even when we lived there just under 10 years ago.
Ramps on stairs…the walkway between Meola Rd and Lemington Rd in Westmere was recently redone and these were added. Simple timber channels – if I hadn’t seen some pictures of grander ones I might not even have known what they are.
Not exactly a prime commuting route but interesting that this was part of the design.
Whilst not wanting to sound ungrateful, the Onewa Rd shared path shown on the map is a bit disappointing. Its not particularly wide, and for some reason all the signs for parking and the transit lane (of which there are a great number), are positioned about a third of the way into the shared path. In addition, the recently rebuilt kerb along the road is very tall, and each driveway cut out is steeply carved into the path creating bumps. The driveways are at very frequent intervals so the bumps are regular.
The new transit lane is great, but it seems wider than necessary, particularly when considering how parsimonious they have been in terms of assigning space to peds/cyclists. I can ride my motorbike up it and safely pass the parked cars in the lane without leaving the lane. Great for me on my motorbike but it seems unnecessary. Having said all that, at least my wife will ride on the shared path, so it’s an improvement.
Why do we always have to share shared paths with signs. Can’t they be put on the kerb or the grass? Beaumont St was resealed in anticipation of the shared path, and the signs take up a significant portion of the path.
I don’t like shared paths TBH, considering how unsafe cycling on the road is in Auckland almost all footpaths are used as shared paths as it is, so widening a footpath slightly, and designating it a shared path isn’t really any sort of improvement and is reflected in the fact that no one uses them and doesn’t change their use which half the time seems to be for storing rubbish bins once a week, parking, and installing signs and cabinets for telecoms infrastructure.
The sky path needs segregated lanes for pedestrians and cyclists none of this shared space plans they have. It is a steep bridge and shared space is just asking for collisions and/or frustrated cyclists. Needs 4m cycle lane (wide enough to allow a cyclist in each direction plus an overtaking cyclist) and a 2m pedestrian lane. Between the two there needs to be a physical buffer (small enough that it can be ridden over in an emergency). The pedestrian lane should be on the outside since they have more time for sightseeing.
With Federal street eventually linking up, the eastern shared spaces and hopefully queen street set up with trams and no cars next year (??) the CBD looks to be shaping up nicely, especially considering the connections at least existing now to the inner suburbs. If parnell rise and ponsonby get it sorted then, well, I’ll say we have arrived as a cycling city and the suburbs will follow. I’m feeling optimistic about Auckland for the first time in a couple of years! (keeping in mind that I rarely leave central Auckland 😉 )
/Edit
More room for optimism: Vancouver has gotten it wrong in a lot of ways, but once it’s proven it gets done right – north end of Burrard street is pretty bad, but essential and well used. It’s about to get fixed in the best way possible, taking out traffic lanes in the process. (warning, PDF not mobile friendly) http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/detailed-map-of-proposed-upgrades-at-burrard-pacific-intersection.pdf. The South end was recently upgraded and is a pleasure to use: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/burrard-street-bridge-south-end-enhancement-drawing.pdf
The Copenhagenize index does mention us, in this sweeping statement:
“Australian and New Zealand cities, along with most British cities, are the ones not to watch for any reason regarding bicycle urbanism.”
http://copenhagenize.eu/index/bubblers.html
I have been reading a bit of the Copenhagenize website today. Even what we do so would be completely substandard over there. It’s a scandal.
The graph misses some numbers. Barcelona is 11th and Paris 17th.
Hmm … now I know why Amsterdam and Copenhagen are two of my favourite cities :).
I found this comment on the Copehagenize website with regards to Amsterdam quite interesting: “While the city [Amsterdam] finished with a higher baseline score, it lagged behind in the race for bonus points. Amsterdam, like most Dutch cities, suffers from their insistence on maintaining a status quo, rather than trying to improve, think modern and take things to the next level.”
That to me sounds a little like: Amsterdam is still the better cycling city, but it lacks some of Copenhagen’s ambition, so we’re going to mark the former down”. I may be a particularly outcome driven person, but *if* Amsterdam is considered to be the better cycling city *then* should it not be ranked number 1 in terms of cycle-friendlieness?!?
if you’re gonna be picky about their ratings there’s plenty more weird ones; they do seem to give a lot of marks for “effort”. For example, Nantes at #7? I’ve just been there for Velo-City Conf; some interesting features and great efforts in a very short time period, but I wouldn’t say it’s world-beating just yet.
Personally there’s bugger all between Copenhagen and Amsterdam; here’s my take on the latter:
http://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/2015/06/07/cycling-in-amsterdam-does-it-live-up-to-the-hype/
Waterview shared path was 100% funded in 2011 by NZTA. 2015-2018 doesn’t make sense.
The line drawn on the map is also far straighter than the plans I’ve seen, if only.
I think the very long timeframe and delay relates to the fact that it was required to be funded by NZTA as a result of the Waterview BOI (they were previously refusing stating it would use up funds for ‘critical roading’ projects elsewhere) and therefore was not included in that resource consent. It’s taken until recently for that to even happen, hence why nothing has or will take place for a while yet.
These Auckland ambitions are all cycling super highways. I want to be able to cycle safely to my favorite coffee shop, supermarket and to the train station. I want my kids to be able to cycle safely to their local school. Each time I see road works locally I think about what could be for an extra 10% in the budget. Just down the road in Drury is a short section of wide footpath that lasts about a km. When I use that piece of infrastructure it feels so different to riding on the road.
Need to get the Local Board on side Peter. You can get some inspiration from here: http://biketeatatu.co.nz/
Yes local activism is the key. But there is a structural problem which is that NZTA have the money, and they have certain assets, motorway corridors, and of course a StateHighway shaped view of the world. Im not criticising the Agency, they are keen, but their end of the situation is going to lead more to the cycling ‘superhighway’ typology. We can look to NZTA to fund and build the expensive and vital links like bridges over their motorways that seperate communities and break logical and direct links. These are important and can also be much better community assets with a bit more dosh and design attention. Perfect for NZTA.
AT have to do the on street work, and now do have budget, but need to feel pressure from local supports to balance out the moaners, the NIMBYs, the change-phobic fear-mongers, and all the other forces of dreary, like Wood, Quax, Brewer, etc and sadly now it seems Coleman too.
That’s not entirely true Patrick. AT/AC also have a cycling budget. But it’s mostly concentrated in a few central spots with exceptions such as Mangere safe streets (which is an ongoing project from within almost).
Having said that, a recent meeting with Kathryn King, leads me to believe she understands the needs of community cycling outside of the CBD so that’s encouraging.
A chunk of the 3-year cycling budget is for first and last leg of PT infrastructure, so they are also looking at that aspect as well.
The blog just ate my previous comment, so apologies if two similar comments now show up…
I think one issue with cycle infrastructure in Auckland is that it is actually preferred by the authorities to spend money on super highways than do the more important and cost effective thing which is reprioritising existing road space.
The new cycleway through CMJ for example is a great piece of infrastructure, but it cam at a hefty price and doesnt actually connect that well with surrounding land uses. It doesnt appear to be that well used at the moment, but hopefully will grow in popularity. I think these projects distract from the re prioritization work as everyone can sal “look what we did over here!” but it doesnt actually go to changing the streetscape which is where the real battleground is.
I think the fact that Dom Rd in its latest design incarnation didnt get cycle lanes just shows we dont take cycling seriously yet. The lessons from Europe are that on those sorts of streets you should be giving cyclists significant priority.
Much of this relates to the fact that NZTA have been funding these projects and want to do it in their existing motorway corridor, Nelson street does however have a lane being taken away from general traffic. Until recently AT/AC spent nothing on cycling so little wonder nothing of substance has happened on roads away from the motorways where as you say the actual destination is. However, these new projects coming through now should hopefully get Auckland going on having what you describe. I wonder whether Dominion Rd will be revisited in regards to cycling now that trams seem to have been gaining a lot of traction at AT, removing buses from there would allow a lot of space to be saved which could allow cycle lanes to be added quite easily.
Good point re Nelson St that does actually look quite good.
I’m hearing that the trams on dom rd will take up more room than the existing bus lanes. So cyclists on dominion rd are going to be screwed, you loose the existing bus/cycle lane, and the general traffic lane gets a little narrower.
Seems strange. Trams should need a narrower corridor than buses.
that’s what i thought, trams are fixed on rails so don’t need any roadwidth more than the tram itself, but apparently not in this case.
And only with trains extended to Huapai – Kumeu bikes could be transported there and encourage local residents to ride to the station. Crazy to think Auckland Transport is anti rail, anti-cycling for Nor West Auckland.
Ride around Kumeu? No thanks.
Or…ride from your house in Huapai – Kumeu to the train and onto other destinations. Sounds first world. We’ll need people with out-there imaginations to come up with something like that.
On the map is shows the seapath crossing over the motorway then going up hill behind the offices on Wearhouse way coming out on Akranga dr ,If you are going towards Takapuna /Devonport or up Fred Thomas dr and use the shared path one has to cross motorway off ramps and bus station entrace& exits which put cyclist and peds at risk on 6 dangerous crossings in a high speed area .Why must we be routed on a longer roundabout dangerous route when it would be safer shorter and flater to follow the eastern side if the motorway all the way to the end of Esmond rd with a crossing at the lights into Fred Thomas dr ,when the Takapuna Devonport green route is bought to the bottom of Esmonde rd we would have a safe off road route from Devonport to the city. As it stand its just very poor design by nzta which will cost people thei
r lives .Most of the seapath will be built over water like the Westhaven walk/cycleway due to not enough land and for ecological resons you can’t fill Shoal bay in ,Could some one who knows about roading etc please let us know why it is designed this way .
The eastern side of the motorway is a site of special wildlife significance and a New Zealand Dotterel breeding ground. Maybe that’s part of the reason….
Yes I know that the Dotterals are there, 120 meters out in the bay with water between us and them ,just think of the higher profile the birds would get if people could walk or cycle by and see them maybe take nice photos, it would do the birds no end of good having a higher profile ……The Busway went in and they worked around the birds breeding times etc so why can’t a walk/cycleway go in the same way(and a much shorter build time ) there wouldn’t need to be any filling in of Shoal Bay, Seapath could be built like the Westhaven walk/cycle path very low/no
impact on the enviroment. Also the Seapath would act as a barrier stopping the Dotterels straying onto the motorway like other birds do.Its a win win when you look at it…… birds are safe from people/cars ,Walkers/Cyclist are safer because they don’t have to make 6 crossings of high speed on/ off ramps. The Eastern route is shorter, flat ,more direct and chances are cheaper for nzta .The only problem that I can see is nzta dosen’t have the will to do eastern route, mybe they don’t want to upset the eco crowd so take the route which is easy even if its not the safest option for people .The Dotterels have breeding sites from the far north down as far as east cape ,the Dotterels are doing well and there numbers are growing, with all the well spread out breeding sites down the east coast of the north island helps stops inbreeding which in turn keeps the gene pool pure so they will be with us for generations to come . What right does nzta,eco pressure groups or any agency have to force poorly desinged and possible dangerous infrastructure on the public of NZ.
I can ride my motorbike up it and safely pass the parked cars in the lane without leaving the lane. Great for me on my motorbike but it seems unnecessary. Having said all that, at least my wife will ride on the shared path, so it’s an improvement.