This is a guest post by Wellington architect Guy Marriage.
Wellington City Council has, at last, voted to go ahead with its first separated cycle-way and to adopt the Wellington Cycling Framework. The former is a section of cycle-way starting in Island Bay (a southern suburb next to Cook Strait, once a predominantly Italian fishing village). But just because it has been approved by Council, don’t expect it to go away as an issue. Down here, for inextricable reasons, it is dividing the local community like the Springbok Tour of 1981. Yes, it has become that venomous.
Bizarrely, or so it seems to outsiders, the people most against it are a small group of locals on “The Parade” whose properties it goes past. They will gain a cycle-way positioned close to the verge (or berm as Aucklanders call it), sheltered from the passing traffic by a row of parked cars. In doing so, about 30 of the about 300 carparks will be lost. You may think that seeing as this section of road has excellent off-street parking for nearly all residents, that this small loss of parking would be happily written off against the gain of a protected cycle-way. But you would be wrong.
Opponents (seriously) claim that the design of the cycle-path will cause deaths and destruction, particularly with the elderly and toddlers. Quite how the elderly have avoided their certain death all these years crossing over 2 lanes of infrequent car and bus traffic is uncertain, but opponents are certain that only death awaits the elderly as they cross the separated cycle-way. The logic escapes me, but evidently not local Councilors such as the Labour rep for the Southern ward, Clr Paul Eagle. He has teamed up quite firmly (but not in a Colin Craig manner) with Nicola Young, the local National-leaning Councilor, and future Mayoral contender. The current Mayor, Celia Wade-Brown, strongly Green and avidly pro-cycling, has largely kept at arms length from the fracas so far, especially as she lives in Island Bay and it is seen by some as her having a pet project – although this is probably quite far removed from the truth.
The argument appears to be that by having the cycle-way separated behind a row of parked cars, risks speeding, unwary cyclists plowing recklessly and frequently into people opening passenger doors on the left hand side (a 600 wide zone is allowed for this door-opening to safely happen, but even that does not seem to have gratified the people of Island Bay). Opponents of the cycle-way argue that these doors will be flung open without checking by small children, and that the kiddies will be mown down, along with any errant grannies who dare to cross the road, the potential row of parked cars, and the “killer cycle-way”.
At present, there is a small but steady stream of cyclists from Island Bay, who either share the main part of the road with the cars and buses, or else they cycle along a parallel, less busy road a short distance away. The road is wide – exceptionally wide by Wellington suburban standards – and stats for crashes are low. One of the valid arguments against the cycle-way starting here is that it is the easiest part of the route from here to central Wellington, and that the WCC should perhaps have tried to solve the harder parts first. They do seem to miss the point that without a safe path, cycle numbers will not grow. They argue that no-one much cycles there at present, and so there is no need for a separated path. If you think Northcote Point home-owners are NIMBYs, you haven’t yet met the Island Bay Luddites. “Cycleway anti community” placards and “Safety 4 ALL road users” signs dot the wall of one of the local shops – but this logic escapes me. I honestly would have thought that little old ladies and children would have been much more at risk from cars and buses than by cyclists. Covered in the Dompost here.
Proponents of the cycle-way starting here argue the opposite points – that Wellington needs to lead the demonstration of quality cycle-ways with the highest quality possible at first, in order to continue the trend of separation when it comes to the following, harder parts of the cycle network. A basic masterplan of cycle routes has been published by the WCC, and this is just the first part of the first route. It is planned to become a centerpiece of how to do it well. It was consulted on, both online and also with flyers to all locals, and a show and tell meeting one weekend – all very easy to find out about and attend – but the locals who did not make themselves aware of the consultation are now taking the matter to the Ombudsman. Sadly, I kid you not. This story continues on.
There are over 1000 children in the Island Bay region, the third largest population of children in Wellington. The words of Enrique Penalosa – the former Mayor of Bogota and the President of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy – seem most appropriate here: “A bicycle way that is not safe for an eight year old is not a bicycle way.”
On faustbook: https://www.facebook.com/IslandBayCycleWay
Processing...
Glad it’s approved along with the framework. These opponents are wellington’s equivalent of those northcote pt objectors. Here as there they do not represent the community.
Proud Wellingtonian here – and these anti-cycle way people are just nuts. I genuinely can’t understand why these people wouldn’t want a safer local link, that will eventually connect to a larger part of a network.
Agreed. I think the only valid reasons really are the cost and “why start here?” I’d rather they had put this much effort into solving the problems they will have going through Berhampore (where they will be zigzagging to the east I understand, but only for part of it) and in Newtown, where the works outside the Hospital have created about 6 lanes of traffic at one point. I know those speeding Ambulances need to get the patients in for treatment, but it has been done with no regard for anyone else except car users. Plus, they’ve taken away the car-parks outside the florist shop, and I fear we will never hear the end of that story…
But regardless – now they have given the go-ahead – I wish them a speedy implementation, and onwards with the next design phase. But expect people lying down in front of bulldozers etc before it is complete.
It would be interesting to know how many old ladies and young kids have been killed in places overseas that have the exact same thing. I suspect the answer might be close to zero.
Good to see a transport agency/council standing up to a small vocal group of local objectors and doing what is best for the city.
AT take note.
An excellent summary- the whole thing is like Stalingrad, two opposing sides pouring so much into something that shouldn’t be that strategically important. Although I suspect most residents of Island Bay don’t care one way or the other, and wonder what all the fuss is about. The opposition seems to be: 1: it’s too dangerous, 2: there’s a cycleway there already, 3: parking will be lost, 4: I hate cyclists/pay some roadtax/bikes need to be registered/lycra-louts. To which the answers are 1:give it a chance and see if it’s dangerous then, 2:it’s a door-zone death trap that’s worse than nothing, 3: not much will be lost (and tough- you don’t own the onstreet parking!), 4: Go back to the Jurassic Era. There have been complaints about the consultation process which have some validity but I doubt the outcome would have been any different. One other effect is that it has politicised plenty of pro-cycling people that wouldn’t have taken much of an interest before- so maybe the claims of the all powerful cycling lobby are going to come true.
It’ll be great to have it built, although part of me is waiting to see what new rabbit the opponents can pull out of the hat.
Sorry to differ but Stalingrad was strategically important for the Soviet Union. By holding the Germans at Stalingrad the Soviets were able to cancel out the Germans advantage in open ground until they were able to encircle the German 6th army. The Germans lost the 850.000 casualties and 110,000 prisoners. These were soldiers who won western Europe in the summer of 1940 not the old men and boys the British and US faced in Normandy. Stalingrad gave an advantage to the Soviets in the build up to the Battle of Kursk which was the turning point of the war.
a good point mfwic, and I’m entirely sure that it is factually accurate, but if we go along with the analogy, are you suggesting that the Island Bay anties should encircle the suburb and direct howitzer fire relentlessly onto the people wearing lycra? Or that there will be a larger, set-piece battle, called Kursk? Or is PJ already fighting that in his bunker in Miramar? I knew this battle would hot up, but I’m not sure that my heart is in it for all out war…
Only strategically important because Soviet Union had (relatively speaking) inexhaustible reserves, which I suppose is kind of like multi-modal transport and safer cycling advocates. The “Battle of Kursk” will be extending the cycleway through Berhampore and Newtown.
Thanks Torken. I will have my cardboard sword ready at my side on top of my mighty two-wheeled steed, ready to do battle. Someone else can supply the snow….
Gotta find that minor point of disagreement… never change, mate 😉
Coincidentally, I just took out a copy of Antony Beevor’s Stalingrad from the library. It spends a lot of time on the experiences of the average people trapped in the battle. Genuinely sounds like hell on earth.
Good book.
Don’t know much about Antony Beevor but I doubt he expected his books to be used as source material in a discussion on Island Bay cycleways
Make sure you read Berlin when you are done with Stalingrad. I only raised it because it is way more interesting than cycle lanes. A fundamental rule of traffic engineering is that you will never please cyclists- they all have a chip on their shoulder. Most of us gave up trying years ago.
It seems that I will be raising the average effort made by a traffic engineer quite significantly then.
Can’t please motorists either… widen the road to relieve congestion, people drive more, road gets full again, and people start complaining about congestion once more! And yet we spend much, much more money trying to satisfy motorists than we do on cyclists.
I guess what I’m saying is that insatiability might just be a part of human nature.
Was pointed to this the other day:
“trying to reduce traffic congestion by building roads is like trying to reduce obesity by loosening belts”.
Makes Carlton Gore Road sound like a love-fest, despite the loss of parking being same in total and greater in poportion.
Good to see Wellington getting it’s first on-street cycleway – I can see some improvements over the first Auckland one (Beach Rd), having one direction on each side of the road for starters.
True, but the Beach Road style stuff only really works in dense urban areas when the side roads are all (or almost all) signalised anyway. Horses for courses.
Just to bring some balance to the argument: if there is “infrequent car and bus traffic” and “stats for crashes are low” then why do we need a cycle lane at all? This is seen by many as just a pet project by the Mayor who happens to live in Island Bay and like cycling. As you state, no overall plan has been decided.
My main objection to the cycle lane is its positioning between the footpath and the passenger side of the car. Traditionally we expect the left hand side of a car to be the footpath side, the “safe” side. Passengers will not instinctively be expecting a bike to whizz by. The same goes for people stepping off the footpath – we don’t expect to see cyclists between us and parked cars. Locals will soon adjust but any visitors to the suburb will not be prepared. Also, car doors open quite wide (wider than the 60cm buffer zone indicated in your drawing) and wrestling children into car seats can take a few minutes. What happens when a cyclist comes belting along at 30 or 40km/h and encounters a car with its door open? Will speedier cyclists opt to travel on the roadway, negating the whole point of the cycleway? Given the road-hog attitude of many Wellington cyclists, it seems unlikely that they will bother to take extra care when pedestrians are about.
That isn’t balance, it’s tired rhetoric,
Will speedier cyclists opt to travel on the roadway, negating the whole point of the cycleway? Given the road-hog attitude of many Wellington cyclists, it seems unlikely that they will bother to take extra care when pedestrians are about.
Yes. If I want to go 15km/h, I’ll cycle on the cycleway. If I’m doing ~40km/h and matching the speed of car traffic, then I’ll use the road.
That “road hog” attitude that you’re talking about is people “taking the lane”, to prevent people from overtaking where it isn’t safe to do so. It’s also people moving to the right before a right turn. It would help everyone if you didn’t see cyclists as your enemy, because the great majority of the time we’re reducing the large queues of traffic you would otherwise be stuck behind.
Pam, the overall plan is, i believe, the recently announced Wellington Cycling Framework. There’s a link to the WCC announcement about it at the top.
The question of whether it is a “pet” project or not of the Mayor, is a good one. Personally, when we all voted Celia Wade-Brown in about 5 years ago, I thought that was a clear signal that Wellington was tired of the perceived developer-driven focus of Kerry P, and that instead Wellington was clearly in favour of cycling – ie what else would you expect from a pro-cycling Mayor, but a concentration on building cycleways? I was therefore a bit astonished when she / the Council did not persue a single cycling path in Wellington in her first 3 years, but instead built a cycle-path connecting Tawa to ummm, somewhere else. Porirua? (sorry – I’ve never been on it, and nor do I know anyone who has – but I’m sure it is loved and used by those lucky locals out there). And here we are, 2 years into her second term, and we’re only just starting to provide cycle facilities. And to me, the route to Island Bay would have been my first choice to sort out as well. So, I really don’t think that the label of a “pet” project is a valid criticism…
“Given the road-hog attitude of many Wellington cyclists”
Yeah, they should get off the road, onto their cycleways. Not try to protect their lives doing *what the road code tells them to* (claim the lane when there’s not enough width to be passed safely).
Gosh, the totally blind irony of these statements hurts.
Anyway 2/2 for cycling in NZ this week so far. Auckland just apssed the LTP, which means a tripling of funding for our cycleways!
No no. They should get off their bikes and back into their cars. Afterall when was the last time you saw a car hogging half a lane of roadway?
This layout has been absolutely proven to be safe by both the Dutch and Danish (amongst others). Next argument?
Bryce show Dutch example show Danish example please
Look it up yourself! It took me about 20 seconds to find examples.
In the interest of fairness, which I am trying to be scrupulously fair about here, the argument seems to be that in Holland there are not so many driveways with cars reversing across the cycle-path. I agree that there are certainly lots of instances of completely separated cycle paths, but the Dutch do tend to have less in the way of off-street parking (certainly in the old, historic centres like Amsterdam) and that therefore we have a different, untested situation in Wellington.
Personally though, I don’t buy it. People reversing out of driveways already do so – and in fact they will be able to see cyclists coming along far easier than before. They will have a narrower area to reverse into on the actual street itself, and cars on the street won’t have as much room to suddenly swerve out of the way – but you know what? I think that if it makes people drive a little slower and a little more carefully, that can’t be a bad thing overall.
“the argument seems to be that in Holland there are not so many driveways with cars reversing across the cycle-path.” Oh well some people will always find some silly excuse. You’re definitely correct in not buying it.
Bicycle infra is not restricted to the old city centres. Quite the opposite, the fancy bike lanes you see so often as examples are on roads between the centres. Centres often have shared spaces instead.
In Belgium, if a road has cycle lanes (and cycle lanes are common there as well), parking on those lanes is an infringement, and most people obey that rule. Which for on-street parking gives basically the same setup as here but without the buffer zone. Plenty of people backing out of their driveway there as well, and AFAIK it hasn’t resulted in big carnage.
Here’s a good post explaining it and showing real-world examples. https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/but-we-have-driveways/
It seems unlikely that public spaces will ever be rid of road-hogs or any of the various types of deliberate or negligent dicks. A cyclist crash with a pedestrian may not be good for the pedestrian, but it won’t be good for the cyclist either, so cyclists are motivated to limit their own dickish behaviour. Drivers on the other hand can be dicks with near impunity, most likely experiencing little more than inconvenience as a result of a collision, while inflicting devastating harm on other parties. Based on this, it makes far more sense to put cyclists next to pedestrians and to keep both away from 4+ wheeled vehicles.
So the anti-cycleway stance boils down to: “I drive and walk, but I don’t cycle. In fact I view cyclists as some other tribe I don’t belong to. So I’m not willing to be inconvenienced even a jot to improve things for cyclists”.
Gosh, imagine if Skypath was somehow proposed down that way, why all the knives would be out then not just the “occassional” knives we see displayed here.
“Opponents claim that the design of the cycle-path will cause deaths and destruction”
Those utterly beyond the pale arguments again. A lot of people seem to honestly think 100 bicycles passing by is apocalypse, while 100 cars passing by is OK.
Where is that coming from? Maybe a lot of people have no living memory of anyone cycling to work / the shop / whatever? I just don’t get it.
An additional problem with having those people shouting around is, others will assume any local opposition is just coming from a bunch of brain-dead NIMBYs. And if some of those locals have valid criticisms, they are not heard any more.
Whatever the case, if the council has the ambition of building a decent cycling network, their marketing department is going to have a lot of work.
Great news – congrats Wellington!
On the mock-up photo the parking lane and the parked car appear not to scale compared to the cycle lane and buffer.
Based upon a 1.4m cycle lane and a 0.6m buffer vs 2.1m parking lane.
Yes. Better photoshop skills required by Council..!
I live in Auckland and know it is a verge. Only the Council calls it a berm.
First, let me get my credentials out of the way so that no-one can claim I am an imposter from the dark side, or some sort of troll.
I am:-
i) a lifelong cyclist (since age 8), never having owned a car (although my wife does).
ii) a supporter of cycling infrastructure and strong proponent of Public transport,
iii) an (alleged) car-hater because I don’t like what they have done to the place and don’t support giving them 95% of the transport-budget
OK, that’s me. I am with the cycle-way supporters.
BUT
I have to agree with the points made by opponents of this particular scheme (even if not with their jaundiced attitude to cyclists).
I am concerned that this proposal is a recipe for conflict.
a) Nearside doors flying open. It is bound to happen way more than happens with driver’s-side doors because that is what car-passengers are used to doing,
. . though in mitigation, the 2m-wide corridor should be enough for cyclists to be out of the reach of even the widest doors provided they keep well over to the kerb
. . If a door-strike does occur, it will at least not pitch the cyclist into the path of following traffic which is the risk with conventional on-street parking
. . but from a car-occupant’s point of view, this is definitely a new hazard. And unthinking small children may be well be among the casualties.
b) Who will have right-of-way? The cyclist or the occupants crossing to get to and from their cars?
. . The obvious answer would seem to be the cyclist, but does the cyclist have a responsibility to at least slow down if he notices people up ahead?
. . If not, then expect a steady stream of casualties on both sides. Will there be some sort of speed-limit for cyclists?
. . The process of loading passengers and stuff into a car can be protracted. I don’t think we can assume that pedestrians (because that is what they
. . are at this stage), will behave with the same attentiveness and deference as when crossing a regular road.
c) Vehicles crossing. How often will the cycleway be blocked by reversing cars waiting to join the traffic stream? Will this be a problem?
Various commenters above insist that this is done overseas and it all works fine. Well if that is so, and if the concerns I have outlined above are all unfounded, then great. I will happily drop my concerns.
But right at the moment I am not convinced. Hopefully if there are significant flaws with the design they will show up quickly and painlessly so that the strategy can be reassessed and lessons learned for future cycleways.
I am definitely not one of those people who *wants* this to fail so that they can say “I told you so”. I will be more than happy to see this as the start of a citywide rollout, but only if the design achieves the safety-levels that its advocates claim.
I’d answer your concerns like this:
1: Most cars don’t have any passengers. I’m not saying there is no risk, but in the event of a crash, a passenger door into a slow moving cyclist protected from moving car traffic is unlikely to cause serious harm
2: Cyclists gave right of way. There aren’t going to be huge continuous peletons cycling up and down for minutes at a time. People will get used to it as they do in every other city in the world with these lanes
3: occasionally and no, not a problem.
The biggest benefit of these lanes as I see it is they’ll allow kids under 12 to cycle safely in Island Bay with an adult accompanying them, which is absolutely not the case at the moment. That’s worth a few onstreet carparks don’t you think?
Of course because NZ isn’t the Netherlands or Denmark. It’s different here.
David I wasn’t going to comment but your very reasonable post deserves some support. The proposed scheme maroons parked cars between a traffic lane and a bike lane where doors on either side will pose a danger. I have seen sillier proposals but not for a while. You are correct in almost everything you say about it. In a few years someone will be asked to fix this up but that will only be after the crash stats are in and the people who designed it have left.. The answer is probably to remove parking on one side of the road to create space for two traffic lanes, two cycle lanes with clearance to the traffic and one parking lane. But the supporters see the plan and instead of agreeing with your valid points presumably they figure it is only some teeth and bones that will get broken.
I presume you’ve read the BicycleDutch article linked above?
Yes I did. Perhaps his video should show what happens when someone opens the door in front of a cyclist. Rather than complaining about the resistance from people whom live in Island Bay maybe the cycle advocates might be better off pushing for a design that isn’t as stupid as the one they have.
The maximum width of a door zone is about 1m. Cars parking around 10cm off the line will therefore have up to 30cm encroachment into the bike lane IF the door is flung wide open (who does that?). A 1.4m bike lane still have plenty of room for avoiding that.
But yeah as others have pointed out the obvious answer is getting rid of the median.
Children. People thinking about what’s for dinner. Just the same as when forgetful cyclists go through red lights. Or when they forget to use headlights at night. Nobody is perfect.
Well considering Dutch road users (not just cyclists) are the safest in the world, I can’t see any reason not to see them as the benchmark.
Sorry my mistake. People will hardly ever open a car door in front of a car in the 3m lane and hardly ever open a passenger door in front of a bike. Most of the time nobody will get maimed at all!
Sorry, you obviously know a lot more than the Dutch traffic engineers (where they have highest cycle modeshares and very near the lowest traffic fatalities in the world) so please fill us in on your experience in such matters and tell us what you would do. Also, please provide statistcs showing this design is dangerous. Thanks.
Bryce – regarding Dutch cycling “where they have highest cycle modeshares and very near the lowest traffic fatalities in the world” – Perhaps Dutch cyclists are more considerate than Wellington ones? Googling cycling in Amsterdam (yes, not scientific I know) the images that appear are all people in normal clothes on simple-looking bikes – not the lycra-wearing lunatics on fast cycles that we have to put up with here.
What happens if someone opens a door? If you build a Copenhagen Lane the rider can casually brake and move to the footpath.
OK I see what you are getting at mfwic. As a runner, I have to say the amount of times I have been doored by kerbside parking is right up there.
Regarding dooring cars. How do we cope at the moment with half our street network allowing parking on both sides and having less width than 6m in between the cars? It must be prolific.
Pam, do you have any stats on accidents vs safety zone width? I suspect 60cm is enough to significant reduce the risk, although more would of course be welcome by removing the median or narrowing the footpaths.
Matthew – No I don’t have any statistics. I just know that some car doors are quite wide and that getting baby carseats in and out can take a while and is easier to do with the door wide open. Old people like my parents take a while to get in and out too. WCC doesn’t care about statistics anyway – they have a fixed ideology and nothing will budge them. I learned this when they proposed to lower the speed limit in my suburb, citing safety issues. No evidence that people were speeding in the area, even the police said speeding was not a problem, and I pointed out that 30% of reported accidents were caused by parked or reversing cars and another huge percentage was caused by bad driving, not speed. Council doesn’t care.
The copenhagen standard is no buffer zone, with a total width of cycle lane of 2.2m in this case. 1.4 + 0.6 is 2.0, so 0.2m off. However the main reason cited in Copenhagen is to allow clearance with snow sweepers, not a specific door zone issue. So I think we are OK going by that standard.
Pam, in that case I don’t think you need to worry as they have left plenty of room. My wife had a baby a couple of years ago and the modern capsules are a breeze to get in and out.
Plenty of room? They have left none on the traffic lane side. This is a principal road remember and they have 3m lanes and minimum sized parking lanes. Try getting a kid out of the right side of a car if they build that.
Most communities don’t give a damn about road design until some twit comes along with a daft plan that they can see will leave them with a lot of problems. Far from being anti-cycling it strikes me the Island Bay people have been pushed into speaking out against an inept council plan. Just like every other community will when pushed into a corner.
Ok mfwic, tell us what you would do. You don’t like anything else here so as an engineer you must have a proven solution.
Like I said above in my first post that you are replying to- you probably need to remove parking off one side of the street to create some space. You could then kerb a two-way cycleway and have the parking on the opposite side with a decent width for doors and adjacent traffic. I am use it would annoy people as well to lose parking but that is just what happens on a principal road.
The US model for cycle lanes. Which is great if people are passing through but not if you want people to stop at shops. Caters to the high speed cycling fraternity. I prefer the Dutch/Danish style.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the cycle lanes should be built as pictured. The layout is right but they need to be built as Copenhagen Lanes. For various reasons.
mwfic there is an 800 wide median strip. Also drivers should be patient to in a residential area like this. There are plenty of roads around Auckland with this width between parking.
Also, the road is dead straight so there are no visibility issues.
I agree they should build it as a Copenhagen lane.
Hold on a sec – what is a Copenhagen lane?
This is a Copenhagen Lane. It’s not road level nor footpath level, but in between so as to offer a distinctive path. Most also have a radiused curb to the footpath so as to allow an easy transition for bikes to access shops etc. http://sustainablepenang.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/netherlands-cycing-in-the-rain.jpg
Replay to Pam at 2:41 pm
“car doors open quite wide (wider than the 60cm buffer zone indicated in your drawing”
Very import point you make about door zones. It’s not “tired rhetoric”. If this layout of 60cm buffer 140cm cycle path has been absolutely proven to be safe. Someone needs to provide some real world evidence.
Austroads 14: 1999 p18 – shows door zone as 1.0m
Dutch – Crow 1996: p88 – If parking lane is allowed between the carriage-way and cycle-track, there should be a dividing verge between the cycle-track and parking-lane with a minimum width of 1.00 m (see fig 4.8)
Sweden – Gcm-Handbok: p70 – Sak-zon (door zone) 1m Cykel (cycle path) 1.6m
http://www.trafikverket.se/contentassets/de625ba3154944969500cbf674a5bba5/gcm_handbok.pdf
Apologies, that statement was concern trolling, not tired rhetoric.
You’ll also be pleased to note that none of those guides are binding, and Swedish and Dutch engineers would happily tell you that this is far better than nothing.
There seems to be a .8m medium strip – get rid of that and add it to the .6m separation and you have 1 metre each side.
Yawn. https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/but-we-have-driveways/
Yawn to you too. Not sure what you are getting at – I wasn’t talking about driveways or drivers opening their doors. I’m concerned that people who have their left hand doors open to load/unload children/shopping/dogs/whatever will get abused by cyclists hurtling past. Wellington City Council has already noted here http://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/have-your-say/public-input/files/consultations/2015/02-traffic-resolutions/TR22-15-coutts-st.pdf that “many cyclists, who
use [Coutts St] now, would not use the facility (a proposed shared pathway) as they would need to take additional care and cycle more slowly.” This is one of the problems we have in Wellington – cyclists who want everything their way and are not willing to accommodate other people. Will cyclists using the cycleway in Island Bay travel more slowly than they do on the road? Or will the fast ones just stay on the road anyway, risking life and limb because they are too selfish to slow down?
Pam (or Peter H? Im confused) Copenhagen Lanes are the fix. They allow riders to cover ground at speed. They also allow riders to avoid obstacles on the cycle lane by moving briefly to the footpath (with care).
“…who want everything their way and are not willing to accommodate other people” – as someone who cycles around NZ cities a lot this is just priceless. If there is one group that fits this description, it is people driving cars and the more they drive them, the more entitled they are.
Not only do cars “deserve” 90% of the road space for travelling, they also “deserve” a free car park at each end of their journey. Somehow this has extended to the fact that a car “deserves” to be parked outside the property of the person who owns it, regardless of the fact that this is public land. All this despite the huge subsidies paid from rates and general taxation for local roads (in large cities in NZ this does not come from fuel excise tax) to not only build new capacity for cars but also to fix all the damage caused by them.
The other ironic thing is that your opposition to separated infrastructure will only ensure that the vast majority of people on bicycles are the very ones you despise the most – the lycra clad MAMILs. If you were to get behind separated infrastructure and not just knee jerk oppose them, we would see a lot more women and children getting around by bicycle. hell, you might even decide that the 1-2km trip to the shops could be done by bicycle.
I actually think you will find natural allies among the MAMILs as they are often opposed to this kind of infrastructure as they are afraid if riding a bike is normalised, they will get women and children slowing down their ride. Something I would very much like to see.
To educate yourself on what is needed to get non-MAMILs out on bikes, I really recommend these two sites on Dutch cycling:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/
Keep in mind the words of a local body official in Helsinki I read recently: “Cities get the cyclists they deserve. If you have good infrastructure, you will get good cyclists. It’s the same with drivers and pedestrians.”
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/28/end-of-the-car-age-how-cities-outgrew-the-automobile
Pam, some cyclists might choose to use the road rather than the cycleway. That’s their right. They are only risking life and limb if drivers are not paying proper attention to road conditions and users. Why are they selfish if they are able to travel at traffic speed, and wish to do so?
Of course, there are far fewer passengers than drivers so risk is immediately reduced. Added to that, rather than drivers opening doors and pushing cyclists into the path of moving vehicles, Copenhagen lanes on the inside of parked cars allow riders to safely navigate around any such incidents without fear of being run down by a truck.
Most cars contain single-occupants (at least in North America, and presumably, most places): the driver. The driver’s side is on the right side, not adjacent to the cycle way. Thus the risk of doors being frequently opened, imperiling cyclists is overplayed, and even if it does happen, at least the cyclist can safely move to the left and not into oncoming traffic (which is the main cause of cyclist fatalities related to “dooring” or the “door-prize”).
In Nelson we had issues with something like this (in Nelson it is two way on one side of the street). The issues really were only that it wasn’t set up right from the get go with a clear enough definition between the cycle lane and the buffer lane and the carparking lane. We ended up with plastic bollards pretty much all the way, but there are lots of examples overseas of nice planters, or concrete islands etc. Great to see this happening in the capital, hope this is just the start.
Thanks Peter O – I think the Council is planning plastic bollards as a separator at this stage, but I’m hoping that a 600 wide conc kerb block will also be trialled at some stage. But definitely plastic wavy wands should be fine for an initial trial. Interestingly, a two-way single-sided cycle-lane was proposed for Newtown, but has not so far been adopted by Council, although the designers, Red Design, have done a fantastic job of examining the whole route.
Peter H – thank you also for your evidently thorough research. Yes, more than 600mm would be nice, but in this world we have to make the best use of what we have got. A bicycle is normally only about 600 wide itself, so I’m sure that a 1400 wide path will be just fine. That gives another 800 of width to weave about in. Plenty of room for everyone. That’s real world evidence enough for me. Let’s just try it and see, can we? Please?
Oh – and just in tonight, a newsflash:
“The Government has announced $333 million will be spent on 41 new cycleways across the country.
Transport Minister Simon Bridges said the investment would change the face of cycling in New Zealand.
The bulk of the funding will be spent in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.
But more than $87m will be spent in provincial centres, including Whangarei, Hamilton, Tauranga, Rotorua, Gisborne, Hastings, Napier, New Plymouth, Whanganui, Palmerston North, Blenheim, Nelson and Dunedin.”
Hurray !
I remember a similar drama when Auckland City Council installed a cycleway on Mt Albert Road as part of the improvement of the cycle options to Unitec etc. You would think the world was ending! People flocked to meetings and expressed their inviolable rights to park right in front of their properties at all times, to use the flush median to put their cars into 4 wheel drive so as to get their boat up the driveway etc etc. Predictions of mass slaughter were made. 8 years later the cycleway is well used and I have not heard of anybody dying as a result.
Similar thing here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/69661233/island-bay-cycleway-consultation-a-farce–residents
“[The cycleway] will be a white elephant and there will be accidents. That’s what drives me crazy.”
“Cockerill-Ghanem, a mother of four, was concerned about taking her children across a cycleway to get into her car and the loss of car parks. What was now a wide street with plenty of parking would become congested, she said.
“We are always accused of being the minority and anti-cycling. We are not anti-cycling. I want to be able to cycle but I don’t see this as being necessary here. There is a silent majority who are seething,” she said. “Everyone wants safe cycleways and safety, but we want it for all road users not just a few.”
Hmmmm. There “will be accidents”. The street will “become congested”. Let’s check back in a few years and see what eventuates.
Nice to see the Carlton Gore Rd cycle lanes got marked out yesterday (or perhaps the day before).
Hi, there’s some great discussion here. It’s refreshing!
I was the creator of the Streetmix picture and I have to admit to taking a few liberties. Like any other street The Parade has some subtle variations in width so the picture is a representation of the worst case scenario in terms of space for cycling. I used the minimum widths for the bike lane, buffer and drive lane that I was aware of (so that I was not over-stating in any way how good the bike lanes will be) and put the difference into the median strip. In reality, there will probably not be a median strip at all. I’ve got a good quality map of the entire route and the actual width of the buffer varies between 0.6m and 1.2m along different parts of the route. The actual width of the bike lane varies between 1.4m and 2.0m. The narrowest combined section is 2.0m (0.6 buffer + 1.4 bike lane, as per Streetmix) and the widest combined section is 3.0m (1.2 buffer + 1.8 bike lane). The narrowest section is around 20% of the whole route.
Dave B – you raise some very good points in a non-confrontational way! I will certainly not be hooning down the bike lane at 30kph and I intend to yield right of way and slow down or stop for any obstructions. My experience of riding along The Parade every day is that this won’t be a common occurrence. I vary rarely encounter cars going in and out of driveways and don’t often notice people getting into or out of parked cars on either side. I predict that neither cyclists, motorists or pedestrians will be greatly inconvenienced by having to share the bike lane occasionally.
There’s a hardcore of henny penny anti types in Island Bay (where I live) wedded to the idea that things have to be the same as they were in the past. Marine reserve, replacing the sea wall with dunes, cycleway – all bad because they represent change and progress. They are vocal and vitriolic, and generally reluctant to engage in friendly open debate. The cycleway will be great, nobody will die, and I hope that everyone enjoys it, but remembers which councillors were anti come elections.
I think writing off locals who want different ideas and concerns discussed as “anti-cycling nay-sayers” is counter productive. What is wrong with discussing the best way to implement a cycle way with some suggestions from locals who know how the area is used currently?
Admittedly the way their concerns were worded is dramatic- but it doesn’t mean that somr concerns aren’t valid or that it couldn’t lead to an improvement in the eventual cycle way.
There seems to be a lot of anti Northcote Point sentiment- they have been painted as “anti cycling” because they have questions and suggestions for a cycle way that might improve on the one currently proposed. For example- in this article it is pointed out that the Island Bay residents have plenty of off-street parking in favor of the current plan- this is not the case on a significant stretch of the proposed Northcote point cycle-way. Local residents pointed this out and suggested alternatives but were just labeled anti cyclist.
Forming two strongly opposed groups can stop real dialog and may prevent a really well thought out cycle way. It scares people off asking or suggesting improvements for fear of being labeled “anti cycling”.
It’s a tricky one. I’m a bit beaten down by the whole process as at times it’s been a bit nasty (for some people, you’re never local enough to have a valid opinion…). I had a (very cordial) correspondence on twitter the other evening with another local who said the cycleway would “ruin the community”, which upon probing came down to “make driving more dangerous, car pulling out of driveways etc.” – there just wasn’t any real substance to his grievance. I’ve found this over and over. There has been a thorough public consultation already and there isn’t much to be gained by be revisiting the same issues. I agree it is desirable to ask a community what happens now, and what they’d like the future to be like – all design processes should be participatory and user-centric. But at what point do we just let experts make a decision on the safest, most feasible solution? Few other kinds of infrastructure project attract such public discourse and involvement in the actual mechanics of the solution. Suddenly everyone is an expert on cycleway design best practice! I’m ok at this point with deferring to someone who actually is.
jowellingtonJo – the problem is the Council aren’t experts, and often the highly-paid people they bring in are not either. They do a whole lot of really stupid things, don’t pay attention to statistics or local people and are constantly breaking their own rules. Eg; Kilbirnie “redevelopment” that took forever included big wooden loungers for the community to sit and relax. Locals pointed out they would encourage winos and beggars but were ignored. Now the council is taking the loungers out because they are just a loitering spot for drunks. Typical waste of time and money. Then there were the trees planted years ago in Civic Square – overseas expert said they’d been planted too deep and would die – he didn’t understand the wind. The trees thrived. Don’t place too much reliance on ‘experts’ who often just want the ego trip and the money.
Pam: rubbish.
Guy – not sure which part of my comment you think is rubbish. Council IS removing loungers that their “experts” thought were a good idea. Council DID spend $15000 altering a pedestrian crossing to “improve safety” on a straight stretch or road with NO accidents in the previous five years. How do you improve on 100%? All they achieved was to push cyclists closer to buses and make the drains harder to clear. Council thought it was a good idea to narrow all the CBD roads – what happened? Accidents increased…
Pam, the part of your comment I was particularly objecting to is the bit where you say not to be reliant on experts because they’re in it for the “ego trips and money” That’s an appalling attitude and very untrue. Do you do your own surgery if you need an operation? Do you rewire your own house because you want to save money by not hiring a qualified electrician? While I’m happy that NZ has a “can-do” attitude…. I could go on but you’ve got a much better reply from Patrick below, which is careful and considered.
I saw Brent Toderain (http://www.toderianurbanworks.com/brent/), who the council invited, speak a while ago. He spoke nothing but sense, and with no ego whatsoever. To suggest that someone like that is all about ego and money is harsh – he has a long and distinguished career, and has done some great work. Sure, experts can’t provide us with a magic answers all the time (because if it was simple, it wouldn’t be a problem) – humans are dynamic, needs change, there has to be a certain amount of trial and error. We do a lot of claiming that our problems are unique in NZ.They aren’t.
Jowellington – of course some experts are sincere and thoughtful – I did say “often” not always. My point was that we shouldn’t always just let the experts make decisions for us. Sometimes they are biased, or keen to follow a current trend, or misinformed. Nobody’s perfect, even the well-meaning ‘expert’. I just think that sometimes local people have a better handle on real-life scenarios than the experts who have decided what is current best-practice.
Pam yes that’s true, sometimes experts do not come to the best solutions, indeed sometimes local people have special insight that can improve projects in their area. In fact the best experts I’ve met say that very thing. Here I am thinking in particular of Jarrett Walker who I remember saying exactly that in his expert presentation in Auckland around public transport planning.
But when those claiming the professionals are all wrong use an argument like the ones above, in particular that a road without anywhere for a whole set of users serves ‘all road users’ better, it is very very hard to see what they are bringing to the discussion. And then when they escalate the conversation by accusing those proposing a street design that is proven to increase safety for all road users all over the world as killers, it is reasonable to conclude that they are simply members of that small but universal clique of change-phobics.
Local expertise generally involves understanding something unique and specific to local conditions. Something particular about an intersection say, or a use pattern. Sweeping claims that parking protected bike lanes will lead to death and mayhem in Island Bay but nowhere else on the planet does not qualify as special local knowledge, but rather the reverse; generalised prejudice.
Pam at 11:56 am – “Accidents increased” Yes mistakes happen but it should not cost some one’s life
Sweden’s vision zero
“We aimed not to decrease the number of crashes, but to decrease the fatalities and serious injuries with traffic calming measures like roundabouts and elevated crossings. The body has crash tolerance limits; they should not be exceeded.”
http://knowledge.allianz.com/mobility/transportation_safety/?451/road-safety-swedens-vision-zero
The community weren’t against the cycle lanes, the residents association were, same with skypath.
The residents association (or the guys who ruin, I mean run it) are anti cycling.
And finally, there is a ridiculous amount of parking available in Northcote Point, only the area immediately around the Bridgeway Theatre is ever even closr to capacity.
The trouble is that some understandable concerns are lost in pretty heavy anticycling rhetoric, often from the same person. If I can use Pam’s comments as an example (sorry, Pam!)- you have valid (but I suspect unfounded) worries about safety, loading kids, consultation etc. But around all that is the homogenising and stereotyping of ‘cyclists’- road-hogs attitudes, breaking red lights, risking life and limb etc. The worries can be discussed and addressed if necessary, but the background attitude does come across as anticycling
Token Faddy – yes I would admit to being generally anti-cycling. I don’t believe Wellington has the topography to support massive numbers of cycle lanes. And I am sick of arrogant cyclists (always male) racing past me in the Mt Victoria tunnel and along the waterfront. I don’t understand why many cyclists like to race down my street in the dark without headlights. And I would prefer that cyclists on narrow streets ride single file; that they stop for red lights and pedestrians on zebra crossings. Obviously they are not all setting out to terrorize pedestrians, but some of the views espoused by cyclists on these kinds of forums are rabidly anti-car and just don’t seem to recognise that pedestrians exist. I’m probably also biased because a work colleague on his motorbike was recently hit by a push-cyclist, ending up with a broken femur requiring pins, months of physio and time off work. Fortunately the cyclist has been charged by the police.
Pam – speaking as a driver who hasn’t ridden a bike in decades (but will when separated safe paths are developed near where I live) can I point out that around 400 people are killed by cars every year. That’s around 4000 in a decade and we somehow accept this as routine. I can’t think of a single person who has been killed by a cyclist.
I take your points Pam- some truth in them. Mt Vic tunnel and the Waterfront aren’t great, and there should be better protection for pedestrians as the most vulnerable party, but surely that’s where well designed cycling facilities come in. I’d use a combination of walking, cycling, driving and busing every week, and by far the most dangerous thing on the road is the private car. Like you I’ve had a close call (once in 10 years) from a cyclist on a ped crossing, but from a car it’s a weekly thing. I suspect the ‘rabidly anti-car attitude’ might just be a realisation that private cars should have as little place in cities as possible, and that the way they currently dominate is both unfair and unhealthy. Obviously as someone who likes to cycle I’d disagree about Wellington’s topography- it’s hilly in places, but the main access roads from the southern and eastern suburbs and the Hutt Valley are pretty flat, and generous gearing or e-bikes would easily overcome the western and northern suburb hills.
As an aside I rarely see cyclists without lights or helmets, and the red-light breaking is much better than it was even 2 years ago. Maybe they stand out because of their rarity? Don’t lump us all in together!
Good comments, thank you Torken – and thank you too Pam. I’m sure we have all had close calls over the years from one method of transport or another, and while a bike on the footpath can scare the hell out of you, Linz is right – the number of deaths to pedestrians caused by bikes is about zero. Deaths to cyclists, and deaths to pedestrians, by cars, buses, trucks etc – on the other hand – the only sane response is to provide separate lanes, as the safest response.
There are some nutter cyclists though – on Thursday evening one came peddling flat tack down Taranaki St, through the red light at rush hour, and then biked UP Vivian St, against the traffic – guys like that should be locked up. Appalling behavior. Absolute idiot.
As a cyclist who has commuted 55,000 km in the last 7 years I have been a close observer of both motorist and cyclist behaviour. I would estimate that in both groups that 5% don’t obey the road rules. Yet I don’t hear calls for all motorists to be banned, for roads not to be improved because of this behaviour. I also find it ironic that a motorist and spot and remember every time a cyclist makes a mistake or breaks the rules, but can’t see them to give way or not cut them off when turning left. Keep in mind that the consequences for a cyclist in an accident are far greater, so a motorist has a far greater duty of care. You should not let you bias from a few incidents turn into a general hatred. The next time you see a cyclist make a mistake or break the rules, think, has this affected me in anyway other than offending my sense of indignity, if not then take a deep breath, and get on with your life.
One thing I should say about the kids-cyclist thing is that I don’t believe most kids should be trusted to process the “left-side safe” idea consistently and reliably. And so while many parents probably put their car/booster seats, if they only have one, on the left side and teach the kids to leave on the left, they really should also be thought to look or wait the parents who has looked okay. Because if you think a kid getting hit by a cyclist is bad, imagine the kid being hit by a car….
In any case, it seems to me the big risk is actually to the cyclists and not the person in the car, Realisticly most people park in the flow of the traffic. This means the door will be between the person and the car. And unless the person jumps out real fast, may be only their hand will be outside which will be knocked in. The cyclist will be the one injured when the door opens suddenly.
I also agree while their are undoubtedly bad cyclists, it’s wrong to imply a majority are as described by Pam. Perhaps confirmation bias is at play.
On specific point, why does it matter if someone is in lycra anyway? As someone who has never worn it, I’ve never understood why people care so much. Bad cyclists are bad cyclists whatever they’re wearing. In fact there seems to be something counter-intuitive here. I’m pretty sure those wearing lycra are probably less likely to not have lights. Helmets are more complicated but it probably applies to them too.
In any case as a cyclist who always wears a helmet I say why does it bother you so much, as a road user who doesn’t like cyclists, if someone doesn’t wear a helmet? Yes they’re not obeying the law, but in this specific case, they’re not increasing the risk or problems to you any more, except perhaps if there is an accident, they may make it more likely for a greater injury (but as everyone knows, this is something fairly controversial). This isn’t like other cases like not having lights, or going through red lights or whatever else where you can make a case they are causing problems for you and other road users. Just chill out and let them be ticketed etc. (And funnily enough, even if this may not apply to Pam, I’m guessing many of those who get worked up about it themselves frequently ignore parts of the law where they feel it’s convenient/acceptable, e.g. speeding. And yes being even 1 km/h above the speed limit is speeding even if the police have made it clear they will not normally ticket you.)
In any case, projects like this will increase the number of cyclists and likely reduce the proportion of lycra clad ones. An increase in the number of cyclists, will probably mean it becomes more worthwhile for the police to look out for the bad apples.
To be clear, I’m not saying there aren’t badly behaved cyclists, since there obviously are, but their numbers or frequency on the road, compared to better cyclists isn’t anywhere near that implied in most of NZ. (Hardly ever been to Wellington, but I doubt it’s it’s true there.)
I also think many (obviously not all) cyclists are reasonably fair. They will may get a bit annoyed by doors, but provided the doors are opened with fair consideration, they’re generally going to accept them. (Although there are solutions to the door problem, as has been mentioned by several others). They’re not going to generally get unduly enraged by a door opened with fair consideration. They reserve their true disgust for those that deserve it with their inconsiderate behaviour be it door opening or driving. There may be a small number of road rages cases with cyclists are the perpetrator but they’re surely going to be in a minority. Besides, I think most rationale people would much rather face a road rage cyclist, then one in a car, even more so if they’re in a car, as scary (and unacceptable) as either may be.
4000 killed in a decade. US went to declared war on terror over that number of deaths. Maybe we could go to war on traffic deaths. Should we consider the number of traffic deaths per year as a reason for re thinking our attitude to and acceptance of road carnage of the magnitude we presently accept?
Hi Pam, I think some of the concerns you raise are valid. However, I’d like to point out that when you say “we shouldn’t always just let the experts make decisions for us” and “sometimes local people have a better handle on real-life scenarios” that is actually what has happened in Island Bay. There are Island Bay residents (like myself) who support the cycleway and have been engaged with the council all along to provide that sort of local insight. Most recently I was a member of the council working party that literally walked through the entire design from end to end looking for even the smallest opportunities to improve how the cycleway works. We discussed whether the kerbside lane was the best option for Island Bay over an on-street lane, or even a bi-directional lane on one side of the street, and concluded that – on balance – it was. Another example is that we recommended that the council keep the Dee St roundabout (which they are, even though they don’t want to) simply because the possibility of losing it was causing so much angst among the people who live up those up those particular side-streets. I don’t agree with that decision myself but I also know some of those people personally so I understand their point of view and can accept it as a pragmatic compromise to get the decision over the line. Please don’t lump all locals in together. There are locals who are dead against the cycleway and locals who are all for it but most people are somewhere along a continuum between those two extremes. And saying that the council hasn’t listened to locals just isn’t true.
Danger to “the elderly” is quoted frequently by opponents of the planned cycleway. I’m 82 so I presume I qualify as “elderly”. I think the plan for a cycleway in between footpath and parking is absolutely brilliant. Lucky old Island Bay-ites to have a wide enough street for this type of cycleway to be practicable. I’ll take my grandsons round there to cycle when it’s finished!
Just want to ask if you live on The Parade itself? Because I can tell you that a number of Elderly I know do and they have criticised the design and have really suffered from the layout. They struggle to get in and out of their vehicles and safely to their homes or onto the footpath.
You sound very fit and able and are very lucky. There are a number of elderly that wouldn’t be able to take their grandkids out for a cycle.
Can you expand Marley? What do they struggle with particularly? On the driver side, they just need to be careful to look for bikes as well as pedestrians (other than that it is little changed beyond an additional three or four steps to walk) and on the passenger side, the same is true – they still need to be observant with respect to other road users and not open doors into the traffic. I can appreciate that mobility-challenged people may struggle with getting in and out of vehicles, but the degree to which the new layout has exacerbated this is surely not that huge? Island Bay Parade still remains much wider and flatter and straighter that many, many suburban roads in the city. I don’t mean to be cantankerous here, but the compromise that’s been delivered to enable the cycleway does not seem to me to have disadvantaged drivers and pedestrians to a huge degree?