Auckland Transport are really picking up the pace on their cycleway projects – which they have to do if they want to have any chance of making the most of the governments Urban Cycleway Fund – and are today starting consultation a cycleway on Quay St. The stretch from Queen St to Lower Hobson St is possibly the busiest place in all of Auckland for bikes a dedicated cycleway will make things much better for both those on bikes and those on foot.

The project will see a 3m protected two way cycleway built along most of the northern side of Quay St from the Lower Hobson St intersection through to Plumber St – I’ll talk about the exception to this in more detail later in the post. This cycleway is actually an interim solution for around a decade until a more permanent solution is created when Quay St is made more people friendly (after the CRL is finished). As such it will be a bit of a mix with the cycleway separated by a rubber kerbs, some sections where the path is raised to the same height as footpath and one section of shared path. Due to how busy the area is with bikes and how key it is for many bike movements it was felt the project couldn’t afford wait till the larger Quay St project to happen hence why they’re pushing it now.

Quay St Cycleway - Along Quay St

AT say the reason for the cycleway being on the Northern side is:

We have chosen the northern side of Quay Street as this keeps the cycleway clear of cars turning into side streets and means less of a stop-start journey for What are the proposed changes? At the intersection with Lower Hobson Street, the cycleway sits flush with the footpath people on bikes. We can also keep traffic light phasing on Quay Street similar to the current phasing.

Quay St Cycleway - Hobson St intersection 1

To make space for the cycleway AT will be removing the planted median islands to the west of Queen St and combining some of the dedicated right turn lanes with the lanes going straight.

The benefits AT list are:

  • Connects with the ferry terminal and with cycle routes along Nelson Street, Beach Road and Auckland’s waterfront.
  • Designed for people of all ages and abilities. • An interim step towards the long-term transformation of Quay Street and the water’s edge.
  • Makes Quay Street a more pleasant walking experience, by shifting bikes onto the cycleway.
  • Helps create a city centre in which people feel safer and more confident walking and cycling.
  • Along with improvements to bus and train services, provides more travel options into the city, particularly during construction of CityRail Link.
  • Helps achieve our target of a 30% increase in cycle journeys within Auckland by 2019.
  • Supports the different ways in which Quay Street is accessed and used.
  • Improves travel options around the city for local residents, now one of the most densely populated parts of the country.
  • Supports the social benefits of cycling – improvements to health, a reduction in household costs and a cleaner environment.

Below are the diagrams of what is proposed (click to enlarge)

Quay St Cycleway - Plan legend

Section 1 starts off from the Lower Hobson St intersection. As the Nelson St Stage 2 section is still under review I guess it’s possible that the crossings could change. The cycleway is raised to be level with the footpath however hopefully with it being on the south of the trees it will mean that pedestrians stay out of it.

Quay St Cycleway - Plan Section 1

Section 2 shifts to a cycleway at road level but protected by kerbs.. You can also see the accessway with a blue line where low level mountable kerbs – like was used on the first stage of Beach Rd.

Quay St Cycleway - Plan Section 2

Section 3 is where things get odd. It appears that the cycleway narrows outside the ferry building before eventually moving back to a shared path in front of Queens Wharf. This is for a number of reasons which I’ll explain later.

Quay St Cycleway - Plan Section 3

Section 4 continues on as a shared path before returning to a cycleway on the road with protection, this carries through section 5 too.
Quay St Cycleway - Plan Section 4

Quay St Cycleway - Plan Section 5

Section 6 will see the removal of some oddly placed carparks and again it looks like the cycleway narrows just before the end.

Quay St Cycleway - Plan Section 6

Section 7 has the cycleway moves to being alongside the footpath and like section just to the east of the lower Hobson St intersection. It’s unclear what AT will do to prevent or restrict people from walking in the cycle lane.

Quay St Cycleway - Plan Section 7

Overall I think this cycleway will be very popular and it’s good that AT are progressing it however I have a serious concern for the section around Queens Wharf where it goes back to a shared path. This probably wouldn’t be so much of an issue if it was in some of the eastern sections but it is here as that’s where a lot of people are. AT have said there are four reasons for doing this.

This change has been necessary due to the following constraints that leave no space for an on-road cycleway:

  • The requirement for a dedicated right turn traffic lane into Commerce Street to provide for Skybus movements
  • The requirement for a dedicated right turn traffic lane into Queens Wharf to provide for Skybus and tour coach movements
  • Retaining the existing Explorer Bus stop on the northern side of Quay Street
  • Retaining the existing bus parking and Pay & Display parking on the southern side of Quay St

These have to be some of the four weakest excuses I’ve heard for not doing something properly (even though it’s only an interim solution. Lets step through them.

  1. So because of the CRL works are closing lower Queen St and instead of just shifting the Skybus stop from outside the ferry terminal someone at AT has decided we need to keep it where it is thereby requiring extra road space and preventing a dedicated cycleway. Absurd doesn’t begin to describe it. Note: I understand from conversations in the past they have some long term deal to be outside the Ferry Terminal but surely that can be changed.
  2. The same goes for the Explorer Bus which may be even worse. The bus only runs once every 30 minutes in summer and doesn’t even start till after 9am and finishes at 5pm. By in large it only runs off peak so why does it need an offline stop. Perhaps instead AT should just merge the bus stop within one of the general traffic lanes and just have a bit of a wider island for passengers to use (i.e. send bikes behind the bus stop.
  3. As for the last comment, since when is bus lay over parking and pay and display the highest priority on our waterfront. It’s insane that those few places are being retained ahead of a cycleway and really makes you wonder who in AT is putting their retention as a requirement.

Sometimes it really feels like we are constantly taking two steps forward and one step back with some of this stuff.

Consultation is open till 11 December at

There will also be an information day on Thursday 26 November from 6pm to 8pm in the Cloud.

Share this


          1. Thank you Richard. Every morning a queue of cars now forms and sits there puffing out emissions. Before there were two lanes and the left turning vehicles including school buses kept moving. No because of some idiotic principle of providing cycle lanes even the bus has to drive of the footpath. But yes you fixed it by changing the language. You would have made a fine Commissar!

          2. “Has” to drive?

            Gosh, the driver’s entitlement goes a long way, when they feel they can bolster their case with a “buses use footpaths too!” argument!

        1. “In twenty minutes I saw one bike”. You were at the intersection for twenty minutes? It takes me twenty minutes to ride the 11 kms to work.

          You should try riding a bike in the congestion free network provided by Auckland Transport.

  1. Do they really plan to put a pole in the middle of the approach to the yellow cycleway (outside A Auckland in second picture)?

    Perhaps they could move it 1m north so that people on bikes cycling west to east can actually get to the cycleway.

  2. My understanding is that if AT compromises the privately run Skybus route in any way, they will be sued for millions.
    But I am pretty surprised that they are pushing ahead with that design. I’m quite concerned about delays to PT caused by the removal of the right turn bays. Someone is going to lose out. Just for the sake of a couple hundred cyclists. The CBD is going to be full of holes for the next several years and that capacity on Quay should have been retained until after there is certainty it wasn’t needed, not before the fact.

    1. Ari no system works well with a big gap at the heart of the network, connecting west with east is just as vital for cycling as it is for the rail network. You complain cycling numbers are too low; this is why, incomplete network. And Quay is the best place for this and in fact has plenty of capacity, why else could we afford to waste chunks of it on parking and bus layovers.

      I don’t believe the bus operators have that much power, or if they do, who is signing the city to be hostage to them? They, or any other private outfit, quite literally don’t own the road.

      Did we really spend $40m to buy Princess Wharf so a bus operator can park buses on it and then bully us into stuffing up our waterfront to optimise their business?

      No pedestrian wants a shared path there, way to busy, this is a dreadful, over compromised, trying to keep everyone happy, and above all uncreative solution from AT.

      1. Patrick I think you meant Queens Wharf not Princess that we paid the $40m for.

        And yes, this has the smell of Franklin road version 1 all over it – “paper” cycling facilities smeared all over the bits between the footpaths and roads – its trying to be all things to everyone and not actually delivering very well.

        Needs a complete rethink around the Ferry terminal/Queens wharf area at least. And actually needs a innovative solution like Franklin Road v2 came up with – even if it lasts “only” 10 years – we’ve spent more money for shorter term road benefits that that before, so why not do a proper job down here, even if it needs reworking after 10 years.

        The uptake of cycling down here in 10 years will be massive thanks to Skypath and Wynyard Quarter coming on stream.
        So we can’t possibly do the solution in 10 years now as AT can’t envision that future (yet). but doesn’t mean we should compromise what we deliver for cycling and walking- which will be of benefit for 10 years.

        And why is there a need to allow for turns in this design, into/out of the bottom of Queen St – when the CRL works will have that closed off for quite some time as the CRL tunnel work is undertaken.
        Leave then out for now, and those turn provisions can be added back in later – years later, in fact once the CRL work down this way is completed.
        And by then so many people will have got used to not using Queen St, they won’t actually need to be able to turn in or out of it on Quay.

        And its likely by then they’ll have LRT plans well advanced down here anyway, so they will end up having to redo that intersection in all likelihood.

        1. Greg I understand the turning lane into Queen St is for construction traffic. Also no impact from LRT as they’ve agreed to use Customs St which is the right choice (and which Mike Lee is unhappy about)

      2. I don’t actually mind the shared path as a pedestrian, because I’ll just push someone off their bike if they annoy me, but I can understand why cyclists wouldn’t want to use it. I’m not disagreeing with the cycle lane going in. I think it makes total sense to put it in to complete that part of the network. I’m just saying not yet. There will be massive disruption from CRL works and so many changes to bus routes. The traffic lights won’t be able to operate as well with the right turning bays removed and the result will be delays for bus users. I guess AT doesn’t care about people on the bus.

        As for Sky Bus it isn’t about power it is about the law. The bus might not own the road, but maybe they own the right to use a certain route. I assume there are contractual obligations that must be upheld. I suppose those obligations will end eventually.

        1. Can you give me a bit more information on how much annoyance you need before you start pushing people off bikes, Ari? Does it depend on your mood too?

          I am really interested in this “managed violence” approach of yours.

        2. “I don’t actually mind the shared path as a pedestrian, because I’ll just push someone off their bike if they annoy me”

          The rest of your comments seem reasonable, so just to be clear: you don’t actually think assault is a fair response to being ‘annoyed’ by a bike on a shared path, right?

          1. No it won’t be unprovoked. When they come up from behind me yelling and scaring the crap out of me then I’ll be responding.

          2. The only time (as a cyclist) I’ve ever been punched by a pedestrian, was when I was on a cycle way. He was an 80ish year old man walking in Hyde Park in London – I was on the new Shared pathway, which he was clearly unaware of, despite standing on a large painted cycle sign. He resolutely blocked the way, so I came to a stop in front of him, and then he clocked me full in the face…. I was so stunned… he was too old to hit back, for which his companion was very thankful as she tried to drag him away… still can’t quite believe his cheek…

        3. But couldn’t they still provide right turn access onto Queen’s Wharf for Skybus? The only question is whether it’s a dedicated lane or not. Not having a dedicated lane doesn’t inconvenience Skybus at all. It’ll just hold up traffic while the bus waits for its signal. That doesn’t really matter.

  3. I think this is a great initiative. Quay St is currently the most fraught section when I ride from Kingsland to Wynyard Quarter via Grafton Gully (tho I realize I won’t have to do that once the NELSON St bridge is open 🙂 )

    Regarding the shared path outside the Ferry building: Having recently ridden from Pier 1 to 49 in San Francisco after catching the ferry back from Sausalito when biking the bridge with my 11yo I honestly don’t think we would have if there hadn’t been a dedicated cycle lane. This Embarcadero cycleway also becomes a shared path at Fishermans Wharf- where the most ped traffic- and bike hire!-is!- I just didn’t get it. Once again it becomes shared to make space for a carpark…
    Let’s not make the same mistake.

    1. The pedestrians on the Golden Gate are quite a good example for why pedestrians and bicycles aren’t the best mix. We rode from Vancouver to Mexico in May/June this year and getting over the bridge was the worst of it. Around one of the Pillars we were stopped by a pedestrian who walked into our path and then just stopped and looked at us. I’d rather share the road with cars than pedestrians. They’re completely random and stop/change direction without warning.

      1. Ha ha, yes I’d forgotten about that. Lucky for us we were able to follow a maintenance golf cart for about a quarter of it- making a clear path for us 🙂

        1. Exactly. I like KP did the same route on a cycling day tour this time last year and while I agree with the sentiments about the shared area of Fisherman’s Wharf I really think KP is going way overboard on the Golden Gate bridge traverse. Yeah, I had to slow down and even get off the bike a couple of times to walk around pillars, but I saw cyclists and pedestrians showing good courtesy towards each other. Heck, the world didn’t end or I didn’t feel in danger. As for feeling safer being in general traffic. What a load of rubbish! Seeing the general traffic going past me made me thankful I wasn’t amongst it! Me thinks KP was maybe trying to break the record for getting across the bridge and was frustrated at the “inconvenience” of having to actually share the path with others.

      2. Haha… at least the San Francisco experience indicates that people will use it. Lots of people…

        Fairfax, just north of San Fran has some completely awesome cycle infrastructure. Beautiful little town to ride through with an awful lot of sharrows.

        1. Yes, cycling in San Francisco is great. We often used to ride over the bridge and take the ferry back. I do have some sympathy for the residents of Northcote point because Salsalito is a traffic nightmare most weekends with cyclists driving down and parking up while they ride for a few hours. Don’t understand the local business complaints though, the shops in Salsalito are always full of cyclists, especially the coffee shops and the rather excellent ice cream parlor.

  4. I cycle along the existing shared footpath everyday and the only place I regularly have issues is by the explorer bus stop. A real shame they’re not addressing that. Some great improvements though – really like that they’ve done this outside the ferry terminal it does get crowded there and love the raised table at Plumer Street.

    Two other things they could improve:
    1) At the Quay/Hobson intersection actually enable a proper Barnes dance crossing. There is an all green pedestrian phase already just put proper pram crossings in that encourage diagonal movements (actually do this at all the intersections along Quay Street and add countdown timers)
    2) Consider adding a pedestrian crossing on the east side of Tangihua/Quay intersection. And get rid of the slip lanes especially the one closest to countdown.

    1. the Countdown slip lane is an absolute shocker; there’s almost no footpath left. I always worried about my apartment dwelling elderly mother using this her local Countdown via this lethal bit example of vehicle over priority- when will it be fixed?

      1. I agree 100%. It amazes me every time I cross the road there. I am also amazed by how ugly the Countdown building is, how unpleasant it is for pedestrians on Quay St walking past their ground level carpark, and how inconvenient the access is for pedestrians coming from Britomart as the only entrance/exit is at the eastern end. Surely we could have done better than what we have!

    2. That narrowing at the explorer bus stop is maddening, but I can’t say that’s the only problem I have with the existing shared path. The problem is that this is a tourist hot-spot, and the little bronze plaques denoting the bike lane are invisible to all the pedestrians staring at the view.

      The handling of the bus stop and the narrowing/merging with the footpath just before Tinley St means I’ll probably just ride on the road on this section when heading east, which is what I currently do before turning up Tangihua St. I use the shared path on the way back to the ferry if I catch the timing of the lights right, if not I use the Quay St. westbound bus lane and turn into the gates between the Explorer bus stop and the ferry building.

      I really object to cycle lanes that lose the right of way over road traffic, and the eastern section of this scheme is just awful. There may be an alternative, for me to go west and pick up the new Nelson St. route, but that and the Grafton Gully cycleway both involve considerable detours, so I’ll most likely just stick with the road route up Symonds St.

  5. Is it just me, or is anyone else aghast at the amount of signage on poles being proposed by the AT signage crew (as shown in the last image)? Pointless much? No signs on poles needed for pedestrians or cyclists – we understand the road. Signs only needed for car drivers, who don’t notice other species of road/pavement users.

    1. Unfortunately, those are likely due to the legal requirements around the signposting of cycleways and shared paths. Such regulation is controlled by central government legislation (the Land Transport Rule) so AT simply does not have the authority to do anything else.

    2. That green is very green. Seen it in plans like this and thought it is just that bright because someone is highlighting the new item. Using shocking, clashing, unnaturally bright colour to project the item out of the plans and into your focus. Assumed that the actual lanes wouldn’t clash with the colours of the surrounds.

      Fast forward a year or so and the new cycle-ways start getting rolled out – same green. I’ve used post-it notes that stand out less than these things.

        1. How is red more visible than green? Red fades to dull red just as much as green does. And at least we have a good understanding by drivers (if not an ACCEPTANCE) that green means “not a car lane”.

    3. Yeah, it’s a bit of a pet hate of mine; CYCLEWAY BEGINS/ENDS signs at every single side road (even when they’re signalised for God’s sake!). Yep, you don’t currently have priority walking/cycling on a path crossing a side-road but I think most people get that (and if the law changes, as is quite possible in the near future, then that’s a lot of signs to remove too).

      I notice they’re also using CYCLE LANE signs when the route switches from shared path to separated cycleway. Except that it’s not legally a “cycle lane”, it’s a separated bike facility and legally that’s quite different to a cycle lane on the “roadway” (i.e. one has priority over side roads, one currently doesn’t).

      1. Well, they tried no signs on Beach Road, and it didn’t work. I know they are planning to adapt Beach Road to find a better middle ground – but for this one, in the interim, they are obviously going back to the formally required rules…

  6. As identified in CAA’S blog post, AT said to us they had agreed to keep the parking on Quay St near Britomart as one of the concessions to get one of the appellants to withdraw the challenge to the CRL consents. Frustrating. Hopefully that section can still be further improved all the same before the CRL works are over.

  7. As identified in CAA’S blog post, AT said to us they had agreed to keep the parking on Quay St near Britomart as one of the concessions to get one of the appellants to withdraw the challenge to the CRL consents. Frustrating.

    (Ie they said the parking being kept is a CRL – construction – consent condition). Shame they felt that was a appropriate thing to trade away!

    1. Incredible. Literally the single best connected location to PT in all of Auckland and they had to back down over a couple of car parks during construction. What world are they living in – they need to be doing everything they can to reduce private vehicle trips into the city – especially during the disruption caused by the construction of the CRL not maintaining it.

  8. When new infrastructure like this goes in motorists rightly expect cyclists to use the infrastructure given to us. In most cases that is a given anyway since a lot of the new infrastructure (NW Cycleway improvements, Grafton, Nelson St) are fantastic.
    I have been waiting for this project because I ride from the Ferry Terminal to Glendowie for work most days. Unfortunately using this planed design looks worse than my current run.
    I started off using the shared path but now I deliberately use the road. I don’t want to hang around and try to get my average pace into the 29-32kph zone end to end. I can’t do this on a shared path, a safe-ish speed would see me add another 5-10minutes to my journey or 10-20 minutes per day (for the whole journey not just Quay St) which turns a trip as fast as or faster than a bus into slower than the bus. In addition my route is counter to the general traffic flow and the shared path is not that wide. Somehow I seemed to end up giving way or tucking in behind pedestrians and waiting.
    So I use the road. There is reasonable space, I can get out of the ferry building when the lights change at lower Queen Street and I am not bothered by traffic in the morning. In the evening the traffic is backed up which makes it generally easier and safer to pass. The places I have issues with safety like the bridge over the railway lines coming into town, the slip lanes from the strand and into Tangihua Street as well as traffic turning in and out of the shops with the Mobil station are not covered by this proposal.
    Unfortunately using this proposal means I will have to go through the narrows by the Explorer Bus Stop. In the mornings there are always kids and other waiting there, there are pedestrians coming and going and there are already a lot of cyclists going both ways even without upgraded facilities and the link down Nelson Street. The wider footpath past the bus stop is challenging enough with pedestrians all over the bike lane at the moment.
    Having managed to escape the ferry building one might think all was fine but wait there is another road block – semi-literally. At the eastern end of the on road cycleway just before it gets to Tangihua Street the cycleway mounts the pavement and becomes a shared path again.
    This I can understand, if you are not wanting to ride the road out along Tamaki Drive you want to get up there to use the crossing and join the shared path that follows the red fence out. This also allows access to the crossing that gets to Grafton Gully (although you could use the crossing at Britomart Place) and the new raised table at Plumber Street with realignment of the cycleway should be much better and safer.
    If you do want to join the road at that point and carry on a logical solution would be an open end like there is on the Beach Road separated lanes approaching Te Taou Cres allowing bikes to just continue straight ahead. Instead the drawings show a Kerb at the end of the cycleway forcing bikes onto the footpath meaning anyone wishing to continue onto the road has find a way out or proceed through a number of crossings.
    Of course one could try to continue cycling on the road and I am sure some will. With a separated cycleway right beside you traffic will be less than impressed and it will get tense = less enjoyable. The bits of infrastructure, like cycle boxes, that currently exist are being removed and the change in the lane layout means you are likely to impede traffic if you do cycle on the road where that isn’t the case under the current arrangement.
    Ideally I would like to see the Explorer bus moved onto Queens Wharf like the SkyBus, the bus stop done away with and the cycle lanes continue separated on road all the way from their current western start point to the crossing to Tapora Street. Here they could mount the kerb and provide a ramp on the other side to allow bikes to continue along the road onto Tamaki Drive.

    1. As the Cycle Touring Club secretary George Herbert Stancer said to the Alness Committee looking into cyclists road use in 1938; “Cyclists would never insist upon their actract rights if it were not that they were losing their chief pleasure of cycling by being forced onto the paths. If the paths are by any miracle to be made of such width and quality as to be equal to our present road system, it would not be necessary to pass any laws to compel cyclists to use them; the cyclists would use them.”

      1. Thanks for that. I was just coming to the realisation that what I like about cycling to work is the freedom. I can take the ferry or I can ride around the harbour. I am not trapped by congestion (yet) and can adapt my route for interest, food, drink or entertainment.

        Nelson Street and Grafton Gully unlock new options and offer more freedom.

        Skypath’s opening and closing times mean that it is available when the ferries are and both cost some money so it offers some freedom but not as much as it could.

        Quay Street removes a method of avoiding the very busy shared path in the area. It will have some improvements to pedestrians but for cyclists there is already an official and unofficial shared path so this is a removal of freedom for some of us.

        But I do like that quote.

        1. How does it “remove” that option, Duncan? I think you’ll be fast enough to keep up with on-road traffic there, so you can stay on-road, can’t you? It’s not being made illegal.

          1. Currently as you approach Tangihua Street from the ferry building the left hand lane goes left and straight ahead, a right hand lane peels off and goes right and the center lane goes straight through. When I pass through there doesn’t tend to be too much traffic backing up the right turn lane and so I can ride the left hand lane at a comfortable pace and traffic can get around me if needed. Because of buses and people turning into the petrol station or Tangihua a lot of vehicles seem to use the center lane to go straight ahead anyway.

            Under the new layout there will be a left turn only lane (quite short) a center lane that goes straight ahead and a lane for going right and straight head. This layout might end up with traffic wanting to use the left lane along Quay Street to go straight ahead so they don’t get stuck behind right turning traffic at Tangihua. My concern is that this will bring motorists and cyclists on the road together in the same lane and motorist frustrations will be increased by the idea there is a separated cycleway beside you.

        2. Chapter Fifteen of Carlton Reid’s “Roads were not built for cars” is quite interesting reading. Germany (and America to a degree) had made it compulsory for cyclists to use the cycle paths. In New York, cyclists who were using the famed Coney Island bicycle path were left with nowhere to legally ride when the bike path was ripped up and turned into a motor road in 1911 (they had previously acquiesced when banned from the parkway in 1896 by the Park Commissioner because the “reasonable regulation… in no way interfered with their needs in that area”).

          In Germany, the cycle paths started out wide and smooth but soon morphed into narrow, rough and constructed of poor materials… it was made compulsory to use them when provided in 1934 without opposition due to the Nazi party making cycling organisations illegal…

          1. Does this count as “Godwining” the discussion? 😉

            In any case, nobody is proposing this in NZ, and such a rule can’t be introduced for a single road anyway (short of declaring it a motorway). There will still be bike boxes on-road, highlighting that there’s still bikes there. Some drivers will be upset about that – that isn’t exactly news. We’ll deal with it.

          2. From memory Coroner Matenga in the coronial hearing regarding the death of the Police’s Road Safety dude, made a suggestion that riding on the road where there was a cycle path should be made illegal. The Minister at the time (Woodhouse?) had to make a statement that it wouldn’t be happening due to the requirement to upgrade an awful lot of paths.

          3. Actually it was Coroner Ian Smith, and it was completely irrelevant to the particular case of Steve Fitzgerald he was looking at. The Minister was quite right to dismiss this call; that’s why the previous law was rescinded in the first place. Requiring cyclists to always use a cycleway when one is present is fraught with problems of judging both the quality of the facility in question (e.g. busy “shared path”) and its practicality to get to the intended destination (e.g. planning to turn right).

    2. It’s unrealistic to expect to have a high speed cycle way through one of the busiest parts of the CBD. All traffic including bikes should expect to travel slowly through such a densely pedestrianised part of town.

      1. I agree but there is slow and slow though and there is a time and a place for me. As mentioned I deliberately use the road when commuting and I am happy sharing at cycle speeds. My main concern is interacting in a heavily used by pedestrians shared space.

        Thus I am happy doing what I do Monday to Friday but if I am out with others, like last night and weekends, I will be on the shared paths at a friendly speed for pedestrians (I think we were doing 6 last night).

      2. Why is it unrealistic? London is currently putting in 12 through areas which dwarf Auckland’s waterfront in terms of pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow. I’d also note, 30kph isnt considered high speed.

    3. Cycle infrastructure like this is to encourage people who are not so confident, young or using it to go about their daily lives. This is where the big growth in cycle numbers will come from. If you are a fast commuter, then by all means stay on the road, you are legally entitled to do this.

      1. Perhaps I should have been clearer in my post which was a little off the cuff. I am happy and in fact thrilled to see so many “new” cyclists out there each day and always want to increase numbers. I am more than happy to share the road/path with other cyclists and in fact do so twice a day. It is the stop start nature of interacting on a narrow, busy strip for pedestrians that has me most irked.

        What is a problem is where there isn’t the space to adequately share. some sections indicated are quite narrow and the ramps to get on and off the shared sections are at quite an angle and not very wide. Compare these to Beach Road and the western end of the Quay Street cycleway where the ramps are head on and the same width as the cycleway itself. Narrowing the cycleway as it approaches the ferry building to match the ramp is not a good solution.

        Currently there is a shared path/bike lane from the east as far as the ferry building. A lot of people do use this, as I did when starting out last year. I agree that more infrastructure for the less confident is key but I don’t think this particular version is quite right.

          1. Check out GlenK’s post below, he puts forth the sorts of corrections that would make this work much better than I did.

  9. At the point cyclists are forced onto the footpath there are 6 traffic lanes on Quay Street outside Britomart, i.e. approximately 20m. A cycle lane is say 2.5m, i.e. just over 10% of the available roadway. I don’t see the problem guys: Take an ff”ing lane. I mean just take it. You can do it!

    1. Which lane would you remove? Unless we remove the right turn lanes into Queens Wharf and Commerce, it probably would have to be the second westbound lane?

      What kind of taffic uses that mostly? I never go that route by vehicle, so serious question. Any buses on that (especially during the temporary CRL routings?)

      1. I think Stu is just saying that if you ride a bicycle and go at the speed of the motor vehicles in that area (probably faster), then as you’re driving a vehicle, just ride on the road as you’re legally entitled to…

        1. Stu lives in Amsterdam. There is no way he is suggesting a vehicular cycling approach to this.

          He is asking why AT don’t take a lane, not that cyclists “take the lane” i.e. try and pretend they are a car AKA do something that makes 98% of the population feel very unsafe.

        1. If NZTA turned off the ramp meter on the Northern Link it would be way more popular. I don’t understand why this is metered, it comes out into its own lane just before the Vic Park tunnel.

      2. sorry stopped following this thread. And apologies for the confusion.

        General answer: There’s buttloads of road width here. I don’t actually care which vehicle lane is taken to provide for the cycle lane. And without access to numbers of vehicle/bus/pedestrian movements it’s hard to be too specific.

        Specific answer: I don’t see the need for two westbound through lanes. Given that the whole road will eventually be pedestrianised, now would seem to be an ideal time to start the road diet.

  10. A few “first glance” observations:
    – we seem to go from a 3m-wide cycleway to crossings at Hobson St that are only about 1.5m (2m if you’re lucky). There’s no space constraint here – why aren’t they wider?
    – I love how cyclists are expected to turn on a pin 90 degrees approaching the same crossings (a hold rail or two wouldn’t go amiss for waiting either)
    – It’s not clear to me that cyclists can go through the top of the various T-intersections at any time. Although it makes sense, I’m confused by the pedestrian crossing markings and cycleway limit lines.
    – A 3m two-way cycleway is OK, but it’s not clear how squeezed down that gets in places (which it clearly does) – 2m would be tight.
    – Why not allow an option for eastbound riders at least to continue on-road across the Queens Wharf entrance and Explorer bus stop if nothing is there? Optional (rather than mandatory) bus-stop bypasses are used elsewhere, e.g. Ilam Rd and Fendalton Rd in Chch
    – Crossing over at Britomart Pl towards the Beach Rd cycleway (presumably a likely desire line) doesn’t seem very intuitive – where’s the signage and space on the north side for me to wait? (out of the way of the through-cyclists)
    – the previously mentioned BEGINS/ENDS signs along the pathways are really tedious, and personally quite pointless

    I guess you could say that this is only interim before the major Quay St transformation, but that “interim” is still 5-10 years apparently…

  11. Looks like great change, I do have question about signal crossing. We can see even the artist put a pedestrian at cycle crossing point. (Lower Hobson St image)
    1. Any reason they don’t use a dashed lane as in Holland or different coloured line as in Gottingen Germany for cycle crossing.,radschnellweg106.html
    2. Any reason the don’t use different type of beg button, like put it on a post back from road as in The Netherlands or in Sweden – see page 107

    1. ‘Cause not allowed. For anything that deviates from the norm – the TCD, traffic control devices rule – you need a trial approval. A project that needs to be built in a couple months doesnt want to burden itself with things where even getting TCD trial approval from NZTA can take 6-12 months.

  12. I had optimistic hopes for this project. Being part of the submission process, making suggestions and even visuals for the council team to look at. Submitting my feedback on the different cycleways and even going to some of the open days. But going from the plans above, there are still some major flaws that the council seems to be uncooperative and unwilling to listen to all the opposition to their plans.

    1. It looks like the Nelson St cycleway connection is still going to go through here: when they had the chance to make a more free-flowing cycle connection with 2 less crossings by making use of existing infrastructure on Hobson St flyover.

    2. Retention of the Explorer bus stop on Quay St is a huge mistake. That’s the tight red congested area on the images above not mentioned in the key. I’ve written about that choke point before and its dangers. Tourists exiting off a bus directly into the path of cyclists and pedestrians with a width of 2 meters is ludicrous. They have a chance to fix it now, but instead they’re going to put up a sign that tells cyclists to give way to people jumping out of a bus door? As a cyclist you can’t see them alighting, and god knows the tourists aren’t looking out for cyclists to be right there on the damn footpath when they step down. That section needs to be wider, and the problem isn’t the road or cycle lanes or anything on that side of the red fence.

    Why not extend the removal of the fence to Commerce St? I know, I know, it’s heritage protected blah blah blah, but just keep the poles as a sort of divider between peds and cyclists? The fence has been removed around the ferry building area and towards Princes Wharf, so why not here? Just retain the posts is all I’m saying.

    The council spends a lot of money to appear to be democratic. They ask people what they want with mailouts, public consultations and information days, but in the end it seems like they already had their mind made up from the start. Why do we bother when they never listen to what the people are telling them?

  13. “To make space for the cycleway AT will be … combining some of the dedicated right turn lanes with the lanes going straight.”
    If you’re a vehicle on Quay Street (outside the Copthorne/Millennium Hotel) wishing to turn right into the Princess Wharf complex you’re going to be pretty much stuffed. Ditto if you wish to proceed ahead to the Viaduct carparking area (not that that is a large space anyway). This will have a significant effect on vehicle users (predominantly trade vehicles servicing the area) and create a long tail in the ‘outside’ lane as half the vehicles there want to turn left onto the Hobson St onramp and the other half want to turn right into Princess Wharf (or straight ahead to the Viaduct). Those wanting to get onto the Hobson St flyover will invariably pull out of the lane they’re stuck in and into the lane they’re next to, also full of vehicles. Chaos will ensue, which seems almost deliberate* these days?
    It will be worse when drivers wanting to turn right into Princess Wharf learn that it’s quicker to take the far left lane instead and take the lane under the Hobson St onramp and do a u-turn underneath it to drive straight ahead from the other direction and directly into Princess Wharf. (Of course, once more drivers learn this ‘trick’ it won’t be quicker any more).

    * A scurrilous accusation, I withdraw and apologise. (Although AT do seem to be subscribing to the old political adage: if you’re upsetting both sides you must be getting it right. In this case both cyclists and car users think they’re getting it wrong).

  14. Has aneyone noticed the NZ Herald’s supplement “Canvas Magazine” on Saturday that covers Cycling (Free Wheeling) by Jane Phare who looks at our cycling tribe. There was no mention at all of cycle commuting or modal share and I feel that they need to be put wise on the subject but don’t feel up to the task and look for someone who would tackle it.
    I feel it would be a great opportunity ito introduce “Quaxing” to the Auckland community.
    (wish I could find the link to “Quaxing” again)

    1. Here’s the link to the article:

      Yeah, it’s a little bit weird focusing on recreational cycling only, but then, despite the fact that they’re the minority of people out there riding (from Household Travel Survey data), there’s still a common perception that cycling is just all a bit of fun & games and not for serious stuff like getting from A to B. Great to see a profile on “Mr T” in Mangere though; he’s doing great things.

      1. Thank you for the link Glen but i read the Herald on Saturday bit but really want a link back to Quaxing if anyone can tell me how to find it. Was it another blog or one of thoase other mediums like face book?.
        Kerre Woodham wrote in the herald on Sunday regarding the effect of school deliveries on traffic in Auckland and the use of bikes so it wasn’t all one sided however it still doesn’t cover Quaxing and I think it would be great if we could get that phrase more widely used in the lead up to the next local body election, or would that not have the desired affect and just give him more publicity?.
        Her point about the traffic generated by the school term is one that should be more widely publicised as well.

  15. The Sky bus stop at the Ferry terminal is one of Auckland few decent transport interchanges from one mode to another, so should be left alone. If anything, it would be better if the other buses used the area. Though this could upset the cruise companies.

    The Sky bus is not the only reason for requiring a turning lane, the coaches serving the Cruise passenger terminal also need it.

    Regarding the Explorer bus stop given its usage, a better idea would be to move it next to the Sky Bus stop, this would release the space for the cycleway and probably be more convenient for the Explorer patrons.

    I have not had any issues with cycling on the pavement by the ferry building other than having to slow down, so do not see it as a major issue. I agree a decdicated path would be good but can wait till Quay st is sorted,

Leave a Reply