The new cycle lanes on Carlton Gore Rd open this week – and the picture below from Auckland Transport on Twitter yesterday shows them nearly completed and looking great – although the Herald is already complaining about the new layout even though it isn’t finished.
There are more details showing what’s being done in Carlton Gore Rd here and the image below shows what’s planned in this section.
Of course as some parts of the lanes aren’t protected and outside the parked cars, this has already happened.
New cycle lanes on CGR working fantastically (for trucks) @TransportBlog pic.twitter.com/sJtqvk3Pon
— CJ (@CJ_NZ) June 29, 2015
With a new found focus on cycling – including from the government – perhaps AT needs to start looking at how they could start retrofitting the roads across large swathes of the city quickly, cheaply and easily to leverage off the big investments they are making. That means they need to be able to avoid lengthy consultations with residents arguing about parking and they need solutions that don’t involve large amounts of construction work. Some of this will likely need to make use of some of the tactical urbanism tools Mike Lydon talked about last week. I’ve also talked before about how many of our suburbs built over the last few decades actually have very few cars parked on the street due to each property having often large amounts of off street parking.
Roads tend to have a variety of different sizes and their width depends on a lot of factors however it appears many of the arterials in the suburbs tend to be in the range of 10-13 metres wide between the kerbs (excluding four lane roads). Moving kerbs will be expensive on a large scale so that got me thinking, perhaps they need to come up with a couple of template designs – perhaps using Carlton Gore as an example – that could fit between existing kerbs. That template could then easily be rolled out across the city for very little cost i.e. if the road is 13m wide between the kerbs then there is protected cycle lanes and parking on one side. A 10m wide road might have just painted lanes with no parking and perhaps some flexi posts to help delineate the cycle lane.
So just how many roads do we have over 10m wide? Kent helped me put this image together showing all of them in Auckland and as you can see there are quite a lot.
While I realise not every street on here would be able to or need to have cycle infrastructure it doesn’t stop us dreaming it could all be exist.
p.s. AT need to address how locals deal with their rubbish bins as the ones in the first image appear to be blocking the footpath – or at least taking up a lot of room.
Processing...
Can this design be a template for more of Auckland? With some exceptions, I hope not.
I cycled the westbound parking-protected bit towards Park Rd and found it woefully lacking:
* Much of the “protection” is token in the first place, as there is off-street parking lining the private frontage, meaning there is a lot of “permeability” (i.e. no protection).
* On the approach to the intersection, you have to plan well in advance if you want to turn right at the lights, because there is no infrastructural support for bicycle right-turn movements. The barrier blocks merging after a certain point, so you have to bail out at some unmarked point (probably using a “permeable” driverway exit). Of course, if you do bail and merge right, you will be unprotected.
* If you instead choose to travel straight ahead (to the western segment of CGR) then you’re out of luck again. The protected track neatly drops you off at an advanced stop box, but the lights are phased to give left-turning traffic a green light while you hold them up at the front. I found myself in exactly this situation (having abandoned a planned right turn) and had one car dangerously swerve around me, and several other drivers rage after that.
* So it only works if you’re cycling southwest-bound, i.e. turning left into Park Rd from CGR. That leaves ~10 bicycle movements unsupported at the intersection, two of them (of three possible movements) from the new infrastructure.
(Clearly the solution would be to fix the intersection — preferably at the same time as the works that installed a connected cycle track. Treating one without the other is a bit like building a house without a roof; you need to meet a minimum standard of treatment before the whole thing is a viable product. Still, to fix it today might just involve new signal phasing at the Park Rd/CGR intersection, probably with simultaneous green for bikes only. That would resolve all possible bike movements at once, even for the directions not currently fitted with cycle tracks.)
The unprotected (or “buffered”, as the euphemism goes) parts are a waste of paint. On my first ride, I encountered several cars/trucks either parked or queued or loading or merging one way or another across it. This is a well known antipattern with door-zone bike lanes, and should never have been approved in this form. Do not copy.
What’s left that’s any good? The protected section along the Domain, and at least the gesture of a few metres of parking-protected track opposite. Also, the general intent of bundling street improvements along with other primary works is commendable.
At first impression it seems a big improvement but practically there are some issues – like how are trucks supposed to collect those large bins from the footpath over the cyclists?
Parking needs to be on the outside of those lanes. Crossing the cycle lane to access car parks is mad.
For the businesses and regular commuters who become accustomed to the interruptions the finished product is quite a site. How long exactly have contractors been working on this site? It must be at least two years.
There were initially some large stormwater upgrades, only partially related to the roadworks. Then the reseal of the eastern road half, then a looong pause, then the start of the unrelated building construction in the western section, and then the footpath and cycle lane works now, as well as also a reseal of the western half overall.
They really need to get all the associated painting and signage in place right away, so people know how to read the changed streetscape – even if it means doing it in stages rather than all at once at the end of the physical works.
The modifications to the westbound lane have created traffic chaos. In afternoon peaks, two informal lanes used to form back down to George St – 1 for left turning traffic, and 1 for straight ahead/right. The introduction of the cycleway has effectively reduced the 2 lane section to only 20m (approx) back from the Carlton Gore/Park Ave intersection. Around 5pm, there is now a single lane of traffic backed up past Kingdon St and growing by the minute. The cycle lane is fantastic, but it has had a massive detrimental effect on local traffic.
Riding down/east along Carlton Gore has its problems too – right turning traffic (into businesses) ‘forces’ cars to cross into the kerbside cycle lane to undertake the stationary vehicle, and from experience not looking in the mirror before doing so. Not a good place to be on your bike when this occurs. Note that the kerbs separating the cycle lane and traffic lane as shown on the above drawings have not been constructed.
I think the going argument is that it is no worse for cyclists now than previously. Hopefully in some places it is a little better.
As for traffic, after a few months the queues will magically disappear as people change their travel patterns to balance out demand.
“two informal lanes used to form”
was that taken into account by the designers?
Probably not. Informal lanes appear all over Auckland as people struggle to cope with woefully inadequate roading and markings. Making things worse for motorists will not make them thrilled about the cycle lanes. Seems some more thinking is required by planners so everyone wins. Its all about flow – or the city simply dies.
Typical bull, Ricardo.
One of the KEY reasons this cycle project is so late (1 year after it should have happened, together with the rest of the roadworks to the east) is because AT needed to find a way to allow car parking AND keep the almight “level of service” up at the intersection. The clearway that has been designed into the design here is there only here because of that informal two lane queuing, and because AT was not happy to simply tell drivers to stick to a single lane.
And ironically, the key delay isn’t even at Park / Carlton Gore, but down around the corners at Khyber / Park and Grafton / Park. So even 3 lanes at the intersection wouldn’t change much, except make the queues APPEAR shorter.
>> “two informal lanes used to form”
>> was that taken into account by the designers?
I’m aware that it was explicitly highlighted by submitters with a motoring interest during consultation. The contractor at the time assured them it would be accounted for, and it subsequently became a design concern leading to a scheduled clearway during evening peak, if I understand correctly.
Thanks. You too, Max.
“The modifications to the westbound lane have created traffic chaos… Around 5pm, there is now a single lane of traffic backed up past Kingdon St and growing by the minute.”
Yes, that’s the plan. Make it hard for people in cars to get anywhere and they will learn to ride a bike or catch a train or bus instead. As Ari has pointed out the problem will resolve itself in a few months when motorists learn they have no choice but to use PT or take an alternate route.
The latter might just move the problem elsewhere, but if we can use Carlton Gore Rd as a template then we can provide the same solution for those roads too.
>> ” The cycle lane is fantastic, but it has had a massive detrimental effect on local traffic.”
No, the local traffic has had a massive detrimental effect on local traffic. Even with the shite cycle tracks and lanes now in place, the majority of road space is allocated primarily to car movement or storage, or secondarily shared across the cycle path, plus extra private real estate adjoining it in the form of driveways and car parks. If local traffic can’t make do with that much, then it is failing entirely on its own, regardless of any other mode.
The question is really whether we can circumvent the faults of car dependence by carving out enough space for mass movement by other modes to become viable. The answer is obviously that yes, we can, and we very nearly did on CGR with respect to cycling, but for several critical engineering and planning errors (which I can assure you were pointed out very early during consultation). We still have a lot to learn, but let’s not be misguided about the causes of the problem: cycling has most definitely not made local traffic worse.
I found the design so compromised that no one is happy with it. Cyclists will say it isn’t enough, drivers will say it causes congestion and that no one cyclist through there, locals will say they have nowhere to park their cars, businesses will be going bankrupt left right and centre, milk will curdle in the udders of nearby cows, someone from North Shore will complain it doesn’t help them at all, etc
It’s all well and good trying to get everything done at once, but that is next to impossible. There are probably multiple contractors involved with different jobs all over the place. When it’s done it’s done and people will adjust to it after a few months. In the mean time we should just ignore all the complaints.
Yes this is likely. But at least it is now more like equal opportunities disappointment.
Also, greening hasn’t been done yet due to rain weather last week (east end) and the new seal needing some weeks to “settle in” before greening is practicable (west end).
Plus there’s that construction site halfway up the west end of the road which has apparently consent to use part of the footpath / road, so in that section, a temporary layout will still be in place for about 2 months, as I hear from AT.
But overall, I agree. Some issues will disappear in a few months. Others – like the use of the unprotected lanes for deliveries and taxis – will persist, and really can only be sorted long-term by another layout change. That said, I think we will see a clear difference in quality along the road west and east, which in itself is a useful showcase to get better quality elsewhere. It is a big jump from saying “Holland does it this way, why don’t you? / Holland does it this way – you’ll see it won’t kill your street” and people and officials getting actual hands-on experience.
I’m not sure this is in any way a win for cycling – when no one uses this because it is so terrible the Herald will run an article on how there is no point providing cycle lanes because no one uses them.
Well I’m glad this one came through. If only we can now cough up the courage to fix the big intersections. As long as having turning traffic give way to pedestrians and cyclists going straight is unthinkable, most of the efforts on improving cycle infrastructure will go to waste.
That NZ Herald article is just silly. If you’re not able to squeeze past cars parked in just three metres [sic] you’re not supposed to have a drivers license.
+1.
you’re on fire tonight wmsoc esq.
Does anyone know why they didnt have the cycle lanes adjacent to the kerb behind the parking all the way along instead of changing the layout half way down?
I think ‘safety’ given there are so many driveways and bikes would be hidden behind a row of cars.
Max can explain but it’s related to them designing and building the road without any consideration for cycling and then coming back and retrofitting, which is why the project has been going on for so long and so disjointed. Nothing to do with safety – behind cars would be much safer than what’s there presently.
I think BBC explained it more or less correctly, as far as I know. In early 2014, when the roadworks on the eastern half of the road where pretty much ready to go, we (CAA) were still trying to head off a design that had only an uphill painted cycle lane, and nothing downhill. So the eastern section got built, and now poses some issues regarding parking-protected lane implementation (especially eastbound). Can still be done of course, but not without some substantial changes to tree pits and so on.
To AT’s credit, on the western side they eventually went further than we had believed we’d be able to get them – and eventually even stuck to their guns with a lot of parking removal (over 30 spaces, from memory). So let’s give credit where credit is due, and keep pushing for better on the rest.
>> it’s related to them designing and building the road without any consideration for cycling and then coming back and retrofitting, which is why the project has been going on for so long and so disjointed. Nothing to do with safety – behind cars would be much safer than what’s there presently.
It may be that the planning machinery was underway and therefore difficult to change, but if I remember correctly, there was a period of weeks where most of the new layout was not yet built (except for a few kerbside parking spaces), and they were already talking publicly about cycle facilities. I recall thinking it was possible to alter their immediate plans enough at least to keep the possibility open for mostly protected cycleways subsequently — but then again no one else was tabling it as an option (publicly) as far as I know, so I guess we got what we collectively asked for.
Moreover, when I asked, the contractor at the time explicitly claimed that even if it was physically possible to build parking-protected tracks along on the eastern section, they would veto it because of safety due to presumed visibility issues and conflicts with vehicle ingress/egress. The idea of designing around those conflicts with cycle priority was unacceptable to them because “direct vehicular frontage access” was their primary design concern.
I’m not sure what happened to partially override that view in the later stages leading to a slightly improved layout for the few metres of linear movement along the southwestern quarter, but that intervention obviously didn’t happen soon enough despite the window of opportunity.
If that was the concern, you are right a lot could be done. Not least of all the hugely oversized driveway entrances could be pared back. The cycle lane could be raised on a kerb, and parking removed were required to improve visibility.
It also begs the question – if there would have been visibility issues with protected lanes for cars entering driveways, do no extra toy the same visibility issues exist now for cars exiting driveways?
Traffic engineers seem to have conniptions over pedestrians getting raised tables. Can’t imagine what cyclists would do to their equilibrium.
Indeed, there are worse risks due to visibility and conflicts around vehicle entrances with a door-zone lane as we have it, than even a half-baked parking-protected track.
In the discussion I had with the contract engineer, they raised all sorts of claims about design standards, consensus in safety research, etc. etc.. But they could not name any evidence considered in their design process, when I later asked for references in a LGOIMA request. To be fair, they could have cited Austroads if they made an effort, but then that’s hardly a benchmark.
This was during a public meeting held under an earlier revision of the proposal that didn’t have any protected tracks at all. The engineer was keen to reject all barrier-separated tracks (not just parking-protected ones) anywhere near a driveway. When I pointed out that Beach Rd had barrier-protected tracks across many driveways (bi-directional too), he suggested, “if you like it so much, why don’t you go cycle there instead?” I thought that remark was quite revealing: we’re entering these projects with a mindset that cyclists want to cycle because they like to cycle for the sake of cycling — not to access buildings, travel around town, move goods, encounter street life, etc. With that logic, we might as well build velodromes instead of bothering with troublesome cycle paths. I’m sure that engineer would agree.
The engineer’s comments about cycling on the Beach Rd cycleway instead are pretty telling and completely absurd. Hopefully they dont get any more cycleway contracts.
There is a little island jutting out into the parking bay infront of 101 CGR with wires sticking out. Can anyone confirm that this will be a EV charging point and if so, will it be restricted to EV only (is there currently legislation/regulations to allow restriction to EV’s like there is for disabled parking?).
Could be, being near Vector and all. Or it could just be for the parking meter to be moved into the road, to reduce the footpath pinch point (but yeah, EV might be a more logical reason).
EV charging point being installed today.
I don’t want to spam, but while we’re on the topic of cycle infrastructure, Christchurch and other interested people on the blog should make a submission for a new cycleway going through Hagley Park. It’s out for consultation at the moment on the Council’s website, under ‘Have Your Say.’
Cheers, keep on fighting the good fight for cycling!
http://www.ccc.govt.nz/CCC.Web.ProjectInfo/cityleisure/projectstoimprovechristchurch/projectinformation/projectsearch/consultationview.aspx?projectid=4828&consultid=1089
What’s the advantage of having a narrow one way cycle lane on both sides? Why not a two way cycle lane (properly protected from traffic by a hard median) on one side of the road and parking on the other side? Surely this saves space and prevents trucks parking in the cycle way?
The design you propose has its uses, but really primarily on arterial roads where there are relativey few driveways, and side streets are signalised (such as Nelson St).
On a street like CGR, one-ways are proven to be safer, more flexible for the user when getting on and off at intersections or origins/destinations, easier to integrate at intersections – and simply more intuitive for both cyclists and motorists, as they follow the logic of all other wheeled traffic. Also, a two-way cycleway tends to save only a tiny bit of width (4m still required if parking is provided next to it) compared to protected cycle lanes.